> Am 21.04.2015 um 00:27 schrieb David Bannon :
>
> Dave, do you think that the characteristics of 'backcountry' overlap
> with the more generic 'basic' ?
isn't this something describing the general context rather than a particular
attribute to a distinct feature? Do these have common prope
> Am 21.04.2015 um 07:22 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt :
>
> I think ref has a different meaning. Imagine you imported a park service
> database of pitches, each might
> have a ref different from the pitch number known to the public:
IMHO the ref should be the publicly known code and other, extern
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 06:31:23PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2015-04-20 18:14 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout :
>
> > IMO you guys are kidding yourselves if you think most mappers actually
> > measure the depth of rivers before drawing in the "main stream"
>
>
>
> yes, it is not the typical
Would it not be ok to say (eg) -
tourism=camp_site
camp_site=basic
backcountry=yes
That's exactly what I was proposing. It isn't a tag describing the
amenities of the camp so much as to indicate that it is a certain type of
camp, one not accessible by vehcles. In New Zealand I believe these would
Hello,
That's a nice question
My suggestion :
man_made=street_cabinet (for the enclosing cabinet)
street_cabinet=telecom (indicates the type of stuff hosted
telecom=dslam (It's a DSLAM)
location=outdoor (It is actually outdoor)
medium=copper (Land lines linked to it are made of copper).
I don't
Hi,
is there a tag to express that the use of electronic cigarettes is
permitted at a location? If not I'd like to suggest the use ecigarette=*
or vaporizing=* with the same values as smoking=*.
Opinions?
Thorsten
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@open
> location=outdoor (It is actually outdoor)
This doesn't make sense to me. The location is given by the coordinates. If
those coordinates are within an area building=yes can be determined if
necessary.
But "Outdoor DSLAM" is a fixed term (AFAICT) for this FTTC cabinets. Maybe
street_cabinet=FTTC
JOSM's validator presently complains if any "addr" tags are on a
"highway". The code
note says the author wanted to catch highway=residential / addr:postcode
type tagging.
But it also complains on this tagging:
highway=residential
addr:interpolation=all
addr:housenumber=100-500
Which
The rendering has a lot of influence here.
For better or worse, those using addr:housenumber are rewarded with a
pleasing osm-carto result.
---
ref=42
name=42
addr:unit=42
addr:housenumber=42
pitch=42
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@ope
Are there addresses on both side of the street ?
Think it is wrong tagging as addr:interpolation=* should be on separate
way(s) on one or both side(s) of the street and the first plus the last
node get the addr:housenumber=*.
cu fly
Am 21.04.2015 um 19:25 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt:
> JOSM's validat
I think this type of information has value. Even if every building on the
street also has its own address, this allows an application to find the
approximate location of an address for a building that at the time of the
survey had not been built. The necessary information can often be found on
st
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:40 AM, fly wrote:
> Are there addresses on both side of the street ?
>
In this case, the arrangement is unknown.
Each campground loop road is marked only with a range (e.g. pitches
numbered 51-103).
While I could tag the sign ("Sites 51-103"), tagging the way gives mor
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9811
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:25:00 -0700
Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> JOSM's validator presently complains if any "addr" tags are on a
> "highway". The code
> note says the author wanted to catch highway=residential /
> addr:postcode type tagging.
>
> But it also complains on this tagging:
>
>highway=
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> I think it is not the best idea, other people may need to split road -
> and as result multiple ways will have "addr:housenumber=100-500".
>
> Yes, that's an issue.
So is doubling the way sharing nodes.
And also creating a parallel way c
> Am 21.04.2015 um 19:29 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt :
>
> The rendering has a lot of influence here.
> For better or worse, those using addr:housenumber are rewarded with a
> pleasing osm-carto result.
if thats the only thing you're interested in you can also tag
ref=42
highway=unclassified
(on
On 21/04/2015, Thorsten Alge wrote:
> is there a tag to express that the use of electronic cigarettes is
> permitted at a location? If not I'd like to suggest the use ecigarette=*
> or vaporizing=* with the same values as smoking=*.
I've never seen a place that permitted one type of smoking but n
On 21/04/2015 21:47, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
On 21/04/2015, Thorsten Alge wrote:
is there a tag to express that the use of electronic cigarettes is
permitted at a location? If not I'd like to suggest the use ecigarette=*
or vaporizing=* with the same values as smoking=*.
I've never seen a pla
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> if thats the only thing you're interested in you can also tag
> ref=42
> highway=unclassified
> (on a node)
> ;-)
> gives you even a bold font...
The fact that rendering on osm-carto is so far behind tagging *is* an issue.
But
The smoking restriction page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Asmoking
Needs updating.
Nicotine vaporizing sticks rules may follow that of traditional smoking, or
not.
The only combo that probably does not exist is banning vaporizing sticks
while permitting burning sticks.
__
On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 14:45 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>...
> The fact that rendering on osm-carto is so far behind tagging is an
> issue.
>
Indeed.
> But treating the campsite like a building, and the pitches like
> apartments, makes a lot of logical sense.
I don't see any theoretical issue w
I stumbled upon it a few weeks ago. In a restaurant were smoking is only
allowed outdoors vaporizing is allowed indoors. I asked in a few other
restaurants and it's the same there.
On 2015-04-21 22:47, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> On 21/04/2015, Thorsten Alge wrote:
>> is there a tag to express tha
22 matches
Mail list logo
