On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:09 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
actually this is not yet incorporated in the area proposal, that's why
you might be confused, but it could be done with it.
So just to summarise, you would have a relation:
type=area
highway=steps
step_count=15
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:46 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
To do this explicitly, you'd probably want to
map each step individually (as a curved way),
you would do this following the area-proposal, but you would probably
reduce it from each step to each first and
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:38 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 June 2010 14:37, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Is this a characteristic of the feature (that should be tagged), or of
the residents (that shouldn't be tagged)?
I'd say both...
In that case, I'd tag
Re: John's recent important of man_made=tower nodes and
type=transponder relations from ACMA:
shouldn't the node's role be tower, not transponder?
i.e. the *relation* represents the transponder (hence
type=transponder), but the *node* represents the *tower*, so should
have role=tower.
(e.g.:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Option 1
Industrial=factory/workshop
I don't like this key. To me, that reads this feature is an
*industrial*, of type *factory*, or the *industrial* of this feature
is a *factory*. Maybe try to fill in the blank: a factory is a kind
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote:
amenity=assisted_living + assisted_living=orphanage, OR
amenity=assisted_living + residents=children.
Hmm - not all homes for children are for orphans. There is a home
near me that is for children/youth with very heavy
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:59 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I recently imported 2,152 locations, that have between them 7,633
transmitters. Most of the towers had multiple transmitters so these
were added using a relation linked to the tower node, eg this location
has 17
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
Would be nice if someone comes up with a way to make this tag more
verifiable, but if there's no better way to get this information into
the database, than unverifiable info is still better than no info at all.
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Neopaganism as an overall term could meet Roy's standards of verifiability.
Religion and verifiability do not belong in the same thread :P
___
Tagging mailing list
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Martin Bober mar...@bdd-music.de wrote:
Hi folks,
I have filled in a proposal for a tag indicating a high risk of traffic jams
and
would like to hear your comments.
Nicely put together proposal with examples - good work. BUT jam=yes is
not verifiable.
specifically,
highway=* tags are a very general and sometimes vague description of
the importance of the highway for the road grid.
I think place=* is designed to serve a similar purpose - importance
in the urban texture.
On jeudi 27 mai 2010, Roy Wallace wrote:
I like your motivation. But maybe
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Martin Bober mar...@bdd-music.de wrote:
jam=yes is not allways impossible to verify.
I guess it's arguable. If this does go ahead, I'd at least suggest a
more descriptive tag, like traffic_jam:expected:daily=yes, or
traffic_jam:warning_sign=yes.
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:28 AM, sly (sylvain letuffe)
li...@letuffe.org wrote:
Here is another try for world wide standardisation of places in order to
hopefully try to create a consistent database
I like your motivation. But maybe it's not necessary. Using
population=* achieves the same
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Andrew wynnd...@lavabit.com wrote:
I like your motivation. But maybe it's not necessary. Using
population=* achieves the same goal.
There are two serious flaws with using population=*. The first is that you
have
to put in populations for absolutely
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
How about:
landuse=residential
residential=childrens_home
The benefit of two-tiered tags like this is renderers (and other
tools) only need to support landuse=residential to get something
that's approximately right.
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 6:34 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
One problem I have with the concept of access=destination, even beyond the
fact that it says right of access, is that parking lots quite often aren't
connected to the places they serve. Something like
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com wrote:
Access=private works fine, then (along with access=public
andaccess=permissive). Preferably with an additional tag (or relation)
withsome indication of who is allowed to park there.
Maybe access=customer isn't needed
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I propose to add the following to the Parking wiki page, in the table
of the Tags section, as follows:
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parking)
Column Key: access
Column Value: public/customer/private
Column
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
Use access=permissive instead of access=customer and you get what's in
use for years.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access says access=permissive means
The owner gives general permission for access.
This
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Seventy 7 seven...@operamail.com wrote:
Use access=permissive instead of access=customer and you get what's in
use for years.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access says access=permissive means
The owner gives general permission for access.
This doesn't
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:56 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 May 2010 11:48, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
From wikipedia: Surveying or land surveying is the technique and
science of accurately determining the terrestrial or three-dimensional
position
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com wrote:
From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parking:
The distinction between public parking lots, customer parking lots
(such as at cinemas etc.), and private parking lots (such as for staff
in a business park) is handled with
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:20 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
leisure=garden
garden=residential
Much better. This clearly means you are tagging a particular *type* of garden.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
2010/5/10 Petr Morávek [Xificurk] xific...@gmail.com
Until there is a better solution I'll use the
proposed scheme of landuse='residential' + residential='garden'.
FWIW, I don't like that. Look at residential=garden...someone lives
in the garden?
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:
That is what I like about it - when all I can find out about an area is that
is green and lies in between buildings, yard is an appropriately vague word.
You say you only know two things:
1) it is green -- color=green
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 7:13 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
well, yes, but within the US at least, i think there's broad agreement
that one tier of department
store (walmart, kmart, target) is discount with respect to another
(macys, pennys, nordstrom, etc.)
The same thing
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 05.05.2010 22:36, schrieb Roy Wallace:
There's only room for grey (w.r.t. the OSM definitions) if we want
there to be.
Following the OSM discussions for years now I would say: That's an illusion.
Ok. Though I
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 9:41 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 May 2010 06:12, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I would think a semi-colon delimited value would be better in this
case - certainly better than multiple POIs, and no less supported
than multiple relations
(note: removed talk-us)
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:39 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
... It's a big world out there and there is bound to be grey areas
that local knowledge will tags things one way or the other...
There is bound to be grey areas only if we continue to use these
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:19 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 May 2010 09:22, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
(Just to make life even hearder: is McCafe a cafe or fast food?)
Maybe it's all three at the same time...
Does it have a sit down and eat area
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
The entire reason such tagging is useful (vs. amenity=food) is that
people can ask find me a nearby cafe. When I ask that, I want a
coffee shop that serves sandwiches, or a sandwich shop that serves
coffee, or something like
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:32 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be better to tag the primary function of a business, and add
modifiers...
So amenity=fast_food + cafe=yes would be roughly equivalent to
amenity=cafe + fast_food=yes? Interesting proposal. It seems like a
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:41 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Why does it need to be a unifying criteria?
Provide the tags, people will come up with their own criteria based on
their own cultural background, while they will be similar, there will
be subtle differences.
I think
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:40 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
You don't need motorcar=no for the barrier, you'd tag the way with it.
Really? I thought:
You'd tag the way if you want to indicate that you're legally not
allowed to use a motorcar along the way
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 9:10 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see an overly compelling reason to change the existing tag,
Me either. In my previous post I was actually trying to point out the
problems with the landuse tag, rather than advocate it.
I think natural=beach
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:18 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 April 2010 20:40, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely these should be tagged golf_course=bunker, or something.
I was hoping for something a little more generic
Suggestions? As is, you can't use
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:04 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 April 2010 07:50, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Suggestions? As is, you can't use surface because that's only for
roads/footpaths (although strangely it's also used for
Why does the surface tag have
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:36 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it matters if it's a man made beach or not, natural=tree
is used for planter boxes in the middle of the street, I'm pretty sure
that isn't 100% natural :)
Hmm. Yes, we also have natural=water whether
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Don't want to stir up a whole new hornet's nest, but would that be
kerb-to-kerb (i.e. tarmac width) or wall-to-wall (limiting the overall
vehicle width)?
Good question. The wiki simply says width of a way. So it's
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
Several issues with relation to speed limits:
1. How should one tag suggested speeds (usually around curves) ...
... Should I tag them as maxspeed=*?
The wiki says maxspeed is for the maximum speed that is allowed
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
1) Use source:X to refer to geolocation, where X is some string
that is never going to be used as a key on its own, or
Solution 1 looks perfectly good to me. Position, location, whatever.
If a consensus ever emerges,
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I come to a road with width=3 - that is indeed useful.
I come to a road with narrow=yes - that is not as useful.
I just don't understand how everyone can have the same argument, again
and again, about every new tag or
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:40 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Pick which ever has the most widespread use and document it.
Hmm now that I check again, [1] lists a few hundred uses of
source:position, but only 2 uses of source:location.
Better go with source:position, then.
[1]
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 3:39 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you check tagwatch for the most common reference to source:*location* ?
Some from Tagwatch Australia:
60 source:location
46 source:geometry
7 source:existance
3 source:area
Some others from OSMdoc (in descending
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:12 AM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
I have no opposition, though, to the more precise:
source:location=survey;usgs_imagery + source:name=survey;image;LACA
source:location=* sounds good, as long as there is never going to be a
location=* key
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
3) Nuke alle source tags on database objects, because they are not data but
metadata. Then put decent descriptive comments/tags on your changesets.
This doesn't solve the problem (please start a new thread if you want
to talk
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
If users are so incompetent at judging distances then maybe they should
never hve picked up a GPS in the first place.
Or they should use est_width=1.5m + note=road looks narrow - please
confirm width
Gday,
I'm a big fan of source:*=*. This allows for a road to be tagged with
e.g. source:name=survey + source:surface=nearmap
But there doesn't seem to be any way to specify the source of a
feature's *location*.
Consider this scenario:
There is a petrol station POI that someone has tagged with:
Should buildings adjacent to each other be mapped:
1) individually, with shared boundaries
2) individually, with an arbitrarily small gap between boundaries
3) as one contiguous area?
An example of a row of adjacent buildings:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
Are these buildings conceptually separate (e.g., different building
management or construction dates)? If yes, map as separate areas sharing
boundaries.
I don't know - source is aerial imagery.
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
... Yes, there can only be one photo to represent
the OSM object.
Why? You could just as easily use image=img1;img2;..., though this
clearly doesn't scale well (which may suggest that this isn't a good
approach...)
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:06 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Imagine a mechanism in your favourite editor when you can drag the
width of the node outwards to match the width of the road, this then
gets stored against the node information for the way.
Ah ok. Hmm, I'd prefer that
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:25 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
This is tagging the way, but at the node references.
I let this go a couple of days to see if anyone would find any
problems with doing this.
It is one option for tagging width, but users would then still need to
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:31 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2010 07:24, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess...but this might be tricky for editors to deal with when way
direction is reversed.
Not really, think of the bits between nodes as segments
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:32 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2010 07:22, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
It is one option for tagging width, but users would then still need to
make some assumption about the direction in which width is measured
(probably
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
We will have to consider what to do about the fact that you'll end up
with nested landuse=residential
Simple: the tags on the inner polygon override those on the outer polygon.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Post a link when you've completed it; I'd like to see the results.
I've created a MP with highway=racetrack. I haven't marked centerlines
yet: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/399272
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
As the track will be the entity most people would expect to see on the
map, tag that as highway=raceway.
Tag the way as some like highway= 'racing_line'.
...
Creating a new tag is not a problem, especially if it's solving a
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
it is not about needing the inner polygons, they describe the
situation better and enter more detail - regardless of case a) or b).
Maybe I should clarify - I'd prefer to see a natural=grass area (or
whatever)
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What tag should we use for places that people can park?
If you literally mean place that people can park, this is verging on
unverifiable (e.g. well *I* think I can park there...)
On the other hand, a parking bay (i.e. marked with
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
... the River/Riverbank could be the solution:
Use multi-polygons for the boundaries of the track/pit lanes etc. Then
add separate ways for to indicate each track configuration.
Thanks - exactly what I was looking for.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Is there really no tag needed to indicate to renderers that the width
of the way is indicated by the multi-polygon rather than the way
(centerline)?
No, not for the renderer, they only render what is tagged, not what is
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:38 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Going with Richards idea, what about making the editor do the grunt
work, place a node at a point, and then have the editor calculate the
width by stretching the road way side ways, then apply the width
values
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:07 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 February 2010 11:59, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting, but what you're really doing (if i understand you correctly) is:
You missed the point on lanes then, which is mostly what I'm
interested
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would it be any more difficult than using areas, if the editors
display the data correctly then you can edit it correctly too.
Think about it:
1) use tags on nodes to describe an area
2) use an area to describe an
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
I'm not sure I understand. What I mean is, if the database contains a
way with highway=raceway, *as well as* a multi-polygon (MP) with
highway=raceway, how would a renderer know not to try to render *two
different
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:26 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 February 2010 14:21, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
1) use tags on nodes to describe an area
2) use an area to describe an area
Generally speaking, I predict 2) will be easier.
Just like ways
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
OSM doesn't have areas, it has nodes, ways, and relations.
Area means a closed way, with tags referring to the entity bounded
by the way. Simple enough I thought.
___
Tagging mailing list
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
a tree may be in a parking area, but how exactly do you propose to park on it?
The more important question is what does amenity=parking apply to?
a) a parking area, or b) a place you can park. I prefer a), because
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
i should think if you use a multipolygon, they will obviously be
dropouts from the parking
area.
I'm not sure... isn't a tree planted in the middle of a parking area
part of the parking area?
Or is there a really
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Out of curiosity, what's your intention in tagging these things? I get
tags like amenity=cafe or landuse=commercial, name=John's Software
Consulting, but what kind of applications might make use of knowing
that
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote:
Would you tag a business facility that is not really an office like a
machine shop or other production facility as office=* as well?
I would think not. There may be cases that are in the grey area, and
if you can
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Simone Saviolo
simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not use business=* instead?
Because that overlaps with a BUNCH of stuff that already has tags
(e.g. shop=*, a lot of amenity=*'s, etc.)
___
Tagging mailing list
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, I like Liz's suggestion of tag first, then document and refine
the scheme later.
That's usually the method of the US police : shoot first and
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Woll Newall w...@2-islands.com wrote:
The appropriate land-use tag is commercial (defined as
Predominantly offices, business parks, etc.), so maybe such things
should be tagged commercial=software_development,
commercial=call_centre etc plus company name in
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote:
... To meet both problems you can only do this:
alcohol=yes
coffee=no
pastries=yes
egg chips=yes
I like this approach.
It makes much more sense than either of the other suggestions, i.e.:
1) inventing complex
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote:
... To meet both problems you can only do this:
alcohol=yes
coffee=no
pastries=yes
egg chips=yes
I like this approach.
I don't. I
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:46 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
... It seems more reasonable to tag the general cuisine, whether food is
available, whether alcohol is available, whether reservations are required
(usually only at fancier establishments), and whether the
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Redoing the tagging, and leaving the disputed tag out of the new scheme is a
way to go forward.
Redoing the tagging is a little vague. Introduce new tags to resolve
ambiguities - use them in parallel with those specified on the wiki
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
When a divided motorway/trunk/primary/... has a spot for turning or
u-turning, should that be marked as primary or primary_link? The wiki isn't
clear.
Well, what is it better described by:
1) link roads (sliproads /
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway,
foot=designated, which means highway=path, foot=designated,
bicycle=designated.
Yeah,
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
The biggest problem I can see at the moment is I really don't want to tag
anything bicycle=designated unless I'm certain it really *is* designated
that way (which I can't do from aerial photography), but I *do* want to
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't that what a map is? Some kind of look-up service for the real
world?
There is a layer of interpretation in the middle, that's the crucial
difference.
I don't know what you mean. That tags have definitions?
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Real
cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
avoid.
highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P
___
Tagging mailing list
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
... lets find other tags to make the
distinctions we want, and discourage people from reading too much into
highway=cycleway (I wouldn't go so far as to deprecate it, just insist that
people add tags
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
My point is: There is an important difference between
- a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others)
- some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling
...
I would suggest that the difference
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
Close - but bicycle=yes just means bicycles are legal
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access). For suitability
(whatever that means), I'd suggest bicycle=yes + bicycle:suitable=yes.
In point of fact I would do
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Nick Austin nick.w.aus...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to be clear, highway=cycleway is shorthand for highway=footway +
bicycle=yes and highway=bridleway is shorthand for highway=footway +
horse=yes. There's no need for this definition creep nonsense.
BTW, footway
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
... There are lots of shared use paths, and lots
of unlabelled paths. I basically want the shared use paths to be tagged as
cycleways (because that's the function they serve), and *some* of the
unlabelled paths to be
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com writes:
After much thought, I think I've finally decided that the definition I would
like for cycleway would be something like the way is especially well suited
to use by bicycles.
The
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
If it's a short path between two buildings or
something, I wouldn't call that especially suitable for cycling.
Others might. There is a lot of fuzzy area here. This is a problem.
It's called unverifiability.
And to
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
If ... every time you saw something mapped
as a bike path, it corresponded to something you thought of as a bike path -
that would be perfect.
Key words: something YOU thought of as a bike path. If everyone
thinks of a
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote:
So, what is steep then? 15% or more?
I personally don't care, because I won't use it. Ask a civil engineer
or look at some regulations and choose something meaningful?
I would say all the incline tags should be
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
I might be old, I might have gone to school in the Dark Ages, but a point
cannot have an incline.
An incline is more or less a gradient. From Wikipedia: The gradient
of H at a point is a vector pointing in the direction of the
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote:
If you know the actual incline you can tag it with its value. If you
have to estimate it anyway then a hard definition on what is steep is
not worth that much anymore.
It is a subjective classification - not more
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote:
Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com writes:
Also, incline=* is still mathematically valid for nodes to indicate
the instantaneous incline at that point, so I don't see a problem with
that.
The problem with nodes
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
but it still is strange to tag a node with a tag the meaning of
which depends on a way, isn't it?
Or more precisely, depends on a direction.
___
Tagging mailing list
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote:
... I would like to add a note to the 'highway=incline|incline_steep'
tags on Map Features saying that they discouraged in favor of
'incline=*'. I think there should not be redundant tagging schemes in
Map
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net
wrote:
Are there any other official node tags that depend on a parent way to
be fully defined?
...
However, none of them, as far as I know, depend on the
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote:
'up/down' is in there to be able to tag an incline where the exact value
is not known. Adding '_steep' would allow to differentiate a little.
Of course, what is steep and what is not is subjective - just like
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
