Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight

There is no (common) restriction that limits the actual weight of truck+trailer, thus it makes no sense to define maxweight as limit for the complete train. ... this one is for gross weight of vehicles _including_ trailers: http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_253.svg Yes, see secon

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight

On 25.06.2013 20:43, martinq wrote: >>> There is no (common) restriction that limits the actual weight of >>> truck+trailer, thus it makes no sense to define maxweight as limit for >>> the complete train. >> ... >> this one is for gross weight of vehicles _including_ trailers: >> http://commons.m.w

Re: [Tagging] amenity=toilets / pitlatrine=yes

On 25.06.2013 07:49, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > After discussion on this list I have a proposed approach > for bringing the pitlatrine concept into the toilet tagging. > This involves two new tags: > > amenity=toilets > indoor=yes / if the toilet entrance is indoors. Outdoor > entr

Re: [Tagging] amenity=toilets / pitlatrine=yes

This is great Bryce, thanks. > > male=yes/no for/tagging a men-only entrance=yes./ > > female=yes/no for /tagging a female-only entrance=yes./ > > I miss: > unisex=yes/no > fee=* > male=yes/no, female=yes/no, and unisex=yes/no are all tags with decent usage and documentation and support th

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight

2013/6/25 martinq > There is no (common) restriction that limits the actual weight of >>> truck+trailer, thus it makes no sense to define maxweight as limit for >>> the complete train. >>> >> ... >> >> this one is for gross weight of vehicles _including_ trailers: >> http://commons.m.wikimedia.**

Re: [Tagging] RFC: wheelchair:toilets=yes/no

I too prefer toilets:wheelchair=* On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:45 AM, fly wrote: > On 17.06.2013 23:10, Holger Dieterich wrote: > > Hi, > > > > here's the request for comments on my first proposal: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/wheelchair:toilet > > > http://wiki.openst

Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?

On 20.06.2013 00:22, René Kirchhoff wrote: > How do we go from here? Either we only use protected_area=* and do not use any landuse or we need to propose a new (temporally) landuse tag with proper proposal. > Can someone write a summary? 1. There seems to be no problem in tagging the water part

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight

I take it the gross weight item on the driver's license is to restrict what type of vehicle you are licensed to operate? fly wrote: > On 25.06.2013 20:43, martinq wrote: > >>> There is no (common) restriction that limits the actual weight of > >>> truck+trailer, thus it makes no sense to defin

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight

> maxweight:type=gross_vehicle, gross_train, laden, empty, etc. > definitions + _weight can be used >as properties in conditional > restriction, eg. maxspeed=80 @ >(empty_weight>5.5). >Drawback is that only one > maxweight-restriction per way > is possible. Just today I drove past a sign that

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight

(Sorry, the previous message was sent prematurely.) Different weight restrictions exist together on some roads, they need to be different keys. -- alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight

On 25.06.2013 22:17, John F. Eldredge wrote: > I take it the gross weight item on the driver's license is to restrict what > type of vehicle you are licensed to > operate? Exacly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstr

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight

>I take it the gross weight >item on the driver's license Just to make sure, not all countries' driving licenses directly refer to weight; mine only states the allowed vehicle classes, and I can check the vehicle's papers to see of it's a B or a C. Effectively the difference is still max gross

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=bakery, bread_bakery, confectionery

A proposal for improving the current misleading definitions and misuse of bakery and confectionery; and a requested separation of bread bakeries from bakeries of other bakery goods, is now open for voting. The current wiki pages do not follow current British definitions and usage of the words (see

Re: [Tagging] How to tag apartments in a building that is multiuse

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > After discussing it on IRC, how does this sound as a potential for a > proposal: > > A new tag called residential, where the value specifies the type of > residential, such as: > > residential=apartment > residential=condo > residential=

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=bakery, bread_bakery, confectionery

On 26.06.2013 00:00, Murry McEntire wrote: > A proposal for improving the current misleading definitions and misuse > of bakery and confectionery; and a requested separation of bread > bakeries from bakeries of other bakery goods, is now open for voting. > > The current wiki pages do not follow cu

[Tagging] Observations on use of the diet: tag

As part of the shop=bakery,bread_bakery,confectionery proposal voting, several have commented that the diet:=* tag should be used instead of =* tag (e.g., diet:gluten_free=* instead of gluten_free=*. Since the diet: did previously pass a formal vote, I'm inclined to listen but the case would be mo

Re: [Tagging] Observations on use of the diet: tag

On 26.06.2013 02:29, Murry McEntire wrote: Hey Murry Sorry for the short answer, maybe more tomorrow: One problem is that diet is not supported by any editor preset nor is there any group interested like the wheelchair group so far. > Is organic part of the diet: tag or does it stand alone? Def

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Please test this "Native wikipedia link" - feature

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Tirkon wrote: > My idea was to use these Wikidata objects to link everybody to the > Wikipedia article of his browser language. For the "Universe" article > this should be done by clicking this: > http://tools.wmflabs.org/wdrdr/cgi-bin/index.cgi?item=q1 Hmm. It

Re: [Tagging] RFC: wheelchair:toilets=yes/no

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Brian Wolford wrote: > I too prefer toilets:wheelchair=* > Have a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets also I'd say a standalone toilet should stick to wheelchair=yes to keep with the well established wheelmap. But

Re: [Tagging] How to tag apartments in a building that is multiuse

On 25/06/2013 23:25, Clifford Snow wrote: On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Serge Wroclawski > wrote: After discussing it on IRC, how does this sound as a potential for a proposal: A new tag called residential, where the value specifies the type of re