to
connect the stop position to the waiting area, as the route relations
would only include one element (highway=bus_stop). Keeping the PTv2
route relations with platform and stop members just for these rare
cases doesn't make sense IMO.
Regards
Markus
___
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 10:11, marc marc wrote:
>
> Le 21.08.19 à 09:58, Markus a écrit :
> > Otherwise, we need a new relation (maybe type=stop_position?) to
> > connect the stop position to the waiting area
>
> imho that's why stop_area relation exist
According
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 06:39, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> Should this tag be added to the wiki page Map Features?
Yes, please.
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
that routers don't announce too late (i.e. when the lanes can't be
changed anymore) which lane one has to take.
Or is turn:lanes + change:lanes enough? (And what if there were no turn
lane markings?)
Thanks in advance for your help
nd it may not work well if the with of a divider increases or decreases,
what is the case quite often (e.g. triangle with chevrons or diagonal
bars). But maybe something like dividers:width:start=* dividers:width:end=*
could be used if the increase is linear.
Regards
Markus
ard=meadow_orchard because they imply a primary
usage (meadow or orchard respectively), which i think is impossible to
determine. Therefore i prefer landuse=meadow_orchard.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 20:11, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Or landuse=silvopasture.
AFAIK, silvopasture describes a forest that is also used for grazing livestock.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tag
combinations with indoor=yes are
highway=footway + indoor=yes.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 16:32, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> Usually the main land use should be the one that is most economically
> important, and also should take up the most land.
Most economically important including or excluding subsidies? In
Switzerland, farmers receive subsidies for standard
s://pandoc.org, according to its homepage, but i've not tried it myself.
Regards,
Markus
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
42) (and also twice in the
relation of the opposite route direction).
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 13:58 Michal Fabík, wrote:
> [...] JOSM was complaining but it's
> working fine when I display the route in OsmAnd or use it in navigation.
>
IIRC it's just a warning, because it might be an error (e.g. with
multipolygon relations).
__
ld make it with tagging, by
using another prefix for closed services, e.g. was: or closed:, which are
both already in use (approx. 35,000 was: vs. approx. 600 closed:). Using
disused: for a closed service doesn't feel right anyway.
Thus, those disused toilets could be tag
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 17:50 Paul Allen, wrote:
> What is sad is that if renderers produce results that go against mappers'
> expectations,
> mappers will abuse tags to get the results they want and then the open
> data that you
> seem to feel is the most important part of the project becomes worth
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 18:30 Andy Townsend, wrote:
> On 26/09/2019 17:09, Markus wrote:
> >
> > Thus, those disused toilets could be tagged:
> >
> > disused:building=toilets
> >
> No, it's still a building.
Yes, it's still a building
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 18:43 Martin Koppenhoefer,
wrote:
> an unused building remains a building, hence the building=* tag should be
> kept.
>
All disused physical objects i can imagine remain physical objects. Are you
saying that we shouldn't use disused: for physical objects?
___
BTW, i find it very strange that there is a separte highway=* tag for
indoor "flat ways" (i.e. corridors), but not for steps. Any reasons for
that?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
emand from mappers that they define which
land use is more important than the other. However, such a choice is
arbitrary.
Best regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
t.
In my opinion, high usage doesn't guarantee that the tagging is sensible.
Markus
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 20:43, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>
> On 04.10.2019 19:10, Markus wrote:
> > While orchard=meadow_orchard is the most used way of tagging a meadow
> > orchard (2 748 uses), there
> > are also 668 uses of the other subtag meadow=meadow_orchard. That mean
r: tags together
form a complete address (a single addr: tag only gives part of an address),
while a single contact: tag already is a complete contact information. Thus
i think the addr: prefix makes more sense that the contact: prefix.
Regards
Markus
>
__
PM8yTP96TfXpY9g
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
isconnected from the highway=* way with the highway=crossing node
(that is, on another way). Therefore a router doesn't know that trams
also pass this pedestrian crossing (except if pavements and pedestrian
crossings are mapped as separate ways, which, ho
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 18:37, Markus wrote:
>
> The problem here is that pedestrians are routed along the highway=*
> way and, as you wrote, tram tracks are usually (unfortunately) mapped
> as separate ways. Consequently, the railway=crossing node is
> disconnected from the highway
gs.
To your second question: i think that local mapping deviations make
our map less usable. I would prefer if people who think that a rule
doesn't make sense don't simply ignore it, but discuss it on this
global mailing list.
Regards
Markus
___
, if the road in your example is mapped with two separate
ways, a routing engine would make pedestrians do a detour (possibly a
long detour), even though they could just cross the street.
[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/change
Regards
Markus
___
pointed out, there are many places without pedestrian
crossings. Therefore pedestrian routing wouldn't work where a road with
painted lane separation is mapped with two ways.
I wish you all a nice weekend
Markus
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, 22:00 Peter Elderson, wrote:
> But where pedestrian crossing is not allowed at all, as in the case I
> described, two ways tagging does not give this routing problem.
>
No, but it's again not the only solution: the information that crossing the
road isn't permitted can also
was a visual edit that added the tags to the {{vote}}
template, thus disabling the template. I've fixed it by removing the
tags.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 17:51, Vɑdɪm wrote:
>
> OK. Any more comments or we better go for a vote?
It's a detail, but i think that leisure=sunbathing_area (or
leisure=sunbathing_place) were a more descriptive tag than
leisure=sunbathing. Besides, most leisure=* values are nouns.
Reg
road markings cycleway=lane. So it only seems logical to also
make the same distinction for sidewalks and pedestrian lanes.
Thank you in advance for your replies.
Best regards and have a nice Sunday,
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
ngine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=36.40695%2C139.33347%3B36.40655%2C139.33423
Cheers
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ause of the kerb, while a pedestrian lane doesn't.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
dewalk=lane.
Why not inventing something different for a different feature? :)
[1]: As well as some less useful values like "this" (156 uses!?),
"bad", "both;right", "right;none", "10" or "forest". :D
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 19:52, Jan Michel wrote:
>
> I also prefer this kind of tagging. I don't see a reason to invent a
> fully new tag for this - it is an area meant just for pedestrians just
> like a sidewalk. [...]
I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Switzerland vehicles are
allowed to d
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 18:14, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>
> In general, I don't think the definition of OSM keys should
> automatically duplicate all nuances of the English dictionary,
> especially ones that many non-native speakers will be unaware of.
It isn't a nuance of one English dictionary. I've
cycles
[3]: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/i-yuqBv2liMpsG4mWNyiew
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Hi everyone,
Following the recent discussion about pedestrian lanes (marked lanes
on a roadway, designated for pedestrians), i've now written a proposal
page for a new key pedestrian_lane=*:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pedestrian_lane
Best regards
M
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 at 22:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> currently your proposal is a description of the physical appearance of the
> feature, but for highways what is needed are usually functional and legal
> definitions. A cycleway is a way designated for bicycles, a motorway excludes
> sl
On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 at 20:37, Clifford Snow wrote:
>
> I like your proposal but think it needs to clarify the difference between a
> pedestrian lane and a shoulder [1]. In the US, most (many?) states allow
> pedestrians to walk on shoulders if there is no sidewalk/footway, with the
> exception o
rested to see a law discriminating particularly against
> pushing bicycles.
https://www.ansa.it/english/news/general_news/2016/10/25/venice-bans-pushing-bikes_e4ad7248-970e-49a8-b9a1-73efe5716101.html
And there are some elevators at the train station in Bern where it's
not allowed to take bi
On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 18:25, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> This a well-known (small) problem that from time to time turns up in OSM
> discussions. And then the discussion fizzles out again.
Which is also a well-known problem ...
I guess that bicycle=no almost always means that *driving* a bicycle
i
Otherwise, it seems to make sense to deprecate shop=ice_cream in
favour of the more used amenity=ice_cream.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 17:00, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Me neither. But that's a bit of a false dichotomy. It isn't just eat on
> premises or take home.
> There's also take away. As in an ice cream van on a fixed pitch. Rather
> common at the
> seaside. Or a kiosk selling only, or mainly,. ice
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 17:56, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> nitpick: tag is without underscore
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:takeaway
Sorry and thanks for correcting me!
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 18:21, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> However, shop=ice_cream says to take home, not to take away.
>
>
> Then the wiki is unclear and misleading. And it looks like somebody has
> taken an
> alread-misleading page, decided it was a synonym of amenity=ice_cream and then
> made it ev
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 11:55, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> Is there some consistent difference how
> this two tags are actually used?
Unfortunately i can't answer your question (too little
amenity=ice_cream and no shop=ice_cream around where i live), but i
just discovered that 349, that's 15.2%,
s
>
> A potentially helpful resource during these international comparisons:
> https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_towns/page05.cfm.
> The FHWA defines standards in the United States.
Thanks. The content of this page seems to be identical to t
On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 14:15, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 00:23, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>>
>> from the description, light meals aren’t a hard requirement, or it could be
>> seen as satisfied by selling cakes (or ice cream cups in the case of cuisine
>> =ice_cream):
>
> I
s and to indicate that these aren't steps or a sidewalk
anymore, but part of the carriageway of the road. Other mappers seem
to use this scheme too (already 743 uses and only every 7th is from
me).
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:footway%3Dlink
Best regards and a nice weekend to all of you
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
nk it's less useful to do so for footpaths or any path or road that
connects with another. But i probably wouldn't prevent people from
doing so.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
cles?
It seems we don't have one, but it may make sense to use
shop=utility_vehicle or something similar.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 02:48, John Willis via Tagging
wrote:
>
> I use “unmarked crossing” for all connections of sidewalks where they
> dead-end and have to be connected into the road.
If there's a second sidewalk or a pedestrian lane on the opposite side
of the road, this may make sense. But i
d_features/Pedestrian_lane
Definition: a marked lane on the roadway, designated for pedestrians
Thank you in advance for taking part in the vote.
Best regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
otway=link:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:footway%3Dlink
Definition: to link steps or a sidewalk with a road
Best regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 23:40, Allroads wrote:
>
> All waylines inside a area:highway=footway footway=sidewalk is a
> highway=footway footway=sidewalk
> When there is a connection to the road, inside the area:highway=footway,
> footwalk=sidewalk is till the barrier=kerb.
I'm unsure if this is a go
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 04:24, Clifford Snow wrote:
>
> First off I like this proposal and agree that it be applied more broadly.
> However there is a difference between a motorway=link (and similar) and a
> footway=link. A motorway=link is a physical feature unlike a footway=link. A
> footway=l
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 23:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Markus
>
> Will this fix the "error" of "Footpaths are disconnected from other roads"?
It may, but this really depends on the situation. Could you give me examples?
penstreetmap.org/way/416303537
Thanks you all for your feedback so far!
Best regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 13:54, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> the issue with steps being represented too long is not related to the
> proposal of adding a specific subtag. I generally map highway=steps only for
> the (approximated) actual projection of the steps (first to last riser of
> each st
an also be used by vehicles in order to make way for
oncoming traffic.
[1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/47.04825/8.30513
[2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/682152784
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
footways. [...]
Could you please give me some examples for these two points?
[1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/893450790
[2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/506223281
[3]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/518400616
Best regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ng them on the street way.
[2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/536404830
[3]:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=46.93737%2C7.44928%3B46.93757%2C7.44893
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
7;t really exist.
It is only used to connect the roads or paths to make routing
possible.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
need a
crossing node for the cycle lane as it is part of the carriageway of
Via Egidio Forcellini. This is different form the sidewalk that is
interrupted by the unnamed one-way road.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.or
bra crossing ... not the best example of accessible and safe
pedestrian infrastructure ...)
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ant.
Many thanks to the (unfortunately rather few) people who took part in the vote.
Best regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:06, Marc Gemis wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:36 PM Markus wrote:
> >
> > In my opinion, footway[:left/right]=lane isn't a good idea for the
> > following reasons: 1. footway=lane is a contradiction, as a lane (part
> > of a road/p
pedestrians
have priority over cyclists?), i think a separate tag like
foot_cycle_lane=left/right/both would make most sense.
Another possibility were pedestrian_lane:bicycle=designated, but this
would imply that a shared foot and cycle–lane is a subtype of a
pedestrian lane. I&#
enstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-December/041650.html
[2]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/041884.html
[3]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Taggin
there's no appropriate crossing tag for it: is it
> crossing=uncontrolled/marked, crossing=unmarked, or unset? All of them are
> inaccurate in some way or another, or ambiguous.
I agree that the part from the centre of the sidewalk to the kerb is a
part of the sidewalk, but ta
side road area
specifically (e.g. as footway=connection), but not the part of the
track inside the road area?
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
for acronyms. I think this makes sense because it doesn't give
these names more importance than other names in title case. By the
way, newspapers do the same.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.opens
can be found here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-November/thread.html#49311
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-December/thread.html#49527
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
gnized
> in the US. If you wrote Tcyb, I doubt most people would even recognize it. If
> written out, The Countries Best Yogurt, people probably would recognize it
> either. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2304474733 for an example.
TCBY is an
eway. The way from the right lateral end of the cycleway to the
centre of the sidewalk could be mapped as footway=link or, for
simplicity, you could extend the footway=crossing to that point.
(Tell me if this was unclear and you need a diagram.)
Regards
Markus
oth examples, the cycleway is physically separated from the
footway by a row of trees except at the crossing. Therefore mapping
them as separate ways makes sense.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
s or bicycle frames). What about
recycling:small_metal_items?
By the way, am i right that recycling:cans is for both tin and
aluminium cans (and thus implies recycling:aluminium)? Or is it only
for tin cans?
Wishing everyone a happy new year!
Best regards
Markus
_
rcar=*) on over 3 million amenity=parking
would be accepted.
As for the areas within a parking facility, we could use something
similar to building:part: for example amenity=parking_facility:part if
the parking facility is tagged amenity=parking_f
? designated
seems to be orthogonal to yes/no/private/customers/visitors....
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
the building=* way (also because
of inheritance to objects within), if entrances have their own
numbers, tag it on the entrance=* node.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
e: "Note that OSM follows
the On the Ground Rule. Names recorded in name=* tag are ones that are
locally used, especially ones typically signposted." [1]
For places where it's impossible to identify a local name, the name
tag should not have been filled out
es to red to allow or facilitate passage for the
bus or tram
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals
I'm going to adjust the documentation for the normal state of these
special case of traffic signals, as they may be off or blinking
yellow.
Regards
Markus
__
a
solution for parkings for multiple vehicle classes, i would recommend
to tag it as follows:
amenity=parking
access=no
bus=customers
hgv=customers
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
be how the
building looks, not how it is used. For example, a church that is now
used as a pub still remains a building=church.
Therefore, for a disused building, i'd leave the building=* tag and
add disused=yes. (The alternative tagging using lifecycle prefixes,
disused:building=*, isn't re
on businesses because it feels wrong;
either i remove them or i prefix them with was: . For example,
building=commercial + disused=yes on the area and was:shop=supermarket
+ name=* on a node within.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
%3Doil_mill
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
n,
My point was that the different uses of disused: and disused=yes may
not be as problematical ("tagging for the renderer") as they seem, but
that there seem to be valid reasons for it.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.
_fountain
* amenity=fountain
* man_made=water_well
* man_made=water_tap
* natural=spring
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
munity_fridge.
What do you think?
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Best regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
reusing facilities together
in amenity=reuse or similar, but with already 5,538 uses of
amenity=public_bookcase it's probably too late.
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
posed tags, we would need yet another one for non-cooled
> food, so this is a bad idea in my opinion.
>
> So, I suggest:
> amenity = give_box
> food = only
> refrigerated = yes
Not perfect, but way better than amenity=recycling or
amenity=
Thanks, Markus, for writing this proposal. I like the proposed tag.
Just two minor things regarding tags that can be used in combination:
- brand=* Optional. Name of the brand or network of the facility if
there is one visible. eg.
I would change this to network=* as it seems to fit better
no votes
> and ratio of yes to no votes.
+1 for option 1
Markus aka SelfishSeahorse
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
://www.parlament.ch/de/über-das-parlament/archiv/wahlen-im-rueckblick/bundesratswahlen/2019-12-11
Please excuse the confusion.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
office=public-safety_answering_point would probably fit better than
emergency=*. (In an emergency it might not help much to know where the
public-safety answering point is located.)
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 at 17:22, dktue wrote:
>
> I've been convinced that the office-key is a suitable place to put the tag.
On the other hand, i also understand your logic to put everything
emergency-related under the emergency=* key. ;-)
___
Tagging mai
inguish between embedded_rails=tram/railway/subway
and embedded_rails=yes probably is enough information. (By the way,
why did you leave out light_rail and narrow_gauge?)
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.op
uld double-tag fire stations amenity=fire_station +
emergency=fire_station. If enough people do the same, maybe one day be
don't need amenity=fire_station any more.)
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.op
Thank you, Mateusz and Colin, i haven't thought of curve radii and signalling.
By the way, i deliberately didn't mention the Bordeaux system because
it's uncommon and not a metro (but some kind of tram).
Regards
Markus
On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 at 20:46, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
&
1 - 100 of 384 matches
Mail list logo
