Andre, good post. I like the idea that entries be dated. Like you, i see
problems with using the word "survey". In this context, could mean two things.
Maybe the simplest would be date= ???
Or current= ???
Like you, i'd strongly recommend ISO date format.
David
.
Andr
rcastic attempt to show the tag is about as good as it can get.
Now, having said that, i don't use the tag because the names used are
"horrible". Firstly, "smoothness" itself is not the only issue and the values
?? I live on a road I'd have to call very bad ? No wa
clear, the pictures look about right to me.
David
.
Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
>On 11.03.2015 17:29, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
>> Perhaps we can extend the library of pictures in the wiki to give people a
>> better feeling which rating means what.
>
>I agree that work on the pi
desk is just
an amenity, you book in there, pay a fee, complain. The reception desk itself
has no tourism function.
David
.
Andreas Labres wrote:
>Sorry, but amenity= is the wrong key. Should be tourism= IMHO.
>
>/al
>
>___
>Tag
ription and
treat the photos as eye candy. That part is already pretty good.
David
.
Martin Vonwald wrote:
>2015-03-12 10:36 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>> I believe that the main problem are the value names. If these were called
>> grade1 to grade8 many more peo
on the matter until I could
usefully contribute myself and have bookmarked a few pages but got no
further.
That might be the real question.
David
.
"Shawn K. Quinn" wrote:
>On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 20:14 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:21 PM, joh
verse
the road.
So, questions, for better values, numerical or verbal ?
Is it acceptable for a tag to have two, parallel sets of values, why not ?
If we can get past there, we can then look for more descriptive sets of
words
David
.
Janko Mihelić wrote:
>I think this should be resolve
rticular noteworthy sites within that
area could be specificialy mapped.
David
.
Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>Two issues I think the proposal should address:
>
>1) Use separate tagging for a place you can park a caravan or car overnight
>(as per your example),
>compared to a place you
rd based values. Happy with either. So
i will start a new thread to flush out who does.
David
.
Martin Vonwald wrote:
>Hi!
>
>2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David :
>
>> > No, numeric values are not a good choice - really not. I also don't like
>> the values
every case, assume we can/will have
a good description behind each value. Or not ?
It might also be worthwhile indicating how strong you feel about your choice.
I'd prefer #1, #3 then, if i must, #2. 2 assumes too much about what makes the
road difficult.
David
.
Martin Vonwald wrote:
&g
s and charge no or a nominal fee;"
David
.
johnw wrote:
>I added some comments to the discussion page -
>
>I would like another value of camp site added - a trekking campsite.
>
>There needs to be a very hard separation between a spot where camping is
>“suggested” (p
nners when editing existing data too.
David
.
Richard Welty wrote:
>this is a summary of previous discussion on newbies & talk-us
>
>we have an ongoing, persistent problem with armchair mappers
>"correcting" the map to match out of date aerial imagery. i just
>had t
Hello,
My name is David, and I'm a novel user. I find OpenStreetMap really
interesting. My user in OpenStreetMap is dlv3.
I'm sourveying my little village. I'm trying to tag a "Olive Oil
Factory"(I'm not a english speaker, ¿is this name corre
Hello,
My name is David, and I'm a novel user. I find OpenStreetMap really
interesting. My user in OpenStreetMap is dlv3.
I'm sourveying my little village. I'm trying to tag a "Olive Oil
Factory"(I'm not a english speaker, ¿is this name corre
Hello again,
Thanks a lot to Eric Gillet, John Willis, Warin Mateusz Konieczny,
Volker Schmidt, Martin Koppenhoefer for replying me. It has been really
helpful to have good practises.
Regards
David Lopez Villegas
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
service=? (not just service=parking) tagging
and start the formal RFC process.
Thanks for your feedback, everyone.
- David
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
o.eu/s/WGY), and looks like it has been used in that
general 'access to facilities on a larger property/campus' sense.
For example: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WGZ.
- David
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 08:31, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 3. Aug 2020
a new established usage, how about
service=main_access ?
Happy to hear everyone's thoughts here, and I hope to get something we can
vote on on the wiki soon.
- David
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 21:43, Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
> On 03/08/2020 19.56, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Au
o the position of the coastline on 1 January
2020.
2) Any edit which moved the position of the coastline by more than 20Km
from the established position should be classed as vandalism, unless
such movement had previously been agreed by the community.
David
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
n agreed by the
OSM community.
This modification primarily allows for the continuing improvement of the PGS
import without needlessly seeking prior approval in each instance
David
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/
___
Ta
See comments below:
David
-- Original Message --
From: "Eric H. Christensen via Tagging"
To: "tagging@openstreetmap.org"
Cc: "Eric H. Christensen"
Sent: 18/11/2020 20:19:51
Subject: [Tagging] coastline v. water
After a few days of much work, a recent
Hello, there.
My question is simple: how do we tag such things? The
boundary=forest_compartment relation is not rendered, and what is rendered is
tagging as landuse=forest both the forest and its parcels, which leads to
rendering it twice, as you can see here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/rel
There may be a misunderstanding here: what I mean about forest parcels is a
piece of forest which is numbered and whose number is displayed on site, with a
plate or a painted text. Such data can be useful for orientation in a forest
and, until some years ago, these numbers were displayed on maps
Mateusz,
The first thing is that this tagging scheme is mainly used in Poland, so that
sounded like a local, not widely approved, tagging scheme.
The second thing, which is the real problem to me, is that I don't see how to
link these with the forest, as a parcel number is valid only in a given
Hello, there.
All is in the title: when hiking in a forest (I mean, an area considered as a
forest by authorities), I often encounter other landcovers, like scrubs in
recently teared down parcels, or scree in the mountains. These area, although,
clearly and morphologically, not a forest, are st
Paul,
Your landuse=forestry proposal seems good to me: it is clear enough, and the
transition process you describe here seems consistent with what I know about
such transitions which already happened. If I understand you, the main problem
for landuse=forestry is to include it in the standard st
Hello, there.
I mapped a forest made of several pieces of woodland, some contiguous and some
isolated, with differents leaf_types. I mapped this
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9393253) with a landuse=forest
multipolygon, with common tags such as name and operator on the relation, and
Hello, there.
I hope this will not start a flamewar: I noticed that, despite being widely
used, ref=* is not rendered for landuse=forest. I assumed this was used for
parcel (compartment) numbers, as this tag seems to fit the definition of a
parcel number; nevertheless, I saw on a Github issue
Hello, there.
I recently worked a bit on hiking routes, and noticed that some routes have
unordered members. That's particularly noticeable on waymarkedtrails.org, as it
makes the elevation graph rubbish and useless. I read the relation:route wiki
page, but there is only advice regarding stops
Which one? Link?
There were a few.
On 24 May 2018, at 10:05, "Stefan K." wrote:
I found a wiki for 3d-tagging, is that a proposal? Can i tag using
theses suggestet tags?
Unfortunately i could not find a 3d-mailinglist so i thought i mayb
try it here. The 3d section in the forum seems not to
What is the best way to specify the maximum weight when a sign specifies
different weights for different axle counts?
The situation in question is here:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/VMM_wbgzcm1jFm_APKhQww
For those who cannot see the image, the sign says
: WEIGHT LIMIT
: 2 axle - 10
Hello, there.
Is highway=motorway_junction also applicable to non-motorway roads? There are
primary, secondary… roads where there are exits, but can these be tagged with
this one?
Awaiting your answers,
Regards.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@op
1
À : Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Objet : Re: [Tagging] highway=motorway_junction : what about primary, secondary
or tertiary ways?
It is commonly used on non-motorway grade separated junctions. So the answer is
yes.
Phil (trigpoint)
On 12 July 2018 07:34:06 BST, David Marchal wrote:
Hello, there.
All is in the title: when access to a road is restricted to military, as it is
running through a base, should I tag it access=private or access=military? The
first gives the right restriction, but the second is more precise, although not
documented (about 1.8k uses according to t
hese are "coastlines" .
David
Further west, I moved the administrative boundary off of the coastline
of internal waterways, positioning it near the low water line /
baseline, because I believe this is closer to the official Indonesian
definition for Kabupaten (admin level 6) boundar
- if you can
please tell us the operator, how many bedrooms", etc) and so on - rather
than embedding this knowledge separately and independently and often
differently in every program that works with OSM.
David
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ity in the face of rapid and anarchic change.
Can I suggest people look at by TagCentral proposal from SOTM10, slides
and video linked from here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SotM_2010_session:_Tag_Central:_a_Schema_for_OSM
where I thought about this in quite some
ch a way that people are warned and not put in danger. I would be
happy to support and sensible trigger tag. Except, perhaps, smoothness=,
I will not describe the pretty little road I live on as "horrible" !
David
___
Tagging mailing list
T
, is =dirt
better than =earth ? Badly maintained =compacted can be far worse than
=dirt sometimes, pot holes (as we call there here) can be unexpected and
dangerous at speed. There are so many legal values
David
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@o
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 22:57 -0200, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> Welcome, David. If you've just been advised about this discussion, you
> may wish to read it from the start:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Tags-useful-for-rendering-of-roads-in-poor-conditions-td5791303.html
&g
e tags are already used, in huge numbers.
Now, BGNO, if trafficability is going to fly, we'll need a better view
of the possible values, thoughts ?
David
On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 09:27 +0100, BGNO BGNO wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I am proposing a new
> key: http://wiki.openstreet
roach where they talk about a "reason person's view". For a
normal road, thats someone driving a conventional car. For a mountain
bike track, its someone riding a mountain bike
Fernando pointed out that to make a truly objective assessment, we'd
need many more tags and some elab
amily issues...
david
On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 17:07 +1100, David Bannon wrote:
> OK, this discussion is huge and conducted in a great manner.
>
> But being so huge, I feel lost ! So, here is an attempt to summarize
> where we are and what the options seems to be. Maybe by identifying
Oh, dave and all others ! So sorry, I did not include a link !
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Davo
Sigh
David
On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 20:12 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> @David - where is the summary located exactly? I reckon I need a
> specific link to "your&
y close to what you are
asking. Maybe you would like to chip in ? These things always work a bit
better if you have a lot of people around you
David
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 12:29 +0100, BGNO BGNO wrote:
> I don't think it is in general possible to derive the trafficability
> inform
I will add on your behalf.
David
On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 21:12 +1100, David Bannon wrote:
> OK folks, I have moved a draft summary of the discussion on this topic
> to my OSM wiki discussion page. Anyone with OSM Wiki credentials is
> welcome to edit it to try and make the choices c
ded and made
dome shaped (as the Roman's taught us) is "made" - usually an easy
drive. Some drivers get nervous on unmade roads as they develop pot
holes much quicker and the surface can deliver "surprises".
So I suggest 'dirt', 'earth' and 'ground&#x
h road experience. However,
this approach is seen as 'subjective', a serious crime ...
Sigh...
David
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Atracktype&diff=1002090&oldid=992679
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMap_Fea
;ll agree to an OK one if its all I
can get. I want to badger the renderers to take note of the state of a
road before someone gets killed using an OSM map. Its only a matter of
time.
David
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
bly required.
8. This is silly, a heavily modified 4wd is necessary. Take a film crew.
All right, just a bit tongue in cheek but you see what I mean.
David
On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 12:14 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> Yes, I agree firmness works better than stiffness for describing a
> surface. I
rack type scale goes from 1 to 5, there is no such
> thing as a grade6
Indeed. What I said was I believe there should be 6,7 and 8. There is already a
small number of =grade6 in the database.
David
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@open
described in tracktype= . There are many other
roads, world wide, often quite important ones, that are beyond grade5.
David
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ng on roads smoothness=very_horrible.
Just like 'softness' does not cover all issue, neither does
'smoothness'. smoothness= has a very good set of values and is well
documented but not well used because of the name, smoothness, is
incomplete and the values just a little offensive !
or what ever. You slow down for the holes or you break
something ! But interesting idea
David
> Of course, the closely related parameter is speed.
> Two other optimizing data for routing appear to be readily available:
> declivity as contour lines and straightness which is computab
uot;, punishable by death but happens all the
time. I have never seen a map that shows smoothness=. Some evil people
consider this fact when choosing which tag to use.
Maybe, folks, we should take more notice of the smoothness= tag ? If
promoted it could be whats needed ?
David
On Thu
grade3 will be easier to drive than a grade4. Or allowing an end user
to tell their routing engine "I don't do anything worse that grade4".
Please have a read of this
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:tracktype#Increasing_flexibility
section of the Discussion on
endering reflect that difficulty
based on the tracktype tag but not sufficient interest. We'll just have
to wait for the coroners report...
David
>
> Here in the UK, for example, highway=track is often used for private
> farm tracks, so you can't safely route over it un
or redefining an existing tag to warn potential users of what
may a dangerous road to some people. However, little progress has been
made. I consider it very important in a large percentage of the worlds
land area. However, it does not interest most of the world's mappers !
David
&g
sure you don't mean to suggest we should tag the world so
some particular maps look nice ? Personally, I think nice maps are
accurate, informative ones. Visually appeal is important too but not at
the expense of 'informative'.
I support Greg's approach.
David
t include a date stamp we should be using for Andre's purpose ?
(Sorry Andre, cannot remember how to do the mark above the 'e' in your
name. Very rude of me.)
David
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 18:01 +0200, André Pirard wrote:
> On 2014-06-09 11:59, Glenn Plas wrote :
>
> >
To be honest Tod, I don't think we want to add a *:confirmed= tag to
every existing tag over time.
But as we've both suggested, maybe the solution to Andre's issue is just
to make better use of the date stamps already there ?
David
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 17:21 -0700, Tod Fitc
ion text about how use of a date is strongly recommended
and what it should be expected to mean
David
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 19:03 +0200, André Pirard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following this discussion here is a proposed clarification to
> Key:source.
> The goal is to define the
Australia.
Please see Unsealed and 4wd roads in -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines
Some more ranting on my wiki page (inc discussion)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo
David
On Tue, 2014-07-08 at 13:00 -0600, Jesse Crawford wrote:
> Apologie
l, don't change the default, sealed
roads, just add something for those unsealed roads. Dashed infill IMHO !
I still don't see how widely this "access" coding that seems associated
with dashed infill is used. Any examples please ?
David
>
> We currently do not use the colo
tag on a node at the crest of the hill should be acceptable, as the
hazard may occur (potentially in multiple places) along fairly long way.
PS — the american MUTCD has a warning sign for vertical curvatures that may
cause long vehicles to ground.
David K
high.
Both forest and woodland can be on public or private land.
David
>
>
> In my eyes this is pretty clear. What am I missing / why does there
> seem to be so much confusion?
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
> [1]
> https://gith
e
detailed life threatening issues resulting from unclear maps. This
proposal will provide valuable, dare I say "usable" info for consumers !
David
On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 23:42 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've posted the below message on the forum, and
.
Please folks, think of the big picture, not the edge cases.
David
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
e map. Current model does not
work ! We can continue to argue is OK anyway or we can fix it. Choose.
David
On Mon, 2014-09-22 at 01:13 -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote:
> > I would like to suggest making the paved key for highways
> > (and probabl
rticle is urging better interaction
between mappers and renders ? I'd support that but I am afraid I don't
find the article clearly leads me there. Problem is, IMHO, in the early
parts of the article, its a distraction.
David
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 15:28 +0100, Ulrich Lamm wrote:
>
On Fri, 2015-01-02 at 23:17 +0100, Michał Brzozowski wrote:
> I am writing to propose a new, hopefully more precise and
> self-describing tag for shops that sell electronic parts.
Good move.
David
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Delectro
ware of it. Should I map it next
time I'm there ?
David
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ople map and want to see the data they enter used in some way. That
"seeing" is an essential part of the feedback loop. We need to consider
that when looking at how people choose (or invent) tags.
David
___
Tagging mailing li
ey are cryptic and hard to deal with by those who don't regularly use
them but if we stopped regexe right now a lot more than OSM would stop
working !
Никита, you really need to accept regexe is a widely used technology and
one you really are not going to stamp out.
David
>
>
like to add, mainly concentrating on
facilities at what are called "Free Camps" in Oz, generally no (or very
little) charge, remote, basic facilities for well equipped campers.
Opposite end of your target .
But could be turned into a nice package IMHO.
David
>
> stove top (no, not a
ial) camp grounds where you are allocated
a site and must keep you guy ropes in it. But they are not my
favourite !
David
> On 31/01/2015 3:18 PM, David Bannon wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2015-01-31 at 14:55 +1100, Warin wrote:
> > > ... I think the following things should be mapped
l ?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site
attempted this some years ago but it appears to have grown too big and it run
out of steam.
David
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
1. Overall campground, titled "additions to tourism=camp_site"
2. Site specific additions, "pitch specific additions to
tourism=camp_site"
3. Warin's kitchen specific ones.
We could prepare and discuss as a set but
if you have no objections, I'll add a second column ...
David
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ts=yes/no/conditional ??
I'll add a link to the (inactive) dumpstation one, think we need have a
go at getting that approved, important. Is the model to reactivate the
existing page ?
David
On Tue, 2015-02-03 at 07:15 +1100, Warin wrote:
> Done. Thanks .. I knew there was one out ther
red or pumped.
Should we start by improving the documentation there ?
David
On Tue, 2015-02-03 at 12:05 +1100, Warin wrote:
> The key:amenity=waste_disposal has a sub key
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waste where some of the things
> you mention as stated. These presently ar
should be
including in the re-write ? Important enough to make it to a widely
regarded publication.
David
On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 12:44 +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 4/02/2015 11:14 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > I have never seen the term "chemical disposal point"
> Neither have I. Nor
ste=chemical_toilet
I agree its wordier than it need be but those tags exist and we don't
need to go through an approval process.
David
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ombinations.
Incidentally, they use "pitch" as in "pitch a tent", I didn't get that.
Personally, I'd only put a new tag on the wiki in a proposal page. If we
agree, here, on things that work, I'd go that way.
David
_
termediate step involving waste= I don't like the two stage
approach, know Dave S does not either.
I know there are a lot of amenity tags but there are a lot of amenities
in this world.
David
>
> ---
> Additional thing .. distinguishing between amenity=wast
urism. Commercial sites, mining sites, the list would be
quite long. So, I'd vote for amenity=
David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.or
single node within that space
would represent the reception_desk. Clearly the larger area would not be
tagged =reception desk would it ?
The usefulness here it to identify where, in the larger area, the
reception desk is.
Hmm
David
> For example, if it was part
> of a "site"
the redundant amenity=waste_disposal
The problem there is treating waste= as a high level tag. Considering
just how big an issue waste disposal is to humanity, I cannot help but
think its justified.
But won't be surprised if there are dissenters....
David
> On 5/02/2015 12:04 PM, Dave S
ot;Amenity" is pretty general, but
amenity=reception_desk is about as specific as you are likely to get.
Amenity is a "go to" when a mapper is looking for a tag, new ones such
as "Office" or "Booth" make the discovery process a little harder and
don't, IMHO, del
el key for rubbish, trash, waste whatever
Hmm, rubbish_receptacle perhaps ? And definitely not
rubbish_receptacle_desk !!
(sorry)
David
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features_key%3Drubbish
>
> At present there as a number of 'waste' values under the ame
node where the disposal point is is
of value.
rubbish=chemical_toiletis, perhaps ambiguous. Do we like
rubbish_disposal= waste_disposal= ???
Lets see some hands please ?
David
On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 08:47 +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 9/02/2015 1:59 PM, David Bannon wrote:
>
"split the voting", are you suggesting that its
sufficiently 'ripe' to be asking for a formal (ie in the wiki) vote
yet ? Bearing in mind we have had only you, me and Dave S contribute to
the discussion ?
David
>
> -
://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waste
David
On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 12:00 +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 14/02/2015 11:43 AM, David Bannon wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 11:16 +1100, Warin wrote:
> > .
> > > I'd split the voting up into
> > .
> &
goes off, typically due to weather, three or four
times a year. Thats "occasional failure" rather than "intermittent" ?
2. At a place I like to camp at in Central Australia, power is provided
during particular times of the day, from memory, 7:00am-9:00pm and
5:30pm-8:30pm. That als
even he is distancing himself.
I'm back to refining docs about using existing tags.
David
> waste-collection= .. is a fair description for most waste/rubbish
> points that are mapped and also covers recycling .. as it is waste and
> is usually colle
upport waste=dump_station .
David
> but it's one I think is very appropriate. And much better than
> waste=chemical_toilet, which is ambiguous (is the toilet the waste or
> its contents?) I have a similar objection to the term
> toilet:disposal=*
>
> Neither phrase is in com
; clear exactly what the waste is (the toilet or the contents of the
> toilet)?
Not sure I agree. If we document it properly, its searchable and pretty
easy to tag. And we say "amenity=waste_disposal and the waste is XXX".
Agree I'd prefer a high level tag but its not bad like t
opening_hours
> Or
> * power_supply=nema_5_15
> * power_supply:schedule= intermittent
> Or do you feel that power_supply:intermittent=yes is better than
> power_supply:schedule= intermittent?
I prefer power_supply:schedule= approach, then a range of possible
value
propose something like -
amenity=dump_station
dump_station=fee
or
amenity=dump_station:fee=yes
Anyway, I'll support any reasonable proposal, we need a promotable
solution.
David
PS - I suspect we can do better than any f the existing ones you listed
below :-)
> http://www.sanidumps.com
e move human
waste out of waste= why not the others ?
But I don't care ! Please, put something up for a vote and I'll vote
for it. Just get it done, this has gone on for far too long.
David
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
1 - 100 of 574 matches
Mail list logo
