On 29/10/2012 18:29, Martin Vonwald (imagic) wrote:
Am 29.10.2012 um 14:27 schrieb Tobias Knerr mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de>>:
It is currently not valid - vehicle types can only appear in the key,
whereas "groups of users" (forestry, customers, delivery, ...) can only
appear in the value. For t
Am 29.10.2012 um 14:27 schrieb Tobias Knerr :
> It is currently not valid - vehicle types can only appear in the key,
> whereas "groups of users" (forestry, customers, delivery, ...) can only
> appear in the value. For the "groups of users", it actually gives
> exclusive access rights to that grou
2012/10/29 John Sturdy :
> Where an obstacle is at the crossing of two ways, it should be made
> clear which of the ways it is an obstacle on.
it is clear: it will be tagged on the way it refers to. If two ways
have a node in common, you shouldn't tag the obstacle applying only to
one way on this
On 29.10.2012 12:51, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Masi, thank you for understanding my question.
>
> 2012/10/29 Masi Master :
>> Hi!
>> what about this:
>> access:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv
>
> That is exactly what I'm not sure of. Is access=psv valid? I don't
> think it is documented in the wiki i
> Am 28/ott/2012 um 15:32 schrieb Svavar Kjarrval :
>
> > In Iceland we sometimes have companies parking cars in public spaces or
> > in private land after making a deal with the owner. The cars are marked
> > with the company and almost always have advertising signs on the side.
> > How would th
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 11:59 +, John Sturdy wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
> > There is already a specification, to whom it is an obstacle
> > (obstacle:car, ...) maybe we could have an additional
> > obstacle:waterway for all waterbased transport (or
Hi Martin.
Nobody said you did. What has been said is that if you want to have some
kind of "exclusice access" tag that in fact is a change to how the
access tagging currently works.
Access tagging currently is:
-use access=yes|no to set a "default"
-add more details by adding access tags for a
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> There is already a specification, to whom it is an obstacle
> (obstacle:car, ...) maybe we could have an additional
> obstacle:waterway for all waterbased transport (or more
> differentiated, it is probably important whether you go in
As the key surveillance is obviously defacto approved we should write
a proper documentation for it and link it to the proposal for the
extension. And as the extension seems to be used also maybe we should
also update the status and write a documentation.
Any volunteers?
Martin
2012/10/29 Martin
Masi, thank you for understanding my question.
2012/10/29 Masi Master :
> Hi!
> what about this:
> access:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv
That is exactly what I'm not sure of. Is access=psv valid? I don't
think it is documented in the wiki in this way. And if it is valid,
does it really mean "PSV a
People - really! Where did I propose to change any tags at all? I
asked a question!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Hi!
what about this:
access:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv
But what if there is no sidewalk at the street? Or if you ride a horse? Is
it explicit forbidden to use the road?
This is the reason because I don't like to use the access=* tag.
Better is this:
vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|psv;hgv
Masi
P.S
2012/10/29 Martin Vonwald :
> 2012/10/29 Simone Saviolo :
>> In this case, surveillance=public. Ok.
>
> Not (yet) documented, but used: surveilance:type
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/surveillance%3Atype
>
> And there's also your camera :-)
There is a proposal for this:
http://wiki.opens
On 10/29/12 7:29 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
basically what would be needed for your prosal to work is changing the
default from access=yes to access=no and all applications additionally
would have to evaluate these multivalue-values (both, those separated
by | and those separated by ; ).
IM
2012/10/29 Martin Vonwald :
> I'm looking for a possibility to tag "exclusive" access rights.
> Right now I only know this solution:
> vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no
> psv:lanes=yes|yes|yes
> hgv:lanes=yes|yes|yes
>
> Three tags for such a simple thing. What I'm looking for is something like
> this:
> :
2012/10/29 Simone Saviolo :
> In this case, surveillance=public. Ok.
Not (yet) documented, but used: surveilance:type
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/surveillance%3Atype
And there's also your camera :-)
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@op
2012/10/29 Pieren :
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Martin Koppenhöfer
> wrote:
> I don't like this tag proposal. i think we should clearly separate the
> support (wall, flag, board) and the function (what is painted or
> sticked on it) like we do for buildings and shops or whatever is
> inside
2012/10/29 Martin Vonwald
> 2012/10/29 Simone Saviolo :
> > As to the enforcement_device tag, I guess I'll have to make a proposal?
>
> Have a look at this:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance
>
> It is already in use:
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/su
Try to see it from a data consumer point of view.
Let's say you are a bicycle routing engine and want to know if you are
allowed to drive here.
With the current scheme you see an access = no. so you assume you
don't have access.
Then you look if there are special permissions for bikes (because,
af
2012/10/29 Simone Saviolo :
> As to the enforcement_device tag, I guess I'll have to make a proposal?
Have a look at this:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance
It is already in use:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/surveillance#values
So maybe it would be be
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Martin Koppenhöfer
wrote:
I don't like this tag proposal. i think we should clearly separate the
support (wall, flag, board) and the function (what is painted or
sticked on it) like we do for buildings and shops or whatever is
inside. As said on the wiki, it is ov
Hi!
I'm looking for a possibility to tag "exclusive" access rights. What I
mean by this is a way to specify that one specific vehicle is allowed
and everything else is forbidden. If I specify e.g. hgv=yes it only
means (at least in my understanding) that hgv are allowed there. I'm
not sure about t
2012/10/24 Simone Saviolo
> How would I go about formalizing this "proposal"? Do I need to make a
> proposal page? I'm not trying to add a feature, just to expand on one.
>
Since I've received no replies, I'll proceed to add the "access" value for
the "enforcement" key in the Enforcement Relatio
2012/10/28 Alberto
> > 1) Polygon vs point for "Populated urban areas" (place=city, town...):
>
> Hello, we talked about this problem in Italian list [1].
> We agreed that boundaries and places should not be confused because in
> general they refer to different things.
> We also agreed that taggi
24 matches
Mail list logo
