JOSM uses "leisure" as the preset tag for swimming pools. It has a private
swimming pool preset which creates:
access=private
leisure=swimming_pool
I use this combination for residential backyard pools, also pools in
apartments, schools, hospitals, etc. and I think it's equally appropriate for
Yes, mapping peoples back yards is within that uncomfortable private zone...,
but I justify it because in Australia it is practice in some areas for the fire
department to draw water from private swimming pools in times of need -
particularly in bush fire prone areas.
BJ
Sent from my iPhone
O
On 12/01/2012, at 19:10, Erik Johansson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 23:56, Simone Saviolo
> wrote:
>>
>> 2012/1/11 Ben Johnson :
>>> For a public access pool (eg run by a local government authority, or even a
>>> private operator who's ma
On 13/01/2012, at 11:49 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2012/1/12 Ben Johnson :
For my take on permissive, the best example I can think of is rural
properties where you need to literally drive through private farms
to get to your destination (which is usually another farm).
those usually
On 13/01/2012, at 23:34, Michael Krämer wrote:
>> If you'd read what I was replying to, you'd see that I don't think
>> access=permit would be a valid change.
> Well, I in fact I did - being a non-native speaker I tried to answer
> the question you've asked.
>
> So either I missed some point or
Hi Martin,
Your proposal makes a lot of sense.
bridge:structure (or type) seems the logical place to put it, along with
bridge:name, bridge:clearance (or whatever min/max clearance tags we have for
tidal situations), etc...
The principal should also be extended to tunnels.
eg tunnel:structu
On 16/01/2012, at 6:45, LM_1 wrote:
>> Given that absolutely everything on the planet is accessible by at least
>> someone with the right authority, permission, ownership, special equipment,
>> etc. is there ever a need for access=no ?
>
> As a default in combination with eg. access=no, foot
On 18/01/2012, at 0:52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2012/1/17 Nathan Edgars II :
>> On 1/17/2012 8:32 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> psv=yes (or bus=yes)
>>
>> This has been bugging me for a while - why do we group buses and taxis? Is
>> this a common grouping in the UK?
>
>
> Yes, it is
On 18/01/2012, at 1:10, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 08:34:48AM -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On 1/17/2012 8:32 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> psv=yes (or bus=yes)
>>
>> This has been bugging me for a while - why do we group buses and
>> taxis? Is this a common grouping
