Re: [Tagging] wayside shrine tag definition page

Javbw > On Feb 15, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > What do you think about the column, does it meet your expectations for > wayside shrine? If the object is religious in nature, I think it is. Very very very old wayside shrines in Japan are usually destroyed. The weathe

Re: [Tagging] Cycling "service area"

I think the highway=cycle_service_area tag is both useful and specific enough. By the way, the highway=services tag is used to identify an area (we call them 'service areas" on the east coast) that has fuel, restrooms, water, food and parking for automobiles and trucks. I also use area=yes in conju

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

On 15-Feb-18 08:41 AM, François Lacombe wrote: 2018-02-14 22:20 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com >: If this is dual tagged with man_made=pipeline then it would be better as a property tag as Martin suggests. What do you mean with "dual tagged" ? Ha

Re: [Tagging] wayside shrine tag definition page

sent from a phone > On 15. Feb 2018, at 01:19, John Willis wrote: > > To me, a building=shrine / temple "enshrines" an object or offers a place for > worship of a statue or object. +1 to require „enshrining“ for a shrine. What do you think about the column, does it meet your expectations f

Re: [Tagging] wayside shrine tag definition page

There are tons and tons of little singular Budda statues on a pedestal and perhaps a little roof, and people leave coins, sake, and dress them in jackets. There are also very tiny Shinto "shrines" on the top of mountains (like the size of a shoebox or microwave) that have a spot for offerings a

[Tagging] Cycling "service area"

I have come across an interesting mappable feature when out cycling last weekend. The ~60 km long cycling roads along the Rivers here in Japan occasionally have city operated facilities, and similar to the centuries old “road stations” and the more recent motorway “Service areas”, I found a “C

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

On 14-Feb-18 09:30 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I think it should be a property like pressurised=yes/no it doesn't change the underlying problem. which waterway=* to describe this section correctly? It's not a canal, it's not necessarily a pipeline. Le 14. 02. 18 à 22:20, Warin a écrit : > If

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

2018-02-14 22:20 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > If this is dual tagged with man_made=pipeline then it would be better as a > property tag as Martin suggests. > What do you mean with "dual tagged" ? > In this way the pipeline tag can also use the property 'pressurised' .. > and tha

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

On 14-Feb-18 09:30 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2018-02-14 1:03 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe >: I don't get the point about waterway=pressurised. Is this that bad, or you just don't want ot use it? I think it should be a property like pressurised=

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

2018-02-14 14:44 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > IMHO you'll have to look at these one by one. "waterway=pressurised" is > still in your proposal, so I think we are talking also about this. > I agree and only meant we need a meaningful value to put waterway=* on pipe flow water ways. Looking on

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

2018-02-14 1:03 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe : > I don't get the point about waterway=pressurised. > Is this that bad, or you just don't want ot use it? > 2018-02-14 12:06 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe : > 2018-02-14 11:30 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > >I think it should be a property like pressu

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

Hi all, 2018-02-14 1:25 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > On 14-Feb-18 11:05 AM, marc marc wrote: > >> Le 14. 02. 18 à 00:51, Warin a écrit : >> >>> OSM unfortunately 'maps what is there' .. not "hardware"/"use". >>> >> a water flow is there -> waterway=* (the same logic as for highway=*

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

2018-02-14 1:03 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe : > I don't get the point about waterway=pressurised. > Is this that bad, or you just don't want ot use it? > I think it should be a property like pressurised=yes/no Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list T