Re: [Tagging] Solving the tag chaos (was: Re: Government buildings)

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > The stylesheets for the main mapnik and osmarender maps are in svn. So wat > is > Sorry if this is a bit OT - where is the stylesheet in mapnik svn? The only things I can see that look like stylesheets are in tests/data, and somehow I don't

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

Just my thoughts but ... I would certainly not encourage guessing the legal status - if I don't know (either from signage on the ground or from on-copyright sources elsewhere) and I can't find out I don't use designation= ... Although there is certainly no problem with using designation=unknown.

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

I wouldn't try to argue whether legal status is a more or less important attribute than any other. However, where known, it is a useful piece of information. In countries that do not have 'right to roam' and where it is therefore illegal (at least a trespass) to walk on a path across private land u

Re: [Tagging] Solving the tag chaos (was: Re: Government buildings)

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > Sorry if this is a bit OT - where is the stylesheet in mapnik svn? The > only things I can see that look like stylesheets are in tests/data, and > somehow I don't think tests/data/broken_maps/amenity.xml is the right place > to check which

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

I think Steve meant "adjacent to the roadway such that you can move onto/across the roadway at your convenience". This adjacency is important in jurisdictions where cyclists are allowed to do this (ie where the use of the lane/track is optional), and where there are a significant prevalence of side

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

Are we edging towards: bicycle=yes|no|private|permissive|unknown - legal status designation=* - your local (national) name for the legal status bicycle:defacto=prevented|forbidden|tolerated|discouraged|accepted|supported|established - the apparent practical status, which you can use or not use,

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Richard Mann < richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I wasn't aware of any distinction between cycleway=track and > highway=cycleway, other than that the first doesn't render (yet) and the > second renders badly. > > There is officially not one, but: 1) h

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Richard Mann wrote: > I wasn't aware of any distinction between cycleway=track and > highway=cycleway, other than that the first doesn't render (yet) and the > second renders badly. I don't think there's much difference in nature, it's more a difference in the wa

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Richard Mann wrote: > Are we edging towards: > > bicycle=yes|no|private|permissive|unknown - legal status > > designation=* - your local (national) name for the legal status > > bicycle:defacto=prevented|forbidden|tolerated|discouraged|accepted|supported|established

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > Definitely a step in the right direction, i.e. separating "legal > status" from "defacto status". > > I'd be tempted to also use bicycle:signed=yes/no to clarify when the > (legal?) status is derived from evidence on the ground as opposed to a

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Andre Engels wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > >> Definitely a step in the right direction, i.e. separating "legal >> status" from "defacto status". >> >> I'd be tempted to also use bicycle:signed=yes/no to clarify when the >> (legal?)

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > Isn't this what Mike was referring to when he said "... access to > non-copyright information on legal status ... is reasonably available > in the public domain in England and Wales" ? So there are actually law books there that say "road so-a

[Tagging] parking

How should a parking lot be tagged, that is provided for customers, e.g. at a restaurant, or retail business? It may be signed as such (e.g. "Customers only"), or may not. Generally there is no gate restricting access, parking is free, and you would generally assume you could legally drive through

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

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

Re: [Tagging] parking

2009/12/8 Roy Wallace : > How should a parking lot be tagged, that is provided for customers, > e.g. at a restaurant, or retail business? It may be signed as such > (e.g. "Customers only"), or may not. Generally there is no gate > restricting access, parking is free, and you would generally assume

Re: [Tagging] parking

2009/12/8 Roy Wallace : > How should a parking lot be tagged, that is provided for customers, > e.g. at a restaurant, or retail business? It may be signed as such > (e.g. "Customers only"), or may not. Generally there is no gate > restricting access, parking is free, and you would generally assume

Re: [Tagging] parking

Roy Wallace wrote: > How should a parking lot be tagged, that is provided for customers, > e.g. at a restaurant, or retail business? It may be signed as such > (e.g. "Customers only"), or may not. I would add access=permissive. You can a note=* tag to describe it in more detail if you want. Tha

Re: [Tagging] parking

Peter Childs wrote: > 2009/12/8 Roy Wallace : > > How should we tag a private corporate employee car > park? Partically round hospitals where there are staff car parks and > patient car pars and they are different. > > Access=private >> * access=destination - but I think that should only be a

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Richard Mann > wrote: > >> I wasn't aware of any distinction between cycleway=track and >> highway=cycleway, other than that the first doesn't render (yet) and the >> second renders badly. > > I don't think th

[Tagging] Coastlines and structures

I have a few questions on best/standard practices for delineating coastlines and tagging the features. 1. Is there general agreement on where the primary water body ends and a contributing river starts? I am thinking of an area where the PGS data cuts a large bay/estuary. The line was defined by

Re: [Tagging] Coastlines and structures

2009/12/8 David Fawcett : > I have a few questions on best/standard practices for delineating > coastlines and tagging the features. > > 1.  Is there general agreement on where the primary water body ends > and a contributing river starts? Last I heard it was a judgement call. Dependant upon Tidal

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Mike Harris wrote: > I don't think highway=footway / cycleway etc. implies anything at all about > legal status - only about suitability for use, as judged on the ground from > observation and signage, as a more informative tag than highway=path. > Well, highway=f

Re: [Tagging] Coastlines and structures

David Fawcett wrote: > I have a few questions on best/standard practices for delineating > coastlines and tagging the features. > > 1. Is there general agreement on where the primary water body ends > and a contributing river starts? Yep. In river water there is less than 500 ppm of dissolved sa

[Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

After a few exciting hours learning XSLT 2.0, I've created this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Stevage/Mapnik-support In summary, it provides a simple function: "Does Mapnik currently make reference to = in its oms.xml file?" That is, {{Mapnik-support|railway|tram}} returns "yes",

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: I think it is a good idea if it not included in the current Map Features. There was several attempts in the past to include a column for Mapnik in the Map Features. But I see two problems there: - we promote the bad habit "tagging for the rende

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Pieren wrote: > - we promote the bad habit "tagging for the renderer" > Tagging this argument further, we should do everything possible to prevent people finding out what tags are supported by each renderer. That doesn't make sense. Information about tag support

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

Perhaps a column "Renderers" and a line for each renderer. * Mapnik: yes|no * Osmarender: yes|no * ... Cheers 2009/12/8 Steve Bennett > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Pieren wrote: > >> - we promote the bad habit "tagging for the renderer" >> > > Tagging this argument further, we should do e

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Ben Laenen wrote: > And then I used that shortcut as well one day and at the end of it there > was a > police car waiting. I luckily didn't get fined, they just wanted to stop > all > cyclists that day and point it out to them, and say that they'd come back > anot

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Pieren wrote: >> >> - we promote the bad habit "tagging for the renderer" > > Tagging this argument further, we should do everything possible to prevent > people finding out what tags are supported by each rend

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Pieren wrote: > >> - we promote the bad habit "tagging for the renderer" >> > > Tagging this argument further, we should do everything possible to prevent > people finding out what tags are supported by each

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Anthony wrote: > > Not being a big bicycle rider, I have no idea what ways are "suitable for > use" in bicycling. And I suspect that's not an objective standard anyway. > Suitability for use in bicycling is not binary. > > IMHO, it wouldn't be hard to make objecti

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Anthony wrote: > Actually, I think that's a good example of the harmfulness in tagging for a > renderer. We shouldn't have redundant data in the database, at least when > this is at all feasible. > > What am I missing? Of *course* we should have redundant data, an

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > IMHO, it wouldn't be hard to make objective assessments if that's what we > wanted to do. You could have suitability=: > *None: surface physically cannot be ridden on, big boulders, trees etc. > *Poor: Can be ridden on, but only by keen moun

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Anthony wrote: > >> Actually, I think that's a good example of the harmfulness in tagging for >> a renderer. We shouldn't have redundant data in the database, at least when >> this is at all feasible. >> >>

Re: [Tagging] parking

Chris Hill writes: > Roy Wallace wrote: >> How should a parking lot be tagged, that is provided for customers, >> e.g. at a restaurant, or retail business? It may be signed as such >> (e.g. "Customers only"), or may not. > I would add access=permissive. You can a note=* tag to describe it in >

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

Almost every single one in England and Wales - clearly defined, in the public domain and of great use to some of us to have the information in the database. Mike Harris > -Original Message- > From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org > [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behal

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

Personally - and I'm probably wrong! - I had always thought that foot / bicycle = yes / no etc. did not say anything one way or the other about formal legal status (hence leaving this to designation= ) but merely whether the evidence on the ground (whether signage - which may or may not have strict

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

... On the last point - could we even deprecate designated= - I find it confusing and redundant and always use designation = (see wiki pages) - but maybe this is wrong? Mike Harris > -Original Message- > From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org > [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.o

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 03:06:53AM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: > After a few exciting hours learning XSLT 2.0, I've created this: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Stevage/Mapnik-support > > In summary, it provides a simple function: "Does Mapnik currently make > reference to = in

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

The main area of interest here is not vehicular roads but off-road ways that have varied legal status - bearing in mind that in England and Wales we - sadly - do not have a general 'right to roam' (except on limited areas of access land) and in a crowded country where almost all land is owned by

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Mike Harris wrote: > So - question to the group - do people think that foot / bicycle / etc. = > yes / no / permissive etc. has any strictly legal implication in their area > / usage? > I certainly did: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access access=yes The p

Re: [Tagging] parking

Matthias Julius writes: > Chris Hill writes: > >> Roy Wallace wrote: >>> How should a parking lot be tagged, that is provided for customers, >>> e.g. at a restaurant, or retail business? It may be signed as such >>> (e.g. "Customers only"), or may not. >> I would add access=permissive. You ca

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

On 08/12/2009, at 11.17, Steve Bennett wrote: > Given this, it would be fair to say that the "meaning" of > cycleway=track is a two-way copenhagen-style bike lane. If "copenhagen-style" refers to the danish capital, this is something of a misnomer; there are practically _always_ a one-way pa

Re: [Tagging] Coastlines and structures

> - Original Message - > From: "Peter Childs" > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 3:21 PM > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Coastlines and structures > > > > 2009/12/8 David Fawcett : >> I have a few questions on best/standard practices for de

Re: [Tagging] Coastlines and structures

This is actually an 'inland sea', Lake Superior in North America. The dissolved salts may be higher in the river than in the lake... Thanks for the ideas! On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > David Fawcett wrote: >> I have a few questions on best/standard practices for del

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

I looked at this some time ago when formulating my own practice (for better or worse!). I could see from the wiki that the access= tag (which I don't think I have ever used) does have some values that seem to be legal in their implications e.g. this wiki page's definition of access=yes. But then I

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Mike Harris wrote: > I looked at this some time ago when formulating my own practice (for better > or worse!). I could see from the wiki that the access= tag (which I don't > think I have ever used) does have some values that seem to be legal in > their > implicati

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

On 08/12/2009, at 11.17, Steve Bennett wrote: > Given this, it would be fair to say that the "meaning" of > cycleway=track is a two-way copenhagen-style bike lane. Incidentally, OSMArender draws cycleway=track in a style suggesting that there's a bikepath in both sides of the street. Cheers

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

Could you point us to an example, please? Richard On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > > On 08/12/2009, at 11.17, Steve Bennett wrote: > > > Given this, it would be fair to say that the "meaning" of > > cycleway=track is a two-way copenhagen-style bike lane. > > Incidental

Re: [Tagging] parking

Greg Troxel wrote: > >I think access=destination is natural and expresses concisely "you can >park here if you are visiting an associated business". > >streets with access=destination are really "you can drive here if you >are visting someplace near it" - even if you typically park in someone's >d

Re: [Tagging] parking

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Randy wrote: > >>I think access=destination is natural and expresses concisely "you can >>park here if you are visiting an associated business". ... > > That sounds good to me, as well. So... access=destination seems to have some support. My issue is that its use d

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Mike Harris wrote: > > So - question to the group - do people think that foot / bicycle / etc. = > yes / no / permissive etc. has any strictly legal implication in their area > / usage? Technically, yep, best to follow the wiki on this one. But in my area this inf

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Mike Harris wrote: >  ... On the last point - could we even deprecate designated= - I find it > confusing and redundant and always use designation = (see wiki pages) - but > maybe this is wrong? Well, we could deprecate a lot of things - it just depends on what we

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Anthony wrote: > > I'm not one of those "wiki says it so you have to follow it" wonks. I'm one of those "wiki says it so you have to follow it or fix it" wonks. > The whole thing is a big mess, Mmhmm. > and I have no idea how to solve it. One solution (which I'

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > Information about tag support is a *good* thing, not a bad one. I now > realise that Mapnik doesn't recognise *any* sport=* tags, but that's not > going to stop me using them. But it will make me be careful to always use it > with a tag that

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: >> >> IMHO, it wouldn't be hard to make objective assessments if that's what we >> wanted to do. You could have suitability=: >> *None: surface physically cannot be ridden on, big boulders, tree

Re: [Tagging] parking

Roy Wallace wrote: >On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Randy > wrote: >> >>>I think access=destination is natural and expresses concisely "you can >>>park here if you are visiting an associated business". >... >> >>That sounds good to me, as well. > >So... access=destination seems to have some suppo

Re: [Tagging] parking

Oh, and those areas near a public building: "parking=official" for sheriffs, judges, police, jury, etc. That's much more appropriately descriptive than "access=private". (or, maybe, "jury" is separate from other "official", since a jury pool probably parks in a separate place from the police, e

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

While we're about it, there's a few other potential values for cycleway (for interest mainly): cycleway=buslane (shared with buses) cycleway=filterlane (explicitly shared with nearside-turning traffic) cycleway=tight (nearside lane is shared with traffic and is <3.1m wide cycleway=spacious (nearsi

Re: [Tagging] parking

On Tuesday 08 December 2009 23:20:23 Randy wrote: > This would also set the system up > for something like "parking:max_time=1hr". This can already be tagged with maxstay=*. -- m.v.g., Cartin

Re: [Tagging] parking

On Tuesday 08 December 2009 12:46:06 Roy Wallace wrote: > How should a parking lot be tagged, that is provided for customers, > e.g. at a restaurant, or retail business? It may be signed as such > (e.g. "Customers only"), or may not. Once upon a time there was an explanation of what access=permiss

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Tuesday 08 December 2009 17:53:33 Anthony wrote: > >Information about tag support is a *good* thing, not a bad one. I now > > > > realise that Mapnik doesn't recognise *any* sport=* tags, but that's not > > going to stop me using them. But it will make me be careful to always use > > it with a t

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Cartinus wrote: > On Tuesday 08 December 2009 17:53:33 Anthony wrote: > > >Information about tag support is a *good* thing, not a bad one. I now > > > > > > realise that Mapnik doesn't recognise *any* sport=* tags, but that's > not > > > going to stop me using them

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:32 AM, Jochen Topf wrote: > First comment though: Please, please start making a distinction between the > rendering software (Mapnik) and the style file is uses and the map it > creates, > respectively. This is already problematic. It should not be called > "Mapnik-suppor

Re: [Tagging] parking

2009/12/9 Randy : > On further thought, while I'm OK with either approach, I think > "amenity=parking, parking=customer" is a better way to go than bending > access=destination to fit the issue. It seems a little closer to what > seems to be a best practice in other areas. > > And, it does establis

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > I don't see how this is beneficial. As others have said, it just > encourages tagging for the *current implementation of* the renderer, > as opposed to tagging with a long-term view. > > Ok, can someone point me to the policy that says "don't t

Re: [Tagging] parking

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Cartinus wrote: > I don't know where this nonsense comes from, but I don't have time to fix > the > wiki tonight. I remember that when I had just joined OSM (late '07) there > was > made some change to how either osm2pgsql or the mapnik stylesheet worked. > This w

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On 09/12/2009 01:27, Steve Bennett wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Roy Wallace > wrote: I don't see how this is beneficial. As others have said, it just encourages tagging for the *current implementation of* the renderer, as opposed to tagging wit

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Craig Wallace wrote: > See these pages: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer > > As that page says, its probably more acurrate to say "Don't deliberately > tag incorrectly for the renderer"

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:43 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > > On 08/12/2009, at 11.17, Steve Bennett wrote: > > > Given this, it would be fair to say that the "meaning" of > > cycleway=track is a two-way copenhagen-style bike lane. > > If "copenhagen-style" refers to the danish capital, this is so

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Richard Mann < richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > While we're about it, there's a few other potential values for cycleway > (for interest mainly): > > cycleway=buslane (shared with buses) > Has potential. > cycleway=filterlane (explicitly shared wit

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Anthony wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Steve Bennett > wrote: > >> > >> IMHO, it wouldn't be hard to make objective assessments if that's what > we > >> wanted to do. You could have suitability=: >

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Anthony wrote: > > foot / bicycle / etc. are, I thought, effectively subtags off access=*. > > That's right, and this is horribly confusing. It should be changed. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > Yes...but again, OpenStreetMap is a *map*, it's not just a collection of data. I don't think this is necessarily true - or maybe I just don't know what you mean. It's a collection of meaningful data. The only thing that makes the OSM databa

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Craig Wallace wrote: > > See these pages: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer > > As that page says, its probably more acurrate to say "Don't deliberately tag > incorrectly for the renderer

Re: [Tagging] parking

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > How about this: > > parking=public (or no parking tag), presumably anyone can park here, perhaps > at a small fee. > parking=commercial: anyone can park here, it's a business. > parking=customer: anyone using the services of an associated or

Re: [Tagging] parking

Steve Bennett wrote: >I think the goal is to give broadly useful information rather than to map >all the subtle nuances. If I was driving somewhere and looking for a park, >I >would first want to know about "parking=customer" locations, failing that, >"parking=public", failing that, "parking=comm

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > Ok, sure, being "easy" to tag is good, but you have to weigh it up > against the disadvantages, including not being directly verifiable. > > Personally, I find that a very small disadvantage. By far and away the biggest problem with OSM data a