[Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Hello all, A very interesting proposal, thanks. The TMC Inspector you (Infoware) provided (http://osm-tmc.infoware.de/tmc/) is most helpful in reviewing this, too. Here's an additional question beyond those from Eckhart Worner and others. Some ways span well beyond a single adjacent pair of TMC locations. For example, see way 4413896 (on Autobahn A20 near Rostock; vicinity of coordinates 54.02593, 12.23133). There are several TMC locations along this way (10572, 47239, 10573, and a few more at the boundaries).. Will such long ways that span two or more location codes need to be rebuilt into separate ways to make this work? Or, alternatively, could the tagging be expanded to have multiple TMC tags for a way, each one specifying which portion of a way it applies to? I realize that this would increase the complexity of the tagging which would diminish the simplicity appeal of the proposed tagging scheme. thanks, ..robert Robert Stack trafficto...@gmail.com -- Hi, Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2012, 15:42:29 schrieb fly: * I still do not get one major point which was totally left out on the first** scheme. What actually belongs to a point and how are they tagged. *Especially * on big crossings and roundabouts I always was confused (e.g. it might be** possible that a part of this point is blocked but how do I know which one *and * you might be able to use the first/last exit/entrance of a junction but not *the * rest. )* Indeed, this is what I was worried about as well. Here's a proposed (partial) fix, which starts from the original proposal. Let's assume that 123, 456 and 789 are connected LCD which describe a road. Further assume that at 456 there's a big intersection. Then: - All ways between 123 and 456 are marked tmc=DE:123+456, and all ways between 456 and 789 are marked tmc=DE:456+789. - All ways on the intersection 456 leading from 123 to 789 are then marked tmc=DE:456+. This has several advantages: - A traffic jam between 123 and 456 will not block the intersection 456 anymore. - Exits are defined as follows: an exit at 456 in positive direction starts at a way that is tagged either tmc=DE:456+ or tmc=DE:123+456 (from), uses a node that is part of a way tagged either tmc=DE:456+ or tmc=DE:456+789 (via) and ends at a way that is tagged neither tmc=DE:456+ nor tmc=DE:456+789, nor tmc=DE:123+456 (to). An exit is therefore a maneuver. This may sound a bit technical at first, but none of this is exposed to the tagging, and the idea of an exit is probably quite intuitive. - Likewise, entries are defined. - Automatic consistency checking is still possible, as there are no holes. There is at least one issue that still has to be addressed: this tagging does not imply an ordering of the exits / entries; it is not clear what the first, second… exit would be. Eckhart Wörner ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling
I'm wondering what the best way would be to tag a good-quality shoulder that acts essentially as an undesignated bike lane, in that you can use it but it is not required. Current Florida DOT policy is to use these on rural roads, with marked bike lanes only when there is a lane to the right. For example here: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=enll=30.605358,-86.950672spn=0.008255,0.016512gl=ust=mz=17layer=ccbll=30.605241,-86.950558panoid=X4-X3CdhvVO_ptMWbvB8SAcbp=12,330.83,,0,9.24 One can choose to ride either in the right lane or on the shoulder beyond the intersection. One regional mapper uses cycleway=shoulder for this, but I see that as sub-optimal, since it's primarily a shoulder, not a cycleway. It would be like putting cycleway=sidewalk whenever there's a smooth paved sidewalk. On the other hand, shoulder=yes or shoulder=paved says nothing about the quality of the shoulder. Should there be a minimum width for a shoulder (FDOT's standard is 4 feet)? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: One regional mapper uses cycleway=shoulder for this, but I see that as sub-optimal, since it's primarily a shoulder, not a cycleway. It would be like putting cycleway=sidewalk whenever there's a smooth paved sidewalk. I quite like cycleway=shoulder. It describes exactly what's going on: the cycling infrastructure at this point isn't a marked lane (cycleway=lane), nor a segregated lane (cycleway=track), it's a sealed road shoulder. Could you elaborate on your objections? The real complication arises when there are shoulders of varying quality that are assessed (by cyclists) as being more or less suitable for cycling - leading to issues of subjectivity. At least the situation you describe appears objective: the surface was intended for cycling on. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling
Hmmm. Apparently Thunderbird's 'reply to list' fails when there are multiple lists. Sending again: On 4/17/2012 11:47 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: I quite like cycleway=shoulder. It describes exactly what's going on: the cycling infrastructure at this point isn't a marked lane (cycleway=lane), nor a segregated lane (cycleway=track), it's a sealed road shoulder. Could you elaborate on your objections? It implies that the shoulder is an official cycleway, when in reality it may be full of debris (or worse: http://flbikelaw.org/2012/03/paved-shoulder/ ). Would you use a cycleway tag on any sidewalk that one can ride on (here that would be any outside city limits), or just those that have been specially designated as such? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: It implies that the shoulder is an official cycleway, when in reality it may be full of debris (or worse: http://flbikelaw.org/2012/03/paved-shoulder/ ). You think it implies that because it's a cycleway=* tag? I wouldn't read too much into the tag itself - the meaning of the tag is whatever the documentation for the tag says. Would you use a cycleway tag on any sidewalk that one can ride on (here that would be any outside city limits), or just those that have been specially designated as such? I don't do any mapping in the US - it depends what your local community decides. cycleway=sidewalk doesn't sound terrible to me. We do have a situation here where sometimes footpaths (sidewalks) have signs allowing cycling on them (the default is no). Usually we actually trace out that section as a highway=cycleway. (We don't distinguish it from any other bike path.) If it's more common than that, you probably want a different solution. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
