It's not detailled enough. A path is too narrow for a 4
wheels vehicle like a car but not for a 2 wheels vehicle
like a moped or a motorbike (or no
While that is often true, the criteria goes the other way:
- if the way is too narrow to fit a car (hey, my summer
car is only 1.48 m wide) or a t
contra arguments:
- renderers possibly render more than one name for one street. To solve that
It's not (only) a rendering issue. The name of the road is
"Foo street", but the sidewalk doesn't have a name of its
own; it shouldn't be named.
If people feel it's necessary to "tie" it to a specific
> That is not how it is described in the wiki:
Then the wiki is wrong.
I agree with Cartinus here: the wiki is wrong. Path is not necessary
for non-motorized vehicles.
Highway=path alone, with no access tags at all tells nothing
more than "not for anything motorized". It doesn't say anything
ab
Hi Tobias.
On 26.08.2010 23:52, Tobias Knerr wrote:
On 26.08.2010 22:25, Peter Wendorff wrote:
My approach would be - and I would like to get your opinions on that:
- a sidewalk is tagged like every other footway
highway=footway|path
(foot=yes)
(segregated=yes|no)
footway=sidew
On 26.08.2010 22:25, Peter Wendorff wrote:
> My approach would be - and I would like to get your opinions on that:
> - a sidewalk is tagged like every other footway
>highway=footway|path
>(foot=yes)
>(segregated=yes|no)
>footway=sidewalk
>name=NAME-OF-STREET
I understand why yo
Hi David.
Thanks for your reply - I'll comment your (shortened) mail in between.
On 26.08.2010 22:47, David ``Smith'' wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
Makes sense to me. You might consider one minor modification, though:
maybe we could add a couple of disambiguat
2010/8/26 Peter Wendorff :
> awaiting your comments
Have a look at the proposed area-relation (if you have questions - the
proposal is halfway finished - feel free to raise them, I have some
more ideas / clarifications I didn't yet write down). I would then map
the sidewalk at the "outer" border
On Thursday, August 26, 2010 02:29:01 pm, Bégin, Daniel wrote:
> Since last year I have been working with the Canadian Osm community to have
> the entire Canadian 50K map content (Canvec product) available in .osm format.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec
>
> The product is now avail
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
> My approach would be - and I would like to get your opinions on that:
> - a sidewalk is tagged like every other footway
> highway=footway|path
> (foot=yes)
> (segregated=yes|no)
> footway=sidewalk
> name=NAME-OF-STREET
>
> contra a
On Thursday 26 August 2010 22:29:01 Bégin, Daniel wrote:
> Can we still have discussion about that and have it approved - even if it
> is a bit late ?-)
If it is in use by a significant number of mappers then it is approved, no
matter what the wiki says.
--
m.v.g.,
Cartinus
___
Hi folks,
Since last year I have been working with the Canadian Osm community to have the
entire Canadian 50K map content (Canvec product) available in .osm format.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec
The product is now available and is being uploaded in osm database by the
Canadian comm
Hi.
I'm new to this list, so at first let me introduce myself in a few words.
I'm Peter and a student in computer science at the university of
Paderborn, Germany.
Currently I write my bachelor thesis about navigation for the blind
based on OpenStreetmap data.
In that context I try to figure out
Snowmobiles are generally about one meter or so wide (the rider sits astride
them, as on a motorcycle), can't be used on a surface that isn't covered with
snow or ice, and don't technically require a trail. However, many areas
discourage or forbid off-trail usage because of damage to vegetation
2010/8/26 Pieren :
> n Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Cartinus wrote:
>> On Thursday 26 August 2010 12:34:26 Maarten Deen wrote:
>> > That is not how it is described in the wiki:
>> Then the wiki is wrong.
I agree with Cartinus here: the wiki is wrong. Path is not necessary
for non-motorized vehic
2010/8/26 Tom Chance :
>> The word 'generator:' is better than 'power:', but it is still not
>> easy for me to tag a heating (only) station with power=generator.
>> Which rating should be tagged if it is a cogenerating plant?
>> Electricity only? Heat and Electricity?
>
> That's a good point. It k
Thank you for these comments, André, I have updated the wiki page with some
amendments:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/generator_rationalisation
On 26 August 2010 13:43, André Riedel wrote:
> The word 'generator:' is better than 'power:', but it is still not
> easy for me t
2010/8/26 Tom Chance :
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/generator_rationalisation
> The aim is to provide a flexible framework to encompass:
>
> This should allow us to distinguish between a solar photovoltaic panel
> producing electricity and a solar thermal panel producing h
Hello,
Following all of the useful feedback on this list and the wiki, I have
rolled together my proposals into one page. This proposes a new set of tags
under "generator:*=" to specify the kind of power generator.
It rolls together several proposed new tags, and changes to existing tags.
The ai
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata
--
sly
Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org
qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
19 matches
Mail list logo
