2010/8/9 fly :
> There exists a proposal:
> wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditions_for_access_tags
> which was made for theses conditions, but it uses a relation and I was in no
> need so far to use it.
you don't need relations for this. There is also another similar
(follow-up)
Am 09.08.2010 09:52, schrieb John Smith:
> On 9 August 2010 05:55, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> That tag seems rather awkward, but it does bring up a good point about
>
> The rest of your email described seasonal conditions that are the same
> year in and year out, but for most of Australia there isn't
On 9 August 2010 05:55, Paul Johnson wrote:
> That tag seems rather awkward, but it does bring up a good point about
The rest of your email described seasonal conditions that are the same
year in and year out, but for most of Australia there isn't seasonal
conditions in the same sense, the weathe
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:46:06 +1000, John Smith wrote:
> On 2 August 2010 19:39, Dave F.
> wrote:
>> This has nothing to do with weather conditions, but a stupid driver
>> ignoring signed warnings.
>
> Perhaps not the best example of what Liz was thinking of, however this
> is a better example:
>
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Stephen Hope wrote:
> If it's the discussion I'm remembering, I think the debate may have
> started with the tag 4wd_only, (something like that, may not be
> exact). Which had the same issues - people were debating the
> questions, while my point of view is that th
On 3 August 2010 11:28, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:10 PM, John Smith wrote:
>>
>> I can't remember what happened, and there is nothing really useful on
>> the discussion page at all.
>
> Looks like the usual tussle between mapping at some deep semantic
> level ("can you use t
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:10 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 2 August 2010 20:05, Dave F. wrote:
>> I see - a permanent sign.
>> I've no idea was this was objected to. Was the discussion on how it was to
>> be tagged?
>
> I can't remember what happened, and there is nothing really useful on
> the discu
On 2 August 2010 20:05, Dave F. wrote:
> I see - a permanent sign.
> I've no idea was this was objected to. Was the discussion on how it was to
> be tagged?
I can't remember what happened, and there is nothing really useful on
the discussion page at all.
_
On 2 August 2010 20:03, Liz wrote:
> Road closed signs are not always put up, but the sign that the road will be
> closed by wet weather is there all year round.
I don't think the report mentioned if there was signs saying the road
would be closed during wet weather, but I guess that's the assump
On 02/08/2010 10:46, John Smith wrote:
On 2 August 2010 19:39, Dave F. wrote:
This has nothing to do with weather conditions, but a stupid driver ignoring
signed warnings.
Perhaps not the best example of what Liz was thinking of, however this
is a better example:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.or
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, John Smith wrote:
> On 2 August 2010 19:39, Dave F. wrote:
> > This has nothing to do with weather conditions, but a stupid driver
> > ignoring signed warnings.
So why can't the mapping system record that this warning is going to exist in
wet conditions?
Road closed signs are
On 2 August 2010 19:39, Dave F. wrote:
> This has nothing to do with weather conditions, but a stupid driver ignoring
> signed warnings.
Perhaps not the best example of what Liz was thinking of, however this
is a better example:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dry_Weather_Ro
On 01/08/2010 22:17, Liz wrote:
Before this list existed, the need for a dry_weather_only tag was disputed on
talk.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/02/2970371.htm
This has nothing to do with weather conditions, but a stupid driver
ignoring signed warnings.
I've use access=no &
Before this list existed, the need for a dry_weather_only tag was disputed on
talk.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/02/2970371.htm
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
14 matches
Mail list logo
