Re: [Tagging] Proposed features/Connecting of routes - RFC
Description: type=route - this is a route route=road - this is a route for motorcars network=e-road - this is a cars' route, which is related to E-road network IMO network=* should be read as is a route, which is a part of the E-road network. These connections are not a real part of the agreed-on network, but local roads and links that act as a tool to route between them. Therefore, I'd say it would be better to differentiate these already at the network tag; say, network=e-road_link Also, they exist where two E-roads intersect at a grade separated junction, but the connecting links are not a part of either route relation. If they were a part of the e-road relations, there would also be some other onramp link roads, ones that get traffic from local roads and which are guideposted just as the connecting ramps between actual E-roads. There's less room for random inclusions, when these instruments to routing are a separate network=*, one which osm mappers are constructing on their own. Btw, maybe just a tag would suffice? e-road=A_link - this is a connecting route between two European routes What are A and B class E-roads? Which one should one use, when it's a connection between an A and a B class route? Even if they don't exist now (do they?), they might exist in the future. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
Hi everyone! I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme that is widely accepted both by mappers and by consumers for turn restrictions. I suggest that discussion on this proposal be revived. It should undergo the regular voting process and finally become an approved relation type. It may also be that it became a de facto standard in the meanwhile. Does somebody know of a router that uses this relation, possibly to provide navigation indications? Regards, Simone [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Give_way ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
A good idea. Just thought I should mention the relation through_route, which is related to this, where the main road though a junction so that routers can give correct turn instructions, although none I know of support this. Often the through route is not the straight ahead, so a turn is often ignored by routers when joining or leaving via a road that has a give way. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 14/03/2013 14:43 Simone Saviolo wrote: Hi everyone! I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme that is widely accepted both by mappers and by consumers for turn restrictions. I suggest that discussion on this proposal be revived. It should undergo the regular voting process and finally become an approved relation type. It may also be that it became a de facto standard in the meanwhile. Does somebody know of a router that uses this relation, possibly to provide navigation indications? Regards, Simone [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Give_way ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
On 14/03/13 14:43, Simone Saviolo wrote: I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme that is widely accepted both by mappers and by consumers for turn restrictions. I suggest that discussion on this proposal be revived. It should undergo the regular voting process and finally become an approved relation type. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Give_way If it has sat around unloved for years why would voting for it make it suddenly useful? Discuss it, try using it, help support its use in software if you can, but please don't go through the broken, pointless charade of voting for a tag that has been untouched for years. Voting for tags to 'approve them' is stupid - there are *no* approved tags in OpenStreetMap, only ones that people find useful. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
I suppose the main downside is that it requires a relation. I've not mapped give-way relationships myself, but it would be good to map them, and the node method seems simpler and would involve less database bloat than adding a relation at, basically, every junction. I would think the node method would be sufficient for most junctions, while the relation method could be available for any more complex cases. As far as I can see, with the node method, the important thing to remember is that the give-way node needs to be closer to the intersection node to which it applies than to any other intersection node on the way, which doesn't seem too difficult to achieve. It should perhaps be made clear in the wiki that there is not necessarily an actual Give Way sign: it can be used to represent a give-way line as well. Steve On 14/03/2013 14:43, Simone Saviolo wrote: Hi everyone! I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme that is widely accepted both by mappers and by consumers for turn restrictions. I suggest that discussion on this proposal be revived. It should undergo the regular voting process and finally become an approved relation type. It may also be that it became a de facto standard in the meanwhile. Does somebody know of a router that uses this relation, possibly to provide navigation indications? Regards, Simone [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Give_way ___ 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] Proposed relation give_way
2013/3/14 Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net On 14/03/13 14:43, Simone Saviolo wrote: I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme that is widely accepted both by mappers and by consumers for turn restrictions. I suggest that discussion on this proposal be revived. It should undergo the regular voting process and finally become an approved relation type. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Give_way If it has sat around unloved for years why would voting for it make it suddenly useful? Discuss it, try using it, help support its use in software if you can, but please don't go through the broken, pointless charade of voting for a tag that has been untouched for years. Voting for tags to 'approve them' is stupid - there are *no* approved tags in OpenStreetMap, only ones that people find useful. I agree with you. What I'm trying to do is remind people that this proposal exists, so that people may start using it. The first step to do this is to let people know about it. The second one is to drag it out of that Draft status, so that those who find it by searching the wiki don't come to the conclusion that they shouldn't use it. Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
2013/3/14 Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com I suppose the main downside is that it requires a relation. I've not mapped give-way relationships myself, but it would be good to map them, and the node method seems simpler and would involve less database bloat than adding a relation at, basically, every junction. I would think the node method would be sufficient for most junctions, while the relation method could be available for any more complex cases. As far as I can see, with the node method, the important thing to remember is that the give-way node needs to be closer to the intersection node to which it applies than to any other intersection node on the way, which doesn't seem too difficult to achieve. It should perhaps be made clear in the wiki that there is not necessarily an actual Give Way sign: it can be used to represent a give-way line as well. I see your point, and I've tagged a few highway=give_way and highway=stop nodes myself. However, since we are already mapping turn restrictions as relations, I think it wouldn't be so absurd to map give-way's and stops that way too. Granted, there are much more stops than the turn restrictions that need to be described explicitly. I think the two ways may coexist: the node method being easier on the mappers, and the relation being easier on the consumers. Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
2013/3/14 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com 2013/3/14 Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com I suppose the main downside is that it requires a relation. I've not mapped give-way relationships myself, but it would be good to map them, and the node method seems simpler and would involve less database bloat than adding a relation at, basically, every junction. I would think the node method would be sufficient for most junctions, while the relation method could be available for any more complex cases. As far as I can see, with the node method, the important thing to remember is that the give-way node needs to be closer to the intersection node to which it applies than to any other intersection node on the way, which doesn't seem too difficult to achieve. It should perhaps be made clear in the wiki that there is not necessarily an actual Give Way sign: it can be used to represent a give-way line as well. I see your point, and I've tagged a few highway=give_way and highway=stop nodes myself. However, since we are already mapping turn restrictions as relations, I think it wouldn't be so absurd to map give-way's and stops that way too. Granted, there are much more stops than the turn restrictions that need to be described explicitly. I think the two ways may coexist: the node method being easier on the mappers, and the relation being easier on the consumers. Maybe I should have a look at the proposal first, but wouldn't you have give_way or stop node anyway? If it is near to an intersection, why would it be hard on consumers to deal with it? I think you'd only need a relation if the directionality isn't what one would normally expect, i.e. you enter the street from the intersection and then you are supposed to give way, maybe to a cycleway or a crossing. Although even that is normal. Because traffic that makes a turn has to yield for traffic traveling straight on. Jo ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
On 2013-03-14 15:43, Simone Saviolo wrote : Hi everyone! I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme that is widely accepted both by mappers and by consumers for turn restrictions. I suggest that discussion on this proposal be revived. It should undergo the regular voting process and finally become an approved relation type. It may also be that it became a de facto standard in the meanwhile. Does somebody know of a router that uses this relation, possibly to provide navigation indications? Regards, Simone [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Give_way From wikipedia: In road transport, a YIELD (Canada, Ireland, and the United States) or GIVE WAY (Hong Kong and most Commonwealth countries) traffic sign indicates that a vehicle driver must prepare to stop if necessary to let a driver on another approach proceed (but has no need to stop if his way is clear). A driver who stops has yielded or given his right of way to another. Canada etc... are not the only countries in the world and highway=give way http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dgive_way mentions an international standard sign. URLs (links) to more information would be very much welcome A driver who stops in Belgium has *NOT* yielded or given his right of way to another. This rule might have changed for compatibility with other European regulations. Even more that wrong speed limits, this misinformation can lead to accidents. It should be changed in the wiki. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Power proposals
Hi mappers, Some work is still under way on the power proposals. We have now four main entries on proposed features page. All proposal stuff must had completely been moved from other wiki pages. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/list#Proposed_features_-_Power * Power generation refinement is currently Proposed since 07th February. Some key points about generator types must be solved before any voting process. * Power transmission refinement is still Draft and waiting for a little cleanup to cover up a more formal shape. Let's consider all refinement points are able to be discussed on discussion page. * Power substation stuff had been moved by Polderrunner on a new proposal which is now maintained by him. * I've created new proposal about power routing which you can find here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal It's based upon the Bahnpirat's and Surly's work. Many thanks to Polderrunner, Bahnpirat, Surly, Oligo, Don-vip, FK270673, Alv and whoever else I forgot for their useful comments. Have a look and don't hesitate to get involve in debate on discussion pages. Cheers. -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] access restrictions by emission class (cars), EURO 1, etc.
In Rome there a different zones (low emission zones and limited traffic zones) which restrict the access of certain vehicle types, based on a series of criteria (e.g. public transport or private vehicle, resident with special permission or not, date and time (e.g. restriction only on Friday and Saturday night), ...) and one distinction made is that of the emission class of the vehicle (euro 0, euro 1, euro 2, ...). Now to describe the access conditions in a formal way we'd need to tag these emission classes. Has anyone already something in use? this is what I found in the wiki regarding the zones: - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/LEZ - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dlimited_traffic_zone and regarding the restrictions: - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5 (could maybe be extended for our purpose) Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power proposals
Could you explain when we should map several adjacent plants, and when they would be considered one big power plant consisting of several parts? How can the distinction be made? Does the area have to be contiguous? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power proposals
Good question. It may be up to each mapper to make the distinction. Myself I would definitely use operators distinguishing : If a whole big plant is divided between two or more operators, I would map a separate area for each operator. Foremost, areas must reflect land occupation. If 2 different operators' plants are contiguous in reality then areas must be contiguous too. Do you have any example which can illustrate such situation in the wiki? Cheers. 2013/3/14 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com Could you explain when we should map several adjacent plants, and when they would be considered one big power plant consisting of several parts? How can the distinction be made? Does the area have to be contiguous? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
On 14.03.2013 17:01, Jo wrote: 2013/3/14 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com mailto:simone.savi...@gmail.com 2013/3/14 Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com mailto:doerr.step...@gmail.com I think the two ways may coexist: the node method being easier on the mappers, and the relation being easier on the consumers. Maybe I should have a look at the proposal first, but wouldn't you have give_way or stop node anyway? If it is near to an intersection, why would it be hard on consumers to deal with it? I think you'd only need a relation if the directionality isn't what one would normally expect, i.e. you enter the street from the intersection and then you are supposed to give way, maybe to a cycleway or a crossing. Although even that is normal. Because traffic that makes a turn has to yield for traffic traveling straight on. Funny, I was thinking about who to add a give_way to node which is already tagged with traffic_lights just a few days ago. I know quite a couple of them. cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access restrictions by emission class (cars), EURO 1, etc.
Hi. I found in the Wiki the german Umweltzone: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Umweltzone Also, you can read the DISK from LEZ: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Low_emission_zone by reneman 2013/3/14 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com In Rome there a different zones (low emission zones and limited traffic zones) which restrict the access of certain vehicle types, based on a series of criteria (e.g. public transport or private vehicle, resident with special permission or not, date and time (e.g. restriction only on Friday and Saturday night), ...) and one distinction made is that of the emission class of the vehicle (euro 0, euro 1, euro 2, ...). Now to describe the access conditions in a formal way we'd need to tag these emission classes. Has anyone already something in use? this is what I found in the wiki regarding the zones: - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/LEZ - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dlimited_traffic_zone and regarding the restrictions: - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5 (could maybe be extended for our purpose) Cheers, 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] access restrictions by emission class (cars), EURO 1, etc.
2013/3/14 René Kirchhoff rene-kirchh...@arcor.de: Hi. I found in the Wiki the german Umweltzone: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Umweltzone Also, you can read the DISK from LEZ: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Low_emission_zone by reneman Yes, I know this (see also the initial thread), but the thing is that these proposals don't suggest any tagging for the specific emission class of a vehicle. You need this to describe the access-restriction (e.g. (not an actual suggestion) motor_vehicle:EURO5=yes). cheers, Martom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
Simone Saviolo wrote: I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. That's fiendishly clever given that OpenStreetMap didn't exist nine years ago... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Proposed-relation-give-way-tp5753138p5753183.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed features/Connecting of routes - RFC
on the one hand, connecting roads between e-roads, as you said, are not fully parts of e-road network, because such connecting roads are not formally marked as e-roads, on the other hand, connecting roads are necessary parts of e-road system as a united network: without such connection roads the network is logically unfinished; I've added words about network=e-road_link; -- 2013/3/14 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: Description: type=route - this is a route route=road - this is a route for motorcars network=e-road - this is a cars' route, which is related to E-road network IMO network=* should be read as is a route, which is a part of the E-road network. These connections are not a real part of the agreed-on network, but local roads and links that act as a tool to route between them. Therefore, I'd say it would be better to differentiate these already at the network tag; say, network=e-road_link Also, they exist where two E-roads intersect at a grade separated junction, but the connecting links are not a part of either route relation. If they were a part of the e-road relations, there would also be some other onramp link roads, ones that get traffic from local roads and which are guideposted just as the connecting ramps between actual E-roads. There's less room for random inclusions, when these instruments to routing are a separate network=*, one which osm mappers are constructing on their own. Btw, maybe just a tag would suffice? e-road=A_link - this is a connecting route between two European routes What are A and B class E-roads? Which one should one use, when it's a connection between an A and a B class route? Even if they don't exist now (do they?), they might exist in the future. -- Alv ___ 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] Proposed features/Connecting of routes - RFC
indeed, European routes sometimes don't exist too, because only cities and towns are written on base agreement; sometimes, European route contain a section, where ferry is expected, but it doesn't exist, or contain a section, where road is expected, but it doesn't exist; European routes are mostly directions than concrete roads; but of course, it depends on country; as I know, there is no traffic signs with e-roads in UK as well; when there are three roads between points A and B, and we mark one of them as primary, second as secondary and third as a tertiary, it is also looks like working as routing application; if there is evident movement of cars between two e-roads through some road, it as a fact, which can be marked, I think. --- 2013/3/14 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Dinamik dinamik...@gmail.com wrote: example, European routes (see WikiProject Europe/E-road network). The network has some gaps, which are caused by formal reasons. Problem with that proposal is that you tag something which does not exist. I have the feeling that you just act as a routing application (find best way from A to B). 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] Proposed relation give_way
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net That's fiendishly clever given that OpenStreetMap didn't exist nine years ago... ^^ But, a silly question : where does it help to put so much efforts in tagging a give-way traffic sign ? It's not for routing. If it is for rendering, a simple node is enough. So why a relation ? for blind drivers ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed features/Connecting of routes - RFC
if say in common, road of class A is a major road (numbers from E01 to E99 and even numbers from E101 to E129), road of class B is shorter road and with lower significance. If we get network of e-roads of class A, we should get united network, if we get network of e-roads of class A and B, we should get more complicated united network. I think, that link between road of class A and road of class B is better tag as AB_link. It gives us possibility to get united network of roads of class A (we get e-roads of class A and relations with A_link). - 2013/3/14 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: Description: type=route - this is a route route=road - this is a route for motorcars network=e-road - this is a cars' route, which is related to E-road network IMO network=* should be read as is a route, which is a part of the E-road network. These connections are not a real part of the agreed-on network, but local roads and links that act as a tool to route between them. Therefore, I'd say it would be better to differentiate these already at the network tag; say, network=e-road_link Also, they exist where two E-roads intersect at a grade separated junction, but the connecting links are not a part of either route relation. If they were a part of the e-road relations, there would also be some other onramp link roads, ones that get traffic from local roads and which are guideposted just as the connecting ramps between actual E-roads. There's less room for random inclusions, when these instruments to routing are a separate network=*, one which osm mappers are constructing on their own. Btw, maybe just a tag would suffice? e-road=A_link - this is a connecting route between two European routes What are A and B class E-roads? Which one should one use, when it's a connection between an A and a B class route? Even if they don't exist now (do they?), they might exist in the future. -- Alv ___ 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] Power proposals
* François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu [2013-03-14 18:52 +0100]: Foremost, areas must reflect land occupation. If 2 different operators' plants are contiguous in reality then areas must be contiguous too. Do you have any example which can illustrate such situation in the wiki? I know of a couple. In Maryland, the Dickerson Generating Station, which is privately owned and uses coal and oil is directly adjacent to the Montgomery County Resource Facility, which is owned by the state and burns trash. OSM: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.20497lon=-77.45533zoom=15layers=M Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickerson_Generating_Station The reverse situation gould, I guess, be illustrated with something like Maryland's Chalk Point Generating Station, where there are multiple generators some distance away from each other. It's pretty clear in this case, though, that they're all part of the same facility, so I don't know how illustrative it might be as an example. OSM: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.55211lon=-76.69028zoom=15layers=M Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_Point_Generating_Station ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power proposals
Hi Phil, 2013/3/14 Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com In Maryland, the Dickerson Generating Station, which is privately owned and uses coal and oil is directly adjacent to the Montgomery County Resource Facility, which is owned by the state and burns trash. OSM: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.20497lon=-77.45533zoom=15layers=M Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickerson_Generating_Station For this one I would use at least 2 areas to map the DGS with operator=private_operators_name and a second one to map the MCRF with operator=another. I say at least 'cause It can vary with the geography of that place. The reverse situation gould, I guess, be illustrated with something like Maryland's Chalk Point Generating Station, where there are multiple generators some distance away from each other. It's pretty clear in this case, though, that they're all part of the same facility, so I don't know how illustrative it might be as an example. OSM: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.55211lon=-76.69028zoom=15layers=M Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_Point_Generating_Station The right question is does the room between generators is owned by the same company? If yes, you can use only one area to map the whole facility because that kind of area is often private and reserved for some extension. In France, beside our ~20 nuclear plants EDF (who operates that kind of plant) is keeping enough room to build extensions of the existing buildings. That reservation is fenced with the rest of the plant and there's no separation between the production facility. So plant area would concern the builded and non-builded zone with operator=EDF. I hope I'm clear enough :) I would write something in proposal to explain more precisely the way we can choose areas around plants. Cheers. -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: But, a silly question : where does it help to put so much efforts in tagging a give-way traffic sign ? It's not for routing. If it is for rendering, a simple node is enough. So why a relation ? for blind drivers ? Not quite. Blind pedestrians would benefit from knowing that traffic might not necessarily stop if they're looking left for the traffic they're merging into instead of right for a pedestrian determined to leave the sidewalk. I'm also going to have to disagree on the routing aspect. Knowing *which way* is supposed to give way (or stop) can be weighted when making routing decisions (since in terms of free flow, from greatest flow to least, you have no control, toll plaza that takes ETC (Oklahoma PIKEPASS, Kansas KPASS, etc), railroad crossing, give way, traffic signals, stop, coins-only cash toll plaza, cash toll plaza). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
2013/3/14 Pieren pier...@gmail.com On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net That's fiendishly clever given that OpenStreetMap didn't exist nine years ago... ^^ But, a silly question : where does it help to put so much efforts in tagging a give-way traffic sign ? It's not for routing. If it is for rendering, a simple node is enough. So why a relation ? for blind drivers ? It is for navigation. Imagine a corner right before an intersection: the navigator would warn you that you'll have to give way or to stop, and you'll prepare the corner accordingly. Additionally, if you're in an unknown city you're probably already busy trying to follow the other cars' traffic, the navigation hints and other stuff, so you might miss some road signs; if we mark it, the navigator could warn you about a stop. It's a great safety measure. Ciao, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
Why wouldn't something like a node tagged highway:forward=give_way work? -James ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
Am 15/mar/2013 um 02:00 schrieb James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com: Why wouldn't something like a node tagged highway:forward=give_way work? Because a node doesn't have direction. Why does it have to be a node of the way? You could set the node slightly right (or left where people drive on the strange side) of the road and project it in preprocessing to the nearest road to get the link. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 15/mar/2013 um 02:00 schrieb James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com: Why wouldn't something like a node tagged highway:forward=give_way work? Because a node doesn't have direction. Why does it have to be a node of the way? You could set the node slightly right (or left where people drive on the strange side) of the road and project it in preprocessing to the nearest road to get the link. You'd still need direction. Give ways such as on pretty much any midwestern left-handed entrance ramp still put the YIELD sign on the right of the ramp, turned slightly towards the road for which it applies. Since the main roadway has more shoulder than the ramp, the sign at left entrances tends to be substantially closer to the motorway, which has the right of way and doesn't yield. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
