Am 16.05.2017 um 23:42 schrieb John Willis:
On May 16, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Tobias Wrede wrote:
May I suggest to focus the proposal on the frontend for now?
The front end is the most difficult part, and having a proposal that covers the
chain and many permutations is important.
For example, I w
>IMHO The problem at hand is how does a regular OSM user find a courier. At
least for me I need a courier less often than a supermarket but
significantly more often than a pharmacy. So from my viewpoint we should
really focus on the shop aspect for now.
Thinks the same
Kelvin
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Tobias Wrede wrote:
> In that respect UPS is not any different from a supermarket or a dry
> cleaner. You go to the shop=supermarket or shop=dry clener but not Tesco's
> warehouse or the central dry cleaning facility.
Exactly. This is what I'm talking about, wher
Javbw
> On May 19, 2017, at 12:36 AM, Tobias Wrede wrote:
>
> If they have a package window I would definitely tag that with shop=courier,
> but not the whole warehouse.
This is why I wanted to add
Courier:service:ships=yes/no
Courier:service:pickup=yes/no
To the mix. It allows you to spe
Hi,
I have made a new relation: 7258397 - a bus route 686 that is 'circular'
in that it returns back to the same start position and then repeats the
same route.
Some of the route travels in both directions on the same ways, while
other parts only use a way in one direction.
P1) JOSM valida
Hi Warin,
I created a screencast on how I reworked the route relation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xY966xwEH0
It's a bit clumsy :-) I should have downloaded more data around the stops.
Then I would have noticed the nodes with highway=bus_stop.
What I wanted to show is that the PT_Assistant
Am 19.05.2017 um 04:21 schrieb Warin:
P1) JOSM validator reports that the relation is not closed. Yet all
elements appear and they are connected.
I cannot verify/reproduce the first part/sentence with JOSM (11639 / 12039).
As the relation editor indeed does verify and show the 'circular' aspe
sent from a phone
> On 18. May 2017, at 23:46, John Willis wrote:
>
> Courier:service:ships=yes/no
I would suggest another wording for this, as courier service ships could be
misread as ship e.g.: https://www.iereexpress.com/images/banner16.jpg
cheers,
Martin __
