On 2014-01-13 23:42, Zecke wrote :
> Am 13.01.2014 23:18, schrieb André Pirard:
>> I also would feel like accepting the semicolon, but after thinking
>> twice I notice that
>> religion=religion1;religion2;;religion
>> denomination=denomination1;denomination2
>> would become even more problemati
The tag as proposed leaves much to interpretations. But there are a bunch
of things one can say about a road that are crisp and clear:
covered_at_high_tide
not_plowed_in_winter
not_maintained_by_government
passing_requires_reversing
But at some point you break down into prose and write note='Roa
See in specific for this on 'exclusion' type barrier tagging:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-August/014633.html
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Consider also the discussion at this extensive thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-August/thread.html#14590
Useful metrics for exclusion barriers are really hard to come by (check out
the "sofa problem" listed in the thread,
and apply it to a bike plus trailer).
_
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
> I am not sure why it was suddenly changed (today) from unsuitable to
> discouraged, but "Unsuitable for HGVs" is seen frequently in the UK. To my
> understanding there is a difference between the semantics of unsuitable and
> discouraged, the
2014/1/13 martinq
> I have interpreted psv (public service VEHICLE), bus and taxi as vehicle
> categories in the past, but never required these keys in my area.
> So for me an empty taxi is allowed on taxi=yes.
>
it is not a question whether it is empty or not (it might be going to pick
up some
