On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 18:12, Clifford Snow wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 3:06 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
> wrote:
>> Reading through it though, I noticed though that he used iD, & ticked the
>> box "I would like someone to review my edits", which apparently didn't
>> happen at the time?
>>
>>
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 11:58, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>> >>> On 19. Aug 2020, at 15:33, woll...@posteo.de wrote:
>> >> I could imagine rare cases of a privately run cemetery not linked to
>> >> any religion or belief/life stance and where there is such a building.
>> >> But typically, they would
On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 at 23:32, Paul White wrote:
> I wanted to raise a concern about tagging house numbers on a building using a
> hyphen to denote the address range (e.g 33-55 Main Street).
Let's keep in mind there are also buildings in London and possibly
elsewhere which have a _single_
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 08:34, Paul Allen wrote:
> I still do not see a purpose for the attribute
That's not what the discussion is about though. The attribute has
already been used 1000 times so the wiki page is documenting the fact
that others saw a purpose for it.
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 09:09, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 13:50, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> > On 10. Aug 2020, at 14:11, Paul Allen wrote:
>> > Not exactly. Shop fits where consumption is not allowed on the premises.
>>
>> while it could be an indication, there isn’t such
On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 at 10:51, Philip Barnes wrote:
> One local station has different stop positions for different classes of
> train. Basically it has a low platform to which a raised section has been
> added so the stop position ensures one door is at this postition.
This could be one of the
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 20:54, Andy Townsend wrote:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12004813 is a
> "public_transport=stop_position" for a local station and is part of
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6396491 among other relations.
> The problem is that train lengths vary, and there
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 14:59, 德泉 談 via Tagging wrote:
> Sorry for pause the bubble tea proposal for a month due to my personal reason.
>
> In the discussion in June and July some people think the tag for bubble tea
> is too specific but there is a flaw in existing tags, so I made a new draft
>
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 10:09, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> I saw parking_space=takeaway riding on the coattails of the original
> postis this not a waiting time restriction? Does it merit its own value?
> Perhaps I'm against it because we don't AFAIK have these in the UK?
How else would you tag
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 17:20, Mike Thompson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:59 PM Tod Fitch wrote:
>> My reading of the wiki [1] indicates that the more specific tag overrides
>> the less specific tag.
>
> So,
> access=yes
> foot=yes
>
> would then be redundant. I don't have an example, but I
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 04:41, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/temp#values
>
> any guesses as to what this might mean?
>
> I stumbled across it when reverting some vandalism on
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/784166844 but that street has been
> split so many times
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 19:56, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> No, driveway/-through is good for a fuel station, as well as anywhere else
> that you don't get out of your car to be served eg take-away, car wash,
> bottle shop (liquor store)
In some parts of the world you have to get out of your car
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 07:56, Alan Mackie wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 20:21, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> > On 1. Aug 2020, at 17:20, Alan Mackie wrote:
>> > I don't know how I'd map this. Do you have to pass through border
>> > checkpoints when you enter or leave the area?
>>
>> around
On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 14:24, Clifford Snow wrote:
> What I find interesting is that the Canadian Border Crossing is located on
> the North side of the Saint Lawrence River while the US crossing station is
> located on the South side of the river. It seems to imply that the Akwesasne
> Nation
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:46, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>> On 30. Jul 2020, at 00:03, Clifford Snow wrote:
>> The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in height. Your
>> definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or equal to 10cm
>
> when reading the term raised kerb I’d
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 09:47, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> So... back to my *other* question: how should a raised wooden platform
> on land be tagged? For example:
>
> https://www.pitztal.com/sites/default/files/styles/adaptive/public/thumb_5101_lightbox.jpeg
>
On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 16:10, Paul Allen wrote:
> There is no part of a pier on land. Not according to the wiki: "A pier is a
> raised
> walkway over water..." and "Lastly, connect the pier with other ways on land,
> otherwise it will result in a "island" that can't be used for routing." The
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 at 15:58, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Mappers in the United Kingdom are looking to agree two tags for mapping
> 'Unique Property Reference Numbers' and 'Unique Street Reference Numbers'. To
> support this effort I volunteered to create the relevant proposal pages on
> the wiki.
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 at 16:42, Allroads wrote:
> bicycle=leave
> This is for me, leave the bicycle behind at the sign.
> More native English speakers can give a comment on that?
I would not have understood it without the explanation given by Peter
below. ("If you are with bike, you will have to
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 21:28, Jmapb wrote:
> On 7/24/2020 7:12 PM, Cj Malone wrote:
> >> OSM does not store edit timestamps for individual tags, only for the
> >> object as a whole. Finding out when a tag was changed requires a
> >> review of the entire history. I had to do this once when I saw a
On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 19:33, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> I think the problem is that bicycle=*, foot=*, motor_vehicle=*, etc
> are access mode tags, not possession tags.
>
> When you dismount from a bicycle, you are now a pedestrian who is in
> possession of a certain object.
On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 11:35, Tod Fitch wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Jmapb wrote:
>> If this unfortunate tagging practice really needs to be preserved (the idea
>> of retagging so many bicycle=no ways is certainly daunting) then I'd suggest
>> a new key, dismounted_bicycle=*, which
On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 13:36, mbranco2 wrote:
> ...
> And I think that we could map such characteristic even with only imagery
> (without direct survey), because it's a "macro" feature, as is a wood or a
> scrub.
> ...
> Surely it could be useful if botanists and/or geologists could better
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 18:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> (I would probably use access=permissive for e.g. a mall parking lot,
>> where it's not strictly public, but where you wouldn't be expected to be
>> visiting a particular building or organization such that it's much less
>> clear whether
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 15:53, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 10/07/2020 15.01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >> On 10. Jul 2020, at 16:17, Matthew Woehlke
> >> wrote:
> >> My use case isn't the only one that has issues with this sort of
> >> thing; routers can "see" more traffic lights than
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 15:47, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 07/07/2020 15.24, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
> > Sure thing, it's here:
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/42.69323/-73.69023
> > ...
> > I did not take photos, as I am not comfortable taking pictures of
> > peoples' homes,
> Google
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 20:15, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 15:56, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
> > ...
> > tram:lanes:forward=designated|none
> > tram:lanes:backward=designated|none
> ...
> Looks like tram:lanes variations h
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 15:56, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
wrote:
> I guess that something similar to
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Crossing_with_a_designated_lane_for_bicycles
> would fit.
>
> For example for road that has:
>
> - tram-free lane
> - lane with tram tracks
> - lane
On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 at 06:52, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
wrote:
> In use it is a bicycle parking stand, you
> can attach a bicycle by frame,
> frame is supported.
>
> But it is not in a traditional reversed U
> shape, but rather in O shape
>
>
On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 10:19, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 14:22, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 05:47, Paul Allen wrote:
>> > I think that coffee_shop and teahouse are not cuisines. I'm not convinced
>> > inventing drinks=* to show w
On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 10:36, 德泉 談 via Tagging wrote:
> I think I may redraft a feature proposal for the shop focusing providing
> takeout beverages or only have very limit seats and merge the bubble tea shop
> proposal into it. Right now we have amenity=cafe and shop=beverages for those
> sell
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 09:26, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 14:05, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> a monument is an object that you can go into, you cannot enter a graffiti so
>> in any case this is not a monument for OpenStreetMap.
>
> From the wiki: "A memorial object, which is
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 16:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> On 1. Jul 2020, at 02:51, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>> Do we want to introduce new tags for gastronomical service places? If
>> yes, so far takeaway has one of the clearer definitions I've seen, so
>> we could start
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 20:28, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 01:02, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>> Maybe tag them amenity=takeaway
>
> Good idea. Except that value is not officially agreed and isn't
> rendered. Are you suggesting somebody propose it?
It doesn
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 13:15, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 12:35, bkil wrote:
>> Note that illustrations depict Burger King, McDonald's and a fish and
>> chip shop in England, and that the icon generally depicts a fast food
>> item like a burger. It is true that there exist such
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 07:53, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 12:02, Jake Edmonds via Tagging
> wrote:
>> While it might be used in Paul’s area, McDonalds is not a cafe where I am
>> from, and would put money on most British people calling it a fast food
>> restaurant
>
> I am
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 15:54 Paul Allen, wrote:
> Cafes are more about fast food with seating (again,
> a generalization). To over-generalize even further, a cafe is fast food
> with
> seats. My local chip shop (fast food) has a seated area (making it a
> cafe).
>
Does this mean that in
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 17:52 Paul Allen, wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 22:16, Jarek Piórkowski
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I wish you much luck convincing iD not to apply its presets ("upgrade
>> tags") for those Starbucks locations that don't have seating. I
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 11:10 Martin Koppenhoefer,
wrote:
>
> > On 27. Jun 2020, at 16:59, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> >
> > Even if it [a Starbucks location]
> > was just a kiosk I would still tag amenity=cafe for consistency.
>
>
> if it were just a kiosk you should not tag it as amenity=cafe,
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 12:42, Paul Allen wrote:
>> It's basically a cafe. It prepares drinks to order. Best tagging I've
>> seen around me is amenity=cafe + cuisine=bubble_tea
>
> As described in the proposal, most lack seating. Which makes those
> without seating shops rather than cafes.
This
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:50, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:31, 德泉 談 via Tagging
> wrote:
>>
>> I've drafted a new proposal about the bubble tea shops which are very common
>> in Taiwan which are usually mismapped as shop=beverages
>>
>>
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 15:19 Martin Koppenhoefer,
wrote:
>
> there might be an issue with multiple images separated by ; because the
> semicolon does not have to be escaped in URLs. If the protocol is given
> every time it might still be ok? e.g.
>
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 13:40, Tod Fitch wrote:
> My hope would be that addition of more highway=* values that better match
> what people are trying to map would be a short term pain (data consumers need
> to add one more check) but long term benefit.
>
> For example, as mappers discover they
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 14:27, Clifford Snow wrote:
> To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s)
> best describe your suggested way of mapping.
>
> ...
> 2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of
> crossing
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 07:56, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>> Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as
>> roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned
>
> Nope. We'd map the portions t
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 22:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/6/20 10:14 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
>> access=no
>> access:conditional=yes @ (above water)
>
> Conditional key does not look to have text base entry ... might be better to
> use opening hours?
> opening_hours= "above
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:51, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 15:40, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>> cycleway route is verifiable, but route took by army is not)
>
> Quite a few motor roads in the UK follow those "unverifiable" routes. Some
> are even named after those
On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 19:17, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As for tagging 'dangerous areas' .. areas that pose danger such as some
> favelas cannot be tagged in OSM. I see the same logic applied to dangerous
> areas caused by wildlife.
Big difficulty in defining where to place cut-off
On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 17:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the
> > razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been
> > replaced by roads with the same geometry.
>
> +1
Do
On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 11:23, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 06/06/2020 16:18, Phake Nick wrote:
> 在 2020年6月6日週六 11:03，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道：
>>> As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a
>>> railway route here nothing remains of the railway.
>>
>> OSM is not *only*
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 20:40, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
wrote:
(about Map Features wiki page)
> In its current state it is still barely usable.
Personally I've given up on the current Map Features page and would
rather use the wiki search or taginfo search than wait for it to load
and
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 10:52, Tod Fitch wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2020, at 5:48 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:04, Daniel Westergren wrote:
>>> Right. But is there another way? Can we tag dirt paths/wilderness
>>> paths/forest paths/mountain paths with another main tag?
On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 03:16, Daniel Westergren wrote:
> Ok, two things.
>
> Function vs physical characteristics
> First, I've increasingly realized what's probably at the heart of this 12+
> years discussion, the enormous problem of interpreting
> highway=path|footway|cycleway (just like is
On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 20:13, Tod Fitch wrote:
> I’ve spent too much time recently trying to figure out how to better
> determine whether the ways I am rendering should be shown as an
> urban/suburban walkway versus a non-urban hiking trail (intentionally not
> using “footway” and “path” as
On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 09:29, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
wrote:
>> Is meaning of psv=* territory dependent? I don't get that impression
>> from the wiki, and was under the impression it was to include taxis
>> worldwide. Please tell me if I had that wrong.
>
> I though that the point of that
On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 07:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
wrote:
> May 25, 2020, 11:06 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
>> Is there a uniform definition of "motor_vehicle" in terms of its constituent
>> vehicle classes? Do the constituent classes also have a uniform definition?
>> A problematic
On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 17:42, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> In my country (Italy) there are literally thousands of ways where it is most
> likely legal to pass by bicycle, but there is no (practical) way of finding
> out.
> Essentially two classes:
>
> - plenty of ways that look from the layout like
On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 11:25, Andy Townsend wrote:
> ... it's hugely biased towards urban centres.
> Looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/53.9023/-0.8856 you
> can't see any paths at all at that zoom level due to the "Central
> European Graveyard problem" - compare with
>
On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 21:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> How about =nurse / nurses / nursing_station, & =community_health_service?
Nursing station to my Canadian ears sounds like where you breastfeed
your child. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nursing seems to agree.
Just 2 cents
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:25, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> If you arrive at the airport in Bali with your in-laws, and look on Maps.me
> for the closest taxi stand and walk over to it, you will be quite
> disappointed to find a line of motorcycles, and have to walk back to the
> other side of the
On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 21:04, Phake Nick wrote:
> I am more thinking about analysis of geographical data of cities or districts
> where taxi and motorcycle taxi would be two very different things to be
> managed.
If you are managing taxis and motorcycle taxis then surely you know
you have to
On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 18:35, Phake Nick wrote:
> At the end of the day we are not taking motorcycle taxi and taxi themselves.
> What's being tagged are waiting area for taxi or motorcycle taxis. What
> matters is that, if one is created as an optional subtag of another, would
> not using such
On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 19:33, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 00:25, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> imagine you are ordering a taxi for yourself and 2 colleagues to the airport
>> and instead of a taxi (cab) they send you 3 taxi moto. Would that be equally
>> ok, wouldn’t it
On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 09:05, Phake Nick wrote:
> On 2020-05-08 Fri 20:45, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>> How much discussion do you think should be necessary before voting "I
>> oppose, because I think using sub-tags is better"? If someone thinks
>> that, they thin
On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 18:30, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> > (especially those approved after, say, 2012)
>
> The proposal process became more difficult after March 2015, when the
> standard for approval was changed from >50% to >74%:
>
>
On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 09:05, s8evq wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2020 08:43:27 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski
> wrote:
> > How much discussion do you think should be necessary before voting "I
> > oppose, because I think using sub-tags is better"? If someone thinks
> > t
On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 02:27, s8evq wrote:
>
> Of the 8 opposing votes, only 1 has made the effort to comment beforehand on
> the talk page. The 7 others just came in and voted no, without any discussion
> beforehand. That doesn't seem correct. It should not be possible to be
> suddenly faced
On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 08:16, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > On 3. May 2020, at 13:06, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > When I see an elevation value on the ground I do not see any reference to
> > the reference system, so I cannot know, as a mapper, what reference system
> > is at the base of the
On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 16:21, António Madeira wrote:
> I'm not very knowledgable about relations, and I'm sorry if I'm a bit
> confused here, but doesn't a restriction relation means the exact opposite of
> what's intended here?
> I mean, I want to apply a STOP sign to a given lane (in a way
Phil, the question appears to be for different signs/rules for
different lanes/turns but in the same direction.
António, interesting question. In my interpretation, relation
type=enforcement seems to be intended for recording or punishing
violations of rules (wiki "devices that measure and
On 15/04/2020 23:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Some paths and footways have oneway=yes. Sometimes this means that
bicycles may only access these features in one direction, but other
times it has been used for one-way features for pedestrians (for
example, queues in theme parks or at border control
On 15/04/2020 09:27, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
On Apr 15, 2020, at 8:34 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
The traffic lights control the junction
We have a lot of traffic light controlled crossings in Japan that are
just for a crosswalk, while the smaller intersecting road is stop-sign
controlled
On 15/04/2020 05:33, lukas-...@web.de wrote:
Okay, so this is what I think, too and maybe I would clarify this in the
wiki then.
But I think in some cases it still wouldn't be clear, because what would
be about mapping this then:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:00, wrote:
> So in which cases "highway=traffic_signals + crossing=traffic_signals on the
> same node" should be used? Only for the "crossing only-traffic lights" I
> mentioned?
Yeah, personally I would agree with that. Only on
pedestrian/cycle-crossing-only traffic
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 06:23, wrote:
>
> To response on the mentioning:
> "Currently the wiki page says "traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand makes
> it easy to mark all traffic lights which do only control a crossing",
> again I personally find highway=traffic_signals +
> crossing=traffic_signals
On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 12:56, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 17:43, wrote:
>> The second goal my proposal wants to message is to deprecate tagging
>> "crossing=traffic_signals" together with "highway=traffic_signals" on the
>> same node. Especially if you're saying this is a full
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 07:40, Snusmumriken
wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 22:24 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> > just usually only a certain kind of bicycle.
>
> Well, that's the problem, if one can't travel on a certain way with a
> general purpose bicycle, then it shouldn't be tagged
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 23:09, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> > In inclement weather, passengers may well be found waiting in
> the transit shelter 8 metres to west, and the tram will stop for them
> if they are waiting in the shelter. It might also stop if you are
> waiting a little bit beyond the
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 22:22, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> > I am thinking of cases like streetside stops for 30 m or 45 m long
> trams. There might be a shelter, which is the most prominent physical
> feature of the tram stop. There is no explicit platform. The tram stop
> sign might be 10 metres
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 08:12, Jo wrote:
> That stop_position nodes became optional is probably because of my influence.
> In the beginning they were definitely part of how PTv2. I disliked this very
> much because all of a sudden we were using 2 objects to define a single stop,
> duplicating
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 13:07, Dave F via Tagging
wrote:
> On 09/03/2020 13:21, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > PTv2 is fine for people who want to handle routes that have variants
> > and branches and who want computer validators to be able to spot
> > potential errors in th
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 07:29, John Doe wrote:
> This is quite off-topic, but I can't bear to read more completely unfounded
> criticism of PTv2.
highway=bus_stop ("PTv1") is fine for people who survey bus stops and
who want to approximately map a route of a simple bus.
PTv2 is fine for people
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 16:41, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/3/20 8:31 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> On 29. Feb 2020, at 22:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think source_map=* or source:map=* would be better as that can also be
>>> used for other specific 'sources'.
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 05:01, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> These shows do take place at a permanent site.
>
> They take place annually, floods, fire, droughts and wars excepted.
>
> The dates may vary depending on various things, but usually around the same
> time each year.
>
> They
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 02:49, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> I would like to formally request comments on the proposal for
> amenity=motorcycle_taxi:
>
> "A place where motorcycle taxis wait for passengers"
> ...
> While some have proposed using amenity=taxi plus additional tags for
> motorcycle
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 17:10, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want, then another key so the above does not get polluted?
>
> bollard_structure=block/post/*
bollard_structure=block would surely be better off as a barrier=block?
That's already well established.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 16:51, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Umm...
>
> Bollards are there to protect people. With the present threats I would think
> identifying which bollards could be easily driven through on a public
> map/data base would be a bad idea.
>
>
> So I would be firmly
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 15:53, ET Commands wrote:
> > bollard=unremovable for fixed bollards sounds good to me.
>
> My spelling check does not like "unremovable" but instead suggests
> "irremovable." However, if I want to be nit-picky, all bollards are
> ultimately removable, so maybe more
On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 at 15:16, John Sturdy wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 6:54 PM Hauke Stieler wrote:
>> there's the "bollard" key with documented value "rising" and "removable"
>> [0] but I often encounter also bollards which cannot be removed easily.
>> I would love to see the "unremovable"
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 18:32, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 13:29, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > Why are "stopping=yes|no" and "parking=yes|no" (and variants of these) not
> > in use in OSM?
> > But the much
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 13:29, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Why are "stopping=yes|no" and "parking=yes|no" (and variants of these) not in
> use in OSM?
> But the much more complex "parking:lane:both=no_stopping" and
> "parking:lane:both=no_parking" are in use with the same meaning.
Because
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 11:44, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging writes:
> > Universities may have faculties, that often deserved to be mapped
> > separately.
> > ...
> > It seems to me that amenity=faculty would be useful.
>
> Perhaps, but beware that in US English, this is
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 09:38, Rob Savoye wrote:
> On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to roads by
> > their ref. That's fine. I will say "I'm taking the A3400 to Stratford"
>
> I'm wondering if "CR 12" or "County Road
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 18:08, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> The problem is that new users of iD do not know that they are adding
> tags like healthcare=pharmacy and dispensing=yes.
>
> I reviewed the pharmcies in the cities I have mapped, and found that I
> had added healthcare=pharmacy to 8 features
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 07:25, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> > iD also brings up the "suggestion" that existing amenity=clinic, pharmacy &
> > (I think) dentist tags by themselves are "incomplete" & should be upgraded
> > by adding healthcare=
> > eg
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:55, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets wrote:
>> >> That
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets wrote:
>> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common practice.
>> I personally tag `highway=cycleway` where bikes significantly outnumber foot
>> traffic, `highway=footway`
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 09:12, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Il ven 24 gen 2020, 11:51 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> ha scritto:
>> One of topics often appearing is mismatch between meaning of key
>> and key text.
>> ...
>> It is created at
>>
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 17:05, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 21:11, Florimond Berthoux
> wrote:
>> How to map a continuous sidewalk or cycleway ?
>> In order to solve this question I created a wiki page to sum up my first try
>> to tag this:
>>
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 00:51, European Water Project
wrote:
>>5. Re: Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water
>> fountains. (Jarek Piórkowski)
>> >>>> Jarek, I think preferable to avoid seasons on open hours and put
>> month range t
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
