[OSM-talk] Feature Propsal - RFC - Generalized Overhead Wire Mapping - utility_wires=overhead/underground
In celebration of: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/3D-mapland I offer to the tagging discussion: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Quickly_Marking_Utility_Wires A proposal for quickly marking large areas with utility pole style. To be resolved are which streets within an "area" can be assumed to have overhead lines, if the area is marked with lines. This is coordinated with François Lacombe's more elaborate tagging schemes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] HOT seeking Interim Executive Director
Dear OSM aficionados, Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team seeks an Interim Executive Director. We need your help to seek a great successful candidate. If you are that person or know someone, please do apply or share this link widely. Details can be found here: http://hot.openstreetmap.org/updates/2015-03-17_humanitarian_openstreetmap_team_seeks_interim_executive_director Please send any applications to ap...@hotosm.org - not to any individuals. Follow us on Twitter for more details as they come https://twitter.com/hotosm (Kate Chapman has been amazing as ED. She is taking a new role and path outside of HOT after 5 years of leading us. Thanks so much Kate for all your years of leadership in mapping. On behalf of HOT, we thank you.) (Apologies for cross-posting) Thanks, Joseph ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:35 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 10/03/2015, Mike N wrote: > > On 3/10/2015 12:56 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > >> If I understand correctly that you want routing to cross a park as long > >> as the way in and the way out are connected to the perimeter of the > >> park. This is only correct in parks where you are free to walk anywhere. > >> Most parks in continental Europe do not work this way. Typically, but > >> not always, you have to stay on the paths. > >> > >> To solve this, one needs possibly a new (?) tag for parks like > >> stay_on_path=yes|no > > > > I agree - there needs to be areas of general walk permission established > > before a router can include that area. > Or the router could have an affinity for the path but not so aggressively avoid it if there's not a barrier way more substantial than bollard in the way... > Another common usecase is surface car parks. You've got lots of > pedestrian paths that lead to it, but nothing explicit inside it, and > even following the service=parking_aisle ways would be too > restrictive. These could be mapped as highway=surface, area=yes anyway (not sure how well routing engines actually handle this, but navigable areas are hardly unique to carparks). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
