Hi Serge,
On Mittwoch, 15. Dezember 2010, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Werner Hoch wrote:
> > I've created a proposal for imagery objects and other objects that
> > are only used internaly in osm.
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/osm
> >
> >
Hi Robert,
On Mittwoch, 15. Dezember 2010, Robert Naylor wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:08:37 -, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Werner Hoch > >>
> >> Examples without unified tagging:
> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1291579
> >> http://www.o
On Mittwoch, 15. Dezember 2010, Pieren wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Robert Naylor
wrote:
> > Also see top of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage
> >
> > "Please use this page for recording coverage. Do not use boundary
> > relations. Large, detailed relations can be ex
2010/12/16 Richard Welty :
> On 12/15/10 5:59 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Dave F. wrote:
>>>
>>> Personally I'd go for landuse=bus_depot. but I'm open to suggestions.
>>
>> So landuse=* is going to be the new dumping ground? :) I had thought
>> landuse=* was for
Hi everyone,
here [1] is the proposal for a landuse=depot tag.
Due to the fact that this is the first proposal I ever made, I'm
leaving the draft open for a while, so that more experienced users can
review it and point faults with the proposal itself. Also, because I'm
not familiar with the detai
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 02:33:25PM +0100, Simone Saviolo wrote:
S> here [1] is the proposal for a landuse=depot tag.
S>
S> Due to the fact that this is the first proposal I ever made, I'm
S> leaving the draft open for a while, so that more experienced users can
S> review it and point faults with t
2010/12/16 Gleb Smirnoff :
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 02:33:25PM +0100, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> S> here [1] is the proposal for a landuse=depot tag.
> S>
> S> Due to the fact that this is the first proposal I ever made, I'm
> S> leaving the draft open for a while, so that more experienced users can
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
Why "landuse=depot" ? I don't like to use amenity for "everything" but it's
very closed to the already existing amenity=parking which is not
"landuse=parking"
Pieren
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
2010/12/16 Pieren :
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Simone Saviolo
> wrote:
>
> Why "landuse=depot" ? I don't like to use amenity for "everything" but it's
> very closed to the already existing amenity=parking which is not
> "landuse=parking"
It is not only about reserved parking lots for buse
On 12/16/10 10:36 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
2010/12/16 Pieren:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Simone Saviolo
wrote:
Why "landuse=depot" ? I don't like to use amenity for "everything" but it's
very closed to the already existing amenity=parking which is not
"landuse=parking"
It is not only ab
Seems a very broadly defined tag. I passed a "depot d'ordures" the other day in
France. Does anybody have a better idea for such crap?
- L
On 16 Dec 2010, at 13:33, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> here [1] is the proposal for a landuse=depot tag.
>
> Due to the fact that this is the
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Laurence Penney wrote:
> Seems a very broadly defined tag. I passed a "depot d'ordures" the other day
> in France. Does anybody have a better idea for such crap?
Not sure if that was a joke, but the proposal here is clearly around
places where commercial or publ
"Depot d'ordures" sounds like a place for stockpiling manure. I suppose you
could have such, around a stockyard complex or a group of stables, but it seems
more likely to have been a joke.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Depot
>From :mailto:stevag
13 matches
Mail list logo
