While making the new page for tourism=camp_pitch, I noticed that
"booking=*" is recommended to be used with tourism=camp_site, but the
similar tag "reservation=*" has been used for many more years and
several times more frequently. Both are not very common yet.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/
There are two similar property tags that describe the presence of a
barbecue (BBQ) grill at another feature such as a campsite or picnic
site.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bbq
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barbecue_grill
If you check taghistory.raifer.tech it's clear that
ba
sent from a phone
> On 2. Jul 2019, at 13:38, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> Is there a reason to pick one of these two tags over the other? I'd
> like to know what to suggest for use with tourism=camp_pitch
I would prefer „bbq“ because it is the analogous key for the established
amenity=bbq (
Le 02.07.19 à 13:34, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> "booking=*" is recommended to be used with tourism=camp_site, but the
> similar tag "reservation=*" has been used
booking=* already has 14 conflicts with the url of the site.
it seems preferable to migrate the
reservation=yes/no/recommended/mandato
Le 02.07.19 à 13:38, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> The similar feature tag is amenity=bbq
>
> Is there a reason to pick one of these two tags over the other?
I like having the same string between the main tag for the device
and the key for the caracteristic of a site having this device.
so imho bb
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 21:37, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> Is there any reason to prefer "booking=*" instead of "reservation=*"?
> I'm inclined to think of "booking=*" as a synonym that should be
> deprecated, unless it is preferred in British English for certain
> features?
>
>From an Aussie Engl
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 10:30:38PM +, marc marc wrote:
> Le 09.06.19 à 01:12, Richard a écrit :
> > The water level drops a few inches and
> > suddenly the "pipe" is no longer water filled
>
> intermittent=yes/no
that says that sometimes there is no water at all. But not that sometimes
it is
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 12:59:27PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> There are a few uses of lanes=0... I would think these are errors. Even if
> unmarked a road would have at least one lane otherwise it is not really a
> road.
>
>
> But looking at tag info there are a fair few uses fo it in vari
Some users specify the number of tents or caravans allowed at a
campsite or camp pitch with tents= and caravans=, but
more frequently these are specified with capacity:caravans=,
capacity:tents= or maxtents=
Currently maxtents=* is used most frequently and it's the shortest
key, but there is no eq
A pretty standard nomenclature on maps in the US for unpaved roads is
Improved Road
Unsurfaced Road (High Clearance)
Four Wheel Drive
Other variations exist , but not too dissimilar.
Pretty simple and anyone who spends time in the mountains or forest gets
a feel for what it means and has an idea
3 lip 2019, 03:10 od bradha...@fastmail.com:
> 1) Change the wiki for highway so it mentions Smoothness=*, and
> de-emphasize tracktype=*
>
Mentioning also smoothness tag is
perfectly fine and such edits can be
fine without notification mail.
Usually such mails are necessary only
in cases w
2019-07-03, tr, 08:04 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
> 2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of the tracktype
> description (or de-emphasize it)
> I am dubious about redefining extremely
> popular tags. <...>
How come? You are pushing the changing of entire water tagging schema!
On 03/07/19 11:10, brad wrote:
A pretty standard nomenclature on maps in the US for unpaved roads is
Improved Road
Unsurfaced Road (High Clearance)
Four Wheel Drive
Other variations exist , but not too dissimilar.
Pretty simple and anyone who spends time in the mountains or forest
gets a feel fo
13 matches
Mail list logo
