Ok, great. If that is the ultimate solution for all cycletracks.
Can you help me with the remaining problems?
How do I tell OSM that the highway=cycleway is part of the highway=*?
Relation?
Do I have to tell OSM that bicyles are not welcome on the highway=* when
there is a highway=cycleway nex
2011/1/9 Stephen Hope :
> I'm starting to be convinced that there is a cultural disconnect with
> the word craft. To me (and I suspect most English speakers) there has
> to almost be an arts aspect for something to be a craft. Whereas I'm
> starting to get the impression the German use is closer t
On 9 January 2011 20:54, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> As it doesn't actually matter which words for tags we use, as long as
> their use is generally agreed (see highway for instance), I could go
> on with craft in the way it is currently defined.
It shouldn't matter, however using craft=* is like
Am 09.01.2011 11:37, schrieb Robert Elsenaar:
Ok, great. If that is the ultimate solution for all cycletracks.
Can you help me with the remaining problems?
[...]
Do I have to tell OSM that bicyles are not welcome on the highway=*
when there is a highway=cycleway next to it?
If bicycles are lega
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 09:00:16PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
> It shouldn't matter, however using craft=* is likely to really confuse
> native english speakers as others have pointed out craft is something
> really different to a trade and expectations of that will cause people
> to either complain
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Sorry, I don't follow. There should be a place=town node that is part of
> the boundary=town way? How could the centre of the town be on its boundary?
>
> But anyway, I'm specifically asking about boundary=town ways, and
> place=town ways. Should a town have both a place=
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:08 AM, wrote:
> Does this mean that, should someone else add the cycleway to the map at a
> later time, the cycleway=track tag should be removed from the motor-vehicle
> road?
No. As I said earlier in this discussion, even when there are
highway=cycleway ways, I leave
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
> a node (place=town or village, depending on population size)
>
> a relation (type=boundary + boundary=administrative + admin_level=8)
> The relation has members :
> outer/inner composed with ways that define the boundary (a closed way
Steve Bennett schrieb:
Although...that just raises a different question: what's the
difference between a town mapped out as an area (place=town) and a
town mapped with a boundary=administrative, admin_level=8 (plus
relation).
I guess there is no difference, just two different ways of expressing
Steve Bennett wrote:
> > a node (place=town or village, depending on population size)
> >
> > a relation (type=boundary + boundary=administrative + admin_level=8)
> > The relation has members :
> > outer/inner composed with ways that define the boundary (a closed way
> > defining an area)
> > and
I have been thinking on how to tag an places where one can go to take a bath.
In the summer there are designated areas at the sea, lakes and rivers to bath
at. Some organized and some simply a natural good spot for a bath.
In the winter there are indoor or heated pools of different kind. And old-s
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Johan Jönsson wrote:
> Some just simply add sport=swimming to an appropriate physical tag:
> camping_site, beach, lake, river, park, pier outdoors and building,
> sports_centre indoors.
I can't comment on the rest, but sport=swimming is incorrect unless
the area i
I think. .. You hope !
-Robert-
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
From: Peter Wendorff
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 12:33 PM
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [SPAM]: Re: [Tagging] Differences in cycleways
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Richard Mann <
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No. As I said earlier in this discussion, even when there are
> highway=cycleway ways, I leave the cycleway=track tag in place on the
> road (and indeed add it if it isn't already there), so that both
> tagg
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Pieren wrote:
> It's not "tagging for the renderers" but close. And you may confuse routing
> applications. When I meet such (very seldom) double tagging, I always
> clean-up the most undetailled or obsolete version.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_t
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Richard Mann
wrote:
> No. As I said earlier in this discussion, even when there are
> highway=cycleway ways, I leave the cycleway=track tag in place on the
> road (and indeed add it if it isn't already there), so that both
> tagging styles are available for data use
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 15:48:32 +0100 (CET)
Johan Jönsson wrote:
> How about one tag for all of these places:
>
> leisure=bath
>
> With a bathing person as a symbol:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1_9_2_24.svg
To "bathe" and to "have a bath" are to close in English, and it has
caugh
Elizabeth Dodd writes:
>
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 15:48:32 +0100 (CET)
> Johan Jönsson goteborg.cc> wrote:
>
> > How about one tag for all of these places:
> >
> > leisure=bath
> >
> > With a bathing person as a symbol:
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1_9_2_24.svg
>
> To "bathe"
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
> boundary=town is not documented (and not used) and must not been used
> (IMHO), because admin_level=8 is widespread.
>
> According to taginfo.openstreetmap.de :
>
> admin_level=8
> 96 502 relations
> 290 837 ways
>
2011/1/10 Johan Jönsson :
>
> My thoughts have been on a physical tag like leisure=bathing_area,
> leisure=public_bath or just simply leisure=bath. The later one would be a tag
> for all kind of bathing facilities, both outdoor and indoor. Maybe the noun
> "bath" isn´t a good one, it might imply so
On 09/01/2011 12:11, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Sorry, I don't follow. There should be a place=town node that is part of
the boundary=town way? How could the centre of the town be on its boundary?
But anyway, I'm specifically asking about boundary=town ways, and
place=to
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Dave F. wrote:
> Why would you have 'inners' for a town boundary? I would have thought that
> everything within that boundary would be considered part of that town.
In many US states cities can annex properties one at a time, and an
exclave may form where they have
On 01/07/2011 08:55 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Paul Johnson
> wrote:
>> On 01/04/2011 08:46 AM, Anthony wrote:
>>> Your statement that bicycles are prohibited from driving on sidewalks
>>> in "all states" is not correct. Florida statutes explicitly state:
>>> "A person
On 10 January 2011 09:29, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Ah, that's very interesting - I didn't think of that. Australian towns
> tend to be very far apart, so the boundary of two *towns* rarely meet.
> (Other administrative boundaries, "shires", do...)
There are suburb boundaries gazetted for most of Au
On 10 January 2011 01:42, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> I can't comment on the rest, but sport=swimming is incorrect unless
> the area is for competitive swimming.
-1
Swimming pools don't have to be for competitive swimming, eg kiddy
pools, but they aren't for bathing in either.
___
Steve Bennett wrote:
> > According to taginfo.openstreetmap.de :
> >
> > admin_level=8
> >96 502 relations
> >290 837 ways
> >13 665 nodes (!?)
> > boundary=village30
> > boundary=city_limit 53
> > boundary=hamlet 37
> > boundary=town 0
>
> Actually boundary
--- Steve Bennett skrev:
> 2011/1/10 Johan Jönsson :
> >
> > My thoughts have been on a physical tag like leisure=bathing_area,
> > leisure=public_bath or just simply leisure=bath. The later one would
> be a tag
> > for all kind of bathing facilities, both outdoor and indoor. Maybe the
> noun
> >
Inner relations for municipalities are indeed needed. One example of
"inner" holes of cities within a city is Chicago, Illinois. Norridge
and Harwood Heights are townships of Cook County, Illinois. They are
completely surrounded by the city of Chicago but don't belong to one
another. I believe many
28 matches
Mail list logo
