Stephan Plepelits wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 12:54:01PM -0700, Joseph Scanlan wrote:
>> What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be
>> commercial or retail.
> For the area of the hotel:
> amenity=hotel
>
> And for the hotel itself:
> amenity=hotel, building=yes
>
>
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> Bear in mind that the highway tags aren't meant
>> to be a sliding scale of importance, or follow a strict hierarchy.
>
> -1. I would contradict this for streets.
I would correct that. Roads that form the main road network have a scale of
importance - yes - but once
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 12:54:01PM -0700, Joseph Scanlan wrote:
> What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be
> commercial or retail.
For the area of the hotel:
amenity=hotel
And for the hotel itself:
amenity=hotel, building=yes
(For reference see amnenity=university)
gr
Nic Roets wrote:
> Could even be farmland or nature reserve e.g. Singita Lodge.
Or additionally include a golf course or sports area.
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySol
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Roy Wallace wrote:
> Not really John, although "difficult" is subjective... just
> extract
> whatever is in []'s first, then parse as normal. Having two
> different
> forms of "time" (i.e. HHMM and HH:MM) seems a bit
> unnecessary.
There is justification for use both ways.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:
> OK, to start beeing concrete, and because I got the idea that tagging
> according to importance is widely supported in the different
> countries, I edited the page. The result is here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Key%
Hi !
There is still something wrong here :
http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry//?lat=51.894&lon=9.1909
It found an area but not the town with this relation:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/142697
The relation itself should be ok and is used for the street-check:
http://osm
2009/8/5 Eugene Alvin Villar :
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Richard Mann
> wrote:
>> I'd agree that it should be "importance" for
>> trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. The stuff about not using trunk for
>> single-track roads just doesn't match what people are actually doing
>> (judging by som
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Craig Wallace wrote:
> Though the colon is already used for the time syntax for
> the
> opening_hours key: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours
> That's a fairly well used key, so it makes sense for the
> restrictions
> time syntax to be consistent.
The colo
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Craig Wallace wrote:
> Also, what if you don't know what time the school zone
> applies?
> Around here, they usually just have a sign with "20 when
> lights flash"
> or similar. I assume its at typical school times, but how
> would I tag that?
School signs in several if not
On 06/08/2009 02:02, John Smith wrote:
> --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> this doesn't look very familiar to me. Do you know the
>> following?
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditions_for_access_tags
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features
2009/8/5 Liz :
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>> > In addition the "Australian Tagging Guidelines" (which Liz mentioned
>> > were written a year before the residential page) explicitly disagree
>> > with the residential page.
> however, at that point, Jan 08, the concept was written.
2009/8/5 Jonathan Bennett :
> John Smith wrote:
>> I feel there is a very real need to describe "something" that is between
>> residential and track and up until this point in time unclassified has been
>> used.
tracks at least in Germany are not considered "roads", but ways, that
is they are no
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> in the end there will be only one maxspeed at the same
> time.
I agree, but my point was there could be a combination of restrictions at the
same time, but obviously one must take precedence over the others and that will
be the trick to this,
2009/8/5 John Smith :
> --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> but on second glance there are, and they are documented in
>> the
>> discussion-section:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Tag:restriction%3Dschool_zone
>
> The problem with those suggestions is
2009/8/5 John Smith :
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Shaun McDonald wrote:
>
>> You can determine whether an unclassified road is rural by
>> whether there are other things around in the area. That's
>> the whole point of Geo extensions in databases. you can also
>> do some preprocessing if you need
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> If you are using highway=unclassified in a residential area
> to mean "less
> significant than highway=residential", you're doing it
> completely contrary
> to standard practice. Therefore you are by definition
> wrong.
I didn't say I was doing tha
2009/8/5 Elena of Valhalla :
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smith wrote:
>> I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non-urban*
>> areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than
>> residential, generally unsealed but some of them are sealed a
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Peter Körner wrote:
> Okay, i got the point. I agree that this should be put into
> a tag/value pair but with the clarification that
> 4wd_only=yes (or whatever the tag will be) does *not*
> necessarily mean that all 4wd vehicles could pass this road
> at any time, instead it
2009/8/5 Jukka Rahkonen :
>> and the imagery ("Birds Eye View") is explicitly marked as copyright
>> below the image.
>>
>> Seems pretty explicit to me.
>
> Sure, if the aim is to copy the images. It is not so clear if the aim is to
> interpret the imagery and make a map from the visible facts. Se
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote:
>
> On 5 Aug 2009, at 20:59, Christiaan Welvaart wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
>>
>> > I'd define a "rural" as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public
>> > body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is
John Smith schrieb:
>
>
> --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
>
>> Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, and the
>> software
>> can't be expected to deal with a gazillion different
>> situations. It's
>> better to keep the data general. So using the "surface=*"
>> tag is
Jonathan Bennett schrieb:
> Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
>> Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered,
>
> Remember that rendering a map isn't the only use for geodata.
>
And also remember that the Main-OSM-Mapnik renderer isn't the only one
out there. If someone wants to render a map with
David Lynch schrieb:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 09:45, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
>> So using the "surface=*" tag is a
>> better approach IMHO to warn that a road is in a bad shape for ordinary
>> traffic.
>
> Surface alone doesn't tell you enough. A standard car can handle just
> about any surface e
Could even be farmland or nature reserve e.g. Singita Lodge.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:04 PM, John McKerrell wrote:
>
> On 5 Aug 2009, at 21:31, OJ W wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Ciarán
> > Mooney wrote:
> >>> What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be
>
On 5 Aug 2009, at 20:59, Christiaan Welvaart wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
>
>> I'd define a "rural" as a road which is (usually) maintained by a
>> public
>> body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision
>> is made
>> for vehicles travelling in opposite
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Konrad Skeri wrote:
> 1. Remove all highway=motorway, trunk, primary, etc.
> 2. Use highway=road. It's a road!
Q) how will we classify each road?
A) they will all be named Beverly
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetma
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:
> So I don't really see this mismatch you are seeing.
>
> Regards,
> Maarten
You are right, it's a mistake in my projection. Sorry for the noise.
Pieren
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
ht
On 5 Aug 2009, at 21:31, OJ W wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Ciarán
> Mooney wrote:
>>> What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be
>>> commercial or retail.
>>
>> I'm going to go with commercial, they as retail suggests that they
>> sell a physical product.
>
>
Pieren wrote:
> I'm currently implementing the cadastre support in JOSM for the french
> part of the island "Saint-Martin" shared with our Dutch friends (it is
> a special projection).
> The island is quite well mapped today, mostly from the hi-res Yahoo
> imagery I guess:
> http://www.openstreetm
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Ciarán
Mooney wrote:
>> What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be
>> commercial or retail.
>
> I'm going to go with commercial, they as retail suggests that they
> sell a physical product.
commercial suggests office buildings, which are des
> What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be
> commercial or retail.
I'm going to go with commercial, they as retail suggests that they
sell a physical product.
Ciarán
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.o
2009/8/5 Pieren :
> I'm currently implementing the cadastre support in JOSM for the french
> part of the island "Saint-Martin" shared with our Dutch friends (it is
> a special projection).
> The island is quite well mapped today, mostly from the hi-res Yahoo
> imagery I guess:
> http://www.openstre
G'day,
What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be
commercial or retail.
--
-
Joseph Scanlan
+1-702-455-3679 http://www.n7xsd.us/
j...@co.clark.nv.us (work)
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
> I'd define a "rural" as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public
> body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is made
> for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass (be that lower-grade
> shoulders, Australian-style
>
> Not exclusively "less technical", it's also an easier process, if you
> just want a simple map. I'm also unsure if its easier to unzip the files
> than to just download them. Its not like its dozens of files.
Don't modern browsers provide a way to include all html/image/include
files in one ch
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> Sebastian,
>
> Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
>>> To get map.css and util.js, you can run these commands from the same
>>> directory as the one that contains map.html, or just right-click on the
>>> links in Firefox and hit save as):
>>>
>>> wget http://osmtools.de/easymap/temp/
John Smith wrote:
> That isn't the point, the same key/value pair is being used for 2
> completely different purposes
No, it isn't. highway=unclassified has, and always has had, a consistent
meaning.
If you are using highway=unclassified in a residential area to mean "less
significant than high
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 09:45, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
> So using the "surface=*" tag is a
> better approach IMHO to warn that a road is in a bad shape for ordinary
> traffic.
Surface alone doesn't tell you enough. A standard car can handle just
about any surface except mud, as long as it's relat
Sebastian,
Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
>> To get map.css and util.js, you can run these commands from the same
>> directory as the one that contains map.html, or just right-click on the
>> links in Firefox and hit save as):
>>
>> wget http://osmtools.de/easymap/temp/map.css
>> wget http://osmtools.de
Scott Bronson schrieb:
> Apparently you need to host the map yourself.
>
> 1) Click Download Map
> 2) Upload map.html it to your web host or save it to a directory on your
> local machine
> 3) Put map.css and util.js into the same directory as map.html (urls below)
> 4) Open map.html in Firefox.
David Earl frankieandshadow.com> writes:
> These are from Multimap, and if you click the T&Cs on the bing mapping
> page it takes you to Multimap's T&C's:
>
> http://www.multimap.com/about/legal_and_copyright/
>
> and the imagery ("Birds Eye View") is explicitly marked as copyright
> below th
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
> Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered,
Remember that rendering a map isn't the only use for geodata.
--
Jonathan (Jonobennett)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinf
After reading the
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines page,
it strikes me that you are already redefining most of the values for
the highway key. So why would you continue to refer to the
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features page. I guess that is
because it i
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
> Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, and the
> software
> can't be expected to deal with a gazillion different
> situations. It's
> better to keep the data general. So using the "surface=*"
> tag is a
> better approach IMHO to warn
>> But never the less I think if 4wd-only is common in that
>> region, why not
>> tag it? The more data, the better. But I'm unsure if the
"The BETTER data, the better". There, I fixed that for you :-)
Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, and the software
can't be expected to dea
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:30 AM, John Smith wrote:
> but the emails in the last day or 2 have gone no where in addressing the
> issue,
Seriously, there's a lot of people subscribed to this list, and very
few joining the conversation. Maybe everyone is watching 5 or 6 people
getting themselves into
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Richard Mann wrote:
> The tagger just needs to be able to describe what is
> there simply and clearly. A new tag for rural
> "unclassifieds" would clarify matters, and
> highway=rural is as good a suggestion as any. It would be
> better for us to have something we can agree o
Proposal: +1. Thanks
The question whether urban "unclassifieds" are at the same level of urban
"residentials" can be left to the router/renderer - best not to mention it.
The tagger just needs to be able to describe what is there simply and
clearly. A new tag for rural "unclassifieds" would clari
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> > In addition the "Australian Tagging Guidelines" (which Liz mentioned
> > were written a year before the residential page) explicitly disagree
> > with the residential page.
>
> I've done some investigation on this specific point, and found the
> f
2009/8/5 Pieren
> Can someone from the Netherlands contact me and check with me what
> could be done to fix this issue ?
>
It is not someone from the Netherlands you should have contact with but with
someone from the Netherlands Antilles of which Saint Martin is part of.
The government if I reme
Konrad Skeri skeri.com> writes:
>
[tagging 'admin_level' of roads instad of residential, unclassified, etc]
>Use the whole scale and omit levels so that countries with
>intermediate classifications will have a free number to use. One way
>of doing this it so use 1...100 and have 1, 10, 20, 30...1
Hi,
I'm currently implementing the cadastre support in JOSM for the french
part of the island "Saint-Martin" shared with our Dutch friends (it is
a special projection).
The island is quite well mapped today, mostly from the hi-res Yahoo
imagery I guess:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=18.069&lon
2009/8/5 maning sambale :
> I hope they do, they have several areas with high-res that are not
> covered in yahoo! in the Philippines
While Ms's and Multimap's reputation is that they would not allow that
if they have this option (Microsoft is a coin operated machine), let's
ask them, maybe we're
John Smith wrote:
> Is it forbidden, explicitly or otherwise?
Yes. Unless it's explicitly permitted, it's forbidden.
--
Jonathan (Jonobennett)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
John Smith wrote:
>
>
> --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Andy Allan wrote:
>
>> It doesn't need to be explicitly forbidden for it to still
>> be forbidden.
>
> Is it forbidden, explicitly or otherwise?
These are from Multimap, and if you click the T&Cs on the bing mapping
page it takes you to Multimap's
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Richard Mann <
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I'd agree that it should be "importance" for
> trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. The stuff about not using trunk for
> single-track roads just doesn't match what people are actually doing
> (judging by
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> If there are types of roads in Australia that you feel the
> existing tags
> don't adequately describe, feel free to start using a new
> one -- you can
> use Any Tags You Like. Bear in mind that the highway tags
> aren't meant
> to be a sliding sca
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Andy Allan wrote:
> It doesn't need to be explicitly forbidden for it to still
> be forbidden.
Is it forbidden, explicitly or otherwise?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listin
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:36 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> I know google forbids it, but I haven't heard about MS/Bing... Have they
> disallowed use of their sat imagery or is it explicitly forbidden in their
> T&Cs?
It doesn't need to be explicitly forbidden for it to still be forbidden.
Cheers,
An
John Smith wrote:
> I feel there is a very real need to describe "something" that is between
> residential and track and up until this point in time unclassified has been
> used.
If there are types of roads in Australia that you feel the existing tags
don't adequately describe, feel free to star
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Peter Körner wrote:
> surface=* is unambiguous to anyone and in any place around the world.
it doesn't tell me whether i drive my FWD car along there or if i should stay
away
and it doesn't matter how you define surface, it isn't going to explain what
4wd only means.
it's a l
Hi,
Peter Körner wrote:
> 4WD has a special meaning in your area
I don't know what 4WD means in other places but if I saw a map with
certain roads marked "4 WD only" I would know exactly what that means,
and I doubt that anyone wouldn't!
Bye
Frederik
___
John Smith schrieb:
> --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Peter Körner wrote:
>
>> But never the less I think if 4wd-only is common in that
>> region, why not
>> tag it? The more data, the better. But I'm unsure if the
>> renderer should
>> implement it, as it could just be used in this area,
>> whereas surfac
As we probably never can agree on the semantics discussion we should
redefine the syntax of the highway-tag from scratch. This will never
happen since it's a pita-job to edit the existing data, but here we
go:
1. Remove all highway=motorway, trunk, primary, etc.
2. Use highway=road. It's a road! I
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> be aware that in
> the European Axis there's a very strong feeling
we are very aware of the European Axis
there are many terms in English which can be used
Eurocentric
Cultural Imperialism
etc
Please guys, your corner of the world is small
You don't e
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> It's up to the AU community what to do about this, but be
> aware that in
> the European Axis there's a very strong feeling that for a
> road to be
> tagged residential, there needs to be houses (or other
> dwellings) on it,
> and for it not to be des
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> WHS -- it meets the guidelines of being verifiable, by
> being what's on
> the ground. If it were based on one mapper's judgement,
> that would be
> different, but this is unambiguous.
Australia isn't the only country that does 4WD Only signs...
ht
James Livingston wrote:
> In addition the "Australian Tagging Guidelines" (which Liz mentioned
> were written a year before the residential page) explicitly disagree
> with the residential page.
I've done some investigation on this specific point, and found the
following:
The edit which added
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> What is the legal status of these signs? Are you liable to a fine if you
> proceed with a 2WD car, or is it just that the insurance won't pay if
> you do and get stuck? Or are they just meant as an advice to drivers?
Ah, the legal status is very interestin
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Liz wrote:
> and mud, poor traction ground clearance and a ford still
> might not make a 4wd
> only track.
Having grown up in such areas I'm well schooled in traveling along tracks that
aren't 4wd only and ways to unstick yourself, usually jacking up the car and
sticking
Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>> High ground clearance required?
>> ...So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology
>> and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep
>> fords,
>> mud or poor traction conditions ...
>
> The s
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Peter Körner wrote:
> But never the less I think if 4wd-only is common in that
> region, why not
> tag it? The more data, the better. But I'm unsure if the
> renderer should
> implement it, as it could just be used in this area,
> whereas surface=*
> can be applied to ever
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Lester Caine wrote:
> High ground clearance required?
> More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not always clear what
> they are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the correct
> terminology and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground
> clearan
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:18 AM, John Smith wrote:
> Change highway=unclassified definition to be more explicit, for example:
Are you just speaking about Australia wiki pages or in general ?
> "No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form the
> interconnecting grid network
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Lester Caine wrote:
> Certainly an 'unclassified' highway should not be capable of handling a
> large lorry so routes for access to farms should be tagged 'service'
> perhaps where such access is practical,
It must be capable of taking the fire truck.
Often they can also take v
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> that's IMHO why I started this discussion: it surely isn't just physical.
well perhaps that was why the Australian Guidelines, written before I joined
OSM, tagged highways both with their physical condition and an administrative
condition, double
On 05/08/2009, at 5:54 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> The sign says "4WD ONLY" - I therefore suggest that 4wd_only is indeed
> the correct terminology, at least in regions (e.g. Australia) where
> the sign appears as such and the phrase is in common use.
While true, it would also be useful to know whet
Morten Kjeldgaard schrieb:
> On 05/08/2009, at 10.09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>> Maybe it makes sense to use a variation of the "motorcar" tag which is
>> already widely used to model car access (e.g. highway=tertiary,
>> motorcar=4wdonly - or even highway=tertiary, motorcar=no,
>> motorcar:4wd=yes
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> What is the legal status of these signs? Are you liable to
> a fine if you
> proceed with a 2WD car, or is it just that the insurance
> won't pay if
> you do and get stuck? Or are they just meant as an advice
> to drivers?
Primarily they are advice w
On 05/08/2009, at 10.09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Maybe it makes sense to use a variation of the "motorcar" tag which is
> already widely used to model car access (e.g. highway=tertiary,
> motorcar=4wdonly - or even highway=tertiary, motorcar=no,
> motorcar:4wd=yes or something)?
This is going in
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Roy Wallace wrote:
> Hmm... Frederik has a point. John you seem to be mashing
> together 1)
> the importance and 2) the quality ("good" vs "bad").
Quality doesn't have as much to do with things as the importance, as a result
of the importance and the number of complaints
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> High ground clearance required?
> More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not always clear what they
> are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology
> and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it grou
Hi,
Roy Wallace wrote:
> The sign says "4WD ONLY" - I therefore suggest that 4wd_only is indeed
> the correct terminology, at least in regions (e.g. Australia) where
> the sign appears as such and the phrase is in common use.
What is the legal status of these signs? Are you liable to a fine if yo
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:49 PM, John Smith wrote:
> --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> I would not hesitate to use highway=residential or
>> highway=unclassified for these (or even tertiary and up if
>> they are important to traffic). In fact, nobody says that a
>> secondary road must be
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> High ground clearance required?
> ...So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology
> and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep fords,
> mud or poor traction conditions ...
The sign says "4WD ONLY" - I therefore
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jack Stringer wrote:
> 4x4 are for the crap drivers, 2wd is
> the best. In the UK there are several reliabilty trials that
> use these so called 4x4 tracks for competitions.
> I think we need a tag that suggests the highway is
> either rough terrain or hard going and a dece
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> This is not how it is generally used over here (Germany)
> where the majority of people use unclassified for a road
> roughly equal to residential but without people living
> there.
I don't know about the talk-de list, just what I've seen on this lis
4x4 are for the crap drivers, 2wd is the best. In the UK there are several
reliabilty trials that use these so called 4x4 tracks for competitions.
I think we need a tag that suggests the highway is either rough terrain or
hard going and a decent off road vehicle is strongly advised. 4x4 only does
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
> I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's
> meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic
> than residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary.
This is not how it is generally used over here (Germany) where the
major
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Elena of Valhalla wrote:
> where would this differ from an highway=track?
A track is lower grade, at least here.
rural road: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/330763485_4f976dba02.jpg
track:
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/200281101-001.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=BEE8F6
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Gustav Foseid wrote:
> I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but
> to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is it has
> higher volumes of traffic than residential, but not enough
> to be considered tertiary.
Someone already tried that. It didn't even progr
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Shaun McDonald wrote:
> You can determine whether an unclassified road is rural by
> whether there are other things around in the area. That's
> the whole point of Geo extensions in databases. you can also
> do some preprocessing if you need to.
That isn't the point, the s
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Lester Caine wrote:
> High ground clearance required?
> More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not
> always clear what they
> are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the
> correct terminology
> and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it groun
Hello everyone,
with HAR2009 only days away we still have only 2 participants for the
"Village Geography" (https://wiki.har2009.org/page/Village:Geography)
If there are no other mappers and developers or simply users interested
in choosing to camp in that village as opposed to the others I may
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smith wrote:
> I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non-urban*
> areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than
> residential, generally unsealed but some of them are sealed and they
> generally only have a s
On 5 Aug 2009, at 06:40, John Smith wrote:
>
> Currently highway=unclassified is too ambiguous, and while there was
> a proposal to replace this with highway=minor this seems to have
> gone no where yet the same problem still exists.
>
> I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but t
97 matches
Mail list logo
