Re: [Tagging] How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

On 21 July 2016 12:31:42 GMT+01:00, m...@chrisfleming.org wrote: > >In my view access=permit seems like they way to go. Having >access=private with permit=something adds to the complexity without >adding value. Keep it simple. Joining this discussion late, but just as another datapoint, this

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

2016-07-27 10:54 GMT+02:00 moltonel : > I went with access=permit at the time: it seemed to fit very well, > without needing a big discussion thread :p > yes, it fits well if you know what the situation is, but without documentation you don't know whether this is only

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

@Kevin; I'm glad to see someone is interested in clearing up the mess in the Adirondack Park and sorry to hear about your frustration concerning rendering of the protected areas in NYS. Although I no longer hike in that area because I moved to Alaska in 1983 I have a strong and continuing interest

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I don't see (a) that everything is ready for it > nor (b) that it would require any downtime. For example I'm running > osm-carto with hstore and using views so I don't have to modify the > style; but it hasn't been

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > yes, it fits well if you know what the situation is, but without > documentation you don't know whether this is only supposed to be used for > places where permits are generally granted, or if it is also used