On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:58 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> This thread is getting quite long. To recap, the problem is that if your
> PTv2 route consists of only one way there is no way to tell in which
> direction it runs without providing more information.
I apologized somewhere in the middle o
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Fernando Trebien
wrote:
> That's true. It works in my case, but there might be a rare real
> scenario (such as in those hail and ride services) where this would
> not be the case. In such scenario, applications might not be able to
> figure out in which direction t
When traveling over road infrastructure, it's extremely unlikely that a PT
route would go over a single way. With rail infrastructure the probability
is a little bit higher, but those don't have hail and ride. So I don't
think it's really an issue.
How are we going to jump start the hail_and_ride
> amenity=drinking_water and amenity=water_point these are synonyms used
> interchangeably for drinking and non-drinking water
I wonder why you think that amenity=drinking_water is used to map
non-drinking water.
AFAIK it should be used for small installations that offer drinking
water, like the o
"
I wonder why you think that amenity=drinking_water is used to map
non-drinking water.
"
Hi Marc!
Thank you for the right note. Shah and mat:) You're right here I made a big
mistake.
I was slightly misled by the definition on the wiki drink_water=yes/no in
fact it does not exist. There is no dri
Should be. There no exist non-drinking water:)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
I mark "amenity=drinking_water" only when the water is subject to
microbiological analysis. If it isn't, I mark it as either "fountain",
"spring" or "watering place".
It's up to "clients" (apps and people who uses the database) to decide
whether they'll drink from legal water taps only or they'll
"AFAIK it should be used for small installations that offer drinking
water, like the one in
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/LScjKmwn0QPn5JQ-ROPgdw";
https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/filipc?focus=photo&pKey=AU3uOBwfLRIZQRzhKL5P1Q&lat=51.1835452163&lng=4.40741909672&z=7.474227099230923&x=
"Do you think I should explicitly mark as "drinking_water=no" the streams,
springs and pits known to be poisonous? They use to have a sign telling it."
drinking_water=no/yes there are misleading and should not be used in my
opinion.
you have tags like:
drinking_water:legal=yes
drinking_water:lega
"Do you think I should explicitly mark as "drinking_water=no" the streams,
springs and pits known to be poisonous? They use to have a sign telling it."
drinking_water=no/yes there are misleading and should not be used in my
opinion.
you have tags like:
drinking_water:legal=yes
drinking_water:lega
"Do you think I should explicitly mark as "drinking_water=no" the streams,
springs and pits known to be poisonous? They use to have a sign telling it."
We are talking here about official public water collection points.
In rivers and streams, the quality of water often changes a lot(from
hour to
education=sports for academically oriented sports schools,
education=cram_school otherwise. education=driving also for boat, train and
aero driving schools. Advanced levels of those non-road driving
schools(e.g. ADR training, multi-engine plane driving) go to
education=specialty.
2017-09-18 0:22 G
sent from a phone
> On 11. Jan 2018, at 15:14, Cez jod wrote:
>
> "Do you think I should explicitly mark as "drinking_water=no" the streams,
> springs and pits known to be poisonous? They use to have a sign telling it."
> drinking_water=no/yes there are misleading and should not be used in m
I noticed that tagging without drinking_water=no/yes can have one weakness
if the water is contaminated permanently with metal salts of heavy metals
and other chemical compounds poisonous. Maybe can solve this problem using
hazard=* e.g.?
natural=spring / amenity=drinking_water
drinking_water:legal
Iterating on the previous related discussion [1], I've noticed that,
though the main article on route relations [2] claims that the route
role can be used, the article on cycle routes [3] seems to suggest
that such role should not be used. JOSM issues a warning if it is
used, and most routes I'm se
The validator also issues a warning when using the link role on cycle
routes. The role is defined on the main article [2] but not mentioned
on the more specific article [3].
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Fernando Trebien
wrote:
> Iterating on the previous related discussion [1], I've noticed t
sent from a phone
> On 11. Jan 2018, at 14:26, Cez jod wrote:
>
> Should be used if the water has been tested:
> drinking_water:legal=yes
> drinking_water:legal=no
this tag is mostly used with no, but it isn’t generally used, there are only
very few of it:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/
sent from a phone
> On 11. Jan 2018, at 14:26, Cez jod wrote:
>
> The wiki should be removed drinking_water=yes/no is excessive and misleading.
I don’t know to which page you refer to for removing the tag, but it is
generally used and seems to be the standard method:
https://taginfo.openst
I fail to understand what information the route role is supposed to add.
I never needed a link role in bicycle or hiking route relations, it seems
something to use on route=road relations.
Polyglot
2018-01-11 19:35 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien :
> The validator also issues a warning when using t
On 12-Jan-18 03:25 AM, Cez jod wrote:
I noticed that tagging without drinking_water=no/yes can have one
weakness if the water is contaminated permanently with metal salts of
heavy metals and other chemical compounds poisonous. Maybe can solve
this problem using hazard=* e.g.?
natural=spring /
On 12-Jan-18 02:59 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 11. Jan 2018, at 15:14, Cez jod wrote:
"Do you think I should explicitly mark as "drinking_water=no" the streams, springs
and pits known to be poisonous? They use to have a sign telling it." drinking_water=no/yes
there
On 10 January 2018 at 10:21, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Seems we are repeating ourselves once again:
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2012-July/010809.html
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-November/019998.html
In order to avoid repeating ourselves again in a
sent from a phone
> On 11. Jan 2018, at 22:14, Selfish Seahorse wrote:
>
> In order to avoid repeating ourselves again in a year: should I add a
> note to the wiki page of `amenity=drinking_water` that this tag is
> discouraged?
I’m all for tagging details, and if someone wants to add man_ma
Then is there any type of route this role adds anything to?
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Jo wrote:
> I fail to understand what information the route role is supposed to add.
>
> I never needed a link role in bicycle or hiking route relations, it seems
> something to use on route=road relatio
Hello,
Osmose is complaining an area is mapped but not further specified: [1] and
[2]
Here is how the place looks like: [3]
I was thinking it's a side walk, but they're not to be mapped as area [4]
and the place doesn't really look like a square or plaza [5] nor like a
parking.
How would you ta
Le 12. 01. 18 à 00:05, OSMDoudou a écrit :
> How would you tag it ?
> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223853253
> [3] https://goo.gl/maps/yhA3rx2WVhM2
landcover=gravel
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.
If you go a bit further up the Street, which changes to a different view
(from Oct 2014 to July 2017), it looks like it may be a car park?
https://www.google.be/maps/@50.4535258,3.928354,3a,51.9y,155.23h,84.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ5cOI_Z-Dre0c2Tjp5k5jQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The silver car is certai
There are traffic signs facing the area, and parking bumpers on it; is it
not a gravel-surfaced parking field?
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> If you go a bit further up the Street, which changes to a different view
> (from Oct 2014 to July 2017), it looks like it ma
On 12 January 2018 at 09:16, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> If you go a bit further up the Street, which changes to a different view
> (from Oct 2014 to July 2017), it looks like it may be a car park?
>
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.4535258,3.928354,3a,51.9y,
> 155.23h,84.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Jo wrote:
> I fail to understand what information the route role is supposed to add.
>
Identify "on/off ramp" connections on cycleways and multi-use paths that
have a "bicycle superhighway" configuration.
> I never needed a link role in bicycle or hiking route
On 11/1/18 21:23, Jo wrote:
How are we going to jump start the hail_and_ride voting process?
I think the proposal needs a bit of work before it goes to a vote:
1. The definition from Wikipedia needs to go as it doesn't add any value
and also defines the case where you have to signal the dr
W dniu 11.01.2018 o 22:45, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze:
On 11. Jan 2018, at 22:14, Selfish Seahorse
wrote:
In order to avoid repeating ourselves again in a year: should I add a
note to the wiki page of `amenity=drinking_water` that this tag is
discouraged?
Thanks, I support this idea. If the d
is there street view imagery ? do you have local knowledge ?
If not, you might consider not fixing it. Yes it will be a useless
polygon in the database, but isn't that better than changing it e.g.
to a parking lot while it is a private property ?
just my .5 cents
m.
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:0
It definitely doesn't look like a public parking lot. It would be good if
someone local could resurvey if the shop is still in that house.
Jo
2018-01-12 5:19 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis :
> is there street view imagery ? do you have local knowledge ?
>
> If not, you might consider not fixing it. Yes it
34 matches
Mail list logo
