> Am 19.04.2015 um 03:10 schrieb Tod Fitch :
>
> they have camp_site=pitch on them.
I believe the key is strange, typically in osm when we tag a=b b=c then c is a
subtype of b, while here this scheme is used to tag a part of b
cheers
Martin
__
Why is it important? The main thing that matters is than only one
definition exists for an item, irrespective of how often it is used.
A few months ago I looked a TagInfo for tags that people are using but
have no Wiki entry. Once you get closer to like 100 uses and below you
find a lot of tag
On 18/04/2015 3:52 PM, David Bannon wrote:
Folks, to revisit a topic that had lots of discussion last month !
I have updated the proposal page for camp_site=[basic; standard;
serviced; delux].
I now avoid the question of how to tag multiple instances of (eg)
amenity on the one node, area. Peopl
On 17/04/2015 8:08 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
On 16.04.2015 06:25, Dave Swarthout wrote:
But I'd be willing to bet that most trails are not part of a network of
other trails or a route but are stand-alone. The trails I once hiked in the
Adirondack Mountains in New York State all have names an
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 09:02 +1000, Warin wrote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site
> My comment. Any reason for the colours?
>
Honestly, no, I prefer the (eg) map makers determined what suits them
best. Quite happy to swap as you suggest but wonder if the proposal
On Sat, 2015-04-18 at 18:10 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:
> I’ve been using the tagging suggested at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches
> so they have camp_site=pitch on them.
>
Tod, there was a fair bit of discussion here in Feb (?) a
> On Apr 17, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
>
> Is it all about rendering the trailhead icon?
For some users, that answer is yes.
I have a question about this.
Assuming the entrance=trailhead + leisure=tourism model is used, then as long
as the path has the entrance=trailhead
