[cross-posted to talk-us@ and tagging@, please choose your follow-ups wisely]
Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> It seems that we are increasingly doing things to simplify the
> model because certain tooling can't handle the real level of
> complexity that exists in the real world. I'm in favor of
Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> you are not going to get a custom rendering from one set of vector tiles.
Sure you are.
You're not going to get every possible custom rendering from a single set of
performant vector tiles, granted, but half of Mapbox's entire business model is
custom rendering from
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 21/10/2020 00.57, Robert Delmenico wrote:
> > The word 'Man' in the Old English sense 'mann' had the primary meaning of
>"adult male human"
> Citation needed
My degree is in Old English (and the other early medieval languages of the
British Isles) and I can assure
Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I don't know what the routers need, to be honest.
> Anyone in the router business listening in on this conversation?
cycle.travel will take account of highway=crossing nodes (e.g. where a cycleway
crosses a road), and adjust its routing weight accordingly. The adjustment
Tod Fitch wrote:
> This thread has been quite amazing to me. My impression is that it
> starts with some routers (a.k.a data consumers, a.k.a. “renderers”)
> treating a “no” as a “maybe” and now people are looking for a new
> term to indicate that “we really, really, mean NO!”. This is worse
>
Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> That said, my favourite solution here would indeed be to add a new
> main tag highway=trail and slowly retag the existing mountain
> paths starting with the most dangerous/abused ones.
Fully agree with this, other than the slight detail that =trail is the wrong
value.
I love the fact that we are now 50 messages into discussing, for the second
time, a change that would be made ostensibly for the benefit of data
consumers, and yet no one has asked any actual data consumers.
https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan_Ark_Fleet_Ship_B
Richard
--
Sent
Soren Reinecke wrote:
> I request to replace all occurrence of the non-prefixed
> versions of the contact keys like Key:phone, Key:email.
> Key:website to be replaced with the prefixed ones like
> Key:contact:phone, Key:contact:email, Key:contact:website
As someone with admin access over this
Peter Elderson wrote:
> Suggestion for rendering:
> What about osmc:name=*
> I know, doesn't exist, but it's a logical companion of osmc:symbol.
> Definition would be: name to show on the map.
> Definition should be: just the simple name as found in the field, or
> the nae ecerybody knows and
brad wrote:
> The proper tag is highway=path, foot=yes, horse=yes, bike=yes.
That's an utterly terrible set of tags _unless_ you also specify a surface
tag.
highway=cycleway is, by default, a way whose construction standards are
"good enough to ride a bike on". Great! I can route along it.
Yves wrote:
> Inevitably, the current situation is stained by the abilities of the
> actual renderer, and the other way around. Maybe those renderers
> should sit around a wiki page and document how ideal tag could be
> and how they can be used in rendering, also taking into account
> the
Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> These days I wonder if it wouldn't be better if we introduce a
> tag that explicitly contains the name only. How about
> official_name for a, well, official name of the route and
> local_name for one that is used by everybody else.
Interesting thought. That really isn't
Dave Fox wrote:
> I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem. What /is/ the "actual" name
> for UK cycle routes?
> NCN 4 is named as National Cycle Network Route 4 as that's what
> Sustran call it.
> I'm not convinced names & refs *have* to be mutually exclusive.
Sure. NCN 4 is called "NCN 4" in the
Hello folks,
Route relation names aren’t in a great state, are they?
Let’s say that I want to render cycle route names on a map (because, well, I
do). I zoom in on a way along the East Coast of Britain and I find it’s a
member of this route:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9579
Phake Nick wrote:
> First of all, I don't think there are any existing routing engines
> for trains on rail or bus or minibuses on street
Sure there are.
https://github.com/geofabrik/OpenRailRouting
https://github.com/railnova/osrm-train-profile
https://signal.eu.org/osm/
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> The fact that advertising and correctness do not usually go hand in
> hand certainly needs no discussion.
Er, yeah, it does actually. In the UK, at least, you're not meant to claim
incorrect things in adverts. There's a body called the Advertising Standards
Authority that
Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Whilst I'm firmly against tracking codes, we could give the benefit of
> the doubt and assume that they just cut-and-paste the URL and did
> not intend to place tracking.
Yes. And we don't even need to do that: we can verify it with about 30
seconds' Googling.
Looking at
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I'd remove things from OSM that have been clearly added as part of
> an advertising campaign, because that means the information is not
> trustworthy. The purpose of an advertising campaign is not to
> provide unbiased, factual information, hence OSM cannot be the
>
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Since OSM is not the place for marketing, I would in these
> situations remove the whole POI, and not just the tracking
> parameters.
¿Que? You'd remove an entire hotel from the map because... ok, I'm having
trouble finishing that sentence: because what exactly?
cheers
Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Do we have any agreed implied surface values for the different
> street categories ? per country?
We had this thread already, didn't we?
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/048330.html
Kevin Kenny wrote:
> I think we can both agree that in practice there is no clear
> consensus on what to do in the specific case where a road
> has a reference but no other name.
Honestly, there is, and it's as Paul and I have described - you put the ref
in the ref tag and leave the name tag
Rob Savoye wrote:
> I was wondering about tagging roads properly. Previously it
> was mentioned to use 'ref' for county roads, ie... "ref='CR 12'",
> but as the road sign says "County Road 12", I was wondering
> about the proper way to tag this. Should 'CR' be expanded in
> the 'ref' to
Florimond Berthoux wrote:
> How to map a continuous sidewalk or cycleway ?
A couple of ideas were posted in connection with the London cycle
infrastructure database:
https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/30
https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/16
Richard
Joost Schouppe wrote:
> In the case of cycling, it would be really useful
> for routers to be able to differentiate.
Yes - with my cycle.travel hat on, I'd find this very useful. Just an
optional route_type= tag on the relation would help.
I've mentioned on here a couple of times before [1]
Florimond Berthoux wrote:
> I’m really here just to know the english word.
> In France we also say "vélo cargo" (cargo bike), so I’d go for
> cargo_bike if none disapprove.
It's definitely a cargo bike in British English too.
Richard
(owner of a Circe Morpheus, which is a cargo bike of sorts:
Francesco Ansanelli wrote:
> I added a bicycle route that implies the use of a funicular
> (railway). I'm not sure how to "tell" in the relation that
> you have to take the train and not ride the railway.
Just add the railway to the bike route relation, and make sure that each end
of the
MARLIN LUKE wrote:
> Reading a thread like this honestly won't encourage any participation
> from outsiders (myself included)
With the best will in the world, I don't think it's productive or welcoming
to encourage outsiders to think that they should come into OSM and tell
everyone that 2
Sören Reinecke wrote:
> This proposal tends to make Key:contact:phone the official tag
> for tagging phone numbers and to deprecate Key:phone which is
> not fitting in the idea of grouping keys. Anyway it's bad to have
> two keys for the exact same purpose in use.
Please just kill me now.
Jmapb wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see any reason why
> data consumers, including the bicycle modes of routing engines,
> should ever interpret bicycle=no in a way that permits walking
> bicycles. This is exactly why we have a bicycle=dismount tag.
Because mapping is
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> IMHO we need neither bicycle=dismount, nor similar tags for mofas,
> mopeds, motorcycles and other vehicles. If you dismount, you are
> a pedestrian (according to many jurisdictions)
But not according to all justifications, as I have explained wrt the UK.
> As this
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> do you have an example for a street where pushing the bicycle
> is not allowed?
Potentially every public footpath in England & Wales. The law says only that
"usual accompaniments" are permitted, without specifying them. Cycling
organisations try to argue that this
Florian Lohoff wrote:
> From the document you mention i have the feeling that that is a
> British special.
It is, pretty much. Plus a few in places heavily influenced by British
practice (Ireland and Hong Kong), and also France as Philip says.
The Wikipedia description actually puts it quite
Florian Lohoff wrote:
> The point is that a mini roundabout does need a LOT of preprocessing
> to put it into some graph for your classical A* or Dijkstra. You need
> to eliminate the node and replace it with a circular road much like
> a junction.
What? No. No. You don't.
I do precisely no
brad wrote:
> There are several variations and gpx tracks available on the net for
> the great divide route. There are also many websites which
> discuss the route and show maps. It's in the public domain.
It is only "public domain" (US usage) if the creators have disclaimed all
copyright
Phyks wrote:
> * Some are dedicated to a very particular category of cyclists,
> often racing bikes. We have `route=mtb` for mountain bikes,
> we might have `route=racing_bikes` for racing bikes? Typical
> example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/163266
> (which might actually fall
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> wouldn't it be better to delete them from OSM if they are made up?
It would, but I have limited hours in the day to police every single cycle
route relation in OSM.
I lose track of the amount of time I spent on user messages and changeset
comments trying to get the
John Willis wrote:
> I want to delete these fake “mountain workout” relations that
> should be mapped in strava or a similar workout app.
Fully agree. Go for it.
OSM is for verifiable, signposted cycle routes and verifiable, real cycling
infrastructure. If a route is on the way to being
ebel wrote:
> I've used `theme=irish` once or twice. But I don't think anyone
> else does, and it's not supported.
I asked about cycle cafés a while back (e.g. https://www.cafe-ventoux.cc)
and the consensus was also to use theme:
Vɑdɪm wrote:
> The #2 gives railway=tram + railway=tram_crossing which seems to
> be a needless repetition -- a tautology. It's easy to deduce that a
> crossing on the tramway track is a crossing of the tramway track,
> isn't it?
This is ultimately the same issue as the one raised by Martin
Paul Allen wrote:
> Ummm, which pub in St Dogs? The Teifi Netpool Inn is more of a guest
> house with a bar than a pub with guest rooms these days. The White
> Hart closed but there's currently an attempt by locals to raise the
> money to take it over.
(One quick Google later...)
Goodness
Paul Allen wrote:
> BTW, that's on national cycle route 82, so whether or not it really is
> a pub would be of interest to some mappers.
Oh, has that closed? That's a shame. (I stayed in St Dogmaels a few years
ago, thought the Castle Inn looked wonderfully old-fashioned, and was
planning to go
Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> In the outskirts of Berlin, I have unpaved highway=residential in good
> neighbourhoods, that are muddy when wet and dusty when dry. Thus Germany
> qualifies as developing country?
No, it qualifies as somewhere you should tag unpaved roads with a surface=
tag. Hence the
voschix wrote:
> I am trying to figure out where the surface default values by road
> category and country are defined.
I don't believe there's a place where it's stated, but I work on these
assumptions:
- highway=track/bridleway is always unpaved unless stated otherwise
- highway=footway/path
Peter Elderson wrote:
> The network values identify transport mode and scope of routes, and
> these "dimensions" also apply to node networks. We do not want to
> add another dimension (configuration type) to the network=*
> values of routes.
>
> Instead, we are thnking about just adding a tag
Valor Naram wrote:
> some long time ago I wondered why we have two tags for one
> purpose sometimes? For example: A mapper can use either the
> tag `contact:phone`or `phone` to add a phone number to the
> database. I think this makes the database dirty and for
> developers - like me - it's
Kevin Kenny wrote:
> There's also something to be said for using the ugly editors to
> prove the concept, because at this point, we don't yet know how
> to do everything, much less how to make it novice-friendly! The
> exception is simple linear routes, and Sarah or I can give you
> algorithms
My use-case for cycle.travel is having a single polyline that I can make into
a route guide at https://cycle.travel/routes . Currently there’s two dozen:
I’d like there to be thousands. So:
> - diversions and alternatives
Give them consistent roles so I can ignore them.
> - routes with
On mobile, on train, apologies for lack of formatting. :)
Sarah - the problem is that when you say “one single simple
instruction to the mapper: sort your route“, the instruction might be simple
but carrying it out isn’t.
Let’s say we have a cyclist, new to OSM, who wants to add a newly opened
Sarah Hoffman wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 01:11:17AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > Peter Elderson wrote:
> > > The point is, as it is it's not good enough for data use besides
> > > rendering. you can't rely on route relations for anything but
> renderi
Peter Elderson wrote:
> I would like to see this software in operation! Could you give me the
> links of some applications
I use my code in the backend of cycle.travel. It's not open source. I've
seen code used by one other OSM-based site and there's a further one that's
clearly using something
Peter Elderson wrote:
> I think it's fair to say there is almost no software that does
> anything with route relations except rendering and exporting
> as a gpx.
That's not true. Most bike routers based on OSM are aware of route relations
and use them to influence routing.
> Software needs a
Hi all,
Occasionally I encounter tag combinations like this:
bicycle=designated
highway=proposed
(from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335831004)
where the "bikes can ride along here" of the first tag is contradicted
by the "this hasn't even been built yet" of the
brad wrote:
> I see tracktype as redundant with Surface, also very subjective, and
> not useful. Smoothness is very useful.
smoothness= is a horrible tag, please don't use it.
As a data consumer (for cycle.travel), I probably do more detailed parsing
of surface and related tags than any other
Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Going back to the original example, I would say, not only the lock but
> the entire cut, in particular way
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24335
> should be tagged as waterway=canal. This scheme applies to most river-lock
> arrangements, the "cuts" are nearly
DaveF wrote:
> Have these diversions been given a 'XYZ Canal' name? if not then
> it's a river.
hahahahaha
cheers
Richard
--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
DaveF wrote:
> The water flowing through it is still river water.
The water flowing down lots of canals is ultimately river water :) - the
Llangollen Canal is fed by the River Dee, the Mon & Brec by the Usk, and so
on.
Generally, where a lock has been built, this is in an artificial cut
slightly
Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I presume that your router would fall into the same trap, or does it
> evaluate mtb:scale?
Of course it does. :)
cheers
Richard
--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
___
Tagging mailing list
Volker Schmidt wrote:
> "highway=path" implies "bicycle=yes" (in most jurisdictions) - see the
> proposed Default-Access-Restriction for all countries
That's not a default that I feel enormously comfortable with. Whatever the
wiki might say, "bare" highway=path (no other tags) is often used for
Thanks everyone for the comments!
althio wrote:
> My preference would be to keep the geometry, map it as a continuous
> highway=cycleway.
> For the bits without divider, I don't like protected=no however.
> I would go with no additional tagging, and more geometry (as you said:
> crossings and
Hi all,
Let me introduce you to one of London's better cycleways:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53397/-0.00715
https://cycle.travel/map?lat=51.5254=-0.0335=17
You might look at this and think "that doesn't look like 'better' to me,
it's full of 45-degree bends". And based on OSM
Andrew Davidson wrote:
As you've actually consumed the data I'm interested to know what
problems you have found
The bit of my routing profile that parses cycleway tags has a big
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here" sign hanging over it and I try not
to revisit it too often. ;)
marc marc wrote:
> imho nearly no routing tools (nor foot nor bus) is currently
> able to use a relation type=route with relations as child.
cycle.travel can.
I don't particularly care what's decided, but I would like it to be
consistent (which right now it certainly isn't), and personally I
Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Yes, one of main points of StreetComplete is to allow editing
> without knowing how objects are tagged, similarly iD.
>
> It means that to count "how many people decided to use tag
> XYZ" all iD users and all StreetComplete users count as say
> 4 people because not
They don’t belong in OSM for the reasons you state, and would be better
hosted independently on umap or similar.
But in any case, they absolutely should not be tagged route=bicycle, as
routers and renderers use this as a signifier that “this road/path is
particularly suitable for cycling”.
Florian Lohoff wrote:
> From the original meaning unclassified was the lowest class road
> in rural or off city limits. residential was the lowest class road
> within city limits. (Assuming that city limits mean residential
> usage)
That's reasonable but not _quite_ true. highway=unclassified
Greg Troxel wrote:
> Finally, I'd suggest in the US treating unclassified and residential
> as exactly the same in importance, because we have no real notion
> of unclassified roads like the UK.
There is one de facto difference in the US, which is that
highway=unclassified means that someone
Fernando Trebien wrote:
> motorboat:conditional only works if the periods where the river
> is navigable are predictable, and that usually depends on the
> variable amount of rain on the basin.
motorboat= is an access tag, so it represents whether a use class is
permitted on that way, not
Sergio Manzi wrote:
> I strongly dissent with the tone of your mail.
> Everybody, not only you and the most vocifeferous ones, have the right to
> express
> their opinion.
They do, but if the opinion is off-topic and unconstructive for the list and
likely to divert from the purpose of said list,
Axelos wrote:
> ID is not suitable for this type of contribution (relations), he knows
> how to do it, but in a superficial and irrelevant way.
> It's not up to OSM to adapt to ID, but the opposite. Since it is not
> up to OSM to adapt to opencyclemap but the opposite (ref = icn).
> Potlach 2
We don’t call people fools in subject lines on this list. Please check your
language before replying.
Richard
reluctant tagging@ list admin
--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
___
Tagging mailing list
Peter Elderson wrote:
> Sorry, I assumed Potlatch would work approximately similar to Id.
If you're addressing a mailing list with 551 subscribers, could I suggest
you take a few minutes to actually research your statements before posting?
> Can it easily sort/reverse ways within relations,
Peter Elderson wrote:
> I just did some work on a hierarchy of hiking routes. Can't be done with
> Id or Potlatch
What specifically can't be done in P2?
Richard
--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
___
Tagging mailing
Axelos wrote:
> Hello, I propose a concept for contributing cycling route.
Many thanks for looking at this - the current state of bike route
hierarchies is a mess, and trying to parse the many different tagging
practices so that cycle.travel can display them properly has been a
nightmare. It
Volker Schmidt wrote:
As EV routes are not managed as single entities, every route is split in
pieces managed on a country basis. I know the situation in Italy, as I am
involved in regional and national cycle routes here. EV routes are handled
by BicItalia which is part of FIAB, the "Italian
Europe has numerous international cycle routes signposted and marketed
as 'EuroVelo', and these are often mapped in OSM:
http://www.eurovelo.com/
Unfortunately the tagging is pretty inconsistent, especially when routes
are shared with national/regional (NCN/RCN) routes, as is usually
André Pirard wrote:
> Last point is what source:???=Michelin ??? to use to prevent a
> StijnRR or like arbitrarily destructing well thought out tagging
> without notifying the author. I suggest
> source:highway=https://viamichelin.be/web/Cartes-plans 2016 2016.
No, you must not copy from
André Pirard wrote:
> Reply to this message privately to receive info about how to easily
> compare OSM with the Via Michelin map using JOSM.
Um, I'm not 100% sure what you're proposing here, but please remember that
we must not copy any information from copyrighted maps into OSM.
Richard
LeTopographeFou wrote:
> But do I have to ask for a vote/discussion for automated typo edits?
Very expressly no. There is no precedent for voting on automated edits, and
on the rare occasions it has been suggested then there has been significant
and well-founded opposition to the idea.
From the
Kevin Kenny wrote:
> I just want to be able to look at my map and answer the
> quick question, "is there red tape that I have to plan for
> before I plan a trip here?"
Yep. I asked a similar question at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-February/028504.html
but there was no
Bjoern Hassler wrote:
> Second question: network. The wiki page
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London_public_transport_tagging_scheme
> doesn't say much about "network", and these values are in use:
>
> - London Underground
> - National Rail
> - Network Rail
> - London Overground
> - TfL
> -
John Willis wrote:
> I am really having trouble understanding the reasoning behind the
> resistance when it removes uncertainty and confusion while tagging.
But it doesn't.
You're citing your own personal hierarchy between "trails" and "easily
traversed footways", which is fine. But that
Rory McCann wrote:
> Both of the example maps of Russia/Ukraine and India/Pakistan
> require the use of another data set. Which is a shame. One should
> be able to generate that from OSM entirely.
Why?
OSM's selling point is not "all geodata, ever, in one place". OSM's selling
point is
Шишкин Александр (Shishkin Aleksandr) wrote:
> IMHO, it is much better to have alternative advanced tagging
> system from which data users can benefit much (e.g. search
> by school's speciality).
As a general point, could I please encourage people not to second-guess what
data users might
Alan McConchie wrote:
> Some commenters have suggested using the existing highway=path tag,
> with supplemental tags such as access=no or informal=yes, or a new
> supplemental tag path=social_trail, or adding an operator tag. However,
> these supplemental tags are too easily ignored by data
Andy Mabbett wrote:
> It's nowhere near as ridiculous as trying to render them according
> to some arbitrary and subjective "importance" (Importance to
> whom? The people who live near them? Tourists? Mountaineers?
> Ornithologists? Aviators? Geologists? Climatologists? Oil
> prospectors?).
dieterdreist wrote:
> Maybe shop=sailing_supplies? Or ship_supplies?
Some of us have boats (not ships) with engines (not sails). :)
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/shop-marine-RFC-tp5869777p5869896.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive
Richard Z. wrote:
> this meaning is not even in wiktionary. How many of those shops
> would even know they are called chandler?
All of them, in my (fairly extensive) experience.
http://reader.waterwaysworld.com/fullsearch.cgi?q=chandlery
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Hi all,
An important part of the Pacific Coast Bicycle Route now requires
cyclists to get a permit:
http://www.examiner.com/article/cycling-through-camp-pendleton-is-changing
https://mccscp.wufoo.com/forms/camp-pendleton-bike-route-access-form/
How should this be tagged?
dieterdreist wrote:
> yes, Standstreifen, Standspur, Seitenstreifen, Randstreifen. I've
> improved the proposal to make this clearer for non-native people
> (added a definition (from WP), added more German synonyms,
> images)
Thanks to everyone who contributed.
I've accordingly formalised the
Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> Take for example your example shop=supermarket,
> shop=bakery. Independent of the exact way of tagging,
> using a multivalued tagging scheme forces the renderer
> to make a decision between a supermarket and a bakery
> icon. Basically, there is no possible way for
Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> Do you have an demo rendering (screenshot is fine) for that?
There's actually a couple of ways you can do it, but
http://crt.systemed.net/ uses one method - look for the brown service icons
which are next to each other. It's not OSM data in this case (it's the Canal
&
Colin Smale wrote:
> If we were looking at this problem as if we were
> designing OSM on a clean whiteboard
When OSM was first designed on a clean whiteboard[1], multiple values were
in fact possible. An object could have
name=Bridge Street
name=Banbury Road
and the API was happy -
Hi all,
At present there is no documented standard for tagging highway shoulders.
We have http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shoulder with
shoulder=yes|no, which has been in 'draft (under way)' since 2010. In
Australia, cycleway=shoulder appears also to be used.
Taginfo stats are:
Kieron Thwaites wrote:
> Whichever iD developer thought that adding random _N suffixes was
> a good idea deserves to be taken out back and shot.
Please withdraw that comment.
Advocating violence to people is not funny. You might want to say a
_feature_ should be taken outside and shot, but
Greg Troxel wrote:
> I more or less agree, from the US point of view, except that
> highway=residential has a meaning of something that is
> legally a road.
highway=residential in the US _largely_ has the meaning "this was imported
from TIGER feature code A41 and hasn't been changed". One import
Mike Thompson wrote:
> Although these are gravel surfaced roads (not yet tagged that way,
> but physically that is what they are), the ones in question provide
> access to two or more homes and/or ranches. To me these are
> not "tracks" but "residential." Before I change these back, I
>
dieterdreist wrote:
> what's your stance on service?
Slightly difficult one, but I'd tend to concur with Florian that it's best
used for roads on private property (roughly "access-only"). When I use it I
always try and add an access and (if unpaved) surface tag - it's too
ambiguous otherwise.
John Willis wrote:
> Perhaps we can have a routing engine at will interpret
> a sidewalk with residential road junctions as being
> along a residential road and route for Jay Walking.
> [...]
> I would rather the router always error on the side of
> crosswalks
Jaywalking is a North American
André Pirard wrote:
> Thanks for your guessing what Simon means. Thanks for watching
> on us, constable.
Please moderate your language. Thank you.
Richard
tagging@ list admin
--
View this message in context:
Paul Johnson wrote:
> You're blaming the community for a software issue here, and that's a
> little unfair to the community. If iD or potlatch or whatever are that
> broken, then fucking fix iD and Potlatch.
Firstly, you are not helping your cause by being so gratuitously offensive,
though I
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
