2013/11/14 Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl
Hmm, difficult to get the difference right. How would you call a place
with video games and pinball machines? What if there are also claw
cranes?
I would draw the line when you can get more money (in cash) for less money.
Getting a toy
Am 13/nov/2013 um 22:43 schrieb Masi Master masi-mas...@gmx.de:
We talk about the correct tagging here. Not about a mechanical edit, it
could be a question in the future. But mechanical edit will not work in this
case.
Yes, excuse me if my mail looked like I might be advocating a
Am 14/nov/2013 um 00:53 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com:
I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about
with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the
cases where more significant use is allowed) and then add a second
Am 14.11.2013 10:13, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
Am 14/nov/2013 um 00:53 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com:
I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about
with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the
cases where more
Am 14/nov/2013 um 10:40 schrieb Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de:
@Martin:
Your reply is only valid for the first line of the citation.
An approach which combines 2 tags in a way that the meaning is only true for
the combination of both, but not for the single tag, does not work well
On 14 November 2013 09:13, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about
with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the
cases where more significant use is allowed) and then add a second tag
along the lines
And why not? What's the difference between road: you may not cycle,
cyclepath: you may cycle and road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath,
cyclepath: you may cycle? And if it's such an important difference, why
only use this for cyclists? Why not put a motor_vehicle:use_carriageway
on the
An approach which combines 2 tags in a way that the meaning is only true
for the combination of both, but not for the single tag, does not work well
IMHO. We shouldn't have tags like bicycle=no and with a second tag we say,
hey, actually that is not a real no in this other tag over there.
We
Am 14.11.2013 10:47, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
Am 14/nov/2013 um 10:40 schrieb Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de:
@Martin:
Your reply is only valid for the first line of the citation.
An approach which combines 2 tags in a way that the meaning is only true for
the combination of
What's the difference between road: you may not cycle, cyclepath: you may
cycle and road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath, cyclepath: you may
cycle?
Because it's not
road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath,
but
road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath if the cyclepath is going
2013/11/14 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi
road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath if the cyclepath is going
where you're headed
+1
additionally there might be other factors that make it impossible to use
the cycleway (and as the road is not actually forbidden you will use it),
for
2013/11/14 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com
Hmm, difficult to get the difference right. How would you call a place
with video games and pinball machines? What if there are also claw
cranes?
I would draw the line when you can get more money (in cash) for less
money. Getting a toy if you
Be aware that road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath if the
cyclepath is going where you're headed is ambiguous.
1) if the cyclepath is going where you're headed, then (and only then)
are you allowed to use the cyclepath
2) if the cyclepath is going where you're headed, you are obliged
2) if the cyclepath is going where you're headed,
you are obliged to use the cyclepath, to the
exclusion of all other carriageways
I think number 2) is intended here?
Yes, the original was an unreviewed sentence. In the original the if only
applies to only, not to may.
Normally in
Robert argued here that country-specific restrictions should be always
expressed by tags so that routers don't need to know those specific
rules/laws.
He gave the maxspeed tags as an example, which we explicitly tag even if
they are based on implicit laws.
I think this generalization is goes too
A question and some remarks
Considering routers and not breaking routing.
A few of you have made remark concerning breaking schemes and routers
getting in to problems. I do not understand this. Ronnie Soak e.g. wrote “I
would prefer an additional tag over a replacement for bicycle=no, as this
2013/11/14 Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com
For the access tags (and we do discuss access tags here), it is common
practice to have country-specific defaults on certain highway types as
listed in the wiki [1] and only tag what contradicts those defaults.
I'm not sure any of the
On 14 November 2013 11:54, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nlwrote:
Hmm, difficult to get the difference right. How would you call a place
with video games and pinball machines? What if there are also claw
cranes?
I'd call it an amusement arcade, but that's probably just a local
18 matches
Mail list logo
