On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:20 AM, John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:28 AM, André Riedel riedel.an...@gmail.com wrote:
As the creator of the proposal I do not like your proposed key/value
entrance=public_transport.
The tag should show the importance of an
2011/10/14 Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com:
If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little
use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit about what you
mean.
You can tag the entrance of a train or subway station as
entrance=yes/main BUT only together with a
Hi,
On 10/14/2011 01:00 PM, André Riedel wrote:
If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little
use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit about what you
mean.
You can tag the entrance of a train or subway station as
entrance=yes/main BUT only together with a
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:20 AM, John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com wrote:
Definitely. I think it would be good, wherever possible, to stick to
the idea of the value of a tag subclassing the key, so that
building=*
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Are you recommending to tag subway stations as buildings in order to be able
to tag their entrances?
That seems logical to me. Is there some problem with doing this, that
I haven't seen? I know that it would be
Hi,
On 10/14/2011 01:18 PM, John Sturdy wrote:
Are you recommending to tag subway stations as buildings in order to be able
to tag their entrances?
That seems logical to me. Is there some problem with doing this, that
I haven't seen?
Sorry, I forgot that a subway station does not always
On 10/14/2011 7:35 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Tagging an above-ground subway station as a building is common practice.
For underground buildings, things are more difficult; we don't have an
established way of recording the fact that they are below the surface.
layer=-1 doesn't cut it as it is only
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 10/14/2011 01:18 PM, John Sturdy wrote:
Are you recommending to tag subway stations as buildings in order to be
able
to tag their entrances?
That seems logical to me. Is there some problem with doing this,
André Riedel riedel.an...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/14 Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com:
If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little
use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit about what you
mean.
You can tag the entrance of a train or subway station
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:18 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
In the case of a subway station, this will mean that the station's area will
need to underlay other mapped objects, and the mapper will need to map the
access tunnels as well as the station proper.
Burrr!
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM, André Riedel riedel.an...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/14 Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com:
If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little
use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit about what you
mean.
You can tag the entrance of
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
What about covered=yes?
or underground=yes which could be a simple filter for all of us who
don't want to be disturbed by underground features during edition.
Pieren
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
What about covered=yes?
or underground=yes which could be a simple filter for all of us who
don't want to be disturbed by underground features
2011/10/14 John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
What about covered=yes?
or underground=yes which could be a simple filter for all of us who
don't
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, we already have location=underground established (see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location) and I think it would
be a pity to have more than one way of indicating that something is
underground.
On 10/14/2011 9:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
The established way is covered, at
least it has a definition in the wiki and dates back to 2009 + it is
used more often (covered, usage: C. denote an area such as an
underground parking lot, a covered reservoir/cistern or even such
things as an
2011/10/14 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com:
On 10/14/2011 9:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Covered doesn't mean something is underground, just that it has a roof on
top. For example a road passing through a building at ground level would be
covered=yes.
covered doesn't necessarily
2011/10/14 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, we already have location=underground established (see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location) and I think it would
be a pity to have more than one way of
'established' is a big word. I'm surprised by the taginfo stats. I
never used this tag myself and I don't remember if it was really
discussed in the international lists. It is in the wiki since July.
Taginfo won't show the combinations at the moment, but location=*
is, afaik, used on ways with
Left out a significant word by mistake:
is, afaik, *mostly* used on ways with man_made=pipeline and nodes
The fire hydrant page now suggests fire_hydrant:type=underground/wall etc.,
but many old mappers try to avoid type=* as a key - or as a part of a
key.
--
Alv
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/14 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:
Taginfo won't show the combinations at the moment, but location=*
is, afaik, used on ways with man_made=pipeline and nodes tagged
amenity/emergency=fire_hydrant.
Yes but the
21 matches
Mail list logo
