Re: [Tagging] service = parking_access for main ways on a parking lot

> On Mar 26, 2016, at 4:56 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > Tom Pfeifer writes: > >> The qualifier service=parking_aisle was originally introduced [1] to >> structure car parks with a few main access ways and lots of small aisles, >> to avoid clutter in

Re: [Tagging] service = parking_access for main ways on a parking lot

Tom Pfeifer writes: > The qualifier service=parking_aisle was originally introduced [1] to > structure car parks with a few main access ways and lots of small aisles, > to avoid clutter in lower zoom levels. > > It is highly successful with over 2 Mio uses. > > The

Re: [Tagging] Tagging parade_ground?

On 26/03/2016 7:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone Am 26.03.2016 um 08:40 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: Would landuse=parade_ground be suitable.. or is there any other idea? can you describe a bit more what this looks like, and how it is exactly used? Is this a

[Tagging] How to tag a natural, man-organised feature?

Hello, there. I'm wondering: there are tons of natural features that have been modified or organized by humans, like springs which emerge in man-made ponds. Is there a tag used to model this organization, like organised=yes? Awaiting your answers, Regards.

Re: [Tagging] service = parking_access for main ways on a parking lot

Am 26.03.2016 um 17:15 schrieb Tom Pfeifer : Thus I would like to use a different qualifier for those ways entering the lot and connecting the aisles, e.g. service=parking_access. This does not break any consumer, is not used so far (ok, once, exactly for the purpose),

Re: [Tagging] service = parking_access for main ways on a parking lot

Gets my vote. On 2016-03-26 17:15, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > The qualifier service=parking_aisle was originally introduced [1 [1]] to > structure car parks with a few main access ways and lots of small aisles, > to avoid clutter in lower zoom levels. > > It is highly successful with over 2 Mio

Re: [Tagging] service = parking_access for main ways on a parking lot

sent from a phone > Am 26.03.2016 um 17:15 schrieb Tom Pfeifer : > > Thus I would like to use a different qualifier for those ways entering > the lot and connecting the aisles, e.g. service=parking_access. > > This does not break any consumer, is not used so far (ok,

[Tagging] service = parking_access for main ways on a parking lot

The qualifier service=parking_aisle was originally introduced [1] to structure car parks with a few main access ways and lots of small aisles, to avoid clutter in lower zoom levels. It is highly successful with over 2 Mio uses. The description says that, however "The main way(s) on the parking

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

Colin Smale wrote on 2016/03/26 15:45: The status should in some way make it clear to people who use the wiki as a tagging reference whether the contents of the page should be taken into account or not. If the proposal has been "abandoned" but what is suggests has nonetheless entered wider

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

The status should in some way make it clear to people who use the wiki as a tagging reference whether the contents of the page should be taken into account or not. If the proposal has been "abandoned" but what is suggests has nonetheless entered wider usage, then it is de facto accepted by the

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2016/03/26 12:49: Am 26.03.2016 um 11:49 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : "what would be a reasonable threshold" - no edits in this or previous year is my typical method to recognise something on internet as dead. but wouldn't it be necessary to

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 06:17:52AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Alan McConchie wrote: > > access=no is absolutely a core tag within OSM, dating back to the very first > iteration of Map Features. It isn't "easily ignored". Any router which > ignores it is unambiguously bugged. Any renderer

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

Alan McConchie wrote: > Some commenters have suggested using the existing highway=path tag, > with supplemental tags such as access=no or informal=yes, or a new > supplemental tag path=social_trail, or adding an operator tag. However, > these supplemental tags are too easily ignored by data

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi Alan, Am 25.03.2016 um 23:54 schrieb Alan McConchie: > I’d like to solicit comments on the following proposal, to create a > new tag called "highway=social_path" > > Wiki page is here: >

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

sent from a phone > Am 26.03.2016 um 11:49 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : > > "what would be a reasonable threshold" - no edits in this or previous > year is my typical method to recognise something on internet as dead. but wouldn't it be necessary to look at actual map

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 11:06:34 +0100 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I wonder what others think about changing the status of proposals in > draft mode to abandoned in the wiki. Is this something we want > everyone to do after a certain time, or should this be reserved to > the

[Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

I wonder what others think about changing the status of proposals in draft mode to abandoned in the wiki. Is this something we want everyone to do after a certain time, or should this be reserved to the original proponent? Would the situation be different if the status wasn't draft but proposed?

Re: [Tagging] Tagging parade_ground?

sent from a phone > Am 26.03.2016 um 08:40 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > Would landuse=parade_ground be suitable.. or is there any other idea? can you describe a bit more what this looks like, and how it is exactly used? Is this a piece of city where parades will occasionally

[Tagging] Tagging parade_ground?

Hi, I have come across a parade ground for Police - thus not military ... There are a few instances of military=parade_ground ... but this is not military.. Would landuse=parade_ground be suitable.. or is there any other idea? ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 15:54:31 -0700 Alan McConchie wrote: > Note: As an experiment, we tagged 17 features in Marin County, > California, as highway=social_path, but these have subsequently been > re-tagged as highway=path, access=no Well, highway=path, access=no is

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

sent from a phone > Am 25.03.2016 um 23:54 schrieb Alan McConchie : > > We propose the "social_path" value to mark so-called social trails (also > known as bootleg trails or desire lines): game trails, detours, or short-cuts > that have seen sufficient pedestrian