Re: [Tagging] Zone 30 (maxspeed)
On 06/07/2010 21:02, Ulf Lamping wrote: Am 06.07.2010 20:38, schrieb Colin Smale: On 06/07/2010 18:44, Richard Mann wrote: I'm not really clear what is the value of tagging a zone, except in a note. Why not just use the standard maxspeed tag? +1 Here in NL it warns you that the given road sign (could be maxspeed, could be some other restriction) is valid until further notice i.e. until you leave the Zone. Without the Zone indication the restrictions lose their official validity at the next junction, which leads to speed limits etc. having to be repeated very frequently. So it is really only a shorthand notation to save money on signs and to reduce the clutter of street furniture. The default speed limit in built-up areas is 50kph so that actually rarely needs to be signed at all. But to make an area limited to 20kph means it has to be signed explicitly. It sure would make life easier if you could just draw a (temporary) polygon and get Potlatch to set maxspeed=20 on all enclosed roads though... Well, no. Two different things here: a) What's the actual maxspeed value b) What's the cause of the actual maxspeed value Wether b) needs to be tagged or not is a matter of personal opinion - further discussions on this are therefore pretty much pointless ... It was a long and hard discussion on talk-de that b shouldn't be replacing a altogether - I'm personally very glad that this concensus was made. If someone want's to specially tag b), I don't see a reason not let him do it that way. I'm not doing it but it won't harm anyone and will save us from ongoing discussions if we want to tag the actual value OR the inherent cause of it (sign, zone, ...). Despite your opening sentence we agree. I was trying to make clear that there is nothing special about the actual max speed in a 30 Zone, only the way it is signed on the ground is different (for reasons I explained). So IMHO all ways should have their maxspeed indicated individually in the traditional way, and if someone wants to draw a polygon to indicate the limits of the zone, well, OSM won't stop them. The polygon I was talking about was only a simple way of selecting a whole bunch of streets in one go with the intention of making a simple edit (e.g. add maxspeed=30) to all of them as I can see the manual one-by-one method getting rather tedious. As John Smith mentioned, there appears to be some support in JOSM for this. Colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Zone 30 (maxspeed)
Colin Smale wrote: On 06/07/2010 21:02, Ulf Lamping wrote: Am 06.07.2010 20:38, schrieb Colin Smale: On 06/07/2010 18:44, Richard Mann wrote: I'm not really clear what is the value of tagging a zone, except in a note. Why not just use the standard maxspeed tag? +1 Here in NL it warns you that the given road sign (could be maxspeed, could be some other restriction) is valid until further notice i.e. until you leave the Zone. Without the Zone indication the restrictions lose their official validity at the next junction, which leads to speed limits etc. having to be repeated very frequently. So it is really only a shorthand notation to save money on signs and to reduce the clutter of street furniture. The default speed limit in built-up areas is 50kph so that actually rarely needs to be signed at all. But to make an area limited to 20kph means it has to be signed explicitly. It sure would make life easier if you could just draw a (temporary) polygon and get Potlatch to set maxspeed=20 on all enclosed roads though... Well, no. Two different things here: a) What's the actual maxspeed value b) What's the cause of the actual maxspeed value Wether b) needs to be tagged or not is a matter of personal opinion - further discussions on this are therefore pretty much pointless ... It was a long and hard discussion on talk-de that b shouldn't be replacing a altogether - I'm personally very glad that this concensus was made. If someone want's to specially tag b), I don't see a reason not let him do it that way. I'm not doing it but it won't harm anyone and will save us from ongoing discussions if we want to tag the actual value OR the inherent cause of it (sign, zone, ...). Despite your opening sentence we agree. I was trying to make clear that there is nothing special about the actual max speed in a 30 Zone, only the way it is signed on the ground is different (for reasons I explained). Well, almost. Example for German laws for 30 zone: * Obligatory bicycle paths (sign 237 and 240) are forbidden, so as a car driver you have to be more wary of bikes on the street. * The right of way is always right before left (no traffic lights or priority roads), so depending on your driving style, this might speed you up or slow you down. Also it could be a good idea to give a negative bias for routers as these zones are usually residential areas not intended for through traffic. So IMHO all ways should have their maxspeed indicated individually in the traditional way, and if someone wants to draw a polygon to indicate the limits of the zone, well, OSM won't stop them. The polygon I was talking about was only a simple way of selecting a whole bunch of streets in one go with the intention of making a simple edit (e.g. add maxspeed=30) to all of them as I can see the manual one-by-one method getting rather tedious. As John Smith mentioned, there appears to be some support in JOSM for this. See [1] for the reasons why we don't use polygons for traffic zones. (Note that contrary to what is found on this wiki page, maxspeed=xx is always tagged explicitly in the traditional way and never implied by other tags.) [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trafficzone#Frequently_asked_questions_.28FAQ.29 -- Sebastian ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Zone 30 (maxspeed)
2010/7/7 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: So IMHO all ways should have their maxspeed indicated individually in the traditional way +1 , and if someone wants to draw a polygon to indicate the limits of the zone, well, OSM won't stop them. IMHO a polygon is not right, as the zone applies only to roads, not to footpaths, cycleways, service ways, etc. It also doesn't apply to roads that have a lower speed limit. The polygon I was talking about was only a simple way of selecting a whole bunch of streets in one go with the intention of making a simple edit (e.g. add maxspeed=30) to all of them don't do this, there might be cases where you delete information (see above) and add some that is not valid. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Zone 30 (maxspeed)
On 7 July 2010 19:28, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: don't do this, there might be cases where you delete information (see above) and add some that is not valid. If he uses my suggestion about JOSM, you can exclude any ways already tagged with a maxspeed... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] tagging religious features (abbey, monastery, shrine), probably subtags of place of worship
Recently I found that we have no documented tags for abbeys, monasteries, shrines. Do you think it would be better to put them into amenity as subtags of place of worship or would it be better to have own tags? If we go for subtags we probably will have to add also one for churches, cathedrals, etc. (what is not the worst, as this issue is raised every now and then). I found monastery in historic=monastery which I don't consider suitable, at least for modern monasteries, but actually also for all monasteries that are still in duty. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging religious features (abbey, monastery, shrine), probably subtags of place of worship
On 8 July 2010 04:15, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Recently I found that we have no documented tags for abbeys, monasteries, shrines. Do you think it would be better to put them into amenity as subtags of place of worship or would it be better to have own tags? If we go for subtags we probably will have to add also one for churches, cathedrals, etc. (what is not the worst, as this issue is raised every now and then). amenity=place_of_worship building=cathedral ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging religious features (abbey, monastery, shrine), probably subtags of place of worship
Le 07/07/2010 20:50, John Smith a écrit : On 8 July 2010 04:15, M∡rtin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Recently I found that we have no documented tags for abbeys, monasteries, shrines. Do you think it would be better to put them into amenity as subtags of place of worship or would it be better to have own tags? If we go for subtags we probably will have to add also one for churches, cathedrals, etc. (what is not the worst, as this issue is raised every now and then). amenity=place_of_worship building=cathedral ? For communities (abbayes, monasteries, convents...) I tag the church as amenity=place_of_worship as other churches On the community building I put the tags religion=christian denomination=catholic community=NNN using the abreviation : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abr%C3%A9viations_des_ordres_religieux_catholiques Sorry no translation of this page. I don't know if we can distinguish churches between shines, community and parish churches actualy. parish churches (and also cathedrals) could be found as members of a relation:boundary:religious_administration according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:boundary#Roman_Catholic_Church Convent churches could be found as member of a relation:site with the community tag But what about shrines... -- FrViPofm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging religious features (abbey, monastery, shrine), probably subtags of place of worship
On 7/7/10 2:50 PM, John Smith wrote: On 8 July 2010 04:15, M∡rtin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Recently I found that we have no documented tags for abbeys, monasteries, shrines. Do you think it would be better to put them into amenity as subtags of place of worship or would it be better to have own tags? If we go for subtags we probably will have to add also one for churches, cathedrals, etc. (what is not the worst, as this issue is raised every now and then). amenity=place_of_worship building=cathedral ? that's fine for the part that is a cathedral. a monastery will usually contain living and working areas, gardens, etc. perhaps an area with landuse=monastery richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
