[Tagging] IndoorOSM 2.0

2014-08-09 Thread Simon Poole
This is really just a heads up on the ongoing discussion in the indoor forum http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=67 and the competing proposals https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IndoorOSM_2.0 and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/F3DB . I have to admit even though the IndoorOSM

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

2014-08-09 Thread Richard Z.
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 05:10:26PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: Volker, There was a rather inconspicuous sentence at the end of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge linking to the additional bridge:... keys. I've reordered the introductory material in that page somewhat to make

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

2014-08-09 Thread Christopher Hoess
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote: thanks, that looks much better now. Would it be fine to add the simple_suspension type (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_suspension_bridge) to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge:structure ? It appears

[Tagging] Using highway=footway as an area

2014-08-09 Thread Dave F.
Hi http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.49428/-0.12149 I've noticed highway=footway is being used as an area across Lambeth Bridge: North side as a closed polygon; South side within a relation. (checking the history previously they were both highway=pedestrian. I thought that tag should

Re: [Tagging] Using highway=footway as an area

2014-08-09 Thread Matthijs Melissen
On 9 August 2014 17:06, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: You'll notice though that mapnik renders them the same way. Is that part of the recent carto upgrade? No, the rendering hasn't been changed in this respect. See http://bl.ocks.org/tyrasd/raw/6164696/#18.00/51.49424/-0.12091. --

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

2014-08-09 Thread Richard Z.
On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 09:21:46AM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote: thanks, that looks much better now. Would it be fine to add the simple_suspension type (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_suspension_bridge)