2013/11/14 Matthijs Melissen
>
> Hmm, difficult to get the difference right. How would you call a place
> with video games and pinball machines? What if there are also claw
> cranes?
>
I would draw the line when you can get more money (in cash) for less money.
Getting a toy if you manage to claw
> Am 13/nov/2013 um 22:43 schrieb "Masi Master" :
>
> We talk about the correct tagging here. Not about a mechanical edit, it
> could be a question in the future. But mechanical edit will not work in this
> case.
Yes, excuse me if my mail looked like I might be advocating a mechanical edit,
> Am 14/nov/2013 um 00:53 schrieb "Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)"
> :
>
> I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about
> with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the
> cases where more significant use is allowed) and then add a second tag
> along the lines
Am 14.11.2013 10:13, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
Am 14/nov/2013 um 00:53 schrieb "Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)"
:
I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about
with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the
cases where more significant use is allowed) and
> Am 14/nov/2013 um 10:40 schrieb Georg Feddern :
>
> @Martin:
> Your reply is only valid for the first line of the citation.
An approach which combines 2 tags in a way that the meaning is only true for
the combination of both, but not for the single tag, does not work well IMHO.
We shouldn'
On 14 November 2013 09:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about
>> with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the
>> cases where more significant use is allowed) and then add a second tag
>> along the lines of bicycle:restr
And why not? What's the difference between "road: you may not cycle,
cyclepath: you may cycle" and "road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath,
cyclepath: you may cycle"? And if it's such an important difference, why
only use this for cyclists? Why not put a "motor_vehicle:use_carriageway"
on the cy
> An approach which combines 2 tags in a way that the meaning is only true
for the combination of both, but not for the single tag, does not work well
IMHO. We shouldn't have tags like bicycle=no and with a second tag we say,
hey, actually that is not a real no in this other tag over there.
We alr
Am 14.11.2013 10:47, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
Am 14/nov/2013 um 10:40 schrieb Georg Feddern :
@Martin:
Your reply is only valid for the first line of the citation.
An approach which combines 2 tags in a way that the meaning is only true for
the combination of both, but not for the singl
>What's the difference between "road: you may not cycle, cyclepath: you may
>cycle" and "road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath, cyclepath: you may
>cycle"?
Because it's not
"road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath,"
but
""road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath if the cyclepath is
Am 14.11.2013 11:04, schrieb Andre Engels:
And why not? What's the difference between "road: you may not cycle,
cyclepath: you may cycle" and "road: you may only cycle on the
cyclepath, cyclepath: you may cycle"? And if it's such an important
difference, why only use this for cyclists? Why not
2013/11/14 Kytömaa Lauri
> ""road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath if the cyclepath is going
> where you're headed"
+1
additionally there might be other factors that make it impossible to use
the cycleway (and as the road is not actually forbidden you will use it),
for instance in the wint
2013/11/14 Janko Mihelić
>
>> Hmm, difficult to get the difference right. How would you call a place
>> with video games and pinball machines? What if there are also claw
>> cranes?
>>
>
> I would draw the line when you can get more money (in cash) for less
> money. Getting a toy if you manage to
Be aware that "road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath if the
cyclepath is going where you're headed" is ambiguous.
1) if the cyclepath is going where you're headed, then (and only then)
are you allowed to use the cyclepath
2) if the cyclepath is going where you're headed, you are obliged
> 2) if the cyclepath is going where you're headed,
> you are obliged to use the cyclepath, to the
> exclusion of all other "carriageways"
> I think number 2) is intended here?
Yes, the original was an unreviewed sentence. In the original the "if" only
applies to "only", not to "may".
Normal
Robert argued here that country-specific restrictions should be always
expressed by tags so that routers don't need to know those specific
rules/laws.
He gave the maxspeed tags as an example, which we explicitly tag even if
they are based on implicit laws.
I think this generalization is goes too f
A question and some remarks
Considering routers and not breaking routing.
A few of you have made remark concerning breaking schemes and routers
getting in to problems. I do not understand this. Ronnie Soak e.g. wrote “I
would prefer an additional tag over a replacement for bicycle=no, as this
w
2013/11/14 Ronnie Soak
> For the access tags (and we do discuss access tags here), it is common
> practice to have country-specific defaults on certain highway types as
> listed in the wiki [1] and only tag what contradicts those defaults.
I'm not sure any of the current routers uses these co
On 14 November 2013 11:54, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
>
> Hmm, difficult to get the difference right. How would you call a place
> with video games and pinball machines? What if there are also claw
> cranes?
>
I'd call it an amusement arcade, but that's probably just a local term.
Also games arcade
19 matches
Mail list logo
