On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Daniel Herding wrote:
> Hallo everyone!
> There are many restaurants etc. that close their kitchen early in the
> evening. Afterwards, you can no longer order hot food, only drinks and cold
> snacks. Similarly, at some restaurants the kitchen opens at noon, but yo
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Amanda wrote:
> hello!
> new here. don't know if it's the right place to address this issue, sorry if
> i'm mistaken..
> my suggestion is: MAN MADE should be called HUMAN MADE
I think in this context, the reference to MAN is referring to the
human individual as re
I installed the Garmin OSM map for my area and have been using it while I
drive around locally. The one thing I've noticed is that there is a lot of
inconsistency in how streets that cross divided roadways are named.
For example:
http://osm.org/go/Wpz_F8RFl-
Note Sunset Blvd on the left and Cry
I'm slowly filling in the local "mega-retail complex" near me:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.82432&lon=-97.20558&zoom=17&layers=B000FTF
Its a pretty large area, and there are a load of businesses and shops
within the area. All of the roads in the area are for the commercial
development onl
On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:55:10 +0200, Pieren wrote:
> What inevitable ?. I think that drawing sidewalks is silly and waste of
> time. Let say that 99.99% of the unclassified and residential roads can
be
> walked on both sides, why should we draw the sidewalks everywhere ? It
> would
> be more clever
> +1. Micromapping may be "on the rise", but that doesn't mean it's
> necessarily a good thing. I'd still like to see a means of specifying,
on
> administrative boundaries, tags that are to be assumed (inherited) by
> contained objects (e.g. sidewalk=yes, surface=paved, lanes=2,
maxspeed=25
>
On Thu, 6 May 2010 12:37:10 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> +1, nice.
> cheers,
> Martin
It definitely shows how incredibly pedestrian-unfriendly these big
suburban box store "malls" are. There are buildings in a sea of parking
lots. Lol.
Tyler
___
Tag
I was using the OSM maps for my city on my Garmin recently and when I
listed the "parking" POIs I noticed a whole slew of parking showing up in
there; mainly "unnamed".. It got me thinking why those are in there but
then it dawned on me that in my area I've started adding in the parking
lots and
> From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parking:
> "The distinction between public parking lots, customer parking lots
> (such as at cinemas etc.), and private parking lots (such as for staff
> in a business park) is handled with access=* tags."
> To me, reading that directly that would seem to
> I was thinking access=destination although then you need to link the
> parking lot to the destination, although you probably would for
> access=customer as well since you might need to know where to spend
> money, or window shop, to be considered a customer.
I like this; access=destination defi
> Access=private works fine, then (along with access=public
> andaccess=permissive). Preferably with an additional tag (or relation)
> withsome indication of who is allowed to park there.
> Maybe access=customer isn't needed after all.
How about something like:
access=private
permitted=patron/pe
> Agreed, although the situations in which it's not so clear are the ones
> where OSM could really get an advantage over the competition. So many
> times
> I'm directed by Google Maps to a location quite a distance away from the
> parking lot I'm trying to get to. It's especially annoying when t
> Rather than permitted=*, why not use parking_use=*? That would then be
> consistent with your proposed relation. Though "permitted" is more
> general and might be able to be generalised to other features...
Or perhaps something like "permitted_parkers"; I don't think there's
anything wrong with
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 15:47:14 +1000, John Smith
wrote:
> I've penned some initial thoughts on what to do about Object ID
Permanence
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/UUID
Hi John,
Being a programmer I understand what a UUID is and have used them many
times.
I am, however, cur
roach of just marking
the landuse using this data is sufficient.
Opinions?
Tyler
--
--
Tyler Gunn
ty...@egunn.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> A way to do this would be to map any fence lines marking the boundaries.
That's a possibility. Though I have no way to be sure where the fences
extend to in the front half of the properties. Probably not worth it now
that I think of it.
> Have you checked it for accuracy? The DCDBLite data
> Why shouldn't it? Probably depends on the situation, but if the occur
> on an object that we generally tag with waterway, it should be clear.
> This technique was already used in ancient Rome for special parts of
> aqueducts (where they had to bypass an obstacle). Aren't they a kind
> of culvert
etmap.org/browse/relation/1438875
Here you can see that the neighborhood label renders much smaller
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.81031&lon=-97.16204&zoom=15&layers=M
I'm inclined to think that example Two is more correct, but I have to say I
like the larger more prominent labels of Exam
are civic recognized sub-areas and neighbourhoods of my city, often times
with varying land uses within. I don't think the landuse=* is appropriate. I
see how the example you're shown works though; I can just see it getting ugly
as you can't characterize the landuse of an entire sec
things too.
Ultimately for display purposes it's one thing, but I'd like these
relations/boundaries to be useful and unambiguous when it comes to determining
where a particular location is.
Thanks,
Tyler
--
Tyler Gunn
ty...@egunn.com
http://www.egunn.com/
You say: "A place for children to do homework, play and spend time
otherwise after school."
The "after school" part is inaccurate as day care centers are often a
place children go to during the day while their parents work.
Some other considerations:
- Type:
- centers: larger in size, with multi
21 matches
Mail list logo
