sent from a phone
> On 10. Jul 2020, at 13:33, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil.
> Wouldn't there always be some kind of vegetation within a year?
not if there isn’t water at all, or if it is heavily contaminated
Cheers Martin
sent from a phone
> On 10. Jul 2020, at 14:40, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> I'd imagine that pollution and erosion would result in a surface of mineral,
> rather than organic soil;
lack of water still remains a possibility. For small areas you can also imagine
so many people walking or driving o
IMHO this discussion is going offtopic as we generally do not map ownership. If
you want to dig deep into american legislation specifics only, it is not so
relevant for the international mailing list, because these things tend to work
differently in different countries.
Cheers Martin
sent from a phone
> On 10. Jul 2020, at 16:17, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> My use case isn't the only one that has issues with this sort of thing;
> routers can "see" more traffic lights than actually exist and can (so I hear,
> anyway) give directions that are potentially confusing.
this i
sent from a phone
> On 10. Jul 2020, at 21:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> I have to strongly disagree. Consider an intersection of dual carriageways
> (so, four intersection nodes) where signals are tagged on the intersection
> nodes.
that’s the problem, they should not be tagged on the in
sent from a phone
> On 11. Jul 2020, at 00:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> You then get the problem that customers are allowed to come in to the front
> counter / service / reception area, but the rest of the office / building is
> strictly staff only
I believe the distinction should be
sent from a phone
> On 11. Jul 2020, at 15:43, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> If ever we map
> everything in the world as a first approximation, then we can worry about
> second approximations.
actually you do not have to map everything in the world in a first
approximation in order to map details,
Someone has made a site relation for the Aurelian citywalls in Rome.
Does this make sense to you?
We‘re speaking of a generally linear object of many kilometers length, in parts
fragmented / interrupted.
Cheers Martin
sent from a phone
___
Tagging ma
sent from a phone
> On 12. Jul 2020, at 20:32, Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> The US has two national highway networks:
>
> * The Interstate Highway System, major high-speed roads connecting
> major cities.
> * The United States Numbered Highway System (commonly referred to as
> the "US Highways"),
sent from a phone
> On 12. Jul 2020, at 20:53, yo paseopor wrote:
>
> Big sense, nerver forget.
> What about that?
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6651797#map=11/52.5183/13.2976
it’s a type=collection though, not a site. And questionable in parts, as the
Berlin wall is often/som
sent from a phone
> On 12. Jul 2020, at 21:14, Taskar Center wrote:
>
> Why is the relation type on the Berlin Wall a “collection” rather than
> “boundary”?
it’s a collection of remaining traces of a boundary (which btw was never a
„line“ in the geometric sense, because there always was a
sent from a phone
> On 13. Jul 2020, at 00:11, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> I do consider a site relation a fitting approach for a city wall.
its use would also go against the wiki definition which states: „ This relation
is not to be used in cases where the element can be represented by one o
sent from a phone
> On 13. Jul 2020, at 05:59, Yves wrote:
>
> Why do you say "A site means things are concentrated around a point", sites
> relation helps to map disjoint elements, but I don't think I saw anything
> about their repartition.
it is my interpretation of the term “site” and a
sent from a phone
> On 13. Jul 2020, at 19:04, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> Reading the wiki versions, I would say the "site" relation is extremely
> vaguely defined.
>
> I would think we are free to make it something useful.
I agree
>
> At the risk of repeating myself, I believe there i
sent from a phone
> On 13. Jul 2020, at 22:36, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> The Atacama desert has many areas of bare sand and rock, but also some places
> with mixed stoney soil:
how would you map this? Are we going to map the voids? Usually in an area like
this I would expect that a ma
sent from a phone
> On 13. Jul 2020, at 23:16, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> As I understand it, it is soil. That is something.
sure, you could also spend a lifetime mapping rocks, and when you’re done, you
start mapping smaller rocks ;)
Cheers Martin
_
sent from a phone
> On 14. Jul 2020, at 16:55, Lionel Giard wrote:
>
> That's a bit of a stretch of the multipolygon definition as there is no inner
> ring.
sorry? The minimum requisite for a multipolygon is one outer ring. There must
not be inner rings or multiple outer rings. It is requi
sent from a phone
> On 14. Jul 2020, at 17:36, mbranco2 wrote:
>
> Unluckily it's only about part of Europe (from 62°N to 28°S, from 14°W to
> 29°E)
> The working scale of the project was 1/10, and the smallest mapping unit
> was 25 hectares.
thank you for mentioning significant speci
sent from a phone
> On 15. Jul 2020, at 00:49, Justin Tracey wrote:
>
> If the festival is held at some date expressible using the opening hours
> syntax, you could use the "open hours" tag[0] or add conditions to the
> "access" tags
I would not use opening_hours tag to represent the tempo
Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 01:40 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 23:44, Matthew Woehlke
> wrote:
>
> The multipolygon is just ammenity=parking, but the sub-objects are
>> tagged with more information (capacity, in particular). Again, is that
>> sane, or do I need to do this differ
Am Di., 14. Juli 2020 um 18:24 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :
> I suggested this as a helpful guide when defining tag values. I don't
> think it can be used one-to-one for OSM.
> Bare ground, BTW, can be found also the area covered by CORINE, as it
> includes the Sahara for example)
>
right, but i
Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:
> If you are interested in reading some interesting thoughts about landcover
> classification, there is the FAO landcover classification system, thought
> to be useful globally:
> http://ww
Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 10:03 Uhr schrieb Lionel Giard <
lionel.gi...@gmail.com>:
> In the parking example that i talk about, the multipolygon is not usable
> if i want to indicate the specificity of each part of the parking lot like
> capacity or capacity:disabled (as the tagging is global for e
sent from a phone
> On 15. Jul 2020, at 16:17, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> On 15/07/2020 03.33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> Also you should not have 2 objects amenity=parking which cover the same
>> area (regardless of additional tags).
>
> Do you mean having th
sent from a phone
> On 16. Jul 2020, at 16:29, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> If I remove it from the areas, however, at least iD no longer thinks they are
> parking lots.
I am not sure about iD because I use it rarely, but some years ago it did
manage to make sense of multipolygon relations,
sent from a phone
> On 18. Jul 2020, at 20:42, Alan Mackie wrote:
>
> The closest I can find on the wiki is manhole=drain?
but this is for manholes, not suitable for small grates where a person can not
enter.
Cheers Martin
___
Tagging mailing li
sent from a phone
> On 22. Jul 2020, at 11:07, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> bicycle_pushed=no was suggested in previous discussion, see
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-November/thread.html#49056
and then you would also need
bicycle_carried=no
and
bicyc
sent from a phone
> On 22. Jul 2020, at 10:36, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> I would go with farmland, orchard, vineyard and not even consider indicating
> any rotation of crops.
+1, these are also those that I distinguish, because annually sown crops are
subject to frequent changes, while you
Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 11:34 Uhr schrieb bkil :
> I think the core idea behind such a restriction is that people only want
> to go to that park for walking around (no cross-traffic), and pushing the
> bike for half an hour doesn't make much sense and allowing people to push
> bikes around would
Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 11:48 Uhr schrieb bkil :
> I have yet to see a park where they limit the size of luggage I can carry
> with me (within rational limits).
>
> I think local law always defines what a bicycle is exactly. I don't think
> that they have the right to search your box to check whe
Am Di., 21. Juli 2020 um 21:39 Uhr schrieb pangoSE :
> Andy Townsend skrev: (21 juli 2020 13:31:45 CEST)
> >On 21/07/2020 12:04, Michal Fabík wrote:
>
> >
> >I've also been trying to add these (both guideposts and route markers)
> >to the relevant hiking route relation.
>
> That does not sound ri
Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 17:27 Uhr schrieb Tod Fitch :
> It certainly would not be my pick of terms, but it seems manhole=drain has
> an appropriate definition in the wiki [1] and considerable use [2] for a
> place that water disappears into a man made structure. Most of them around
> here are not
sent from a phone
> On 22. Jul 2020, at 17:10, pangoSE wrote:
>
> I suggest you add the guidepost to a node on the path instead.
I am mapping guideposts rather rarely, when I do it, I place them on their
actual position, sometimes on building outlines, or on retaining walls, or just
flying
Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 21:11 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke <
mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>:
> I've seen some parking lots that have spaces specifically for
> motorcycles (i.e. that are not large enough for cars), although the lot
> as a whole is mixed-use. Is there no "direct" way to tag this (somethi
sent from a phone
> On 22. Jul 2020, at 22:42, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> why do we have capacity:disabled, or indeed capacity:*, rather than modeling
> those spaces as separate lots?
because different mappers have different preferences. For disabled parking
spaces I would also prefer havi
sent from a phone
> On 22. Jul 2020, at 22:51, bkil wrote:
>
> bicycle=no is usually used on busy motorways where dismounting isn't feasible:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C14.svg
>
> On such a road, a bicycle router should only offer to dismount if the roa
sent from a phone
> On 23. Jul 2020, at 21:36, Jmapb wrote:
>
> As I see it, having bicycle=no imply permission to push a dismounted bicycle
> violates the principle of least surprise because it's inconsistent with other
> *=no access tags. I wouldn't presume I could push my car along a
> m
sent from a phone
> On 23. Jul 2020, at 21:31, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> ...and what if we're mapping spaces? I'm not sure I'm on board with dividing
> things which are logically "one parking lot"
if there is no name, what makes a parking space logically one lot?
Cheers Martin
_
sent from a phone
> On 24. Jul 2020, at 22:53, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>
> The date when you last checked a shop's opening hours it is a fact. But
> opinions on how often one should revisit a shop to check the opening
> hours again may vary a lot between mappers.
on the other hand the check dat
sent from a phone
> On 24. Jul 2020, at 16:18, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
>>> ...and what if we're mapping spaces? I'm not sure I'm on board with
>>> dividing things which are logically "one parking lot"
>> if there is no name, what makes a parking space logically one lot?
>
> Consisting of one
sent from a phone
> On 25. Jul 2020, at 20:28, Jo wrote:
>
> In Antwerpen there is a bus that you can only take, as a cyclist, so
> accompanied by a bicycle
+1, in the German town of Tübingen there was also such a Bus which brought
cyclists up the hill (it is suspended for many years now I
Am Do., 23. Juli 2020 um 15:53 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :
> Careful with "access".
> access=customers on an office building would imply you can drive into this
> building with any means of transport, provided you are a customer.
>
no, this does not seem to make sense. When there is a highway=f
sent from a phone
> On 27. Jul 2020, at 13:41, Michael Montani wrote:
>
> I eventually found on-the-ground images of the feature I would like to
> propose / map.
are these suggested to be represented as polygons? How would the border be
determined? I looks from the imagery as if there is a
sent from a phone
> On 27. Jul 2020, at 17:20, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but may be still correct if it is
> leading to
> only vacation huts)
these would be highway=service not track.
Cheers Martin
___
sent from a phone
> On 27. Jul 2020, at 21:56, Rob Savoye wrote:
>
> I assume if the highway has no name, it'd be highway=service, but if
> it has a county name, like "Lost Gulch Road" too, wouldn't it then be
> highway=residential?
that’s how I would see it as well
Cheers Martin
sent from a phone
> On 28. Jul 2020, at 07:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> As result, in initial stages something
> used solely as a driveway to a single
> house will be already named with
> it's own street name.
I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the pro
Am Di., 28. Juli 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
>
> I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the property as
> residential (eventually as service) and the part on private grounds as
> service+driveway. Never use the driveway tag
sent from a phone
> On 28. Jul 2020, at 19:26, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> Uh... IIUC, "public" driveways are just fine. A driveway is a minor service
> road leading to a residential *or business* property. I've tagged plenty of
> things that aren't really "roads" (entrances to parking lots,
sent from a phone
> On 28. Jul 2020, at 19:54, Kevin Broderick wrote:
>
> The homeowner now maintains the driveway (or sometimes more than one
> homeowner maintains a shared driveway), but the right-of-way remains open to
> the public, even beyond the regularly maintained driveway.
if you
sent from a phone
> On 30. Jul 2020, at 00:03, Clifford Snow wrote:
>
> The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in height. Your
> definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or equal to 10cm
when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something like
25-40c
sent from a phone
> On 29. Jul 2020, at 18:50, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> Do we really not have a way to tag *platforms*?
only for public transport, otherwise you could tag them with highway=pedestrian
and area=yes
Cheers Martin
___
Tagging mai
sent from a phone
> On 26. Jul 2020, at 23:58, ael wrote:
>
> Adding such source tags to a changeset seldom makes sense.
> Most of my changesets are a mixture of local knowledge, surveys, gps,
> photographic and video. I even occasionally use satellite imagery...
> So the source data needs to
sent from a phone
> On 30. Jul 2020, at 02:17, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
> You have to consider the purpose of the tag. To a wheelchair user,
> there might not be a lot of practical difference between 25 and 10 cm,
> because both are impassable.
wheelchair users are not the only addressee of
sent from a phone
> On 30. Jul 2020, at 10:39, ael wrote:
>
> often without survey, and then do not update the source, so
> that tag becomes completely misleading.
that’s what happens all the time. When I edit things that already have a source
tag (generally source=Bing) I am removing it,
sent from a phone
> On 30. Jul 2020, at 14:04, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> To me as a citizen of a EU country it does not feel like the EU is a
> higher-level administrative body than the country. Yes, countries have
> decided to contractually transfer some rights and responsibilities to
> the EU
sent from a phone
> On 30. Jul 2020, at 14:41, Alan Mackie wrote:
>
> To me pooling resources does not generate a higher level entity, it
> rearranges existing ones. If the EU does become the "final decider" across
> all branches of government, then to me it becomes the admin_level=2 entity
sent from a phone
> On 30. Jul 2020, at 13:42, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> The best I could come up with, given that it described itself as part orchard,
> was landuse=orchard. If we ever come up with a more appropriate tag I'll
> change it
there’s no principal problem with using undocumented tag
Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes <
p...@trigpoint.me.uk>:
> when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something like
> 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised”
>
> At that height even a fit able bodied person would need to think about
> cros
Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 13:16 Uhr schrieb ael :
> Only because, as you say, the source tag is misused. I admit that
> extending tags is not very widely done,
like it or not, this is what makes the whole concept dysfunctional in
practise. Maybe it's time to change habits ;-)
> and some peopl
Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 17:13 Uhr schrieb Alan Mackie :
> This is why I suggested that the more practical solution would probably be
> to re-tag all existing admin_level=2 with admin_level=1 except for the EU
> ones as there are far fewer elements to be updated. Arbitrarily deciding
> that the EU
sent from a phone
> On 31. Jul 2020, at 11:34, joost schouppe wrote:
>
> I think that is a good idea. Even if the "form" is not really orchard-like,
> the "function" absolutely is. And the key is already in use and documented.
I think I would rather see these as kind of garden, with appropr
sent from a phone
> On 31. Jul 2020, at 18:25, Jmapb wrote:
>
> But most of the ways in the route have no valid name. Segments were
> imported from TIGER with name=State Highway 214 but that's been removed
> in favor of ref=NY 214.
around here we keep both, no need to remove the name if it m
sent from a phone
> On 31. Jul 2020, at 18:01, Jan Michel wrote:
>
> I'm not familiar with French rules, but is it the actual weight or the
> allowed total weight of the vehicle that matters? If it's the latter, you can
> use 'weightrating' instead of 'weight'.
shouldn’t that be „maxweight
sent from a phone
> On 31. Jul 2020, at 21:31, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> Name is only the name. Names are not refs. For the above example, ref=NY
> 214, noname=yes would be the right way.
the authority for names are the local people. I would bet that some of them
would refer to this partic
sent from a phone
> On 1. Aug 2020, at 09:08, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> Please revert this wiki change.
> The kerb hight values have been used in at least one project documenting
> wheelchair accessibility.
I have reverted the edits now, please create a proposal for edits like this,
that
sent from a phone
> On 1. Aug 2020, at 09:39, Supaplex wrote:
>
> I felt that this list more agreed rather than opposed.
bring it to voting.
Cheers Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listi
sent from a phone
> On 1. Aug 2020, at 12:36, Supaplex wrote:
>
> I wrote a proposal for it:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/kerb%3Dregular
>
> How should I proceed - can I already set the status to "Proposed"? Do I have
> to write a separate email for RFC or is this
sent from a phone
> On 1. Aug 2020, at 11:28, Jan Michel wrote:
>
> The access tag is 'maxweightrating' like 'maxweight' or 'maxheight'. In the
> value of conditional tags there is no 'max' because there we refer to actual
> values and not limits. We use 'weight', 'height' and hence also
>
sent from a phone
> On 1. Aug 2020, at 15:27, Jan Michel wrote:
>
> General terminology point of view:
> As I understand it, the term 'rating' already refers to the allowed limit.
> Note that it's called 'gross weight rating', but not 'maximum gross weight
> rating'.
I guess the “gross” pa
sent from a phone
> On 1. Aug 2020, at 16:21, Jan Michel wrote:
>
>> which implies empty mass plus maximum mass of payload.
>
>
> No, "gross" refers to the German "Gesamt" as in "total weight of vehicle,
> driver and load". The precise translation of "gross weight" is
> "Bruttogewicht" or
sent from a phone
> On 1. Aug 2020, at 16:57, Jan Michel wrote:
>
> Sorry for not being more clear: There is no connotation of a "maximum" or
> "allowable limit" in neither the English nor the German term.
> "gross weight" or "Gesamtgewicht" is just the current total weight, without
> any st
sent from a phone
> On 1. Aug 2020, at 17:20, Alan Mackie wrote:
>
> I don't know how I'd map this. Do you have to pass through border checkpoints
> when you enter or leave the area?
around here, no, but neither are there border checkpoints at the border of the
main territory, you just wa
sent from a phone
> On 2. Aug 2020, at 03:55, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Much easier to tag the numerical height of the curb as this avoids the
> confusion of words, particularly with different languages, cultures and
> climates.
this would require a lot of measurements, while
sent from a phone
> On 2. Aug 2020, at 09:01, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> Also, seriously, no offense to Croatia, the only place in the world not
> hostile to Americans that US passports are still accepted.
I don’t see it as hostility, it’s reasonable precautions, of temporary nature...
Cheer
sent from a phone
> On 2. Aug 2020, at 10:19, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> service=parking seems like a good idea
> to me
too generic for me, also not suitable where the road is not just for the
parking.
Proposal: service=access_collector
Cheers Martin
_
sent from a phone
> On 2. Aug 2020, at 11:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Sorry, means nothing, at least to me?
it’s meant to be a coined word for an access road that leads to more access
roads, that collects different or multiple kind of access roads, in short a
more important access ro
sent from a phone
> On 2. Aug 2020, at 12:30, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> If you consider that incorrect you also have to ask yourself if you draw
> the same conclusion for natural=bay and natural=strait polygons:
didn’t you argue some time ago that natural=bay should only be placed as nod
sent from a phone
> On 3. Aug 2020, at 00:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>>
>> So what all these have in common is that they are not public roads not
>> intended for through-traffic. They are all on private/public properties.
>> So maybe they could be summarized under service=property, with
sent from a phone
> On 3. Aug 2020, at 02:15, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The point is that a 'normally expected curb' may be a considerable obstacle
> to a wheelchair person. And the purpose of this tagging is to indicate
> wheelchair access difficulties.
wheelchair users are
sent from a phone
> On 3. Aug 2020, at 06:09, David Dean wrote:
>
> On the main parking road, I think we are largely in agreement that
> service=parking would be a good addition to OSM documentation (and is already
> in use throughout the world, as such).
if we need a specific service sub
Am Mo., 3. Aug. 2020 um 11:06 Uhr schrieb Tom Pfeifer <
t.pfei...@computer.org>:
> Possibilities discussed were:
>
> service=parking_access
> service=main
> service=access
> service=major
apart "access", all of these seem better than "parking". My preference
would go to the more neutral "main"
sent from a phone
> On 3. Aug 2020, at 22:10, Tod Fitch wrote:
>
> Looking at wikipedia, it seems that “storm drain” is used in the UK, Canada
> and the US [1]. And there is an “inlet” [2] associated with it. What are the
> opinions using:
>
> storm_drain = inlet
I would suggest to use an
sent from a phone
> On 3. Aug 2020, at 23:57, Jmapb wrote:
>
> The official postal version of the street name may be tagged as
> `official_name`;
IMHO official_name is not a suitable tag for an officially unnamed road with an
official postal name. At least not around here, where streets get
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2020, at 09:59, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Has this been used in other votes in the past?
the instructions have always stated that opposing votes should explain why they
are against it. In practice this is not a significant hurdle, because many
reasons go like
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2020, at 14:16, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> Almost all of the arguments you bring up here are cultural or political
> in nature.
Christoph, I guess it could be seen from looking at the email headers or when
reading in a threaded view, but for the convenience
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2020, at 11:16, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> It might actually be better to introduce the opposite rule - that
> yes-votes need to explain why they are willing to dismiss sustained
> critical voices in the discussion.
This is a good point, and it is also alrea
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2020, at 11:44, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>
> Frederik asks, "was our voting process changed recently", to which I believe
> the answer is, "yes, abstentions are no longer included in the count"
The “new” process is also flawed, as a no vote can bring a proposal to
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2020, at 17:24, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> Looking at the Phillipines and Indonesia, the baseline has very little
> relation to the physical geographical tide lines, since it merely connects
> the outer edges of islands in the archipelago.
>
> Similarly, in Ur
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2020, at 18:30, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> The status of the Gulf of Taranto is disputable as it appears to have no
> basis in international law.
it is indeed disputed by the UK, the US and maybe others, but according to the
Italian baseline it is completely in It
Am Mi., 5. Aug. 2020 um 23:21 Uhr schrieb Mike Thompson :
>
> However, access=yes is a pretty broad statement. There may be modes of
> transport not yet contemplated (or which the mapper, and even the land
> manager is not aware of) which in the future will be prohibited.
>
+1, "access=*" is a
sent from a phone
> On 6. Aug 2020, at 23:18, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> Using access tags access=yes/access=customers/access=private - it is
> not entirely clear. And in many cases place clearly offers customer
> service but nearly all office is still closed to outsiders. Sti
sent from a phone
> On 6. Aug 2020, at 22:54, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> - To codify / make official the de-facto parking_space=disabled
that’s almost 22k uses, it is already established and voting yes or no will not
change it
> - To allow mapping motorcycle parking as part of a unified p
sent from a phone
> On 7. Aug 2020, at 17:57, Jan Michel wrote:
>
> I propose to not introduce new top-level keys because they are not flexible
> enough. I'm very well aware that we have parking, bicycle_parking and
> motorcycle_parking already, but it just doesn't scale with the amount of
sent from a phone
> On 7. Aug 2020, at 19:12, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> I feel like a data consumer unable to deal with access tagging is already
> broken in advance.
although we already use access like tags for parkings it should be noted that
being allowed to access is different to being a
sent from a phone
> On 7. Aug 2020, at 20:14, Jan Michel wrote:
>
> It might be useful to have two different top-level amenity tags for parking
> lots for large and small vehicles, but not one tag for every type of vehicle.
I would say it depends on the kind of parkings that are to be mappe
sent from a phone
> On 7. Aug 2020, at 14:51, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
>> that’s almost 22k uses, it is already established and voting yes or no will
>> not change it
>
> Well, yes, voting "no" is probably not useful, but this is also the least
> "interesting" bit of the proposal. The purpo
sent from a phone
> On 7. Aug 2020, at 15:47, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> However, it sounds like you have this backwards; you are using
> amenity=parking_space to map lots and amenity=parking to map individual
> spaces. There appears to be a modest amount of such backwards mapping, and it
>
I still believe shop=bubble_tea is suitable, as these are specific shops where
you can get only bubble tea. Although bubble tea is something to drink, I would
rather think of it as a specific kind of sweets, than as a shop where you can
get a beverage.
Amenity could also be suitable, if you pref
sent from a phone
> On 7. Aug 2020, at 15:51, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> I don't see what's not clear about access=* overriding all access not
> explicitly set.
+1, and that‘s also the reason why it should not be used
Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mail
sent from a phone
> On 8. Aug 2020, at 13:46, Jan Michel wrote:
>
> If I just enter 'scooter parking' into Google Image Search, I find plenty
> examples of designated parking areas for both bicycles and scooters combined.
> There are also some moped/mofa parkings that allow (kick-)scooters t
201 - 300 of 6546 matches
Mail list logo
