If you are talking about a simple wetland you may find in a small pond or lake,
It’s easy, but natural formations are often very messy and complicated -
especially when a wetland covers an area larger than most villages.
There is often overlap where I am where a wetland lives permanently in the
+1 for highway=pedestrian + area=yes
That how we map a town square in France (and every where else I guess ?)
Le mer. 29 avr. 2020 à 23:18, Joseph Eisenberg
a écrit :
> I agree, the area in this spot (
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/jYNQFMwHiNEZRCnpi71heA) is a moderly
> sized open area of
On 1/5/20 9:00 pm, Florimond Berthoux wrote:
+1 for highway=pedestrian + area=yes
That how we map a town square in France (and every where else I guess ?)
To me highway=pedestrian is more for where for where foot traffic passes
rather than a place where people stop and meet.
Le mer. 29 a
Hello to everyone,
Voting has opened for the proposal of traffic_signals=crossing_only – see the proposal page here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/traffic_signals%3Dcrossing_only
(please note the old name was traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand, but I changed that becau
> On May 1, 2020, at 8:00 PM, Florimond Berthoux
> wrote:
>
> +1 for highway=pedestrian + area=yes
> That how we map a town square in France (and every where else I guess ?)’
+1 for plaza mapping and any other predominantly foot-dominated expanse in any
usage like a plaza or wherever people
On 5/1/20 2:25 PM, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
lots of urban areas have commons around buildings that are not mere
landscaping - are those parks? landuse=grass? highway=ped?
Indeed, in France I have seen such mapped as highway=pedestrian - but
that emphasizes their role as thoroughfare rath
On Thu, 2020-04-30 at 13:52 -0600, Mike Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 1:28 PM ael wrote:
>
> > I would not be comfortable tagging very rough tracks as anything
> > but a track:
> > if it requires a 4 wheel drive or agricultural vehicle to
> > negotiate.
> > I think a "road" normally i
On 5/1/20 12:12 PM, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
There is often overlap where I am where a wetland lives permanently in
the bottom of a basin, and the surrounding area is a park or sports
field. When there is a storm the basin fills up and wetland, pitch,
and parking lot end up under 3m of wa
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 9:26 AM Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> I agree with AEL, people who live in there tend to take that into
> account when they buy vehicles and tend to own 4x4s.
These are all roads which a normal car can navigate. Not everyone that
lives in these areas drives a 4x4.
_
On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 16:45:48 -0400
Greg Troxel wrote:
> Mike Thompson writes:
>
> > I have always been under the impression that the highway tag should
> > be based off of function. Recently I have come across a number of
> > cases where driveways and residential roads were tagged
> > "highway
Hello,
We have a trail [0] around here where walking/hiking is not allowed,
but running is. Currently it is tagged foot=yes, which doesn't give
the full story. In case you are wondering how such a situation could
come about, it is because the land manager wants faster traffic (trail
runners, mount
On 5/1/2020 4:37 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
Hello,
We have a trail [0] around here where walking/hiking is not allowed,
but running is. Currently it is tagged foot=yes, which doesn't give
the full story. In case you are wondering how such a situation could
come about, it is because the land manage
Thanks Jason,
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 4:37 PM Jmapb wrote:
>
> minspeed:foot? A value of around 6 or 7 (default unit is km/hour) should
> separate the fast walkers from the joggers. Of course it's anyone's
> guess if there would ever be any software support for this key.
Interesting idea.
>
> An
sent from a phone
> On 2. May 2020, at 00:37, Jmapb wrote:
>
> minspeed:foot? A value of around 6 or 7 (default unit is km/hour) should
> separate the fast walkers from the joggers. Of course it's anyone's
> guess if there would ever be any software support for this key.
minspeed and maxspee
Thanks Martin!
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 5:49 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Another idea could be to introduce “running” as a new state of foot, e.g.
> foot=no
> foot:conditional =yes @ running
That makes sense to me. I will wait and see if anyone has any
objections or better ideas, and if not,
On 5/1/2020 7:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Another idea could be to introduce “running” as a new state of foot, e.g.
foot=no
foot:conditional =yes @ running
I like this, a little less cheeky than conjuring an arbitrary unsigned
minspeed for runners. And would be likely interpreted "correc
16 matches
Mail list logo
