On 17/10/2022 19:17, Robert Skedgell wrote:
1) tactile_paving=yes on crossing ways, although none of the ways have tactile
paving along their entire length. This may be a result of copying all the tags
from the crossing node to the way, but could be unhelpful for any data
consumers which
today I noticed some minor historic ruins and wonder whether you would consider
this an archaeological site?
https://twitter.com/dieterdreist/status/1582130246769610753?s=46=pMmPcybaZu9zOoWBrbE_Eg
Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Depends entirely on the our hopefully to come definition of
"archaeological site". But I don't have a solution for it yet either.
But I definitely think that some of the features mapped merely as
"historic" should be mapped as archaeological sites just because of the
state they're in. I would
sent from a phone
> On 17 Oct 2022, at 20:30, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
>
> Not in reply to this specific email, but I've done a bit of tidying
> amonst keys and values the last three days, and I've documented some of
> my findings which might give food for thought:
>
>
Not in reply to this specific email, but I've done a bit of tidying
amonst keys and values the last three days, and I've documented some of
my findings which might give food for thought:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/b-unicycling/diary/400164
(I hope you like footnotes...:-) )
Anne
On
The same user whose edits gave rise to the post below appears to have
decided to "standardise" crossing tagging on crossings in Newham, most
of which I have surveyed and mapped, with the following innovations:
1) tactile_paving=yes on crossing ways, although none of the ways have
tactile
Am Mo., 17. Okt. 2022 um 10:09 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> Oct 16, 2022, 17:30 by annekadis...@web.de:Is there a way to
>
> implement a warning into the editors not to combine
> "archaeological_site" with dinosaurs? I will replace the few I found
>
Oct 16, 2022, 17:30 by annekadis...@web.de:Is there a way to
> implement a warning into the editors not to combine
> "archaeological_site" with dinosaurs? I will replace the few I found
> with geological=palaeontological_site
>
