On 4/2/22 10:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 at 19:32, wrote:
I assume these National parks where different rules are in effect
have a boundary relation.
In which case it would be possible to either:
a) tag a def: directly on that boundary relation with
On 4/2/22 17:25, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
I've always listed the name of units & so on just as name=*.
+1
No longer used as the address, used 2 centuries ago.
Thanks
Graeme
On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 at 16:14, Mat Attlee wrote:
Whilst I was out surveying today I stumbled upon a
Dang auto-correct, of course that's addr:housename.
And when there is "both," as it appears here, "that's a good question!" (Maybe
enter both?)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On Feb 3, 2022, at 10:12 PM, Mat Attlee wrote:
> Whilst I was out surveying today I stumbled upon a building that had a street
> number but also a house name, as just above the entrance and door number it
> said Rivenhall. Now the question is should this be tagged as the name or
>
Well, the advantage of that approach, ***if it were supported by data
consumers***, is that you could just classify your ways using some tag, and
then have whatever consequences are of legislation apply to them. If the
legislation changes, you just make the change to these default definitions,
I've always listed the name of units & so on just as name=*.
Thanks
Graeme
On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 at 16:14, Mat Attlee wrote:
> Whilst I was out surveying today I stumbled upon a building that had a
> street number but also a house name, as just above the entrance and door
> number it said
Whilst I was out surveying today I stumbled upon a building that had a
street number but also a house name, as just above the entrance and door
number it said Rivenhall. Now the question is should this be tagged as the
name or addr:housename? I know the latter is common in the UK though I
couldn't
Thanks, both!
Yep, get's very messy very quickly :-(
Thanks
Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
def: can have conditions:
“def:highway=footway[walking_track=yes];access:bicycle”=no
(I’m not proposing this particular tagging scheme, this is just an example)
So if there is any tag on your walking track footways, or paths, or whatever
that can be used to distinguish them, you could
Hi Graeme,
That’s correct – however the defaults can be set on very specific tags
(def:highway=footway;access:bicycle=no) and if absolutely necessary even down
to within a single park/reserve/area/track rather than a blanket ruling. It
would get very fiddly at that degree of detail.
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 at 19:32, wrote:
> I assume these National parks where different rules are in effect have a
> boundary relation.
>
>
>
> In which case it would be possible to either:
>
>
>
> a) tag a def: directly on that boundary relation with the rules that apply
> or (maybe better in this
Thanks Thorsten,
That would work however there has been a fairly recent regulation change that
does allow bicycle use within signed areas, but those signed/specified/leased
areas could also get the same defaults relation. At the moment I am not aware
of any areas within National Parks but
I assume these National parks where different rules are in effect have a
boundary relation.
In which case it would be possible to either:
a) tag a def: directly on that boundary relation with the rules that apply
or (maybe better in this case)
b) create a type=defaults relation “Tasmania
I probably should have qualified my comment as I am dealing solely with tracks
within National Parks (at this stage). I know there are tracks outside of
National Parks where such bike restrictions do not apply.
Cheers - Phil
From: Little Maps
Sent: Thursday, 3 February 2022 7:19 PM
To:
My 2¢ here, as both an avid runner/hiker and bike rider (in NSW). Most of my
editing is along those lines, along with tracks through the bush when I go
exploring. I’m particularly conscious of routing issues and fixing them if
there’s an issue†, given I use a number of route planners that use
Hi all, thanks for a really informative discussion. I’m puzzled by the comments
I’ve copied below. I’m uncertain when legislative defaults apply (and hence
explicit access tagging isn’t required) and when tagging is needed. In the
instance mentioned below, bicycle = no should not be added to
16 matches
Mail list logo
