The narrow road example was clearly the wrong image. I changed that
to lanes=1 and added a photo from Philip Barnes as example for a
narrow two-lane road.
Further I removed the assumptions for two-way motorways/trunks, as it
is recommend to map their carriageways as two separate way.
Anyone else
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Martin Vonwald
Anyone else has a problem with the suggested solution to the lanes=1.5
problem?
I think we should simply recommend to not use fractions since they can
be misinterpreted by any one (not only applications). I still don't
know if 1.5 means an
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Martin Vonwald
Anyone else has a problem with the suggested solution to the lanes=1.5
problem?
I think we should simply recommend to not use fractions since they can
be misinterpreted by any one (not only
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Martin Vonwald
Anyone else has a problem with the suggested solution to the lanes=1.5
problem?
I think we should simply recommend to not use fractions since they can
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
If a feature can be either a closed way or an area, the default
interpretation should always be the closed way. Otherwise, you'd have to
know arbitrary defaults for each type of object.
You have to know anyway if your
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Ilpo Järvinen
if there's anything else than some fancy wordsmithing looking into the
very same road from different angles? :-)
Well, sometimes you have 1 lane, sometimes 2, or something in between.
Sometimes it is related to the width, sometimes only about the
I'm quite happy with lanes=n where n is an integer.
I am very happy to assume that a one-way road without lanes=* has only one
lane.
I am also happy to assume that a not-one-way road without lanes=* has two
lanes (one in each direction).
I am extremely happy to see a width=* tag that I can
Am 26.04.2012 18:07, schrieb Mike N:
On 4/26/2012 8:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Can we use the taginfo stats to revert the change made the 2nd may
2010 where phone has been replaced by contact:phone and add a
big
deprecate notice on the contact: namespace wiki ? (overall, we
still
Through observations I can see that there is a minimum width for lane marking
in the UK. I am not sure what the value is, but have seen sections of road
where lines end where the road narrows.
Will try to find an example.
I am not sure I would want to add a lanes tag where the width falls below
Am 27. April 2012 12:01 schrieb Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
I am not sure I would want to add a lanes tag where the width falls below
this minimum, and would tend to prefer the width tag.
+1
Whilst following cars, it has occurred to me that knowing their width would
be a reasonable
IMHO it would be a good idea to remove fractional lanes amounts and
forget about them. They are too subjective.
What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here:
Am 27.04.2012 09:23, schrieb Ilpo Järvinen:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here:
Not sure, how many lanes these are, could be 5 or even 5.5? Depends on
the car widths and the experience of the drivers:
Heheh... :-) ...there's
Am 27. April 2012 12:18 schrieb Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:
IMHO it would be a good idea to remove fractional lanes amounts and
forget about them. They are too subjective.
What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Georg Feddern wrote:
Am 27.04.2012 09:23, schrieb Ilpo Järvinen:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here:
Not sure, how many lanes these are, could be 5 or even 5.5? Depends on
the car widths and
Wouldn't this discussion benefit from a summary of the use cases we are
trying to address? I see multiple semantics being suggested for the
lanes tag, and at the end of the day we will have to choose one.
* Renderers such as mapnik might want to reflect the number of lanes in
the width of the
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:54:26 Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Andrew Errington wrote:
A lane count of 1.5 is very confusing. What does it mean? What is the
width of each lane? Is it really 1.5? Should it be 1.55, or 1.4, or
1.6?
...No, it's not multiple of some magical
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Martin Vonwald wrote:
Maybe we could put an end to this discussion by enumerating the pro
and cons for both approaches? What exactly is the problem with
lanes=integer+width, that is solved with lanes=1.5 ?
Please pick the integer first so we can discuss more. ...Although
How do we handle lane counts where there's more than one bicycle lane?
How do we count lanes on cycleways? Since these lanes are narrower
than what cars can fit down, things like Gresham segments of the
Springwater Corridor (4 lanes) and situations like 12th Avenue (which
has a couple spots with
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Where did I mention a renderer? If you draw a closed polygon with
railway=platform, that's a continuous platform with a hole in
On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 10:01 +, Philip Barnes wrote:
Through observations I can see that there is a minimum width for lane
marking in the UK. I am not sure what the value is, but have seen
sections of road where lines end where the road narrows.
Will try to find an example.
Sorry its
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
If a feature can be either a closed way or an area, the default
interpretation should always be the closed way. Otherwise, you'd have to
know arbitrary
Am 27. April 2012 20:14 schrieb Anthony o...@inbox.org:
A default set to the value which is correct 99.9%
of the time is not arbitrary.
how would you distinguish between default values and incomplete
data/missing information?
We could have a tag
Op 27 apr. 2012 20:41 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
het volgende:
Am 27. April 2012 20:14 schrieb Anthony o...@inbox.org:
A default set to the value which is correct 99.9%
of the time is not arbitrary.
how would you distinguish between default
Anthony wrote:
area=no can be considered a sic!, but that tag should never have any
actual effect.
Effect on what?
On renderers or any other applications working with OSM data.
If I were writing a renderer, I would assume that a
closed way railway=platform represented an area unless it
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 27. April 2012 20:14 schrieb Anthony o...@inbox.org:
A default set to the value which is correct 99.9%
of the time is not arbitrary.
how would you distinguish between default values and
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Anthony wrote:
If I were writing a renderer, I would assume that a
closed way railway=platform represented an area unless it was tagged
area=no. So that's an effect.
If I were writing a renderer (actually, I am), I
While this is ongoing, Pieren continues to remove area=yes from
railway=platform, which has been on the page since it was created in
2008:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:railway%3Dplatformaction=history
___
Tagging mailing list
27 matches
Mail list logo
