On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 08:29, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 09:58, yo paseopor wrote:
>> -Information about the capacity of a parking
> Tag the capacity of the car park itself. It's more useful. People may use
> the query tool (or
> similar techniques) to look at the tags for
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 at 16:58, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> Well, all of which I mentioned is optional. But I can come up with two
> use cases for wanting to know which level is the ground level:
> 1. Localization
> In an application, it is much nicer to be able to write
> "ground floor" (en-GB),
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 15:51, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Evertthing is right and welcome!
Cheers, thank you!
>> 1. no service tag recommended for tracks that are regularly used in
>> scheduled service, including loops and tail tracks
> Also part of loops that are never used to carry passengers,
First time posting here, forgive if I've missed some rules.
Summary: I wanted to refine tagging of some tram/streetcar tracks to
show what they're used for, and found this isn't standardized and
I would like to suggest updating wiki for Key:service to specify
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:32, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 11:25 Fernando Trebien
>> I never thought that emergency access would determine highway
>> classification. It seems like a secondary use of the way, not its main
> motor_vehicle=no would exclude
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:52, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 12:41 Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:32, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 11:25 Fernando Trebien
>> > wrote:
>> >> I never thought that e
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 13:11, Paul Allen wrote:
> Vehicular access may be
> prohibited by law, even if it's physically possible. Or it may be restricted
> to service vehicles
> supplying shops along the way (do we have an access value for that?)
Yes, of course, access=delivery, possibly
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 18:02, Leif Rasmussen <354...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems like the best way forward now is for a proposal allowing
> OpenStreetMap data to be tightly integrated with outside sources (such as
> GTFS) to be created by someone.
+1. To avoid lots of changes, perhaps only set
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 15:25, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> To exclude emergency vehicles one should tag physical, not legal
> To include motorized emergency vehicles where access=no or motor_vehicle=no,
> you need to add emergency=yes.
Because if we don't, the fire truck stops, the
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 05:34, Sergio Manzi wrote:
> BTW, do we have a specific tag for "emergency traffic light" that are put
> near emergency vehicles exits to stop normal traffic when emergency vehicles
> are about to exit?
Funnily enough, per
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 19:15, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OSM relies on the contributions of many people, most of them are not going to
> spend much time learn stuff - particular complicated stuff that they don't
> see in their day to day life.
> The complexity of things like the
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 07:55, Paul Allen wrote:
> You are living in an ideal world that does not exist. Go to the standard
> carto. Use the query tool.
> All the translation mechanisms you posit do not exist.
Hey, wait a second. Most people around where I live wouldn't
understand why smaller
I've gotten paid for wrangling GTFS worldwide before - happy to tell
you some of my experiences.
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 19:42, Paul Allen wrote:
> As I said, I'd prefer not to use url=* because it could be for anything - a
> page about the history of
> the bus stop (maybe the shelter is
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 09:42, dktue wrote:
> I currently found out that shops that sell clothes are either tagged with
> or with
> but I can't find out when to use which.
> Can anybody clarify?
There is a continuum with shop=clothes, shop=fashion, and
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 16:29, Richard Welty wrote:
> i spent some time looking at a project to build OSM based
> emergency maps. i concluded we needed to do layers of
> information, some of which were appropriate to host in
> OSM and others which were not. there would have been a
> program to
On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 12:54, henkevdb wrote:
> Possibility to 'introduce' a Key:access=restricted ... with description ;
> traffic only open for mentioned*=yes .
IMHO: What is the advantage over using access=no? access=no already
compounds like this. This also works in parallel with existing
Reposting to mailing list, after henkevdb sent to my personal email
On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 14:16, henkevdb wrote:
> watercourses ( in Belgium anyway) are (mostly) open to the 'general
> public', so , access=no (with description ; "No access for the general
> public.") is not good then
If your use case is people using the query tool on
https://openstreetmap.org to follow links to PDFs to plan a journey,
then whatever tagging specification you use doesn't really matter as
long as it's understandable to the people viewing it - a link looks
like a link so that's quite easy.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 13:35, Paul Allen wrote:
> But I'd prefer we have specific keys for
> timetables and GTFS data rather than rely upon either of those. Much better
> to make things clear
> with timetable=* and gtfs=* (except we have to deal with partial
> timetables/feeds from operators
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 09:10, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access and
> were just modifed
> Review of
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 14:51, Mark Wagner wrote:
> > Do you have any locally-defined highway system that approximately
> > matches the idea of "a system of highways that generally connects
> > place=hamlet"?
> That would be the state highway system: nearly every incorporated
> community and
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 17:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Is OSM supposed to be for a tight, dedicated group of expert mappers trying
> to create the best, most accurate, technically-perfect map the World has ever
> seen; or is it for the use of John Doe & Jane Public using OSMAND & Maps Me
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 05:17, Phake Nick wrote:
> 在 2019年3月10日週日 11:04，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道：
>> There are a fair number of commercial tutor/coaching establishments that
>> provide after school hours tuition in various subjects/courses.
> I have checked some of these features in
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 22:39, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> Last month I wrote about defining service=* tag values for
> railway=tram ways, which were previously not defined and used somewhat
> varyingly in the wild. Thanks Mateusz for your help refining the
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
> Here we should be getting the best tags
+1, I would rather have a well-specified tag that is rarely used than
no tag at all.
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 20:16, Sergio Manzi wrote:
> Then why not bolts and nuts? I suppose there are many nuts of historical
> significance around.
Indeed, and if someone comes up with a good tagging proposal for them,
I'll support it, rather than disparage just because I personally don't
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 10:48, Jmapb wrote:
> I've been tagging them as office=tutoring... can't remember whose suggestion
> that was, but it seems adequate. (Only 35 hits on taginfo though.) Could
> combine with tutoring=test_prep if that's the main focus.
Hi John and J,
In Toronto I've seen
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 18:07, Martin Koppenhoefer
> and a significant length
+1 on this. I would expect a pedestrian router to apply a scoring
penalty to highways with sidewalk=no or sidewalk=separate, and with
the help of this scoring choose the
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 09:23, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> IMHO this violates the one object - one OSM element principle. Either I
> choose the coarser approach
> to map a way for the row, or I refine it to individual trees, but should not
> use the row anymore.
My interpretation would be that
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 08:42, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> What do you think?
In my experience in Canada I would indeed expect all (or basically
all) highway=residential to be (legally) accessible to pedestrians,
the question would be more about comfort or safety. I don't know if
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:51, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> I doubt access restrictions are used that way in reality.
> The absence of keys like the mentioned key walkable(, cycleable,
> motorcarable, hgvable etc.) is a clear sign for that, because there are
> enough situations where the situation on the
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 17:10, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> In a related discussion I have heard the argument that, after mapping the
> individual trees, "if we
> delete the tree_row way, we lose the information that they are part of a tree
> The problem with that argument is that a tree_row
Last month I wrote about defining service=* tag values for
railway=tram ways, which were previously not defined and used somewhat
varyingly in the wild. Thanks Mateusz for your help refining the
I have now written
My suggestion would be to map only the normal and the predictable. If it's
usually not navigable in summer, "no @ summer" or something. If it's not really
predictable, I wouldn't map it unless it's something dangerous like vulnerable
to flash floods or lahars.
Highways liable to getting cut
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 17:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> What concerns me a bit, is that there are 75+ OSM mappers, which is
> great! But it would seem that there are only ~50 (? - someone would know)
> members of "Tagging", with only ~20 of those being active (which I would call
I'm looking for a way to tag designated areas where cyclists wait to
safely make a far turn (in right-hand-drive regions, a left turn).
I'll call them "left turn boxes" for short though pointers to a better
name would be welcome!
They're paint-designated places for cyclists to wait to do
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 22:30, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> > What I'm saying is highway=bundesstraße could be acceptable, but
>> > straße=bundestraße wouldn't be. Mostly so way type objects with highway=*
>> > are still potentially routable.
>> How do you propose these "potential routable"
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 20:16, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:57 PM Joseph Eisenberg
>> > Being able to speak each country's highway lingua franca would make it a
>> > lot easier for OSM to become the Rosetta Stone of maps simply from ease of
>> > classification.
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 20:26, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> > I'm not arguing in favor of a change in language for key name. But the
>> > local broadly accepted classification terminology (preferably in English
>> > for consistency sake) for the value.
>> Why in English? Bundesstraße is a broadly
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 13:29, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Why are "stopping=yes|no" and "parking=yes|no" (and variants of these) not in
> use in OSM?
> But the much more complex "parking:lane:both=no_stopping" and
> "parking:lane:both=no_parking" are in use with the same meaning.
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 18:32, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 13:29, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > Why are "stopping=yes|no" and "parking=yes|no" (and variants of these) not
> > in use in OSM?
> > But the much
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 16:41, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/3/20 8:31 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> On 29. Feb 2020, at 22:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think source_map=* or source:map=* would be better as that can also be
>>> used for other specific 'sources'.
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 05:01, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> These shows do take place at a permanent site.
> They take place annually, floods, fire, droughts and wars excepted.
> The dates may vary depending on various things, but usually around the same
> time each year.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 09:12, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Il ven 24 gen 2020, 11:51 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> ha scritto:
>> One of topics often appearing is mismatch between meaning of key
>> and key text.
>> It is created at
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 07:25, Joseph Eisenberg
> > iD also brings up the "suggestion" that existing amenity=clinic, pharmacy &
> > (I think) dentist tags by themselves are "incomplete" & should be upgraded
> > by adding healthcare=
> > eg
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 18:08, Joseph Eisenberg
> The problem is that new users of iD do not know that they are adding
> tags like healthcare=pharmacy and dispensing=yes.
> I reviewed the pharmcies in the cities I have mapped, and found that I
> had added healthcare=pharmacy to 8 features
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:55, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets wrote:
>> >> That
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets wrote:
>> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common practice.
>> I personally tag `highway=cycleway` where bikes significantly outnumber foot
>> traffic, `highway=footway`
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 11:44, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging writes:
> > Universities may have faculties, that often deserved to be mapped
> > separately.
> > ...
> > It seems to me that amenity=faculty would be useful.
> Perhaps, but beware that in US English, this is
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 09:38, Rob Savoye wrote:
> On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to roads by
> > their ref. That's fine. I will say "I'm taking the A3400 to Stratford"
> I'm wondering if "CR 12" or "County Road
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 17:05, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 21:11, Florimond Berthoux
>> How to map a continuous sidewalk or cycleway ?
>> In order to solve this question I created a wiki page to sum up my first try
>> to tag this:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 02:49, Joseph Eisenberg
> I would like to formally request comments on the proposal for
> "A place where motorcycle taxis wait for passengers"
> While some have proposed using amenity=taxi plus additional tags for
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 17:10, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want, then another key so the above does not get polluted?
bollard_structure=block would surely be better off as a barrier=block?
That's already well established.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 15:53, ET Commands wrote:
> > bollard=unremovable for fixed bollards sounds good to me.
> My spelling check does not like "unremovable" but instead suggests
> "irremovable." However, if I want to be nit-picky, all bollards are
> ultimately removable, so maybe more
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 16:51, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bollards are there to protect people. With the present threats I would think
> identifying which bollards could be easily driven through on a public
> map/data base would be a bad idea.
> So I would be firmly
On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 at 15:16, John Sturdy wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 6:54 PM Hauke Stieler wrote:
>> there's the "bollard" key with documented value "rising" and "removable"
>>  but I often encounter also bollards which cannot be removed easily.
>> I would love to see the "unremovable"
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 10:00, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:06 PM Jarek Piórkowski
>> I'm looking for a way to tag designated areas where cyclists wait to
>> safely make a far turn (in right-hand-drive regions, a left turn).
>> I'll call them "
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Although unusual, oneway on pedestrian highways (path, footway, track) is
> possible in some places.
> Cases of oneway pedestrian traffic includes some hiking trails, border
> exit-only passages and more.
> How to tag this?
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 08:03, marc marc wrote:
> Le 08.01.20 à 05:10, Marc Gemis a écrit :
> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:30 PM marc marc wrote:
> >> keep it simple !
> >> advanced stop box only use a cycleway=asl without relation
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dasl
> >> a
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 18:04, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 09:34:32AM -0500, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 04:22, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > > OTOH in the dense urban areas you have the problem of Address for road A
> > > n
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 04:48, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 10:20, Martin Koppenhoefer
>> > On 9. Jan 2020, at 22:04, Dave F via Tagging
>> > wrote:
>> >> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only,
>> > That tag on footways would apply only to
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 18:18, Jmapb via Tagging
> On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
> > one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
> > is, highway=footway. If t
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Martin Koppenhoefer
> Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski
>> I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
>> one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
>> is, hi
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 01:19, Joseph Eisenberg
> On 1/15/20, European Water Project wrote:
> > Would it be appropriate to use the tag "seasonal" for a water fountain
> > (whether tagged as "amenity=drinking_water" or "amenity = fountain and
> > drinking_water = yes" )?
> Since drinking
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 20:52, Joseph Eisenberg
> > seasonal=summer
> Well, this is the problem with the tag "seasonal" - it's not 100%
> clear if "seasonal=summer" means "this feature is only available in
> the summer" or "this feature is NOT available in the summer".
Ah, good point! So
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer
> Lets see tags more like a programming language and less like natural language.
Here's how the mappers have seen the tags in question so far,
according to Taginfo:
oneway:foot=no 1267 occurrences (not all from one region)
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer
> Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski
>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer
>> > Lets see tags more like a programming language and less like natural
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 00:51, European Water Project
>>5. Re: Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water
>> fountains. (Jarek Piórkowski)
>> >>>> Jarek, I think preferable to avoid seasons on open hours and put
>> month range t
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 04:22, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> OTOH in the dense urban areas you have the problem of Address for road A
> nearer to Road B. So you get navigated to the wrong spot on the road
> network. This view is generated with the OSRM Car profile and mapping
> all addr:* objects with
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:38, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 09:39:44PM -0500, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > I was thinking about this whole thing earlier. Caution, wall of text.
> > At the risk of being philosophical, what is an address exactly?
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 18:48, Colin Smale wrote:
> Just to be clear: in the situation I am referring to, an article priced at
> GBP120 in such a mixed shop is GBP120 net to an exporting passenger, but
> GBP100 net + GBP20 tax (@20% VAT) to a non-exporting passenger. Everybody
> pays the same,
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 19:16, Colin Smale wrote:
>> What do you consider a definition of "duty free" or "duty free shop"
>> that would be useful to a OSM data consumer?
> Which OSM data consumer?
> Just a reminder: I didn't start this, I am merely trying to add a nuance to
> the data
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 17:37, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2019-12-31 23:04, Hauke Stieler wrote:
>> that's true, the EU is one special case here. But would the status of a
>> traveler influence the tagging schema of "duty_free=*" in your opinion?
> The EU is only a special case because there are
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 at 16:24, bkil wrote:
> We had the same argument over a local mailing list and another idea came up:
> some of the signage you see and many of their own website use the given
> capitalization for stylistic purposes. But the question remains: why isn't a
> map using
On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 20:05, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> I'm looking for a way to tag designated areas where cyclists wait to
> safely make a far turn (in right-hand-drive regions, a left turn).
> I'll call them "left turn boxes" for short though point
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 18:23, Dave F via Tagging
> On 05/01/2020 18:37, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > This depends on the country.
> > It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,
> Where does it say that? Where does it say it's forbidden to add address
> data to
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 20:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Was wondering about how to bring this up when the ongoing discussion about
> building addresses started ...
> I've recently been working on Map Roulette errors, & while doing so, have
> come across quite a few cases where addresses
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 16:29, marc marc wrote:
> Le 06.01.20 à 04:19, Jarek Piórkowski a écrit :
> > Comments most welcome!
> keep it simple !
> advanced stop box only use a cycleway=asl without relation
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 19:41, Morten Lange via Tagging
> On-street markings for a two-stage left-turn were recently introduced on a
> few roads/streets in Oslo, Norway.
> I think
> looks okay.
> But since there is
> why not use
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 12:15, Florimond Berthoux
> I think it’s a good thing to map these two stage turn for bicycles.
> I can’t see better solution than using relation (unless doing surface
> Le lun. 6 janv. 2020 à 04:21, Jare
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 13:07, Dave F via Tagging
> On 09/03/2020 13:21, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > PTv2 is fine for people who want to handle routes that have variants
> > and branches and who want computer validators to be able to spot
> > potential errors in th
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 22:22, Joseph Eisenberg
> > I am thinking of cases like streetside stops for 30 m or 45 m long
> trams. There might be a shelter, which is the most prominent physical
> feature of the tram stop. There is no explicit platform. The tram stop
> sign might be 10 metres
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 23:09, Joseph Eisenberg
> > In inclement weather, passengers may well be found waiting in
> the transit shelter 8 metres to west, and the tram will stop for them
> if they are waiting in the shelter. It might also stop if you are
> waiting a little bit beyond the
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 07:29, John Doe wrote:
> This is quite off-topic, but I can't bear to read more completely unfounded
> criticism of PTv2.
highway=bus_stop ("PTv1") is fine for people who survey bus stops and
who want to approximately map a route of a simple bus.
PTv2 is fine for people
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 08:12, Jo wrote:
> That stop_position nodes became optional is probably because of my influence.
> In the beginning they were definitely part of how PTv2. I disliked this very
> much because all of a sudden we were using 2 objects to define a single stop,
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:00, wrote:
> So in which cases "highway=traffic_signals + crossing=traffic_signals on the
> same node" should be used? Only for the "crossing only-traffic lights" I
Yeah, personally I would agree with that. Only on
On 15/04/2020 05:33, lukas-...@web.de wrote:
Okay, so this is what I think, too and maybe I would clarify this in the
But I think in some cases it still wouldn't be clear, because what would
be about mapping this then:
On 15/04/2020 09:27, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
On Apr 15, 2020, at 8:34 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
The traffic lights control the junction
We have a lot of traffic light controlled crossings in Japan that are
just for a crosswalk, while the smaller intersecting road is stop-sign
On 15/04/2020 23:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Some paths and footways have oneway=yes. Sometimes this means that
bicycles may only access these features in one direction, but other
times it has been used for one-way features for pedestrians (for
example, queues in theme parks or at border control
On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 12:56, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 17:43, wrote:
>> The second goal my proposal wants to message is to deprecate tagging
>> "crossing=traffic_signals" together with "highway=traffic_signals" on the
>> same node. Especially if you're saying this is a full
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 06:23, wrote:
> To response on the mentioning:
> "Currently the wiki page says "traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand makes
> it easy to mark all traffic lights which do only control a crossing",
> again I personally find highway=traffic_signals +
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 07:40, Snusmumriken
> On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 22:24 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> > just usually only a certain kind of bicycle.
> Well, that's the problem, if one can't travel on a certain way with a
> general purpose bicycle, then it shouldn't be tagged
Phil, the question appears to be for different signs/rules for
different lanes/turns but in the same direction.
António, interesting question. In my interpretation, relation
type=enforcement seems to be intended for recording or punishing
violations of rules (wiki "devices that measure and
On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 16:21, António Madeira wrote:
> I'm not very knowledgable about relations, and I'm sorry if I'm a bit
> confused here, but doesn't a restriction relation means the exact opposite of
> what's intended here?
> I mean, I want to apply a STOP sign to a given lane (in a way
On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 19:33, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 00:25, Martin Koppenhoefer
>> imagine you are ordering a taxi for yourself and 2 colleagues to the airport
>> and instead of a taxi (cab) they send you 3 taxi moto. Would that be equally
>> ok, wouldn’t it
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:25, Joseph Eisenberg
> If you arrive at the airport in Bali with your in-laws, and look on Maps.me
> for the closest taxi stand and walk over to it, you will be quite
> disappointed to find a line of motorcycles, and have to walk back to the
> other side of the
On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 21:04, Phake Nick wrote:
> I am more thinking about analysis of geographical data of cities or districts
> where taxi and motorcycle taxi would be two very different things to be
If you are managing taxis and motorcycle taxis then surely you know
you have to
On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 18:35, Phake Nick wrote:
> At the end of the day we are not taking motorcycle taxi and taxi themselves.
> What's being tagged are waiting area for taxi or motorcycle taxis. What
> matters is that, if one is created as an optional subtag of another, would
> not using such
On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 02:27, s8evq wrote:
> Of the 8 opposing votes, only 1 has made the effort to comment beforehand on
> the talk page. The 7 others just came in and voted no, without any discussion
> beforehand. That doesn't seem correct. It should not be possible to be
> suddenly faced
On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 09:05, s8evq wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2020 08:43:27 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski
> > How much discussion do you think should be necessary before voting "I
> > oppose, because I think using sub-tags is better"? If someone thinks
> > t
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo