14.10.2012 16:42, Martin Koppenhoefer:
> 2012/10/14 Eckhart Wörner :
>> I have now changed the page back to the last edit before Gauß started
>> vandalizing, maybe some admin can lock the page as well?
>
> Has someone tried to approach him directly?
On the Relation:restriction talk page, I've po
Hallo Martin,
Am Sonntag, 14. Oktober 2012, 16:42:56 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> > I have now changed the page back to the last edit before Gauß started
> > vandalizing, maybe some admin can lock the page as well?
>
> Has someone tried to approach him directly? Locking and blocking
> usually
2012/10/14 Eckhart Wörner :
> I have now changed the page back to the last edit before Gauß started
> vandalizing, maybe some admin can lock the page as well?
Has someone tried to approach him directly? Locking and blocking
usually don't solve these kind of issues in a sustainable and
permanent
Hi James,
Am Sonntag, 14. Oktober 2012, 10:04:47 schrieb James Mast:
> Gauß has now also added a new section called "More turn restrictions" with a
> ton of new restrictions that none of the editors support. Heck, I don't
> think any routers support them as well. All these new turn restriction
Gauß has now also added a new section called "More turn restrictions" with a
ton of new restrictions that none of the editors support. Heck, I don't think
any routers support them as well. All these new turn restrictions deal with
"half" turns.. Maybe Gauß needs a time out on editing that pa
I would have expected Japan to share the No U Turns sign with the UK and
Australia, as they drive on the left.
Phil
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Hi Martin,
Am Sonntag, 7. Oktober 2012, 17:10:29 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> +1, this "combination of restrictions"-section seems strange. The
> first row (restriction=no_...) would merit a real life example.
> Usually on a crossing like this with turn-restrictions like shown
> there will be ei
2012/10/7 James Mast :
> Is it just me, or has all the edits Gauß has recently done to the Turn
> Restrictions page on the Wiki made it more confusing for new mappers?
> Especially with the new "Combination of restrictions" section. What does
> everybody else think?
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org
Hi James,
Am Samstag, 6. Oktober 2012, 21:31:00 schrieb James Mast:
>
> Is it just me, or has all the edits Gauß has recently done to the Turn
> Restrictions page on the Wiki made it more confusing for new mappers?
> Especially with the new "Combination of restrictions" section. What does
>
At 2010-08-16 18:30, Michael Barabanov wrote:
How would one tag a turn
restriction
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turn_restrictions)
which is active say 6-9AM and 3-6PM every day? hour_on/hour_off seem to
only be sufficient for one time interval.
Currently, I use:
hour_on=06:00;15:00
hour_o
Why do you think no software parses keys with semi-colon seperated values?
eg amenity=fuel;cafe
Because it takes too many resources to search every amenity=* value
for possible values with multiple tags, instead we tag them separate
or some kind of sub-tag...
2010/8/17 John Smith :
> That's the point, if you are looking for a limited set of values you
> can do a complete match, you don't need to try and do anything as
> complex or resource intensive as a regular expression *UNLESS* you
> know explicitly that key would need to be parsed in that manner, s
On 18 August 2010 00:08, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> It is much more elegant on the other hand not to have to create
> separate restrictions for all times, but deal in one restriction with
> it. The more these things are in use, the more apps will be able to
> understand them. Currently many apps
2010/8/17 John Smith :
> On 18 August 2010 00:03, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 2010/8/17 John Smith :
>>> I'm not talking about hour_on, I'm talking specifically about your
>>> suggestion:
>>>
restriction=[6:00-9:00;15:00-18:00]only_right_turn
>>>
>>> Which breaks restriction=*
>>
>>
>> IMH
On 18 August 2010 00:06, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I'm not a programmer but I think that some substring-parsing would be
substring/regex is essentially the same end result.
> sufficient (do you mean this?). For the evaluation of the term you
> will in all cases need a regex (to see if the dat
2010/8/17 John Smith :
> Your suggestion would require a regex, the time information should be
> in it's own key to prevent this.
I'm not a programmer but I think that some substring-parsing would be
sufficient (do you mean this?). For the evaluation of the term you
will in all cases need a rege
On 18 August 2010 00:03, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/8/17 John Smith :
>> I'm not talking about hour_on, I'm talking specifically about your
>> suggestion:
>>
>>> restriction=[6:00-9:00;15:00-18:00]only_right_turn
>>
>> Which breaks restriction=*
>
>
> IMHO it doesn't. It is justified that
2010/8/17 John Smith :
> I'm not talking about hour_on, I'm talking specifically about your suggestion:
>
>> restriction=[6:00-9:00;15:00-18:00]only_right_turn
>
> Which breaks restriction=*
IMHO it doesn't. It is justified that a restriction that is valid
_only 6-9 or 15-18_ doesn't look the sam
On 18 August 2010 00:00, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/8/17 Sebastian Klein :
>> I don't really like the Extended_conditions_for_access_tags proposal for
>> reasons mentioned in the above sites and their talk pages. Basically it
>> violates (or gives up) the principle that keys are simple atom
On 17 August 2010 23:58, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I'm pulling this back to the list, because otherwise it is not useful
> for the rest of the comunity, and because I think that you don't mind.
I mentioned to several posters that this should be on the tagging list.
> amenity=school is widely
2010/8/17 Sebastian Klein :
> I don't really like the Extended_conditions_for_access_tags proposal for
> reasons mentioned in the above sites and their talk pages. Basically it
> violates (or gives up) the principle that keys are simple atomic identifiers
> that you can query without regexes and th
2010/8/17 John Smith :
> On 17 August 2010 23:44, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> Oops, so sorry, I wasn't aware that there is already a time syntax in
>> the restrictions relation :(
>
> I your suggestion conflicts with the restriction=* values, so any
> existing software may handle the extension s
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/8/17 John Smith :
You were the one complaining about amenity=school being widely used so
we should sub-tag it, I don't think we should do any of the above for
similar reasons, leave the restriction stuff alone and dump
dates/times into their own key pair.
restric
On 17 August 2010 22:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> If a restriction is valid only for some time, I would like to see this
> in one tag and not in 2 for several reasons:
I think you are over engineering, in any case my previous point still
stands, there is no less than 3 completely different wa
2010/8/17 John Smith :
> You were the one complaining about amenity=school being widely used so
> we should sub-tag it, I don't think we should do any of the above for
> similar reasons, leave the restriction stuff alone and dump
> dates/times into their own key pair.
>
> restriction=no_right_turn
On 17/08/2010 05:29, John Smith wrote:
On 17 August 2010 13:14, Michael Barabanov wrote:
I agree. But I'm not in the mood to start a voting process on changing
hour_on to access:time.
We keep getting told this is a do-ocracy, so if you find something
more useful, just do it? :)
On 17 August 2010 18:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/8/17 Michael Barabanov :
>> Seems like double work to me. Ross's suggestion may just work. If there're
>> no objections, I'll update the wiki.
>
>
> There is already a proposal for this kind of stuff, which would be
> possible to apply h
2010/8/17 Michael Barabanov :
> Seems like double work to me. Ross's suggestion may just work. If there're
> no objections, I'll update the wiki.
There is already a proposal for this kind of stuff, which would be
possible to apply here as well:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_featur
Ross Scanlon wrote:
And also a semi-colon ; between the times as per the rest of multiple values
for one key.
No, quoting [1]:
>
a break on days separated by "," · ( e.g.> Mo,We,Fr )
a break on hours separated by "," · ( e.g.> 08:30-14:00,16:30-20:00 )
different hours on different days
John Smith wrote:
On 17 August 2010 17:44, Sebastian Klein wrote:
Michael Barabanov wrote:
Seems like double work to me. Ross's suggestion may just work. If
there're no objections, I'll update the wiki.
Please not, this is a crude hack. Why not use the opening_hours syntax? This
should be s
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:04:21 +1000
John Smith wrote:
> On 17 August 2010 17:44, Sebastian Klein wrote:
> > Michael Barabanov wrote:
> >>
> >> Seems like double work to me. Ross's suggestion may just work. If
> >> there're no objections, I'll update the wiki.
> >
> > Please not, this is a crude
On 17 August 2010 17:44, Sebastian Klein wrote:
> Michael Barabanov wrote:
>>
>> Seems like double work to me. Ross's suggestion may just work. If
>> there're no objections, I'll update the wiki.
>
> Please not, this is a crude hack. Why not use the opening_hours syntax? This
> should be standar
Michael Barabanov wrote:
Seems like double work to me. Ross's suggestion may just work. If
there're no objections, I'll update the wiki.
Please not, this is a crude hack. Why not use the opening_hours syntax?
This should be standard.
hours=6:00-9:00,15:00-19:00
Sebastian
___
I will, once I see a restriction that doesn't fit:)
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:29 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 17 August 2010 13:14, Michael Barabanov
> wrote:
> > I agree. But I'm not in the mood to start a voting process on changing
> > hour_on to access:time.
>
> We keep getting told this is a d
On 17 August 2010 13:14, Michael Barabanov wrote:
> I agree. But I'm not in the mood to start a voting process on changing
> hour_on to access:time.
We keep getting told this is a do-ocracy, so if you find something
more useful, just do it? :)
___
Tagg
I agree. But I'm not in the mood to start a voting process on changing
hour_on to access:time.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:58 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 17 August 2010 12:18, Michael Barabanov
> wrote:
> > Seems like double work to me. Ross's suggestion may just work. If
> there're
> > no object
On 17 August 2010 12:18, Michael Barabanov wrote:
> Seems like double work to me. Ross's suggestion may just work. If there're
> no objections, I'll update the wiki.
That would probably be fine for every day of the week, and yes I
noticed day_on/off, but that seems to overly complicate things a
Thanks. BTW, tagwatch does have those:
http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Planet/En/keystats_hour_on.html
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:30:26 -0700
> Michael Barabanov wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > How would one tag a turn restriction (
> > http://wiki.opens
Seems like double work to me. Ross's suggestion may just work. If there're
no objections, I'll update the wiki.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Michael Barabanov
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > How would one tag a turn restriction
> > (http:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Michael Barabanov
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How would one tag a turn restriction
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turn_restrictions) which is active say
> 6-9AM and 3-6PM every day? hour_on/hour_off seem to only be sufficient for
> one time interval.
FIXME=this restr
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:30:26 -0700
Michael Barabanov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How would one tag a turn restriction (
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turn_restrictions) which is active say
> 6-9AM and 3-6PM every day? hour_on/hour_off seem to only be sufficient for
> one time interval.
>
> Michael
41 matches
Mail list logo
