Am 26.08.2013 08:23, schrieb Steve Bennett:
>> Could this have been less anglo-centric with
>>amenity=official_park_police_museum_information_permit_center
>> or
>>amenity=official_park_visitor_services
>>building=yes
>> rather than
>>amenity=ranger_station
>>building=yes
>>
>>
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hmm, amenity=ranger_station is kind of gross - it's so specific to a
> particular culture. Something like amenity=visitor_centre could have been a
> lot more generically useful. (With potentially a
> visitor_centre=ranger_station for applic
2013/8/26 Lester Caine
> This was part of the discussion on tracks and paths at the time.
>
AFAIK that distinction was always made by width (or width for the
access-points, e.g. if they are blocked by boulders you won't be able to go
there by car anyway)
> My own reason for wanting to distin
> Lester Caine :
>>This was part of the discussion on tracks and paths at the time.
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>AFAIK that distinction was always made by width
Just to be precise, this "choise between track/path based on width" only works
in one direction: something that is narrower than a two t
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
> I didn't read the documentation for the ranger station tag, but from my
> understanding of language (which is often in fact used for tagging in
> the real osm world) a ranger station does not have to be a visitor
> centre and the other way
