As
>this tag is always going to be used within another entity I think we should
>rather look towards something like indoor tagging or other subtags. In
>addition using amenity for reception desk would for example prevent you from
>placing it on the node of the amenity and use one node for both.
N
I have to admit I admire the problem but do not have an answer.
What I would like to suggest that dropping the "desk" part and just using
"reception" could make it more conducive to the various applications being
discussed.
It could then be added as a subcategory to the area/building such as
recept
I appreciate that you bring this up, and share the analysis that neither
highway pedestrian nor leisure=* are describing a courtyard (it might be
accessible to cars, not accessible at all, could have a leisure related aspect
but doesn't have to, etc.).
From a technical point of view they are ty
On 08.02.2015 15:47, wrote Martin Koppenhoefer:
> I am not in favour of place (neither locality nor courtyard), maybe
> building:part=courtyard would be a good tag semantic wise
No, it definitely wouldn't. The building:part key has a clear definition
e.g. in the context of 3D rendering that does
2015-02-08 15:47 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> maybe building:part=courtyard would be a good tag semantic wise (but
> unlikely to be rendered on the main style)
>
+1
That's the first one that came to my mind. That is a part of the building.
When I was mapping manors I would put building=m
Am 07.02.2015 um 11:19 schrieb Martin Vonwald:
> 2015-02-07 0:31 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić :
>> 2015-02-06 17:29 GMT+01:00 Luca Sigfrido Percich :
>>>
>>> We could also user a lanes modifier:
>>> lanes=3
>>> lanes:backward=2
>>> tram:lanes:backward=yes|no
>>> tram:forward=yes
Actually, I use an even
2015-02-08 17:48 GMT+01:00 fly :
> > Let me know if there's a place with a lot of such tags and I try to
> update
> > the style. (Please contact me directly via martin (the usual) vonwald
> > (dot.) info for this)
>
> +1
>
Keep your +1 until I tried AND succeeded ;-)
And yes: some consistent tag
> Am 08.02.2015 um 16:14 schrieb Tobias Knerr :
>
> No, it definitely wouldn't. The building:part key has a clear definition
> e.g. in the context of 3D rendering that does not fit for courtyards at
> all. All building:part elements need to represent filled-out volumes
> rather than empty volu
2015-02-08 17:48 GMT+01:00 fly :
> Actually, I use an even more general approach:
> railway:forward=tram
> railway:lanes:backward=tram|no
>
> together with access I also use train
> access:lanes:backward=no|yes
> train:lanes:backward=designated|no
>
I don't understand why you would use railway:fo
I don't like to reuse the same ways for both railway and highway. The shape
of the railways follow smooth curves for obvious reasons, whereas cars can
make 90 degree turns. So I'll always keep using separate ways for the tram
rails. One for each direction of travel. And a way in the middle (on the
On 8 February 2015 at 19:57, Jo wrote:
> I don't like to reuse the same ways for both railway and highway. The shape
> of the railways follow smooth curves for obvious reasons, whereas cars can
> make 90 degree turns.
I don't understand why that is a problem. If the road is such that the
vehicles
On 9/02/2015 1:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
From a technical point of view they are typically associated with fire
protection (way to leave the building, access for firefighters),
If the courtyard is fully enclosed by buildings or by one building ..
they are not part of a fire escape (p
is it one asphalt way with one track? Then I agree. Or is it one asphalt
way with two tracks, one for each direction of the tram lines? Then I'd
draw 3 ways, 2 for the tracks, and 1 for the highway.
Jo
2015-02-08 21:35 GMT+01:00 Markus Lindholm :
> On 8 February 2015 at 19:57, Jo wrote:
> > I d
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> in architecture you'd definitely consider a courtyard part of a building,
> and volumes are distinguished in fully closed, open at the top and closed
> on top but open at the sides (at least in German building codes aka DIN),
> but if
A proposal for a new high level tag of .. Rubbish :-)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features_key%3Drubbish
At present there as a number of 'waste' values under the amenity key.
Some people say the amenity key is being over used. There are people
thinking of adding more waste val
2015-02-08 19:57 GMT+01:00 Jo :
> I don't like to reuse the same ways for both railway and highway. The
> shape of the railways follow smooth curves for obvious reasons, whereas
> cars can make 90 degree turns. So I'll always keep using separate ways for
> the tram rails. One for each direction of
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Markus Lindholm
wrote:
> On 8 February 2015 at 19:57, Jo wrote:
> > I don't like to reuse the same ways for both railway and highway. The
> shape
> > of the railways follow smooth curves for obvious reasons, whereas cars
> can
> > make 90 degree turns.
>
> I don't
Hi all,
many thanks for all your feedback! It will take me a week to sort it all
out! :)
In Milano we already have (nearly) all the tram traks drawn as distinct
ways, so switching back to the "single way for highway and railway" model
wouldn't be a good option - it would mean losing detail.
I un
train:lanes=* might be a tag worth inventing for the highway way, giving it
more thought.
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Luca Sigfrido Percich <
luca.perc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> many thanks for all your feedback! It will take me a week to sort it all
> out! :)
>
> In Milano we alread
I'm afraid joggers may want to start training on those train:lanes...
Do you mean rail:lanes? or tram_track:lanes? or tram_rails:lanes?
2015-02-09 0:08 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson :
> train:lanes=* might be a tag worth inventing for the highway way, giving
> it more thought.
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 a
On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 09:15 +1100, Warin wrote:
> A proposal for a new high level tag of .. Rubbish :-)
Sigh ... .
OK, its a good solution but before I'd vote for it, I'd like someone to
explain a few things to me -
Firstly, how is rubbish= a better solution than the slight redefinition
of waste
On 8 February 2015 at 22:32, Jo wrote:
> is it one asphalt way with one track? Then I agree. Or is it one asphalt way
> with two tracks, one for each direction of the tram lines? Then I'd draw 3
> ways, 2 for the tracks, and 1 for the highway.
Fair enough, but that doesn't quite correspond to the
On 08.02.2015 22:17, Warin wrote:
>> >From a technical point of view they are typically associated with fire
>> >protection (way to leave the building, access for firefighters),
>
> If the courtyard is fully enclosed by buildings or by one building .. they
> are not part of a fire escape (prote
Hi Jo,
I was looking closely at your example, and noticed that maybe the highway
tag is missing from this way: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40283536
because the tram line looks interrupted there.
Sig
2015-02-07 1:12 GMT+01:00 Jo :
> The reason to use separate ways for trams can be seen in t
Sorry I meant the railway tag. just added a note on the map
2015-02-09 8:54 GMT+01:00 Luca Sigfrido Percich :
> Hi Jo,
>
> I was looking closely at your example, and noticed that maybe the highway
> tag is missing from this way: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40283536
> because the tram line lo
25 matches
Mail list logo
