Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
2012/10/15 Johan C osm...@gmail.com I think there's some confusion here. Imagic's question was on a motorway example. Where did you get this from? Sure, he referred to a picture with the model of a motorway, but he esplicitly said consider only section 5. We're not talking about that section 5 *on a motorway*. Also, your distinction motorway / non-motorway is meaningless. Motorways are usually mapped with two separate ways because they, uh, are physically separated carriageways. There's a guard-rail, or a new jersey barrier, sometimes even a ditch or a gap between bridges. There used to be (at least in Italy) motorways with a single carriageway, where lanes were separated by a painted line; this was not a physical separation and would be tagged as a single way. 2. An OSM'er started a discussion on a German page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE_talk:Tag:highway%3Dmotorway_link. It seems that the current wiki on motorway_junctions requires the start of the split to be at the beginning of the deceleration lane. In der Regel ist das der Punkt, an dem die Ausfädelspur beginnt oder die Auffahrt von der kreuzenden Straße abzweigt. Thus, the current osm tagging standards imply that Imagic's option a is wrong (option b too by the way [?]). As I said above, for short sections of legal separation (white paint) immediately followed by a physical separation (the guard-rail) I am in favour of anticipating the split, just like it has been suggested in the discussion you talk about. What I'm modeling this way is that there is in fact a physical separation, and I'm just being imprecise about where the separation starts. I advocate this imprecision because it has advantages on the topology of the split (Y-shaped rather than T-shaped), and an early indication is better than a late one. 3. You could have guessed, but i'm in favour of the way OSM is being used at this moment, so option b. My arguments are about the same as Colin's. And because I like the current tagging as shown in above examples. You may be confused about this. The current tagging is in fact option A: where the carriageways are physically separated (or at least a single continuous strip of asphalt is divided by a physical barrier), draw two ways; otherwise, a single one. Your motorway examples are examples of option A. The fact the we split ways entering a large roundabout is my bending of option A: the way is split where the white paint begins (instead of where the kerb with grass begins) for better topology. I fail to see where a Main Street with no barrier in the middle is drawn as two ways (don't bring me a couple of examples, name a country or a community that does this). Regards, Simone 328.png___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
2012/10/16 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org 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. The OP explicitly asks you to focus on section 5 alone, NOT on section 5 as the introduction to section 6. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
2012/10/15 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl I don't understand why emergency vehicles are so important in this discussion. Because OSM publicly advertises the fact that its maps are being used in the Gaza's strip by emergency vehicles that would otherwise have no map? Just to name one. Also because emergency vehicles may happen to operate in unknown territory. Don't limit yourself to the ambulance that runs around its home town. 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. This is meaningless. We will map all restrictions; consumers will have an emergency vehicle flag that will route ignoring those restrictions. Also, while an ambulance is allowed to go the wrong way in a one-way street (when its siren is on, of course), it is usually advised against doing so, as in a narrow road it may find regular traffic, which would be dangerous or at least slow down the ambulance. So, restrictions may be ignored, but drivers should be informed about them. 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. Sure. Let's make an example. There's a long primary road between towns, with solid double lines all the way from town A to town B. Let's say it runs North-South from town A to town B. A farmyard east of the road is burning. It can be accessed by a road that reaches the large road; under normal circumstances, someone coming from town A couldn't reach the crossroad and go to the farmyard, but would be legally forced to go to town B, turn back, reach the crossroad and go the farm. The firemen turn on their GPS navigator, because they're being called in from a far away city and they've never heard the name of that farmyard. The router lawfully sends them to town A, then to town B. They go past the crossroad and can't notice the farmyard, because it's far away and there's a wood in between that covers it. Also they can't see on the screen that ten kilometres ahead they would have to turn back and go back to the crossroad they're approaching. The firemen get there fifteen minutes late and the farmyard is a bunch of ashes. Great work dividing the way on a legal restriction! :-) 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 know who makes this consideration: commercial map providers. It's just not worth the cost, right? Cheers, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
2012/10/15 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk The law varies from country to country. In the UK, it is legal to cross a solid white line to turn into a side road, or driveway. You can also cross one to overtake a slow moving vehicle, such as a cyclist or tractor. In France, where it is illegal to cross a solid line even to enter a driveway. It is common to see short gaps in the solid line to allow traffic to turn. This would be a lot of work. In Italy the law is similar to the French one. If turning or U-turning is allowed at a specific spot (maybe because of a lateral road), then a break in the solid line is painted. This is formally most correct: you can't trespass the continuous solid line, but *in that point* the line is not solid. If we were to separate ways where the solid line is painted, we would have horrible maps: 1) we would need to draw a non-existing way wherever the line is broken (for example to allow a left turn into a lateral road); 2) we would need to keep splitting/joining/splitting again/joining again the ways if a long road has a section with solid line followed by a section with dashed line followed by a section with solid line and so on; 3) we would make routers incapable of understanding what kind of way splitting is happening. What would they say? Turn right? Keep right? Why should you tell me to keep right, the road is straight! Sure, we must not map for the router, but we must also try not to map AGAINST the router. Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
On 15 October 2012 20:08, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: 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. To be able to do proper routing for emergency vehicles perhaps it would be a good idea to introduce something like landuse=highway that would denote an area suitable for motor vehicles and that is free of physical obstacles. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
Am 16/ott/2012 um 11:28 schrieb Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: To be able to do proper routing for emergency vehicles perhaps it would be a good idea to introduce something like landuse=highway that would denote an area suitable for motor vehicles and that is free of physical obstacles. There is a relation proposal (area) that suggests a solution to this without explicitly drawn closed areas Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
There's maybe a difference between the case of two lanes in the same direction, and two lanes in opposite directions. On 16/10/2012 11:44, Janko Mihelic' wrote: I posted this picture the last time this came up. It shows that dividing roads is silly in some situations, for example countryside roads: http://i.imgur.com/p5Oto.png You have to divide the road each time there is not a full line on the road, ad you should put a restriction where those roads meet that restricts U-turns. What is the answer to that? Janko 2012/10/16 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com mailto:simone.savi...@gmail.com 2012/10/16 Martin Koppenhöfer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com Am 16/ott/2012 um 11:28 schrieb Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com mailto:markus.lindh...@gmail.com: To be able to do proper routing for emergency vehicles perhaps it would be a good idea to introduce something like landuse=highway that would denote an area suitable for motor vehicles and that is free of physical obstacles. There is a relation proposal (area) that suggests a solution to this without explicitly drawn closed areas Martin, could we please try to revive the proposal and make it go forward? I am one of those who would like to draw roads as an area, as you know :-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto: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] How to tag: Legally separated ways
2012/10/16 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: I posted this picture the last time this came up. It shows that dividing roads is silly in some situations, for example countryside roads: http://i.imgur.com/p5Oto.png You have to divide the road each time there is not a full line on the road, ad you should put a restriction where those roads meet that restricts U-turns. What is the answer to that? I find it strange that we are still discussion whether roads that are only legally divided should/could be split into 2 parallel ways, a solution that we did - since ever - reserve for physically divided roads. The answer to your situation above could be the divider-tag, applied on a single way, where it would solve many of these situations. For more complex situations (several parallel lanes, some of them divided legally, others not) we still would to have something at lane-level, as the simple divider approach does not tell you in these cases, where the divisions apply. The interruption of the continuous line on ~points (=very short ways not much longer than the width of a lane) could be modeled at node-level (to avoid excessive way splitting) and for longer pieces it would be on the way (which would then have to be split). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
2012/10/16 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl There's maybe a difference between the case of two lanes in the same direction, and two lanes in opposite directions. There's none. If a solid line is painted between lanes going in opposite directions, it's legally impossible to cross the line. If a solid line is painted between lanes going in the same direction, it's legally impossible to cross the line. The directions of the lanes makes no difference at all. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
On 16/10/12 11:48, Simone Saviolo wrote: 2012/10/16 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl There's maybe a difference between the case of two lanes in the same direction, and two lanes in opposite directions. There's none. If a solid line is painted between lanes going in opposite directions, it's legally impossible to cross the line. If a solid line is painted between lanes going in the same direction, it's legally impossible to cross the line. The directions of the lanes makes no difference at all. Perhaps in your part of the world, but not everywhere. Crossing solid lines, as centrelines or lane separators have exceptions for ordinary vehicles (not just emergency vehicles) here. Yet another example of how local influences must be applied to documentation. The page showing how highway types are interpreted in different countries may be copied for such definitions. On the other hand, maybe we should stop kidding our selves that OSM, as a wiki, can ever reflect the legal situation, since anyone can change it at any time. Maybe we should try to map the physical characteristics and leave the legal interpretation to the drivers who are required to interpret what they see on the ground before them and cannot rely on any map or database for legal guidance. Every pair of hands on a steering wheel comes with a free brain. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: Maybe we should try to map the physical characteristics and leave the legal interpretation to the drivers who are required to interpret what they see on the ground before them and cannot rely on any map or database for legal guidance. It's always much harder for a data consumer. I guess a tag oneway=yes on a way is easier to interpret than a floating node tagged with traffic_sign_color=blue + symbol=white_vertical_arrow... We always translate what we see into something that can be interpreted by applications (means not only renderers but routers, etc). Another example ? The tag address. What you really see physically is always just a number. But nobody just adds the addr:housenumber tag because instinctively they know that data consumers may fail into linking the number and its street name, especially at intersections. So a tag do not cross is more valuable in OSM than a single or double painted solid line tag. Every pair of hands on a steering wheel comes with a free brain. hmmm. not sure about that. We all heard stories about drivers blindly following GPS instructions ... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/10/16 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: You have to divide the road each time there is not a full line on the road, ad you should put a restriction where those roads meet that restricts U-turns. What is the answer to that? I find it strange that we are still discussion whether roads that are only legally divided should/could be split into 2 parallel ways, a solution that we did - since ever - reserve for physically divided roads. It's basically Tagging for the renderer. As long as the divider tag is not supported by routers, people will continue to use this solution, and these discussion will only make the situation worse for the divider tag. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
On 16.10.2012 01:07, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: realistic rendering, particularly 3D virtual reality. Physical separation and road markings look quite different from each other and should therefore also look different in that kind of rendering - whether it is in, say, a virtual globe or maybe a road/lane assistant type of application. As long as you have width information on the ways, I don't see the problem. The amount of physical separation, whether it be an inch between two lines, or a meter, should be easily calculated from the data. There are actually several problems: * Most importantly, neither width tags nor the distance between two parallel ways are mapped with one-inch accuracy. * If you represent the two lines as a separation between ways, then you don't know that the two lines are there - so you cannot render them. * The physical separation between two road marking lines is part of the same paved surface as the rest of the highway. If you do not know that this is the case, you cannot render this as a paved surface either. Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted – turn restrictions ahead?
Hi Eckhart, Your right, voting has come to an end for the Conditional Restrictions proposal, which was approved. A statement was not made on this list as Ole and I are working on how best to write the feature page so that some of the concerns raised (about complexity / difficulty to understand) are reduced as much as possible. Like Martin, I'm not hugely convinced about the need for complicated turn restrictions (most of the restrictions will be on the road and the detail on the turn sign will simply be advanced warning for the driver). Having said that, you have provided a few examples so I have looked into it: 1. Currently we tag a no left turn restriction using restriction = no_left_turn. 2. If we want this to apply only to HGVs then the key is changed so that it become restriction:hgv =no_left_turn. To draw the comparison with Conditional Restrictions the above tags cover of restriction type, transportation mode and the tag value. There is no need to specify direction as this is already captured in the relation (from, via, to). Therefore the only part left to add is the condition. At the moment there are 2 ways to do this 3. Using except = * (where * is a vehicle type). e.g. except = bicycle 4. Using day on, day off, hour on, hour off In summary we already have both applies type tags (1, 2 and 4) and except type tags (3, and the inverse of 4!). My gut instinct is that adding an applies = * tag would further complicate the issue. In conclusion I would be in favour of adding the conditions directly to the restriction or except tag (depending on how the road sign is written). Yes this breaks backward compatibility but there are a lot less turn restrictions in OSM than the other restrictions and if the conditions are not met then the restrictions does not apply so it shouldn't really be tagged anyway! == Some Examples == * Example 1: no u-turn restriction for HGVs longer than 6 metres: * restriction:hgv = no_u_turn @ (length 6) * Example 2: no right turn Monday to Friday 8am to 4 pm: * restriction = no_right_turn @ (Mo-Fi 08:00-16:00) * Example 3: no left turn except PSV's on Monday to Friday 8am to 4 pm: * restriction = no_left_turn * except = psv @ (Mo-Fi 08:00-16:00) This then depreciates the need for day on, etc... tags which I'm not a fan of - I think it is better to tag what is on the sign e.g. (Mo-Fr 08:00-19:00). Happy to hear your thoughts. Rob p.s. I think it would be nice to see a few more real world examples if anyone has any photographs (or can remember the conditions). p.p.s It would be nice to know how many routing software apps are using these turn restriction relations. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
2012/10/16 Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net: Perhaps in your part of the world, but not everywhere. Crossing solid lines, as centrelines or lane separators have exceptions for ordinary vehicles (not just emergency vehicles) here. Yet another example of how local influences must be applied to documentation. The page showing how highway types are interpreted in different countries may be copied for such definitions. yes, traffic rules are different in different areas, and someone offering routing should make himself familiar with local exceptions. This is even more an argument to keep straight definitions. If you map that there is no physical division but only a specific legal divider, this information will be available to those who interpret the data according to their rules, but if you treat all kind of divisions the same (separating the ways in OSM) routers will asume for everybody (pedestrians, emergency vehicles, bicycles) that there is no connection (unless you create these connections, either explicitly (connecting (foot?)ways) or conceptionally by creating a relation between the two). When you choose to split the ways and create a relation between the two, there will still remain some questions open. Actually you shouldn't tag them as highways then, but as lanes, so the question is how to deal with this. Would you make a) no highway at all and dataconsumers would need to take all lanes as well in account (or maybe get single highways from preprocessing) or they would have holes in their data. b) assign the highway-tag only to one of the ways (actually not working without introducing further helper ways) c) assign a highway-tag anway to all these lanes and additionally state that they are lanes. d) do nothing of this and renounce from the details. Frankly I think that none of these alternatives with the relation is really nice. b) would probably be the easiest to introduce, because dataconsumers could in theory ignore the lanes and rely only on the highways, but practically you would have to continuously fix newly introduced holes in the graph, because of higher complexity. The divider tag (almost not in use) could solve the problem we have in countries where there is no exception for driveways on the opposite side, and in general it could make mapping easier because far less turn restrictions would be needed (if routers adopted this mapping style). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted – turn restrictions ahead?
On 16/10/2012 17:45, Rob Nickerson wrote: Hi Eckhart, Your right, voting has come to an end for the Conditional Restrictions proposal, which was approved. A statement was not made on this list as Ole and I are working on how best to write the feature page so that some of the concerns raised (about complexity / difficulty to understand) are reduced as much as possible. Like Martin, I'm not hugely convinced about the need for complicated turn restrictions (most of the restrictions will be on the road and the detail on the turn sign will simply be advanced warning for the driver). Having said that, you have provided a few examples so I have looked into it: 1. Currently we tag a no left turn restriction using restriction = no_left_turn. 2. If we want this to apply only to HGVs then the key is changed so that it become restriction:hgv =no_left_turn. To draw the comparison with Conditional Restrictions the above tags cover of restriction type, transportation mode and the tag value. There is no need to specify direction as this is already captured in the relation (from, via, to). I am not sure you can say this. It should work where the junction angles are close to 90 degrees, but for a shallow Y junction things might need a hint as to whether it is a curve to the right with a junction to the left, or a curve to the left with a junction to the right. The type of restriction should reflect the road signs. At a T-junction, a mandatory left turn could be considered different to a no right turn, even if they are effectively the same thing. This cannot be derived from the geometry alone. Colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?
To draw the comparison with Conditional Restrictions the above tags cover of restriction type, transportation mode and the tag value. There is no need to specify direction as this is already captured in the relation (from, via, to). I am not sure you can say this. It should work where the junction angles are close to 90 degrees, but for a shallow Y junction things might need a hint as to whether it is a curve to the right with a junction to the left, or a curve to the left with a junction to the right... Colin - - - Hi Colin, Sorry, we're talking about 2 different things. I was making the comparison with Conditional Restrictions which includes direction (forward or backward). These values are not needed. Can I suggest that if you with to discuss such values as no_slight_right_turn (or whatever), then you start a new thread. It may also be worth looking back through the original proposal for turn restrictions to see if any comments were made then. Cheers, Rob ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted – turn restrictions ahead?
I don't think we need to make it complicated. The Conditional Restrictions syntax is a bit overkill here. The restriction type is already known (type=restriction), so is the value (restriction=no_left_turn). What is left is just the condition (plus eventually a transport mode). I already mentioned the following proposal on the talk page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:restriction#Conditional_restrictions : * condition=condition * condition:transportation_mode=condition (condition uses the condition values from Conditional Restrictions) The need for the transportation mode variant will like be small as restriction:transportation mode=* should already cover this. In my opinion there are no reasons to make it more complicated than that. It is backward compatible and easy to understand by mappers. It would deprecate hour_on, hour_off etc. I believe it may be better to keep except but I would like to see real-world examples of conditional exceptions before adapting a Conditional Restrictions like syntax for that key (is your example 3 real?). Ole / polderrunner On 16/10/2012 17:45, Rob Nickerson wrote: Hi Eckhart, Your right, voting has come to an end for the Conditional Restrictions proposal, which was approved. A statement was not made on this list as Ole and I are working on how best to write the feature page so that some of the concerns raised (about complexity / difficulty to understand) are reduced as much as possible. Like Martin, I'm not hugely convinced about the need for complicated turn restrictions (most of the restrictions will be on the road and the detail on the turn sign will simply be advanced warning for the driver). Having said that, you have provided a few examples so I have looked into it: 1. Currently we tag a no left turn restriction using restriction = no_left_turn. 2. If we want this to apply only to HGVs then the key is changed so that it become restriction:hgv =no_left_turn. To draw the comparison with Conditional Restrictions the above tags cover of restriction type, transportation mode and the tag value. There is no need to specify direction as this is already captured in the relation (from, via, to). Therefore the only part left to add is the condition. At the moment there are 2 ways to do this 3. Using except = * (where * is a vehicle type). e.g. except = bicycle 4. Using day on, day off, hour on, hour off In summary we already have both applies type tags (1, 2 and 4) and except type tags (3, and the inverse of 4!). My gut instinct is that adding an applies = * tag would further complicate the issue. In conclusion I would be in favour of adding the conditions directly to the restriction or except tag (depending on how the road sign is written). Yes this breaks backward compatibility but there are a lot less turn restrictions in OSM than the other restrictions and if the conditions are not met then the restrictions does not apply so it shouldn't really be tagged anyway! == Some Examples == * Example 1: no u-turn restriction for HGVs longer than 6 metres: * restriction:hgv = no_u_turn @ (length 6) * Example 2: no right turn Monday to Friday 8am to 4 pm: * restriction = no_right_turn @ (Mo-Fi 08:00-16:00) * Example 3: no left turn except PSV's on Monday to Friday 8am to 4 pm: * restriction = no_left_turn * except = psv @ (Mo-Fi 08:00-16:00) This then depreciates the need for day on, etc... tags which I'm not a fan of - I think it is better to tag what is on the sign e.g. (Mo-Fr 08:00-19:00). Happy to hear your thoughts. Rob p.s. I think it would be nice to see a few more real world examples if anyone has any photographs (or can remember the conditions). p.p.s It would be nice to know how many routing software apps are using these turn restriction relations. ___ 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] Emergency lane used by PSV at rush time
Sorry for late answer. There is so much traffic related to lanes on this mailing list. 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. +1. Éric ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?
I'm still not convinced that you need to introduce a new tag (be that applies or condition). 1. Although it is difficult to calculate how many turn restrictions have some form of condition, the numbers can't be that many in comparison to normal restrictions that apply at all times. Adding the condition data to the restriction=* tag therefore will not break the majority of restrictions (they stay unchanged). Similarly adding the information in a new tag will not break the majority of restrictions. 2. For those restrictions that do have conditional details, if: a) you add the details in restriction = you break the current tagging and routing software will not know how to interpret it. The routing then does not include the turn restriction (i.e. no restriction when you want one), or if b) you add the condition to a new tag then the routing software does not see it (i.e. you have a restriction when you don't want one). Both cases need the routing software to be updated... 3. ...and that is exactly what a Request For Change (RFC) is for. It is as the name suggests a communication with your users : Hey guys, we want to change this to make it better. What do you think? Great, can you update your systems so that you are ready for the new tags As you see all proposed ideas will need the end users to change something. And, in fact, as we currently don't have a way of including conditions, we may already have incorrect turn restriction in OSM. _Conclusion_: Whatever we do should keep the tagging as simple and easy to understand as possible. As we already have some applies type information in restriction:hgv = no-u_turn, my gut instinct is to include all the applies type info in this tag. Hence the example *restriction:hgv = no_u_turn @ (length 6)*. Regards, Rob p.s. Any change to day on, day off, hour on, hour off, will also break the existing scheme (but is in my opinion worthwhile). p.p.s. All my previous examples are fictional. More real world photos fully appreciated. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?
Hi Rob, Am Dienstag, 16. Oktober 2012, 21:42:56 schrieb Rob Nickerson: 1. Although it is difficult to calculate how many turn restrictions have some form of condition, the numbers can't be that many in comparison to normal restrictions that apply at all times. Adding the condition data to the restriction=* tag therefore will not break the majority of restrictions (they stay unchanged). Similarly adding the information in a new tag will not break the majority of restrictions. Agreed. 2. For those restrictions that do have conditional details, if: a) you add the details in restriction = you break the current tagging and routing software will not know how to interpret it. The routing then does not include the turn restriction (i.e. no restriction when you want one), or if b) you add the condition to a new tag then the routing software does not see it (i.e. you have a restriction when you don't want one). Both cases need the routing software to be updated... There is one difference for routers which do not know about conditions: (a) lets them calculate illegal routes, while (b) lets them calculate non-optimal routes. Since there are a lot of routers which still fail at certain restrictions, I guess we have to take those routers into account. I therefore definitely prefer (b). As you see all proposed ideas will need the end users to change something. And, in fact, as we currently don't have a way of including conditions, we may already have incorrect turn restriction in OSM. We definitely have them. Here are some from a quick search: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/338059 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1735851 (for more, just search through note/fixme tags) _Conclusion_: Whatever we do should keep the tagging as simple and easy to understand as possible. As we already have some applies type information in restriction:hgv = no-u_turn, my gut instinct is to include all the applies type info in this tag. Hence the example *restriction:hgv = no_u_turn @ (length 6)*. This would be (a) from above. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?
Hi Rob, (Putting tagging ML back in To since this might be of interest to other people as well, I hope you don't mind.) On topic: In your suggesttion you proposed applies = *. What would you do with the following: * day_on, etc... * restriction:hgv, etc * except Would you suggest deprecating them? Thus a restriction that applies to only hgv's becomes: restriction = no_u_turn applies = no (to switch it off for all transportation modes) applies:hgv = yes (to switch it back on for HGVs) yeah, that's the idea. The implied default would be something like applies=yes, applies:foot=no so that by default, turn restrictions apply to everyone but pedestrians. The big advantage of using applies is that from a language POV it is immediately clear what is meant, and that the syntax will be *exactly* the same as in Conditional Restrictions. day_on, … should definitely get deprecated, those tags are an unholy mess: people mess up off and on; people interpret them them as both from day A time B to day C time D and from time B to time D each day between day A and day C. except can probably stay, it can easily be translated (except=bus translates to applies:bus = no) restriction:hgv should get deprecated / reverted, someone recently sneaked this into the wiki page without any discussion. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
Am 17.10.2012 00:18, schrieb Anthony: On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: On 16.10.2012 01:07, Anthony wrote: As long as you have width information on the ways, I don't see the problem. The amount of physical separation, whether it be an inch between two lines, or a meter, should be easily calculated from the data. There are actually several problems: * Most importantly, neither width tags nor the distance between two parallel ways are mapped with one-inch accuracy. If this is the most important, then you are seriously stretching it. What's the need for one-inch accuracy? You suggested that the amount of physical separation, whether it be an inch between two lines, or a meter, should be easily calculated from the data. I'm saying a separation of an inch between two lines can _not_ be calculated from the data because it's not remotely precise enough, and shouldn't be expected to be. * If you represent the two lines as a separation between ways, then you don't know that the two lines are there - so you cannot render them. I'm not sure what this means. The ways don't represent lines, they represent paths of travel. In my statement above, the two lines refers to the road markings. There are lots of paved surfaces which are not mapped. [...] Furthermore, what do you suggest we do with section 6 If someone cares about the surface of an area which is not part of any highway, they can map it as an area with surface=*. This does not seem like an appropriate solution for the tiny area between two white lines of paint, though. Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?
On 16 October 2012 23:38, Eckhart Wörner ewoer...@kde.org wrote: Hi Rob, (Putting tagging ML back in To since this might be of interest to other people as well, I hope you don't mind.) On topic: In your suggestion you proposed applies = *. What would you do with the following: * day_on, etc... * restriction:hgv, etc * except Would you suggest deprecating them? Thus a restriction that applies to only hgv's becomes: restriction = no_u_turn applies = no (to switch it off for all transportation modes) applies:hgv = yes (to switch it back on for HGVs) yeah, that's the idea. The implied default would be something like applies=yes, applies:foot=no so that by default, turn restrictions apply to everyone but pedestrians. The big advantage of using applies is that from a language POV it is immediately clear what is meant, and that the syntax will be *exactly* the same as in Conditional Restrictions. day_on, … should definitely get deprecated, those tags are an unholy mess: people mess up off and on; people interpret them them as both from day A time B to day C time D and from time B to time D each day between day A and day C. except can probably stay, it can easily be translated (except=bus translates to applies:bus = no) restriction:hgv should get deprecated / reverted, someone recently sneaked this into the wiki page without any discussion. Eckhart Hi, No problem with you moving this back online (I wanted to check that I wasn't putting words in your mouth first). Thanks for the clarification. I spotted you had reverted some recent changes (thanks) but wasn't aware that restriction:hgv was also a recent addition. I think deprecating these would be step in the right direction and removes many of the concerns I had with using a new tag (namely you end up with applies type data within both restriction:hgv = and applies=/condition=/whatever the new tag is called). I suggest we write up a wiki page proposing the changes. That way we can better track the discussion :-) Rob p.s The talk page for Turn Restrictions is stupidly long. Will take a while to work through it to see if there are any helpful tips in there! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?
On 17.10.2012 00:38, Eckhart Wörner wrote: restriction = no_u_turn applies = no (to switch it off for all transportation modes) applies:hgv = yes (to switch it back on for HGVs) yeah, that's the idea. The implied default would be something like applies=yes, applies:foot=no so that by default, turn restrictions apply to everyone but pedestrians. It's not a bad solution. With the implied 'yes', I expect you would repeatedly see errors like this, though: restriction = no_... applies:conditional = yes @ 08:00-18:00 This trap would not exist with restriction:hgv=*, restriction:conditional=* and so on, because there you would not rely on an implicit default. Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?
Hi Tobias, Am Mittwoch, 17. Oktober 2012, 01:31:00 schrieb Tobias Knerr: This trap would not exist with restriction:hgv=*, restriction:conditional=* and so on, because there you would not rely on an implicit default. I agree, this might be a trap, however, this can be easily caught by editors like JOSM (value of applies:conditional will be ignored since there are only 'yes' values). Also, I am not fully understanding what the value of restriction:conditional would be in your type of tagging. Maybe some complete example with all tags present? Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?
On 17.10.2012 01:43, Eckhart Wörner wrote: Am Mittwoch, 17. Oktober 2012, 01:31:00 schrieb Tobias Knerr: This trap would not exist with restriction:hgv=*, restriction:conditional=* and so on, because there you would not rely on an implicit default. I agree, this might be a trap, however, this can be easily caught by editors like JOSM (value of applies:conditional will be ignored since there are only 'yes' values). Also, I am not fully understanding what the value of restriction:conditional would be in your type of tagging. Maybe some complete example with all tags present? You are right about the possibility to catch this in editors, of course. As for examples, I hope the following two will help: Example 1: type = restriction restriction:conditional = no_right_turn @ 08:00-18:00 Example 2: restriction = only_straight_on restriction:psv = none Basically, use Conditional restrictions syntax on the restriction key in the same manner as it would be applied to, say, maxspeed or access. A drawback of this approach is the need to invent a value for no restriction - I've called it none for the example above. Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?
Hi Tobias, Am Mittwoch, 17. Oktober 2012, 01:56:05 schrieb Tobias Knerr: As for examples, I hope the following two will help: Example 1: type = restriction restriction:conditional = no_right_turn @ 08:00-18:00 That sounds like the following might be correct as well (k!): type = restriction restriction:conditional = no_right_turn @ (08:00-18:00); only_right_turn @ (18:00-08:00) restriction = only_straight_on restriction:psv = none Basically, use Conditional restrictions syntax on the restriction key in the same manner as it would be applied to, say, maxspeed or access. A drawback of this approach is the need to invent a value for no restriction - I've called it none for the example above. Okay, then the following does actually make sense: type=restriction restriction=none (probably default) restriction:psv=no_right_turn Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Emergency lane used by PSV at rush time
Am 16.10.2012 um 21:30 schrieb Eric SIBERT courr...@eric.sibert.fr: Sorry for late answer. There is so much traffic related to lanes on this mailing list. 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. +1. I'll update the english, german and russian article accordingly if there are no further objections. (Other translations are welcome to keep the articles consistent). Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
