for
the public, and one lane opposite for buses only. I think I'll use
psv=opposite for now.
For the simple oneway tag, -1 is used to indicate a contraflow lane.
perhaps:
access=highway
oneway=yes
access:psv:oneway=-1
The last taken from the access: name space proposal
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
is registered!
Wow, somebody's reading the voting description completely wrong.
6 unanimous yes approve is an approval.
Otherwise, once 15 votes are reached, the majority rules.
This proposal still has only 14 votes, so voting should still be open.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description
something through,
but only 1 No vote to can it.
This is completely incorrect.
And it needs only one vote, which can be yes or no.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
8 votes for XOR against, since that would
be a majority of 15)
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
The map features page lists both leisure=golf_course and sport=golf.
Can we please pick one of these and remove the other?
Thanks
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
Please read and comment on the driveway proposal, at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Driveway
Thanks
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
Please read and comment on the proposal at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Highway_administrative_and_physical_descriptions
Thank you.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing
I've added a decision tree to the physical section of the page, as well
as removed the boulevard designation (since it didn't really add much)
I'd like to have some more comments from the UK and german end, as to
whether or not A and B roads (and others?) fit into the highway:admin
scheme.
Lester Caine wrote:
Alex Mauer wrote:
I've added a decision tree to the physical section of the page, as well
as removed the boulevard designation (since it didn't really add much)
I'd like to have some more comments from the UK and german end, as to
whether or not A and B roads
Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
It's a whole lot easier to add additional tags that are logical and describe
the physical properties of the highway specifically. For the physical you
I disagree that it's a whole lot easier. As you mention below, who
wants to spend hours adding 20 tags to
Voting is now open for
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Path
Please vote on the proposal as it stands.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
DavidD wrote:
According to map features the value for the lanes key should be.
Number of travel lanes in each (or only permitted) direction
I've been tagging to this definition.
Number of travel lanes on the way
This makes more sense to me because you can tag two way single lane
I've updated the wording to hopefully be more clear.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Voting is now open on tagging for the sport of shooting.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Shooting
Please record your vote.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi
Ulf Lamping wrote:
Alex Mauer schrieb:
Voting is now open on tagging for the sport of shooting.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Shooting
Please record your vote.
Page says: voting is not open yet, proposed for 2008-02-12
And it's after 2008-2-12.
Conveniently
defined is also an option for the 'type' tag. Though
I guess that's not mentioned explicitly on the page.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
80n wrote:
I'm not sure about the secondary roads. At zoom 8, the previous render
looks good, but it gets overwhelming once zoomed out a bit. (starting
around zoom 6 I guess?) Maybe just the narrowing, without touching the
color would be better? Or maybe less reduction of the
of such for the TIGER migration,
as there was and still is no official way to tag such railways.)
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
- and rack-driven in the same section
* railways which are cable-driven for only a section
* funiculars connected to a main rail system
I've updated my proposal at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Incline_railway
to reflect this.
-Alex Mauer hawke
Sven Geggus wrote:
To be serious, I don't like this pseudo object-oriented
railway:incline:traction= stuff at all.
Huh? object oriented? It's like that in order to prevent potential
conflicts, not anything to do with object orientation.
As far as rendering is concerned, your proposol
it is on
a railway=something object.
Clearly, there's no way that a traction key could ever be applied to
something that shares a way with a railway. That's not a real problem,
just something imaginary.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk
it to
something other than railway, which can share a way with a railway. The
simple/plain traction= would preclude this.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Gervase Markham wrote:
Alex Mauer wrote:
I think it is possible, even likely, that we might want to apply it to
something other than railway, which can share a way with a railway. The
simple/plain traction= would preclude this.
Can you give an example of such a thing?
What features
Discussion of a method for specifying day and month only here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Omegatron/Date_formatting#Day-month
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tagwatch
Is there any tagwatch covering the whole planet?
The links on that page only seem to cover very limited subsets.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
of the One True Way
started bitching about how this tag is already in 'widespread' use (at
least in their corner of the UK), and suddenly got round to documenting
their usage of the tag.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
Andy Allan wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, I see it differently. As I recall:
*Some people said this is the way it will be. Since they have dev
access, they also added their method to the rendering system,
Let me be blunt: I don't have
Robin Paulson wrote:
of the two no votes, i suspect one (Hawke/Alex Mauer) is an objection
based on 'namespacing'. as this still has not been widely accepted,
would you consider changing your vote to a yes, alex?
Namespacing aside, I still think 'service=' is too vague. However, as I
don't
with the way it was created.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
using categories.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
would be good as well. The tags aren't useless
though, even if they're not rendered on the main map. A map such as
the OSM cyclemap (http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/osm/) might need to have
the differentiation between a mountain bike cycleway and a
general-purpose/road bike cycleway.
-Alex Mauer
%
are tagging leisure=foo and the other 50% are using sport=foo,
tagwatch can't provide any indication of that.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
Alex Mauer schrieb:
I do not know what you actually want to do, but this sounds kind
of dangerous. By all means, do not misuse keywords introduced
and well established for different purposes. Always try to tag
in a backwards compatible manner.
highway=cycleway
cycle network. Just because a route is not
suitable for all bicycles doesn't mean it's not a designated cycle route.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
of the
surface of the route (possibly intentional in the case of a mountain
biking route) cannot take away its designation as a route for bicycles.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman
...
For what it's worth, while I agree completely with Steve Hill, I'd be
fine with including the shortcuts just to make Andy happy. It's not
like anyone else has to apply or render them...
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
80n wrote:
highway=road
This is suitably vague, but has a clear enough meaning.
Isn't a value of unknown in use on several other tags? It is at least
on the whole access series of tags
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:access)
So highway=unknown would make sense to me.
-Alex
Dave Stubbs wrote:
You just said that to the one guy who's actually writing rendering
rules which use this tag. Well done there.
Yeah, he's free to make use of his shortcuts on his own rendering
system. That doesn't make those shortcuts globally useful.
-Alex Mauer hawke
rather
than a complete unknown isn't really going to be helpful to anyone.
I don't think it's a good idea for the highway tag to be used for so
many non-road things -- but that's probably a discussion for another time.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk
Steve Hill wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008, Alex Mauer wrote:
IMO if it's sufficiently unknown that it will have to be revisited
anyway for more accurate classification, marking it as a road rather
than a complete unknown isn't really going to be helpful to anyone.
Sure it is - I know I can
the
intended purpose is generally not immediately obvious)
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
of the page.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
then?
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
be better to just not tag it as a canal
(just giving it the relevant name of Croyden canal instead) so that
someone expecting a navigable waterway isn't disappointed.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
Gervase Markham wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
As requested:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Bridge
This has now been approved, with 15 votes.
As noted on the talk page, the vote is still open since it has not been
open for the requisite 2 weeks. Voting is
Steve Hill wrote:
Would it be better to have something other than yes to mean legally
enshrined access permission to protect against people tagging stuff as
yes without fully understanding what it means (i.e. people not reading
the wiki)?
I think it would. I suggest access=highway
-Alex
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
It would have to be contained within the foot, horse, bicycle, and
motorcar tags though, so that the official rights of *each* mode of
transport can be described.
I think it's been implied for a long time that all the values for the
access key apply to all of the
to lose).
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Beau Gunderson wrote:
What do you all think?
I agree with everything you said. I think that losing the wings would
be a big improvement in osmarender even for more basic bridges.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
that discussion
would still be underway and no one would be happy, if we'd tried to use
names for the values instead.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
, not to the stations and nodes
themselves. Those areas are logical, not physical.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
in favor of the path
tag has been rejected. However, those tags can be interpreted as
shortcuts for the path tag with appropriate access implications.
Voting was 6 in favor, 26 against, and 2 abstentions.
Relevant changes have been incorporated into the wiki.
-Alex Mauer hawke
on the cycle route
itself. Obviously legality of use by other modes of transportation will
vary by jurisdiction (In some places cycleway implies moped=yes, while
in others it implies moped=no). But I think it's fair to say that in
all jurisdictions, highway=cycleway will imply bicycle=designated.
-Alex
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
Alex Mauer schrieb:
The access restrictions on the road (no bicycles if there is an
accompanying cycle route) don't affect the access on the cycle route
itself. Obviously legality of use by other modes of transportation will
vary by jurisdiction (In some places
.
Maybe name:__none__. Or something.
Sounds overcomplicated to me. If you know something to be correct, just
ignore the warnings.
- -Alex Mauer hawke
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFITVSn66h
I'm
going around repeatedly checking the same routes just in case.
Treat an unnamed road as the simple notification that it is, not as a
problem to be corrected.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing
as they are on
the ground. As such, I would say that those two situations are the
same. The latter situation might warrant a note=Officially called Foo
Road tag or some such.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
, and I agree with that.
Mark all unnamed roads in the area you're mapping with reviewed=no,
and then once you've reviewed them, delete the tag. I just don't see a
need to mark out that the name specifically has been reviewed.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
SteveC wrote:
Why do you think Richard 'has' to revisit it?
He personally doesn't, but if a road has a name, and that name is to be
in the database, someone has to go there and find out what it is.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
, and fortunately for us.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
into this area again any time
soon to check on the very few unnamed roads that are still there. This
is fairly likely, since the area in question hasn't been mapped by hand
yet (i.e. there is no mapper local to the area)
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
the validator could mislead someone by
suggesting that there's a need to actually go there to fix up the
largish cluster of missing road names in the area. And if so, there's
probably a need to clean up the validator. But I don't believe that to
be the case.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
roads larger than service -- unnamed service
roads are very common. So much so that they shouldn't be in warnings at
all.
Do you have an example of a place with many unnamed roads?
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
before somebody
told me that tracktype=grade1 is track with paved surface.
I would expect them to be highway=service. Do you have a picture of one?
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk
no bearing on whether
it's marked as service. A service road is a service road, regardless of
whether it's public or private. From the wiki, Key:highway page: It is
a very general and sometimes vague description of the physical structure
of the highway.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description
unrelated tags.
They are described on the same page, so there's at least some
relationship. See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:access#Routing_restrictions
-- I totally agree with your interpretation though.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk
be tagged with an additional foot=* tag.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
% of users to add
an extra tag 100% of the time.
I like the idea of having country-specific implications/assumptions, but
I don't really see a good way to document that. Any suggestions?
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
.
Are they definitely usable as footways?
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
no one really
knows except Richard B, who put it there.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
path, a byway is something very
specific in the UK because it has a legal meaning.
You are aware that the OSM definitions of things and the UK legal
definitions of things are not always the same, right?
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk
=yes, but it
would be nice to use some generally agreed tag.
Take a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:trail_visibility
Combined with highway=path, does that cover what you need to map?
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk
make up bullshit just to trash-talk that which you don't understand.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
outside of Europe...
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
(Unambiguous path or markers everywhere) would be the one to use.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
accessibility of a way doesn't belong in the highway key, especially
when we have a separate key for it.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Stephen Gower wrote:
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 06:33:10PM -0500, Alex Mauer wrote:
So it really depends on interpretation. In particular, footways have a
particular legal status in the UK which doesn't apply to every place
that you can walk.
call a pavement and you might call a sidewalk
that that one is
terrible.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
correct, since it means not permitted or unsuitable -- if it gets so
little snow, it's probably unsuitable for skiing.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
=44.53762lon=-89.56218zoom=16layers=B
and in osmarender:
http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=44.53753819714547lon=-89.56241392105782zoom=16layers=B000F000F
I tried using generate_image.py to create an image of the same area, but
it just showed up blank grey...
-Alex Mauer hawke
puts foot above the other
uses, even though this may not be the case in reality. The designated
access value helps with this though.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
and what's allowed to use it. You might want to
use the surface=* tag for that.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
that clearance always
refers to free space below -- meaning that it's the bridge's clearance
that is marked. This does not contradict that it is also the loading
gauge of the vehicles passing underneath it...
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 08/04/2009 07:17 PM, David Lynch wrote:
The USA has no such sign, nor do Canada and Mexico (AFAIK.) Do we have
no motorways?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I-95.svg
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
. I agree that it's
redundant -- it seems like it's just a combination of
travelmode=designated and access=no.
Not sure how you think path was forced though. It had 34 votes, 22
for and 9 against (3 abstain). Nobody forced anything, we just used the
standard procedure.
-Alex Mauer hawke
with a majority approval
It seems to me that we have one.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
created the proposal Trail which was also not like
you describe. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Trail
From the very beginning, it did not mean what you say it did. Maybe
you're thinking of something else?
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
/bridleway/cycleway), so they were corrected. Seems like a good
practice to me, and a large part of the purpose of the whole voting system.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk
://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface -- or am I missing something?
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
the lack of it needs a sign in
the wiki for access=designated.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
of suitability, which people are keen
to remove from the access=* tags.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
-- at least some, probably most or
all, states in the US allow learner drivers to use the
motorway/freeway/interstate.
-Alex mauer Hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
surface=unpaved/dirt/mud/etc., while small would require the width tag,
I think.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
of the highway values has ever described the physical
characteristics of the road, apart from motorway in a very limited sense.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
the possibilities would be a better start.
Two things that I think would be the most helpful, would be the ability
to apply additional tags after the fact, and some sort of way of showing
common already-used tags (e.g. a completion dropdown while typing a tag
value)
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description
that the Edit this track button went to the same
place as all the edit links.
Perhaps this could be changed, so that it's more obvious what exactly is
being edited.
Thanks
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing
treating them as space-delimited instead of
comma-delimited. Is something wrong with the tag interpreter?
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
has bigger font than name of village or town.
Maybe, it's time for tag microsuburb? which can be used with place=town
and place=village?
Sounds to me like a renderer problem, not a case for a new tag.
-Alex Mauer “hawke”
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
. If a suburb (node) is within a town (area), then
render it smaller than one which is within a city (area).
-Alex Mauer “hawke”
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
1 - 100 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
