On Apr 21, 2012 2:29 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Apr 20, 2012 9:04 AM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net
wrote:
I would go with name:en-PH=* or name:en:PH=* to mimic the standard IETF
Am 22 Apr 2012 um 06:17 schrieb Владимир Поквалитов p...@isnet.ru:
This could also be used with:
driving schools (amenity=school + school=driving instead of
amenity=driving_school)
foreign language schools (amenity=school + school=language +
language=en;fr;de)
pottery workshops
2012/4/21 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
You can Tag lanes:forward= and lanes:backward=
Would this make sense?
Lanes=3
Lanes:forward=2
Lanes:backward=2
No, it wouldn't. This was one of the reasons, why I suggested an
additional suffix both-ways in the original version of the lanes
2012/4/21 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
The words the use are 'generally more than 4m wide' and 'generally less
than 4m wide'. Roads of this width will vary in width, they are almost
never the same width throughout.
Can we agree on that for narrow roads, where one can not determine the
At 2012-04-21 23:36, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Apr 21, 2012 2:29 PM,
Eugene Alvin Villar
sea...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Paul Johnson
ba...@ursamundi.org
wrote:
On Apr 20, 2012 9:04 AM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net
wrote:
I would go with name:en-PH=* or
On 22 April 2012 08:41, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote:
Can we agree on that for narrow roads, where one can not determine the
width exactly we would recommend:
lanes=2
width=4
source:width=estimated
or
lanes=2
est_width=4
I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's
2012/4/22 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the lanes=1.5
would less confusing for narrow two lane roads.
The problem with lanes=1.5 stays: data consumers might not be able to
handle this correctly.
What we need right now is a
I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's ordnance survey was
mentioned, and a lot of older uk advice appears based around a now
historic view that 'cars = saloon cars' and were 1.8m or less. If cars
were assumed to be 1.8m wide then implied OS figure of 4m for two lanes
makes sense.
I am not
On Mon, April 23, 2012 03:57, Martin Vonwald wrote:
2012/4/22 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the lanes=1.5
would less confusing for narrow two lane roads.
The problem with lanes=1.5 stays: data consumers might not be able
Andrew Errington a.erring...@lancaster.ac.uk wrote:
On Mon, April 23, 2012 03:57, Martin Vonwald wrote:
2012/4/22 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the
lanes=1.5
would less confusing for narrow two lane roads.
The
10 matches
Mail list logo
