[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Approved - Fire Service Inlet

Hi all, This proposal was approved with 26 votes for, 1 vote against and 0 abstentions. https://wiki.osm.org/Proposal_features/Building_inlet I will update the wiki shortly. Thanks, Kyle ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Proposed_features: emergency=air_rescue_service

Proposal has been approved with 20 yes, 2 no, 0 abstentions, so thank you everybody. Will sort the pages out over the next few days. Thanks Graeme On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 09:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Last day for voting! > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 at 13:28, Graeme

Re: [Tagging] Proposed_features: emergency=water_rescue

Proposal has been approved with 20 yes to 3 no, so thank you everybody. Will sort the pages out over the next few days. Thanks Graeme On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 09:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Last day for voting! > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 at 13:36, Graeme Fitzpatrick

Re: [Tagging] Combining "locked=yes" with various access tags

Feb 24, 2023, 00:43 by g...@lexort.com: > It's a little unclear to me what a "locked=no" gate is. > access=private locked=no would be a gate that anyone can open but they are not allowed to without a permission from owner. Personally I would consider mapping this as quite dubious. >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=trailhead

Feb 24, 2023, 09:25 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > > > On 23/2/23 21:18, Peter Elderson wrote: > >> I would like to change the status of thisestablished tag to >> approved. I have altered the previous >> proposal >> >>

Re: [Tagging] Combining "locked=yes" with various access tags

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:39:19 -0500 Greg Troxel wrote: >Niels Elgaard Larsen writes: > >> We have to accept that the tagging is never complete. And when >> surveying, it is often easier to tag "locked" than "access" (we can >> se the lock or try to open the gate but there are often no signs). >>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=trailhead

Martin Koppenhoefer : > I believe setting up voting to approve a tag with "de-facto"-status is a > waste of time, particularly if you do not intend to refine the definition, > and an approval will only "downgrade" the tag from "de-facto" to > "approved". People have already voted on the tag by

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=trailhead

I believe setting up voting to approve a tag with "de-facto"-status is a waste of time, particularly if you do not intend to refine the definition, and an approval will only "downgrade" the tag from "de-facto" to "approved". People have already voted on the tag by using it thousands of times.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=trailhead

Le 24.02.23 à 11:47, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : If it fails, will it change the tag status from "de-facto" to what? it'll not change the status of the tag :) voting is about a proposal, not about "tags" the proposals endorse tags, this is playing with words. It has the merit of saying

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=trailhead

Voting is about formal acceptance of the de facto usage. I do not expect any no's, but maybe someone was against the tag al these years and now finally gets the chance to say no. A fail will not change anything to the de facto usage. If a bunch of no votes appear, I will simply cancel my

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=trailhead

Am Fr., 24. Feb. 2023 um 10:49 Uhr schrieb Peter Elderson < pelder...@gmail.com>: > Sorry, I wasn't clear. The current status of the tag is de facto (was: in > use, but someone, not me, amended that). The proposal intends to alter > that from de facto to approved, by voting. > > Fr gr Peter

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=trailhead

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The current status of the tag is de facto (was: in use, but someone, not me, amended that). The proposal intends to alter that from de facto to approved, by voting. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 24 feb. 2023 om 09:24 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > On 23/2/23

Re: [Tagging] Combining "locked=yes" with various access tags

On 24/2/23 10:39, Greg Troxel wrote: Niels Elgaard Larsen writes: We have to accept that the tagging is never complete. And when surveying, it is often easier to tag "locked" than "access" (we can se the lock or try to open the gate but there are often no signs). So the tagging might

Re: [Tagging] Combining "locked=yes" with various access tags

For the physical ability to pass a locked gate I want to suggest a separate tag for*locked=yes* gates. Something like:*bypass=*foot/bike/horse/motor_vehicle/... (where each implies the prior categories, because this is about physical width/height and not legal distinction) It could also be

Re: [Tagging] Combining "locked=yes" with various access tags

On 23/2/23 11:29, Andrew Harvey wrote: Actually thinking about this in the context of the scenario at https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/2757#issuecomment-1435081431 I think we need a tagging solution to indicate that bicycle/foot may bypass the gate rather than having to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=trailhead

On 23/2/23 21:18, Peter Elderson wrote: I would like to change the status of this established tag to approved. I have altered the previous proposal to match the established practice. No, it has not been 'approved' so it