kept in an opt in basis in case people don't want
their names shown)
On 3/15/19 5:54 PM, seirra blake wrote:
key: almost tagging should occur here | data may be reused in parent |
data may be reused in parent and any 'adjacent' (with the same letter)
parent
/public transport network
hmm maybe. version 4 will include a detailed example, once that is
available feel free what would be missing for that purpose
On 3/15/19 7:19 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
maybe we can have roles to state whether the tags of the referenced object
should apply to the relation or if only the
hmm... I'm not quite sure on what would be best. I do see your point in
the case of just splitting very long ways there, they would not be
'shared' at all. to the best of my knowledge type=* is intended to
exclusively define the relation. in all circumstances that we have
discussed, it still
as I'm concerned, the sequence of stops is the 'signature'
defining each variation in itinerary.
Polyglot
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 6:55 PM seirra blake
mailto:sophietheopos...@yandex.com>> wrote:
key: almost tagging should occur here | data may be reused in
parent | data may be
)
On 3/15/19 2:37 PM, seirra blake wrote:
I can see *a lot* of shared routes in my area because most of the
buses heavily use a star topography (everything must take you to a
central station) as opposed to a hybrid mesh/star topography
(everywhere has access to a service to a central station
.
You would need to allow all types of route relations to contain ways
and shared segment relations.
I'm not sure if you would need any special tag to indicate it's
shared. If it's used more than once, it's shared, right?
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op vr 15 mrt. 2019 om 15:38 schreef seirra blake
ery common (as
that is where the stops are, obviously).
Maybe I should try to create an example somewhere. Preferably a small
island
Polyglot
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 3:38 PM seirra blake
mailto:sophietheopos...@yandex.com>> wrote:
I can see *a lot* of shared routes in my a
I can see *a lot* of shared routes in my area because most of the buses
heavily use a star topography (everything must take you to a central
station) as opposed to a hybrid mesh/star topography (everywhere has
access to a service to a central station, but there are circular routes
to allow
pet=permissive? although if the operator does straight out say 'pets
allowed' without any further suggestion (be it images, small print or
whatever) I guess it would be yes until proven otherwise or further
explained/surveyed. if this does get put in an article it may be worth
noting that it's
I'm guessing it depends on how specific the authority is. on the one
hand you'd think it'd usually just be either birds or no birds however I
imagine the distinction may still crop up. as I can't actually see any
article saying about animals used as access tags, I imagine it's just
tag as you
larity, but better fits source data.
Il gio 7 mar 2019, 14:09 seirra blake <mailto:sophietheopos...@yandex.com>> ha scritto:
while I can't see a problem with a tag for each pet, it may still
make more sense to have a pets tag and just namespace
species/related things
I never saw that in access before, but that actually makes a lot of
sense. conditionals are somewhat underutilised where I live so I always
forget about them, but that's a fair point
On 3/7/19 9:58 PM, Warin wrote:
On 08/03/19 00:07, seirra blake wrote:
while I can't see a problem
while I can't see a problem with a tag for each pet, it may still make
more sense to have a pets tag and just namespace species/related things
under it similar to the access tag. use cases I can think of:
* pets=no | no matter what, no pets
* pets=yes | open to all or at least most pets
some providers already make it publicly available knowledge. for example
in the UK link ATM has an app, and you can use it to find nearby ATMs.
most of the things it tells you are pretty standard, but some things
that may need new tags are pin management services, audio assistance and
£5 notes
yeah, if it did get mapped it should probably at least be something specific
otherwise the user has no idea what to watch out for, and it may unreasonably
deter people from the area, i think it might be the same reason reviews aren't
recorded?outside of that i don't think osm performs live
oh okay yeah i get it!
On Aug 17 2018, at 4:17 pm, Jmapb wrote:
>
> On 8/16/2018 6:39 PM, seirra wrote:
> > if a floor of a building is for example: a store at the bottom of the
> > building, and the rest is apartments... shouldn't it then be a
> > building labelled as a chemist, with the tag
16 matches
Mail list logo
