Am 26.06.2013 18:56, schrieb Philip Barnes:
> On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 21:02 +0200, fly wrote:
>> On 25.06.2013 20:43, martinq wrote:
> There is no (common) restriction that limits the actual weight of
> truck+trailer, thus it makes no sense to define maxweight as limit for
> the complete
I tried the split that made the most sense in the available common English
terms, so I'm not sure how this could be handled. I would vote against any
proposal for pastry_bakery or cake_bakery because I know they would not be
used correctly by English speakers. Neither is inclusive of all non-bread
>the similarity with the single truck-sign
Even the maxlength traffic sign is more similar with the "single truck" sign.
As to tagging the este vehicle+trailer weight limits, I haven't tagged any such
vehicle combination limits before. Intuitively, though, I'd go with
maxweight=50 (the limit st
I usually find a variety of breads, rolls, muffins, croissants, pastries
etc at bakeries here in the US, but it could be I like European-style
bakeries :) Brad
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2013/6/26 Murry McEntire
>
>> This proposal is being recalled from vo
2013/6/26 Murry McEntire
> This proposal is being recalled from voting as the split of bakery types
> at the shop level is obviously a no-go. A modified version of the proposal
> that does not split bakery at the shop level will be put out for vote
> shortly.
IMHO it is good to split at the s
2013/6/26 Murry McEntire
> The link to the (revised) proposal page:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal/Shop%3Dbakery,confectionery
>
Murry, I think that this content is valuable, as it defines very well what
can be considered a bakery, and what are typical products in the anglo
saxon
A proposal for improving the current misleading definitions and misuse of
bakeries and confectioneries and adding tags for the types of goods
sold.isnow ready for additional comment.
This is a revised version of a proposal that was strongly voted down. The
split of bakery shop types is gone, the "
On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 21:02 +0200, fly wrote:
> On 25.06.2013 20:43, martinq wrote:
> >>> There is no (common) restriction that limits the actual weight of
> >>> truck+trailer, thus it makes no sense to define maxweight as limit for
> >>> the complete train.
> >> ...
> >> this one is for gross weig
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:55 AM, fly wrote:
> Does not work for me !
>
> I have several areas of mixed use of industrial, commercial and
> residential. Often living is allowed but I know streets where it is only
> allowed on one side or even changing from house number to house number.
>
What exa
This proposal is being recalled from voting as the split of bakery types at
the shop level is obviously a no-go. A modified version of the proposal
that does not split bakery at the shop level will be put out for vote
shortly.
Murry
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Murry McEntire wrote:
> A pro
I agree with you. The split was my attempt to be less U.S.-centric (or
U.K., Canada, Australia -centric).
In all those English-speaking countries, the primary choice to look for
something in a business directory, web page search, name of business that
sells bread is "bakery", that sells cakes is "b
2013/6/26 fly
> > Landuse is a different issue. For example, my condo is in a commercial
> > landuse area. Because the condo building includes two levels on
> > commercial space, having residential units within the commercial landuse
> > is acceptable. In fact, it is highly desired by city planne
Am 26.06.2013 17:28, schrieb Clifford Snow:
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Martin Koppenhöfer
> mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Not sure if I can agree, what does this tag "residential" express?
> Is this a building type? A building usage tag? How does it relate to
>
Based on voting thus far, this is a non-starter, mostly based on the new
bread_bakery tag. I think there would be a lot more support if it only
proposed to 1) clarify the confectionery tag, and 2) add the Types of
Bakery Goods tags. Brad
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Martin Koppenhöfer
wrote
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Martin Koppenhöfer
wrote:
> Not sure if I can agree, what does this tag "residential" express? Is this
> a building type? A building usage tag? How does it relate to landuse, how
> to building=building-type and established values?
Landuse is a different issue. Fo
On 26/giu/2013, at 15:36, Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
> >can you confirm that this is
> > indeed maxweight (i.e.
> > actual weight
>
> Yes, the sign means actual weight.
so despite the similarity with the single truck-sign and Finland having signed
the vienna convention on traffic signs, it is
>can you confirm that this is
> indeed maxweight (i.e.
> actual weight
Yes, the sign means actual weight.
--
alv
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 26/giu/2013, at 11:46, Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
> Seems strange to put it that way (everything but not X), when they mean Y.
they mean what they write: everything but not X. Y is not only vehicles
transporting goods, but also machinery, tools, etc.
Cheers,
Martin
__
On 25/giu/2013, at 22:48, Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
> Just today I drove past a sign that means "maxweight for combinations" (1,
> with another sign below it, which corresponds to Key:maxbogieload. Different
> restrictions exist together on some roads, tuet need
>
> 1)
> http://commons.m.wikim
On 26/giu/2013, at 13:59, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Martin Koppenhöfer
> wrote:
>
>>> A new tag called residential, where the value specifies the type of
>>> residential, such as:
>>>
>>> residential=apartment
>>> residential=condo
>>> residential=co-op
>>>
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Martin Koppenhöfer
wrote:
>> A new tag called residential, where the value specifies the type of
>> residential, such as:
>>
>> residential=apartment
>> residential=condo
>> residential=co-op
>> residential=single_room_occupancy
> Not sure if I can agree, what do
Am 26.06.2013 um 00:25 schrieb Clifford Snow :
>
> A new tag called residential, where the value specifies the type of
> residential, such as:
>
> residential=apartment
> residential=condo
> residential=co-op
> residential=single_room_occupancy
>
> (these would be open for refinement and addi
Am 26.06.2013 um 00:00 schrieb Murry McEntire :
> A proposal for improving the current misleading definitions and misuse of
> bakery and confectionery; and a requested separation of bread bakeries from
> bakeries of other bakery goods, is now open for voting.
IMHO your conclusions seem US-c
>sign does not exclude vehicles
> transporting people
Indeed, yes, I missed the last bit: "ausgenommen Personenkraftwagen und
Kraftomnibuse"
Seems strange to put it that way (everything but not X), when they mean Y.
--
alv
___
Tagging mailing list
Ta
Am 25.06.2013 um 23:36 schrieb Kytömaa Lauri :
> Therefore, the prohibiting sign with the "hgv symbol" only bans vehicles
> registered as vans and hgv's, i.e. not for example buses. Unlike in for
> example Germany, where that sign seems to refer to (gross) weight only.
No, in Germany that si
I've opened this up for comment:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets
This proposal is in harmony with:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/wheelchair:toilets
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstre
Ok, good.
See if this matches up:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Holger Dieterich wrote:
> Hi Bryce,
>
> I'm the co-founder of Wheelmap and also the initiator of this proposal.
>
> I totally agree with you:
> - the tag
Hi Bryce,
I'm the co-founder of Wheelmap and also the initiator of this proposal.
I totally agree with you:
- the tagging of stand-alone toilets should remail
wheelchair=yes/no/limited.
- other POIs need more detailed information about the toilet, that's why I
propose toilets:wheelchair=yes/no (I
28 matches
Mail list logo
