2010/2/3 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net:
by way of context, New York State and some NY counties have cases where
there are roads maintained
by the state or county that do not have numberedsigned route
designations. these roads have numbers
assigned administratively (reference routes)
so should a reference route designation that isn't on a sign go in a ref
tag or not? the wiki doesn't
discuss this. if ref shouldn't have this, perhaps a variant on ref is
needed?
I would say no - because the ref tag can generate route shields. I would
be very confused if the county road
On 2/3/10 9:26 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
IMHO the ref-tag describes the reference, not a sign, therefore to tag
them it doesn't matter if the reference numbers are displayed
laterally on signs or there is another source of getting them. Still
if you say that those numbers (reference
On 2/3/10 9:31 AM, Mike N. wrote:
so should a reference route designation that isn't on a sign go in a ref
tag or not? the wiki doesn't
discuss this. if ref shouldn't have this, perhaps a variant on ref is
needed?
I would say no - because the ref tag can generate route shields. I
Richard Welty wrote:
administratively, a reference route is no different from a
conventional signed route number. from a practical point of view, you
almost never see a reference route on a sign. what we come back to is
tagging for the renderer, if we put the reference route designations
On 2/3/10 10:29 AM, Chris Hill wrote:
Richard Welty wrote:
administratively, a reference route is no different from a
conventional signed route number. from a practical point of view, you
almost never see a reference route on a sign. what we come back to is
tagging for the renderer, if we put
You say numbers assigned administratively (reference routes) that do not
appear on signs. which sounds like internal numbers which are never used by
the public in any form. So nobody will say turn left and take the C29 for 2
kms...
If this is the case, I would ask first if OSM is the right place
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Richard Welty wrote:
so should a reference route designation that isn't on a sign go in a ref
tag or not? the wiki doesn't
discuss this. if ref shouldn't have this, perhaps a variant on ref is
needed?
Those sort of 'internal reference numbers' are used heavily in New
2010/2/3 Chango640 chango...@gmail.com:
Hi people.
I'm sending this mail in order to propose a new feature for the tag landuse:
gated communities. These are a type of private neighbourhoods that are very
common in Argentina, Brazil and many other countries, and have a notorious
difference
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:25 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
This is tagging the way, but at the node references.
I let this go a couple of days to see if anyone would find any
problems with doing this.
It is one option for tagging width, but users would then still need to
At 2010-02-03 06:19, Richard Welty wrote:
...
so should a reference route designation that isn't on a sign go in a ref
tag or not? the wiki doesn't
discuss this. if ref shouldn't have this, perhaps a variant on ref is
needed?
I would say the question is what happens when one of these routes is
On 2/3/10 4:33 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2010-02-03 06:19, Richard Welty wrote:
...
so should a reference route designation that isn't on a sign go in a ref
tag or not? the wiki doesn't
discuss this. if ref shouldn't have this, perhaps a variant on ref is
needed?
I would say the
On 4 February 2010 07:24, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess...but this might be tricky for editors to deal with when way
direction is reversed.
Not really, think of the bits between nodes as segments, you apply the
information to a segment, except width which is applied at the
On 4 February 2010 07:22, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
It is one option for tagging width, but users would then still need to
make some assumption about the direction in which width is measured
(probably the bisection of the angle between previous/following nodes)
and interpolate
2010/2/3 Chango640 chango...@gmail.com:
I thought about using landuse=residential (which I'm already using in cities
and towns), but here in Argentina there is a strong difference between
ordinary neighbourhoods and gated communities.
Yes, that's what you are expressing with the subtags
On 4 February 2010 08:50, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
AFAIR the barrier=fence should not be applied to an area, what means
in pratical to draw a second way atop the area limits (not really
elegant). Another approach is to tag fenced=yes to the area (don't
know if someone
2010/2/3 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
On 4 February 2010 08:50, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
AFAIR the barrier=fence should not be applied to an area, what means
in pratical to draw a second way atop the area limits (not really
elegant). Another approach is to tag
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:31 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2010 07:24, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess...but this might be tricky for editors to deal with when way
direction is reversed.
Not really, think of the bits between nodes as
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:32 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2010 07:22, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
It is one option for tagging width, but users would then still need to
make some assumption about the direction in which width is measured
(probably
On 4 February 2010 10:02, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Still feasible, but it is worth noting.
This already happens in JOSM with ways when they are oneway=yes...
slightly different, but there is already triggers for it...
I know. But if you are happy with splitting (as I am), then
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
We will have to consider what to do about the fact that you'll end up
with nested landuse=residential
Simple: the tags on the inner polygon override those on the outer polygon.
21 matches
Mail list logo
