Re: [Talk-GB] Anglican churches
>It's not documented anywhere at the moment, but the different coloured >markers on the "nameless" maps at e.g. >https://osm.mathmos.net/nameless/amenity/place_of_worship simply >denote the type of OSM object: node, way or relation. > >Robert. Hi Robert, the nameless places of worship report looks good, but for me equally as important is places of worship with no religion. Any chance of that being added? Cheers, Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts
>After a quick look at his edits locally he has also been removing ref >tags from roundabouts which seems an odd thing to do. This seems perfectly reasonable to me - the roundabout is a junction of various roads and I do not consider it to be part of a referenced highway. I note that the wiki indicates that the ref should be added to roundabouts to allow fluid routing, but this has relatively recently been added (April 2019) and I do not agree. It smacks of tagging for the renderer (in this case a routing engine). It seems bizarre to specify that for naming it should not use the name of a road it connects, but it should use the ref of a road that connects! Regards, Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Farmfoods clean up
I think the tag should indicate the primary market and should be consistent. From the Farmfoods home page, "Farmfoods are the Frozen Food Specialists. Our roots are embedded in the distribution and handling of frozen food." That seems pretty definitive to me. Supermarkets often sell a few books, records, home furnishings etc, but I would not think it sensible to tag them as bookstores or record shops. Regards, Mike >My local one was doing a roaring trade in 36-packs of loo roll >a few weeks ago. I believe they are also one of the cheapest >places to get cans of coke. So frozen_food sounds a bit too >limited. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
>Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically >blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing >people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive >rights of way which are useable but which merely deviate from the route a >mapper mapped on the ground. Eg. I don't think a highway=no tag should be >added to a cross field definitive footpath just because a path round the >field has been mapped. In the case where a path has been permanently blocked, I would suggest disused:highway=footway/bridleway, abandonded:highway=footway or removed:highway=footway, depending on whether the path is still visible and whether the blockage would be relatively easy or difficult to remove. This seems to me to be much better than highway=no. Regards, Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
