Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use

tourist_bus is also non-intuitive, not every non-public transport bus is a tourist bus. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use

=none @ use=agricultural maxgcweightrating:bus=none @ use=public_transport martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use

@ public_transport There is no issue #2, no modification needed, the use-values already work. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use

Obvious issue: 200,000 uses of bus... OK, probably most of them are associated with public_transport (e.g. bus stops). So the number of bus related access-restrictions is probably much lower. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging

Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use

tourist_bus: There is no longer the need for tagging both (bus=yes and tourist_bus=yes) in the case any bus category is meant. It can be expressed by omnibus=yes now. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https

[Tagging] access=exclusion_zone

existing access=no or access=private. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] gross weight - conclusions changes

may be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Any opinions? By the way: I saw the first use of maxgrossweight on taginfo. Sorry that I propose a change of the key name now... martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

Re: [Tagging] gross weight - conclusions changes

Then what about maxactualweight as its counterpart? yes, good idea. Better than maxladenweight, which can be misunderstood as the weight of the load. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] gross weight - conclusions changes

on the wiki and maxweight tag will remain in the database for many years. But we should stop adding more ambiguous 'maxweight' tags and start a gradual replacement of old 'maxweight' tags with their more meaningful counterparts. martinq ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight

-sign tagging (which makes interpretation difficult) and the meaning (which is complex due to vehicle, trailers, weight types, etc) is required. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight

). This suggestion also has better backward compatibility and it also enables country defaults. Drawback is that only one maxweight-restriction per way is possible. Opinions? martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight

. But even I must confess that maxgross_weight looks also odd due to the '_' inconsistency. Since I cannot foresee a meaning conflict by just using the abreviated maxgross, this could be an alternative. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging

[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight

implemented this convention and thus there a country specific deviations, thus please update the comment column of the example if your country deviates from the convention rules. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

Re: [Tagging] Key: turn

makes it more obvious that left and right is not sufficient to indicate the *lane* markings in all cases (also look at the non-standard arrows painted on the road). martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gross vehicle weight rating

. If UK has tagged the mgw sign with maxweight, then this is IMO not in accordance with the wiki definition. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Emergency lane used by PSV at rush time

no longer matters. Then we can propose a preferred order. This way we also solve the issue with multiple values separated by ';': access:conditional = (delivery;forestry) @ So martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate

instead of just English. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate

=no ... instead of (Mo-Fr 06:00-09:00)=yes female=no martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate: first summary

is clearly the extended conditions proposal. But it needs - as stated - some further development from an idea to a complete proposal - but I will do that directly in the wiki. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

for width-estimates. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging