Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - No votes for proposals opening_hours_holiday_select and opening_hours_open_until

On 07.04.2014 22:34, Stephan Knauss wrote: > Hi Robin, > > On 07.04.2014 22:11, Robin `ypid` Schneider wrote: >> I created two proposals for which the time to vote is over but there are no >> votes :(. Should we open the voting once again or what is the usual >> procedure in >> such a case? The p

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - No votes for proposals opening_hours_holiday_select and opening_hours_open_until

On 08.04.2014 11:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2014-04-07 22:11 GMT+02:00 Robin `ypid` Schneider : > >> I created two proposals for which the time to vote is over but there are no >> votes :(. Should we open the voting once again or what is the usual >> procedure in >> such a case? The proposal

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 2014-04-09 10:47, Pieren wrote : > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM, André Pirard > wrote: > > 1. noexit cannot be used on ways because that does not show what > end "cannot pass" > > > eeh, what "what end" ? Either the highway line is linked to anoth

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

Am 09.04.2014 16:04, schrieb Pieren: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Florian Schäfer wrote: An example where the tagging of noexit on ways is not sufficient is a T-shaped deadend, where the crossbar is one OSM-way. At one end pedestrians can pass, at the other end not. Again, the noexit is on

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Florian Schäfer wrote: > An example where the tagging of noexit on ways is not sufficient is a > T-shaped deadend, where the crossbar is one OSM-way. At one end pedestrians > can pass, at the other end not. Again, the noexit is only important when the last node is

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > but when do you remove the no_exit, or do you leave it forever for > the validators? the DB developer in me doesn't like redundant > information, all it does is create confusion if the data is in > conflict. It's only useful for validators (

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 4/9/14 9:13 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > >> what makes no_exit so special that it needs its own key >> for this purpose? > Once more, it's only useful for QA tools checking highway > intersections geometry where one of the highway is nearby but not

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

Am 09.04.2014 14:51, schrieb Ronnie Soak: > There can be a way that IS connected on both ends and still is a dead end. A > road can end in a wall or a fence, where on the other side the road > continues. > There may be other tags there (barrier=*), but still it would be

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > what makes no_exit so special that it needs its own key > for this purpose? Once more, it's only useful for QA tools checking highway intersections geometry where one of the highway is nearby but not connected. The "noexit" tag is disabling

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 9 April 2014 14:05, Richard Welty wrote: > what makes no_exit so special that it needs its own key > for this purpose? > Roads that are close to each other but not connected are a common tagging mistake. The tag no_exit is a default, which we generally don't tag, but I think it makes sense to

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 4/9/14 8:51 AM, Ronnie Soak wrote: > As a means to communicate an intention from one mapper to the next, it > simply is more clear when mapped on the node than on the way. I simply > gave an example where the end of the dead-end way can not simply be > deduced by its geometry. Regards, chaos i h

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

> > There can be a way that IS connected on both ends and still is a dead > end. A > > road can end in a wall or a fence, where on the other side the road > > continues. > > There may be other tags there (barrier=*), but still it would be hard to > > quickly spot the dead end side with noexit=yes t

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 4/9/14 7:19 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Ronnie Soak > wrote: > >> There can be a way that IS connected on both ends and still is a dead end. A >> road can end in a wall or a fence, where on the other side the road >> continues. >> There may be other tags there (barrier=

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Ronnie Soak wrote: > There can be a way that IS connected on both ends and still is a dead end. A > road can end in a wall or a fence, where on the other side the road > continues. > There may be other tags there (barrier=*), but still it would be hard to > quickl

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

2014-04-09 10:47 GMT+02:00 Pieren : > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM, André Pirard wrote: > >> >>1. noexit cannot be used on ways because that does not show what end >>"cannot pass" >> >> > eeh, what "what end" ? Either the highway line is linked to another > highway at both ends, then "no

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM, André Pirard wrote: > >1. noexit cannot be used on ways because that does not show what end >"cannot pass" > > eeh, what "what end" ? Either the highway line is linked to another highway at both ends, then "noexit" is a tagging mistake. Or the highway line i