Re: [Tagging] New Proposal
On 29/04/2013 18:59, News wrote: I have created a proposal for a new tagging scheme at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_route From the wiki Example: If you are heading north on the A56 and want to continue on the A56 then you need to turn off the main carriageway or you end up on the A682. Currently any routing software based on OSM data will not tell you to make a left turn Excuse my ignorance, but if your destination is Haslingden, why can't the routing software send you left at that junction? What makes it different to any other turning? Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New Proposal
Am 01.05.2013 12:53, schrieb Philip Barnes: The slip roads are straight ahead, whilst the through route curves to the right. The tag is need to tell the router that straight ahead is not stay on the same road. Hope that explains it. uhm, had you ever considered to tag both following ways as *_link? In my opinion - the A56 is a trunk_link, because you have to leave the previous lanes. - the A682 is a primary_link, because you leave the A56. In _both_ cases you need a hint from the router to be warned (like keep left or keep right). And AFAIK this would be already supported by routers. Just my 2 cents. Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New Proposal
On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 18:20 +0200, Georg Feddern wrote: Am 01.05.2013 12:53, schrieb Philip Barnes: The slip roads are straight ahead, whilst the through route curves to the right. The tag is need to tell the router that straight ahead is not stay on the same road. Hope that explains it. uhm, had you ever considered to tag both following ways as *_link? In my opinion - the A56 is a trunk_link, because you have to leave the previous lanes. - the A682 is a primary_link, because you leave the A56. In _both_ cases you need a hint from the router to be warned (like keep left or keep right). And AFAIK this would be already supported by routers. Just my 2 cents. That is just one example, this problem does not only exist with grade separate roads. Take this example, http://osrm.at/36D To stay on the A511 no instruction to turn is given, therefore it is easy to continue straight ahead. Here it is on streetview http://goo.gl/maps/8csRf (can you imagine a world without streetview? wish we could do an opensource version). There are lots of cases where it would be useful to give a mapper the means to improve routing by a simple relation. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New Proposal
this example, http://osrm.at/36D To stay on the A511 no instruction to turn is given, That just looks like a bug in the osrm. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -
We already have that question on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/tree_shrine: My answer was: I would say for the same reason why historic=wayside_cross is not a combination of historic=wayside_shrine and landmark=cross (or man_made=cross) since they can look very similar as well [...] I decided to go with a new attribute, because in my country a wayside shrine is something masoned (~98% of the time), while a tree shrine is an image hanging on or build into a tree If you don't mind please come over to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/tree_shrine and tell me what you think (It's easier for me to do everything with the wiki account) Why not use the existing historical=shrine? Seems like the only distinction is that one is on a tree and may only last a few years. In the photo example you provide, a picture nailed to a tree, seems rather temporary. Could you provide more of a reason why we need another tag for shrine? Explain how tree shrines differ from other shrines and why they should be separated out. Cheers, Clifford On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:49 AM: An information for the new proposal tree shrine. Please give me your thoughts on that! Link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tree_shrin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ 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 - historic=marker
In the UK many of these would come under the heading of blue plaques. If you follow wikipedia through on this topic it talks about historical marker in the first sentence so people wishing to map these features may well search for this on the OSM wiki. historic=marker would there for seem to be a reasonable tag in this context. Dudley Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:38:26 -0700 From: ericp...@ca.rr.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - historic=marker Perhaps tagging this as tourism=historicmarker would be a better option. Thoughts? ___ 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 - historic=marker
I would use tourism=information, information=board, board_type=historic (or sth else more specific) for the examples on the wikipage: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/historic_marker cheers, Martin 2013/5/1 Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com In the UK many of these would come under the heading of blue plaques. If you follow wikipedia through on this topic it talks about historical marker in the first sentence so people wishing to map these features may well search for this on the OSM wiki. historic=marker would there for seem to be a reasonable tag in this context. Dudley Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:38:26 -0700 From: ericp...@ca.rr.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - historic=marker Perhaps tagging this as tourism=historicmarker would be a better option. Thoughts? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Martin Koppenhoefer (Dipl-Ing. Arch.) Via del Santuario Regina degli Apostoli, 18 00145 Roma |I|I|I|I|I|I|I|I| Italia N41.851, E12.4824 tel1: +39 06.916508070 tel2: +49 30 868708638 mobil: +39 392 3114712 mobil: +49 1577 7793740 m...@koppenhoefer.com http://www.koppenhoefer.com Hinweis: Diese Nachricht wurde manuell erstellt. Wir bemühen uns um fehlerfreie Korrespondenz, dennoch kann es in Ausnahmefällen vorkommen, dass bei der manuellen Übertragung von Informationen in elektronische Medien die übertragenen Informationen Fehler aufweisen. Wir bitten Sie, dies zu entschuldigen. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of koppenhoefer.com unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@koppenhoefer.com Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. Thank You. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
