Re: [Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link

[Colin Smale]

Hi Martin,

First and foremost, tags applied to an object should of course refer to
that object. I normally interpret the "ref" tag on a ROAD as "the
reference ID of that ROAD as designated by the powers-that-be". Motorway
slip roads are (in my experience in UK/NL) administratively speaking an
extra part of the motorway, which means the ref should be whatever the
authorities consider it to be part of. There are often clues to this in
the form of codes on street lights and distance posts.

On the other hand, if the ref is to be interpreted as "the road reference
for that road as present on the signs for the public" (referring to that
very road itself, not the road the ramp leads to) then the junction number
may be more appropriate. On the English wiki page for motorway_link it
kind of hints in this direction.

A "motorway exit" is really a compound object including typically four
slip roads and sometimes roundabouts etc. Puritanically speaking we could
considering modelling exits as a relation, with the motorway_links
included with role=on_ramp etc. Then the junction number would live on the
relation. A link from one motorway to another could then easily be shared
between the relations for the junctions on each motorway. (In the UK,
motorway-motorway junctions are numbered like any other junction. In NL
they are not included in the junction numbering sequence; instead they
have names like "Knooppunt Oudenrijn").

I guess the same question may be applied to the name tag?

Colin

> Hi!
>
> I'm wondering what ref should be used on slip roads/ramps of a motorway
> (not the junction node, but the way tagged with motorway_link). Up to now
> I've seen:
> * the reference of the junction
> * the reference of the motorway
> * the reference of the junction not in the ref tag but in junction:ref
> * nothing (neither ref nor junction:ref)
>
> In the Wiki (English and German) I couldn't find an answer.
>
> Any opinions/comments/hints are welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> 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

[Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link

[Martin Vonwald (imagic)]

Hi!

I'm wondering what ref should be used on slip roads/ramps of a motorway (not 
the junction node, but the way tagged with motorway_link). Up to now I've seen:
* the reference of the junction
* the reference of the motorway
* the reference of the junction not in the ref tag but in junction:ref
* nothing (neither ref nor junction:ref)

In the Wiki (English and German) I couldn't find an answer.

Any opinions/comments/hints are welcome.

Thanks,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag railroad named control points?

[Toby Murray]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:20 AM, John Sturdy  wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM, David ``Smith''  wrote:
>> My employer is a contractor for a few railroads, and through that experience
>> I have gained personal knowlege of several named "control points" for one
>> railroad in particular.  A control point typically consists of signals
>> facing both ways, switch tracks to transfer between multiple mainline tracks
>> if applicable, and often signs displaying the name of the control point.
>> While the extents of a control point are not sharply defined (as far as I
>> know) they can be roughly described as a few hundred feet long and as wide
>> as the railroad right-of-way in most cases.
>>
>> How should such a feature appear in OSM?  A single node? An area-way around
>> the associated physical features? A relation with several nodes as members?
>> And what tags are appropriate?  Does this count as a new feature I should
>> propose?
>
> I think a relation is probably better for this than an area.  Further
> details would depend on whether the railway has been traced as
> separate ways for each track, or as one way with a track count.
>
> I think it's worth documenting as a feature type.

If there is some feature along a railroad that is mappable, chances
are it has been covered somewhere on this page:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:OpenRailwayMap/Erweitertes_Tagging

Unfortunately all the descriptions are in German and the page is huge
so good luck finding it :)

Toby

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag railroad named control points?

[John Sturdy]

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM, David ``Smith''  wrote:
> My employer is a contractor for a few railroads, and through that experience
> I have gained personal knowlege of several named "control points" for one
> railroad in particular.  A control point typically consists of signals
> facing both ways, switch tracks to transfer between multiple mainline tracks
> if applicable, and often signs displaying the name of the control point.
> While the extents of a control point are not sharply defined (as far as I
> know) they can be roughly described as a few hundred feet long and as wide
> as the railroad right-of-way in most cases.
>
> How should such a feature appear in OSM?  A single node? An area-way around
> the associated physical features? A relation with several nodes as members?
> And what tags are appropriate?  Does this count as a new feature I should
> propose?

I think a relation is probably better for this than an area.  Further
details would depend on whether the railway has been traced as
separate ways for each track, or as one way with a track count.

I think it's worth documenting as a feature type.

__John

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: road in Luxembourgish park with unclear status

[Richard Mann]

I'd probably go for highway=service+surface=asphalt to photo 4, then
highway=footway+surface=asphalt+bicycle=yes thereafter. Possibly
highway=service all the way until it's not passable by motor-vehicle.

(residential seems inappropriate since it's a shared surface without even a
token sidewalk, but it's tarmac not paving, so not highway=pedestrian)

Richard

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Eric SIBERT wrote:

> Road classification... such a difficult subject in many countries.
>
> For the part that inhabitants can use, highway=residential and
> access=destination.
>
> After, for me, the road is large enough for a car but motor vehicles are
> prohibited -> highway = pedestrian. Don't care about park maintenance.
>
> until picture 9.
>
> At this point, a car can't use it.
>
> highway=footway : a intentionally organized way for pedestrians. (opposite
> to highway=path for way that appears after repeated use by pedestrians but
> not intentionally made for).
>
> In booth cases (pedestrian and footway), bicycle status is not clear by
> default. Clear indication is welcome : bicycle = yes (assuming that the way
> is mostly designed for pedestrian).
>
> Photo11 : I never now if it is mostly designed for bicycle
> (highway=cycleway) or for pedestrians (highway=footway).
>
> segregated=no to indicate mixing of both type of users.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Key:segregated
>
> Eric
>
>
> __**_
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging