On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 11:58 AM Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The previous responses are focusing on the benefit of adding explicit tags
> in situations where the current tagging is ambiguous.
>
> Certainly there is a benefit of adding "oneway=no" on all two-way roads
>
sent from a phone
> On 20. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> Does anyone think that it is a good idea to add those two new tags in this
> particular situation?
utility=power seems to be a redundant concept in general (you can see which
kind of lines are attached - if they
sent from a phone
> On 20. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> Does anyone think that it is a good idea to add those two new tags in this
> particular situation?
while I am personally not unsatisfied with power=pole I could understand that
people who want to deprecate this t
The previous responses are focusing on the benefit of adding explicit tags
in situations where the current tagging is ambiguous.
Certainly there is a benefit of adding "oneway=no" on all two-way roads and
"oneway=yes" on motorways to make the situation explicit.
But the original question was abou
Thank you all for replies
Then the current proposal sounds to be ok regarding what is said upside.
I admit to automatically adding implied tags when importing data covered by
the proposal, so no apparent problem is mappers add them explicitly.
All the best
François
Le jeu. 17 sept. 2020 à 15:11
>To me it seems obvious that width values, independently on how they are
>measured, are at best estimates, as measuring them is in most cases
>dangerous or requires good technical equipment.
I don't think this is true anymore. Did you try out "Measure" or any other
ARCore/ARKit-based measuring a
