I installed the Garmin OSM map for my area and have been using it while I
drive around locally. The one thing I've noticed is that there is a lot of
inconsistency in how streets that cross divided roadways are named.
Note Sunset Blvd on the left and
I'm slowly filling in the local mega-retail complex near me:
Its a pretty large area, and there are a load of businesses and shops
within the area. All of the roads in the area are for the commercial
On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:55:10 +0200, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
What inevitable ?. I think that drawing sidewalks is silly and waste of
time. Let say that 99.99% of the unclassified and residential roads can
walked on both sides, why should we draw the sidewalks everywhere ? It
+1. Micromapping may be on the rise, but that doesn't mean it's
necessarily a good thing. I'd still like to see a means of specifying,
administrative boundaries, tags that are to be assumed (inherited) by
contained objects (e.g. sidewalk=yes, surface=paved, lanes=2,
On Thu, 6 May 2010 12:37:10 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
It definitely shows how incredibly pedestrian-unfriendly these big
suburban box store malls are. There are buildings in a sea of parking
I was using the OSM maps for my city on my Garmin recently and when I
listed the parking POIs I noticed a whole slew of parking showing up in
there; mainly unnamed.. It got me thinking why those are in there but
then it dawned on me that in my area I've started adding in the parking
The distinction between public parking lots, customer parking lots
(such as at cinemas etc.), and private parking lots (such as for staff
in a business park) is handled with access=* tags.
To me, reading that directly that would seem to
Access=private works fine, then (along with access=public
andaccess=permissive). Preferably with an additional tag (or relation)
withsome indication of who is allowed to park there.
Maybe access=customer isn't needed after all.
How about something like:
Agreed, although the situations in which it's not so clear are the ones
where OSM could really get an advantage over the competition. So many
I'm directed by Google Maps to a location quite a distance away from the
parking lot I'm trying to get to. It's especially annoying when there
Rather than permitted=*, why not use parking_use=*? That would then be
consistent with your proposed relation. Though permitted is more
general and might be able to be generalised to other features...
Or perhaps something like permitted_parkers; I don't think there's
anything wrong with a
Why shouldn't it? Probably depends on the situation, but if the occur
on an object that we generally tag with waterway, it should be clear.
This technique was already used in ancient Rome for special parts of
aqueducts (where they had to bypass an obstacle). Aren't they a kind
I'm inclined to think that example Two is more correct, but I have to say I
like the larger more prominent labels of Example One. I know, probably not
good to map for the renderer.
Opinions are appreciated!
and neighbourhoods of my city, often times
with varying land uses within. I don't think the landuse=* is appropriate. I
see how the example you're shown works though; I can just see it getting ugly
as you can't characterize the landuse of an entire section of the city as one.
one thing, but I'd like these
relations/boundaries to be useful and unambiguous when it comes to determining
where a particular location is.
Tagging mailing list
You say: A place for children to do homework, play and spend time
otherwise after school.
The after school part is inaccurate as day care centers are often a
place children go to during the day while their parents work.
Some other considerations:
- centers: larger in size, with multiple
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Daniel Herding dherd...@gmx.de wrote:
There are many restaurants etc. that close their kitchen early in the
evening. Afterwards, you can no longer order hot food, only drinks and cold
snacks. Similarly, at some restaurants the kitchen opens at
Mail list logo