On 14/11/2010 20:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/11/14 Craig Wallace:
BTW: There was exactly *no* good example, which real world problem could
be solved with landcover that can't be done with: surface, natural
and/or landuse.
I think it would help with the mess of natural=wood vs landuse=f
Le 14/11/2010 22:16, j...@jfeldredge.com a écrit :
> What I am visualizing is a parking lot, perhaps government-owned, where only
> those who are currently car-pooling are allowed to park. Others would be
> allowed to enter to drop off or pick up passengers there, but not to park
> there. I do
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:09 PM, esperanza wrote:
> Is it right to use busway or should we use another tag ? (like psv ?)
psv includes taxis; use access=no bus=yes unless taxis are allowed.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://list
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Dave F. wrote:
> Regarding the flow we need more info. Is it physically filled in, broken
> locks, or just not passable by boat. Send us a link.
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_pdf/lake_management_area_descriptions.pdf
"The small
What I am visualizing is a parking lot, perhaps government-owned, where only
those who are currently car-pooling are allowed to park. Others would be
allowed to enter to drop off or pick up passengers there, but not to park
there. I don't, offhand, know of any such, but would not be surprised
2010/11/14 :
> Read what I wrote. My suggestion was for use IF a parking lot was restricted
> to car-poolers only.
Yes but I am still not sure: are you talking about access-restrictions
or parking-restrictions?
Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing li
2010/11/14 Ulf Lamping :
> Am 14.11.2010 14:24, schrieb Morten Kjeldgaard:
>> of -- a landuse area. For example, landuse=nature_reserve might include
>> landcover=heath, landcover=trees, landcover=lava_field. And these may
> landuse=nature_reserve is your own personal concept. Please have a look at
2010/11/14 Craig Wallace :
>> BTW: There was exactly *no* good example, which real world problem could
>> be solved with landcover that can't be done with: surface, natural
>> and/or landuse.
>
> I think it would help with the mess of natural=wood vs landuse=forest.
> eg if I see an area of trees,
Read what I wrote. My suggestion was for use IF a parking lot was restricted
to car-poolers only.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool
From :mailto:rodol...@quiedeville.org
Date :Sun Nov 14 14:16:07 America/Chicago 2010
Le 14/11/2010 20:33, j..
Le 14/11/2010 20:33, j...@jfeldredge.com a écrit :
> If, however, a parking lot were to be restricted for car-pooling use only, it
> would be reasonable to tag it as access=carpool or access=carpooling.
Why do you make a relation between carpooling and access limitation ?
The carpooling utilizati
On 14/11/2010 19:30, Ulf Lamping wrote:
BTW: There was exactly *no* good example, which real world problem could
be solved with landcover that can't be done with: surface, natural
and/or landuse.
I think it would help with the mess of natural=wood vs landuse=forest.
eg if I see an area of tree
If, however, a parking lot were to be restricted for car-pooling use only, it
would be reasonable to tag it as access=carpool or access=carpooling.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool
From :mailto:rodol...@quiedeville.org
Date :Sun Nov 14 08:35:0
Am 14.11.2010 14:24, schrieb Morten Kjeldgaard:
On 13/11/2010, at 12.40, Ulf Lamping wrote:
How is landcover orthogonal to landuse / natural?
Because you can imagine a landcover area overlapping -- or being a part
of -- a landuse area. For example, landuse=nature_reserve might include
landco
How to tag busways ?
I added some cases in this wiki page :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bus
on this model :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle
I add also a busway page :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway
Is it right to use busway or should we use another tag ? (like psv
On 14/11/2010 07:01, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
What's the current best practice for waterway relations, particularly
for a system of canals (all operated by the same agency) that don't
necessarily flow from one end to the other?
To tag the actual canal I don't think a relation is needed. I've use
Le 14/11/2010 12:15, Nathan Edgars II a écrit :
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> 2010/11/13 John Smith :
>>> On 13 November 2010 21:38, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
>>> wrote:
access no is completely wrong IMHO, better might be access=private,
which also might
Le 13/11/2010 12:38, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> 2010/11/13 Paul Norman :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I propose a to add parking=carpool for carpooling.
>>>
>>> I'm not english so please be kind with my bad grammar, I do my best and
>>> be happy if you fix the mistake in the wiki.
>>>
>>> http://wiki.opens
2010/11/14 Nathan Edgars II :
> What's the current best practice for waterway relations, particularly
> for a system of canals (all operated by the same agency) that don't
> necessarily flow from one end to the other?
What do you need the relation for? You could tag operator=xy and were done.
ch
On 13/11/2010, at 12.40, Ulf Lamping wrote:
How is landcover orthogonal to landuse / natural?
Because you can imagine a landcover area overlapping -- or being a
part of -- a landuse area. For example, landuse=nature_reserve might
include landcover=heath, landcover=trees, landcover=lava_fi
On 13 November 2010 21:40, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> How is landcover orthogonal to landuse / natural?
Landcover should absolutely be orthogonal to landuse. Landcover is
what is on a given spot (grass, trees, pavement, carpark, building,
water, etc) while landuse if what the area is used for (Park, s
2010/11/14 Nathan Edgars II :
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> 2010/11/13 John Smith :
>>> On 13 November 2010 21:38, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
>>> wrote:
access no is completely wrong IMHO, better might be access=private,
which also might be wrong, as the a
2010/11/13 Ulf Lamping :
> Am 13.11.2010 12:58, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
>> landuse is the usage of the land, natural is used to denote features
>> like summits, cave entrances, beaches, bays, ...
>
> No.
>
> Have a look at the natural section of:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Feat
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/11/13 John Smith :
>> On 13 November 2010 21:38, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
>> wrote:
>>> access no is completely wrong IMHO, better might be access=private,
>>> which also might be wrong, as the access might be allowed, but not to
>>>
2010/11/13 John Smith :
> On 13 November 2010 21:38, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> access no is completely wrong IMHO, better might be access=private,
>> which also might be wrong, as the access might be allowed, but not to
>> park there.
>
> access=destination ?
My point was that access is abou
24 matches
Mail list logo
