Just a small point...cannabis sales are not only for medical use in parts of the United States. Here in Colorado for example, if you are 21-years-old and have proper identification, you can purchase cannabis as easily as you can purchase alcohol. Although, I personally never have
I agree with Mateusz Konieczny. If there is some vestige of the object remaining, then mapping it in some way seems reasonable. But, if the railway, building, highway, etc., are completely removed and there are absolutely no visible remains of what was once there, it can be removed.I don't see the
.
I think naming the same thing two times is not a best practice?
-Original Message-
>From: Kevin Kenny
>Sent: May 28, 2020 2:20 PM
>To: Jack Armstrong , "Tag discussion, strategy and related
>tools"
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] line=* tag on railway lines
>
&
I have wondered for a long time...If the rail is tagged name=* but the railway also has a relation with the same name, isn't this naming something twice? it seems to me the relation is sufficient and the rail itself should not be named?-Original Message-
From: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
ging] line=* tag on railway lines
May 29, 2020, 19:56 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:HiLe ven. 29 mai 2020 à 00:03, Jack Armstrong <jacknst...@sprynet.com> a écrit :I think naming the same thing two times is not a best practice? IndeedI'd use name=* on rails only if rai
Yes, thank you for clarifying that chachafish did not make the changes ;)-chachafish-Original Message-
From: Mike Thompson
Sent: May 29, 2020 4:33 PM
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again
Clifford,Thanks. chachafish wasn't
ot. The tree no longer exists.- Jack Armstrong(chachafish)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>From: Jarek Piórkowski >>Do you also object when the geometry of the railway and the road is a>straight line? Do you think we should keep>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/676191068 ?>This rail company apparently went out of business 72 years ago? Mapillary images don't seem to show any trace of
Slack groups do not supersede the OSM wiki. I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect?
OSM wiki: tag:highway=crossing
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing- Jack Armstrong
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https
From: Clifford Snow To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) best describe your suggested way of mapping.1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the
preference on how a pedestrian crossing is mapped, but I am keen for the wiki to reflect accurate information. If we are following the approved proposal "Sidewalk as a separate way”, does anyone have objection to the wiki being changed to reflect this?Cheers-Original Message-----
From: Jack Armst
> From: Clifford Snow> Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your proposed change. As I read this the node is placed on the highway to tell cars that some type of crossing is located at this node. The crossing way tells the pedestrian that there is some type of crossing.
From: Clifford Snow If we were to follow your logic, then every level crossing at the intersection of railways and highways should not be tagged as a level_crossing because of the rule "one feature, one OSM element."
Well, again, my personal preferences are not germane to this thread. I'm not shy
From: Volker Schmidt I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been replaced by roads with the same geometry. To the contrary this is one of the more fortunate cases where the original route has been conserved, and it is
From: Clifford Snow Jack - can you live with Martin's point?
Actually, I'm very flexible with just about anything. My only goal in bringing this up was to clean up the wiki page so that mappers have clear guidance. The way the wiki was written seemed confusing. After I brought up the subject I
On 8/6/20 10:57 pm, Volker Schmidt
wrote:
The point is they are no longer 'in our environment' .. they are
gone, no longer here, vanished.
At times this discussion reminds me of a heated argument over whether a thing was a dead parrot or not
16 matches
Mail list logo
