Based on a discussion that was had on the discussion page[0] of
tag:amenity=bear_box, I am proposing a change of this tag from amenity=bear_box
to amenity=bear_cache with an additional tag of bear_cache:type=* to better
clarify what type of bear cache is here. The term "bear cache" seems to be
r that the community here approved the proposal for
> waterway=tidal_channel which said that the area of tidal channels (aka tidal
> creeks) should be mapped with natural=coastline at their edges - see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dtidal_channel#How_to_Map
>
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, November 18th, 2020 at 11:34 PM, Brian M. Sperlongano
wrote:
> This was fascinating reading. I do agree that we ought to have a definition
> for what gets tagged natural=coastline, and I think it's fine if that
> definition has some subjectivity
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, November 18th, 2020 at 5:04 PM, Christoph Hormann
wrote:
> > Eric H. Christensen via Tagging tagging@openstreetmap.org hat am 18.11.2020
> > 21:19 geschrieben:
>
> > [...]
>
> First: the matter has been discussed at l
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, November 18th, 2020 at 3:31 PM, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> Consider that the natural=coastline is defined as representing the mean high
> water springs line, that is, the line of the highest tides. If the line on an
> open ocean beach is at the hi
After a few days of much work, a recent collaborative project to turn the
Chesapeake Bay from a nothing space outlined by natural=coastline to what we
considered to be a more accurate relation of natural=water, we've received some
negative feedback.
The difference of opinion seems to lie in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 9, 2018 11:57 AM, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
> I'm opening up my Evacuation Routes proposal[0] for voting. I think we've had
> two good sessions of discussions for ironing out the bugs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I'm opening up my Evacuation Routes proposal[0] for voting. I think we've had
two good sessions of discussions for ironing out the bugs and it's time to get
this thing out the door!
[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Evacuat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
-‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 7, 2018 11:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > On 6. Aug 2018, at 06:30, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
> > And it might be better to place it directly in the emergency key?
> > Say emergency=evacuati
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 6, 2018 2:02 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/08/18 15:27, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
> > ‐‐‐ O
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 6, 2018 12:30 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd think this should be a relation - not a way.
> At the moment the proposals says it is only a way.
>
> And it might be better to place it directly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Last year I made a feature proposal[0] last year regarding evacuation routes.
There were a couple of recommended changes to the RFC[1] and while I agreed
with them I 1) failed to make them and 2) got side tracked on a couple of other
initiatives.
On August 17, 2017 11:38:10 AM EDT, Richard Welty
wrote:
>On 8/17/17 10:25 AM, Eric Christensen wrote:
>>
>> That's not really what's being discussed here. A non-pressurized
>> hydrant wouldn't be attached to a tank at all. It would require a
>fire
>> engine to suck the water out. It does not
On June 10, 2017 12:23:22 PM EDT, Richard Welty wrote:
>On 6/9/17 5:18 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>> o, I forgot to include the link to the picture.
>> BTW for fire hydrants of the pillar type, it can in indicated on them
>> as well, see [2] There is a BH100 on it, so the diameter of the
>> underground
14 matches
Mail list logo
