On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the bridge should be tagged.
There was an overwhelming response on the main talk list that this be tagged
as maxheight on the way that has
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you're wrong here. Maxheight is an element of the way that goes
under the bridge. It is caused by the bridge, but it is not part of
the bridge.
You're saying that the clearance under a bridge is not an attribute of
the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:15 AM,
Cameronosm-mailing-li...@justcameron.com wrote:
I think tag the part of the way that is signed. Generally before bridges
there is a sign informing road users of the bridge's restrictions. Sometimes
they will offer an alternate route for larger vehicles. So tag
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Ross Scanloni...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Does this mean the bridge has a clearance of 2.8 or the road under the bridge
has a clearance of 2.8. To me this would suggest the bridge has a limit of
2.8 ie vehicles travelling over the bridge can not be above 2.8
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Apollinaris Schoellascho...@gmail.com wrote:
one bridge can cross multiple roads with different maxheight limtations.
This is a good argument in favour of tagging the ways that pass under
a bridge instead of the bridge. But I think it should be weighed
against
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
When I travel over the bridge I am not interested in the maximum height of the
way which travels under the bridge.
When I travel under the bridge I am interested in the height limitation.
Ah, perhaps our difference in opinion stems
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think everyone is thinking of this in one of 2 ways, it's either an
attribute of the bridge, or a restriction of the way under the bridge.
Agreed. And it's clear that both ways of thinking are probably valid.
As
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
As of time of writing maxheight is the only valid one and I don't think we
need or should have 2 tags to indicate the
same thing in 2 different ways.
I meant there's two ways of conceptualising the distance below a
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:30 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I would at least suggest that - if maxheight is applied to a node, as
you suggest - the node should be *shared* by the bridge (way) and the
way passing under
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is
indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?).
Logically you can as they are on different layers.
Yes
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Having a node shared between a bridge and the way
underneath may solve one problem but introduces another (having to make a
relation to indicate this physical route is not present).
Agreed.
maxheight needs to be applied to
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:58 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
The solution depends on what problem you are trying to solve, if you are
trying to find attributes of a bridge or restrictions of a way, my suggestion
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
IMHO it is not that important if the way with the limit is only just beneath
the bridge, or is somewhat longer or is applied to nodes on either side of a
bridge.
I recently came across this example where the way with the
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Mark Williams
mark@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Therefore maxheight is a property of the way going under the bridge,
possibly 1 way if the road is fragmented in OSM, and ought to be on the
whole road from where the sign is until after the bridge.
Yup, that
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 29/7/09, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
the other examples are very questionable :
traffic_sign=maxspeed:30
That does look questionable if for no other reason that maxspeed should be
used
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:05 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Have things reached the level that people have nothing but street signs to
map as POIs?
Hehe. I don't see why we should discourage a high level of detail.
Users can decide for themselves what they want to contribute, as
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:00 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 29/7/09, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org
wrote:
I have made a proposal for a tag
I think this will only serve to confuse, no where on the maxheight wiki link
you provided does it
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
The maxheight for a feature such as a bridge is the maximum height of an
object of the standard type that will fit under it.
No, the maxheight for a way refers to the maximum height *above* it
(not under it).
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:41 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Either way, expanding the existing tag makes more sense than creating 2
differently named tags which will cause even more confusion and duplication.
I agree. So, how about maxheight:physical, maxheight:legal, and leave
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Aun Johnsen (via
Webmail)skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
I agree. So, how about maxheight:physical, maxheight:legal, and leave
room for others if there is a demonstrable need in future?
...
If this is your suggestion to solve this, than I suggest you do
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:24 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Is there really such an overwhelming need to mark the physical difference to
the legal difference?
Whether there is an overwhelming need is not the question. The
question is whether allowing for the annotation of two
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:04 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
How much does the physical height exceed the legal height in most cases?
This is difficult to answer. For a way passing under a bridge, I would
argue the limitation is (semantically) a physical one and not a legal
one.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/31 Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl:
When using maxheight / maxheight:physical / maxheight:legal the words
themself
already tell most of the definition.
maxheight - for places where the difference is
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Cartinuscarti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
For three reasons:
1) In the part of my e-mail you did not quote I just pointed out lots of
people don't read those definitions. The difference between the words
maxheight and maxheight:physical is not explicit enough.
2)
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Harald Kleinere9625...@gmx.at wrote:
Do you think, this tunnel is OK the way it is or should someone add a
small piece of way on layer 0 at the eastern end next to the T-junction
to avoid a T-junction of different layers?
What is the situation at that
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
lots of things sound bad, but we need more than feel good answers to make
good maps.
So the question is:
is there anything about a road inside an industrial or commercial area which
would be important inside a renderer or a routing
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Blaž Lorgerblaz.lor...@triera.net wrote:
To my knowledge there is no such thing as usual highway width. There are
certain standards for width of newly built roads, but those usually increase
over time, which means you will be forced to periodically reevaluate
And by the way, the Key:width wiki page is horrible and could do with
a rework after this discussion.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Pierenpier...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that the width of what we consider unclassified roads
will double in the next century.
Nevertheless, anything referring to what we consider is more
variable across time and people than the length of a metre.
I never
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Tag the width of the surface on which users of the way are expected to
travel.
I agree and would like to add: and that is not constricted in the
full usable height
I think the maxheight tag should be used here.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Tag the width of the surface on which users of the way are expected to
travel.
I agree and would like to add: and that is not constricted in the
full usable height
I think the maxheight tag should be
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 7:06 AM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
What I'm proposing is to add additional quality assurance tags. Absence of
such tags would mean that there is no way to know how accurate data is. But
presence of such tags would give reasonable assurance on data
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Blaž Lorgerblaz.lor...@triera.net wrote:
On Monday 03 August 2009 12:18:14 Emilie Laffray wrote:
Yes, 1 meter is 1 meter. That's why using an approximation is actually
worse than using a relative factor. Using a precise number is going to
introduce errors that
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
yes, you're right, 4,40 m was indeed wrong. In the EU it is 4,50 m.
That's the general maxheight (the clearance streets must have),
resulting from 4,00 maxheight for the vehicle plus 50 cm clearance.
This might
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO the highway-class is not about lines on the street, not even
about width, these are all relative and dependant on local habits.
It's about structuring your road-grid into different levels. From the
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Peter Körnerosm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
I think name should be what the shop is called like (e.g. what stands on
a sign on top / in front of it).
+1
If a shop is a member of a larger group of shops belonging to a single
chain, the suburb or branch name should
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Richard
Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
My inclination would be to put widths on nodes, since they are measured at
points, but that might not be too helpful for renderers. But I don't think I
really want to break a way every time I do a
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:19 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
If a shop is a member of a larger group of shops belonging
to a single
chain, the suburb or branch name should be added in a
separate tag
(not sure what).
addr:city ?
No, that is The name of the city as given in
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk 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
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:49 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org 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
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com 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:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/6 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
there could be
maxspeed[08:30-09:30]=40
maxspeed[14:30-15:30]=40
maxspeed[08:30-09:30]:reason=school_zone
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Richard
Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
Comments in the usual place (or have your own go at hacking it)
I've
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:55 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
maxspeed[school_days][08:30-09:30]=40
Except that is putting values on the key side of things. To do things
properly you would need something like
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:42 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Without that requirement, it's a one-liner:
maxspeed[Tu,Th][12:00-24:00] = 50
You've gone from school zones to general restrictions.
That's right. Sorry
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:12 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
maxspeed:school_zone=hh:mm-hh:mm[,hh:mm-hh:mm];speed
This explains what the restriction is, school zone, the times it is in effect
and the reduced speed all in one line.
That is much better than the current proposal
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:22 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
It's going to get very messy very quickly if you are trying to shoe horn
general time limits in with school zones, but you could do:
maxspeed=80
maxspeed:time_1=school;07:00-09:00,14:30-15:30;mon-fri;40
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:12 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Fri, 7/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't like the _1 and _2, but I guess you're saying
that's the only
I didn't come up with it, it's already being used for other similar things
where
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Lars Aronssonl...@aronsson.se wrote:
John Smith wrote:
For general time based restrictions you can still do it in one
line if you must, without needing to parse variable information
in the key section:
maxspeed:time=12:00-23:59;tu,th;50
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
why is this a value in the key:
maxspeed:wet=40
couldn't you interpret maxspeed:wet as a key? The maxspeed in wet
condition? Could you explain the problem that arises (I am not an
informatics person and maybe for
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Kevo...@kevswindells.eu wrote:
Hi All,
While trying (and failing miserably) to find a parking space in Birmingham
(UK) the other day (terrible sign age - talk about leaving it to the last
minute - AND to top it all I must have parked in the one multi-story not
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Tobias Knerro...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
- conditions in values:
Also possible, but means all information of the same category (e.g. all
maxspeeds) will be in a single value, which will result in rather long
tags. It will also break existing applications unless
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/8 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
Forget about the renderer for a second. IMHO we should tag what is on
the ground. As the wiki says, layer is used to mark if a
way/node/area is above or under another
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Tobias Knerro...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Roy Wallace wrote:
You don't need all maxspeeds to be in a single value. Nor would it
break existing applications. Maxspeed=* is still maxspeed=*. You would
be adding additional keys such as maxspeed:time
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to start a discussion about which automated functionalities
we want to allow
As long as the automated functionalities are initiated and
controlled by human judgment, there is no need to limit them.
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Martin Simongrenzde...@gmail.com wrote:
So you could tag a footway which also allows bicycles as
highway=footway,bicycle=yes(assuming footway implies
foot=designated) or as highway=path,foot=designated,bicycle=yes. No
Information loss, no difference, no
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:56 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
In other areas there are cycle paths and pedestrians are allowed but they
aren't the primary users intended to use the way and cyclists mostly use
them. So yes there would be information lost by simplifying things in
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Nopekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
- Can we agree on a common interpretation of what foot/cycleway are
supposed to mean?
I highly doubt it, because highway=footway and highway=cycleway are
quite vague, and infer different things to different people. And while
a clear
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Pierenpier...@gmail.com wrote:
If you see different interpretations
of the current footway/path description, then try to improve the
description on the wiki, first.
+1
I'd also recommend that if there are several different definitions of
a tag currently in
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:39 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm in agreement with Tom's suggestion of a working group, however they
should have the ability to make decisions they come to stick, true
democracies fail from everyone having their own agendas.
Define stick i.e. no
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:11 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 11/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm talking about a basic subset of tags that are commonly used, such as
normally found on the mapping features wiki page. I'm not talking about
forcing
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Emilie Laffrayemilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
We should stop reinventing the wheel.
Let's work on those definitions first to make sure that everyone and every
languages are on the same wavelength.
Agreed. I think:
step 1) Work out how the tags are being used
2009/8/12 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de:
Hi!
Lauri Kytömaa schrieb:
_When not signed for anyone_ but where local legislation allows cyclists
on such routes, people used local judgement to decide whether the way
was built as being suitable for the common cyclist. Some claim that one
couldn't know
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Craig Wallacecraig...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On 11/08/2009 09:20, Lauri Kytömaa wrote:
So what about things like mountain bike trails, signed or otherwise?
There's plenty that I wouldn't advise my mother to cycle on, but I
wouldn't describe them as a footway. For
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Norbert
Hoffmannnhoffm...@spamfence.net wrote:
Greg Troxel wrote:
One advantage of Highway=path is, that there is no implication besides not
wide enough to be a track.
+1
Implications are fine only if they are consistent (i.e. consistently
used as documented
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Morten Kjeldgaardm...@bioxray.au.dk wrote:
I think it is time to separate tagging of traffic laws into a separate
namespace from purely geographical map features. The information is
useful, but the current concept of OSM tagging is not designed to deal
with it
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Tobias Knerro...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
David Earl wrote:
If cycleway does mean something different in Germany than it means in
UK, why do we try to use the same tag/value in the first place? Why
don't we use, e.g., Radweg for Germany? (Or differentiate with
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Richard
Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
The deprecation of footway/cycleway was
voted on (by not many people, but nevertheless), and the deprecation was
rejected, but some people don't seem to be able to take no for an answer.
It was? Maybe
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:33 PM, David Earlda...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
So my feeling is we should document what collection of users a
particular highway tag applies to by default IN EACH COUNTRY (including
things like under 12 or not on a Sunday if that's the normal
situation). Then
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Norbert
Hoffmannnhoffm...@spamfence.net wrote:
I say: forget all defaults and store all those values in the database.
Those only partly documented defaults are the cause of the discussed
problems.
+1. Everyone seems to agree that the current use of
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Nopekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
First of all, we would need to agree that there actually is a problem
and that we need to (re)define something to clarify it. There have again
been many mails along the line It is easy and can all be done following
existing
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Pierenpier...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, llama access restrictions probably aren't a top priority,
but it IS a GOOD THING to have llama restrictions in the database.
Yes, it is. In PERU.
I'd be quite happy to know whether I can ride my llama down my street
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Jukka
Rahkonenjukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi wrote:
Hi,
What might be an unambiguous way to tell that some cycleway is NOT designated?
In theory if bicycle=designated means what it says then bicycle=yes might mean
that yes, it is a cycleway, but no, it is not a
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Nopekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Clarification: What I meant is: Designated only for ways legally dedicated
to one mode of travel. Usually that means individually road-signed, but it
could also be done for a whole area like a nature reserve with a declaration
for all
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/14 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
but this is not real map-information but it is legal information you
could also get from different sources. If a way is legally a cycleway,
all the laws
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
The general format, which could be extended to all kinds of access
restrictions, is:
X:K = L;V, where
X = the standard tag (maxspeed, or access, or bicycle, etc.)
K = the kind of condition
L = the value of the
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Andrew MacKinnonandrew...@gmail.com wrote:
I am wondering about how pedestrian and car entrances to parking
garages should be tagged.
highway=footway if you're talking about a path for people to walk on
Each is located underneath an outdoor
playing field
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Nick
Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
Silly question, maybe: but, what does yes actually mean? Everyone seems
to use it differently; it was intended originally for a legal right but in
practice has been used in a range of scenarios. In this
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
To me, cycleway means path, designated means signed, and bicycle=yes
means it's suitable for bikes. So if you have a path that is suitable
for a bicycle but does not have a sign with a bicycle, I would use
highway=path
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Mike Harrismik...@googlemail.com wrote:
Tend to agree in part - I think the 'official' bit is actually redundant?
Would this improve the page?
I'm not sure you'd be successful in removing 'official' altogether,
but I think it could do with some clarification,
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Mike Harrismik...@googlemail.com wrote:
The problem is that some of us follow the wiki advice re designated= which
was developed after a lot of discussion in this group!
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
Designated= does not mean
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
http://twitpic.com/djyxb
This is Ash Kyd's photo, and I'm not sure if he's on this list.
highway=path; bicycle=designated; foot=designated; surface=ground.
Not sure about width=* :)
___
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/15 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
Could the definition of official be simplified to signed?? If not,
what would be the difference between bicycle=official and
bicycle=signed?
As I have understood
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Bicycle=signed is IMHO not the best idea, because what do you do for
official or designated _and_ signed ways?
As I mentioned before, you would have to change the syntax to
something more like
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Mike Harrismik...@googlemail.com wrote:
Roy
Could you give reference to your wiki quote? I can see for =designated at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
QUOTE
This tag indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Richard
Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
I've picked up Dave's point above, because it's clear that part of the
real problem is that adhoc committees sometimes don't take account of the
implications for particular data users (and stylesheets
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Ulf Möller wrote:
The working group will just have to produce the better, more consistent
tagging scheme. If it manages to do that, then its results will be accepted.
+1
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/16 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
In the UK I would tag such a path as foot=designated;bicycle=permissive;
and pragmatically highway=footway for the moment
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:06 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Actually time and space is the 4th dimension :)
People already want editors that can handle 3D, not just 2D so they can map
out complex buildings and very complex roads that overlap each other and so
forth.
The
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote:
I am hoping in a couple of weeks to map the grounds at a festival that
occurs yearly in the same spot. This is not so much historical data,
as data that's only true for three weeks a year. The rest of the time,
it's just
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:43 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Most data in historic information is very tiny areas, most of the data will
be only current information.
It seems we have different ideas about the scope of this proposal,
then. I thought the implication was that in
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:34 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 19/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
This would lead to massive amounts of historic information
into the
future - i.e. nothing that has been correctly mapped need
ever be
deleted.
Even so
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
But anyway, can we move on? I'm simply saying we should look at this
as what it really is - extending OSM to the time dimension.
Apologies everyone, I hadn't noticed the following existing proposal.
Please have a look
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Joseph Reevesiknowjos...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like start_date and end_date would work fine in this situation.
Can I just point out, the proposal I linked to before (link below) met
with some objections to start_date and end_date, so you may want to
re-think
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Yann Coupiny...@coupin.net wrote:
Plus what does inner mean on a oneway road? I think it's crucial
that lane 1 is either left or right depending uppon what is decided
but that it stays the same accross the world. It'll be unusable
otherwise.
I propose 1 is
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Andrew Ayrea...@britishideas.com wrote:
If I draw an outline for a freestanding building which is some kind of
business, then I give the outline a name. Mapnik renders the name.
If I draw the outline of a strip mall (a connected string of shops) this
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Andrew Ayrea...@britishideas.com wrote:
Thanks. It's not tagging for the renderer, it's using the renderer to give
me a hint that I might be doing things wrong.
Fair enough. But generally, I find it's not very useful for that
purpose. Searching the wiki and/or
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:30 AM, David Earlda...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
On 20/08/2009 15:27, Peter Körner wrote:
IN such circumstances I use building=... or landuse=retail to outline
the combined structure or area, and then use landuse=retail NODES
within them to label each unit
How
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/20 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
Proposal for tagging the general direction of a way as incline=up/down:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/incline_up_down
I personally use the
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Aun Johnsen (via
Webmail)skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
incline should hold a numeric value, to indicate how steep it is, positive
value is up, and negative is down, if steepness isn't trivial, leave it
out. If you just want to render a steep road sign, why
1 - 100 of 465 matches
Mail list logo
