some providers already make it publicly available knowledge. for example
in the UK link ATM has an app, and you can use it to find nearby ATMs.
most of the things it tells you are pretty standard, but some things
that may need new tags are pin management services, audio assistance and
£5 notes
hi! I haven't been following this too attentively so apologies if it's
already established, but I'm in UK, I asked my GP and they advised me to
not attempt attaching the needle and thus put the needle attached to the
syringe in the box (to avoid accidental injury from removing the needle)
so...
while I can't see a problem with a tag for each pet, it may still make
more sense to have a pets tag and just namespace species/related things
under it similar to the access tag. use cases I can think of:
* pets=no | no matter what, no pets
* pets=yes | open to all or at least most pets other
I never saw that in access before, but that actually makes a lot of
sense. conditionals are somewhat underutilised where I live so I always
forget about them, but that's a fair point
On 3/7/19 9:58 PM, Warin wrote:
On 08/03/19 00:07, seirra blake wrote:
while I can't see a prob
s less
taginfo popularity, but better fits source data.
Il gio 7 mar 2019, 14:09 seirra blake <mailto:sophietheopos...@yandex.com>> ha scritto:
while I can't see a problem with a tag for each pet, it may still
make more sense to have a pets tag and just namespace
I'm guessing it depends on how specific the authority is. on the one
hand you'd think it'd usually just be either birds or no birds however I
imagine the distinction may still crop up. as I can't actually see any
article saying about animals used as access tags, I imagine it's just
tag as you s
pet=permissive? although if the operator does straight out say 'pets
allowed' without any further suggestion (be it images, small print or
whatever) I guess it would be yes until proven otherwise or further
explained/surveyed. if this does get put in an article it may be worth
noting that it's
I can see *a lot* of shared routes in my area because most of the buses
heavily use a star topography (everything must take you to a central
station) as opposed to a hybrid mesh/star topography (everywhere has
access to a service to a central station, but there are circular routes
to allow quic
;corridors',
reusing the same roads as the rest of the lines is very common (as
that is where the stops are, obviously).
Maybe I should try to create an example somewhere. Preferably a small
island
Polyglot
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 3:38 PM seirra blake
mailto:sophietheopos...@yandex
ace these ways themselves.
You would need to allow all types of route relations to contain ways
and shared segment relations.
I'm not sure if you would need any special tag to indicate it's
shared. If it's used more than once, it's shared, right?
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op
27;t want
their names shown)
On 3/15/19 2:37 PM, seirra blake wrote:
I can see *a lot* of shared routes in my area because most of the
buses heavily use a star topography (everything must take you to a
central station) as opposed to a hybrid mesh/star topography
(everywhere has access to a ser
hen they can not be reused for those lines.
As far as I'm concerned, the sequence of stops is the 'signature'
defining each variation in itinerary.
Polyglot
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 6:55 PM seirra blake
mailto:sophietheopos...@yandex.com>> wrote:
key: almost tagging
hmm... I'm not quite sure on what would be best. I do see your point in
the case of just splitting very long ways there, they would not be
'shared' at all. to the best of my knowledge type=* is intended to
exclusively define the relation. in all circumstances that we have
discussed, it still jo
hmm maybe. version 4 will include a detailed example, once that is
available feel free what would be missing for that purpose
On 3/15/19 7:19 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
maybe we can have roles to state whether the tags of the referenced object
should apply to the relation or if only the ge
deas you
contributed (being kept in an opt in basis in case people don't want
their names shown)
On 3/15/19 5:54 PM, seirra blake wrote:
key: almost tagging should occur here | data may be reused in parent |
data may be reused in parent and any 'adjacent' (with the same let
oh okay yeah i get it!
On Aug 17 2018, at 4:17 pm, Jmapb wrote:
>
> On 8/16/2018 6:39 PM, seirra wrote:
> > if a floor of a building is for example: a store at the bottom of the
> > building, and the rest is apartments... shouldn't it then be a
> > building labelled as a chemist, with the tag lev
yeah, if it did get mapped it should probably at least be something specific
otherwise the user has no idea what to watch out for, and it may unreasonably
deter people from the area, i think it might be the same reason reviews aren't
recorded?outside of that i don't think osm performs live actio
17 matches
Mail list logo