Re: [Tagging] Emergency lane used by PSV at rush time
2012/10/14 Eric SIBERT courr...@eric.sibert.fr: lanes=* wiki would need to be modified to not count temporary lanes. It would be more consistent as most of the time only two lanes are available. The last discussion and update of this article was in April. If I remember correct the intention was that lanes that are available to the GENERAL traffic at certain conditions should be counted. As this lane is only available to PSV it should not be counted and therefore your proposed tagging would be correct. I suggest the following rewording which should reflect the initial intention: Other lanes such as Wikipedia spitsstrooken in the Netherlands or Wikipedia temporäre Standstreifen in Austria, Germany and Switzerland which are available to GENERAL traffic (I.E. NOT LIMITED TO A SPECIFIC KIND OF VEHICLES) at certain restricted times, for example during the rush hour. Any objections? Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] destination_ref vs. dest_ref vs. destination:ref
Hi! Up to now I usually used the tag destination_ref to specify the ref of the road where a link-road is heading, in analogy with the destination key. Now I've seen the key dest_ref in use and also destination:ref. Of course none is documented in the wiki ;-) What should we do? I could write a proposal but what for what tag? Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] destination_ref vs. dest_ref vs. destination:ref
I saw the choice between dest_ref and destination_ref and adopted dest_ref for the simple reason that it's shorter. In my mkgmap styles I allow for either, and recently added destination:ref to that list. I'm not particularly bothered which one wins, but I'm always in favour of a bit of standardisation. Slightly OT: Can I put in a plea to continue to populate these tags on the way as a whole even when the :lanes: data is present? Promising as it is, it will take a while before :lanes is properly supported by mappers and tools. Please don't remove useful, working data just because there's a new kid on the block. Colin On 15/10/2012 09:23, Martin Vonwald wrote: Hi! Up to now I usually used the tag destination_ref to specify the ref of the road where a link-road is heading, in analogy with the destination key. Now I've seen the key dest_ref in use and also destination:ref. Of course none is documented in the wiki ;-) What should we do? I could write a proposal but what for what tag? Martin ___ 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] destination_ref vs. dest_ref vs. destination:ref
2012/10/15 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: Slightly OT: Can I put in a plea to continue to populate these tags on the way as a whole even when the :lanes: data is present? That's the way I do it: destination:lanes before the split/slip-road/link and destination after it. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
Hi! Some kind of short how-would-you-tag-this-survey. Have a look at part five of this motorway: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png Only part 5 is relevant. Assume there is no physical separation just a double line between the upper and lower two lanes. How would you tag this: a) One way with lanes=4 b) Two separate ways with lanes=2 each c) Tell me! Please also reason your decision. Many thanks in advance, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
I would choose option b). Even if all four lanes are one piece of carriageway, it is useful for routing directions etc to be able to make a distinction between the left and right parts of the road. Normal mortals are supposed to treat the solid white lines as if they were a brick wall anyway, and be on the correct part of the road before part 5 starts. If we start tagging exceptions to traffic laws for emergency vehicles then we have an awful lot of work to do... I am not sure I would interpret the diagram in that way though; the fact that there are no arrows on the road from part 5 onwards suggests to me that there is no chance of changing your mind. I think the intention is that part 5 is the start of physical separation, but I might be wrong here. Colin On 15/10/2012 10:56, Martin Vonwald wrote: Hi! Some kind of short how-would-you-tag-this-survey. Have a look at part five of this motorway: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png Only part 5 is relevant. Assume there is no physical separation just a double line between the upper and lower two lanes. How would you tag this: a) One way with lanes=4 b) Two separate ways with lanes=2 each c) Tell me! Please also reason your decision. Many thanks in advance, Martin ___ 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] How to tag: Legally separated ways
I would opt for (b) even though I know that this is not the offcial way of tagging. The reason: In section (4) the driver can still change lanes, at least on the middle lanes, whereas in section (5) he cannot (legally) change lanes any more between the middle lanes. This example clearly illustrates the - known - limitations of the presently used tagging scheme. Volker On 15 October 2012 10:56, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: Hi! Some kind of short how-would-you-tag-this-survey. Have a look at part five of this motorway: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png Only part 5 is relevant. Assume there is no physical separation just a double line between the upper and lower two lanes. How would you tag this: a) One way with lanes=4 b) Two separate ways with lanes=2 each c) Tell me! Please also reason your decision. Many thanks in advance, Martin ___ 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - (key:branch)
Hi. I would suggest to add a few well known examples to the page to make it more clear what it's about at first glance. Currently these are on the talk page, but IMHO they should be on the wiki page itself, too. And: I would like to see a distinction between branch and the adress. Sometimes branches have dedicated names, sometimes they have numbers - here the branch is a useful tag; but often branches are only identified by address, and there I'm not sure if/why we should use a dedicated key as the Mc Donalds at Main Street might be enough. regards Peter Am 15.10.2012 14:27, schrieb Andrew Errington: Hello everyone, It's my responsibility to keep this proposal going. Sorry about the delay, but I would like to open this proposal for a vote. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:branch Since I first put up the proposal I have wanted more and more to be able to use it. There were two positive messages on the mailing list, and some reasonable comments in the discussion page on the wiki. I also found out that this tag is already in use for the purposes I envisioned, and in April last year there was a discussion for this tag (on this mailing list!), with several people wishing to use it, but no formal proposal was made. I would like to go through with the vote, and if it is successful I will document the tag in the wiki. Thank you, Andrew ___ 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] How to tag: Legally separated ways
I created a new picture very much based on the old one. Just made the road gray to try to make it more clearer? http://minkarta.no-ip.org/Lanes_Example_2.svg Im not sure how to upload it so if anyone thinks this is better please do, otherwise I atleast learned a little what I can do in inkscape :). Best Regards Tobias J 2012/10/15 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, you are wrong - I drew the image ;-) But because the image is not 100% clear I added a note in the related article and now I have to make sure the note is correct and clear. Your image and note are not really helping. The figure tend to represent the physical layout but a footnote says that it is just a legal separation. And even worse, you say that some people are violating the general guideline... So please, for the newcomers and sake of clarity, improve your picture and draw a single solid line only or any thing that do not confuse readers. Because what is 2 solid lines in section 5 becomes a real physical seperation on section 6. And remove the footnote comment admitting mistakes. This is happening daily in OSM but it is not a reason to accept them in the wiki doc. Pieren ___ 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] Feature Proposal – RFC – Dynamic maxspeed
I would like to draw attention again to this proposal as I stumbled across a pretty useless maxspeed=signals again. And I would like to suggest a different tag: instead of dynamic_maxspeed I would prefer maxspeed:variable for the following reasons: * as far as I know those kind of speed limits are usually called variable speed limit and not dynamic speed limit * I would like to see the key right beside the maxspeed key in an editor Martin 2012/9/20 Eckhart Wörner ewoer...@kde.org: Hi everybody, as a follow-up to a previous discussion on this topic here is an RFC that tries to improve the dynamic maxspeed situation. The text of the proposal can be found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dynamic_maxspeed Please comment using this list or in the discussion page of the proposal. Eckhart ___ 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] Feature Proposal – RFC – Dynamic maxspeed
Maxspeed is always variable, because you have to adjust your speed according to road conditions (snow, fog, traffic). Signals just make that visible, but it is always there, even without the signals. The only thing I would map is the maximal value the sign can show and put it in the maxspeed tag. Janko 2012/10/15 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com I would like to draw attention again to this proposal as I stumbled across a pretty useless maxspeed=signals again. And I would like to suggest a different tag: instead of dynamic_maxspeed I would prefer maxspeed:variable for the following reasons: * as far as I know those kind of speed limits are usually called variable speed limit and not dynamic speed limit * I would like to see the key right beside the maxspeed key in an editor Martin 2012/9/20 Eckhart Wörner ewoer...@kde.org: Hi everybody, as a follow-up to a previous discussion on this topic here is an RFC that tries to improve the dynamic maxspeed situation. The text of the proposal can be found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dynamic_maxspeed Please comment using this list or in the discussion page of the proposal. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - (key:branch)
2012/10/15 Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com: Hello everyone, It's my responsibility to keep this proposal going. Sorry about the delay, but I would like to open this proposal for a vote. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:branch Since I first put up the proposal I have wanted more and more to be able to use it. First of all: you don't have to wait that some proposals gets voted or approved in order to use a key. I still believe that the proposed key is a bad choice because of its equivocality. Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_(disambiguation) This is used (differently) in the context of railways, banks, military, trade, ... Additionally in French and German branche has the meaning of industrial sector/class of business/branch of trade (e.g. textile industry, or automotive), as it seems in old English this was the case as well, so there will probably be some confusion because of this. It also seems that there is already brand in use for some of the targeted things of this proposal (namely the McDonald's-example is already 248 times tagged with brand). http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/brand#values There are already some 6800 values for branch in the db: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/branch#values so as proponent of this tag you should IMHO check these values if they are in accordance with your proposed intention (and given that there are many foreign values maybe ask the local communities what they intend with this tag). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – Dynamic maxspeed
Hi Martin, Am Montag, 15. Oktober 2012, 16:35:59 schrieb Martin Vonwald: And I would like to suggest a different tag: instead of dynamic_maxspeed I would prefer maxspeed:variable for the following reasons: * as far as I know those kind of speed limits are usually called variable speed limit and not dynamic speed limit * I would like to see the key right beside the maxspeed key in an editor key has been renamed. :-) Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (key:branch)
2012/10/15 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: There are already some 6800 values for branch in the db: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/branch#values so as proponent of this tag you should IMHO check these values if they are in accordance with your proposed intention (and given that there are many foreign values maybe ask the local communities what they intend with this tag). The most used values are russian and all banks. I guess this would fit the intended purpose of this tag. I'm also not really happy with the key but I don't have a better suggestion. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
On 15 October 2012 10:56, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: Hi! Some kind of short how-would-you-tag-this-survey. Have a look at part five of this motorway: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png Only part 5 is relevant. Assume there is no physical separation just a double line between the upper and lower two lanes. How would you tag this: a) One way with lanes=4 b) Two separate ways with lanes=2 each c) Tell me! The answer is b. But as I'm sure you've noticed there's some divided opinion about this. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
Am 15.10.2012 um 17:55 schrieb Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: But as I'm sure you've noticed there's some divided opinion about this. That's why I asked! Actually I don't think that we see any consensus about this soon. But then I can document at least that there are two variants under discussion. If I claim in the wiki that a) is the ultimate solution it will be fixed by supporters of b) and vice versa. As I don't like edit wars I prefer to write the truth: both are used. I don't claim this is perfect (or at least good) but it is the current status-quo. As soon as there is a consensus about this issue I'm happy to update all affected wiki articles. But I'm a little afraid that I won't live long enough ;-) Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted – turn restrictions ahead?
Hi everybody, apparently Conditional Restrictions has become an approved feature, even though nobody mentioned it here. While I still believe that this is a sub-optimal solution (and still nobody has passed the test I created earlier in the discussion, even though a lot of people tried), I have now abandoned the Extended Conditions proposal. I guess the next step is to adopt conditional restrictions for turn restrictions, to achieve some consistency. One possibility would be applies as basekey, and then conditional restriction tagging like applies:bus=no applies:hgv:conditional = no @ (length12) (the implied default being applies=no, applies:vehicle=yes) Any volunteers? :-) Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
I created a new picture very much based on the old one. Just made the road gray to try to make it more clearer? http://minkarta.no-ip.org/Lanes_Example_2.svg Im not sure how to upload it so if anyone thinks this is better please do, otherwise I atleast learned a little what I can do in inkscape :). Best Regards Tobias J I like it, but you must convert it into .png before you can overwrite the existing file. Alberto ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
a) One way with lanes=4 b) Two separate ways with lanes=2 each c) Tell me! a) because distinction between physical and legal barriers is important. Ok in that picture there is no much difference, but as Simone pointed out, for long roads there is a big difference: if any router can't distinguish between physical and legal barrier, it will not suggest to emergency vehicle to cross the line, and it will tell them to do a long alternative trip instead. This is a big problem, because when you are driving the GPS shows you only a little portion of the route and you may not understand (especially in emergency) that you can shorten the route simply crossing the line. Moreover if we accept solution b) we should tag every road with continuous line in the middle as two separate roads, one for each direction. Additionally to the lanes=4 and oneway=yes you could put a divider-tag on the way http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divider even if it doesn't explicitly tell you where the divider is placed you might be able to infer it from the following ways (at least in this case). +1 We can improve this proposal, to make clear where the divider is placed. Cheers Alberto (Viking81) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
I don't understand why emergency vehicles are so important in this discussion. In the first place they have wide-ranging exemptions from traffic rules, which (let's be honest) we are never going to tag in OSM. Secondly they are never going to be relying on OSM data (or indeed any normal sat-nav) for lane-precise routing. They are trained to use their eyes and brains to make split-second decisions on what is safe and an acceptable risk under the circumstances of that moment. Thirdly, they will be about 0.01% of the potential users of OSM data - why should we compromise service to the vast majority of real users for the hypothetical benefit of the very few. Colin On 15/10/2012 19:55, Alberto wrote: a) One way with lanes=4 b) Two separate ways with lanes=2 each c) Tell me! a) because distinction between physical and legal barriers is important. Ok in that picture there is no much difference, but as Simone pointed out, for long roads there is a big difference: if any router can't distinguish between physical and legal barrier, it will not suggest to emergency vehicle to cross the line, and it will tell them to do a long alternative trip instead. This is a big problem, because when you are driving the GPS shows you only a little portion of the route and you may not understand (especially in emergency) that you can shorten the route simply crossing the line. Moreover if we accept solution b) we should tag every road with continuous line in the middle as two separate roads, one for each direction. Additionally to the lanes=4 and oneway=yes you could put a divider-tag on the way http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divider even if it doesn't explicitly tell you where the divider is placed you might be able to infer it from the following ways (at least in this case). +1 We can improve this proposal, to make clear where the divider is placed. Cheers Alberto (Viking81) ___ 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] How to tag: Legally separated ways
Hi Colin, Am Montag, 15. Oktober 2012, 20:08:01 schrieb Colin Smale: I don't understand why emergency vehicles are so important in this discussion. In the first place they have wide-ranging exemptions from traffic rules, which (let's be honest) we are never going to tag in OSM. Secondly they are never going to be relying on OSM data (or indeed any normal sat-nav) for lane-precise routing. They are trained to use their eyes and brains to make split-second decisions on what is safe and an acceptable risk under the circumstances of that moment. Thirdly, they will be about 0.01% of the potential users of OSM data - why should we compromise service to the vast majority of real users for the hypothetical benefit of the very few. I fully agree with you; if we were going to map for emergency vehicles, we'd probably have to add oneway:conditional = no @ emergency for almost all oneway roads first. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Emergency lane used by PSV at rush time
Eckhart Wörner ewoer...@kde.org wrote: Hi Tobias, Am Sonntag, 14. Oktober 2012, 14:40:45 schrieb Tobias Knerr: You could combine Conditional restrictions and the lanes suffix¹: lanes=3 access:lanes = yes | yes | no emergency:lanes = | | yes psv:conditional:lanes = | | yes @ rush_time and what exactly is rush_time supposed to mean? Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Rush time probably is the equivalent of the American term rush hour, meaning the time period, generally morning or early evening, when commuter traffic is at its heaviest. I agree that the time of day, and possibly day of week, when the restrictions apply need to explicitly tagged. For one thing, the hours are likely to differ according to whether the direction of travel is toward or away from the city in question. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
I think most laws require that even emergency vehicles observe restrictions like oneway streets. If there are any restrictions which can be broken in case of emergency vehicles, I think they'd program their routing software to them. - Svavar Kjarrval On 15/10/12 18:16, Eckhart Wörner wrote: Hi Colin, Am Montag, 15. Oktober 2012, 20:08:01 schrieb Colin Smale: I don't understand why emergency vehicles are so important in this discussion. In the first place they have wide-ranging exemptions from traffic rules, which (let's be honest) we are never going to tag in OSM. Secondly they are never going to be relying on OSM data (or indeed any normal sat-nav) for lane-precise routing. They are trained to use their eyes and brains to make split-second decisions on what is safe and an acceptable risk under the circumstances of that moment. Thirdly, they will be about 0.01% of the potential users of OSM data - why should we compromise service to the vast majority of real users for the hypothetical benefit of the very few. I fully agree with you; if we were going to map for emergency vehicles, we'd probably have to add oneway:conditional = no @ emergency for almost all oneway roads first. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
I'd go with option b. Despite being a single way, you're committed to taking the ramp by that point (due to the double-white solid lines), making it functionally an extension of the ramp. On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.comwrote: Hi! Some kind of short how-would-you-tag-this-survey. Have a look at part five of this motorway: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png Only part 5 is relevant. Assume there is no physical separation just a double line between the upper and lower two lanes. How would you tag this: a) One way with lanes=4 b) Two separate ways with lanes=2 each c) Tell me! Please also reason your decision. Many thanks in advance, Martin ___ 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] Conditional restrictions accepted – turn restrictions ahead?
Hi Martin, Am Dienstag, 16. Oktober 2012, 02:18:30 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: apparently Conditional Restrictions has become an approved feature, even though nobody mentioned it here. While I still believe that this is a sub-optimal solution (and still nobody has passed the test I created earlier in the discussion, even though a lot of people tried), I have now abandoned the Extended Conditions proposal. I guess the next step is to adopt conditional restrictions for turn restrictions, to achieve some consistency. are you sure that we need this? In real life I only met these in cases where they would have already been implicit in OSM (i.e. in addition to the signs limiting access to a road there was a turn_restriction sign to advert the driver in advance but this wasn't restricting more than what the road access permissions already did). Just for the start: • there are some no left turn restrictions in Munich that only apply during rush hour (i.e. specified intervals on a sign) to improve traffic flow, with day_on… not being sufficient • there are some no u-turn restrictions in Augsburg that only apply to vehicles longer than 6 metres • there has been a no right turn restriction near Neusäß that only applied during night time and holidays (got removed a few years ago) to calm down a residential road None of these are representable implicitly or with what we have right now, and those are just a few random examples off the top of my head; I have seen a lot more of them. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
