[Tagging] Proposed feature - Sidewalks as separate ways - Voting

Hello people, since there have been no discussion in the last days, I believe the ideas are clear enough about the proposal. If you have questions, please post them to the proposal's talk page, I'll reply promptly (or will try to :)). In any case, the voting is open: http://wiki.openstreetmap.o

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - vegetarian (and other diets)

Hello, I've moved this proposal to the vote, it has been open for discussion for a few months and has now been used in the wild for a similar period of time to see how well it works in practice. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Vegetarian

[Tagging] access forbidden for tourist busses

Recently I found this sign which I interpret as "access forbidden to touristic busses": http://www.23hq.com/dieterdreist/photo/6610385 It is at a driveway to the local cemetery, near a very popular monument (unesco world heritage). Do we have to invent another access tag, or is there already some

Re: [Tagging] access forbidden for tourist busses

On 12 April 2011 19:22, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Recently I found this sign which I interpret as "access forbidden to > touristic busses": > > http://www.23hq.com/dieterdreist/photo/6610385 > > It is at a driveway to the local cemetery, near a very popular > monument (unesco world heritage). D

Re: [Tagging] access forbidden for tourist busses

2011/4/12 John Smith : >> My first idea was "tourist_bus=no" > > Why not use access:*=* ? Usually we tag foot=no instead of access:foot=no, and I don't see why I should change this standard here. My question was: which key is used for "tourist busses". I couldn't find them on the access-page: h

Re: [Tagging] access forbidden for tourist busses

On 12 April 2011 20:01, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/4/12 John Smith : > >>> My first idea was "tourist_bus=no" >> >> Why not use access:*=* ? > > > Usually we tag foot=no instead of access:foot=no, and I don't see why > I should change this standard here. There is a lot of access:*=* for ve

Re: [Tagging] access forbidden for tourist busses

2011/4/12 John Smith : >>> Why not use access:*=* ? >> >> >> Usually we tag foot=no instead of access:foot=no, and I don't see why >> I should change this standard here. > > There is a lot of access:*=* for vehicles, so you would be going against > things. Where? I can't find them: http://taginf

Re: [Tagging] etymology of street names

On 09/04/2011 15:30, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/4/8 Simone Saviolo: Good idea, but not with "etymology" as the name. This is not the etymology; that would be the philological origins of the word. +1 Here we are talking about a description of the person the place is named after, and esp

Re: [Tagging] access forbidden for tourist busses

2011/4/12 John Smith : > On 12 April 2011 20:36, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> Where? I can't find them: > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dbdouble Wikipage modified 13 times, in the database 0 (zero) occurrences ;-) http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de:8001/keys/access%3Abdouble

Re: [Tagging] access forbidden for tourist busses

On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 12:01 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/4/12 John Smith : > > >> My first idea was "tourist_bus=no" > > > > Why not use access:*=* ? > > > Usually we tag foot=no instead of access:foot=no, and I don't see why > I should change this standard here. To be fair, using t

Re: [Tagging] access forbidden for tourist busses

2011/4/13 David Murn : >> Usually we tag foot=no instead of access:foot=no, and I don't see why >> I should change this standard here. > > To be fair, using that schema, we also tag ski, horse, vehicle, > bicycle, motorcycle, moped, motorcar, goods, hgv, psv, bus, taxi > snowmobile, emergency, hazm

Re: [Tagging] access forbidden for tourist busses

On 4/12/11 7:59 PM, David Murn wrote: On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 12:01 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/4/12 John Smith: My first idea was "tourist_bus=no" Why not use access:*=* ? Usually we tag foot=no instead of access:foot=no, and I don't see why I should change this standard here. To

[Tagging] Traffic Lights, but only for one direction on a highway that isn't divided

So does anybody have any suggestions on how to deal with something like this? Here's my example: Here in Pittsburgh, when you're coming off I-579 going towards the South Hills across the Liberty Bridge, you encounter two sets of traffic lights (one before you get onto the bridge, and one on

Re: [Tagging] Traffic Lights, but only for one direction on a highway that isn't divided

On 4/13/2011 1:45 AM, James Mast wrote: So does anybody have any suggestions on how to deal with something like this? Here's my example: Here in Pittsburgh, when you're coming off I-579 going towards the South Hills across the Liberty Bridge, you encounter two sets of traffic lights (one before