On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 15:28, Jan S wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The police=* proposal has been unanimously approved by 30 votes. Thanks
> for your massive support!
>
Yay!
> I hope that I'll have the time to change the wiki over the next days.
>
Looking forward to seeing it come online.
Thanks
sent from a phone
> On 15. May 2019, at 07:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The 'Spanish steps' in Rome look rather complex too.
if you acknowledge that komplex steps can be split into different parts, there
will remain very few exceptions that really might pose problems.
Cheers
Hi everyone,
The police=* proposal has been unanimously approved by 30 votes. Thanks for
your massive support!
I hope that I'll have the time to change the wiki over the next days.
All the best,
Jan___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
ht
On 07/05/19 07:12, Tobias Knerr wrote:
On 06.05.19 15:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Mo., 6. Mai 2019 um 14:06 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer
If you can get the second one working I don’t understand why the
first one is different (presuming it is split). For the second one
to
> I didn't understand what you mean. Exemple :
> amenity=restaurant
> name=foo
> delivery:operator=deliveroo;foo
> mean that 2 operators are available for this restaurant : deliveroo
> and the restaurant itself.
Ohh sorry, well... I misunderstood you. I thought that you've meant:
"foo" in "deliver
To use "restaurant's name" is maybe not a good idea. It would easier to
parse a standard value for it. This would also help to avoid possible
problems if the name of the location is typed manually instead of copy
and paste it.
Sebastian
Am 13.05.19 um 23:45 schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick:
On Tue
Le 14.05.19 à 23:17, santamariense a écrit :
>> or use the name of the poi in the delivery:operator value :
>> delivery:operator=deliveroo;
>> so you 'll never have a clash between the "fake" value and
>> the name of a company
>
> Possibly there'll be more than 1 POI within the same name on the sa
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:38, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> NB: This crossing is not mapped correctly in OSM as there is no common
> node betweet crossing footway and crossed road.
>
Correct!
But when I mapped it, those errors weren't coming up - there's lot's that
I've got back & "join" :-(
Thanks
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 17:23, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/05/19 17:14, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
>
> Haven’t checked if it shows up as an error, but technically, the grass on
> each side is the “sidewalk”, and it is simply a shortcoming of the current
> tagging sche
> or use the name of the poi in the delivery:operator value :
> delivery:operator=deliveroo;
> so you 'll never have a clash between the "fake" value and
> the name of a company
Possibly there'll be more than 1 POI within the same name on the same operator.
___
There is the abandoned proposal for temporary:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/temporary
regards
m.
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 5:02 PM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
>
> Sometimes traffic organization changes for some time - road becomes
> temporarily oneway,
> or oneway road becom
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 05:10, wrote:
>
> I must admit that I only map crossings when they are between formed
> footpaths eg
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/553154851, not where there is only a
> grass footpath.
>
NB: This crossing is not mapped correctly in OSM as there is no common node
bet
sent from a phone
> On 14. May 2019, at 09:16,
> wrote:
>
> People do generally walk on this “grass” sidewalk.
they could, but if they would, it would not remain grass ;-)
Cheers, Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https:
On 14/05/19 17:14, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
Haven’t checked if it shows up as an error, but technically, the grass
on each side is the “sidewalk”, and it is simply a shortcoming of the
current tagging schemes that it’s not possible to properly tag it as
pedestrian routable are
People do generally walk on this “grass” sidewalk.
From: Martin Koppenhoefer
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2019 16:04
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked
sent from a phone
On 14. May 2019, at 02:24, Graeme Fitzpatrick mail
Haven’t checked if it shows up as an error, but technically, the grass on each
side is the “sidewalk”, and it is simply a shortcoming of the current tagging
schemes that it’s not possible to properly tag it as pedestrian routable area.
These lowered kerbs represents points with easy access fr
16 matches
Mail list logo
