On 06-02-16 00:22, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On Sat, 2016-02-06 at 00:14 +0100, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
For residential streets, we have a well-known and documented naming
scheme as follows:
- name=* bears the official name
- loc_name=* bears a local name, which is often an old name but what
matte
Hi all,
again and again I find roads tagged with highway=crossing
instead of highway=footway [+ footway=crossing]
or maybe highway=cycleway [+ cycleway=crossing]
I think the wiki pages for highway=crossing and crossing=* are too confusing.
While the tag wiki for highway=crossing is clear tha
On 6/02/2016 8:13 PM, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi all,
again and again I find roads tagged with highway=crossing
instead of highway=footway [+ footway=crossing]
or maybe highway=cycleway [+ cycleway=crossing]
I think the wiki pages for highway=crossing and crossing=* are too confusing.
While th
sent from a phone
> Am 06.02.2016 um 11:04 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
> So the 'problem' of conflicting crossing= tags may be better served by
> requesting mappers to only declare one crossing= tag .. either;
I don't see the problem of possibly conflicting tagging: it indicates
Nodes don't have an orientation, so I find it useful to put crossing=* tags
on the footway/cycleway, so I can render it with a nice set of black and
white stripes.
Eg:
http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/cyclemap/?zoom=3&lat=51.74075&lon=-1.25238&layers=B0TF
I also add the tags to the intersecting
Hi Folks,
what is considered the best way to map a defibrillator which is combined
with an emergency phone?
* Two nodes, one as emergency=phone the other as emergency=defibrillator
* emergency=phone;defibrillator
Or something else?
Regards
Thorsten
___
I would say two nodes at the same location. They are unrelated
functions, just co-located. They can have different operators, contact
info, etc etc. Trying to put two whole sets of data on one node is going
to get ugly.
If one function is clearly the primary function of the location (e.g.
mountin
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 Warin wrote:
> The wiki page for natural=wood has the status shown as 'approved'.
> This was set to 'approved' on 20th May 2010.
Many major basic tags were included in a list written in I-believe-it-was
2006, i.e. on the original Map Features page. The tag status templates,
ta
sent from a phone
> Am 06.02.2016 um 16:17 schrieb Colin Smale :
>
> If one function is clearly the primary function of the location (e.g.
> mounting post, cabinet or whatever) then the secondary function is sometimes
> tagged differently, e.g. emergency=phone, defibrillator=yes
it would su
Unfortunately a photo was not provided so we only had the original
description to go on.. In OSM there is the rule-of-thumb of a single
real-life object being mapped to a single OSM object. Are they the same
object with two functions, or are they two objects?
I have a rather scientific way of loo
It's about a cabinat with a defibrillator in it and a button on it to
call 112 as you can see here:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/gmiQ8jjpqs9LqbQnXJe-_A/photo
At the moment I'm mapping it with two nodes. One emergency=phone and one
emergency=defibrillator.
On 2016-02-06 18:22, Martin Koppenhoe
On Sat, 2016-02-06 at 18:49 +0100, Thorsten Alge wrote:
> It's about a cabinat with a defibrillator in it and a button on it to
> call 112 as you can see here:
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/gmiQ8jjpqs9LqbQnXJe-_A/photo
"This image doesn’t exist, has been hidden or is part of a private
project
> "This image doesn’t exist, has been hidden or is part of a private
> project."
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
tested it with another browser and it works.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
sent from a phone
> Am 06.02.2016 um 18:41 schrieb Colin Smale :
>
> I have a rather scientific way of looking at such discussions. The bottom
> line is that there is no right and wrong in OSM, just a bunch of opinions. I
> agree, this case "can" be represented by a new tag. Whether it is wis
On Sat, 2016-02-06 at 19:17 +0100, Thorsten Alge wrote:
> > "This image doesn’t exist, has been hidden or is part of a private
> > project."
> >
> > Phil (trigpoint)
>
> tested it with another browser and it works.
Thanks, works on Chrome, not on firefox. Me thinks mapillary mess with
the websit
Richard Mann-2 wrote
> Nodes don't have an orientation, so I find it useful to put crossing=*
> tags
> on the footway/cycleway, so I can render it with a nice set of black and
> white stripes.
>
> Eg:
> http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/cyclemap/?zoom=3&lat=51.74075&lon=-1.25238&layers=B0TF
>
>
On 7/02/2016 3:22 AM, Lauri Kytömaa wrote:
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 Warin wrote:
The wiki page for natural=wood has the status shown as 'approved'.
This was set to 'approved' on 20th May 2010.
Many major basic tags were included in a list written in I-believe-it-was
2006, i.e. on the original Map
On 2/3/2016 1:35 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
why isn't it signed any more? Has the route stopped to "exist" and
they removed the signs on purpose (but just haven't finished yet hence
the signs on the crossing roads)? I would tag "old_ref" for situations
where the ref is no longer valid, but
18 matches
Mail list logo
