I don't actually mind 'natural=peak' for any named local maximum
elevation. 'Peak' in one of its senses simply means the high or most
important point of anything. You can speak of the peak of a hill, or
of the peak elevation in a region, or talk of a mountain that has
several peaks.
I wouldn't
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:24:00AM -0700, Mark Wagner wrote:
> My point is that no such guarantee exists for roads without speed limit
> signs. Yes, the numeric limit for something like Glenwood Road might
> be 50 mph, but the road was designed around farm trucks going no more
> than 20 mph, and
> On Sep 25, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
> Sign posted speeds dont are not telling you "this is the speed which is
> safe for 100% of the vehicles" but this is the maximum allowed.
> You are still required to drive safely.
+1
Even variable speed roads (where the signs change
> the building=* tag helps define the rough purpose fo the building - but not
> the exact purpose. The pin or other tags on the building do that. And that
> building looks like it wants to sell food to tourists. ^_^
Yes, true. Though I rather had something like building=gastronomic in mind,
When a building structure is changed to reflect the new purpose (e.g.
barn -> family house), I have no problem to map them as
building=house.
But the building type of this McDonald restaurant [1] is so different
from the blocks for large chains (DYI, electronics, Ikea, etc) you see
along this way
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
> I like the idea of having a separate tag for buildings that are
> constructed to be restaurants, pubs, taverns, kro's etc. imho they are
> a different type compared to buildings for shops, especially
> supermarket-style buildings (which are
On 2018-09-25 13:07, Marc Gemis wrote:
> However, I'm not sure whether gastronomic is the proper
> British-English word to use. I think the Brits are already using
> building=pub (perhaps only for a subclass of your 'gastronomic'.
The predicate "gastronomic" implies a certain level of quality,
Please comment on the talk page if you have any suggestions about this
proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/key:prominence
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:40 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The tag, "prominence=*" has been in use for a number
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:09:12 +0200
Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:24:00AM -0700, Mark Wagner wrote:
> > My point is that no such guarantee exists for roads without speed
> > limit signs. Yes, the numeric limit for something like Glenwood
> > Road might be 50 mph, but the
I like the idea of having a separate tag for buildings that are
constructed to be restaurants, pubs, taverns, kro's etc. imho they are
a different type compared to buildings for shops, especially
supermarket-style buildings (which are large rectangles without too
many indoor walls). I see no
2018-09-25 9:34 GMT+02:00 Tobias Zwick :
> > the building=* tag helps define the rough purpose fo the building - but
> not the exact purpose. The pin or other tags on the building do that. And
> that building looks like it wants to sell food to tourists. ^_^
>
> Yes, true. Though I rather had
> On Sep 26, 2018, at 6:46 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> I don't actually mind 'natural=peak' for any named local maximum
> elevation.
In so many places, Lumps and bumps are simply not named. But in some places,
they are.
People who see Mount Fuji every day have no idea all 8 high points on
There have been a few small updates to the proposal page based on your
suggestions in the past week.
Please comment on the talk page if you have any further ideas or
criticisms:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Default_Language_Format
Thanks!
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at
sent from a phone
> On 25. Sep 2018, at 02:15, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> The page for natural=peak lists natural=hill as a tagging error:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=peak
It should better reference the hill proposal as “see also”. While there is
likely discussion
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>
> But the building type of this McDonald restaurant [1] is so different
>
Until you brought them up, I couldn't think of any distinctly restaurantish
building. Possibly because my nearest
McDonald is 30 miles away and I haven't even been
15 matches
Mail list logo
