Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

2020-08-06 Thread David Groom
I've so far stayed out of this discussion because my final thoughts on the matter will I am sure be contentious. In no order of importance my thoughts are: 1) the idea of basing a the limit on coastline on levels of salinity or average water flows makes as little sense as trying to specify

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

2020-08-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Aug 2020, at 22:54, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > - To codify / make official the de-facto parking_space=disabled that’s almost 22k uses, it is already established and voting yes or no will not change it > - To allow mapping motorcycle parking as part of a unified

Re: [Tagging] customer_service=yes/no - Feature proposal RFC

2020-08-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Aug 2020, at 23:18, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Using access tags access=yes/access=customers/access=private - it is > not entirely clear. And in many cases place clearly offers customer > service but nearly all office is still closed to outsiders.

[Tagging] customer_service=yes/no - Feature proposal RFC

2020-08-06 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Customer_service again Main difference is witching to customer_service=yes/no from amenity=customer_service Thanks for all feedback and thanks for edits and comments. Rationale: Distinguishing closed office spaces and offices with client

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

2020-08-06 Thread Matthew Woehlke
Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/more_parking. To summarize: I am proposing the following: - To codify / make official the de-facto parking_space=disabled - To allow mapping motorcycle parking as part of a unified parking lot, by introducing

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-06 Thread Philip Barnes
On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 13:58 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote: > My reading of the wiki [1] indicates that the more specific tag > overrides the less specific tag. And the transport mode section [2] > of that has examples very much like those in your question. > And: > access=yes > bicycle=no > > Means you

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-06 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Aug 6, 2020, 09:12 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > OK, now you've all got me confused! > > I always thought that access=yes means that it is open to the general public, > while access=no means that it's not open to the public? > Yes, and it may be overriden by more specific tags. Note that

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

2020-08-06 Thread Christoph Hormann
Muralito, it would be very useful if you could address the request i have made several times now. I will not engage in a discussion on the other lines you mean to open here because it is non-productive from my perspective. It could take us hours to determine the smallest common denominator

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-06 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
OK, now you've all got me confused! I always thought that access=yes means that it is open to the general public, while access=no means that it's not open to the public? Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org