[OSM-talk] Redundant post box
leedstracker at gmail.com
Mon Jan 19 22:40:58 GMT 2009
2009/1/19 Thomas Wood <grand.edgemaster at gmail.com>:
> 2009/1/19 LeedsTracker <leedstracker at gmail.com>:
>> 2009/1/19 Ciaran Mooney <general.mooney at googlemail.com>:
>>> Whilst trying to find post box references in my area, I found quite a
>>> few post boxes that are no longer being used. They are still there,
>>> and I doubt they will be removed any time soon. However they are
>>> no-longer an amenity, as no post will be collected from them.
>>> What is the current procedure for tagging these types of post boxes?
>>> The wiki page for the amenity=post_box tag doesn't provide any
>> I guess disused=yes for starters
>> I guess they'd still render though. Perhaps a different icon would be useful.
> Ugh, this method got through voting?!
I don't know, I'm just saying what I might do having looked at the wiki.
In reality I probably wouldn't map it at all, personally.
However, there are many pubs near me that are closed down but are
useful landmarks. For now I've used amenity=pub, disused=yes, because
it seemed like the least worst option.
Related in my mind is access=private. There are quite a few service
roads with private access, and that combination of tags
(highway=service, access=private) is rendered as a hatched road. I
assume routing software can make use of this too.
More information about the talk