On 25 August 2012 01:25, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/8/20 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
I've been mostly mapping in large cities, hardly anything in the
countryside. So I can only say that I've found it purposeful in the
city to map with two highways
2012/8/26 Michael Krämer ohr...@gmail.com:
How about historic=wayside_shrine? Unfortunately my French is rather limited
so I basically could only look at the pictures in the Wikipedia. But this
looked quite a bit like these wayside shrines.
In the past I also used wayside_shrine for these (or
probably we should also add a religion=christian (and maybe
denomination) and we could invent a new tag to express to whow the
object is dedicated.
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On 26/08/2012 08:42, Markus Lindholm wrote:
Also, no one has offered any other solution to the routing issue. The
divider tag has been proposed, but I think it has been demonstrated
not to work, as routing decision are made on the node and not on the
line.
Where has it been demonstrated not to
Hi,
First I have to excuse myself for this 100% off-topic mail. I nonetheless sent
it to this mailing list because here might(!) be the right target group.
I need a few volunteers for a short survey. They need to be native speakers,
preferable from GB, and not(!) involved in the legal or
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On 26/08/2012 08:42, Markus Lindholm wrote:
Also, no one has offered any other solution to the routing issue. The
divider tag has been proposed, but I think it has been demonstrated
not to work, as routing decision are
This agricultural inspection station [1] has the tag barrier=checkpoint,
which OSRM appears to interpret as access=no. [2] Is this a bug in the
router, or should additional/different tags be used?
I've consulted the wiki, and can't find anything definitive about how this
should tagged. Any
Yes, you need to add access=yes. The router does not know who may pass
a checkpoint and access=yes is definitely not the default for a
checkpoint (private would be more likely).
This is a general issue for all point type barriers where a default
access is unknown and mappers forget to add the
On 26 August 2012 10:42, Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote:
We're not supposed to map for the renderer nor the router. Exactly for
whom are we to map?
For nothing, and no one. Which also means: for anything, everything and all.
The OSM approach - as I understand it - is to
On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 20:30 +0200, Erik Johansson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On 26/08/2012 08:42, Markus Lindholm wrote:
Also, no one has offered any other solution to the routing issue. The
divider tag has been proposed, but I think
2012/8/26 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
On 25 August 2012 01:25, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
purposeful in this case translates to mapping for the router *1 in
OSM-speak.
We're not supposed to map for the renderer nor the router. Exactly for
whom are we to
This not tagging for renderer is quite misleading. I would always
agree that mapping incorrectly for any reason is wrong. But if the
mapping is accurate I do not mind that it is for renderer.
After all these discussions do not show any globally acknowledged way
of modelling reality and
12 matches
Mail list logo
