Am Di., 31. März 2020 um 04:22 Uhr schrieb Gegorian Hauser <
grenhau...@mail.com>:
> There are over 15000 aerialway stations in Europe and over 1000 are just
> tagged also with public_transport
>
> For me these combination is in the most situations wrong and for this iD
> should not have this "fix
When I was in Bursa, Turkey. There was a 'teleférico' that, I suppose ,was
meant to bring people from the city to a skiing area. Since I was there in
the summer though, I simply used to cool off in the mountains and escape
the heat from the city below. I had to get a ticket, so I would consider
tha
of course there existing aerialways they get used for public transport.
I can name 5 or maybe more in my region, but the other 90%(in my region) are closed in summer and are only used during witer so these hae no public transport funktion.
for me it is ok to ad public transport to a gondol
On 31/03/2020 15:08, Gegorian Hauser via Tagging wrote:
I also opened yesterday a issue on the github site from iD but this
was closed imediatly because of "there is nothing written in the Wiki"
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/7491 I guess?
If the consensus here is that the approac
Am Di., 31. März 2020 um 18:38 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend :
> If the consensus here is that the approach that iD is taking isn't ideal,
> then I'd suggest updating the wiki to match the consensus here
> (cross-referencing the mailing list discussion), then suggesting that the
> iD issue be looked a
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 18:21, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> I did not check recently, but from previous discussion and experience I
> recall iD "semiautomatically" (i.e. suggesting to perform "fixes" for the
> user for all of the currently downloaded map data in the editor)
> "improving" and "upda
Both Martin and Paul have good points, but this won't help mapping aerial ways.
Discussing this small matter at hand and refining the wiki may.
Yves
Le 31 mars 2020 20:02:44 GMT+02:00, Paul Allen a écrit :
>On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 18:21, Martin Koppenhoefer
>
>wrote:
>
>> I did not check recently
