On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 at 16:42, Allroads wrote:
> bicycle=leave
> This is for me, leave the bicycle behind at the sign.
> More native English speakers can give a comment on that?
I would not have understood it without the explanation given by Peter
below. ("If you are with bike, you will have to le
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 25 jul. 2020 om 22:43 heeft Allroads het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> The earlier mentioned,
> bicycle=leave
> This is for me, leave the bicycle behind at the sign.
> More native English speakers can give a comment on that?
If you're not with bike, the sign/access doesn
Op 25 jul. 2020 om 22:43 heeft Allroads het volgende
geschreven:
> So, now we need also a hard yes. That you must bring a bicycle with you.
That's an attribute of the bus service/transfer, not the road, I think.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagg
https://images.mapillary.com/8ErC5D9pxN0AzAJ8YVrEAw/thumb-2048.jpg
with extra text, for pushing carry a bicycle.
"fietsen meenemen niet toegestaan"
"not allowed to bring bicycles"
This is a privat acces_sign, guaranteed by access law, expressed by “access in
an apparently way for him is prohibit
sent from a phone
> On 25. Jul 2020, at 20:28, Jo wrote:
>
> In Antwerpen there is a bus that you can only take, as a cyclist, so
> accompanied by a bicycle
+1, in the German town of Tübingen there was also such a Bus which brought
cyclists up the hill (it is suspended for many years now I
On 25/07/2020 14.26, Jo wrote:
In Antwerpen there is a bus that you can only take, as a cyclist, so
accompanied by a bicycle. It's a subsidised service of the harbour, free
for its users (commuters). The bus replaces a ferry and goes through a
tunnel, prohibited for cyclists riding a bicycle.
*
In Antwerpen there is a bus that you can only take, as a cyclist, so
accompanied by a bicycle. It's a subsidised service of the harbour, free
for its users (commuters). The bus replaces a ferry and goes through a
tunnel, prohibited for cyclists riding a bicycle.
Polyglot
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 17:
On 25/07/2020 17:21, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
On 25/07/2020 07.06, Andy Townsend wrote:
Why do people in OSM map anything? I can't see any reason why I'd
want to add urban buildings, or comprehensive address data, or a
whole bunch of other things that people think are _really important_.
How
On 25/07/2020 07.06, Andy Townsend wrote:
Why do people in OSM map anything? I can't see any reason why I'd want
to add urban buildings, or comprehensive address data, or a whole bunch
of other things that people think are _really important_.
How are addresses _not_ important? If I'm trying
On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 18:07 +0200, pangoSE wrote:
> Fine by me to attach them to whatever.
> I would not map them twice.
>
> Anyway I never met or heard about anyone who wanted to navigate to a
> signpost. Usually people navigate to attractions like a lake or a
> firepit or a viewpoint or simple f
Fine by me to attach them to whatever.
I would not map them twice.
Anyway I never met or heard about anyone who wanted to navigate to a signpost.
Usually people navigate to attractions like a lake or a firepit or a viewpoint
or simple follow a route and walk past the guideposts.
I find them some
On 25/07/2020 03.34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
On 24. Jul 2020, at 16:18, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
if there is no name, what makes a parking space logically one lot?
Consisting of one contiguous surface? Clearly associated with the same building?
but it’s clearly distinct things: a motorcycl
> I think it would help with community acceptance of a potentially large
> number of meta tags if you're somewhat frugal when it comes to adding
> new ones. [...]
>
> In practice, this could mean ...
>
> * ... not adding key:check_date when the key is first added, or when the
> value is changed a
> adding check timestamps as string tags for every single tag seems a lot of
> bloat. One tag per object for me would be acceptable because it is indeed a
> valuable information when something was last verified and no changes were
> necessary.
Definitely it has the potential for that. And as Ma
Thanks!
> Secondly, I think having to evaluate the history is a challenge. But do
> you have to?
No, I don't have to, thanks to such tags as check_date. But then again,
check_date, survey:date etc. only came to be invented because API
support was missing. It would be better to have somthing like
> It is completely possible to add this functionality to the API in a
> backwards compatible fashion, at the cost of a long per tag in the
> current table (assuming that we don't need the information for historic
> object versions, so at a reasonable cost space wise. There are a couple
> of semanti
Op za 25 jul. 2020 om 13:07 schreef Andy Townsend :
>
> (re adding guideposts to route relations)
>
> On 21/07/2020 22:18, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > I think the Why question comes first.
Why do people in OSM map anything? I can't see any reason why I'd want
> to add urban buildings, or comprehen
(re adding guideposts to route relations)
On 21/07/2020 22:18, Peter Elderson wrote:
I think the Why question comes first!
Why do people in OSM map anything? I can't see any reason why I'd want
to add urban buildings, or comprehensive address data, or a whole bunch
of other things that peo
On 17/07/2020 16:24, Jan Michel wrote:
Hi Andy,
we already have (not well documented) tags for this:
Either you use destination_sign relations as Sarah pointed out. Or, if
you prefer a more simple approach, there are eight defined keys to add
the information with approximate directions:
dire
Am 25.07.2020 um 03:45 schrieb Jarek Piórkowski:
>
> Well, a new API endpoint _could_ automatically read through the entire
> history of a node and note which tags changed when. It would
> essentially be doing what I do when I open the node history in JOSM
> and look when tags changed - only
sent from a phone
> On 24. Jul 2020, at 16:18, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
>>> ...and what if we're mapping spaces? I'm not sure I'm on board with
>>> dividing things which are logically "one parking lot"
>> if there is no name, what makes a parking space logically one lot?
>
> Consisting of one
21 matches
Mail list logo
