Amenity is definitely better. I used them more as a business traveller than
as a tourist.
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 3:11 PM Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes, that would be OK.
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 06:41:33 +0900
John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote:
I think the meeting point has
Dave,
I wasn't intending to have another try at camp_type=*.
We'll leave on our next trip in less than two weeks from now, so I don't
have the time. I also will be not able to complete another voting cycle
until I'll be without decent internet again.
Furthermore I haven't seen better proposals
My understanding is that this proposal is about sites that have been
defined as campground. The purpose of the proposal that triggered this
discussion (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_type%3D*) was to
cover places that have not been defined as campground, but that are
Why is it important? The main thing that matters is than only one
definition exists for an item, irrespective of how often it is used.
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 5:46 PM Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
On 18.04.2015 09:31, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
So far we have 3 parameters: number of
Alternatively you could use brand=moneygram;western_union;orlandi_valuta
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:28 AM Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 05:18 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
As an amenity it is no problem that it is combined with other services
(like amenity
As an amenity it is no problem that it is combined with other services
(like amenity=toilets), although here (again) I feel shop would be better
than amenity. I would recommend to use operator=moneygram rather than
money_transfer:moneygram=yes
to be consistent with other businesses like gas
The voting was officially closed by today, but I'll leave it open for
another week. So far 13 people have voted.
Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,
*Jan van Bekkum*
www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree that we
As a physicist I don't like any value without units. The degree symbol is
not needed, but C would be great: 21 C, 70 F.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 6:43 AM John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote:
If it's 42 f, you'd go into hypothermia almost instantly. =}
Assuming c unless explicit should be enough for
I would prefer a degree symbol. Otherwise you never can be sure that C is
meant by a mapper from a F region.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 4:13 AM Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think that, as for elevations, it should default to degrees Celsius.
That is, taking the number 20 as a
Mosques often have separate entrances for men and women.
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 4:34 AM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
Sounds good.
Is there a similar dual entrance concept for other classes of building, or
is this just a school thing?
--
Many western buildings have a service
I don't say that tourist, scout, refugee should be outside OSM. My
statement is that the group key (tourism, shop, highway, ...) is not
needed, as all information is in the value (hotel, supermarket, motorway,
...). Attribute tags that give more information about the main key
(opening_hours=...)
Will it be clear for new mappers what the difference is between published
and documented (i.e. someone created a wiki page that describes a tag
without voting or one that didn't collect enough votes)? Wouldn't endorsed
be better?
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:30 AM Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com
This is an example of a more general discussion: the distinction between
land use (what it looks like) and what function it has. Similar cases are
being discussed for a building that looks like a church, but is not used
for religious services or a reception desk that is hidden in a non-descript
Is supported reasonable?
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:41 PM Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
On 03.04.2015 11:22, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
The proposal on the table is to change the wiki status of Approved to
read Published
I would prefer to stay with approved. Using published would not
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:05 PM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
Will it be clear for new mappers what the difference is between published
and documented (i.e. someone created a wiki page that describes a tag
without voting or one that didn't collect enough votes)? Wouldn't endorsed
I like recommended by 25 users, but then I would also want to know how many
users oppose the idea: 25-0 is not the same as 25-24.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 5:14 PM Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 04/03/2015 05:01 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
I personally interpret a voted on wiki
I will definitely use the proposed tag where applicable.
The issue of adding a relation is close to the ongoing discussion about
mapping amenities on camping sites: *Tagging method of amenities at
camp_sites.*
This is the only critically important aspect IMO. For a building hosting
multiple
Does any formal definition of a postfix to a key exist?
A prefix in prefix:key like in abandoned:shop tells something about the
state for the key.
In a proposal like camp_site:restaurant=yes it means that restaurant
belongs to camping (a kind of site relation in a line).
In practice in this
Corrected where applicable
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 3:33 PM Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
Not sure about the typo : is it non-designated or non_designated ?
Pieren
.
Proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_type%3D*
Regards,
Jan van Bekkum
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
it grammatically correct.
Cheers,
Dave
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
After an intensive discussion (see [Tagging] Tagging established,
unofficial and wild campings) that has resulted in substantial modification
of the content and scope
I decided not to include the scout camp, because it then still might be
confused with a place where ordinary campers can stay (like is the case
with all options in the proposal). After the long discussion I have tried
to keep the proposal as clean and simple as possible. I hope someone else
will
I just followed the post voting instructions that ask for the listing.
There is no condition for a minimal number of votes. I believe it is good
to have a single list with all approved tags.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015, 12:48 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Am 28.03.2015 um
and it would be
natural to include your tag there as well.
Ole / opani
On 28/03/2015 22:35, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
I did that, but somebody reversed it without telling me. I now put it in
the tourism section.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 10:14 PM Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com
I have made major changes to the proposal as a result of our discussions.
It it is strictly limited to camping type (designation) and does no longer
classify on facility level, ease of access or pricing.
It can be found here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_type%3D*.
I did that, but somebody reversed it without telling me. I now put it in
the tourism section.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 10:14 PM Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com
wrote:
You have to edit the Map Features template.
Michał
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek
What if I know the camp site has a showers, a swimming pool and a dump
station, but I don't know where on the site they are?
Thus:
*tourism=camp_site*
*showers=yes*
*swimming_pool=yes*
*dump_station=yes*
It means that you create new tags for objects for which approved tags
already
Conclusion for my own mapping efforts from the discussion so far: start
with stacked amenities until you know something about the campsite
topology, then make nodes/polygons per amenity.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:58 PM Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Am 28.03.2015 um
Hi Dave, I agree with that. I am thinking about camp_type=*. Also usable
for scout camps?
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:11 AM David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 07:09 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
1. Get a high level of classification of campsites based
Some participants in this discussion feel we are making little progress.
The cause is that contributors have two different agenda's:
1. Get a high level of classification of campsites based on the relation
between the land owner and the camper
2. Get a classification of regular campsites
What do I see on the map when I use the stacked amenity model? A campsite
symbol with a restaurant below it or a restaurant symbol with a campsite
below it? A search in OsmAnd will give me the campsite in all cases, but it
cannot always show all tags below it, so I don't know all amenities by
Bryce,
This is not the right example. All tags in your example are attributes that
belong to the camp_site, no need for extra nodes; you are fully correct
there.
What I am talking about is multiple namespace tags in a single node:
tourism=camp_site
amenity=restaurant;shower;bar;swimming_pool
After yesterday's discussion I thought about the wording a bit more:
- We can use *camp_site=opportunistic_hospitality* for the hotels,
hostels etc. that don't have a separate camping area or amenities but offer
a place at their parking and some way of access to amenities for payment
incorrect if layout of camping area
is not known, (2) use of relations felt to be difficult by some mappers.
All in all I personally prefer option 4.
Opinions?
Regards,
Jan van Bekkum
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https
So if you don't know the real shape of the polygon it would be best to
create a placeholder polygon (like a circle - it will be clear that it is a
placeholder) and put all amenities inside it until the real shape is known.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:33 AM Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
. This will be more of
an issue in Africa than in Europe, but in countries without a camping
culture you need this. In my earlier mail I have given a number of examples
of such places that we visited.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:50 AM Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Jan van
True
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:24 PM Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum
jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Pieren,
I have mapped those myself only in cases other reasons
existed to map than.
But this is not what the first section suggests
van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
So if you don't know the real shape of the polygon it would be best to
create a placeholder polygon (like a circle - it will be clear that it is a
placeholder) and put all amenities inside it until the real shape is known.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10
So, explicit mapping is needed.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:20 PM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/03/2015 1:48 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
However, places you select for security or for availability
the quality of the places varies wildly.
Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,
*Jan van Bekkum*
www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
Dave, I think we are after different things. Your proposal focuses on
availability
, 2015-03-26 at 09:10 +0100, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
To give you a better impression of what I mean with non-designated
campsites I uploaded images of places we stayed at in Iran, Ethiopia,
Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and Malawi. Have a look here and
enjoy. As you can see the quality
“Wild” about it.
All of these examples can be covered by existing tags.
Jonathan
---
http://bigfatfrog67.me
*From:* Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Thursday, 26 March 2015 12:36
*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
tagging
Non-designated is not necessarily temporary. Some hotels may offer the
service for many years, but it is not officially announced and not listed.
For overlanders this information is too important not to have it mapped
somehow.
Let me also give a few examples of wild camps where we stayed that
I can't find how I get this in Map_Features. Can anybody help?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:04 PM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
The voting period is over. The proposal collected 10 approvals and 2
rejects. Therefore I moved it to state approved:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki
The voting period is over. The proposal collected 10 approvals and 2
rejects. Therefore I moved it to state approved:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power_supply:schedule
Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,
*Jan van Bekkum*
www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Jan
as Wildcamping?
Jonathan
http://bigfatfrog67.me
*From:* Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Thursday, 26 March 2015 14:11
*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
tagging@openstreetmap.org
Fortunately we had those as well:
https://plus.google.com/photos
Fortunately we had those as well:
https://plus.google.com/photos/111767853767854777895/albums/6130545866082686641
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
regards,
*Jan van Bekkum*
www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:23 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 09:42 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:11 PM, David Bannon wrote
Are we better saying -
tourism
in this proposal as each of
them ears a separate discussion if needed. I do not want to mix the
discussions.
Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,
*Jan van Bekkum*
www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl
Before I update the proposal
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
What we discuss here is a classification of campgrounds. In addition we
need tags that spell out available facilities. Those tags should be
separate discussions (this is already complex enough to bring to closure
:-( ). See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site
and
I agree that we should not use the star system or six categories It is
becoming far too complex for mappers and renderers. This level of
refinement must be achieved with additional attributes or extra amenities
in a relation.
I really do want to keep *non-designated* as currently proposed. It was
Using a relation in any case you see all amenities: when I find a
campground on the map I see a restaurant in its direct neighbourhood, etc.,
even if the relation isn't handled at all by the renderer. I am not so
afraid of mapping relations. The site relation is very simple.
If I don't
Dave,
IMHO these amenities are not stand alone, they are attributes of the
camp ground itself. For things like fire places and BBQ, might be one
for every pitch. I'm not into micro mapping !
This is correct for BBQ's, but not for big amenities like restaurants,
bars and shops, which
Need to start another topic for this? That would separate it out from
established, unofficial and wild campings.
Makes sense.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
category.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 23:03 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 20:42 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
I really do want to keep non-designated as currently proposed. It was
my main reason to start with the proposal. I understand it is not
important
Dave, I think we are after different things. Your proposal focuses on
availability of services, while mine tells more about the relation between
the camper and the land owner:
- Designated: permission to camp, most likely the place is still there
tomorrow, service offering (whatever it is)
In Africa we have been desperately looking for such places.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
discussed here, but for me the
most important reason to start the topic) and informal. We could decide to
recombine the current *Standard*, *Designated *and *Trekking.* Indeed we
could leave the other details to attributes.
Regards,
Jan
Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,
*Jan van Bekkum
Looking at the current definition of tourism=caravan_site it is very close
to what I had in mind with camp_site=designated.
So the updated proposal would become:
- Designated - standard, designated (duplication of
tourism=caravan_site), trekking in the current proposal; to be refined with
+5
I fully agree with Dave! We need a clear differentiation between regular
filling stations with large underground containers and the shops that sell
a few liters of diesel of which you may hope that it isn't polluted and
doesn't contain water.
When I travel in countries like Malawi or Ethiopia
I can't imagine that people who are able to provide mapping input for OSM
are not able to work with forums etc. Moderation is something you have to
agree upon before. The OSM community can decide not to moderate.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:53 AM Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
(definition and examples).
Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,
*Jan van Bekkum*
www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
How does the tagging differ from an unstaffed filling station where you
enter your credit card and fill up the tank of your car yourself 24/7 like
I seem them all over the place in the Netherlands? In the situation you
describe I really prefer shop=*.
Regards,
Jan
At these places you
Martin,
I agree with the proposal to have a different main tag for informal sites;
something like tourism=wild_camp. I guess some kind of RV/trekking
attribute would work as well, What we now are looking for is the proper
distinction between 1, 2 and 4. It should be one attribute key to
as a minimum requirement, let
them be mentioned as optional
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have renamed commercial to standard as it is the most common
campground and can include campgrounds that have all facilities of a
privately run campground
If I would have to choose between the options I would go for full_service,
but I leave this to the native speakers. If I get the same service and pay
the same for a state run campground as for a privately run one it can be
called commercial.
Is it a problem if tourism=camp_site wouldn't get the
What Dave Bannon says is exactly what I have in mind.
#6 was intended for parks with larger areas where camping is allowed.
I have made a few adaptations to the text to clarify the issue
I hadn't thought about it, but we might use the tag camp_site
For example in Sweden you are not allowed to camp in view of any home etc.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:22 AM David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
On Sun, 2015-03-22 at 08:02 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
...
I hadn't thought about it, but we might use the
tag camp_site
There is also more risk that fuel sold for cars is more polluted or that
water was added.
Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,
*Jan van Bekkum*
www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
van Bekkum
jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
I have updated the proposal with the feedback as much as
possible.
Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,
Jan van Bekkum
www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John Willis
There is a similar confusion for kerosine (US), paraffine (UK), petroleum
(NL); it all the same liquid.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:29 PM johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/03/2015 6:20 PM, John Willis wrote:
I haven't had a
I have updated the proposal
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* with
the feedback as much as possible.
Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,
*Jan van Bekkum*
www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote:
I
Good idea to have such a tag, should include diesel for cars, kerosine for
heating and propane/butane for cooking that are sold in the same way. I
Kenya we have been in areas far away from regular filling stations; there
people are selling diesel from drums.
I think shop=fuel is dangerous as it
I would prefer a different tag as I would not like the lemonade table to be
rendered in the same way as a regular filling station. The tag shop=gas
with subtag would be better.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:46 AM Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think they should remain as
It is expected that most renderers only look at the namespace tag, not at
the attributes. How do we ensure that I don't end up at a bottle store
while I expect a decent filling station. I am afraid that we pollute the
amenity=fuel tag if we use it for fuel out of a drum as well? We really
should
+1
The last thin I want is to count on a regular filling station and to and up
at a bottle store with my 4WD. A that will happen if the type of store is
an attribute, as map makers will show them the same. So please make it a
different value for the tag, not fuel.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:11 PM
Proposal 7 - use a forum instead of 4 mailing lists and a wiki (was
proposed earlier).
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:32 PM sly (sylvain letuffe) lis...@letuffe.org
wrote:
Jan van Bekkum wrote
It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and
vote
compared to the number
Correct, but the forums are easier to scan through and search,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:26 PM Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote:
On 19/03/2015 15:42, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
Proposal 7 - use a forum instead of 4 mailing lists and a wiki (was
proposed earlier).
Then you'll have 4 sub
to not only bring the logic back but also address this issue.
I agree that it changes the rules, but why not try to improve them?
Cheers,
Kotya
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would like to stick to my original proposal. It brings the logic back
Can we copy some of this: for other vehicles than mtb:
http://www.dirtopia.com/wiki/4WD_Trail_Rating?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:55 AM David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 16:39 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale
At
I would like to stick to my original proposal. It brings the logic back,
but doesn't change the rules.
*enough support is 8 approval votes on a total of 14 votes or less and a
majority approval otherwise.*
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Can we learn something from this:
http://www.dirtopia.com/wiki/4WD_Trail_Rating?
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:49 AM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
The biggest step ahead is that is now is part of the highway=* preset in
JOSM with a description of the levels. I can certainly live
Combination of 2 and 3.
It must be possible to distinguish between vehicles. As I wrote earlier a
stretch of road that is reasonable for a 4WD can be horrible for a
motorcycle and vice versa.
A scale in words very bad, bad, ... very good or whatever at least helps me
to remember what the good
The biggest step ahead is that is now is part of the highway=* preset in
JOSM with a description of the levels. I can certainly live with that.
Using the tag is the most important, more than refining it.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:38 AM Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote:
So - I am
and without earlier
participation in the discussion. What purpose does this serve except
frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up!
Regards
Jan van Bekkum
Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,
*Jan van Bekkum*
www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Jan van Bekkum
and without earlier
participation in the discussion. What purpose does this serve except
frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up!
Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,
*Jan van Bekkum*
www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
Nowhere, but I repeat my question:
What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process?
Please speak up!
Regards,
Jan
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:16 AM Jörg Frings-Fürst o...@jff-webhosting.net
wrote:
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 14.03.2015, 09:34 +0100 schrieb Jan van Bekkum:
I
+1 to make a wiki entry on leisure=maze. Fits with what already exists and
the alternative isn't really better.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 8:58 AM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/03/2015 10:04 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com
The guideline to determine if a proposal is accepted is
A rule of thumb for enough support is *8 unanimous approval votes* or *15
total votes with a majority approval*, but other factors may also be
considered (such as whether a feature is already in use).
This sounds a bit strange to me: a
Therefore the proposal explicitly states:
*Again: informal campgrounds shall only be mapped if there is an important
reason to select the place over other places in the neighbourhood. If the
place is a spot along the road, chosen just because it got dark, then it
shall not be mapped.*
On Fri,
that it is not run for profit as a business
would be.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can
you please give any additional comments before I move to the voting stage?
Jan
http
...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
What to do with places where one cannot camp?
Sure
camp_site=prohibited or camp_site=no [for an icon: a tent with a slash
through it :-) ]
or even
camp_site=disused
Ref1: good point. Any recommendation for the tags to be used?
Ref 2: isn't this covered by example 2.1?
Aren't the permissive ones at the bottom of your mail covered by example
4.4?
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:36 PM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
Two issues I think the proposal should
. It is a definitely a designated site but it is also
noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business
would be.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can
you
but it is also
noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business
would be.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can
you please give any additional comments before I move
+1
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:45 AM David dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos..
I think it would be a mistake to put too much emphasis on photos. In my
experience, photos very rarely show the true usability of a road or
track. It does
- Of course it is not tourism, but amenity: it is not a goal by itself,
but an amenity of something larger. There probably more reception desks at
industrial compounds etc. than at campsites;
- If you can't tag it as an area you still will place the note as
accurately as possible
I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can you
please give any additional comments before I move to the voting stage?
Jan
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D*
Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,
*Jan van Bekkum
+1
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:05 PM Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2015-03-12 2:53 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com:
The level of opposition -- regardless of the technical count -- indicates
the proposal can use some improvement.
I urge any person getting
There are two fundamental approaches to this and I believe that in this
discussion the two are mixed:
1. The physical status of the road is described as well as possible and
it is left to the receiver of this information to judge if he/she can use
the road. This is quite complex as many
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
