On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 22:21 +, Dan S wrote:
>
> So here's how I would answer your question of how would "an interested
> party [...] objectively determine what the discussion concluded":
> instead of approved/rejected, some sort of visual widget on the wiki
> page which summarised the {{yes
Kotya, in no way was I criticising the leadership you have shown in this
matter !
Its just that I preferred Dan's approach. Key IMHO is -
* A proposal gets to wiki in much the same manner as now.
* Once on the wiki, instead of a formal vote period, users (eg) click a
"like" or "dislike" button a
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 10:24 +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> On 18/03/2015, David Bannon wrote:
> > No, I'm sorry but I don't see how an interested party can be expected to
> > objectively determine what the discussion concluded.
> > [...]
> > No, sorry, but
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 11:30 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>
> I believe the current requirement to add a reason for a
> "dislike" is important and should not be dropped by
> substituting it with a simple clic
OK, is it fair to say any non specific vote, one that is neither a clear
yes nor a clear no is 'informal', not counted. Such a vote was cast with
the intention of it adding to neither yes nor no so we should observe
the voter's wish.
Note their opinion but not count an uncountable vote ?
David
Bryce, I think this proposal is far to complicated to be developed on a
mailing list. And probably on a Forum. Is it time your bare bones plan
move to a wiki page, perhaps as a Best Practice document ?
Then we can concentrate on each section, bit by bit and massage it into
something great. I do t
One thing I'll say for Forums, at least the format will be consistent.
With our List users all using different email clients, with top posters,
bottom posters, middle posters, some (me) who like to thin down a
message when replying and some who like the message to just get
bigger
I'm starting
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 08:46 +1100, Warin wrote:
> >
> I've come across regular filling stations without a roof.
Indeed, absolutely no reason a "full service" or pump based fuel
supplier must have a roof.
Usually an office (or shipping container) nearby but pumps out in the
open is very common.
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 15:26 +1100, Warin wrote:
>> if stinker proposals are promoted to Active, with lots of negative
votes.
> How is it determined that it is a majority view? Vote? .. back to
> square one.
Possibly, but probably not in most cases. I doubt too many people on
this list would be
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 21:59 +0100, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> I have updated the proposal with the feedback as much as possible.
>
And looking good too !
Under "Tagging", item 7, typo, you have "of few" where you mean "or
few".
Under "Rendering".
1. Blue Tent for Commercial ? Its more caravans h
Dave, to clarify. You use the term 'RV' as meaning a MotorHome,
accommodation built on a truck chassis, and excluding things towed
behind a car, SUV or 4x4 ?
Here, we use RV to mean Motorhome, caravan, camper. Sometimes even
broader.
David
On Sat, 2015-03-21 at 06:34 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 18:23 +0100, Peter Wendorff wrote:
> ... sensible stuff about off line work...
> In an ideal world we would have one discussion platform that can be used
> by a mail client as well as by a web forum software. I don't know if
> anything like that exists, but basically it's the
On Sun, 2015-03-22 at 07:45 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> I don't think this is accurate. In my experience, designated sites are
> very similar to commercial sites except you pay a government for the
No no no ! Dave, if its effectively similar to a commercial camp
ground, it should be mapped as
On Sun, 2015-03-22 at 08:02 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
...
> I hadn't thought about it, but we might use the
> tag camp_site=permitted_area as attribute of a country border (like
> Sweden) to show that camping is allowed anywhere.
>
Jan, not sure thats a good idea. Here in Oz, you would not "ca
Dave S, think you missed the list
On Sun, 2015-03-22 at 09:19 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> Okay then, Your idea is to define the campgrounds inside of national
> and state parks as commercial ones?
Well, its more a case of are you paying to camp there ? And are you
being provided with ext
South African National Parks;
>
>
> How about full_service, full_featured, comprehensive? I don't
> like any of these and only offer them as food for thought. But
> I cannot get on board with commercial.
>
>
>
>
On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 19:07 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
> We'll definitely need to find a smart and soft way to attract people
> to a different platform.
I think its better than the email list. For a number of reasons. And
while the list also wins a couple of points, overall, Loomio is bette
On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 15:04 +0100, fly wrote:
> as long as there is no alternative for offline support we need email.
Fly, once registered as a Loomio user, you can still choose to receive
and respond to email, maybe without ever actually logging into the
Loomio interface again (?).
> Please als
On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 19:12 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> The majority of campgrounds United States parks are not guarded,
Agree, "guarded" is not a very friendly word !
> and almost never fully staffed.
yes, "fully staffed" implies 24/7 or thereabouts. We need to include
parks where some supe
Just to make sure we are all singing from the same hymn book, here is a
table summarising the differences between these different camp sites.
Sorry if you are not using fixed spacing fonts, you should !
StandardDesignated Trekking Informal
Fee Significant No/Nominal ?
OK, I'm struggling. I started answering Dave S's stuff (below) and
realised I was really arguing away the who catagory approach. Sigh.
Are we better saying -
tourism=camp_site
toilets=yes
sanitary_dump_station=yes
amenity=showers
fee=yes
tourism=camp_site
toilets=no
sanitary_dump_station=no
fee
While loosing faith in the proposal, I'd still like to make it work.
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 16:18 +0900, johnw wrote:
>
> Also - as Martin mentioned - how is the fee associated with the
> grounds change their usage? All the car camping grounds in Japan are
> private businesses. They all charg
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 09:42 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:11 PM, David Bannon wrote
>
> Are we better saying -
> tourism=camp_site
> toilets=yes
> sanitary_dump_station=yes
> amenity=shower
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 11:06 +1100, Warin wrote:
> No, not a decision for the render but information for the end user .. the
> most important pero=son is the end user!
> 'Customers' first! :-)
I don't think there are too many "end users" who look up the raw data!
> The map user wants to search f
Warin suggested new category names and implied meanings. Think it was a
quick draft, I have a counter "quick draft" along same lines.
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 11:06 +1100, Warin wrote:
> None= nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle.
> Basic = None + a toilet
> Standard = Basic
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 19:36 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> .that will require a separate node for each of them. The nodes
> will be hard to place unless you actually visit the campground in
Indeed Dave, thats my worry with this model. Same applies for survey
people in many cases. I'd need to w
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 15:49 +0100, Marc Gemis wrote:
> When we were looking for a campsite, we often visited [1]. The list of
> features they show is much longer than any of you have in mind.
Indeed, that list was 1 minute of thought !
>...
> Should all this information be available in OSM ?
Y
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 20:42 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
>
> I really do want to keep non-designated as currently proposed. It was
> my main reason to start with the proposal. I understand it is not
> important in western countries, but it is vital in Africa and the
> Middle East. It is a site wit
ality can change quickly, therefore I
> don't want to mix with regular campsites.
>
> If a hotel has a permanent campground with amenities next to the hotel
> building the run like a standard campsite it is not in the
> non-designated category.
>
>
&
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 05:51 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> Dave, I think we are after different things. Your proposal focuses on
> availability of services, while mine tells more about the relation
> between the camper and the land owner:
Yes Jan, I agree. You have summed it up perfectly ! I'm af
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 09:10 +0100, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> To give you a better impression of what I mean with non-designated
> campsites I uploaded images of places we stayed at in Iran, Ethiopia,
> Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and Malawi. Have a look here and
> enjoy. As you can see the quali
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 12:36 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> Non-designated is not necessarily temporary. Some hotels may offer the
> service for many years, but it is not officially announced and not
> listed. For overlanders this information is too important not to have
> it mapped somehow.
>
I s
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 06:41 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> We can use camp_site=opportunistic_hospitality for
> We can use tourism=camp_site:non_designated for all cases
Sorry Jan, people, me included, do not like "=non_designated". Honestly,
I could learn to really dislike "=opportunistic_hospi
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 06:41 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> We can use camp_site=opportunistic_hospitality for
> We can use tourism=camp_site:non_designated for all cases
Sorry Jan, people, me included, do not like "=non_designated". Honestly,
I could learn to really dislike "=opportunistic_hospi
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 06:41 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> * We can use camp_site=opportunistic_hospitality for the
> hotels,
> * We can use tourism=camp_site:non_designated for all cases that
> the
Sorry Jan, people, me included, do not like "=non_designated". Honest
Sorry folks, email client problems. Evolution and bugs !
David
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 19:10 +1100, David Bannon wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 06:41 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
>
> > * We can use camp_site=opportunistic_hospitality for the
> > hotels,
>
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 07:31 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> Separate nodes for campground and amenities connected in a site
> relation
Only practical solution IHMO.
David
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.opens
amples ?
It does mean that a camp_site needs to be mapped as a polygon, not a
node but thats not too bad.
David
>
>
>
>
> regards
>
>
>
>
> m
>
>
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:site
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Ma
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 16:55 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> How about camp_site=hospitality for those hotels that offer camping on
> their grounds, or certain parking lots that allow camping, e.g.,
> WalMart.
>
>
> The hotel industry is, after all, sometimes referred to as the
> hospitality indust
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 14:07 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> It is a bit of a philosophical question: do you prefer a placeholder
> or a polygon of which you don't know how correct it is, for example a
> forest behind the campsite that may or may not be part of the
> campground.
In natural surroundi
Folks, we have been discussing this camp_site= issue for a long time.
And I don't think we are making any progress. How about we apply a
design approach ? Agree on how the "average" end user would use the
data ?
In my opinion, a camper is likely look on a map hoping to see a camp
site near where
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 15:57 +1100, Warin wrote:
> > The next step is a web search. Thus the website= link is the most
> > important
> Assumes web access.. as most of Australia has no cell phone access?
> Satellite phone!
I carry one but save its expensive quota for desperate stuff !
> Me? I lo
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 07:09 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> 1. Get a high level of classification of campsites based on the
> relation between the land owner and the camper
> 2. Get a classification of regular campsites based on available
> facilities.
Agreed Jan. Differ
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 12:26 +0100, Marc Gemis wrote:
> If I am on a large campsite I want to use "the map" to find my way to
> all amenities. If you have put everything on 1 node it's a pretty
> useless map, not ?
Agree in principle Marc but don't think its always practical. I have
been to many c
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 21:57 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> wrote:
> Just a note about using semicolon-delimited lists. Most
> renderers do not handle such lists very well so a tag like the
> following:
> amenity=bar;restaurant;picnic_table;sanitary_dump_station
> M
So you have renamed it Jan ?
Happy to see the original name, camp_site, pop up in parallel ? Probably
make sense to deal with them both as closely as we can.
An outsider, someone who has not seen the effort put in here (especially
by you), may see these as competing entries but they are really no
On Sun, 2015-03-29 at 09:31 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>
> Among other things, perhaps it would be better to change the final
> wiki vote status from "approved" to
>
> something more like "debate complete" or "published".
Indeed, "published" is good. I'd prefer that to "debate complete" as i
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 10:49 +1100, Warin wrote:
>.
> From very distant memory those were temporary ..
> some times once only, sometimes once every few years.
> And they were restricted to scouts only .. thus access=scouts?
>
No Warin, don't think we are talking about the same sort of camp. Th
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 05:44 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> .. I hope someone else will stand up to kick off the camp_site=*
> proposal for facility levels.
>
OK Jan, hint taken.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site
Very early, lot more needs be done. I'm going to b
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 17:05 +0900, johnw wrote:
> camp_site:restaurant=yes
> camp_site:water=yes
> camp_site:space_water=no
> campsite:kitchen=yes
> camp_site:space_bbq=no
John, this model would work fine if the end user was using a interactive
tool where he could say "show me all the camps that c
enities. There have
> been many discussions about this issue on this list
> and elsewhere
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 9:39 AM, David Bannon
> wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 12:26 +
On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 12:22 +1100, Warin wrote:
> There have been some comments on people making comments on the voting
> stage of a proposal. I think this comes about because of the large
> number of proposals with the status 'proposed'.
Indeed. And you suggest a viable solution but I wonder i
I have fleshed out the camp_site proposal page a bit.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site
And added some text in the discussion page identifying the three
decisions that need to be made before the proposal proceeds -
1 -Is this the right model ?
By model, I mean the id
Honestly, this "approved" v. something else is a storm in a tea cup.
The proposals have been (or not) approved. Yes, by a small minority of
OSM mappers but ones who have thought about the proposal and they are
not in any way an exclusive group.
It does not say compulsory, required or anything pre
On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 12:35 -0300, Lists wrote:
...
>
> Since the dam structure is a man_made construction, I suggest that the
> tag should be moved into that namespace. Currently we should abandon
> (deprecate) the tag waterway=dam to avoid conflicts with existing
> tagging scheme, and maybe in t
That scheme seems to rely on house number model. Sure looks good.
But does it, by implication, indicate there is a (eg) a house number 12
on the unnamed service road ? I'm not into mapping house numbers so
don't know if thats important or not.
David
On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 10:51 -0700, Bryce
Folks, to revisit a topic that had lots of discussion last month !
I have updated the proposal page for camp_site=[basic; standard;
serviced; delux].
I now avoid the question of how to tag multiple instances of (eg)
amenity on the one node, area. People seem to have strong but
conflicting views a
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 09:02 +1000, Warin wrote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site
> My comment. Any reason for the colours?
>
Honestly, no, I prefer the (eg) map makers determined what suits them
best. Quite happy to swap as you suggest but wonder if the proposal
On Sat, 2015-04-18 at 18:10 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:
> I’ve been using the tagging suggested at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches
> so they have camp_site=pitch on them.
>
Tod, there was a fair bit of discussion here in Feb (?) a
>
> to indicate remote or primitive camping areas. I think it needs to be
> added it to the list of related tags in this proposal. There are 1300
> of these tags existing presently. It might also need inclusion on the
> other camp_site page we've been working with.
>
&g
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 11:13 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I think the number should go into ref, e.g.
> ref=42
> camping:pitch=yes or camp_site:pitch=yes (etc., e.g. permanent,
> tent, ...) not actually proposed or detailed yet
>
Martin, think that makes sense, there are a whole range of
On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 14:45 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>...
> The fact that rendering on osm-carto is so far behind tagging is an
> issue.
>
Indeed.
> But treating the campsite like a building, and the pitches like
> apartments, makes a lot of logical sense.
I don't see any theoretical issue w
OK, I think the discussion on camp_site= has settled down and now
concentrates on things that are just outside the current proposal and
probably need to stay there for now. Thoughts, yes, no ?
I have mentioned on the proposal page tagging of individual pitches and
declared that out of scope for n
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 15:16 +0900, johnw wrote:
> That’s why I thought " informal yet legal spots" would be good wording
> to cover this, and maybe link over to the camp_type proposal here -
> because with the wording for basic, the first thing I thought about
> was the legality or designation of
Bryce, I was away and inattentive while this discussion went on, so
don't understand !
* amenity=sanitary_dump_station - Standalone facility for marine users
* waterway=sanitary_dump_station - Standalone facility for land users
Seem to be wrong way around to me ! Why is "waterway" used for lan
On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 06:47 +0900, John Willis wrote:
> I don't want people to map known illegal camp sites or places they just
> happened to spend the night and think are nice but are on a farmers private
> property just to complete the map, as "map the ground truth" means mapping
> basic+
Jan, are you going to have another try at camp_type= ?
I think the term "non-designated" was a contributor to it struggling.
Trouble is, the idea you have here is an important one but one its quite
hard to get your head around.
David
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 05:05 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
>
can get.
Lets see if thats good enough ...
David
On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 10:10 +0900, John Willis wrote:
> Seems great !
>
> Javbw
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 2015, at 9:52 AM, David Bannon wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 0
OK folks, everyone has had every chance to tell us what is wrong with
this proposal, its now open for voting. We have talked and talked ! Lets
vote now please !
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site
David
___
Tagging maili
> tourism=camp_site (for the site) or tourism=caravan_site
> camp_site=pitch
Bryce, this was discussed some weeks ago.
Several months ago we were advised that a camp_site is the larger site
that contains one or (usually) more pitches. Therefore to say that a
particular instance of a camp_
On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 17:43 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:
> ... I guess the page could be renamed to campground pitch
No need ! Its the camp_site= part that is my problem.
> (I guess I should look into how one properly can rename a wiki page. . .)
Hmm, carefully I suggest.
> I guess there could be a
On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 13:39 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:
> It may be common in some areas to allow pitching tents anywhere within
> a designated area. But I have mapped a couple of backcountry
> (backpack) trail camps that have a numbered post at each pitch,
Indeed. We need to cater to the full range,
On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 22:22 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > camp_pitch=42 ?
> I think this would be an elegant and short method to do it, but it
> will very likely lead to osm-carto not supporting it (not in the key
> namespace that gets included in the rendering db and unlikely there
> will
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 09:44 +, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote:
>
> It seems to me that the obvious generalisation, which would cover
> camps organised for profit and by non-profits would be
> leisure=vacation_camp.
I don't think 'vacation' or 'leisure' are good terms at all. A lot of
people use t
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 18:22 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> It has been many years since I last went tent-camping, but my
> experience of campgrounds in the US national park system was numbered
> poles marking each campsite, a grassy area for pitching a tent, and a
> charcoal grill mounted on a st
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 18:54 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>
>
>>There are some like that, maybe a concrete or tarmac base so tent
> The amenity=caravan_site was indeed invented for what amounts to a
> parking lot for overnight use by RV's.
Do you mean tourism=caravan_site (14K uses v. 1 use)?
n was why are we talking about leisure= when
we were talking about tourism= ? There is a large usage of tourism=
already there, almost no leisure=.
David
>
>
> Jerry
>
>
> ______
> From: David Bannon
&
On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 11:09 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
>
> A resort is usually a town whos primary purpose is tourism. A resort
> is not operated by a single company, and access is not restricted.
> Resort should probably be avoided due to totally different meanings
> between BE and
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 07:12 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
> > OK Phil, I was not aware of that difference. So that leaves us wonder
> > what to call those UK Holiday Camps ? Leave it to the UK people I
> > guess.
> >
> There are not many left, they were of their time. In the UK context
> t
Approaching close of vote on this proposed feature.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site
We currently have -
8 approvals
1 reject
2 abstains
The 'reject' notes some use of camp_site=pitch already and suggests a
conflict. If we accept that, it has implication for how th
On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 09:06 +1000, Warin wrote:
> Hummm ... the mappers want more detail .. the renders less?
This (surface=) was the topic for a long discussion last year. As you
say, mappers seem to want to put more and more detail into the database.
Its really a case of "write only memory" - yo
On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 13:13 -0400, Anders Anker-Rasch wrote:
> first post on the tagging list so I'll try to be short.
Welcome Anders, very welcome!
>
> Apiary tagging is still "in limbo" - and has been so for some years
> now as I can see from the talk.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:
On Sun, 2015-05-17 at 23:01 +0200, Daniel Koć wrote:
> Once we start seeing through the eyes of people using the
> map, who can help expand and refine our data, we can understand what are
> their background, what are the problems for them and how they may behave
> when experiencing obstacle
On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 11:09 +1000, Warin wrote:
> Link to the proposal =
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/amenity%
> 3Dreception_desk
>
I still see this as a useful thing.
David
> For those not familiar with the proposal.
> A Reception Desk provides a place where people (
On Sat, 2015-05-23 at 14:50 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Of over 400 people posting on the tagging list, only 5 have shown any
> interest in that. I'll leave it to you to infer any decisions from that ;)
Well, yes. As one of the five who did try, I can say I tried it. It
works, its possibly a bit
On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 18:06 +, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> I think we need a separate instalation of wikibase on our wiki. No
> need to fork wikibase. Then we can organize our tags in categories,
> subcategories, relations to outside data like wikidata and so on.
Yep, great concept, could be OSM Ta
On 30/09/15 21:28, Warin wrote:
..
Well if you want to have lake Eyre 'qualify' for the tag 'intermittent'
.
But if you want to see Lake Eyre full .. 'typically' that is once
every 10 years or so...
So to me a full cycle of Lake Eyre in all its 'seasons' would be
'typically' 10 year
ound. But thats
not intermittent IMHO. I don't think "intermittent" and "seasonal" go
well together.
David
On 01/10/15 10:16, Warin wrote:
On 1/10/2015 8:49 AM, David Bannon wrote:
On 30/09/15 21:28, Warin wrote:
..
Well if you want to have lake Eyre 'qualify'
Wow Alberto, you have put a lot of thought into this. I agree its needed
and think the model would serve us a lot better than the way its done
now. But I see a couple of problems, first, we have a huge data set
using the existing model. Very hard to change that. Secondly, I suspect
not all cont
On 27/07/16 12:59, Kevin Kenny wrote:
.
How about we make a deal that when the "correct" tagging actually
becomes visible on at least one layer of the main site, I go back and
remove the "legacy" tagging, which can be done with a mechanical edit?
Kevin, I share your frustration but sugge
David, I am very sorry to only comment after you have gone to the vote,
very rude of me !
But I have been away, quite remote and very poor internet access, big
backlog of unread mail.
David, my partner is a midwife but of the "specialist nurse" variety.
What concerns us is how this tag will
On 05/09/16 04:34, Greg Wickham wrote:
In Saudi Arabia a wadi is a mostly dry riverbed that carries water
very infrequently (maybe a couple of times year).
..
Would these tags be ok for a: “sandy bottomed wadi; 4wd only"
waterway = wadi
intermittent = yes
highway = track
trackty
On 06/09/16 08:08, Tod Fitch wrote:
There are places in the desert southwest of the United States where the place
you drive is exactly the water course. And these can extend for miles. Saying
that one feature on the ground needs to OSM objects because they have different
properties is bogus:
Sven, your approach makes sense assuming people only look at maps of
their own country. Yes, I agree its respectful to people living in a non
english speaking country but really does not address a much larger problem.
As a native English speaker, I often turn to OSM to help me understand
some
I would find it very hard to support "potty_area". A potty is a
container used by small children during toilet training, what has that
got to do with dogs ?
David
On 10/11/16 01:24, joost schouppe wrote:
Hi,
Many cities have special little areas which are specifically meant to
be used as a
Thanks Joost, I'd prefer option one or four. wrt lack of porcelain, the
term "toilet" can also be used to refer to the room where the porcelain
thing is located. So dog_toilet seems quite accurate.
But dog* or pet* ? I do see people traveling with a cat but would be
very surprised if a cat wa
I would think shop=laundry means there is some sort of service provided
at the campsite that involves someone else actually doing your laundry
for you for a fee.
As you say, thats not the same thing as having machines available at a
camp for you to do your laundry. I would prefer something li
On 18/02/17 18:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
...a 'ticket' could be 'single use, with the option of a return journey, for a
set distance or place'.
...a 'card' could be 'multiple use, no set time or distance, limited by the
amount on the card'?
...a 'pass' could be for a planned trip over a se
Maybe its time someone put a note on the proposal page saying that the
author is posting to the list but does not appear to be receiving
messages from it ?
In case its a language issue, could that message be in German and
English perhaps ?
David
On 06/03/17 05:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote
On 07/03/17 04:55, Thilo Haug wrote:
..
I (accidentally) unsubscribed because of the "spam" coming in,
means I didn't get just messages regarding the topic.
Thilo, perhaps thats the underlying problem here ? You read the rules
on the wiki, complied with what you understood and now, I gues
101 - 200 of 201 matches
Mail list logo
