y calls only" in such cases. Circuits towards the
>emergency number are also much higher prioritized, so when the line
>seems busy otherwise or produces unusable quality and drop-outs,
>emergency calls will still be more usable (with sufficient coverage of
>course).
>
>On Mon
Two users on the same network standing next to each other can get different
results. They may be connected to different base stations. CDMA is a whole
other can of worms.
There are so many variables, it's impossible to give detailed data for "cell
phone reception at location X". But the
UK native here...
Looking at the vehicles, a bus would be more spartan, set up for fare
collection, doors for speedy un/loading etc whereas a coach would almost always
have only a single door (although some have more), be more luxurious, be
equipped with seat belts etc. In bus-lover-land there
On 2 February 2023 09:59:01 CET, Philip Barnes wrote:
>A mini roundabout often doesn't usually have a diameter. Most are jus normal
>junctions which have been made mini-roundabouts to set a priority.
You mean they don't have a diameter because they are not even close to being
circular?
In
And, I would add, exceptional transports of up to maybe 100 tons or more may
get one time permissions to use the road, possibly involving removing street
furniture to enable the manoeuvre. Changing the physical dimensions of the
carriageway is a bit more difficult though.
On 2 February 2023
The "Priority to the right" rule doesn't cover everything. Imagine a junction
with two cars coming simultaneously from side roads on opposite sides of
another road at right angles. Both want to leave the junction on the orthogonal
road, in the same direction. One is making a right turn, and the
a junction. It needs the geometry of the junction, but of course it also
needs to know a lot more about the vehicle itself which is way beyond OSM.
By the way, I live in NL and my son is a traffic policeman...
> On 29/01/2023 00:17 CET Peter Elderson wrote:
>
>
> Op
Generalising for all roundabouts, I propose a model in which there are three
diameters:
D1) outer diameter, where the outer kerb is
D2) "guide" inner diameter, the outer diameter of the inner ring intended to
"discourage" traffic
D3) inner diameter, where the inner kerb or wall is (not
Psychologists and psychotherapists are different things...
On 25 January 2023 23:00:59 CET, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 02:51, Daniel Bégin wrote:
>
>> and office=psychologist because they provide services.
>>
>
>I would usually use healthcare=psychotherapist for them.
>
On 2020-12-13 21:53, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Just to clarify:
>> crossing=priority Indicates that the node is a pedestrian crossing
> when applied to highway=cycleway, should this read bicycle crossing?
>
> when applied to a highway=cycleway, does the tag imply priority for cyclists,
On 2020-12-01 11:14, Warin wrote:
> The differences are less than 10m. (The points of the green track are where
> data exists, the straight lines between those points simply connect the
> measured points. )
>
> The 'simplify way' in JOSM is normal set for a maximum difference of 3m as a
>
On 2020-11-18 21:31, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Consider that the natural=coastline is defined as representing the mean high
> water springs line, that is, the line of the highest tides.
Sorry to pick nits, but tides can be higher than MHWS; the "mean"
implies a long-term average, which will
On 2020-10-25 15:47, Allroads wrote:
> All landuse what is used for legally public roads, laid down in a zoning plan
> by the Government "bestemmingsplan" should be called landuse=highway no,
> because the content of a bestemmingsplan is what is politically desired and
> legally permitted, it
On 2020-10-21 10:59, Robert Delmenico wrote:
> I'll do some more research before the vote goes ahead. I've read quite a bit
> of research around gendered language since first mentioning this idea.
>
> I'll be sure to list them in the proposal but feel free to send through any
> sources that
Hi Lukas,
You do realise that all electricity is the same, irrespective of how it
is generated? The "greenness" or otherwise is not determined by the
connection, but by the subscription/contract that the consumer has with
their supplier.
UNLESS they have a standalone generating capability,
On 2020-08-18 22:39, Clay Smalley wrote:
> If you
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 12:51 PM Colin Smale wrote:
>
> On 2020-08-18 20:55, Clay Smalley wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:26 AM Colin Smale wrote:
> There are two use cases here: one is "what is
On 2020-08-18 20:55, Clay Smalley wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:26 AM Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> There are two use cases here: one is "what is the address of this building
>> (or whatever)" and the other is the reverse situation: "where can I find
&
On 2020-08-18 16:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 18. Aug 2020, at 05:34, Paul White wrote:
>>
>> I wanted to raise a concern about tagging house numbers on a building using
>> a hyphen to denote the address range (e.g 33-55 Main Street).
> It's their address, and I
On 2020-08-17 00:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 16. Aug 2020, at 15:26, dktue wrote:
>
>> Ok, then I'm going to edit the wiki [1] now.
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aerialway=station
>
> sorry for this late comment, but maybe it would be
Nope You can't have a mid terminal, by definition. And as "terminal"
is used with similar semantics to "station" here, if you start with
aerialway:station you don't need to include "terminal" or "station" in
the value as well.
That web page doesn't refer at all to the "top station" or the
riately.
> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26746748
> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/293382166
>
> Am 15.08.2020 um 15:03 schrieb Colin Smale:
>
> It seems we can't even agree on what question to ask an "expert". @dktue I
> think you started this discuss
It seems we can't even agree on what question to ask an "expert". @dktue
I think you started this discussion... What was your intention at the
time? Was it "how do we identify top/bottom stations on a cable car"? If
you ask an "expert" you might get an answer involving the project
numbers for the
Yes, I object to the specific values, as I (and others) said earlier.
The use of "base" and "head" is not intuitive and will lead to confusion
and errors amongst non-fluent English speakers. More basic words like
"top" and "bottom", or maybe "upper" and "lower", are preferable.
You can/should
We really should avoid words like "usually. " If there exceptions to the
elevation critérium, or if other factors are significant in working out the
correct value, then this also needs documenting...
On 14 August 2020 17:05:37 CEST, dktue wrote:
>Am 14.08.2020 um 16:37 schrieb yvecai:
>>
>>
On 2020-08-14 13:55, dktue wrote:
> Am 14.08.2020 um 13:34 schrieb Colin Smale:
>
> On 2020-08-14 13:14, dktue wrote:
> Am 14.08.2020 um 13:11 schrieb Yves: Base / mid / head? I'm definitely open
> for that! :-)
OK, two people agree on the strings to use, but what are the
On 2020-08-14 13:14, dktue wrote:
> Am 14.08.2020 um 13:11 schrieb Yves:
>
>> Base / mid / head?
> I'm definitely open for that! :-)
OK, two people agree on the strings to use, but what are the semantics?
What sentence would go in the wiki to describe a) when to use the value
and b) what the
On 2020-08-13 19:41, Yves wrote:
> If top, middle, bottom have a meaning for the OP, I'm not sure it's really
> general, counter-examples have been given.
It's not the OP's private project, there is a reason why this is being
debated in public.
> To avoid confusion with elevation, what would
On 2020-08-13 18:35, Werner.Haag@leitstelle.tirol wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in my opinion (i think dktue is right there) it should be easy for a user to
> distinguish or extract (overpass query) the upper, mid and lower stations.
> That´s not possible at the moment in OSM. Elevation (ele tag) may be
On 2020-08-13 14:49, dktue wrote:
> I think it's easy for a mapper to determine if a station is a bottom_station
> or a upper_station even if he doesn't know the exact elevation.
I would advise against such generalisations - it depends so much on the
circumstances and the mapper in question.
On 2020-08-13 14:07, dktue wrote:
> I think that it's quite hard for data consumers (again: think of an
> overpass-query to find all mid-stations) to determine which role a station
> has. Like Martin said: Why not just solve the (huge!) special case of
> mountain aerialways where we really
So what is wrong with ele=* on the stations and the topography of the
line? Completely (for OSM purposes) objective and uncontroversial. The
data consumer/renderer can make their own mind up about nomenclature.
Many of these lifts go up to go down, or go down to go up, as they cross
ridges and
On 2020-08-07 11:18, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Friday 07 August 2020, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> The word "ocean" is already subjective... [...]
>
> Oh please. Not again another attempt to deflect into a discussion of
> language semantics
Completely the oth
On 2020-08-07 12:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> Aug 7, 2020, 11:36 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
>
> On 2020-08-07 11:18, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> That digital maps have - based on the precedent set by
> Google - almost universally ignored this fact does not change it.
>
> You
On 2020-08-07 09:27, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>> I concur with a lot of your observations and like you i had essentially
>> given up on the idea of the coastline representing meaningful
>> information in the long term. But considering this is a very sad
>> conclusion which essentially means
On 2020-08-04 22:46, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 19:54, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
>> Similarly, should Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay be mapped as
>> natural=water + water=river? These are also estuaries.
>
> I suspect the answer is contained within the question. We have
On 2020-08-04 17:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> +1, similarly in Italy, the baseline is defined through (relatively few)
> coordinates in a law, which is located always on the most outer points of the
> land or on islands, it has few to do with the coastline. For example the Gulf
> of
On 2020-08-04 10:06, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> I'd suggest that if you vote no, it will be helpful for the community if you
> could elaborate on why you're voting no, without enforcing a reason as
> mandatory. Is it because this feature shouldn't be mapped, is it because
> there is an alternative
Hi Garry,
On 2020-06-13 18:49, Garry Keenor wrote:
> Also, there are only 2 networks that I can identify worldwide that are 4th
> rail, and I've tagged them both already. :-)
You may have missed one I just discovered that the LIM lines of
SkyTrain (Vancouver) have some kind of 4-rail
On 2020-07-30 15:05, Alan Mackie wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 13:35, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> On 2020-07-30 14:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:You might not like it, but the EU
>> is already a super-state that acts as one, with a federation of states
>> below. I know the
On 2020-07-30 14:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 30.07.20 13:32, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> The EU is «composed-of» whole member states. It has all the attributes
>> of a governmental administrative body - with the executive, parliament
>> and justicial branch
On 2020-06-13 18:58, Garry Keenor wrote:
> Colin,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> I want to clear one very important thing up. The tag electrified=* is
> currently being used in OSM to define the *contact system* in use, not the
> power supply. All railway electrification systems require
On 2020-06-11 13:36, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 12:30, Peter Neale via Tagging
> wrote:
>
>> ...or (almost getting serious now) we could just assume that, if the 3rd
>> rail is mentioned, then the 1st and 2nd must be there (otherwise it wouldn't
>> be 3rd rail) and, if the
On 2020-06-11 13:28, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote:
> At the risk of being called pedantic, or frivolous, surely it should be,
> "1st+2nd+3rd+4th rail" (after all, it won't work without the 1st and 2nd
> rails)!
>
> ...or (almost getting serious now) we could just assume that, if the 3rd rail
Hi Garry, thanks for your reply. I am pleased to hear that the "related
issues" are already on the radar and I am more than happy to see them in
a following proposal.
One thought about 3rd_rail/4th_rail vs 3rail/4rail: The term "4th rail"
is actually semantically incorrect, and should really be
When I just checked around Gunnersbury I noticed that someone is already
retagging the London Underground to electrified=4th_rail so this
discussion is probably already irrelevant
On 2020-06-09 23:12, Michael Reichert wrote:
> Hi Colin,
>
> Am 09/06/2020 um 15.36 schrieb Co
Great idea. Not sure about using "3rd" and "4th" though - it's a bit
tightly coupled to the English language and possibly prone to error.
Wouldn't "3rail" and "4rail" fit the bill?
Actually, as electrified=rail is so widely used at present, how about
making that explicitly "3rd rail" and
On 2020-06-01 15:05, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 5:49 AM Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> IIRC Indian Reservations can, and do, cross state boundaries, in which case
>> they don't fit in this hierarchy. Or am I wrong here?
>
> Some do. The only one of New York'
On 2020-06-01 02:49, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> I don't map special-purpose administrative districts, of which New
> York has a whole menagerie. I don't object if others do, but don't try
> to fit them into the boundary=administrative hierarchy. They don't
> go. In New York, the admin_levels are as
On 2020-06-01 08:14, Kovoschiz wrote:
>> would instead be distinguished by additional tags e.g.
> `boundary=administrative + administrative=police`
>
> New `boundary=*` relations (there are a lot of values
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/boundary#values) could be proposed
> for these
On 2020-05-29 15:46, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:32 AM Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> In the UK (especially Scotland) land ownership is pretty absolute. Every bit
>> of land is owned by someone, even if that owner is The Crown. The owner has
>> an absolut
On 2020-05-29 14:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> On 29. May 2020, at 12:57, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I think I had a different photo in mind. It's pretty clear that the
>> footway is associated with the road, so if you have access to the road, you
>> ca
On 2020-05-29 13:27, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 11:32, Colin Smale wrote:
> [lengthy snip]
>
>> You refer to a specific case - "when visiting the house". It would be
>> unlawful if you were just out for a stroll, without the intention of
On 2020-05-29 12:38, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Fr., 29. Mai 2020 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale
> :
>
> On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote:
>
> Here's an example for such a situation:
> (9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_single-family_hom
On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote:
> Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> [...] So it would sound reasonable to me that, if your
>> letterbox is in your front door, you accept that the postman can pass
>> over your land to fulfil his legal duty.
>
> Sure. But ac
Hi Arne,
On 2020-05-28 02:36, Arne Johannessen wrote:
> Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> In the UK simple trespass to land is not illegal, it is for the landowner to
>> claim under civil law: "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the
>> immediate and ex
On 2020-05-27 08:17, Arne Johannessen wrote:
> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: May 26,
> 2020, 08:28 by a...@thaw.de: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
> Maybe it can be argued that there is implicit permission for delivery
> services?
> My uncle has farm, with clearly private
On 2020-05-26 19:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> May 26, 2020, 19:19 by f...@zz.de:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
> May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
>
>> Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding
>>
On 2020-05-25 14:58, Marc M. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> following a small thread on irc, I have review 20 usage of admin_level=1
> all are mistakes, often by new mapper
> for ex https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/779838275
> is there a case of real use of admin_level=1?
> wiki only said that UE isn't a
On 2020-05-25 10:39, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:48:20AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
>> Wrong tagging is not interesting by itself.
>>
>> I was looking for real-world situation where
>>
>> (1) there is some seemingly good overcomplicated tagging
>>
On 2020-05-25 07:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> This was originally sent to the Talk mailing list, but it is better if it is
> discussed on the Tagging mailing list:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> I agree that razed, completely demolished railways, where all traces of
On 2020-05-14 14:07, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 12:58, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
>>> On 14. May 2020, at 13:16, Paul Allen wrote:
>>>
>>> It makes it more difficult to the extent that a decision has to be made as
>>> to
>>> whether we treat the NHS in the UK as a whole
On 2020-05-14 13:15, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 11:21, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> [Sub-divisions of health boards in Wales]
>
>> I am sure someone knows where the boundaries are.
>
> Yes, But that doesn't mean they're making the information public. I ha
On 2020-05-14 11:49, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> In the UK there are multiple hierarchies of geographic areas, for widely
>> differing purposes, that frequently (but not always and not necessarily)
>> share borders. Fo
On 2020-05-14 04:02, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Agreed with Phake, any boundary that's used for administrative purposes could
> be included, that's what I understand from
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative. That
> doesn't mean that each area needs to have it's own
On 2020-05-13 10:20, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On 5/12/20 17:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>> I'd really like somebody to come up with simple definitions of
>>
>> mappers,
>>
>> data consumers / customers,
>>
>> users?
>
> I'd consider "user" and "data consumer" to be the same thing (but
On 2020-05-12 12:58, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 11:43, Sören alias Valor Naram
> wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>> I am a "data customer", see https://babykarte.OpenStreetMap.de . That's why
>> I initiated this discussion because this is important for me. But mappers
>> are not
On 2020-05-08 18:01, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I think we now know that the existing datums don't differ much from WGS84
> except Belgium, and given the EVRF2007 datum, it seems clear that Belgium now
> will have that and the old one, differing by 2m.
> Hence the thing we need to know, we don't, in
The subject of a vote should not be amendable. All the discussions,
debates, consideration of alternatives etc should be BEFORE the proposal
is put to the vote. If a vote fails, THEN the proposal might be amended
and submitted again - but this has to be subject to some time
constraints such as not
On 2020-05-08 14:09, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer writes:
>
> Am Fr., 8. Mai 2020 um 03:22 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel :
>
> 3) Look up the data sheet and mark it as ele:datum=NGVD29 or
> ele:datum=NAVD88 as it turns out.
> IIRR, in another mail, you wrote that the difference between
On 2020-05-06 17:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> what are the requirements, do you require the sound coming from actual bells,
> or would a recording of bells playing from loudspeakers qualify as well?
> Midi-generated sounds?
Sorry to nit-pick, but Midi doesn't generate sounds, it commands
On 2020-05-04 09:10, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Thanks for explaining why my android phone says I am at +38m (+/- 3) in my
> backyard when in fact it is at Dutch sea level -4.4m.
GPS receivers, including Android phones, should adjust the GPS WSG84
height to "sea level". But the vertical accuracy
On 2020-05-03 13:05, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Martin
> I am not an expert, but it looks as if the Wiki page Key:ele [1] is not
> up-to-date.
> I thought that WGS84 uses the EGM96 Geoid, named "WGS84 EGM96 Geoid". Hence
> there should be no difference between WGS84 and EGM96 elevations.
>
>
On 2020-04-05 21:16, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 05/04/2020 16:36, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:Can someone confirm if
> "urgent_care" makes sense in British English,
> rather than "walk-in" or something else?
>
> I'm English, and I would not know what "urgent_care" meant. After reading the
> wiki
On 2020-02-27 10:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> 27 Feb 2020, 09:55 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
>
>> If it was semantically important, we should be scanning for and flagging up
>> waterways with out-of-order ways.The fact that we are not, shows that the
>> ordering of the ways is not
On 2020-02-27 01:47, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> When you make or sort a relation of type=waterway, do you check if the
> source or mouth of the river is first on the list of ways?
>
> Another user just suggested that the spring/source of the waterway
> should start the list, then the mouth of the
On 2020-01-27 13:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 13:11 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale
> :
>
>> OSM clearly associates coastline with high water:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Coastline
>>
>> If the admin boundaries are very cl
On 2020-01-27 12:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 11:21 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale
> :
>
>> However, practically this leeds to ambiguous situations, where for example
>> admin_level=4 is added to islands and might be misinterpreted as
>> admini
On 2020-01-27 10:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I wonder what is the current state of admin_level on ways, in particular with
> respect to osm-carto. Historically, the recommendation was to add the lowest
> admin_level additionally to the ways that are part of admin relations (to
> help
On 2020-01-15 14:05, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 January 2020, Colin Smale wrote: On 2020-01-15 13:52, Lionel
> Giard wrote:
>
> Yes this is something you can do with any distance algorithm in available in
> any GIS tool. That's not something that i would ever map a
On 2020-01-15 13:52, Lionel Giard wrote:
> Yes this is something you can do with any distance algorithm in available in
> any GIS tool. That's not something that i would ever map as it would vary
> with any geometry change of the ways between the road the point you measure,
> added to the fact
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
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),
On 2020-01-07 22:21, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 21:00, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> So if I am now more explicit about my intention to help this discussion
>> towards a conclusion.
>
> Actually, you sorta hijacked a discussion about wh
On 2020-01-07 21:14, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 19:42, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> I'm glad you said "probably", because it is of course not always true. And
>> these edge cases are what we need to accommodate. Limiting the discussion to
>> just h
On 2020-01-07 20:04, Paul Allen wrote:
>> But why do we need to have the full street address on the building at all?
>
> To identify it. In the UK, house number or name, plus postcode is sufficient
> to
> uniquely identify it. People, however, still find other information useful.
> Such as
On 2020-01-05 21:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 5. Jan 2020, at 16:46, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> The term vending machine is misrepresenting these machines and should not be
> used.
>
> They are frequently called "rev
On 2020-01-05 16:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
>
> I would characterize them completely differently, nothing is sold, and you
> don't get a discount coupon but rather a receipt to get back your deposit.
> The term vending machine is misrepresenting these machines and
Jake, could I ask you to state what country/state you are referring to?
These practices are likely to be different across the world. For
example, some countries (such as the Netherlands where I am now) have a
pseudo-mandatory system where the retailers pretty much have an
obligation to facilitate
On 2020-01-01 02:04, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 19:16, Colin Smale wrote:What
> do you consider a definition of "duty free" or "duty free shop"
> that would be useful to a OSM data consumer?
> Which OSM data consumer?
>
> Just a remi
On 2020-01-01 00:54, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 18:48, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> Just to be clear: in the situation I am referring to, an article priced at
>> GBP120 in such a mixed shop is GBP120 net to an exporting passenger, but
>> GBP100 n
On 2019-12-31 23:55, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 17:37, Colin Smale wrote: On
> 2019-12-31 23:04, Hauke Stieler wrote: that's true, the EU is one special
> case here. But would the status of a
> traveler influence the tagging schema of "duty_free=*
On 2019-12-31 23:04, Hauke Stieler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> that's true, the EU is one special case here. But would the status of a
> traveler influence the tagging schema of "duty_free=*" in your opinion?
The EU is only a special case because there are multiple countries
within a single customs area
On 2019-12-26 06:14, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
> However, in airports, there are pointedly "duty free" shops for (all)
> travelers. that have no ability to collect taxes for any purchase, so
> shop=gifts + duty_free=designated might be a good way to do it for these
> specialty shops in
On 2019-11-11 09:47, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Jan Michel :
>
>> On 11.11.19 01:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> I generally agree with your remarks, just here I would like to point out
>>> that there aren't any scooters in the "mofa"-class
On 2019-10-29 02:43, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> There is also a proposal to map the mean low spring tide line, the
> lowest tide line along the coast:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:natural%3Dmean_low_water_springs
> - so the estuary could end at the point where this
On 2019-10-29 01:21, Paul Allen wrote:
> I have an innate dislike of such countrification on a global map. It's
> better than
> hijacking tags without adding a country code ("The rest of the world uses X=Y
> to mean
> Z but in my country X=Y means W"), but only marginally so. The problem
I would suggest it is not necessary to replace the simple node with a circular
way. I think it is perfectly acceptable if it is considered as a simple turn
instead of negotiating a roundabout, from a routing perspective. An instruction
to turn right at the junction would not be improved by an
On 2019-10-11 11:09, Snusmumriken wrote:
> It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic laws
> in the cause of getting as fast and as safe to where he needs to go. So
> he would use his own judgment and not so much what a routing engine
> tells him what he can do.
That may
I would just like to make a point about mileages/kilometrages.
Physically marked positions (e.g. a milestone or a sign with an address)
can not be replaced by, or derived from, the actual distance along the
road.
These distances are not constant. Roads get diverted, split, recombined
etc which
1 - 100 of 658 matches
Mail list logo
