Hi all
To me, that sounds inappropriate to state dry/wet/charged in the emergency
key.
It is possible to refactor (here, improve) a value to best fit a wider
range of situations, with a proposal and a review.
In the dry_riser_inlet proposal, it was discussed to use "fire departement
connection"
Call me old fashioned, but I think that we should only use "dry_riser_inlet"
for the inlet to a riser that is... ...wait for it... ...well, that is dry!
If that means that we needs few more tags to convey more information, then so
be it.
Regards,Peter
PeterPan99
On Sunday, 11 December
Jake Low wrote:
> I would not recommend adding a node tagged tourism=camp_site into this
> picture, as in my opinion it would be redundant with the site relation and
> a violation of the "one feature, one OSM element" guideline.
While this Approach would work well in OpenCampingMap, such objects
Philipp Spitzer wrote:
> I like to propose
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Sled (which is
> actually a quite old proposal) which tries to overcome the shortcomings
> of piste:type=sled (without replacing it).
>
> I would be happy if you could provide thoughts/comments
On Sun, 11 Dec 2022, 03:25 Kyle Hensel, wrote:
> I think we need a new tag then. In New Zealand dry risers are not allowed
> for new buildings, since charged systems are safer...
>
>
>
> François’s suggestion of emergency=riser_inlet + a sub tag seems like a
> good idea, but is it possible to dep
On 11/12/2022 13.10, Sven Geggus wrote:
> This seems to be somewhat similar to the recent discussion about using
> site-relations for camp-sites.
> > Some people think that what I do in OpenCampingMap currently (using
site
> relations) is an abuse of the "One feature, one OSM element" principle
I've made a minor change to the format of the possible tags to include.
If there are no more comments, I'll move to voting in the next day or two.
Thanks
Graeme
On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 at 00:33, Marc_marc wrote:
> Le 07.12.22 à 07:31, Warin a écrit :
> >
> > On 7/12/22 01:54, Marc_marc wrote:
> >
