Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

sent from a phone > On 1. Jun 2019, at 08:29, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > I thought that the idea was that this tag would show where the changing room > (room with the change table) is? > > It's not much use knowing that there's one in the museum, if you then have no > idea where! there

Re: [Tagging] New description of waterway=pressurised

sent from a phone > On 31. May 2019, at 22:59, marc marc wrote: > > I don't understand the logic of changing the meaning of a tag recently > validated by a proposal without prior consultation. > a natural siphon was before your modification a waterway=pressurised, > now no more. I admit I h

Re: [Tagging] Inland customs offices

sent from a phone > On 31. May 2019, at 11:18, Jan S wrote: > > But independently from that, we agree that there's no reason to make a > difference between customs offices at borders or at other places, as long as > they control goods? +1, it doesn’t matter where they are, they are defined

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 18:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > we are not going to tag the changing table itself with this tag, rather we > will be tagging that a feature (like a restaurant, a shop, a museum, a > bathroom or a cafe) provides a changing table. > I thought that the idea was that this

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:golf=cartpath

On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 23:43, Paul Allen wrote: > > I don't see a golf cart path on a golf course as being a highway as most > people understand > the word. > I'd agree with you there Now for an expert golfer to chip in (hah!) > That I certainly aren't! (haven't played the game since my teens,

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Connectivity

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/38.94280/-77.25527marc marc wrote: > in the rational, you said "there are many cases where turn:lanes=* > can't provide that information." > could you add a case where turn:lanes are included that more > clearly shows what the connectivity=* adds ? > ideally 2

Re: [Tagging] New description of waterway=pressurised

I don't understand the logic of changing the meaning of a tag recently validated by a proposal without prior consultation. a natural siphon was before your modification a waterway=pressurised, now no more. the fact that the approved proposal did not want to go into the details of speologies is no

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

Hi I agree with aqueduct as a system composed of bridges, tunnels, pipes and canal (not only a bridge crossing a valley). Le ven. 31 mai 2019 à 16:10, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : > I think that in this case, with only > > usage=headrace > waterway=canal > > tags even a perfect renderer would ha

Re: [Tagging] Inland customs offices

Am 31. Mai 2019 11:57:58 MESZ schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: >Also found at airports .. and those can be some distance from the >border. Which are borders also? Hm... Anyways, I'll just change the wiki. Just wanted to be sure beforehand. ___

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

31 May 2019, 12:26 by pla16...@gmail.com: > Example of the horrors of using canal for a leat with current carto: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/609805692#map=16/52.0804/-4.6799 > > At z=19 it's actually close to the true w

Re: [Tagging] Inland customs offices

On Fri, 2019-05-31 at 19:57 +1000, Warin wrote: > On 31/05/19 19:41, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 31 May 2019 at 10:19, Jan S > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > But independently from that, we agr

Re: [Tagging] In defence of OSM Carto (was: Re: Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains)

On Fri, 31 May 2019 at 13:14, Christoph Hormann wrote: the whole waterway line with stepping across zoom levels is full of > fairly strange historic artefacts and not really well thought through. > Combined with removing minor waterways from z13 waterways are quite a > mess now. > You have my sy

Re: [Tagging] In defence of OSM Carto (was: Re: Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains)

On Fri, 31 May 2019 at 12:14, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 31/05/2019 11:26, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > Example of the horrors of using canal for a leat with current carto: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/609805692#map=16/52.0804/-4.6799 > At z=19 it's actually close to the true width of the leat

Re: [Tagging] In defence of OSM Carto (was: Re: Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains)

On Friday 31 May 2019, Andy Townsend wrote: > > I suspect that the OSM Carto style would be open to pull requests > that looked at the sub-tags of canals etc. if it could be done in a > way that wasn't over-complicated - look at OSM Carto's handling of > leaf type for a possible way forward. Indee

[Tagging] In defence of OSM Carto (was: Re: Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains)

On 31/05/2019 11:26, Paul Allen wrote: Example of the horrors of using canal for a leat with current carto: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/609805692#map=16/52.0804/-4.6799 At z=19 it's actually close to the true width of the leat. I suspect that the OSM Carto style would be open to pull req

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

On Fri, 31 May 2019 at 11:06, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 31/05/2019 09:46, Paul Allen wrote: > > > BTW, if we end up with tagging for the function of artificial waterways, > it would be nice > if it included leats. > > There's some small usage of that already: > > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

On 31/05/2019 09:46, Paul Allen wrote: BTW, if we end up with tagging for the function of artificial waterways, it would be nice if it included leats. There's some small usage of that already: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=leat#values When trying to translate UK/Ireland usage

Re: [Tagging] Inland customs offices

On 31/05/19 19:41, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 31 May 2019 at 10:19, Jan S > wrote: But independently from that, we agree that there's no reason to make a difference between customs offices at borders or at other places, as long as they control goods? I

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

On 31/05/2019 01:06, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: The usage of the word "aqueduct" in American English is broader than the meaning of the word in British English. Cambridge dictionaries defines the noun as "a structure for carrying water across land, especially one like a high bridge with many arches

Re: [Tagging] Inland customs offices

On Fri, 31 May 2019 at 10:19, Jan S wrote: > > But independently from that, we agree that there's no reason to make a > difference between customs offices at borders or at other places, as long > as they control goods? > I don't see any reason to make a difference. A simple change to the wiki p

Re: [Tagging] Inland customs offices

Am 30. Mai 2019 22:40:56 MESZ schrieb Paul Allen : >On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 21:19, Anton Klim wrote: > >> There is another, older key, amenity=customs, which is actually used >at >> border crossings (from what I’ve seen) to denote customs control. >> I am not sure why the amenity tag was deprecat

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

On Fri, 31 May 2019 at 01:08, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > I still feel uncomfortable using the word "canal" for small waterways: > the basic meaning of the word "canal" seems to imply a navigable > waterway, just as a "river" is wide enough for a small boat, in > contrast with a stream, but perha

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

sent from a phone > On 31. May 2019, at 02:06, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > So in US and British English it's possible to use "aqueduct" to > describe a bridge that carries a canal or other artificial waterway > over a river or road. This is already a tag: bridge=aqueduct. yes, it is a pro