On Monday 17 December 2012 18:13:37 Clay Smalley wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Clay Smalley wrote:
> > I noticed the majority of the trackage of the San Francisco Muni lines
> > are tagged as layer=1, while the streets along which they run have no
> > layer tag (an implied layer=0).
>
On Wednesday 21 November 2012 20:52:50 sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote:
> That's the current state of recommendation, but maybe we could start
> discussing it to see if that's a good idea to apply speed limits on roads
> inside a bounding polygon
Polygons are a bad idea to map built-up areas. It's not
On Wednesday 10 October 2012 20:43:51 A.Pirard.Papou wrote:
> On 2012-10-04 08:41, Frederik Ramm wrote :
> > On 10/04/12 03:17, A.Pirard.Papou wrote:
> >> In these cases I tend to omit the name tag altogether. After all, the
> >> immaterial line doesn't really have a name; what you are talking
> >
On Friday 30 December 2011 06:32:43 Martijn van Exel wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 22:12 -0600, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> >> Variable max speed corridors are nothing new for Europe, but they
> >> apparently are a novelty for the US.
> >> I
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2011/4/25 David Murn :
> > The signs I saw applied to
> >
> > trucks and buses though, more than just hgv/goods. As Tobias said, your
> > suggestion is suitable, Id add the suggestion of maxspeed:bus also.
>
> "bus" in OSM is defined as a bus performing public transpo
Sander Deryckere wrote:
> Sorry to post this in the wrong mailing list then. So almost all cycleways
> going through the country
> should be tagged as paths (since they rarely have such a sign). Well, then
> there is a lot of work to do.
>
> I believe this discussion can be closed.
This page may
Sander Deryckere wrote:
> This mail is about the different (and incompatible) usages of the tag
> "highway=cycleway"
>
> [...]
>
> So the sollution "create a new tag" comes to the mind. I believe this is
> the preferred sollution, but* I ask your input about what the tag would
> be*. We could
>
>
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Wow. The OSM wiki never ceases to disappoint with its limitless provision
> of confusing, badly written, half thought-out crap.
>
> So we have a page that says "implies access=no" and then happily
> contradicts itself by saying "an entrance that can be opened or closed t
This sounds a lot like what could be translated as "vicinal roads" in Belgium
(French: "sentiers/chemins vicinaux", Dutch: "buurtwegen"). It's from an atlas
made in the 1840's that summed up all public roads and paths in each
municipality, and in it they also gave numbers to all public paths an
John Smith wrote:
> On 7 July 2010 03:10, Ben Laenen wrote:
> > btw, I created the maxspeed:zone= tag because it (a) allows extension to
> > a few other zonal restrictions (no parking zone etc), and (b) allows
> > extra values like "school".
>
> I spent a bit
Sebastian Klein wrote:
> usages tag
> -- ---
> 944zone:maxspeed=DE:30
> 631zone:traffic=DE:30
> 516source:maxspeed=traffic_zone
> 433source:maxspeed=DE:zone30
> 152zone:speed=30
> 140maxspeed:zone=yes
> 40source:maxspeed=zone30
Also add maxspeed:zone=school for a
Please make a proposal page first before making the new Tag:highway=bazaar
page. This looks like a tag which needs quite some discussion first.
Greetings
Ben
pavithran wrote:
> First of all I am using a non native english name called 'bazaar'
> which most of you might have heard from 'cathedra
Tyler Gunn wrote:
> I installed the Garmin OSM map for my area and have been using it while I
> drive around locally. The one thing I've noticed is that there is a lot of
> inconsistency in how streets that cross divided roadways are named.
>
> For example:
> http://osm.org/go/Wpz_F8RFl-
>
> Not
NopMap wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In the German forum there is an ongoing discussion on this matter.
> Frequently there are tracks that are paved (usually concrete or paving
> stones) only in the lanes/grooves (what is the proper word for the outsides
> of the track where the wheels run), but have an unpave
John Smith wrote:
> Also can anyone think of any other cases that opening_hours can't
> describe at the moment?
* derivatives of sunrise and sunset (like two hours before sunset). Some parks
here have opening hours like that.
* public holidays, and combinations (each Monday, except on a holiday;
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Ulf Lamping
wrote:
> > d) I don't think it's a good idea to change a tag description two years
> > after it was documented, because the wording is "slightly" wrong for
> > some parts of the english speaking world.
>
> The wording is *comple
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> > In Australia, we ARE tagging paths generally with "unknown (or no)
> > legal status". Should we *guess* the legal status and use
> > footway/cycleway etc., or use highway=path + surface + width?
>
> Or ignore the legal
James Livingston wrote:
> On 05/12/2009, at 4:14 AM, Anthony wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Matthias Julius
> > wrote: I guess it is implied that when you are not allowed to carry a
> > bike you are not allowed to ride it neither.
> >
> > True, but when I tag bicycle=no, I don't inten
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst
>
> wrote:
> > highway=footway -> a path intended for pedestrian use
> > highway=cycleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and cycle use
> > highway=bridleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and horse use[1]
>
> Boy, I
Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ben Laenen wrote:
> > This is ground cover for example:
> > http://www.ngi.be/Templates/zoom.htm?doctitle=uittreksel&image=../images/
> >1/1/extr10_vismijn.jpg&x=452&y=452
> > http://www.ngi.be/Templ
Anthony wrote:
> Maybe we need "ground cover". I'm not convinced of it, but maybe we
> do.
Well, all topographical maps I've seen seem to be convinced of ground cover.
This is ground cover for example:
http://www.ngi.be/Templates/zoom.htm?doctitle=uittreksel&image=../images/1/1/extr10_vismijn.jp
Anthony wrote:
> Well then "ground cover" isn't what we need. We need "land use".
>
> Land use is generally studied on a parcel by parcel basis. The fact
> that OSM mappers make these huge polygons which cover entire towns is
> fine, as an approximation, but ultimately we should be striving to g
Pieren wrote:
> It doesn't fail so much because most of the time, landuse values are
> exclusive (residential, industrial, forest, etc). It is already enough
> complicated to add polygones or multipolygones for landuse. We can see
> that this is only done in countrysides or small urban areas but no
Pieren wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>
> wrote:
> > 2009/10/15 Ben Laenen :
> >> Anthony wrote:
> >> The only way I see we can solve all this is to get a new tag which is
> >> exclusively used for ground cover. Such a tag
Anthony wrote:
> The problem with the landuse tag is it's being used for multiple
> things. On one hand, it's being used to describe what the land is
> being used for - if people are using the land as their residence, the
> land is tagged landuse=residential. On the other hand, it's being
> used
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2009/10/12 Ben Laenen :
> >> I made a proposal:
> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:planned
> >
> > So what's the difference with highway=proposed + proposed=...?
> >
> > I can't seem to find the wiki pa
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2009/10/10 OJ W :
> > multiple plans would overlap each other and look weird?
>
> look weird where? I guess these would not be rendered in standard maps
> (or just in advanced planning phases and for main plans like
> motorways, airports, etc.).
>
> I made a proposal:
27 matches
Mail list logo
