>> >
>> > What does "must_consume" mean?
>> >
>>
>> free_water=must_consume means exactly what it says. Anybody who
>> enters will be given free water and they MUST consume it. Or else. So
>> we need a tag to specify the punishment if they
Let me try to describe the basic problem: we are interpreting the key
"oneway" with two different meanings:
(1) "restrictions for the flow of vehicle-only traffic" for example in the
widely used case of mixed-use foot-cycle-ways that are one-way for
bicycles.
(2) "restrictions for the flow of any
unishment if they refuse to consume the
> free water (such as being ejected, fined, or killed).
>
> Not, in my opinion, a good value for the key.
>
> --
> Paul
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.op
Thank you for this clarification. I will try to repair the lots I have tagged.
Javbw
> On Jan 14, 2020, at 5:02 AM, Markus wrote:
>
> In order that data understand your example and before we've found a
> solution for parkings for multiple vehicle classes, i would recommend
> to tag it as follo
Le mar. 14 janv. 2020 à 01:33, Joseph Eisenberg
a écrit :
> > Debate is open about route=power which may be replaced by a more
> meaningful tag (power=circuit for instance)
>
> +1 to this idea of power=circuit. And then use "type=power" instead of
> "type=route" if you make a relation,
This is
To me, there are a few requirements of “designated” parking lots:
1) it is signed as such: "Cars go here and HGV go there” , “cars, right” and
“HGV, left”, directing you to different lots. Lots are labeled on signage
telling which vehicle types to go where (cars/HGV/motorcycle/ + disabled).
2
> Debate is open about route=power which may be replaced by a more meaningful
> tag (power=circuit for instance)
+1 to this idea of power=circuit. And then use "type=power" instead of
"type=route" if you make a relation, or if the circuit is less than a
few hundred nodes you could just use a line
> following this logics, "oneway:foot" means the oneway restriction applied to
> pedestrians, and the result would be no restriction, because "oneway" already
> has no implication for pedestrian
That "logic" is not logical. Why would another mapper or a database
user assume that? If I saw this t
Hi
Le lun. 13 janv. 2020 à 04:08, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Continuity can be had by the lines sharing a node. In the same way roads
> share a node to enable routing.
>
This is not a good idea since sometimes, lines sharing a node aren't
necessarily connected
https://upload.wikime
Bicycle or hiking routes in OSM that are not trailblazed have one big
drawback: they confuse data end users (they are looking for the signs, and
if there are none, think they have taken the wrong turn.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, 19:21 brad, wrote:
>
>
> On 1/12/20 4:23 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
>
free_water_table= or free_water:table= will be confusing for places
that sell take-out food and don't have tables, for examples small
fast-food restaurants, convenience shops, etc.
The word "customers" should be included, since what you are trying to
specify is that "you can only get free water if
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 20:52, Hauke Stieler wrote:
>
> What does "must_consume" mean?
>
free_water=must_consume means exactly what it says. Anybody who
enters will be given free water and they MUST consume it. Or else. So
we need a tag to specify the punishment if they refuse to consume the
f
Hi Stuart
> I could see :
> free_water =
> free_water:container =
> free_water:table=
If something is for the general public (= anyone) the value is usually
"yes" (as at the "access" tag [0]) and then there are further
restricting values (when there's a "yes" there's mostly at least also a
"no"
;official".
>
> Hauke
>
> -- next part --
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 833 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachm
Hi John
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 22:37, John Willis via Tagging
wrote:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.31737/139.61884
>
> Here is a good example of the kind of situations I have in my area:
>
> - a service area with two different lots, car and HGV (bus/lorry) adjacent to
> each other,
> exceptions), in Germany they will typically charge you 2,50 and more for
> just a glass of water. In Switzerland, they sell water for 5 SFR a bottle
> on the motorway, and 4 EUR and more is not unseen on German motorways as
> well.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
> -- nex
Hi Stuart,
> The proposal below does not seem optimal, but if that is what is decided
> we will write wiki instructions in this manner.
No decisions have been made so far. Currently all these mails just
contain ideas and discussions.
I'm personally a fan of the namespace scheme, the one with the
Hi Mateusz
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 17:06, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> There are some special traffic signals near me
>
> - usually flashing yellow, that has no meaning
> - turning red in case of an incoming
> special vehicle
>
> Special vehicle may be
>
> (1) emergency vehicle leaving fire depart
On 1/12/20 4:23 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Paris is the capital of France because it has all the main government
facilities: the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and most
ministries.
Routes that are mapped in Openstreetmap need to be signed or marked in
a visible way. Otherwise ev
>(a path is too narrow for a motorcar, so
That's a common misdescription. A track can't be so narrow a car wouldn't fit,
but most built highway=path ways are wider than that.
--
alv
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.open
In GB it is the law that licensed premises provide free drinking water.
So that , means all pubs, most restaurants and some cafes.
Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 17:29 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:
> While I understand your point of view, many are trying hard to change
> legislation and might see it as more than a marketing gimmick but rather a
> right to be able to drink without generating s
Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 17:08 Uhr schrieb Jmapb :
> IMO they're both ugly. Don't love -1, and don't love introducing a new
> backward/forward scheme with basically the same meaning and possibly
> ambiguous interactions with the older oneway scheme.
the idea that oneway is about "driving" and n
> > situation. "Just reverse the way" isn't a solution when it's forward
> > for one mode and backward for another.
> >
> > --
> > 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
&g
On 1/13/2020 9:43 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:21 AM Paul Allen wrote:
Not very intuitive but, perhaps in rare cases, necessary. What if the road is
one-way to both vehicles and pedestrians but vehicles go from A to B whilst
pedestrians go from B to A?
You beat me to it!
Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 13:21 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> That argument isn't convincing
>
> In Openstreetmap the keys are arbitrary strings; "oneway:foot" is no
> more relate to oneway than "not_oneway" or "phoneway".
>
Technically you are correct, but there a
There are some special traffic signals near me
- usually flashing yellow, that has no meaning
- turning red in case of an incoming
special vehicle
Special vehicle may be
(1) emergency vehicle leaving fire department
in this case it gets activated probably once or
twice a day
(2) tram on a leve
13 Jan 2020, 14:04 by europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com:
> Hello,
>
BTW, thanks for consulting with
us how to tag this feature!___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
gt;
> -- next part --
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 833 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/202001
oneway:foot=-1 would still work
(Like oneway=-1 is very rarely needed
for traffic allowed only in direction
opposite to way direction)
13 Jan 2020, 15:43 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:21 AM Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> Not very intuitive but, perhaps in rare cases, necessary
sent from a phone
> On 13. Jan 2020, at 14:07, European Water Project
> wrote:
>
> How about free_water_refill=yes free_water_table=yes ?
free_water_refill at a restaurant or cafe
to me sounds as if you must buy water and get refills for free
Maybe we would want to distinguish getting wate
On 1/13/2020 9:46 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
Personally, I have no problem with oneway=yes having different
implications depending on the value of the highway key. In general I
would expect the oneway value to align the predominant use of the
highway in question.
More specifi
>
> Personally, I have no problem with oneway=yes having different
> implications depending on the value of the highway key. In general I
> would expect the oneway value to align the predominant use of the
> highway in question.
>
> More specifically:
>
> - I would expect a oneway=yes tag apply t
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:21 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> Not very intuitive but, perhaps in rare cases, necessary. What if the road is
> one-way to both vehicles and pedestrians but vehicles go from A to B whilst
> pedestrians go from B to A?
You beat me to it!
I know I've seen a footway on the verg
> I suggest something like
"free_water:container=*" to make clear that the container "availability"
refers to the refill service.
+1
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Hi,
> This model is used for many other tags in OSM. One of the most
> fundamental tags, access=*, uses it to show "access only for customers"
> for example.
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dcustomers .
> free_water=customers would not look out of place at all in that list.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 11:36, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> I would prefer oneway:foot=yes or foot:oneway=yes - the meaning of
> this tag is obvios.
>
> "foot:backward=no" is not very intuitive.
>
Not very intuitive but, perhaps in rare cases, necessary. What if the road
is
one-way to both vehicles
> > Though I am unsure whatever tagging town square with mapped
> > amenity=drinking_water is a good idea.
> >
> >
> > > Referencing carafe is not a good plan; firstly that is the container,
> > not the contents and this proposal is about the contents. Secondly, many
That argument isn't convincing
In Openstreetmap the keys are arbitrary strings; "oneway:foot" is no
more relate to oneway than "not_oneway" or "phoneway".
I don't believe anyone will be confused by a tag like oneway:foot=yes,
but if you prefer, changing the order to foot:oneway=* makes it clear
t
Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> I would prefer oneway:foot=yes or foot:oneway=yes - the meaning of
> this tag is obvios.
>
> "foot:backward=no" is not very intuitive.
According to some contestants, the meaning isn't obvious, as there
On Monday 13 January 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization
> defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line
> joining Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina",
> which is what has been the case in OSM until
On 2020-01-13 12:18, European Water Project wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 1)
> free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and free_water=customers is
> very confusing and people will mis-tag free water for paying customers as
> free_water=yes
This model is used for many other tags in OSM. One of t
I would prefer oneway:foot=yes or foot:oneway=yes - the meaning of
this tag is obvios.
"foot:backward=no" is not very intuitive.
- Joseph Eisenberg
On 1/13/20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am So., 12. Jan. 2020 um 19:05 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
>
>> The OP
Am So., 12. Jan. 2020 um 19:05 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> The OP clearly defines the scope of his question with "pedestrian highways"
that's not clear at all, apparently it should not contain
highway=pedestrian but only (path, footway and track). Surely I wou
among rare ones, more likely to be unknown).
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/ecab19bc/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
&g
I’ve heard of places not refilling water bottles due to hygiene reasons
(whether that is a concern or not is a separate discussion) but will give a
glass of water to whoever asks. And on the opposite side, there are places that
will refill bottles but won’t give a glass a water.
> On 13 Jan 202
Ok, I checked the changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390
I doesn't look like the user who did the revert of the change was
intending to edit-war, but was instead responding to the appearance of
the Rio de la Plata being rendered as land on some map styles.
This always happens
It's fine for the area of the river (waterway=riverbank or
natural=water + water=river) to extend out to that line, but that's
the extreme limit of the estuary and it's part of the marine
environment.
The coastline should extend up higher to where the flow of the river
is consistenly stronger than
Hi,
it appears that once again mappers are in diasgreement about how to map
the Rio de la Plata, here
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/-35.154/-56.310
This is a disagreement that had already flared up three years ago, and
is now coming back.
According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrogr
13 Jan 2020, 10:42 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
>
> How about free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and
> free_water=customers if it is only available to paying customers?
>
>
+1
And free_water=no for explicit tagging of not providing a free water.
> I assume this could actually apply to
On 2020-01-13 09:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 09:25 Uhr schrieb Jake Edmonds via Tagging
> :
>
>> Do you have a suggestion Martin?
>
> maybe a generic
>
> amenity=bottle_return_machine ?
Why limit it to bottles? We don't do that with vending machines; Why do
it
On 2020-01-13 10:18, European Water Project wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I thought this subject could wait, but it is becoming pressing early than I
> expected.
>
> As part of our project (and that of similar non-profits - most of which are
> not open data but nevertheless great organisations),
I’m in support of something.
Did you speak to Refill about sharing data? I emailed them some time back but
never received a response
Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
> On 13 Jan 2020, at 10:20, European Water Project
> wrote:
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> I thought this subject could wait, but it
Dear All,
I thought this subject could wait, but it is becoming pressing early than I
expected.
As part of our project (and that of similar non-profits - most of which are
not open data but nevertheless great organisations), we want to voluntarily
encourage cafés, bars and restaurants to offer fr
Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 09:25 Uhr schrieb Jake Edmonds via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> Do you have a suggestion Martin?
maybe a generic
amenity=bottle_return_machine ?
could be used for all kind of machines that take bottles, and amended with
tags about the kind of bottles. It al
Do you have a suggestion Martin?
Maybe something like deposit_refund_system=yes could be applied to
amenity=recycling, amenity=shop and amenity=vending_machine +
vending=reverse_vending. deposit_refund_system:brands=* can specify the brands
> On 13 Jan 2020, at 07:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wr
56 matches
Mail list logo
