Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
On 08/08/18 01:35, Eric H. Christensen wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 -‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On August 7, 2018 11:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 6. Aug 2018, at 06:30, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: And it might be better to place it directly in the emergency key? Say emergency=evacuation_route??? Humm emergency says it is not for relations. Arr well. I think there shouldn’t be “relations” at all as category for objects to which a tag can apply. Nodes, ways (linear), areas (ways) would seem sufficient for that. Relations can be set to unknown for everything ;-) The relation category is misleading anyway because it doesn’t include multipolygon relations, and nobody knows what kind of relation will be invented or is already used that creates all kind of geometric thing where a tag could apply to or not. I'm not certain of all the categories. I'm envisioning this being more like an overlay route like what is used for bicycle routes and bus routes and the like. What are those? Eric Those are a relation, type route ... https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 -‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On August 7, 2018 11:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 6. Aug 2018, at 06:30, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: > > And it might be better to place it directly in the emergency key? > > Say emergency=evacuation_route??? Humm emergency says it is not for > > relations. Arr well. > > I think there shouldn’t be “relations” at all as category for objects to > which a tag can apply. Nodes, ways (linear), areas (ways) would seem > sufficient for that. Relations can be set to unknown for everything ;-) > > The relation category is misleading anyway because it doesn’t include > multipolygon relations, and nobody knows what kind of relation will be > invented or is already used that creates all kind of geometric thing where a > tag could apply to or not. I'm not certain of all the categories. I'm envisioning this being more like an overlay route like what is used for bicycle routes and bus routes and the like. What are those? Eric -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: ProtonMail Comment: https://protonmail.com wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJbabwpCRCAdqveAkuz0QAAQhoP/jILBF94dPUshbEMOWy4 P/A+GOUNUW7IvEZSTjngPiT1xillNb2s529fBQQKB7mgj730r1qhLlJeNAQr jMI5ffqX2K1DehBrhCd6AJD3bizYqiywHVhqmHPtJ0Zg0eQ26YV5HBLmUPcf yol64IhWm27zhgdR//ZwGHv40d48O4672KEXYKJK6kZblvQWmV1t0uZaWy2/ wdnTJngLqkgnXxOxl7t45k3N7o4RppxjwemKwf5vAxDsmUO2S3Ap8eWj7orF +qIGiU8N+WIcr5p700xDy/DygFNXReMUKuKLTjnfRYzQEOvzaSGd98SdZ6PC u8FarWX5n90To2539D4RruuPgEzWjrAYt6JK5gUQdTJuIeGIDHmXqDwKnGFe 5hfnqV5kFXvOZoqgdxURLFKgwR4jFiPagwzCtEwt+1DG6MsLTOkXqOUEMwBg Lj8bj7PFVxlAPrWyMCPjeHr/OU0v252yqo3/knk3C1QjPakF+UFxEpbAUpJ2 IZBE0EzPVuo4jDna/ifEY/VDgQe5JHXAtso8tHZTRsaGL+rff9uDOxOrlsjA dTpq630s19Jwn2cwZNdPz/sTAUMaBlZ6gv30PIZmpssMvmtq9JSKcrWYhX72 Q82uILVn/oohQ77hIFi9wdPhfg9kWwCS4Eq3IDYAnY08wxJXrCrCCIQDQbYa e5sr =+kwJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
sent from a phone > On 6. Aug 2018, at 06:30, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > And it might be better to place it directly in the emergency key? > Say emergency=evacuation_route??? Humm emergency says it is not for > relations. Arr well. I think there shouldn’t be “relations” at all as category for objects to which a tag can apply. Nodes, ways (linear), areas (ways) would seem sufficient for that. Relations can be set to unknown for everything ;-) The relation category is misleading anyway because it doesn’t include multipolygon relations, and nobody knows what kind of relation will be invented or is already used that creates all kind of geometric thing where a tag could apply to or not. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 6, 2018 2:02 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/08/18 15:27, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On August 6, 2018 12:30 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > I'd think this should be a relation - not a way.
> > > At the moment the proposals says it is only a way.
> > > And it might be better to place it directly in the emergency key?
> > > Say emergency=evacuation_route??? Humm emergency says it is not for
> > > relations. Arr well.
> > > We went down this path, I think, last summer. The expectation is that
> > > these route made up of roads. I'm not sure why one would include a node
> > > in this. This is likely going to be part of the emergency project but
> > > probably not the emergency key which isn't really for routes.
>
> I have not mentioned 'nodes'.
> On the proposal page - in edit mode there is:
> {{Proposal_Page
> |name = Evacuation Route
> |user = Sparks
> |key = evacuation_route
> |value = *
> |type = {{IconWay}}
>
> The type should be {{IconRelation}} not {{IconWay}}.
> As it is with {{IconWay}} there will need to be new ways created for the
> evacuation route
> rather than use the existing ways that are roads/paths etc as members in a
> relation.
>
> And I would think there need to be rules for the relation, for example;
> start at one end and have each member/way in sequence to the finish, the
> finish might be required to be in/near the 'safe place'.
> This would save the forwards backwards thing, just like in Public transport
> v2.
Ahh, yes, sorry, I see what you're talking about now.
> > > Rendering... yes .. a rendering for emergency use would be good.
> > > Possibly this can be done for small areas rather than the world.
> > > Emergency evacuation centres, routes etc.
> > > I'm not sure I understand this. I suspect these types of routes are
> > > preplanned in many different countries.
>
> Yes. But I'm thinking of the rendering. I think that would be done for local
> areas, not the entire world.
Yeah, this would definitely be more smaller areas (towns, regions, states,
islands).
>
> > > Evacuation routes may also be made for other things .. e.g. fire .. so
> > > I'd add a '/*' at the end to accommodate things we have not though about.
> > > Even if you create a route for a fire, and I'm assuming you're talking
> > > about a building fire, you'd be showing routes inside of a building which
> > > would require ways. I don't think the existing proposal would prevent
> > > someone from expanding to such things but I'm trying to tackle the
> > > problem of evacuation routes along roads that have been preplanned for
> > > emergencies and disasters.
>
> Wrong kind of fire .. though those too might one day be mapped.
> But I mean forest fires/wild fires/bushfires depending on what part of the
> world your from.
> But I would tag them as 'fire' rather than do all the different ways that
> people refer to them.
> I'd still add the '/*' to it. Just in case.
Oh sure.
--Eric
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: ProtonMail
Comment: https://protonmail.com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=N+HH
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
In my area there are signed routes for tsunami evacuation. Very unlikely that they will change for an individual event. And the are ground verifiable as they are signed. I think these can and should be mapped in OSM. There are also wildfire prone areas near by. Evacuations from those are ad hoc. They vary from incident to incident and are unsigned. I don't believe these can or should be added to OSM. On August 6, 2018 11:55:18 AM GMT+05:45, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >One thing that concerns me a little bit with marking evacuation routes >is >what happens if the normal route is changed for "this" emergency? - you >usually drive North to reach here, but this time, due to unusual >circumstances, we need you to drive West towards there. > >Or am I being *too* paranoid? :-) > >Thanks > >Graeme -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
OpenEmergencyMap? 06-08-2018 09:19 tarihinde Warin yazdı: > > I think it is 'plan a' that some committee comes up with. > Some times they work. > But what happens in a 'real emergency' may not reflect the plan (a, b, > c or etc) > > Best if the people on the ground don't panic and think. > If your already paranoid then you'll have various plans. > I have little choice in my fire evacuation. > > Just got in the letter box a planed hazard reduction burn on the 8 > August. > Not much notification .. but it is the first one here in decades, so > I'm more than happy it is happening (I hope). Yours, faithfully Erkin Alp ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
On 06/08/18 16:10, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: One thing that concerns me a little bit with marking evacuation routes is what happens if the normal route is changed for "this" emergency? - you usually drive North to reach here, but this time, due to unusual circumstances, we need you to drive West towards there. Or am I being /too/ paranoid? :-) I think it is 'plan a' that some committee comes up with. Some times they work. But what happens in a 'real emergency' may not reflect the plan (a, b, c or etc) Best if the people on the ground don't panic and think. If your already paranoid then you'll have various plans. I have little choice in my fire evacuation. Just got in the letter box a planed hazard reduction burn on the 8 August. Not much notification .. but it is the first one here in decades, so I'm more than happy it is happening (I hope). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
One thing that concerns me a little bit with marking evacuation routes is what happens if the normal route is changed for "this" emergency? - you usually drive North to reach here, but this time, due to unusual circumstances, we need you to drive West towards there. Or am I being *too* paranoid? :-) Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
On 06/08/18 15:27, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 6, 2018 12:30 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd think this should be a relation - not a way.
At the moment the proposals says it is only a way.
And it might be better to place it directly in the emergency key?
Say emergency=evacuation_route??? Humm emergency says it is not for relations.
Arr well.
We went down this path, I think, last summer. The expectation is that these
route made up of roads. I'm not sure why one would include a node in this.
This is likely going to be part of the emergency project but probably not the
emergency key which isn't really for routes.
I have not mentioned 'nodes'.
On the proposal page - in edit mode there is:
{{Proposal_Page
|name = Evacuation Route
|user = Sparks
|key = evacuation_route
|value = *
|type = {{IconWay}}
The type should be {{IconRelation}} not {{IconWay}}.
As it is with {{IconWay}} there will need to be new ways created for the
evacuation route
rather than use the existing ways that are roads/paths etc as members in a
relation.
And I would think there need to be rules for the relation, for example;
start at one end and have each member/way in sequence to the finish, the finish
might be required to be in/near the 'safe place'.
This would save the forwards backwards thing, just like in Public transport v2.
Rendering... yes .. a rendering for emergency use would be good.
Possibly this can be done for small areas rather than the world.
Emergency evacuation centres, routes etc.
I'm not sure I understand this. I suspect these types of routes are preplanned
in many different countries.
Yes. But I'm thinking of the rendering. I think that would be done for local
areas, not the entire world.
Evacuation routes may also be made for other things .. e.g. fire .. so I'd add
a '/*' at the end to accommodate things we have not though about.
Even if you create a route for a fire, and I'm assuming you're talking about a
building fire, you'd be showing routes inside of a building which would require
ways. I don't think the existing proposal would prevent someone from expanding
to such things *but* I'm trying to tackle the problem of evacuation routes
along roads that have been preplanned for emergencies and disasters.
Wrong kind of fire .. though those too might one day be mapped.
But I mean forest fires/wild fires/bushfires depending on what part of the
world your from.
But I would tag them as 'fire' rather than do all the different ways that
people refer to them.
I'd still add the '/*' to it. Just in case.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On August 6, 2018 12:30 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd think this should be a relation - not a way. > At the moment the proposals says it is only a way. > > And it might be better to place it directly in the emergency key? > Say emergency=evacuation_route??? Humm emergency says it is not for > relations. Arr well. We went down this path, I think, last summer. The expectation is that these route made up of roads. I'm not sure why one would include a node in this. This is likely going to be part of the emergency project but probably not the emergency key which isn't really for routes. > Rendering... yes .. a rendering for emergency use would be good. > Possibly this can be done for small areas rather than the world. > Emergency evacuation centres, routes etc. I'm not sure I understand this. I suspect these types of routes are preplanned in many different countries. > Evacuation routes may also be made for other things .. e.g. fire .. so I'd > add a '/*' at the end to accommodate things we have not though about. Even if you create a route for a fire, and I'm assuming you're talking about a building fire, you'd be showing routes inside of a building which would require ways. I don't think the existing proposal would prevent someone from expanding to such things *but* I'm trying to tackle the problem of evacuation routes along roads that have been preplanned for emergencies and disasters. Eric -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: ProtonMail Comment: https://protonmail.com wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJbZ9xPCRCAdqveAkuz0QAAWZIP/3+0RLerwgB5ODpYHu45 JBZQmuaccYarcF9vWP20nN9lxhm0RCNQfXodBnPQgF9Ms1w+LW/lobLYyViV cRy8Rbvgt68OzZi+Ll5KovsJbiAAD+03SZmZfVnW4W+kZ5A9TDk7MQjucpMh dDnI6K/lxEC/jEuGj5R5nflVn24PZdcDseiK1SEvNg+qlLG/tatbpQB0p0nu C+T/eAJA+uRWQiRlevoQ6notgOnxTDp/1k74O8tnD/P85+Pystf7UbUWJcCV bXf8uG9TtKN9ccY3tXC1VD5TbAf+NQeSPoTvuMomBUXWBPI66+EyjS+gdUd7 eZJitOYChN3TWM6ydovwKc1PBj0u7jjz8w+CIQhDVtmPGRR+8WHiyCbIWxn+ PuwSJ4Lq88QcVPL4/qQ0+9dYilF4sF5dmC5byrxIVnAqyH2tccoLiIJTBwyE pPQOjPOtxp3FAPj3DSHBPJfWfsCrDHS9a0fYus6p6OwepjElX5T1Nx2O7+b4 xw6iBmGopsh9RkI1XuH8SCXr1hxrGAnTcCFNi17Ch18c6wXd67n4qRb10OGk fzqoPlsLGeTxhCg+j53fu1T2rurIOWqKqqHID9OdZ67pXVPjyH94KUCMU8BG budfddKeR03CGxTt7oejpP2kDHfp9pyJv/tC9viDQVHVQMo1kvDw9mh+dYcU JaVs =XRZZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
I'd think this should be a relation - not a way. At the moment the proposals says it is only a way. And it might be better to place it directly in the emergency key? Say emergency=evacuation_route??? Humm emergency says it is not for relations. Arr well. Rendering... yes .. a rendering for emergency use would be good. Possibly this can be done for small areas rather than the world. Emergency evacuation centres, routes etc. Evacuation routes may also be made for other things .. e.g. fire .. so I'd add a '/*' at the end to accommodate things we have not though about. On 06/08/18 12:25, Eric H. Christensen wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Last year I made a feature proposal[0] last year regarding evacuation routes. There were a couple of recommended changes to the RFC[1] and while I agreed with them I 1) failed to make them and 2) got side tracked on a couple of other initiatives. Now that it's hurricane season, again, here in the Eastern U.S. I've come back to this and am hoping to get this completed this time. I've changed this from being a key to being a route, which makes better sense. Does anyone see any other changes that need to be made or can we go ahead with a vote? Thanks, Eric [0] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-September/033340.html [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Evacuation_routes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Last year I made a feature proposal[0] last year regarding evacuation routes. There were a couple of recommended changes to the RFC[1] and while I agreed with them I 1) failed to make them and 2) got side tracked on a couple of other initiatives. Now that it's hurricane season, again, here in the Eastern U.S. I've come back to this and am hoping to get this completed this time. I've changed this from being a key to being a route, which makes better sense. Does anyone see any other changes that need to be made or can we go ahead with a vote? Thanks, Eric [0] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-September/033340.html [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Evacuation_routes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: ProtonMail Comment: https://protonmail.com wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJbZ7GNCRCAdqveAkuz0QAAglIQAID9i9veNNDUZiFVvNyl J4GA3cEsCxfYZCDvE2d/SPcZoGWN322FKgsvtW8VUaGB5ZsYFBs0nE70VDHY WLxmURjOPb3l+w5w0r32TAuMzWxpz9rMHephgTfbmOWsvV3JNt3cTkXcgY47 2cxZu/CcFn2yemJsgPVx7ENeWdUTjwzdvOe6lWlqCt6yK6A+1VjZEDOK54CW fGaWlEQe7HRq+oVyTSAgNUEKjjViyLjx2BDuH7Sx1GVW98AocJqrYmDl3vEq LTl8pbBJ39iSXjBB6B5alN9JYWegtaF40TSBPT8m1ey3Fy0YF9hbZbL8qXTu kMQIvfDcw+vabO+ZeJkhozsMi/0IQvBZzHsJrYOJW2hbiSZHg1508pbiugJv juMqaYJvzie7cPNBmW/fI3d06/4GeenzBBKgF6TwANbEKyfgjZrROVjug1A9 p+RHXchjYIxLrrHKCmLQzD+LjmMcBvjxrGBnAEnpdzizz2fkuwM0P2tpaAO8 bkNIBcXUJW0d+Ev8pnOzf28gCDJNvdP3FHfTvDOcDnTCmFBKtLOf7O4pNuE4 lNBnwLa4xes25pOgZId5Pn+B/qJ5TH9s9EVUJwYFW33n/IU2yScDTTYGsa+V 4YEFvyU2G5Ch4N5zCLKtgP4ItYYFGg3MpiXV5Jm3M6quuhmwGCTllRYODY9a xxkH =BWIM -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/07/2017 10:53 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: > Will this proposal contain alternate evacuation routes, and an > indication by whom and when they would be activated? If the state/local authorities have designated a route as an evacuation route then I don't see why the route wouldn't be put into OSM. Generally speaking, an evacuation route isn't the *only* way out of a location but, rather, is the recommended way out that avoids hazards (flooding, etc) and is usually a large thoroughfare, so it's not imperative that there be a "when" assigned to a route. With respect to Google, I think they are using their traffic load monitoring to try to divert traffic from one route to the other to help balance the load. This is one feature I wish our tools (maps.me, OSMAND, etc) had. - --Eric -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEERiNfHJ4f0jHRHow5g9FPLsqcWWwFAlmykmsACgkQg9FPLsqc WWzrEAf/cXcGC3ti0VA9dg8oOHPEqtlysFoEzRi8YSjuyMsK5OJDo/ynZ+fIyvTj Ewqs5vbpxR2woqAHf5RXXQwPU7wL5sgIkRpDKvcr88xAk8q48XE1cmlqi9zi/rBg 1SOn7BATM32+QdysYm59U5G23n+StgTthYJYH0b6A6QWf7DjlhIur2ImVoWdhXU5 5HHA7vZMHUinFpGpuTUFj5FJbyx+q4M9omuhM/nbebUZBnmJJh3oYPUrdFR03xIa e9v59zv4bmVVJ2mwlL1XyrwbzNqC6/0YkiJh+ImREcYzc1L4OrDGap8Ppw0ym443 QtZCgv8SIu4ZIe064XxgF3j3xNH7+Q== =wxiZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/08/2017 05:05 AM, Lukas Sommer wrote: > As key:evacuation_route is currently almost exclusively used on > relations anyway, it might make more sense to deprecate this tag and > instead define a new value for route=* on type=route relations (and > than add all the refinements that you propose)… Dang, yes. Sorry, what you just said reminded me of what I had thought many months ago. With a route you can make them directional which is important. I'll make those changes today. - --Eric -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEERiNfHJ4f0jHRHow5g9FPLsqcWWwFAlmyi+kACgkQg9FPLsqc WWzaywf/bdJUSXbLeBuU44N+HcRquhQj/LxV9Vg5ISUh4YzULOCvhL7w1Toq8ESo Gw6Y+pqrsFkyor5td2vjHokwDm9raV3ozMo3KG8DQGgk0DBuHhwFP5NUmlen394t VQl7t+ICIxkjH0H3fh+rN1YNrddwC5c8vmTiwiLSgcEHy0+hzhX42prRSY/kK6yW SPvTrTDis2rBAi2E1Xm20CWE86GkQbJL8t72h83yUmGNko4z4crC4oP1A04gHNi7 2/mXd0Jr6HmJF7x1McCEuV57NAvDQbyPTCL8ATqS0HzVZFujyx4+qfCImmAXJqFj fLnFMpJ9m4tEKmFE9mo0hF/xoA7iYg== =D5si -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
As key:evacuation_route is currently almost exclusively used on relations anyway, it might make more sense to deprecate this tag and instead define a new value for route=* on type=route relations (and than add all the refinements that you propose)… -- Lukas Sommer ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
Hi Eric, I noticed that in one of the briefings , the Govoner of Florida mentioned that Goggle was going to dynamically change their "evacuation routes", should one become unavailable. Will this proposal contain alternate evacuation routes, and an indication by whom and when they would be activated? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Evacuation_routes Emergency evacuation routes, with direction, for various types of emergencies. Thanks, Eric "Sparks" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEERiNfHJ4f0jHRHow5g9FPLsqcWWwFAlmxXAQACgkQg9FPLsqc WWxKnggAgJyp03FRt4xl7Q8TOVyiI+pS9w02plPCzVIIvyjgTAfLPs7VGpvJEaDD 61KhI+2JbRj2hLstoFGCDDFzbkUkB/fUNrDSma3UcV+9zfv6Y9dcROQafdHL64DE jWSPY9CNEhPhEXhzLHifA4BQf2xOX+DjkqdUm0PJatbUXckwgwlq7jCOfQdjmrIw w3RC0HarbRV3qC/nv77QzrfjK2QcIbr9IuY690I1EKQC7p6CjOki3IVkh7SPmrNx DCm5/KAMsklUhqwlGQjp6MpcRcsj4DQYa99kkZp3xie9FWWMdUpIlUL0QjRW8OW3 MAmfzT584H8uKsLB9Cr1UqapTk21lw== =Lwpi -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
