On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:47 PM, 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=
> Am 22.04.2015 um 00:53 schrieb David Bannon :
>
> Bryce, what does osm-carto do with your example below ? As you noted in
> another message, addr:housenumber, while wrong, gives some very positive
> feedback, silly to ignore that fact.
>
> I see a similar problem with some retirement vill
2015-04-22 9:19 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :
> Well, electronic cigarettes aren't really smoking in the first place,
> unless you want to claim that a teapot boiling is "smoking", which is
> something most people realize isn't the case by the time they're 10...
>
+1, e-cigarettes should IMHO not be
2015-04-21 18:51 GMT+02:00 Andreas Labres :
> > 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.
>
location=* is a bit more complex than "
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I agree with Bryce that addr:unit could be an interesting candidate for
> all these similar situations. Wonder if we would repeat the complete
> address information on every single object then. Another issue with
> campsites could be t
Some places have individual tent locations but no street address:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/34.80931/-119.17480&layers=D
On April 22, 2015 7:51:26 AM PDT, Clifford Snow wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Bryce that addr:unit could
Sorry - I was thinking of state and federal campgrounds. I forgot that
camping is often done in remote areas that not only don't have an address
but no cell signal either.
You are correct, without a valid address, addr:unit is the best method.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Tod Fitch wrote:
On 22/04/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2015-04-22 9:19 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :
>
>> Well, electronic cigarettes aren't really smoking in the first place,
>> unless you want to claim that a teapot boiling is "smoking", which is
>> something most people realize isn't the case by the time they'
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 06:51:08PM +0200, Andreas Labres wrote:
> > 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 DSL
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:34 AM, moltonel 3x Combo
wrote:
>
> smoking=yes/no/outside/etc for the general value
> smoking:=yes/no/etc for exceptions
> With being any of cigarette, e-cigarette, hooka, marijuana, opium,
> etc.
That would quickly get unwieldy, trying to tag different restrictions
> However just repeating the smoking tagging scheme can cover all cases
> the smoking tag does:
>
> smoking=no
> vaporizing=no
> vaporizing:outside=separated
> smoking:outside=no
>
> Remember there's no need to tag something that's already a legal
> restriction (such as the
> area I live
> Am 22.04.2015 um 19:17 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt :
>
> Remember there's no need to tag something that's already a legal restriction
> (such as the
> area I live in which has a blanket ban)
where do you get this from? It's the first time I read this. Remember our data
users are global so regi
I haven't been back to America for a while, but the no smoking signs had "and
e-cigarettes" added to the bottom when I was back last year.
It may not be technically a cigarette, but it is perceived to be in the same
family as other things that protrude from your mouth and allow for nicotine
co
On 22/04/2015, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:34 AM, moltonel 3x Combo
> wrote:
>> smoking=yes/no/outside/etc for the general value
>> smoking:=yes/no/etc for exceptions
>> With being any of cigarette, e-cigarette, hooka, marijuana, opium,
>> etc.
>
> That would quickly get unw
OK, I think the discussion on camp_site= has settled down and now
concentrates on things that are just outside the current proposal and
probably need to stay there for now. Thoughts, yes, no ?
I have mentioned on the proposal page tagging of individual pitches and
declared that out of scope for n
In my experience, rivers, unlike harbors, generally don't have buoys or other
markers showing the location of the navigational channel, probably because the
flow would be likely to wash them away.
On April 21, 2015 1:08:42 AM CDT, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:47 AM, John F.
Would you need to split the road into two ways, one for the left side and one
for the right side, even if the roadway is not actually divided? This would
cause a mismatch between the rendering and what is physically present.
On April 21, 2015 3:33:13 PM CDT, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:13 PM, John F. Eldredge
wrote:
> Would you need to split the road into two ways, one for the left side and
> one for the right side, even if the roadway is not actually divided? This
> would cause a mismatch between the rendering and what is physically present.
>
I woul
I had a question about basic -
I understand it's amenity level (flat spot + access) but the legality bit being
the only qualifier:
Would it just be for places that are somehow signed as for camping(designated),
places where camping is legal and common (informal [yet legally allowed]
existing
>
>
>
> People can fudge the "common" to mean what they want, but without it, in
> some places that could mean every single roadside turnout could be marked
> as a "campground" - which would not be so helpful.
>
>
>
which could become a problem in Sweden :-) since it is Legal to put up
your tent a
My understanding is that this proposal is about sites that have been
defined as campground. The purpose of the proposal that triggered this
discussion (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_type%3D*) was to
cover places that have not been defined as campground, but that are use
On 23/04/2015 03:30, John F. Eldredge wrote:
In my experience, rivers, unlike harbors, generally don't have buoys or
other markers showing the location of the navigational channel
Oh, but they do:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/CEVNI_Lateral_Marks
___
> On Apr 23, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
>
> that have not been defined as campground, but that are used as such for
> different reasons.
That’s why I thought " informal yet legal spots" would be good wording to cover
this, and maybe link over to the camp_type proposal here - bec
This idea of the linear river way being along the deepest part seems to
have been created in this thread. No such 'rule' exists, either in
practice, nor in Wiki tagging pages. The normal usage is to place the
way along the approximate centre line of the waterway, just as we do
with roads.
As
24 matches
Mail list logo
