On 7/6/14 3:41 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> How about using "aerodrome=*" to express how the aerodrome is used by
> civilians and then add "military=yes" when the airport is also used
> for military operations?
>
you could potentially broaden it a bit, with military=yes being the
generic "i have n
How about using "aerodrome=*" to express how the aerodrome is used by
civilians and then add "military=yes" when the airport is also used
for military operations?
On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Ole Nielsen wrote:
> Also happens outside the US. In Denmark I know of civil airports sharing the
> ru
Also happens outside the US. In Denmark I know of civil airports sharing
the runway with the airforce. Once experienced an aborted approach
during a domestic flight because two F16 fighters suddenly wanted to land.
Ole
On 06/07/2014 20:04, Richard Welty wrote:
no need for lots of anecdotes. i
On 7/6/14 1:55 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> I know of at least two such in the Nashville, TN, USA. One is Nashville
> International Airport, with passenger, air freight, and general aviation
> usage, as well as a military compound. The other is a former military base in
> Smyrna, TN, still cont
no need for lots of anecdotes. it is very, very common for National Guard
and Reserve units in the US to share airports with civilian services. i
could
name a bunch, but i don't think it's necessary, we've all seen the military
facilities while looking out the windows while our flight is taxiing.
I know of at least two such in the Nashville, TN, USA. One is Nashville
International Airport, with passenger, air freight, and general aviation usage,
as well as a military compound. The other is a former military base in Smyrna,
TN, still containing a small military compound, but mostly now us
> Am 06/lug/2014 um 19:12 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>
>
>> Am 05/lug/2014 um 22:43 schrieb François Lacombe
>> :
>>
>> Introducing power_tower=* and power_pole=* to store values instead than
>> tower=* or pole=* may be a possibility.
>>
>> Do you agree ?
>
>
> yes, I'd support this
> Am 05/lug/2014 um 22:43 schrieb François Lacombe
> :
>
> Introducing power_tower=* and power_pole=* to store values instead than
> tower=* or pole=* may be a possibility.
>
> Do you agree ?
yes, I'd support this to avoid confusion with tower:type associated with
man_made=tower (e.g. tool
> Am 22/giu/2014 um 11:08 schrieb Pieren :
>
> "flow_direction=forward/backward" and
> "oneway=yes" ?
not sure if this was already answered, oneway is a legal tag and referring to
traffic on the water, while flow_direction is referring to the water itself.
cheers,
Martin
> Am 05/lug/2014 um 23:30 schrieb André Pirard :
>
> Lakes usually flow, and I would guess more than canals that are not water
> ducts.
> They're mostly a river meeting a hole, filling it and overflowing at the
> other end.
lakes don't flow. They have a layering of different temperature/
2014-07-06 12:48 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring :
> On 06/07/2014 10:45, sabas88 wrote:
>
>> Let me know how I can edit / disambiguate.
>>
>> The important distinction is that a port is an administrative boundary
> (which may have several disjunct areas) whereas harbours, terminals, docks,
> wharves,
On 2014-07-06 08:40, Jo wrote :
> off list:
>
> André, I'm in the process of ending the addition of 37000 stops of De
> Lijn to OSM. None of them have the holy source tags and still I'm able
> to compute which ones still need to be done.
>
> So I'm not worried about getting bitten in the back.
>
>
On 06/07/2014 10:45, sabas88 wrote:
Let me know how I can edit / disambiguate.
The important distinction is that a port is an administrative boundary
(which may have several disjunct areas) whereas harbours, terminals,
docks, wharves, basins, quays, etc. are physical features. Since those
lat
2014-07-06 9:48 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring :
> On 06/07/2014 08:24, nounours77 wrote:
>
>> => So this would imply that "port" is a individual facility inside a
>> "harbour".
>>
> In fact it is the other way round. A port my contain one or more harbours.
> (In turn, a harbour may contain zero or mor
On 06/07/2014 08:24, nounours77 wrote:
=> So this would imply that "port" is a individual facility inside a
"harbour".
In fact it is the other way round. A port my contain one or more
harbours. (In turn, a harbour may contain zero or more docks and a dock
may contain zero or more basins.) A por
Dear Stefano,
> Accepting the tag landuse=port would improve the detailed tagging of port
> areas, for example to tell apart container terminals (easily
> distinguishable from satellite imagery) from passenger terminals and so on.
Thank you very much for your good strucutured and very detailed
16 matches
Mail list logo
