Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Those examples are very good. Any chance we could get some license-compatible photos in the near future? 2012/4/21 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 10:19 +0200, Ronnie Soak wrote: I would only use a lanes value other than 2 if there are clear road markings, signs or it is otherwise very clear that two cars are supposed to go in one direction at a time (=3) I am not aware of any special signage on 3 lane roads in the UK. It is just a knowledge of the highway code that gives you the rules. 1. Solid double lines on your side mean do not cross, traffic in the opposite direction has solo use of the centre lane. Also broken line on your side and solid double lines on the other side mean your direction has exclusive use of the centre lane. 2. Broken and solid line on your side, traffic in the opposite direction has priority use of centre lane but you can overtake if it is clear and nobody is signalling their intent to pull out. Usually uphill traffic will have priority in this case. 3. Both sides have a broken line and have equal priority to use the centre lane to overtake. Have not seen one of these for years. However OSM does not allow anything other than tagging as 3 lanes, so the above is probably irrelevant to OSM tagging. or there is no way for two cars to pass without a special (signed) passing place (1). There is always a way. There are lots of single track minor roads, that have no passing places and high hedges close to the road. Passing can involve a long reverse and squeeze into a gateway or pull onto any bit of grass verge that may be there. Official passing places are also supposed to be used to allow faster traffic to pass, a rule many city dwellers are totally unaware of, much to the annoyance of locals. I can remember a public information film, in the 70s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQZownCGnYg Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
As no further issues were raised with the updated article I will replace the current lanes-article with my current version. Before that I added a point in the Open issues section about lanes=1.5 and modified the note at the end of the section Narrow road. As lanes=1.5 wasn't documented before and is used very rarely (0.05% of all lanes tags) it shouldn't delay the update of the lanes-article. I also removed the none value in the first example, so that people are not encouraged to not explicitly tag the lanes value. I hope that most people are happy with this update. I'll translate the article into german and maybe into russian, when I got the time. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] OSMI layers in JOSM
* Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com [2012-04-25 10:28 +0200]:
I'm trying to view the OSMI layers in JOSM. The all-knowing,
all-seeing trash heap pointed me to this (german) article:
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=9315
There it is recommended to use the following link in JOSM:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/view/routing/wxs?REQUEST=GetMapSERVICE=wmsVERSION=1.1.1FORMAT=image/pngSRS=EPSG:4326STYLES=LAYERS=unconnected_minor1,unconnected_minor2,unconnected_minor5,unconnected_major1,unconnected_major2,unconnected_major5;
This works like a charm, but with the limitations, that one has to
adjust the resolution manually. Also I seem to be unable to get this
layer transparent. In the article one wrote to add TRANSPARENT=TRUE to
the link, but I can't get this working.
Not sure tagging@ is the best list for this, but...
Here's what I use for my OSM Inspector WTFE view:
wms:http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/views/wtfe/wxs?FORMAT=image/pngtransparent=trueVERSION=1.1.1SERVICE=WMSREQUEST=GetMapLayers=wtfe_line_created,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_line_created_cp,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_point_modified,overview_low,overviewSRS={proj}WIDTH={width}HEIGHT={height}BBOX={bbox}
In particular, my URL contains /osmi/views/, while yous has
/osmi/view/. That might be a source of problems.
Has anyone a hint for me how to get this layer transparent? Is there
any possibility to autoadjust the resolution?
You can't automatically adjust the resolution, but you can right-click on
the layer in the Layers window and select Change resolution. What I
often do is work at two (or sometimes three) specific resolutions, set two
layers of the same WMS to the two different resolutions, and switch
between them with Zoom to native resolution from the same right-click
menu.
As the mapping resources I use become more available in either tiles or
AcGIS REST (which I can turn into tiles with tilestache), I've been
transitioning more to using tiled backgrounds, which do change resolutions
automatically (though there are still glitches there).
--
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
If there's nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the
universe.
-- Beverly Crusher (Star Trek)
--- --
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Hi everybody, based on the changes I believe are important I added a modified proposal to the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE_talk:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme#Neues_Proposal Changes: * Versions are an (optional) part of the proposal. If they are not needed, they can be left out, so this does not complicate tagging. * TABCD is enclosed by : on both sides now. * Directions of ways are properly taken into account. Ignoring the direction makes TMC information useless on non-oneway ways (which I already argued for in a previous mail). * Point locations may have an extent. * Added some informational notes about error checking. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Before that I added a point in the Open issues section about lanes=1.5 and modified the note at the end of the section Narrow road. As So, today I got a chance to revisit an unpaved residential road I've tagged as lanes=1.5 in the distant past. Here's two pictures of it (in one) Above, usual traffic drives almost in the center of the road, as if it were lanes=1. Below, the car in picture has it's right side mirror almost touching the fence, and there's 2.2 meters of the carriageway free for oncoming traffic, 2.6-2.7 meters of space to the fence on the other side of the road. Oncoming cars can get past each other, so it's not lanes=1. Yet all driveers will slow to a crawl, or at least to a jogging speed, so IMO it can't be lanes=2, either. http://i46.tinypic.com/2cfqivn.png Which value would people use for the lanes=*? -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
2012/4/29 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: http://i46.tinypic.com/2cfqivn.png Which value would people use for the lanes=*? I think I wouldn't tag any lanes explicitly here. Looks like a residential road. I wouldn't expect many trucks in this zone, but if I were to map more detail I'd add a width-tag. Looks as if 2 cars can pass each other without big problems. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Looks as if 2 cars can pass each other without big problems. Only in the utopia where all drivers can confidently manouver their cars at speed to gaps only 10-20 cm wider than their car. Most people don't. The white car already has it's right hand wheels outside the normal driving surface. And this is early spring, there are no tree/scrub branches delineating the fences, or any snow limiting such attempts at scraping the fences with the side mirror. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
police doesn't enforce the official rules, then there are factually more lanes on the ground than painted on the road. Isn't that equal to cycling on sidewalks: we shouldn't tag sidewalks with bicycle=yes (in coutries where cyclists may not use them), even if only a dozen or so get a fine each year. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com hat am 29. April 2012 um 17:39 geschrieben: 2012/4/29 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: http://i46.tinypic.com/2cfqivn.png Which value would people use for the lanes=*? I think I wouldn't tag any lanes explicitly here. Looks like a residential road. I wouldn't expect many trucks in this zone, but if I were to map more detail I'd add a width-tag. +1 Any 'default' assumption of any user of the data would give a value between 1 and 2 anyway. As you can see, an assumption of 2 may be the better one here - if you take passenger cars into account. As you can see, an assumption of 1 would be the better one here - if you take lorries into account. Independently of 1, 1.5 or 2 any router would consider this road with nearly the same value for the traffic considerations. Any renderer has a better info with width. What info do you think has lanes=1.5 then? What do you think a user can derive from this info? Looks as if 2 cars can pass each other without big problems. +1 At least no problems regarding traffic time or the mere usage to reach the point you want. But look at the pole right behind - I think they won't try to pass everywhere without advanced caution. Georg___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
On 29/04/12 17:08, Eckhart Wörner wrote: Hi everybody + Eckhart based on the changes I believe are important I added a modified proposal to the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE_talk:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme#Neues_Proposal Changes: * Versions are an (optional) part of the proposal. If they are not needed, they can be left out, so this does not complicate tagging. * TABCD is enclosed by : on both sides now. * Directions of ways are properly taken into account. Ignoring the direction makes TMC information useless on non-oneway ways (which I already argued for in a previous mail). * Point locations may have an extent. * Added some informational notes about error checking. Thanks for your work ! It looks really good. I have only one point left: What to do with more than on TMC route on one way. Do we still need relations for that ? Cheers Colliar ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Hi Colliar, Am Sonntag, 29. April 2012, 18:49:39 schrieb fly: I have only one point left: What to do with more than on TMC route on one way. Do we still need relations for that ? no, we don't. My modified proposal skipped over that section (since I changed nothing in it), but the original proposal talks about this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme#Mehrere_Locations_an_einem_Way Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
On 29/04/12 18:57, Eckhart Wörner wrote: Am Sonntag, 29. April 2012, 18:49:39 schrieb fly: I have only one point left: What to do with more than on TMC route on one way. Do we still need relations for that ? no, we don't. My modified proposal skipped over that section (since I changed nothing in it), but the original proposal talks about this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme#Mehrere_Locations_an_einem_Way Sorry, was a bit fast in reading and did not remember all points of original proposal. Thanks Colliar ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
2012/4/29 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: police doesn't enforce the official rules, then there are factually more lanes on the ground than painted on the road. Isn't that equal to cycling on sidewalks: we shouldn't tag sidewalks with bicycle=yes (in coutries where cyclists may not use them), even if only a dozen or so get a fine each year. It is indeed similar, and I do indeed tag these places with bicycle=permissive cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Apr 29, 2012 10:44 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/4/29 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: police doesn't enforce the official rules, then there are factually more lanes on the ground than painted on the road. Isn't that equal to cycling on sidewalks: we shouldn't tag sidewalks with bicycle=yes (in coutries where cyclists may not use them), even if only a dozen or so get a fine each year. It is indeed similar, and I do indeed tag these places with bicycle=permissive If bicycles aren't allowed, but it's not consistently enforced, how is this not bicycle=no? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Am Sonntag, 29. April 2012, 17:08:05 schrieb Eckhart Wörner: based on the changes I believe are important I added a modified proposal to the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE_talk:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme#Neues_Proposal Changes: * Versions are an (optional) part of the proposal. If they are not needed, they can be left out, so this does not complicate tagging. * TABCD is enclosed by : on both sides now. * Directions of ways are properly taken into account. Ignoring the direction makes TMC information useless on non-oneway ways (which I already argued for in a previous mail). * Point locations may have an extent. * Added some informational notes about error checking. I forgot to mention another change: * 20+5 now means going from LCD 20 to LCD 5, which is way more intuitive (the original proposal maps 20+5 to going from LCD 5 to LCD 20) Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
