Hi!
2015-02-02 18:06 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson :
> On Feb 2, 2015 8:47 AM, "Martin Vonwald" wrote:
>
>> Yes - and what tag would that be for emergency stopping only? I think
>> that is my main question. Do we have one for that?
>>
>
> parking:lane=emergency seems like a good value.
>
But those lan
On Feb 1, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Warin wrote:
> On 2/02/2015 10:22 AM, Tod Fitch wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, David Bannon wrote:
>> I would like to have some of the items on Extend_camp_site page brought onto
>> the main camp_site page. Specifically the site/pitch specific tags at
>> http:/
Surely there is never a law against breaking down. When your car dies,
it dies. If the intention is to persuade people to try to get their
dying vehicle as far as possible to the right (left in the UK), well, we
don't need to tag for that because it is standard. If the intention is
to go against
On Feb 2, 2015 3:11 PM, "Clifford Snow" wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:54 PM, John F. Eldredge
wrote:
>>
>> Once again, we are divided by a common language. In American usage, a
cistern is a holding tank for captured rain water, used as an alternative
to a well in areas where no city wate
On 3/02/2015 7:51 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
On Feb 1, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Warin wrote:
On 2/02/2015 10:22 AM, Tod Fitch wrote:
On Feb 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, David Bannon wrote:
I would like to have some of the items on Extend_camp_site page brought onto
the main camp_site page. Specifically the site/p
On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote:
>
> Surely there is never a law against breaking down.
And yet, in Oklahoma and Germany, it's considered preventable and, as such,
prohibited on roads with minimum posted limits. The irony of this in a
state known for having a high number of "rez cars
Fine. But how do you specify where this lane is or if there is a lane at
all?
2015-02-03 10:05 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :
> Surely there is never a law against breaking down. When your car dies,
> it dies. If the intention is to persuade people to try to get their dying
> vehicle as far as possible
On 2015-02-03 10:20, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote:
Surely there is never a law against breaking down.
And yet, in Oklahoma and Germany, it's considered preventable and, as
such, prohibited on roads with minimum posted limits. The irony of this
in a state
On Feb 3, 2015 3:37 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote:
>
> On 2015-02-03 10:20, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Surely there is never a law against breaking down.
>>
>>
>> And yet, in Oklahoma and Germany, it's considered preventable and, as
such, prohibite
On Tue Feb 3 09:36:21 2015 GMT, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2015-02-03 10:20, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote:
>
> "Preventable"? How does that look in law? Is that "Failure to maintain
> the vehicle" or what? What exactly will you get a ticket for?
>
Running
On Feb 3, 2015 4:11 AM, "Philip Barnes" wrote:
>
> On Tue Feb 3 09:36:21 2015 GMT, Colin Smale wrote:
> > On 2015-02-03 10:20, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote:
> >
> > "Preventable"? How does that look in law? Is that "Failure to maintain
> > the vehicle"
Getting back on topic for a moment Hard shoulders should be
access=no, not access=breakdown or access=emergency (the last two
shouldn't even exist IMHO). The baseline is that you shouldn't be there
at all. You get away with it if you have permission (blue lights) or no
choice (breakdown) alt
On 3/02/2015 7:51 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
On Feb 1, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Warin wrote:
On 2/02/2015 10:22 AM, Tod Fitch wrote:
On Feb 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, David Bannon wrote:
I would like to have some of the items on Extend_camp_site page brought onto
the main camp_site page. Specifically the site/p
On 2/3/15 4:36 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
Then they are access=no (with foot=yes or whatever as appropriate) or
barrier=boulder. The way is blocked both for emergency services and
mere mortals. No need for access=emergency.
then how do you create a routing engine for use by emergency vehicles?
th
Hi!
2015-02-03 11:54 GMT+01:00 Richard Welty :
> On 2/3/15 4:36 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> Then they are access=no (with foot=yes or whatever as appropriate) or
>> barrier=boulder. The way is blocked both for emergency services and mere
>> mortals. No need for access=emergency.
>>
> then how do
Same as for "normal" vehicles, but ignoring the access tag and any
restrictions given by hgv, psv, bus, motor_vehicle etc according to what
type of emergency vehicle you are routing for. A police motorcycle is
not the same as a 10-wheel fire truck or a huge mobile crane on the
direction of the p
That's an easy one: shoulder=yes. Access=breakdown or access=emergency
wouldn't answer your question unambiguously either. Are you concerned
about the name ("which lane is called the shoulder?") or the function
("which lane should I dump the car in if it breaks down?" or "can I use
this lane if
2015-02-03 12:18 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :
> That's an easy one: shoulder=yes.
>
Can you please explain to me, how this answers the question WHERE the
shoulder is? It does NOT have to be the leftmost or rightmost lane.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@ope
A shoulder lane in the middle of the carriageway? Maybe you can
illustrate your scenario.
Under normal circumstances (one way per carriageway)
shoulder=left/right/both should cover it.
Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "shoulder"?
On 2015-02-03 12:23, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> 2015
Unless I'm way off, maybe a gore point? Transition into a traditional toll
plaza?
On Feb 3, 2015 5:30 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote:
> A shoulder lane in the middle of the carriageway? Maybe you can
> illustrate your scenario.
>
> Under normal circumstances (one way per carriageway)
> shoulder=left/r
Yesterday I had the following case on a dual carriageway - lanes from left
to right:
* two regular lanes
* one shoulder
* one bicycle lane
Sometimes the shoulder changes to a turning lane and back to a shoulder
after a junction. There is no physical separation whatsoever of all those
four lanes. A
OK so it is a kind of buffer to keep the motorised traffic out of the
way of the bikes. Are there any circumstances under which any kind of
vehicle is permitted to be in that lane (while it is not a turn lane)?
That sounds too complex for highway=primary (or whatever) and
cycleway=lane. Levera
Am 02.02.2015 um 23:28 schrieb Andy Mabbett:
> On 22 January 2015 at 18:00, fly wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I do not know a single shop in my area which only sells them so
>> shop=* will never fit.
>
> "Never"? I'm reminded of the maxim that "the singular of data is not
> anecdote".
>
> (There are sev
On 2/3/15 6:14 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
Same as for "normal" vehicles, but ignoring the access tag and any
restrictions
but you've declared that access=no applies both to obstructed
routes (bollards, guardrails, etc) and unobstructed routes.
richard
--
rwe...@averillpark.net
Averill Park N
@Javbw Indeed the problem of the traffic signal system names is still
not solved.However I would keep this separate. Lukas Schaus wants to
represent traffic signal phases (and uses – also in the new proposal –
more than one relation per traffic signal system). The traffic signal
system and its name
Am 03.02.2015 um 13:23 schrieb Richard Welty:
> On 2/3/15 6:14 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>> Same as for "normal" vehicles, but ignoring the access tag and any
>> restrictions
>>
>>
> but you've declared that access=no applies both to obstructed
> routes (bollards, guardrails, etc) and unobstructed
Am 03.02.2015 um 10:34 schrieb Martin Vonwald:
> Fine. But how do you specify where this lane is or if there is a lane at
> all?
In the lanes:-tagging system it would work like:
boulder|lane|lane|boulder|turn-lane|bicycle lane
access:lanes=no|yes|yes|no|yes|no
bicycle:lanes=no|no|no|no|no|design
I don't understand that comment... I am not declaring anything - at
worst I am making an incorrect assumption to catalyse a bit of a debate
(which seems to be working)...
How do we show the difference between legal and physical restrictions?
Looking at the wiki page for the access tag, its ope
On February 3, 2015 3:05:53 AM CST, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2015 3:11 PM, "Clifford Snow"
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:54 PM, John F. Eldredge
>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Once again, we are divided by a common language. In American usage,
> a
> cistern is a holding tank for ca
Hey
Can someone give me a hint how to tag two buildings which have a wall in
common and share one roof, e.g. roof:shape=hipped for both together.
Do we have a tag for only on one side hipped ?
I have this problem with several buildings but usually one the
first/last of the row are a problem.
Th
Am 03.02.2015 um 17:37 schrieb fly:
> Hey
>
> Can someone give me a hint how to tag two buildings which have a wall in
> common and share one roof, e.g. roof:shape=hipped for both together.
>
> Do we have a tag for only on one side hipped ?
>
> I have this problem with several buildings but usua
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:35 AM, John F. Eldredge
wrote:
> On February 3, 2015 3:05:53 AM CST, Paul Johnson
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2015 3:11 PM, "Clifford Snow" wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:54 PM, John F. Eldredge
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Once again, we are divided by a comm
I forgot about this case, too, even though it's increasingly common in the
US (ostensibly to help cyclists get out of the door zone and feel more
comfortable cycling, but inevitably this arrangement causes an inescapable
curbside door zone, pedestrians not looking to cross a lane of traffic
between
Sorry, *still* catching up on stuff after the holidays, a mental breakdown,
a car breakdown, replacing that car with a truck, not being able to tag the
truck because of the holidays for a month, a truck breakdown...
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 4:25 AM, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 11:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2014-12-12 17:28 GMT+01:00 fly :
>>
>> Am 05.12.2014 um 21:30 schrieb Paul Johnson:
>> > How about site relations? Seems like a good use of a site relation.
>>
>> As long as it possible to draw the whole site as a single polygon, th
Done .. well at least a first attempt.
Ok.. I've hacked at the words, added some tag links and given examples
of the waste= key on the main page just so people can see it includes
some things they have not thought of?
I hope it is better , more inclusive - less exclusive.
Complaints, suggest
On 3/02/2015 5:03 PM, David Bannon wrote:
In the context where this discussion came up, camp_sites, I'd suggest
waste=chemical_toilet is the one we are interested in. The
waste=excrement mentions boat. Boat facilities are distinctly different,
usually relying on a large hose connecting the two t
On February 3, 2015 3:45:48 PM CST, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/02/2015 5:03 PM, David Bannon wrote:
> >
> > In the context where this discussion came up, camp_sites, I'd
> suggest
> > waste=chemical_toilet is the one we are interested in. The
> > waste=excrement mentions boat. Boat
On 4/02/2015 9:38 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
I think "dump station" is probably intended to refer to facilities
intended to receive the sewage from chemical toilets on board
recreational vehicles, and from man-portable chemical toilets
(basically a bucket with a seat and a tight-fitting lid).
On 4/02/2015 9:38 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
There is no documentation of the waste= values .. if you want to
add them go ahead. Anything there would be an improvement.
I check on the UK terms for chemical toilets ..
http://www.campingandcaravanningclub.co.uk/helpandadvice/get
I have never seen the term "chemical disposal point" and if I did I would
assume it referred to either household chemicals like bleach, or cleaning
aids, or to industrial chemicals, like solvents, cleaning fluids, paint and
the like. I would drive right on past if I were driving an RN with full
hol
On 4/02/2015 11:14 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
I have never seen the term "chemical disposal point"
Neither have I. Nor aires, stellplatz nor aree di sosta .. but then I
don't drive an RV nor caravan. So I've not been looking for them. I'm
only sharing what I've found.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 a
>> I have never seen the term "chemical disposal point"
No, new term to me too. Must be a UK thing. In Aust, "dump point" rules
and I am a caravanner.
We'll need a list of terms that people might search for, little point in
debating it, clearly everyone will have their own favourite but
"chemic
Well, dump_point might be a workable compromise and it plays well with the
key water_point that describes a place where one can get potable water in
larger quantities than you might get at a water tap.
Agree on your campground vs camp_site conclusion. It's too late to change
it now.
I don't have
44 matches
Mail list logo
