2012/7/25 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com:
On 25/07/12 14:00, LM_1 wrote:
2012/7/25 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
On 24 July 2012 19:55, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote:
Useful to whom? The local fire department should already know, and nobody
else should be authorized
On 24 July 2012 19:55, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote:
Useful to whom? The local fire department should already know, and nobody
else should be authorized to open the hydrant anyway — though it seems the
biggest reason departments object to unauthorized access is damage caused
by
2012/7/25 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
On 24 July 2012 19:55, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote:
Useful to whom? The local fire department should already know, and nobody
else should be authorized to open the hydrant anyway — though it seems the
biggest reason
On 25/07/12 14:00, LM_1 wrote:
2012/7/25 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
On 24 July 2012 19:55, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote:
Useful to whom? The local fire department should already know, and nobody
else should be authorized to open the hydrant anyway — though it
fly lowflight66@... writes:
On 25/07/12 14:00, LM_1 wrote:
2012/7/25 Jason Cunningham jamicuosm at googlemail.com:
On 24 July 2012 19:55, David ``Smith'' vidthekid at gmail.com wrote:
Useful to whom? The local fire department should already know, and nobody
else should be authorized
Hi all,
In the place where I live, there are some hydrants that are secured,
that is you have to open it using a square or pentagonal wrench. I
think that this distinction could be useful (which wrench has to be
used, if any...)
Stefano
___
Tagging
Useful to whom? The local fire department should already know, and nobody
else should be authorized to open the hydrant anyway — though it seems the
biggest reason departments object to unauthorized access is damage caused
by using the wrong kind of wrench…
Le 19/10/2010 02:40, Ulf Lamping a écrit :
Am 18.10.2010 12:20, schrieb Rodolphe Quiedeville:
Le 18/10/2010 09:31, Rodolphe Quiedeville a écrit :
Hi,
I started rename amenity=fire_hydrant to emergency=fire_hydrant as it is
describe in the wiki. I checked there's no rendering in mapnik styles
Le 19/10/2010 01:37, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
2010/10/18 Rodolphe Quiedeville rodol...@quiedeville.org:
Le 18/10/2010 09:31, Rodolphe Quiedeville a écrit :
I started rename amenity=fire_hydrant to emergency=fire_hydrant as it is
describe in the wiki. I checked there's no rendering in
Le 19/10/2010 02:40, Ulf Lamping a écrit :
Am 18.10.2010 12:20, schrieb Rodolphe Quiedeville:
Le 18/10/2010 09:31, Rodolphe Quiedeville a écrit :
Hi,
I started rename amenity=fire_hydrant to emergency=fire_hydrant as it is
describe in the wiki. I checked there's no rendering in mapnik styles
Le 19/10/2010 10:17, Rodolphe Quiedeville a écrit :
Le 19/10/2010 02:40, Ulf Lamping a écrit :
[...]
Revert done.
--
Rodolphe Quiédeville - Artisan Logiciel Libre
Travailleur indépendant spécialisé en logiciel libre
http://rodolphe.quiedeville.org/
SIP/XMPP : rodol...@quiedeville.org
Le 18/10/2010 09:31, Rodolphe Quiedeville a écrit :
Hi,
I started rename amenity=fire_hydrant to emergency=fire_hydrant as it is
describe in the wiki. I checked there's no rendering in mapnik styles
and t...@h.
[...]
I forgot to say that I've opened a ticket to fix the JOSM presets :
2010/10/18 Rodolphe Quiedeville rodol...@quiedeville.org:
Le 18/10/2010 09:31, Rodolphe Quiedeville a écrit :
I started rename amenity=fire_hydrant to emergency=fire_hydrant as it is
describe in the wiki. I checked there's no rendering in mapnik styles
and t...@h.
[...]
I forgot to say that
Am 18.10.2010 12:20, schrieb Rodolphe Quiedeville:
Le 18/10/2010 09:31, Rodolphe Quiedeville a écrit :
Hi,
I started rename amenity=fire_hydrant to emergency=fire_hydrant as it is
describe in the wiki. I checked there's no rendering in mapnik styles
and t...@h.
[...]
I forgot to say that
On 10/18/10 8:40 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
There has been a very lengthy discussion about the emergency category
- and there wasn't a clear outcome. There wasn't a consensus if the
change is useful at all and it's still unclear what should be in the
emergency category and what not.
it looked
Am 19.10.2010 02:53, schrieb Richard Welty:
On 10/18/10 8:40 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
There has been a very lengthy discussion about the emergency category
- and there wasn't a clear outcome. There wasn't a consensus if the
change is useful at all and it's still unclear what should be in the
16 matches
Mail list logo
