On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:55 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> You had it correct based on the assumptions I've previously made, but
> the downside to that suggestion is when there is 2 lanes one way and 3
> the other, so the node would need 2 width values to compensate.
Again, no idea what you mean. Dia
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> We will have to consider what to do about the fact that you'll end up
> with nested landuse=residential
Simple: the tags on the inner polygon override those on the outer polygon.
___
Tagging mai
On 4 February 2010 10:04, Roy Wallace wrote:
> I have no idea what you're talking about. This is my interpretation of
> your idea, as it stands: http://www.myimgs.net/images/plxo.gif
> If I've got the wrong idea, please draw a diagram of what you mean :)
You had it correct based on the assumption
On 4 February 2010 10:02, Roy Wallace wrote:
> Still feasible, but it is worth noting.
This already happens in JOSM with ways when they are oneway=yes...
slightly different, but there is already triggers for it...
> I know. But if you are happy with splitting (as I am), then the
> current soluti
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Why not use landuse=residential together with another tag, say
> community=gated (where community could also become other stuff like
> religious, seniors, female, ... and or add access=private?
Good, but I don't like the "community=*" t
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:32 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 4 February 2010 07:22, Roy Wallace wrote:
>> It is one option for tagging width, but users would then still need to
>> make some assumption about the direction in which width is measured
>> (probably the bisection of the angle between previou
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:31 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> On 4 February 2010 07:24, Roy Wallace wrote:
> > I guess...but this might be tricky for editors to deal with when way
> > direction is reversed.
>
> Not really, think of the bits between nodes as segments, you apply the
> information to a segm
2010/2/3 John Smith :
> On 4 February 2010 08:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> AFAIR the barrier=fence should not be applied to an area, what means
>> in pratical to draw a second way atop the area limits (not really
>> elegant). Another approach is to tag fenced=yes to the area (don't
>> know if
On 4 February 2010 08:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> AFAIR the barrier=fence should not be applied to an area, what means
> in pratical to draw a second way atop the area limits (not really
> elegant). Another approach is to tag fenced=yes to the area (don't
> know if someone evaluates this thou
2010/2/3 Chango640 :
> I thought about using landuse=residential (which I'm already using in cities
> and towns), but here in Argentina there is a strong difference between
> ordinary neighbourhoods and gated communities.
Yes, that's what you are expressing with the subtags acess=private and
proba
On 4 February 2010 07:22, Roy Wallace wrote:
> It is one option for tagging width, but users would then still need to
> make some assumption about the direction in which width is measured
> (probably the bisection of the angle between previous/following nodes)
> and interpolate between nodes (prob
On 4 February 2010 07:24, Roy Wallace wrote:
> I guess...but this might be tricky for editors to deal with when way
> direction is reversed.
Not really, think of the bits between nodes as segments, you apply the
information to a segment, except width which is applied at the
specific point, the re
On 2/3/10 4:33 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2010-02-03 06:19, Richard Welty wrote:
...
so should a reference route designation that isn't on a sign go in a ref
tag or not? the wiki doesn't
discuss this. if ref shouldn't have this, perhaps a variant on ref is
needed?
I would say the questi
At 2010-02-03 06:19, Richard Welty wrote:
>...
>so should a reference route designation that isn't on a sign go in a ref
>tag or not? the wiki doesn't
>discuss this. if ref shouldn't have this, perhaps a variant on ref is
>needed?
I would say the question is "what happens when one of these routes
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:28 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
>> ... tag nodes, but as it applies to
>> a way...
>
> It could also solve things like reducing the need to split a way for
> maxspeed changes, as you could tag a point where the speed changes in
> the direction of the arrows etc.
I guess...but
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:25 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
>> This is tagging the way, but at the node references.
>
> I let this go a couple of days to see if anyone would find any
> problems with doing this.
It is one option for tagging width, but users would then still need to
make some assumption ab
+1 for Martin's good suggestions.
Adrian
--- On Wed, 3/2/10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
From: Martin Koppenhoefer
Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Proposed feature: Gated Communities
To: "Chango640"
Cc: t...@openstreetmap.org, "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Date: Wednesday, 3
2010/2/3 Chango640 :
> Hi people.
>
> I'm sending this mail in order to propose a new feature for the tag landuse:
> gated communities. These are a type of private neighbourhoods that are very
> common in Argentina, Brazil and many other countries, and have a notorious
> difference with ordinary ci
On 2/3/10 2:20 PM, Liz wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Richard Welty wrote:
>
>> so should a reference route designation that isn't on a sign go in a ref
>> tag or not? the wiki doesn't
>> discuss this. if ref shouldn't have this, perhaps a variant on ref is
>> needed?
>>
>>
> Those sort of
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Richard Welty wrote:
> so should a reference route designation that isn't on a sign go in a ref
> tag or not? the wiki doesn't
> discuss this. if ref shouldn't have this, perhaps a variant on ref is
> needed?
>
Those sort of 'internal reference numbers' are used heavily in Ne
You say "numbers assigned administratively ("reference routes") that do not
appear on signs." which sounds like internal numbers which are never used by
the public in any form. So nobody will say "turn left and take the C29 for 2
kms"...
If this is the case, I would ask first if OSM is the right pl
On 2/3/10 10:29 AM, Chris Hill wrote:
Richard Welty wrote:
administratively, a reference route is no different from a
conventional signed route number. from a practical point of view, you
almost never see a reference route on a sign. what we come back to is
"tagging for the renderer", if we pu
Richard Welty wrote:
>
> administratively, a reference route is no different from a
> conventional signed route number. from a practical point of view, you
> almost never see a reference route on a sign. what we come back to is
> "tagging for the renderer", if we put the reference route designa
On 2/3/10 9:31 AM, Mike N. wrote:
>> so should a reference route designation that isn't on a sign go in a ref
>> tag or not? the wiki doesn't
>> discuss this. if ref shouldn't have this, perhaps a variant on ref is
>> needed?
>>
>I would say no - because the ref tag can generate route shi
On 2/3/10 9:26 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> IMHO the ref-tag describes the reference, not a sign, therefore to tag
> them it doesn't matter if the reference numbers are displayed
> laterally on signs or there is another source of getting them. Still
> if you say that those numbers (reference ro
> so should a reference route designation that isn't on a sign go in a ref
> tag or not? the wiki doesn't
> discuss this. if ref shouldn't have this, perhaps a variant on ref is
> needed?
I would say no - because the ref tag can generate route shields. I would
be very confused if the county r
2010/2/3 Richard Welty :
> by way of context, New York State and some NY counties have cases where
> there are roads maintained
> by the state or county that do not have numbered&signed route
> designations. these roads have numbers
> assigned administratively ("reference routes") that do not appea
by way of context, New York State and some NY counties have cases where
there are roads maintained
by the state or county that do not have numbered&signed route
designations. these roads have numbers
assigned administratively ("reference routes") that do not appear on
signs. the roads in questio
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Btw... what the hell was the big discussion about scrambled GPS
> signals for altitudes about? Way off topic. This list really needs
> a moderator. Between the three of you you manage to create like a
> hundred messages of spam in two days, yet say virtually nothing.
>
29 matches
Mail list logo
