treetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:charge:water=edit=1>=free
>>
>> > <
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:charge:water%3Dfree=edit=1
>> >
>> > access = yes
>> > container = bring_own
>>
>> If you use the tag /access/ alon
Hi Lionel,
On 17/01/20 10:52, Lionel Giard wrote:
Alesandro,
The thing is that disabled=designated is an access (so regulated by
law), and would depend because each country's law vary (not every
country enforce restriction for disabled parking or other type of
vehicle...). Thus, it may be
ggest that if there is a charge for
> supplying a container then the water is effectively not free.
>
> Even if the container were free, the whole point of these schemes is
> to provide alternatives to people buying water in disposable containers
> and encourage container re-use.
>
&
On 23.9.2019 9.49, Warin wrote:
"Thirty en-suite bedrooms ranging from standard and family rooms to
individually styled Executive Rooms. All bedrooms are equipped with tea
and coffee-making facilities, telephones and colour televisions.
Dormitory accommodation and camping facilities are also
> tap_water=
That will not work here in Indonesia. You do not drink the tap water here,
or in most countries in Asia.
-Joseph Eisenberg
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 4:27 AM Alessandro Sarretta <
alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> On 17/01/20 12:08, European Water Project wrote:
>
> 2.
Hi,
On 17/01/20 12:08, European Water Project wrote:
2. Re: RFC free_water (François Lacombe)
I see your point and agree it would be preferable to develop a more
generalize nomenclature, but also think it is important to choose
something that is understandable to a newbie.
If we
s not bottle water :-)
>
> So it could be:
>
> * tap_water=yes/no/customers
> * tap_water:free=yes/no/customers
> * tap_water:container=*
>
> This way it seems to me you should be able to cover all the
> possibilities clearly.
>
> m2c
>
> Ale
>
> ---
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 22:19, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>2. Re: RFC free_water (Paul Allen)
>>
> >Paul, one could imagine offering water in a glass? Or a carafe if for
> customers yes, we are combatting all single-use waste related to
>
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 20:49, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 1. Is there free water available ?
> 2. For whom is it free ? if it is the case that there is free water
> available
> 3. If it is free for everyone, can you bring your own container ?.
>
Do you
On 21.9.2019 12.52, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
I'd see that very suitable. You can define the subtype by tagging
community_centre=*, and I would not see a requirement that the facility
needs to be open to everybody, it can be for a specific user group,
which can be tagged with community_centre:for=* .
sent from a phone
> On 17. Jan 2020, at 20:27, Alessandro Sarretta
> wrote:
>
> And water is probably too general... I try suggesting to use tap_water, that
> should clearly state that is not bottle water :-)
>
> So it could be:
>
> tap_water=yes/no/customers
>
>
>
>2. Re: RFC free_water (Joseph Eisenberg)
>
>>> Joseph, I have just turned off the digest feature ... so hopefully this
will be the last of this wacky system which has been driving me crazy.
I have just added a top section to the discussion page for :
16 Jan 2020, 23:36 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
> On 17/1/20 2:48 am, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:55, Mateusz Konieczny <>>
>> matkoni...@tutanota.com>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 16 Jan 2020, 02:22 by >>> 61sundow...@gmail.com>>> :
>>>
If the 'standard
Looking at it again:
"A shop in a city mall is a member of "Global Blue" as only option for refund
assistance.
This would be tagged with duty_free:refund:global_blue=yes.
The more general duty_free:refund=yes (or even duty_free=yes) should not be
used here
as we have more detailed knowledge
Hello Lionel,
I totally agree with that, I never understood this special treatment of
amenity=parking_space, and so I'm using capacity:*=* with that. My use
case is for disabled people parking spaces : just look for
capacity:disabled=* and you're good to go, whatever it is a parking or
Le 17.01.20 à 09:36, Lionel Giard a écrit :
> What do you think about this?
keep simple.
if a parking space is only for disabled ppl with access restriction,
why not using capacity=* on it ?
it's not wrong but useless to use namespace capacity:disable=*
in this case.
especially since
According to the wiki documentations, amenity=parking_space was
intended to be used inside of a larger amenity=parking feature.
So if there larger amenity=parking has capacity:disabled=4, you would
expect to find 4 amenity=parking_space features inside of it which are
available for disabled
Hello everyone,
I saw that on the parking_space wiki page it says that we shouldn't use
capacity:*=* on parking_space, and instead use the access tag. But why is
this the case? It seems logical to use capacity:disabled=* on a
parking_space for disabled people or capacity:charging=* on a
Hi Stuart
Thank you for this document.
It's a valuable effort and great to see you involve in a formal proposal
process following discussions on local mailing list.
i've posted a suggestion on the Talk page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Free_Water
Best regards
Well this specific case is quite easy to detect : if a parking space is
contained in a wider parking, you subtract the amount of places in
parking space from larger parking. And it would be easier to handle if
capacity tags are using same naming on both instead of being different
and needing
What about disused bunkers? I would expect them to follow the same
rules as "buildings" and other physical objects
The wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:military%3Dbunker
says you can combine military=bunker with building=bunker. This makes
sense to me.
but also adds
Le 17.01.20 à 09:58, Marc Gemis a écrit :
> abandoned:military=bunker
> + building=bunker
that look fine for me.
> Not sure about the ruins:building
I have never yet seen a building=bunker in ruins because of the mass
of concrete used, but if structurally one of them is a ruin and not
a bunker
Alesandro,
The thing is that disabled=designated is an access (so regulated by law),
and would depend because each country's law vary (not every country enforce
restriction for disabled parking or other type of vehicle...). Thus, it may
be wrong to tag an access when it doesn't exist. While a tag
Hi Lionel,
from what I've understood, the parking_space tag is meant to identify
exactly one parking space, so the capacity whould be always 1...
In the specific case of parking spaces for disables persons,
unfortunately there are many way of tagging it... In this issue related
to the
On Friday, 17 January 2020, Hauke Stieler wrote:
>
> A shop at an airport where travelers generally pay no taxes would be
> tagged with "duty_free=yes" and optionally with "duty_free:refund=no".
>
Not totally accurate, in my experience.
At airport duty free shops you have to show your
> if you dislike duty_free=limited, maybe duty_free=refund
> is more understandable
I had the idea of "duty_free=" before, but it changed to
the current scheme with "duty_free:refund=*" during the discussion.
However, I can definitely imagine going back to
"duty_free=" with the additional tags
Le 17.01.20 à 01:32, Hauke Stieler a écrit :
>> I see 3 levels :
>> the customer doesn't pay the tax duty_free=yes
>> the customer pay the tax but the shop help for a refund
>> the customer pay the tax and the shop doesn't help a refund duty_free=no
>
> Exactly, this is the basic idea for the
Le 17.01.20 à 12:48, Hauke Stieler a écrit :
> A shop at an airport where travelers generally pay no taxes would be
> tagged with "duty_free=yes" and optionally with "duty_free:refund=no".
>
> I hope this also makes sense to you.
no, sorry.
I don't see the advantage of using 2 keys when only one
Le 17.01.20 à 02:49, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
>>> I'm unsure why Carto ignores such a popular tagging scheme.
>>>
>> Is it actually popular?
>
> The place to request changed to Openstreetmap-carto is
> http://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues
>
> According to taginfo, there
There was an Email from Mateusz Konieczny a bit earlier making a very
good point:
There is the general "duty_free=*" and more specific
"duty_free:refund=*" tag, but also very specific "duty_free:refund:*=*"
tags. In OSM we usually add also the more general tags like this:
emergency=fire_hydrant
Sorry for the possible confusion:
All the things you said sound still fine and logic to me, but the user
"marc_marc_irc" made a good point: We only need three values for
"duty_free=*": yes, no and refund.
What do you think of a scheme where we say:
* duty_free=yes
Travelers exporting things
>
> 2. Re: RFC free_water (François Lacombe)
>
Hi François,
I see your point and agree it would be preferable to develop a more
generalize nomenclature, but also think it is important to choose something
that is understandable to a newbie.
If we chose charge:water
17 Jan 2020, 13:19 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com:
> Le 17.01.20 à 02:49, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
>
I'm unsure why Carto ignores such a popular tagging scheme.
>>> Is it actually popular?
>>>
>>
>> The place to request changed to Openstreetmap-carto is
>>
33 matches
Mail list logo
