On 7/02/2015 6:03 PM, Alex Rollin wrote:
imho a courtyard is related to leisure.
why for: because a courtyard matters to people with leisure time and
it is a luxury of sorts.
why against: perhaps a courtyard is a sequestered area/way as it is
often tagger highway designated footpath as an
2015-02-07 0:31 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com:
2015-02-06 17:29 GMT+01:00 Luca Sigfrido Percich luca.perc...@gmail.com:
We could also user a lanes modifier:
lanes=3
lanes:backward=2
tram:lanes:backward=yes|no
tram:forward=yes
I think this is the best way to tag this. There's
Hi Luca,
Am 2015-02-06 um 17:29 schrieb Luca Sigfrido Percich:
first time I write to the list (after lurking for a while), so I introduce
myself. I am from Milano - Italy, I work for the municipality's agency for
environment and mobility, and we'we been working for the last months to
Amenity is the best fit for this tag.
I disagree. (Usually that just means I didn't find anything better) As
this tag is always going to be used within another entity I think we
should rather look towards something like indoor tagging or other
subtags. In addition using amenity for reception
Hi,
what about running facilities?
This is a track which is dedicated to runners:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4039958
Those elements where it seems to use the normal path are in fact
seperated by a lowered kerb - not really mentionable.
I do not really like to use leisure=track
Amenity is the best fit for this tag.
I disagree. (Usually that just means I didn't find anything better)
+1
Amenity is very vague in general (), and a lot of things can be
marked as such. So I'd prefer to use it only when it's an obvious
choice or there is nothing better.
What about using
On February 7, 2015 10:41:17 AM CST, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Amenity is the best fit for this tag.
I disagree. (Usually that just means I didn't find anything
better)
+1
Amenity is very vague in general (), and a lot of things can be
marked as such. So I'd
On Sat, 2015-02-07 at 17:41 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
...
Amenity is very vague in general (), and a lot of things can be
marked as such. So I'd prefer to use it only when it's an obvious
choice or there is nothing better.
Well, while I agree that Amenity is pretty general, but
On 5/02/2015 12:04 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com
mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
You mean a one step? Like highway= x ?
To do that I'd think a new supper key waste= at the top level!
And maybe that is what it needs!
Actually, I was not referring to a new top level tag of waste=* but to
amenity=dump_point. I quoted from the previous post but that was very
misleading.
I wanted to avoid the proliferation of waste types that must be associated
with a new tag of waste=*
By more carefully defining only one tag,
On 8/02/2015 3:41 AM, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
Amenity is the best fit for this tag.
I disagree. (Usually that just means I didn't find anything better)
+1
Amenity is very vague in general (), and a lot of things can be
marked as such. So I'd prefer to use it only when it's an obvious
choice
On 7/02/2015 9:15 PM, Andreas Goss wrote:
Amenity is the best fit for this tag.
I disagree. (Usually that just means I didn't find anything better)
As this tag is always going to be used within another entity
Always is such a large word. What about a hut that is used only for
reception?
Hi,
We've have *:conditional=* which is useful to describe complex tagging
cases, however, it is not able to cover one particular case with spatially
distinct trigger. Lets look to this issue through two examples:
A) There's Vantaanjoki river that goes under a motorway. Alongside the
river
Maybe there is a need for something like… a tag for office=* which may cover
the different public or employee facing building types
where the common facilities you would find in each category would be taggable,
so you can tag a point or a building as certain types of facilities.
On 8/02/2015 1:18 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
Actually, I was not referring to a new top level tag of waste=* but to
amenity=dump_point. I quoted from the previous post but that was very
misleading.
I wanted to avoid the proliferation of waste types that must be
associated with a new tag of
15 matches
Mail list logo
