Please folks, let's keep a bit of perspective. There are *many* reasons OSM
is not the place to micromap indoor private areas of any sort, secure or
not.
However back to the task at hand:
If a mapper can transit through a security zone while travelling, it's fair
game to map.
Toilets, drinking wat
> On Jun 13, 2015, at 1:02 PM, John Eldredge wrote:
>
> The airport is likely to want a detailed map of the secure areas that are
> off-limits to the general public, but they are unlikely to place that
> information into a publicly-accessible database. As you say, the public map
> will show
The airport is likely to want a detailed map of the secure areas that are
off-limits to the general public, but they are unlikely to place that
information into a publicly-accessible database. As you say, the public
map will show (1) areas available to everyone, (2) areas available only to
pas
> On Jun 13, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think that level of detail is needed.
Looking at the basic diagram linked to by Bryce, it looks like there is only
2-3 main categories, - and what goes in the categories for now can be inferred
from imagery (for
Ruben Maes
Wrote in message:
> Replied inline below.
>
> 2015-06-10 6:52 GMT+02:00 Holger Jeromin :
>> Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Wrote
>> in message:
>> We have blood donation fully integrated in Healthcare 2.0 as far
>> as I remember.
>> I do not see the need for a separate tag proposal.
In military area there are grades of security too.
However they don't get tagged for a good reason. The security people
call it "The need to know".
I don't think that level of detail is needed.
I would NOT advise anyone to ask for that information .. you may be
asked to explain why you want
I’ll add my thoughts here..
Imagery:
The issue of outdated imagery is complicated because:
1. In iD we don't really know the date range that the imagery was taken (Bing
is the exception not the rule, and we can get from their API only a range not a
hard date)
2. It depends on what zoom the use
pet, 12. lip 2015. 05:20 Bryce Nesbitt je napisao:
probably better:
access=no
access:bicycle=yes
(otherwise everything other than a motor vehicle is assumed yes).
Well.. I would then at least add foot=yes. If a kid wants to fill his
football :-)
___
2015-06-12 1:52 GMT+02:00 johnw :
> Looking over the imagery, it looks like the imagery is pretty well set
> already.
>
+1
when in doubt, do no shift the imagery
Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstre
2015-06-12 10:45 GMT+02:00 Andreas Goss :
> So long term are we going to retag courts, townhalls, libarties, post
> offices etc. too ?
we'll see. I did not aim at that, from a logical point of view some aspects
of townhalls might integrate well, but they are also something special
(council->l
2015-06-12 0:20 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić :
> Why not amenity=compressed_air + access:motor_vehicle=no ? I don't
> understand what's the problem with that tag.
+1
There are 1023 amenity=compressed_air
http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/amenity=compressed_air
and its documented in the wiki:
http://wiki.
On 6/12/15 04:28 , Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
that's why I suggested to use a multi tag approach. One tag to say
it is a government office, one to say at which level (admin level)
and then tags
Perhaps a nice objective tag, rather than README text.
If a feature is new, add a start_date tag.
The editor can then have options..
1, Alert the user if the start date is more recent than the layers
currently displayed.
2. Visually indicate if the start_date is within a configurable recency
(s
13 matches
Mail list logo
