With regard to apartment complexes, condo complexes, mobile home complexes,
and gated single-family-home complexes, I usually tag:
- The ways that cross the boundary line from public street into the complex
are highway=service*** + service=driveway. These are also role=access in
the relation.
-
Pieren wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>> noname=yes
>>
>
> Oh dear. What is the next step, noname=yes on all unnamed buildings if
> KeepRight tells you it is an error ?
Nobody would expect every last building to be named. People generally
expect streets to be
Anthony writes:
> Regarding the apartment complex, the parcel data is not out of date.
> That's just the way apartment complexes are parceled here. There's
> only one owner. Condominium associations would have a separate parcel
> for shared areas, because there's more than one owner.
ok - tha
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Well, that's how I would tend to see it, but it being in practice street
> like and large and having a name makes it feel like it's fair to label
> it as if it were a private way. I wonder if it really is a private way
> and the parcel data is
You maybe ain't going to like this, but the usual distinction in the UK is
that residentials are (typically) 6m+ wide and have pavements/sidewalks,
whereas service is for urban roads which don't have pavements/sidewalks.
Richrd
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2
Here in Brisbane, we have a 'private way' going from the motorway out
to the airport. It is several km long, divided multilane road that
looks like a motorway, but is all on airport owned land. It is open to
the public, and you can get booked by the police for traffic offences.
However, because it
Please don't take the following as me arguing with you. I'm just
trying to understand.
No problem - it's a useful discussion and a hard question.
I think the bottom line is that one has to understand the actual
legal/use distinctions made by the experts, and then figure out how much
of that
Anthony writes:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Anthony writes:
>>> But I've come across situations where the unnamed road is not a
>>> roundabout, though. In one of these cases I used
>>> highway=unclassified, because it was just a dirt road that was really
>>> just
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Anthony writes:
>> But I've come across situations where the unnamed road is not a
>> roundabout, though. In one of these cases I used
>> highway=unclassified, because it was just a dirt road that was really
>> just a shared driveway (it was
Anthony writes:
> Thanks. In this case I think recognizing that the way is part of a
> roundabout is probably sufficient. A large portion of roundabouts
> don't have names, right?
I think that's true. Really what the rules and lint tags are about is
expressing a rule that is true sufficientl
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Anthony writes:
>> Is lint:noname a tag which is already in use? If not, something like
>> lint:name=nocheck would probably be more easily extensible.
>
> No, I made it up. Your idea is much better.
>
Thanks. In this case I think recognizin
Anthony writes:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>>
>> Anthony writes:
>>
>>> Still, there are times when it's tempting to add some sort of [sic]
>>> tag, to say "I know it's weird, but this is correct".
>>
>> Agreed, but perhaps these should all be
>>
>> lint:noname=yes
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Anthony writes:
>
>> Still, there are times when it's tempting to add some sort of [sic]
>> tag, to say "I know it's weird, but this is correct".
>
> Agreed, but perhaps these should all be
>
> lint:noname=yes
>
> so that it's obvious that
Anthony writes:
> Still, there are times when it's tempting to add some sort of [sic]
> tag, to say "I know it's weird, but this is correct".
Agreed, but perhaps these should all be
lint:noname=yes
so that it's obvious that the entire point is a hint to checkers, just
like markign up source c
I'm reminded of maxspeed=none, and the argument that "defaults should
not be tagged explicitly".
Still, there are times when it's tempting to add some sort of [sic]
tag, to say "I know it's weird, but this is correct".
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@o
Mike N. wrote:
> highway=road is like leaving an implied FIXME=yes tag, according to the
> wiki. I'd prefer the nonname=yes workaround, if any.
We need to be clear on this - Highway=* & name=* are mutually exclusive.
You can't substitute one for the other.
Highway=* is compulsory, name=* is o
> Not sure. It's a guess. Changing the highway category to "road" might
> disable the check in KeepRight.
highway=road is like leaving an implied FIXME=yes tag, according to the
wiki. I'd prefer the nonname=yes workaround, if any. I mentioned
KeepRight, but it turns out that KeepRight and
> You seem a bit unclear. Do you mean name as in name=The Cyril Smith
> Roundabout or highway=trunk etc?
I was referring to whether the name= tag is required. Thanks for the
answers, the consensus is that it is not required for roundabouts with no
name.
> If the former, not all have a na
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Dave F. wrote:
> No Pieren
> Even if it has a junction=roundabout tag it's still an error without a
> highway=* tag, which is what I think Mike N. was talking about in the OP.
>
Not sure. It's a guess. Changing the highway category to "road" might
disable the check
Pieren wrote:
> Well, if it is really a roundabout, it is already tagged with
> junction=roundabout. What we need is that KeepRight does NOT consider
> as an error an unnamed highway with junction=roundabout.
>
> Pieren
>
No Pieren
Even if it has a junction=roundabout tag it's still an error wit
Excuse my ignorance. Junction=roundabout is the right tag.
I was just keeping the load down on the wiki server. :)
Richard
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:52 AM, G Zamboni wrote:
> I agree that noname=yes is not a good solution, but I don't understand why
> roundabout=yes...
> Junction=roundabout i
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Richard Mann
wrote:
> I'd tend to agree that noname=yes is the wrong approach, but maybe there
> should be something like roundabout=yes, since that is positively useful
> information.
> Richard
>
Well, if it is really a roundabout, it is already tagged with
junc
I agree that noname=yes is not a good solution, but I don't understand
why roundabout=yes...
Junction=roundabout isn't enough?
Bye
Giuliano
Richard Mann ha scritto:
I'd tend to agree that noname=yes is the wrong approach, but
maybe there should be something like roundabout=yes, since that
I'd tend to agree that noname=yes is the wrong approach, but maybe there
should be something like roundabout=yes, since that is positively useful
information.
Richard
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Pieren wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Paul Johnson
> wrote:
> >
> noname=yes
> >
24 matches
Mail list logo
