John Sturdy writes:
>
> It would probably be good to re-open discussion (and add your voice to
> it, particularly as you have an interest in using such a tag); after
> that, I think this one could be ready to vote on.
>
> __John
>
> On 7/9/13, alyssa wright gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks. I'm be
On 7/9/2013 5:42 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
Because some people like voting. Some people like bureaucracy, and
rules of order, and all that, and so we have one for them.
And some people like the idea that someone might eventually be able to
consume the tags in a useful application.
___
2013/7/9 alyssa wright :
>> My main concern is that deprecating amenity=kindergarden will not
>> work/be accepted and that it is not flexible enough, e.g. you can not
>> use it with other amenities.
+1
> Even if there aren't major changes to the proposals perhaps the needs of OSM
> have shifted
2013/7/9 Chris Hill :
> There are no approved tags in OSM. You can use any tag you want,
+1, yes but you have to respect other people's work, and sometimes
these two rules do conflict.
> so if the
> childcare tags suit you, use them.
-1, I wouldn't use the amenity-tag as it will conflict with
Am 09.07.2013 18:50, schrieb alyssa wright:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:35 PM, fly
>> Am 09.07.2013 17:35, schrieb alyssa wright:
> Sorry, I don't really follow. So some questions inline:
My fault, I did not well explain, especially for someone new. - Sorry.
>>> I'm new to this proposed tagging
Am 10.07.2013 12:57, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> 2013/7/9 alyssa wright :
> it doesn't dictate it, but as he wrote: using a new value for the
> amenity key in order to introduce a new tag for stuff that is already
> (at least partly) covered by different, well established and highly
> used valu
2013/7/10 fly :
>> Again, what is "It" referring to here? And can you give some
>> suggestions on how to make the proposal better?
>
> I was thinking about something like social_amenity=* (no good example!)
> or adding some key word in front separated with a colon.
what about
childcare=*
(or chi
what about natural=boulder for a remarkable rock?
There are only a disappointing 18 occurrences, but maybe with some promotion...
I would also be fine with natural=rock like it is suggested by you.
Completely agree that natural=rock for rock covered areas doesn't fit
well in the tagging scheme (i
Am 09.07.2013 20:29, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> On 09.07.2013 19:13, alyssa wright wrote:
>> Yes, people keep saying that. But as a new editor, my inclination is to
>> use approved tags and not ones that are in the proposal stage.
>
> Most new editors (in the "human being" sense) tend to use the tag
Again, thanks for all the discussion. I'm following most of it. ;) I think...
Could I attempt to articulate what I consider the major confusion in the
existing kindergarten tag? Perhaps this is already known, but perhaps an
explanation could inspire a graceful resolution.
In the US, (and accord
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:07 PM, alyssa wright wrote:
> Again, thanks for all the discussion. I'm following most of it. ;) I
> think...
>
> Could I attempt to articulate what I consider the major confusion in the
> existing kindergarten tag? Perhaps this is already known, but perhaps an
> explanat
Is there a deeper meaning of adding foot=yes or bicycle=yes to
highway=track or highway=path without adding other limitations? I
thought track and path are by default routable for foot and bicycle, so
IMHO they add nothing.
Examples:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/53561813
http://www.
Yes, highway=path or =track normally allow foot access by default.
You can still add the foot=yes tag to show that you have actively verified
the fact that indeed access is granted on that way.
For example when other ways around have foot=no or the Bing layer looks
like it's not accessible etc...
If you add bicycle=yes, they render differently in opencyclemap (not saying
that's a good thing, just an observation). It seems to be used to imply
that it's reasonably passable by bike, and nobody seems to object.
Richard
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:
> Is there a deepe
Am 10.07.2013 15:07, schrieb alyssa wright:
> On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> 2013/7/10 fly :
> Again, thanks for all the discussion. I'm following most of it. ;) I think...
This is nothing unusual here,
> Could I attempt to articulate what I consider the major con
Am 10.07.2013 15:07, schrieb alyssa wright:
> Again, thanks for all the discussion. I'm following most of it. ;) I think...
>
> Could I attempt to articulate what I consider the major confusion in the
> existing kindergarten tag? Perhaps this is already known, but perhaps an
> explanation could
Maarten,
I know there is some controversy (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy) over the tagging of
paths, so perhaps adding those tags would be for clarification, in case the
user interprets the footway in some other way.
Elliott
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Maarten Deen
2013/7/10 alyssa wright :
> It is my understanding that kindergarten means something very different in
> other places of the world. How does OSM account for such cultural
> differences? Perhaps the childcare proposal should not try to replace
> kindergarten, but instead try to disassociate child
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:07 PM, alyssa wright wrote:
> It is my understanding that kindergarten means something very different in
> other places of the world. How does OSM account for such cultural differences?
Ant the wiki about "nursery" is redirecting to "amenity=kindergarten" ([1])...
We
we need to be careful with nursery, can easily be mixed up with a place you go
to buy plants.
Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Nokia N9
On 10/07/2013 14:42 fly wrote:
Am 10.07.2013 15:07, schrieb alyssa wright:
> On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> 2013/7/10 fly :
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:
> I thought track and path
> are by default routable for foot and bicycle, so IMHO they add nothing.
I would say the same for foot. For bicycle, it's not so clear. Depends
on the bike...
Pieren
___
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
> we need to be careful with nursery, can easily be mixed up with a place you
> go to buy plants.
Use "plant_nursery", e.g.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dplant_nursery
Pieren
___
Maarten Deen wrote:
Is there a deeper meaning of adding foot=yes or bicycle=yes to
highway=track or highway=path without adding other limitations? I
thought track and path are by default routable for foot and bicycle,
so IMHO they add nothing.
I suspect that there's a confusion about legality
If the mapper thinks to look, or is even aware the wiki exists.
Plant nursery is not normal, or obvious, usage.
Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Nokia N9
On 10/07/2013 15:16 Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
> we need to be careful with nursery, can easily
On 7/10/13 10:18 AM, SomeoneElse wrote:
That's not to say what adding a track without access rights isn't
useful, it is - it says that the track's there, but in places where
access isn't implicit it's useful to know the legal status if known
(e.g. foot=yes, foot=permissive.
i favor being exp
Hi,some mappers think, they have to set these access tags. Potlatch and iD have a select menue, which shout "hey, please select foot & bicycle are allowed". But I think this is not good! It is better to tag signs: bicycle=yes only if there is a "bicycle free" sign. Same with other signs. So if we
On 2013-07-10 15:35, Maarten Deen wrote
:
Is there a deeper meaning of adding foot=yes or
bicycle=yes to highway=track or highway=path without adding other
limitations? I thought track and path are by default routable for
foot and bicycle, so IMHO they ad
I wish to map the trails in a state park, many of which are multiple use horse
trails, hiking trails, and mountain biking trails. What tagging scheme would
be appropriate for these trails?
___
Tagging mailing
Unsuscribe
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Masi Master wrote:
Hi,
some mappers think, they have to set these access tags. Potlatch and
iD have a select menue, which shout "hey, please select foot & bicycle
are allowed". But I think this is not good! It is better to tag signs:
bicycle=yes only if there is a "bicycle free" sign. Same wit
Be sure to read through http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy and
pick from the various options. I like using highway=path for all of the
above with the various horse=yes/no, bike=yes/no, etc. Its helpful to rate
the grade and visibility of the trails.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:34 P
Am 10.07.2013, 20:43 Uhr, schrieb SomeoneElse
:
Masi Master wrote:
Hi,
some mappers think, they have to set these access tags. Potlatch and iD
have a select menue, which shout "hey, please select foot & bicycle are
allowed". But I think this is not good! It is better to tag signs:
bicycle
On 10.07.2013 14:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
what about natural=boulder for a remarkable rock?
A boulder is a loose single rock fragment. That's what the tag natural=stone
is for.
I would also be fine with natural=rock like it is suggested by you.
Great. :-)
Completely agree that nat
2013/7/10 Friedrich Volkmann
>
> I am not sure about this, because there's also natural=water, natural=sand
> etc.
>
>
there is not much etc., and natural=sand is of course also disputed ;-)
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap
Hi,
xxx/Preferences>Advanced>Config Editor>swear
set mail.addr_book.mapit_url.format to
http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search.php?q=@A1,@A2,@CI,@ST,@CO
(instead of:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=@A1%20@A2%20@CI%20@ST%20@ZI%20@CO)
Restart Thu
When in doubt, include the tag. I believe all motorways and their links in
Oregon, Washington and British Columbia all have bicycle=* to explicitly
handle the situation (though almost all of highway=motorway(_link)
bicycle=yes (or designated, which a few are, like 26 climbing sylvan from
downtown)
On 10.07.2013 18:39, Masi Master wrote:
some mappers think, they have to set these access tags. Potlatch and iD have
a select menue, which shout "hey, please select foot & bicycle are allowed".
But I think this is not good!
That's also my impression. Potlatch users often set lots of unnecessary
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> > It is better to tag signs: bicycle=yes only if there is a "bicycle
> > free" sign. Same with other signs. So if we see the tags, we know
> > which sign is there, and backwards.
>
> I don't see a benefit of mapping the traffic signs themselves, t
38 matches
Mail list logo
