It is not explicitly mentioned, but it would be a good idea to have explicit
is it OK to tag hazard that
- is unsigned
- government has not declared that it exists (maybe government is
in Somalia, or it is covering-up the problem, or it has higher
I'm in California, where it's almost cliché we love our cars and car culture,
but it is true that not only here but in many USA states, we have "drive-thru"
COVID-19 testing centers. I would guess that vaccination centers that are also
"drive-thru" are likely soon (early 2021?), too. These
The proposed new tag, vaccination=, seems like a reasonable idea.
However, it might be necessary to discuss a main feature tag to use in the
case when these are not administered by a clinic or doctor's office or
There does not seem to be a widely used, suitable tag under healthcare=*
Unless somebody has a crystal ball, it's at least plausible that these
could be around for quite some time. If we're lucky and they go away
quickly, it's easy enough to remove the tagging later. But, "indefinite
duration" seems like a sufficient level of permanence for an OSM feature.
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 23:27, Brian M. Sperlongano
> Comment is requested on the proposal "hazard", which describes hazardous
> or dangerous features. This tagging was first proposed in 2007, and I have
> adopted the proposal with permission from the original author. Thanks to
We (Nederland) will likely use the flu vac system of local practitioners
and old people's homes to do groups at risk first, and health care
personnel will take care of themselves while administering.Will take two to
three weeks for the first shot, and if a second shot is needed, 6 weeks.
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 20:01, Philip Barnes wrote:
Although in this case I would expect the approach to be to set up sessions
> for schools, universities and at larger employers and for the general
> population it will simply attend an appointment at their local medical
Even back in
On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 13:28 +, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 13:15, Phake Nick wrote:
> > I don't thibk it is appropriate to add one-off temporary facilities
> > into OSM.
> How temporary is temporary? All of man's works eventually crumble
> decay. No man-made feature
På Wed, 25 Nov 2020 13:34:24 +
Andy Townsend skrev:
>As an aside, it's probably worth explaining why people sometimes say
>that OSM isn't a place for one-off temporary things
I mostly use OsmAnd. I update it every month, but that is of course
mostly because i want to my own edits.
Recently, Chesapeake Bay (the largest estuary in the United States with a surface area of over
10,000 sqkm) has been changed from "natural=coastline" tagging to form a large
"natural=water;water=lagoon" multipolygon instead. The area has also been split into the
bay itself, the Pocomore
By the way, an... amusing test case for all things related to water and
label placement is Lake Mälaren, the lake that Stockholm is separating
from the sea, and all its (named!) nooks and crannies:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1433877 . I've had at least 3
different bits of it poking
On 25/11/2020 12:54, Phake Nick wrote:
I don't think it is appropriate to add one-off temporary facilities
As soon as you do the sums it seems pretty unlikely that these will be
"one-off temporary facilities".
Governments and health authorities may be able to move to a more
sent from a phone
> On 25. Nov 2020, at 14:15, Phake Nick wrote:
> I don't thibk it is appropriate to add one-off temporary facilities into OSM.
everything is temporary, e.g. buildings, trees, even mountains, although the
latter on a geological time scale. Not to speak of businesses.
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 13:15, Phake Nick wrote:
> I don't thibk it is appropriate to add one-off temporary facilities into
How temporary is temporary? All of man's works eventually crumble and
decay. No man-made feature is permanent. On a long enough timescale,
no geological feature
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 08:45, Ture Pålsson via Tagging <
> (And I agree with Kevin about reconstructing an area from a point +
> surrounding coastline. I'd like to see at least an outline of an
> algorithm for that! Having said that, I also recognise that
Comment is requested on the proposal "hazard", which describes hazardous or
dangerous features. This tagging was first proposed in 2007, and I have
adopted the proposal with permission from the original author. Thanks to
the various folks that assisted in the development of this proposal prior
I don't thibk it is appropriate to add one-off temporary facilities into
在 2020年11月25日週三 01:30，Tom Pfeifer 寫道：
> Following the discussion on how to tag COVID-19 vaccination centres
> previously on this list,
> I have created a proposal for the vaccination key:
Voting on the pumping proposal has been aborted following several comments
that should be studied for a second version.
For now, 11 opposition against 10 approval votes shows that no consensus
could be achieved
I guess the level won't be completely sealed and may serve for something once
the building is inhabited.
Wait and them!
Le 25 novembre 2020 02:26:22 GMT+01:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick
a écrit :
>On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 11:20, Joseph Eisenberg
>> Is the whole ground level a parking
This probably isn't too far off from many of the larger man_made=pier
structures in resort towns, although it lacks the water underneath most of
the time. Would man_made=bridge be appropriate for the surrounding area?
I think this is becomming fairly common in some flood prone areas, so
sent from a phone
> On 25. Nov 2020, at 02:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> It's built right beside a Creek, on a flood-plain (yeah, thanks Council!), so
> it's done like that so that the apartments are up away from the water the
> next time the Creek floods!
AFAIK we do not have a
I mentioned the problem of mapping "fuzzy" areas to a friend, who
replied along the lines of "why, of course such areas should be mapped
as functions, taking a point as input and returning a real between 0
(definitely outside) and 1 (definitely inside)!".
I'd rather not have to implement
Mail list logo