Hi!
Am 29.03.2013 um 00:15 schrieb Paul Johnson :
> I tend to go with access=no, hov=*, and possibly motorcycle=yes or
> psv=designated, since I've yet to find an HOV road that allows you to walk,
> ski, ride an animal or a bicycle, etc. on it; it literally only allows the
> modes specified.
Hi Richard,
On 28.03.2013 21:21, Richard Welty wrote:
in rural areas, these are predetermined locations for helicopters to set
down to airlift out
urgent medical cases. they are not generally "official helipads", just
level grassy areas where
they have arrangements with the landowner. generally
I tend to go with access=no, hov=*, and possibly motorcycle=yes or
psv=designated, since I've yet to find an HOV road that allows you to walk,
ski, ride an animal or a bicycle, etc. on it; it literally only allows the
modes specified.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:28 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Hi!
i'm talking to a volunteer firefighter about various emergency issues.
one he brought up that
i'd not thought about before is what they call landing zones.
in rural areas, these are predetermined locations for helicopters to set
down to airlift out
urgent medical cases. they are not generally "
Why not use the existing historical=shrine? Seems like the only
distinction is that one is on a tree and may only last a few years.
In the photo example you provide, a picture nailed to a tree, seems rather
temporary.
Could you provide more of a reason why we need another tag for shrine?
Explain
An information for the new proposal tree shrine. Please give me your
thoughts on that!
Link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tree_shrin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> I saw this proposal before and I liked it. Now I like it even more because
> it solves the junction name problem.
As area, only used 3 times by 2 different users in one year (date of
the proposal):
2 by the proposal writer "imagic":
http:/
2013/3/28 Martin Vonwald
> Hi!
>
> There is a proposal to group together parts of a junction:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway%3Djunction
>
> A relation is total overkill for such a simple task.
>
I saw this proposal before and I liked it. Now I like it even more be
Hi!
There is a proposal to group together parts of a junction:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway%3Djunction
A relation is total overkill for such a simple task.
regards,
Martin
2013/3/28 Vladimir Vyskocil :
> I think it's time to switch to the tagging list !
>
> The t
Vladimir Vyskocil wrote:
> I think it's time to switch to the tagging list !
>
> The tagging scheme that seems preferred in this discussion is the
> following :
>
> - simple named junctions : use junction=yes and name=*
> - complex named junctions with several lanes crossing a different
> point
I think it's time to switch to the tagging list !
The tagging scheme that seems preferred in this discussion is the following :
- simple named junctions : use junction=yes and name=*
- complex named junctions with several lanes crossing a different points :
two propositions :
> From: tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Tagging Digest, Vol 42, Issue 27, historic huts.
>6. Re: Historic huts (Martin Koppenhoefer)
> looking at the tags maybe
> historic=wilderness_hut would be better (according to a proposal and
> the current wiki state, tourism=alpine_hut
On 28.03.13 11:25, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> Tourism=attraction is quite an ambiguous tag.
It is a good hint what to highlight on/in a tourist map/app. Of course this is a
subjective decision, but it is of value that somebody did this decision. But not
if it is based on "to increase the chance of ren
On 28.03.13 11:18, Erik Johansson wrote:
> This sounds more like an tourism attraction than a hut though
If it is a tourism attraction tag it as tourism=attraction (that's what I said).
But don't tag it for this reason: "to increase the chance that the historic=*
actually renders as something..."
2013/3/28 Martin Vonwald :
> Hi!
>
> I just stumbled upon the article of the key hov [1]. It says "yes
> (also 'designated') High occupancy, but no minimum requirement
> specified". In my opinion this is misleading. The tag hov=yes should -
> like other access restrictions - mean that HOVs are allo
Hi!
I just stumbled upon the article of the key hov [1]. It says "yes
(also 'designated') High occupancy, but no minimum requirement
specified". In my opinion this is misleading. The tag hov=yes should -
like other access restrictions - mean that HOVs are allowed there. The
tag hov=designated shou
2013/3/28 Andreas Labres
>
> Don't tag for the renderer! amenity=shelter by itself renders. Only tag it
> as a
> tourism=attraction if it /is/ a tourism attraction.
Tourism=attraction is quite an ambiguous tag. What is attractive to
tourists? Who decides that? I think that's more of a job for
h
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andreas Labres wrote:
> On 28.03.13 06:45, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> tourism=attraction (to increase the chance that the historic=* actually
>> renders as something...)
>
> Don't tag for the renderer! amenity=shelter by itself renders. Only tag it as
> a
> tourism=a
18 matches
Mail list logo
