Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > Unfortunately, it might never happen because even with what I see as > crystal clear reasoning provided by Kevin, it's obvious to > me consensus will not be possible within the group. But should it somehow > come

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think the tagging on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424226491 > goes far enough. > There is no specific contact information for a permit. > Not all permits come from the land owners/controllers some come from >

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread Dave Swarthout
>To me access=public would be the same as access=yes - no permission required. Yes, for me too. That's not the point here. I merely said that by comparison, IMO, access=permit is more like access=public (or access=yes) than it is to access=private. If you think access=private is closer, so be it.

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread Warin
On 19-Sep-17 09:54 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: On 19-Sep-17 03:56 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: The real-life sign says, "Access by permit only, for information contact..." and that's what I

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19-Sep-17 03:56 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > The real-life sign says, "Access by permit only, for information > contact..." and that's what I propose to map! > > Yep. > I think the important thing is the contact information

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread Warin
On 19-Sep-17 03:56 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:37 PM, joost schouppe > wrote: That said, even if this hivemind of ours (and let me add to that "one of us, one of us, one of us") maybe does not like an

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On 19 September 2017 at 03:56, Kevin Kenny wrote: > What I wanted was much more minimalistic: "permission is needed to enter > here, but permission is ordinarily granted." > Kevin Would something simple like access=yes once approved (decription - you must apply for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Power Transformer extension

2017-09-18 Thread François Lacombe
HI, Voting on this proposal should be over next Thursday. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Transformer_extension_proposal#Voting Feel free to add your vote at the end of the document if you missed the initial announcement. All the best François *François Lacombe* fl

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:37 PM, joost schouppe wrote: > That said, even if this hivemind of ours (and let me add to that "one of > us, one of us, one of us") maybe does not like an extra value for the > access key, I see no reason why you would need to use another

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi! Thanks for the link to Low Emmision zone (LEZ) wiki. I've added a small entry for Spain. More information have to be added, but the webpage of Madrid city is uninformative -- that's the reason it has been awarded. -Jose M. El 18/9/2017 18:39, "joost schouppe"

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread joost schouppe
Kevin, What I wanted to make clear before is that you are not the only one who thinks access=permit could be useful. Also, don't make the mistake of conflating tagging and OSM-in-general opinion. That said, even if this hivemind of ours (and let me add to that "one of us, one of us, one of us")

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread Kevin Kenny
Going over old ground once more: The proposal is abandoned based on strong opposition from the community. I am told that access=permit is the same thing as access=private (which, as far as I can determine, is also no different from access=no). I accept that. Warin's opinion is an obvious

Re: [Tagging] Setting a preferred routing

2017-09-18 Thread Andre Engels
I would make it unclassified - more generally, in this kind of case I would put the old route at some lower highway level than the new route, exact value depending on the situation (both the relative quality of the roads and the presence or absence of destinations for which the old road would

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread joost schouppe
> Is access by permit not permissive access? No. According to the wiki permissive means "Open to general traffic until such time as the owner revokes the permission which they are legally allowed to do at any time in the future.", while permit means almost the opposite: "closed except for people

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread Philip Barnes
Is access by permit not permissive access? access=permissive, permissive=permit maybe. Fishing rights are very different to access and need to be treated as a separate issue. Phil (trigpoint) On 18 September 2017 13:20:41 BST, Dave Swarthout wrote: >>There are

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

2017-09-18 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi! A park with s Pool with lanes => sports_centre. A park with trampoline, ramps, pools=> water_park A park with umbrellas and a pool where you have to pay a fee to enter the park itself (so you have to map the park, its access and its access conditions)=> park??? It's ridiculous! That's why I

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread Dave Swarthout
>There are different difficulties of gaining a 'permit'. Some have a numerical limit, some a schedule, some are simply a paperwork exercise. >There are numerical limits on popular walking tracks to stop overuse (e.g. Milford Track New Zealand, Overland Track Australia). >A fair proportion of

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread joost schouppe
In Gent, Belgium, they would also have liked to use access=permit. There are some new situations there where you need a local government permit to pass certain "breakpoints" within the city. In the end, they used access=private because it was the tagging style that would be most useful to people

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

2017-09-18 Thread Warin
On 18-Sep-17 07:33 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:56:59 +0200 Selfish Seahorse wrote: On 18 September 2017 at 09:42, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: "sport=swimming for a centre containing one or more swimming pools that is mainly

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread Warin
On 18-Sep-17 04:47 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On 18 September 2017 at 14:55, Kevin Kenny > wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Dave Swarthout > wrote:

Re: [Tagging] Setting a preferred routing

2017-09-18 Thread André Pirard
Hi, Wouldn't it be appropriate for this kind of discussion to ask routing/GPS programmers like OSMand and Graphhopper etc. what they use for route optimization and what else they would like to use, hence us to do. I always say that the biggest routing problem (some people openly LOL at OSM

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants split

2017-09-18 Thread Moritz
Am 2017-09-16 19:19, schrieb Viking: Thank you for splitting it. I think it is worth to think about splitting the two proposals in a different way: One for adding new keys (like flow_rate, water_source) and the other one for migrating the fire_hydrant:* keys to something else. I see two

[Tagging] Cyphers on postal boxes

2017-09-18 Thread Andy Mabbett
We have royal_cypher= for United Kingdom and Commonwealth postal boxes, but some in Ireland, like the examples pictured at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_wallbox_SE_door.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Irish_post_box.jpg have a cypher or logo, that is not

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

2017-09-18 Thread Jean-Marc Liotier
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:56:59 +0200 Selfish Seahorse wrote: > > On 18 September 2017 at 09:42, Jean-Marc Liotier > wrote: > > "sport=swimming for a centre containing one or more swimming pools > > that is mainly focussed on swimming as a sport,

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

2017-09-18 Thread Jean-Marc Liotier
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:46:24 +0200 Frederik Ramm wrote: > > On 18.09.2017 09:42, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > > Whole facility: > > leisure=sports_center > > leisure=sports_centre (British English spelling) Thanks. And I don't even have an autocorrect to blame... On the

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

2017-09-18 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 18.09.2017 09:42, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > Whole facility: > leisure=sports_center leisure=sports_centre (British English spelling) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

2017-09-18 Thread Jean-Marc Liotier
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 18:20:44 +0200 Selfish Seahorse wrote: > > > The current situation of how public outdoor and indoor swimming pool > [..] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dsports_centre#Combinations "sport=swimming for a centre containing one or

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On 18 September 2017 at 14:55, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Dave Swarthout > wrote: > >> I'm trying to tag some stocked fishing ponds that reside on a military >> reservation in Alaska, Fort Greely. The ponds

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC - Magnetic Levitation Trains

2017-09-18 Thread Colin Smale
On 2017-09-18 07:49, Erkin Alp Güney wrote: > Maglev is intended for HST usage. Monorail is usually intended for urban > commutes. Different uses, different tagging. Maglev needs to render > prominently, urban monorail does not. But not by virtue of the technology. Maglev can be used for local