On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:34 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 25/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
This is not about tagging for routing software.
Then what is it?
It's about choosing the most appropriate way to tag something that
*intrinsically* involves
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:06 PM, James Livingstondoc...@mac.com wrote:
Or we could just always use a relation, so that [mappers] and software
don't have to check for two different things, when editing and
processing data respectively.
Yup.
___
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Pierenpier...@gmail.com wrote:
First interaction is the coordinates/positions of these elements. We
shouldn't create relations if the information can be deduced from the
positions. We had a similar discussion about identifying all objects
inside a polygon (tag
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Joseph Bookerj...@neoturbine.net wrote:
You gain nothing with the proposals raised compared to relations,
except some avoidance of relations. With relations the tagging is much
simpler, it makes sense intuitively when you come across it in the
data...
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:06 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Have a look at the awful way someone came up with tagging speed cameras, I
couldn't figure it out at the time so I ended up tagging speed cameras as a
single node with highway=speed_camera. Why would making it harder
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Peter Childspchi...@bcs.org wrote:
The only time I can see a relation actually helping is with stuff that
is difficult to map like no left turn
Do you realise why you need a relation for no left turn? It's
because the restriction *intrinsically involves more
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:29 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that deducing the meaning of a node tagged
with stop
from the positions of the ways and nodes in the vicinity
is equally
clear. I know you
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote:
What about railway crossings? I've seen railway crossings with no
lights, gates or similar, just a stop sign. Usually way out in the
middle of nowhere, so there may not be a routable junction for quite
some distance, and
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:32 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Actually there is still a junction from when it goes from 2 lanes to 1 lane,
and the (usually in .au) give way sign is before the junction of the 2 lanes
into one.
Only if the lanes are marked as separate ways, which
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:53:53 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in
favour
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:44 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
What happens at T intersections where there is a stop sign on all ways, and
cross intersection with 4 stop signs, the US version of a roundabout
effectively.
The ways must be split so that they end (or begin) at the
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:22 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I liked your suggestion of putting a node just before the intersection and
tagging it, making relations and splitting ways sounds like something very
convulted just for a stop sign so most people probably won't be
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
The exact problem here is that the 'STOP' requirement only relates to
the junction with another road and is therefore not a tag of the way or
the intersection, but rather information relating to approaching one
from the
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:23 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've seen a lot of talk about stop signs, but in Australia there is also give
way signs, which can imped flow of traffic similar to stop signs.
Replacing stop with give_way (or similar) should do the trick. The
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:58 AM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, they must IMHO. The wiki explains the ontology of the tags we're using,
and the wiki is the main regulamentation for tags. Otherwise we go wild, and
everyone uses what she likes best.
Yes, but STILL - tags should
2009/8/25 Martin Norbäck mar...@norpan.org:
Using a relation has some advantages:
* it connects the stop requirement to the junction node (you can look
at the junction node to see that there is a stop requirement)
* if the way leading to the junction is split/reversed, the relation
still
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Pierenpier...@gmail.com wrote:
Tagging a whole way just because you have to stop at the end is a deep
modeling mistake.
There is no similarity between the oneway which applies to the way
with a stop sign which applies to an intersection.
I see what you mean,
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Tobias Knerro...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Nobody suggested multiple highway tags. The highway tag currently only
contains features that are relevant for routing pedestrians or vehicles,
and I prefer it to stay like that. Things like pipelines or goods
conveyors
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in
favour of using stop=yes/both/-1.
First impression: the value of the tag is extremely ambiguous, and in
no way self-explanatory. I don't
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Morten Kjeldgaardm...@bioxray.au.dk wrote:
hard-to-verify data - I don't see why incline=* is any harder to
verify than ele=* - as you said yourself, if you have one you can
calculate/verify the other...
The fact that there's a lot of unreliable and
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.au.dk wrote:
On 21/08/2009, at 03.00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Yeah, numeric value is better, but up/down is better than nothing. I
think both should be allowed and within the scope of the proposal.
if you already have good
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
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 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 Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:23 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 18/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
From Map Maker, Google has made the entire dataset of
Africa fully
available for download by non-profits, government agencies
and
individuals to create
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 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 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 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 Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:34 AM, BlueMMbluemm1975-...@yahoo.com wrote:
Has anyone discussed the appropriateness of using the 4wd_only nomenclature?
It seems a bit Australia(NZ?) specific. Maybe that is why there is so much
opposition. Seems the Wiki proposal is losing the vote.
What about
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 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 6:54 AM, Ben Kelleyben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
In NSW a shared path means foot=yes, bicycle=yes. The default in NSW for
highway=footway (or highway=path) is bicycle=no (same as the OSM
conventions).
No, highway=path does not imply bicycle=no (please see the wiki page).
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
SUMMARY
Trying to keep my comment general at first to find what are the needs:
what should be in the highway tag and what are local factors. This
turned into a stream of thoughts but hopefully coherent enough to
breed some more
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
i think we should mark highway=cycleway where it is a cycleway
What is a cycleway? Is it defined in a verifiable way?
i accept that highway=path could be subdivided into everything
but to me path is primarily foot use first
This is
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:02 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Sun, 9/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
What is a cycleway? Is it defined in a verifiable way?
Yes they have signs up with pictures of bicycles.
So you seem to be suggesting:
1. for a way signed
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 Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:50 AM, j...@talk21.com wrote:
With all footpaths being shared paths here in the ACT, what makes a good
cycling path is sometimes difficult to pin down.
If the meaning of a tag is difficult to pin down, IMHO it is
probably not verifiable and therefore probably not a good
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:03 AM, j...@talk21.com wrote:
Think of the situation with roads, and the multitude of different tags
available to show how important the road is.
We only need two (or maybe three at most) to say whether a shared path is a
good cycling path. And then a few guidelines
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 Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote:
Yeah, the 2 logos kind of each represent an extreme: one is a bit plain and
the other is too distracting.
I might try putting a map rendered as the background, but have it more as a
watermark than an attraction. It's probably time
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 6:08 AM, j...@talk21.com wrote:
I have a strong feeling that this would be unacceptable. We need to know
about different types of path and road. Just knowing that they're suitable
for bicycles or for motor traffic isn't enough. Such dumbing-down of the
data to meet a
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Evan Sebiree...@sebire.org wrote:
Bush walking paths should also be tagged as path not footway, except for
National parks were bicycles / horses are typically banned.
I think these should still be tagged as path, with additional tags
added as necessary. Often
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:56 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Fri, 7/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure no one was suggesting this (i.e. removing
information). It's the way the information in entered in
tags that is
being discussed. The fact
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Ashley Kyda...@kyd.com.au wrote:
I'm really not
convinced that [it's] a good idea, for renderer *or* semantics to tag a
government-designated cycleway as a path with bike access.
So, something that's currently a highway=cycleway, right?
highway=path;
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 12:47 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote:
I understand but will never accept the opposing position as
I use a mail
client that does handle reply-to-list correctly and have no
sympathy for
people who
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:29 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
They don't understand that they need to hit reply to all, that's what started
this thread in the first place, they thought hitting reply would reply to the
list, not to the person that sent it.
IMHO that's a problem
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:26 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Fri, 7/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO that's a problem with them, not with the mailing
list. But you
Shouldn't we be a little more accommodating then treating people that don't
know better
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 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
301 - 400 di 465 matches
Mail list logo
