Based on a discussion that was had on the discussion page[0] of
tag:amenity=bear_box, I am proposing a change of this tag from amenity=bear_box
to amenity=bear_cache with an additional tag of bear_cache:type=* to better
clarify what type of bear cache is here. The term "bear cache" seems to be
t their edges - see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dtidal_channel#How_to_Map
> and
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:waterway%3Dtidal_channel
> - most of the "creek" features along the Bay are tidal channels.
>
> -- Jose
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, November 18th, 2020 at 11:34 PM, Brian M. Sperlongano
wrote:
> This was fascinating reading. I do agree that we ought to have a definition
> for what gets tagged natural=coastline, and I think it's fine if that
> definition has some
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, November 18th, 2020 at 5:04 PM, Christoph Hormann
wrote:
> > Eric H. Christensen via Tagging tagging@openstreetmap.org hat am 18.11.2020
> > 21:19 geschrieben:
>
> > [...]
>
> First: the matter has been discussed at l
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, November 18th, 2020 at 3:31 PM, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> Consider that the natural=coastline is defined as representing the mean high
> water springs line, that is, the line of the highest tides. If the line on an
> open ocean beach is at the
After a few days of much work, a recent collaborative project to turn the
Chesapeake Bay from a nothing space outlined by natural=coastline to what we
considered to be a more accurate relation of natural=water, we've received some
negative feedback.
The difference of opinion seems to lie in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 9, 2018 11:57 AM, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
> I'm opening up my Evacuation Routes proposal[0] for voting. I think we've had
> two good sessions of discussions for ironing out the bugs and it'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I'm opening up my Evacuation Routes proposal[0] for voting. I think we've had
two good sessions of discussions for ironing out the bugs and it's time to get
this thing out the door!
[0]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
-‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 7, 2018 11:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > On 6. Aug 2018, at 06:30, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
> > And it might be better to place it directly in the emergency key?
> > Say
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 6, 2018 2:02 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/08/18 15:27, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 6, 2018 12:30 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd think this should be a relation - not a way.
> At the moment the proposals says it is only a way.
>
> And it might be better to place it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Last year I made a feature proposal[0] last year regarding evacuation routes.
There were a couple of recommended changes to the RFC[1] and while I agreed
with them I 1) failed to make them and 2) got side tracked on a couple of other
On August 17, 2017 11:38:10 AM EDT, Richard Welty
wrote:
>On 8/17/17 10:25 AM, Eric Christensen wrote:
>>
>> That's not really what's being discussed here. A non-pressurized
>> hydrant wouldn't be attached to a tank at all. It would require a
>fire
>> engine to suck the
13 matches
Mail list logo