2009/9/22 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
This is probably redundant, but water supplies should have a point
identifier. If you are prepared to drink stream or river water, I hope
you have what you need to make it safe.
Depends where it is coming from, but dad always used to say if the
horses would
On 22/09/2009, at 5:56 PM, John Smith wrote:
If you are bored enough you can also enter the number of steps, and I
think it was on the main talk list but you should have the direction
of the way from bottom to top of the stairs.
Regardless of what the talk list may have said, I think that half
I posted the following to OSM-newbies a week back but have had no
feedback. Any thoughts here?
I would like some consensus on the tagging of Australian bushwalking
tracks. Specifically, I am interested in unformed ways that are
unsuitable for all but the most courageous/insane cyclists.
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, swanilli wrote:
I posted the following to OSM-newbies a week back but have had no
feedback. Any thoughts here?
I would like some consensus on the tagging of Australian bushwalking
tracks. Specifically, I am interested in unformed ways that are
unsuitable for all but the
We should emphasis tagging properties and not uses. This is what that well
worn path demonstrates to me, obviously some people think the path is
traverse-able or it would not be worn!
Tags I typically use are, highway = path, sac_scale, trail_visibility,
surface, width. Only on a legal basis
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:30 PM, swanilli swani...@gmail.com wrote:
Given this inconsistency, I have been tagging fire trails and the like
(I ask myself if they are suitable for 4WD) as highway=track and
bushwalking tracks as highway=path.
Did you see the Bush Walking Tracks section of the
I did see the Bush Walking Tracks section, which is more or less in line
with what I had in mind. My problem is the ambiguity created under
Footpaths and Cycleways which seems to me biases use by bicycles e.g.:
Australian shared path (Bicycle and Pedestrian sign)
- highway=cycleway, foot=yes
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Some things I'd like to see us add to paths is to indicate which ones do have
available drinking quality water - do you have any ideas on that?
Add an amenity=drinking_water node where applicable.
2009/9/22 swanilli swani...@gmail.com:
I agree with Evan's view that We should emphasis tagging properties and not
uses. Some of my local streets have a painted cycleway sign but it makes
little sense to tag the street as highway=cycleway, rather than say,
highway=residential.
A cycleway
9 matches
Mail list logo
