Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 40, Issue 15

2013-01-11 Thread Michael Patrick
Just my clarification ... we are blessed just about all those bridge types except the gondola. First,on first glance 'movable' subsumes all the other movable types. if it is exclusive of those, I might suggest 'movable_other', or something similar (our former I-520 Evergreen Point bridge had a bulg

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - roller_coaster key

2013-01-11 Thread John Sturdy
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Rob Nickerson wrote: > One point that jumps to mind: I would imagine that you will find the > "layer=*" tag to be better than "level=*". +1 __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openst

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 40, Issue 15

2013-01-11 Thread Christopher Hoess
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Michael Patrick wrote: > Just my clarification ... we are blessed just about all those bridge types > except the gondola. First,on first glance 'movable' subsumes all the other > movable types. if it is exclusive of those, I might suggest 'movable_other', > or some

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types

2013-01-11 Thread Michael Patrick
( My apologies to the list for inadvertently regurgitating an undigested reply back onto the list ) > I think I like the "bridge:movable" suggestion made there. (So movable > bridges would be tagged, e.g., "bridge=movable; bridge:movable= bascule" > and so forth.) > So would there be a reflectiv