On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Holger Dieterich
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> please vote for my first feature proposal:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/toilets:wheelchair
>
> I'm happy that I got quite some feedback in the past two weeks (thanks!
> See all on the corresponding talk pag
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 11:07 AM, fly wrote:
> It works as long as the primary function is available though somehow
> broken.
So how *should* we annotate an object, which we believe to be
a permanent part of the landscape,
but which needs some form of descriptive note?
On 2013-06-28 14:36, fly wrote:
On 26.06.2013 02:29, Murry McEntire wrote:
If tags are added to diet=*, I believe lactose_free is in common use
whereas lacto_free is not so much. Also consider that a product made
with lactose removed dairy would accurately be lactose_free but not
lacto_free. La
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:32 AM, fly wrote:
> * I did add diet:gluten_free= to all objects with gluten_free=.
> * I did add diet:lacto_free=* and diet:lactose_free=*
> * I did add links to diet from both pages and moved both under the
> proposal namespace and marked both for deletion
> * Maybe w
Hi,
please vote for my first feature proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/toilets:wheelchair
I'm happy that I got quite some feedback in the past two weeks (thanks! See
all on the corresponding talk page) and it's now ready to be decided on.
The voting is open for two w
On 01.07.2013 17:32, fly wrote:
> * I did add diet:lacto_free=* and diet:lactose_free=*
I wonder what "lacto_free" is for. The diet:lactose_free key makes sense
for people who aren't lactose tolerant, and the remaining milk-free
market should mostly be covered by diet:ovo_vegetarian and diet:vegan
Am 26.06.2013 02:29, schrieb Murry McEntire:
> As part of the shop=bakery,bread_bakery,confectionery proposal voting,
> several have commented that the diet:=* tag should be used
> instead of =* tag (e.g., diet:gluten_free=* instead of
> gluten_free=*. Since the diet: did previously pass a formal
On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 13:59 +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> The UK Government seem to think an HGV starts at 3.5t GVW, not 7.5t.
> By those standards, hgv=no is not a correct transposition of the sign
> with a lorry+weight(7.5t) symbol. Nor is maxweight=7.5 (I think)
> because it only applies to goods
Hi,
Am Montag, 1. Juli 2013, 13:59:28 schrieb Colin Smale:
> The UK Government seem to think an HGV starts at 3.5t GVW, not 7.5t.
Which is not surprising since this exactly how the Vienna Convention defines it.
> By those standards, hgv=no is not a correct transposition of the sign
> with a lorr
The UK Government seem to think an HGV starts at 3.5t GVW, not 7.5t.
By those standards, hgv=no is not a correct transposition of the sign
with a lorry+weight(7.5t) symbol. Nor is maxweight=7.5 (I think) because
it only applies to goods vehicles - not buses/coaches for example
(correct me if I'm
On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 13:03 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 7.5t gross weight or actual loaded weight? Does this include trailers?
>
It is gross weight, a vehicle with a gross weight of more than 7.5t
being regarded as a HGV.
Phil (trigpoint)
__
2013/7/1 Philip Barnes
> In the UK, the most common weight restriction is '7.5t except for
> access'.
7.5t gross weight or actual loaded weight? Does this include trailers?
> These generally cover an area, 7.5t in the UK being the legal
> definition of a HGV. These restrictions are to keep
On Sat, 2013-06-29 at 20:04 +, Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
>
> > needed e.g. in Finland) or of
> >a single vehicle (needed in
> >most of the vienna convention
> > countries)
>
> By far the most common sign is - even here - of the "vehicle laden
> weight" variant. Only the "max gross weight of a ve
13 matches
Mail list logo
