yes, it was. But nobody bothered since the speed was the same in the
whole country.
I do not know when it was moved to the regional government, even not
whether this was before or after the first source:maxspeed was entered
in OSM>
m.
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
> Was th
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Piste:type%3Dconnection
Hi,
I'd like to start voting on Piste:type=connection, which is needed for
walk-overs and other types of connections between lifts. The tag is already
in use 102 times in four alpine countries.
It is essential for ski
Hello,
Le 24. 01. 18 à 10:42, Helge Fahrnberger a écrit :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Piste:type%3Dconnection
> I'd like to start voting
you forget to make a request for comment :)
end end date look wrong (January <> February)
my comment : the definition is strange.
"m
2018-01-23 18:17 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić :
> I would like to add tunnel=headrace to the waterway=drain because that's
> how they are called. Just google "headrace tunnel" and this is exactly what
> you will get.
>
This is a great add, thank you. I've missed this terminology, and vote may
be stopp
Le 23. 01. 18 à 14:25, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> I would prefer waterway=canal + pressurised=yes + tunnel=* rather
> than waterway=pressurised.
trivial in appearance, this change would imply a huge change of meaning.
today common sense is that waterway=canal is a canal :-) thus not
pressuri
Here the missing overpass links for "roof:ridge:direction".
gabled -> 1120 ways https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/vks
hipped -> 100 ways https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/vku
half-hipped -> 68 ways https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/vkv
gambrel -> 9 ways https://overpass-turbo.eu
Hi Marc,
I did send an RFC, over a year ago:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-September/030270.html
Caused some positive comments on the discussion page and quite some people
actually using the tag.
As for the text on the proposal page itself: I intended it for the audience
Following the discussion here, I changed the mapping of the mall to move
tags from individual nodes to an area.
For one shop, it attracted feedback from the commercial entity who maintains
its data on OpenStreetMap saying the change broke something at their side.
See the discussion on the chang
If of course all of their shops are mapped in detail as areas, they still get a
consistent target.
--
Andrew
From: OSMDoudou <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com>
Sent: 24 January 2018 19:46:26
To: 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'
Subject: Re:
On 2018-01-24 20:46, OSMDoudou wrote:
>
> Following the discussion here, I changed the mapping of the mall to
> move tags from individual nodes to an area.
>
>
>
> For one shop, it attracted feedback from the commercial entity who
> maintains its data on OpenStreetMap saying the change broke some
sent from a phone
> On 24. Jan 2018, at 20:46, OSMDoudou
> <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> But as they're asking to maintain their shops tagged as node, this is
> effectively asking the community refrains itself from improving the tagging
> of the mall
As areas an
sent from a phone
> On 24. Jan 2018, at 22:01, André Pirard wrote:
>
> The advantage of a node is best seen when you try to add several shops tags
> to the same building/area: a nightmare.
with the level tag and josms level filtering it is possible to keep things
clear. With multipoligon r
12 matches
Mail list logo
