On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> will the caravan=no belong on the cycleway or will it belong on the
> main way?
Heh. Ever heard of a bike path that permitted caravans?
> This discussion just informs us that the access tagging system has
> faults.
Discuss it on [tagging]
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:56:03 +1100
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM, John Smith
> wrote:
> > Nope I meant what I said, access:caravan=* same with access:4wd=*
>
> As I understand it, foot, motorcar, bicycle, hgv etc are all
> considered subtags of the access tag. So, for c
On 18 February 2011 19:28, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> I dont think basing a decision on those previous tags is a good idea.
>
> It's documented and everything.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
>
> I can't see any basis for doing t
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I dont think basing a decision on those previous tags is a good idea.
It's documented and everything.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
I can't see any basis for doing this one differently. But why don't
you discuss it on the tagl
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:56:03 +1100
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM, John Smith
> wrote:
> > Nope I meant what I said, access:caravan=* same with access:4wd=*
>
> As I understand it, foot, motorcar, bicycle, hgv etc are all
> considered subtags of the access tag. So, for c
On 18 February 2011 18:56, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> Nope I meant what I said, access:caravan=* same with access:4wd=*
>
> As I understand it, foot, motorcar, bicycle, hgv etc are all
> considered subtags of the access tag. So, for consistency, i
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Nope I meant what I said, access:caravan=* same with access:4wd=*
As I understand it, foot, motorcar, bicycle, hgv etc are all
considered subtags of the access tag. So, for consistency, it would be
caravan=no, just like it's foot=no, motorcar=n
On 18 February 2011 18:04, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:43 AM, John Smith wrote:
>>
>> I agree with the access suggestion, eg
>> access:caravan=yes/no/designated/unsuitable
>
> You mean caravan=*, right? This is already listed at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ac
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:43 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> I agree with the access suggestion, eg
> access:caravan=yes/no/designated/unsuitable
You mean caravan=*, right? This is already listed at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access
If you use caravan=unsuitable, please document this at the to
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 11:43 +1000, John Smith wrote:
> I agree with the access suggestion, eg
> access:caravan=yes/no/designated/unsuitable
>
> I now regret using 4wd_only, this should have be an access: tag
> instead, eg access:4wd=only/yes/no etc
This should be quite easy to script a change for
I agree with the access suggestion, eg
access:caravan=yes/no/designated/unsuitable
I now regret using 4wd_only, this should have be an access: tag
instead, eg access:4wd=only/yes/no etc
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.ope
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 08:02 +0100, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
> Make a new specific tag ("unsuitable_for_caravans=yes;
> source:unsuitable_for_caravans=survey"), and document it on the wiki
> (with a photo of a sign). At least that's explicit and clear.
I see the problem with my HGV proposal. O
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:57 PM, John Henderson wrote:
> The downside I can see is the difficulty in rendering software being able to
> make use of the information given in the exact text. The same information
> may be expressed quite differently in different locations.
I think there's a kind of
I've been tagging these with caravan=no where I've found them.
I'd suggest caravan=no if not at all and caravan=unsuitable if it's only
signposted as not suitable.
This is in keeping with the other tags like 4wd_only=yes/no/recommended.
I'd also suggest adding the signposted= or source:signpo
On 17/02/11 20:16, {withheld} wrote:
Here is a suggestion:
Whenever a situation like this comes up (i.e. posted signage which does
not fit neatly in a predetermined/official tag case), why not introduce
a new tag:
signposted: "Literal text from sign"
...on the basis such a thing cannot
Here is a suggestion:
Whenever a situation like this comes up (i.e. posted signage which does
not fit neatly in a predetermined/official tag case), why not introduce
a new tag:
signposted: "Literal text from sign"
...on the basis such a thing cannot be questioned, because that is what
is
On 17 February 2011 15:52, John Henderson wrote:
> On 17/02/11 16:12, David Murn wrote:
>
>> Presumably if its unsuitable for caravans, its also unsuitable for HGV?
>> Maybe simply re-use the HGV access tags already in place?
>
> I think they should be kept separate - there'll likely be places whe
Make a new specific tag ("unsuitable_for_caravans=yes;
source:unsuitable_for_caravans=survey"), and document it on the wiki (with a
photo of a sign). At least that's explicit and clear.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:58 AM, John Smith wrote:
> Saw a couple of roads signed "unsuitable for caravans" whi
On 17/02/11 16:12, David Murn wrote:
Presumably if its unsuitable for caravans, its also unsuitable for HGV?
Maybe simply re-use the HGV access tags already in place?
I think they should be kept separate - there'll likely be places where
caravans are permitted (encouraged even), but HGVs not
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 14:50 +1100, John Henderson wrote:
> On 17/02/11 12:58, John Smith wrote:
> > Saw a couple of roads signed "unsuitable for caravans" which seems
> > like council butt covering but I'm not sure how to tag it since it's a
> > sign to discourage rather than to disallow.
>
> I've
On 17/02/11 12:58, John Smith wrote:
Saw a couple of roads signed "unsuitable for caravans" which seems
like council butt covering but I'm not sure how to tag it since it's a
sign to discourage rather than to disallow.
I've got at least one to tag also. Maybe
access:caravan=unsuitable
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:58 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Saw a couple of roads signed "unsuitable for caravans" which seems
> like council butt covering but I'm not sure how to tag it since it's a
> sign to discourage rather than to disallow.
IMHO, the poor sap who plans his holiday around taking a
Saw a couple of roads signed "unsuitable for caravans" which seems
like council butt covering but I'm not sure how to tag it since it's a
sign to discourage rather than to disallow.
--
Sent from my mobile device
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstr
23 matches
Mail list logo
