Re: [Tagging] atms with names?

On 23 October 2010 03:29, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > all cases. Using brand with multiple values feeld incorrect to me, > because it is not the brands of the atm but it is networks where it is > affiliated with. Isn't this what relations are for, to group things? __

Re: [Tagging] Chamber of Commerce?

On 23/10/2010 02:00, Alan Mintz wrote: In most cities in the US, and even some smaller towns, there's an organization called the Chamber of Commerce. With varying participation from municipal government, it's a portal for new businesses to come to for help and information, networking with other

Re: [Tagging] atms with names?

Am 23.10.2010 09:06, schrieb John Smith: On 23 October 2010 03:29, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: all cases. Using brand with multiple values feeld incorrect to me, because it is not the brands of the atm but it is networks where it is affiliated with. Isn't this what relations are for, to group t

Re: [Tagging] atms with names?

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 10/22/10 1:45 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> 2010/10/22 Richard Welty: >>> >>> for ATMs, brand and operator are likely to be the same, as what >>> the user really wants to know is if it's his bank, or one that will hit >>> him up wit

Re: [Tagging] What tags to use on a scenic route?

2010/10/22 Dave F. : > On 22/10/2010 17:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Primary tags shouldbe used to describe what it is, not whom it *might* be > used by. > > For example: art galleries & museums are used by many other people than > those on a holiday. Yes, I agree, tourism has some tags in i

Re: [Tagging] Tourism was Re: What tags to use on a scenic route?

2010/10/22 Nathan Edgars II : > Perhaps tourism should be folded into leisure? (That's not always > correct for hotels anyway, but is better.) -1, hotel and the other accomodations --- if we change at all --- fit well there, or might merit a new main tag accomodation. cheers, Martin __

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Amenity key

2010/10/22 David Murn : > On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 19:06 +0200, Claudius wrote: >> Am 22.10.2010 18:28, David Murn: >> > >> > One way I heard it described, is an amenity is something youre likely to >> > want to navigate to.  While that description is a bit vague, it seems to >> > fit most current app

Re: [Tagging] atms with names?

2010/10/22 : > In the USA, an A(M is usually a member of multiple networks, sometimes ten or > more, and will usually have decals on the front of the machine identifying > which networks it is a member of.  You can use the machine if your bank is a > member of any of those networks, but may hav

[Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: (given that footway, cycleway and bridleway are all synonyms of highway=path designated=foo, dedicated=foo, official=foo, etc.). Ralf Kleineisel wrote: Footway on the other hand is for designated pedestrian ways, i.e. in many countries a blue sign with pedestrians

Re: [Tagging] What tags to use on a scenic route?

On 23/10/2010 11:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: It does suit well for the accomodations though (as tourism is not only defined for leisure but also for business and other travellers). Not sure if something got lost in translation, but tourism definitely does not include business travel. http

Re: [Tagging] What tags to use on a scenic route?

2010/10/23 Dave F. : > On 23/10/2010 11:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> It does suit well for the accomodations >> though (as tourism is not only defined for leisure but also for >> business and other travellers). > > Not sure if something got lost in translation, but tourism definitely does >

Re: [Tagging] What tags to use on a scenic route?

On 23/10/2010 13:36, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I was astonished as well: "Tourism is travel for recreational, leisure or business purposes. The World Tourism Organization defines tourists as people who "travel to and stay in places outside their usual environment for more than twenty-four (24) h

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/22/2010 09:49 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > No. Width is not a sufficient criterion to determine whether it’s a > track. There is a rails-to-trails conversions around here that don’t > have anything physically preventing cars from driving down it A track is not defined by being physically imposs

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/22/2010 09:50 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > That’s not what the wiki says. It says “If a path is wide enough for > four-wheel-vehicles […] it is often better tagged as a highway=track.” > > That doesn’t mean that that is the only criterion. Then what do you think is the difference between "path

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/23/2010 02:04 PM, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: > No, not that restrictive. When path was introduced, the equivalence > was given inother direction: there are globally lots of ways tagged > as footways and cycleways that have no signposts at all, some of The wiki says: "highway cycleway For designat

[Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

Ralf Kleineisel wrote: The wiki says: The example photos there support this. And the other pages say otherwise. As you say, example photos, not definition photos. The text and the pictures in the wiki have been changed to each and every direction so many times that none will be able to force t

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/23/2010 06:02 PM, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: > Ralf Kleineisel wrote: >> The wiki says: >> The example photos there support this. > > And the other pages say otherwise. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway both say "de

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: > > Then what do you think is the difference between "path" and "track > grade5"? I think only the width. > > > Not 'only'. If you see that the way is or has been used by 4 wheels vehicules, then tag 'track', otherwise 'path'. Imagine a path

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: > And we don't need a new tag for trails. > > +1. At least one point where almost everybody agrees ;-) Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/list

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/23/2010 11:01 PM, Pieren wrote: > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Ralf Kleineisel > wrote: > > Then what do you think is the difference between "path" and "track > grade5"? I think only the width. > Not 'only'. If you see that the way is or has been used

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Amenity key

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:09 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > everything can be something you might want to navigate to, so this is > a bad definition IMHO. The fact that categories are used as keys is a bad design. So, whatever. ___ Tagging mailing l

[Tagging] Announce: New #osm-tagging dedicated IRC chat on oftc.net

Hi everyone! I'm happy to report that we now have a dedicated IRC chat room, for the specific topic of 'tagging map features'. This IRC chat is designed to work as an extention of the tagging mailing list and the main osm mailing list, as well as the various applications which work with map featu