Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Leisure=Skatepark

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 01:03, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 09.12.2019 19:09, Paul Allen wrote: > > Where it does cause problems is for people using the query tool (or > > equivalent in things like maps.me ) being confused by > tennis pitches, shooting > > pitches, andthe like. > > I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Leisure=Skatepark

On 09.12.2019 19:09, Paul Allen wrote: On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 at 17:31, Tom Pfeifer mailto:t.pfei...@computer.org>> wrote: I'd prefer to keep it leisure=pitch, avoiding top-level tag fragmentation. Refinements about the sport definition can appear in the sport=* subtagging. I can understan

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Telecom distribution point

On 11/12/19 09:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 04:34, François Lacombe mailto:fl.infosrese...@gmail.com>> wrote: Basically, it's really simple : the first box in the street your home is connected on. If you don't find it, don't map it. There are places wher

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Telecom distribution point

sent from a phone > On 10. Dec 2019, at 23:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Should these pits be mapped under this scheme? can you tell which pit is the one where the last split takes place? Are they identifiable by looking at the cover? Then yes. Cheers Martin __

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

sent from a phone > On 10. Dec 2019, at 21:12, Allroads wrote: > > because of motorcar abuse, they wrote the controversy in it. A problem to be > solved. We all know how a wiki developed, evaluates, a few can change the > content. maybe only relative few are updating the wiki, but for a ta

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Telecom distribution point

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 04:34, François Lacombe wrote: > > Basically, it's really simple : the first box in the street your home is > connected on. If you don't find it, don't map it. > There are places where lines go out of homes from the roof and reach the > box on a pole in the street. > In a

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Telecom distribution point

10 Dec 2019, 19:33 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com: > This is unfortunate, RFC lasts for 7 months until now. With several > announcements and questions: > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045152.html > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-November/049373

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

>it really depends. I guess we agree that the meaning of tags in OSM is based >on their common usage, so motorcar=yes means an automobile (i.e. not including >for example busses or trucks), while motorcar=no means any multi-tracked >motorized vehicle is excluded (implies hgv=no, tourist_bus=no,

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Telecom distribution point

On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 at 18:34, François Lacombe wrote: Basically, it's really simple : the first box in the street your home is > connected on. If you don't find it, don't map it. There are places where > lines go out of homes from the roof and reach the box on a pole in the > street. > Do you c

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Telecom distribution point

Hi Jospeh, Le mar. 10 déc. 2019 à 07:34, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > I'm voting "no" because I do not see any discussion of this proposal > at this mailing list or on the wiki. Has it been discussed somewhere > else? The definition is not clear to me. > This is unfortunate, RFC lasts for 7 mon

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

Why should we need to tag the part of the path inside road area specifically (e.g. as footway=connection), but not the part of the track inside the road area? (e.g. as path=connection) Yes, why, that I asked myself too! Why, use it everywhere. It could be used everywhere. That is why we discuss

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

Am Di., 10. Dez. 2019 um 14:41 Uhr schrieb Allroads : > multi_tracked_motor_vehicle, solve the problem of abusive use of motorcar, > which is a personal car. Not a total group of vehicles on two wheels. > Major > hierarchy impact for routing systems. > it really depends. I guess we agree that th

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

Together with the introduction of the new tag, would it also be possible to have a new access category tag that contains all singe-tracked motorized vehicles? The hierarchy in access is important, very important for routing. (their scripts). Changing, hierarchy have a major impact!! The hiera

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

Am Di., 10. Dez. 2019 um 13:53 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > ... and in Italy you would have to group the latter three together and > send them on the road. Only bicycles and pedelecs, but not S-pedelecs can > use cycleways. And then there are cities that allow e-scooters on > cycleways, and othe

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

... and in Italy you would have to group the latter three together and send them on the road. Only bicycles and pedelecs, but not S-pedelecs can use cycleways. And then there are cities that allow e-scooters on cycleways, and others that don't. On Tue, 10 Dec 2019, 12:15 s8evq, wrote: > Together

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

Together with the introduction of the new tag, would it also be possible to have a new access category tag that contains all singe-tracked motorized vehicles? Or perhaps an access category that combines moped and mofa? Use case: If there's a oneway street in Belgium where bicycles, speedpedele

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Leisure=Skatepark

Am Mo., 9. Dez. 2019 um 18:31 Uhr schrieb Tom Pfeifer < t.pfei...@computer.org>: > On 09.12.2019 03:13, Scott via Tagging wrote: > > Description: An area designated and equipped for skateboarding, in-line > skating, BMX'ing, or scootering. > > > > Proposal for fixing improper definition of sport=s

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Telecom distribution point

On 10/12/19 17:33, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: I'm voting "no" because I do not see any discussion of this proposal at this mailing list or on the wiki. Has it been discussed somewhere else? The definition is not clear to me. The page says this is for mapping a "piece of equipment allowing to connec