2012/10/28 Alberto albertoferra...@fastwebnet.it
1) Polygon vs point for Populated urban areas (place=city, town...):
Hello, we talked about this problem in Italian list [1].
We agreed that boundaries and places should not be confused because in
general they refer to different things.
We
2012/10/24 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com
How would I go about formalizing this proposal? Do I need to make a
proposal page? I'm not trying to add a feature, just to expand on one.
Since I've received no replies, I'll proceed to add the access value for
the enforcement key in the
Hi!
I'm looking for a possibility to tag exclusive access rights. What I
mean by this is a way to specify that one specific vehicle is allowed
and everything else is forbidden. If I specify e.g. hgv=yes it only
means (at least in my understanding) that hgv are allowed there. I'm
not sure about
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Martin Koppenhöfer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't like this tag proposal. i think we should clearly separate the
support (wall, flag, board) and the function (what is painted or
sticked on it) like we do for buildings and shops or whatever is
inside. As
2012/10/29 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com:
As to the enforcement_device tag, I guess I'll have to make a proposal?
Have a look at this:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance
It is already in use:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/surveillance#values
Try to see it from a data consumer point of view.
Let's say you are a bicycle routing engine and want to know if you are
allowed to drive here.
With the current scheme you see an access = no. so you assume you
don't have access.
Then you look if there are special permissions for bikes (because,
2012/10/29 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com
2012/10/29 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com:
As to the enforcement_device tag, I guess I'll have to make a proposal?
Have a look at this:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance
It is already in use:
2012/10/29 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Martin Koppenhöfer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't like this tag proposal. i think we should clearly separate the
support (wall, flag, board) and the function (what is painted or
sticked on it) like we do for
2012/10/29 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com:
In this case, surveillance=public. Ok.
Not (yet) documented, but used: surveilance:type
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/surveillance%3Atype
And there's also your camera :-)
Martin
___
Tagging
2012/10/29 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
I'm looking for a possibility to tag exclusive access rights.
Right now I only know this solution:
vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no
psv:lanes=yes|yes|yes
hgv:lanes=yes|yes|yes
Three tags for such a simple thing. What I'm looking for is something like
On 10/29/12 7:29 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
basically what would be needed for your prosal to work is changing the
default from access=yes to access=no and all applications additionally
would have to evaluate these multivalue-values (both, those separated
by | and those separated by ; ).
2012/10/29 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
2012/10/29 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com:
In this case, surveillance=public. Ok.
Not (yet) documented, but used: surveilance:type
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/surveillance%3Atype
And there's also your camera :-)
There is a
Hi!
what about this:
access:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv
But what if there is no sidewalk at the street? Or if you ride a horse? Is
it explicit forbidden to use the road?
This is the reason because I don't like to use the access=* tag.
Better is this:
vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|psv;hgv
Masi
People - really! Where did I propose to change any tags at all? I
asked a question!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Masi, thank you for understanding my question.
2012/10/29 Masi Master masi-mas...@gmx.de:
Hi!
what about this:
access:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv
That is exactly what I'm not sure of. Is access=psv valid? I don't
think it is documented in the wiki in this way. And if it is valid,
does it
As the key surveillance is obviously defacto approved we should write
a proper documentation for it and link it to the proposal for the
extension. And as the extension seems to be used also maybe we should
also update the status and write a documentation.
Any volunteers?
Martin
2012/10/29
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
There is already a specification, to whom it is an obstacle
(obstacle:car, ...) maybe we could have an additional
obstacle:waterway for all waterbased transport (or more
differentiated, it is probably
Hi Martin.
Nobody said you did. What has been said is that if you want to have some
kind of exclusice access tag that in fact is a change to how the
access tagging currently works.
Access tagging currently is:
-use access=yes|no to set a default
-add more details by adding access tags for any
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 11:59 +, John Sturdy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
There is already a specification, to whom it is an obstacle
(obstacle:car, ...) maybe we could have an additional
obstacle:waterway for all waterbased
Am 28/ott/2012 um 15:32 schrieb Svavar Kjarrval sva...@kjarrval.is:
In Iceland we sometimes have companies parking cars in public spaces or
in private land after making a deal with the owner. The cars are marked
with the company and almost always have advertising signs on the side.
How
On 29.10.2012 12:51, Martin Vonwald wrote:
Masi, thank you for understanding my question.
2012/10/29 Masi Master masi-mas...@gmx.de:
Hi!
what about this:
access:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv
That is exactly what I'm not sure of. Is access=psv valid? I don't
think it is documented in the
2012/10/29 John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com:
Where an obstacle is at the crossing of two ways, it should be made
clear which of the ways it is an obstacle on.
it is clear: it will be tagged on the way it refers to. If two ways
have a node in common, you shouldn't tag the obstacle applying only
Am 29.10.2012 um 14:27 schrieb Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
It is currently not valid - vehicle types can only appear in the key,
whereas groups of users (forestry, customers, delivery, ...) can only
appear in the value. For the groups of users, it actually gives
exclusive access rights
On 29/10/2012 18:29, Martin Vonwald (imagic) wrote:
Am 29.10.2012 um 14:27 schrieb Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de
mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de:
It is currently not valid - vehicle types can only appear in the key,
whereas groups of users (forestry, customers, delivery, ...) can only
appear
24 matches
Mail list logo
