On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:31:33 +0100, Dave F. wrote:
> On 08/08/2010 20:07, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:27:49 -0700, Simon Biber wrote:
>>
>>> From: John Smith
>>>
>>>
Did I miss anything currently being mentioned in this or the fire
hydrant
thread?
http:/
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:08:20 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Dave F.
> wrote:
>> On 08/08/2010 20:40, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>> The way I've been handling this is to stretch the limits of the
>>> bicycle=destination tag; if it's more major than residential, open to
On Tue, 10 August, 2010 4:35:27 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 23:12:05 -0700, Simon Biber wrote:
> > I would use bicycle=destination only if bicycles were officially
> > discouraged from using the road as a thoroughfare.
>
> Thanks for stating the obvious. Given that in Multnomah a
On 10/08/2010 03:13, Liz wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Steve Bennett wrote:
Wish there was an agriculture=* tag. Life could be simple:
well living in an agricultural area
I'd start with
agriculture=
agriculture=* is not very acurate
Does it describe the use of the soil, the product
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> How is this different from every residential street in North America?
>
>
I don't know for US. I just say for what it was originally created in
Europe. When I say the max speed is smaller, it's really smaller. See the
defaults per country:
h
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Paul Johnson wrote:
> We need to come up with a better way to map and tag autonomous regions,
> particularly in North America. The talk page for the boundary= suggests
> that an administrative boundary is not the right tag; and I couldn't
> disagree more.
>
> As a Cherokee, I
On 10 August 2010 19:49, Liz wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> We need to come up with a better way to map and tag autonomous regions,
>> particularly in North America. The talk page for the boundary= suggests
>> that an administrative boundary is not the right tag; and I could
There are a number of local streets being converted from 4-lane to 2 lanes +
center turn + sharrows.
http://bikehugger.com/2006/12/whats-a-sharrow.html
What is the best way to tag these - they were discussed briefly in the
recent "shoulder, etc" thread, but I can't find any consensus. I fo
I would like to clarify some things that aren't clear on the wikipage
for key:source.
If I add a POI using Nearmap imagery to get the exact location (down
to 1m accuracy), but I use a survey for knowledge where abouts the
entity is and what it is, then how should I tag this?
For instance if I kno
On 10 August 2010 21:43, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> I would like to clarify some things that aren't clear on the wikipage
> for key:source.
You use source=* for where the majority of the information came from,
and source:location=* if you sourced the location differently from the
majority of the info
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Mike N. wrote:
> There are a number of local streets being converted from 4-lane to 2 lanes +
> center turn + sharrows.
>
> http://bikehugger.com/2006/12/whats-a-sharrow.html
>
> What is the best way to tag these - they were discussed briefly in the
> recent "sho
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Mike N. wrote:
>> There are a number of local streets being converted from 4-lane to 2 lanes +
>> center turn + sharrows.
>>
>> http://bikehugger.com/2006/12/whats-a-sharrow.html
>>
>> What is the best way to tag
Hi!
I mostly deal with public transport, and I have an issue which I can't
find in wiki, so I hope to have answers from users of bigger experience
than mine.
For termini, as well as for larger transfer points it makes sense to use
amenity=bus_station in place of highway=bus_stop.
Now the probl
On 10 August 2010 22:40, Michał Borsuk wrote:
> * highway=bus_stop seems to be the users' choice, but on some maps,
> namely Osm2Gps (Java offline map for telephones), there is a clutter of
> names, one for the amenity, one for each stop
>
> * highway=platform doesn't clutter, but then the actual
On 10.08.2010 14:50, John Smith wrote:
On 10 August 2010 22:40, Michał Borsuk wrote:
* highway=platform doesn't clutter, but then the actual location doesn't
show up on mapnik
If the problem is rendering, shouldn't the rendering be fixed?
Possibly. The highway=platform tag is an officia
On 10 August 2010 22:58, Michał Borsuk wrote:
> Possibly. The highway=platform tag is an official one, so it should appear
> as something other than a point.
Just because it's on the wiki doesn't mean it will render, you need to
file a trac request for enhancement if no one else has if you think
On 09/08/2010 20:07, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:08:20 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Dave F.
wrote:
On 08/08/2010 20:40, Paul Johnson wrote:
The way I've been handling this is to stretch the limits of the
bicycle=destination tag; if it's mo
On 09/08/2010 20:11, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:41:21 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Paul Johnson
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 04:26:42 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Bike lanes aren't exclusive either - cars move into them to turn right
(in ri
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:33:46 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Paul Johnson
>> wrote:
>>> This could also be useful for highways; OR 99W, for example, is NOT
>>> trailblazed between Barbur Boulevard and the Wa
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Thanks for stating the obvious. Given that in Multnomah and Washington
> Counties in Oregon, bicycle lanes are required to be installed on all
> roads more major than residential where there's physical space, the only
> ways left that don't fi
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> Thanks for stating the obvious. Given that in Multnomah and Washington
>> Counties in Oregon, bicycle lanes are required to be installed on all
>> roads more major than residential
On 09/08/2010 20:05, Paul Johnson wrote:
Thanks for stating the obvious. Given that in Multnomah and Washington
Counties in Oregon, bicycle lanes are required to be installed on all
roads more major than residential where there's physical space, the only
ways left that don't fit this category a
On 08/09/2010 02:14 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> How is this different from every residential street in North America?
I suspect there’s some variance from state to state here, and almost
certainly even from city to city. I know in my city, in Wisconsin, the
speed limit on all roads if not otherwise
At 2010-08-10 04:43, Andrew Harvey wrote:
...
For instance if I know there is a post office box in a certain
location because I went past it, but it cannot be identified from
Nearmap imagery (because its under a tree, or because that red dot on
the imagery is not clear enough to identify as a pos
I have several cases where a border polygon (national park, wilderness,
etc.) is defined based on a natural feature, such as a
stream/crestline/etc.
What is the preferred way to handle this dual-purpose way?
Splitting the border way, creating a relation of the border pieces, and
adding the natur
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Erik G. Burrows wrote:
>
> I have several cases where a border polygon (national park, wilderness,
> etc.) is defined based on a natural feature, such as a
> stream/crestline/etc.
>
> What is the preferred way to handle this dual-purpose way?
>
> Splitting the bord
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Erik G. Burrows wrote:
> I have several cases where a border polygon (national park, wilderness,
> etc.) is defined based on a natural feature, such as a
> stream/crestline/etc.
>
> What is the preferred way to handle this dual-purpose way?
>
> Splitting the border way, creat
>> I have several cases where a border polygon (national park, wilderness,
>> etc.) is defined based on a natural feature, such as a
>> stream/crestline/etc.
>>
>> What is the preferred way to handle this dual-purpose way?
>>
>> Splitting the border way, creating a relation of the border pieces, an
>> What is the preferred way to handle this dual-purpose way?
>
> In some forms of rendering the boundary is rendered instead of the stream
> and
> the water feature disappears on the map.
> The preferred Australian solution is to not reuse the same boundary but to
> duplicate it. This allows all r
I'd prefer relations. Duplicating the line to offset is borderline
micro-mapping; I don't think micro-mapping is practical in a lot of cases
right now.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Erik G. Burrows wrote:
> >> I have several cases where a border polygon (national park, wilderness,
> >> etc.)
At 2010-08-07 21:15, Alan Millar wrote:
My neighborhood has some streets where there is a section like a turning
circle, but it is only on one half of the street. Like this one:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=45.4732&lon=-122.81386&zoom=19
It is not a separate cul-de-sac; it is just con
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Mike N. wrote:
>> It is not a separate cul-de-sac; it is just considered part of the same
>> street.
>
> I would run a way to the center of the radius, add the turning circle, and
> give it the same tags as the street. Although that segment is very short,
> it ref
I would run a way to the center of the radius, add the turning circle,
and
give it the same tags as the street. Although that segment is very
short,
it reflects the street layout.
That doesn't reflect the street layout unless there really is a
separate physical segment of street. I'd just pl
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Mike N. wrote:
>>> I would run a way to the center of the radius, add the turning circle,
>>> and
>>> give it the same tags as the street. Although that segment is very
>>> short,
>>> it reflects the street layout.
>>
>> That doesn't reflect the street layout unl
34 matches
Mail list logo
