Re: [Tagging] Advertising redefinitions in the wiki

Hi, On 08.04.2017 16:26, Tobias Knerr wrote: > On 06.04.2017 13:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> indeed, the original proposal had no mention of "size" > > This is only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, pretty much all > advertising-related pages have undergone broad changes compared to what >

Re: [Tagging] railway=level_crossing with in-street trams?

On 4/8/2017 10:31 AM, Tristan Anderson wrote: Where a tram line shares a right-of-way with the street, that is, where I can drive my car down the tracks, no crossing tag is necessary as the whole street is one big level crossing. Where it's separate, railway=level_crossing should be used. There

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 4:41 AM, yo paseopor wrote: > It is not the easiest way of the World...but it is not the most > complicated. First we think to start of the best aproximation: the REAL > aproximation so: > -If the marks are only marks and not physically separation...don't > separate in diff

Re: [Tagging] railway=level_crossing with in-street trams?

Where a tram line shares a right-of-way with the street, that is, where I can drive my car down the tracks, no crossing tag is necessary as the whole street is one big level crossing. Where it's separate, railway=level_crossing should be used. There is no need to specify a tram crossing as thi

[Tagging] Advertising redefinitions in the wiki (was: Re: message=*)

On 06.04.2017 13:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: indeed, the original proposal had no mention of "size" This is only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, pretty much all advertising-related pages have undergone broad changes compared to what was originally proposed. A while ago, I raised the issue

Re: [Tagging] message=*

On 04/06/2017 at 13:19, Warin wrote : And the 'advertising' has a few problems too ... why 'size'? Why not just use the existing height and width keys ? To answer this question, we need for advertising devices to give the dimension (or the s

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

Ok, It is not the easiest way of the World...but it is not the most complicated. First we think to start of the best aproximation: the REAL aproximation so: -If the marks are only marks and not physically separation...don't separate in different ways...because is not REAL. -If the way is double dir

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

On 08-Apr-17 04:42 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 7. Apr 2017, at 23:41, Tom Pfeifer wrote: I think the conclusion was to keep landuse=forest and the dicussion forked into subtagging of crops. you can distinguish different states also with "landcover" Not if harvest