a node to describe the object."
I guess this would be the more accepted solution instead of creating a
new tag for gardens dedicated to the public, as parks seem to be at the
OSM Wiki.
Cheers
cracklinrain
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Am 06.12.2013 13:26, schrieb Matthijs Melissen:
> I agree with Martin. Also the fact that an object (parking, garden,
> swimming pool) is private is in itself useful information for the general
> public. You might for example see a parking or garden on aerial imagery,
> and wonder if it's possible
Am 06.12.2013 13:09, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> What is the argument for putting the house, the entrance and the private
> way then? IMHO we can map private trees, and I also like to map private
> swimming pools. Of course you can map private fences, walls etc., and why
> not map a private wate
Am 05.12.2013 18:46, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> I would only use it on the effective garden area, overlapping the
> landuse=residential area. Buildings and non-garden areas should not be
> included.
This in combination with garden:type and garden:style does make sense.
But until now I did not
in my opinion.
What do you think?
Cheers
cracklinrain
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Am 29.11.2013 16:31, schrieb Tod Fitch:
> On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:07 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
>>
>> Martin Koppenhoefer writes:
>>
>>> 2013/11/17> The definition given for the landuse-polygon seems too
>>> restrictive, I'd
>>> ditch the second part "are constructed up to a boundary or barrier
>>
