Re: [Tagging] Sharps / syringe disposal

2019-02-23 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 at 02:28, Markus wrote: > Do you or someone else happen to know what is allowed to throw into a bin > labelled 'syringes'? I would have guessed needles and ampoules, but no > other sharp waste such as scalpels. > Bins in public areas (parks, public toilets etc) are intended

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-02-23 Thread Paul Allen
On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 23:33, Hufkratzer wrote: > On 23.02.2019 18:47, Paul Allen wrote: > > [...] As I see it, ditches are unlined. [...] > > > I googled for "ditch lining irrigation" and got these examples for lined > ditches: > > - >

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-02-23 Thread Hufkratzer
On 23.02.2019 18:47, Paul Allen wrote: [...] As I see it, ditches are unlined. [...] I googled for "ditch lining irrigation" and got these examples for lined ditches: - http://www.northwestlinings.com/services-available/installation-services/irrigation-ditch-liner-system/ -

Re: [Tagging] Sharps / syringe disposal

2019-02-23 Thread seirra blake
hi! I haven't been following this too attentively so apologies if it's already established, but I'm in UK, I asked my GP and they advised me to not attempt attaching the needle and thus put the needle attached to the syringe in the box (to avoid accidental injury from removing the needle)

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Key:access=restricted

2019-02-23 Thread Markus
Hi! On Sat, 23 Feb 2019, 18:55 henkevdb, wrote: > Possibility to 'introduce' a Key:access=restricted > ... with > description ; *traffic only open for mentioned*=yes* . > > Could be a simple 'replacement' for several others, like

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Key:access=restricted

2019-02-23 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
Reposting to mailing list, after henkevdb sent to my personal email On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 14:16, henkevdb wrote: > watercourses ( in Belgium anyway) are (mostly) open to the 'general > public', so , access=no (with description ; "No access for the general > public.") is not good then Don't set

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Key:access=restricted

2019-02-23 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 12:54, henkevdb wrote: > Possibility to 'introduce' a Key:access=restricted ... with description ; > traffic only open for mentioned*=yes . IMHO: What is the advantage over using access=no? access=no already compounds like this. This also works in parallel with existing

[Tagging] Proposal - Key:access=restricted

2019-02-23 Thread henkevdb
Possibility to 'introduce' a Key:access=restricted ... with description ; /*traffic only open for mentioned*=yes*/ . Could be a simple 'replacement' for several others, like i.e. ; access=restricted + agricultural=yes (because 

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-02-23 Thread Paul Allen
On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 17:19, Hufkratzer wrote: > > Irrigate with drains? This was the original question of the whole ditch > vs. drain discussion (see > ( > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/042047.html). > > It seems to be a contradiction to what wikipedia explains

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-02-23 Thread Hufkratzer
On 23.02.2019 00:09, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > [...] > =drain: Use waterway=drain for artificial waterways, typically lined with concrete or similar, usually used to carry water for drainage or irrigation purposes. > [...] Irrigate with drains? This was the original question of the whole

Re: [Tagging] Sharps / syringe disposal

2019-02-23 Thread Markus
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, 09:39 Joseph Eisenberg, wrote: > I’m a physician. Sharps boxes are designed for safe disposal of all sharp > medical waste, whether a scalpel, needle or broken glass. > Thanks for your confirmation. Syringes are not sharp. It’s the needle (which may be attached to a >

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-23 Thread Andy Townsend
On 23/02/2019 15:35, Greg Troxel wrote: ... But we don't have primary_residential primary_not_residential even though in the US that makes just as much sense as level5_residential and level5_not_residential. OSM sort-of did have that a very long time ago.  The "abutters" key was used

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-23 Thread Greg Troxel
Peter Elderson writes: > I was thinking further about the idea that came up here: deduct road type > from the landuse=residential. It's different than current usage, and I dont > think it is feasable. I did not mean "deduce road type". What I meant is that if a road is at the lowest level of

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-23 Thread Dave Swarthout
> Most residential roads now are tagged as unclassified, I just > have to list them, determine if the default fits, then retag them as > highway=road. Andy replied: "Tagging roads that you know well as "highway=road" sounds like a mistake" +1 I agree. Tagging highway=road means: I don't have

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-23 Thread Peter Elderson
I was thinking further about the idea that came up here: deduct road type from the landuse=residential. It's different than current usage, and I dont think it is feasable. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op za 23 feb. 2019 om 14:02 schreef Andy Townsend : > On 23/02/2019 11:36, Peter Elderson wrote: > >

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-23 Thread Andy Townsend
On 23/02/2019 11:36, Peter Elderson wrote: The tagging scheme should have a clear intention to facilitate rendering and routing. Then renderers and routers know what there is, so they can decide how to handle it. To be clear, "highway=road" is used when it _isn't_ clear what the

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-23 Thread Peter Elderson
The tagging scheme should have a clear intention to facilitate rendering and routing. Then renderers and routers know what there is, so they can decide how to handle it. If residential area means that road class is highway=residential unless taggted otherwise, that should be made very clear. At

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-23 Thread Andy Townsend
On 23/02/2019 10:11, Peter Elderson wrote: In this scheme, a highway=road (no classification) within a residential area would (after long dicussions and heavily debated pull requests) be displayed and routed as (currently) a highway=residential? It depends on the renderer and depends on the

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-23 Thread Peter Elderson
In this scheme, a highway=road (no classification) within a residential area would (after long dicussions and heavily debated pull requests) be displayed and routed as (currently) a highway=residential? Vr gr Peter Elderson Op za 23 feb. 2019 om 09:46 schreef Jan S : > > > Am 23. Februar 2019

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-23 Thread Jan S
Am 23. Februar 2019 03:47:50 MEZ schrieb Greg Troxel : >Really the notion of "unclassified" is odd, and it probably should be >"quaternary". Arguably residential should then be highway=level5, >regardless of housing, and perhaps some tag on all highways about >residential or not - but as I