Re: [Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.
At 2009-12-22 02:07, Erik Johansson wrote: On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: At 2009-12-21 11:01, Roy Wallace wrote: ... If you don't know where the other end of the street is, you can't use an addr:interpolation way, so it seems to me that you are just tagging a sign. Is there already a tagging scheme for this? If not, propose one - but (as others have said) don't use existing tags in a way they are not intended for. (btw, please don't follow up with but I want it rendered... :P) I've been tagging the sign from survey photos, with address nodes to which I add the tag pseudo=yes. When you get info for adjoining intersections, they could be used to construct a true picture of the range of possible addresses. Shouldn't that be psuedo_position=yes, or some thing describing that you don't know the accuracy of the node you have entered? It's not really the position - the address itself is not real. It is the beginning (or end if you like) of the range of addresses known to start on the nearby corner. Here is one of your nodes: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/587389651 And the pic from which I tagged it: http://sites.google.com/site/am909geo/osm-1/DSCQ4093.low.jpg?attredirects=0 Using the knowledge that even numbers are on the south side of the street in this city[1] and the position of the sign (on the north side of the intersection) from the GPS track, I marked the pseudo-address 698 on the south side of the street, just west of the intersection, as being the most easterly possible address on that block. Similarly, the starting addresses on the other three corners of 13th St are marked 699, 700, and 701. If the next intersection west along 13th St (5th Ave) were surveyed, it would likely read 500 (left) and 600 (right), at which point that corner could be tagged and we would know for certain that the range of possible addresses is 600-698 on the south side and 601-699 on the north side. This area shows the results of a survey of both pseudo-addresses (from street signs) and actual ones (from mailboxes): http://osm.org/go/TaBihQXG4- (Yes, I need to discuss/document this. I suppose this is the discuss part :) ) I'm inclined to mark the position as inaccurate and some tag to be able to put an interval there as well.. The current scheme with drawing a way to interpolate is too much work and cumbersome, for me anyways. I agree it's cumbersome. The interval is not definite - only that it be at least 2 because of the spec of being odd on the north/even on the south. There was some discussion a couple weeks ago that the Karlsruhe schema implied that all addresses within the given range were actually present, a scheme that would not be realistic anywhere I have travelled. As I think I wrote back then, most places seem to use a relative position within the block to assign the actual address. Even within fairly uniform tracts, there will be non-standard intervals between some adjacent properties to account for slightly smaller/larger lots, rounding, different driveway positions, etc. It does seem that these address nodes will need to be associated with the road they sit beside _somehow_ in order to make it useful with reasonable efficiency for any sort of navigation. [1] http://www.qcode.us/codes/upland/view.php?topic=15-15_40-15_40_030frames=on et seq -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
Steve Bennett wrote: On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Depends on the country. I'm gonna have to disagree... if it allows both pedestrians and bicycles, that would be a cycleway in most cases. Disagree all you like. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions This isn't even accurate, it shows foot=no, bicycle=no for motorways in the US, but this is wrong. The default, unless otherwise posted, for all ways in the US, is =yes. That's the MUTCD saying that, not just my observation. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: The current scheme with drawing a way to interpolate is too much work and cumbersome, for me anyways. I agree it's cumbersome. The interval is not definite - only that it be at least 2 because of the spec of being odd on the north/even on the south. There was some discussion a couple weeks ago that the Karlsruhe schema implied that all addresses within the given range were actually present, a scheme that would not be realistic anywhere I have travelled. I think Karlsruhe is still the best approach - e.g. even if you have 4, 6, 12, 18, 50, an even interpolation way from 4 to 50 is the best you can do short of mapping each address individually. I don't see any need for mapping signs on the corner, *unless* you don't know where to put the other end of the interpolation way. It's not *that* cumbersome... :P ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Steve Bennett wrote: On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Depends on the country. I'm gonna have to disagree... if it allows both pedestrians and bicycles, that would be a cycleway in most cases. Disagree all you like. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions This isn't even accurate, it shows foot=no, bicycle=no for motorways in the US, but this is wrong. The default, unless otherwise posted, for all ways in the US, is =yes. That's the MUTCD saying that, not just my observation. Motorway is not a term defined in the MUTCD, the MUTCD just plain doesn't say that, and that completely contradicts state law in many parts of the United States. Of course, requiring tagging rules to be consistent across the entire United States makes about as much sense as requiring them to be consistent across all of Europe. There are many consistent rules, but within each state there are many state-specific ones. In some states, bicycles are banned from interstates. In other states, they aren't. (*) In the latter states, I'd question the use of the tag motorway, as the very word motorway implies a way dedicated to motor vehicles. (*) Each State establishes the operating rules that determine which vehicles are allowed on the Interstate highways under their jurisdiction. Most States do not allow bicyclists on the Interstate shoulders, but bicycle use is permitted in some States, particularly in the west where there is less traffic and where good alternative routes may not exist for bicycles. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Motorway is not a term defined in the MUTCD It is, however, a term defined in the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, which says: On motorways and, if so provided in domestic legislation, on special approach roads to and exit roads from motorways: (a) The use of the road shall be prohibited to pedestrians, animals, cycles, mopeds unless they are treated as motor cycles, and all vehicles other than motor vehicles and their trailers, and to motor vehicles or motor-vehicle trailers which are incapable, by virtue of their design, of attaining on a flat road a speed specified by domestic legislation; ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Then doesn't that make it a cycleway? If you're legally allowed to take a bike down there then, in the eyes of OSM, it's a cycleway Err no. highway=cycleway indicates that the used way is mainly or exclusively for bicycles; the route is designated for bicycles (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.netalan_mintz%2b...@earthlink.net wrote: At 2009-12-22 11:59, Roy Wallace wrote: I think Karlsruhe is still the best approach - e.g. even if you have 4, 6, 12, 18, 50, an even interpolation way from 4 to 50 is the best you can do short of mapping each address individually. Except for this pesky line in the wiki page, which is what implies the presence of all housenumbers on an interpolation way: For missing house numbers (e.g. missing 12) two ways need to be drawn (e.g. 1-11 and 13-25). This is impractical anywhere I've been. I feel your pain. But if you're going to use addr tags anyway, shouldn't your pseudo=yes be addr:pseudo=yes? Or maybe even addr:inclusion=pseudo? I'd prefer this be in the addr: namespace, this way at least there's a hint to any renderers/geocoders that there's something about this addr tag that the renderer/geocoder doesn't understand. Looking at your sample node ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/587389651), it seems to be at least approximately in line with Karlsruhe backward-compatibility-wise. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.
Alan Mintz wrote: At 2009-12-22 11:59, Roy Wallace wrote: I think Karlsruhe is still the best approach - e.g. even if you have 4, 6, 12, 18, 50, an even interpolation way from 4 to 50 is the best you can do short of mapping each address individually. Except for this pesky line in the wiki page, which is what implies the presence of all housenumbers on an interpolation way: For missing house numbers (e.g. missing 12) two ways need to be drawn (e.g. 1-11 and 13-25). Well, that's the very reason for the recent invention of the addr:inclusion key. By adding this tag with an appropriate value, you are basically opting out of that accuracy requirement. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr#Using_Address_Interpolation_for_partial_surveys Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: At 2009-12-22 11:59, Roy Wallace wrote: I think Karlsruhe is still the best approach - e.g. even if you have 4, 6, 12, 18, 50, an even interpolation way from 4 to 50 is the best you can do short of mapping each address individually. Except for this pesky line in the wiki page, which is what implies the presence of all housenumbers on an interpolation way: For missing house numbers (e.g. missing 12) two ways need to be drawn (e.g. 1-11 and 13-25). IMHO this should be prefixed with Ideally, If you know the two ends, go with addr:interpolation. Also, have you seen addr:inclusion? You may want to contribute to some ideas here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr#Using_Address_Interpolation_for_partial_surveys ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
