Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground
On 18/giu/2013, at 05:27, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: addr:housenumber=801 addr:street=North Mingo Road ... lot:number=252 what about addr:housenumber=801 addr:street=North Mingo Road addr:lot=252 ? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Time limits for road access
Hi, I have a question concerning time limits for road access. When tagging a highway or a barrier with access=no, how can I mark that this limitation only exists in a certain time frame? This is the case, for example, on a road nearby that is directly in front of a school and this road must not be uses from 7 to 17 o'clock. Thanks, Nik -- burny Ein Jabber-Account, sie alle zu finden; ins Dunkel zu treiben und ewig zu binden; im NaturalNet, wo die Schatten droh'n ;)! PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17 FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296 signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging barrier open to disabled, plus some visitors?
On 17/giu/2013, at 21:47, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: How do I best map a barrier that is: * Open to any vehicle with a disability placard * Open persons walking or cycling * Open to visitors with reservations. * Open to park personnel * Closed to every other type of vehicle. motor_vehicle=private (or vehicle and set bicycle=yes if you want to exclude horse drawn carriages and the like as well). disabled=yes Usually you would tag these access-values to the barrier (node) as well as to the ways (behind the barrier) where it applies to. that should suffice. It isn't very descriptive as to whom applies private, but it will sufficiently exclude unwanted traffic whilst retaining accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists. Who has a reservation or is working in the park would know that he has a permission to use the way irrespective of what his router tells him. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Time limits for road access
2013/6/18 Dominik George n...@naturalnet.de I have a question concerning time limits for road access. When tagging a highway or a barrier with access=no, how can I mark that this limitation only exists in a certain time frame? This is the case, for example, on a road nearby that is directly in front of a school and this road must not be uses from 7 to 17 o'clock. You can express this with conditional tagging like motor_vehicle:conditional=no @ (7:00-17:00) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Time limits for road access
Hi, You can express this with conditional tagging like great, thenks! -nik -- # apt-assassinate --help Usage: apt-assassinate [upstream|maintainer] package PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17 FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296 signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
You are correct, we are talking about unclassified and tertiary roads. Although this problem also occurs on secondary, primary and trunk roads, a classification is a measure of importance and not always quality. But where did the turning lane come from? or even lanes in many cases? Here is an example of why this tag is needed, and obviously support from routers. http://osrm.at/3Hs This route misses two important left turn instructions, the instructions should be Turn left onto B5065 in both cases. Here is the first junction http://goo.gl/maps/ouXTC and the second, which is a very definite left turn, but easily missed as routers assume you are continuing on the same road, without the instruction anyone following instructions is likely to carry straight on http://goo.gl/maps/DSDbt Excellent examples Phil. I hope to redo this so may well use those Thanks Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
On 18/06/2013 16:45, News wrote: You are correct, we are talking about unclassified and tertiary roads. Although this problem also occurs on secondary, primary and trunk roads, a classification is a measure of importance and not always quality. But where did the turning lane come from? or even lanes in many cases? Here is an example of why this tag is needed, and obviously support from routers. http://osrm.at/3Hs This route misses two important left turn instructions, the instructions should be Turn left onto B5065 in both cases. Here is the first junction http://goo.gl/maps/ouXTC and the second, which is a very definite left turn, but easily missed as routers assume you are continuing on the same road, without the instruction anyone following instructions is likely to carry straight on http://goo.gl/maps/DSDbt Excellent examples Phil. I hope to redo this so may well use those Both examples could probably be addressed by give_way nodes on the ways that are not the 'through route'? -- Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: What about addr:housenumber=801 addr:street=North Mingo Road addr:lot=252 Under current rendering, won't that create lots of little 801's all scattered on the map? Is it reasonable to expect the routing people to extend to lot numbers (e.g. find me lot 252 of Camp Mingo at 801 Mingo Road)? -- name=Camp Mingo tourism=camp_site addr:housenumber=*801* addr:street=North Mingo Road addr:city=Mingoville addr:postcode=X website=* addr:street=Camp Mingo addr:housenumber=*252* group_only=yes power_supply=cee_17_blue -- Camps are a bit like apartment buildings which have a single postal address on tax records, but multiple units. Perhaps some inspiration from apartment mapping would help? addr:flat and addr:door exist but are not widely used. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground
Am 18.06.2013 18:13, schrieb Bryce Nesbitt: On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: What about addr:housenumber=801 addr:street=North Mingo Road addr:lot=252 Under current rendering, won't that create lots of little 801's all scattered on the map? Yes, most likely. Is it reasonable to expect the routing people to extend to lot numbers (e.g. find me lot 252 of Camp Mingo at 801 Mingo Road)? Of course it is reasonable to like to use routing up to the lot number. If you ever have been at a camp site with hundrets of lots for tents, caravans and so on, some bigger than other villages, using street names internally as well as lot numbers, you would agree. Nevertheless: expecting routing engines to give turn instructions up to the lot: no, I would not expect it, but I don't expect (free) routing engines to use traffic statistics either, although it would be great sometimes (probably that's a feature I could think about paying for, if I had a car). But even if a routing engine does not navigate up to the target lot: Being able to look at a map (yes, probably a camp site map) and finding my way the old way (you know, when there were no electronic, satellite-based navigation systems) is a good start. regards Peter -- name=Camp Mingo tourism=camp_site addr:housenumber=*801* addr:street=North Mingo Road addr:city=Mingoville addr:postcode=X website=* addr:street=Camp Mingo addr:housenumber=*252* group_only=yes power_supply=cee_17_blue -- Camps are a bit like apartment buildings which have a single postal address on tax records, but multiple units. Perhaps some inspiration from apartment mapping would help? addr:flat and addr:door exist but are not widely used. ___ 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] Through_route next steps
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:50 +0100, Steve Doerr wrote: On 18/06/2013 16:45, News wrote: You are correct, we are talking about unclassified and tertiary roads. Although this problem also occurs on secondary, primary and trunk roads, a classification is a measure of importance and not always quality. But where did the turning lane come from? or even lanes in many cases? Here is an example of why this tag is needed, and obviously support from routers. http://osrm.at/3Hs This route misses two important left turn instructions, the instructions should be Turn left onto B5065 in both cases. Here is the first junction http://goo.gl/maps/ouXTC and the second, which is a very definite left turn, but easily missed as routers assume you are continuing on the same road, without the instruction anyone following instructions is likely to carry straight on http://goo.gl/maps/DSDbt Excellent examples Phil. I hope to redo this so may well use those Both examples could probably be addressed by give_way nodes on the ways that are not the 'through route'? Maybe, but not as concise as a relation and both require routers to interpret and use the information. Adding give_way nodes today will not suddenly fix the erroneous routing instructions. Commercial satnavs have the same issue and this is an opportunity for us to be better. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:45 +0100, News wrote: You are correct, we are talking about unclassified and tertiary roads. Although this problem also occurs on secondary, primary and trunk roads, a classification is a measure of importance and not always quality. But where did the turning lane come from? or even lanes in many cases? Here is an example of why this tag is needed, and obviously support from routers. http://osrm.at/3Hs This route misses two important left turn instructions, the instructions should be Turn left onto B5065 in both cases. Here is the first junction http://goo.gl/maps/ouXTC and the second, which is a very definite left turn, but easily missed as routers assume you are continuing on the same road, without the instruction anyone following instructions is likely to carry straight on http://goo.gl/maps/DSDbt Excellent examples Phil. I hope to redo this so may well use those I can provide some photos to replace the streetview if it will help. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
For my Garmin both B5065 examples are routed correct by Mapsource. If the OSRM heuristics are wrong, than OSRM should get a ticket to make its engine better. Cheers, Johan 2013/6/18 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:45 +0100, News wrote: You are correct, we are talking about unclassified and tertiary roads. Although this problem also occurs on secondary, primary and trunk roads, a classification is a measure of importance and not always quality. But where did the turning lane come from? or even lanes in many cases? Here is an example of why this tag is needed, and obviously support from routers. http://osrm.at/3Hs This route misses two important left turn instructions, the instructions should be Turn left onto B5065 in both cases. Here is the first junction http://goo.gl/maps/ouXTC and the second, which is a very definite left turn, but easily missed as routers assume you are continuing on the same road, without the instruction anyone following instructions is likely to carry straight on http://goo.gl/maps/DSDbt Excellent examples Phil. I hope to redo this so may well use those I can provide some photos to replace the streetview if it will help. Phil ___ 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] Through_route next steps
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 19:23 +0200, Johan C wrote: For my Garmin both B5065 examples are routed correct by Mapsource. If the OSRM heuristics are wrong, than OSRM should get a ticket to make its engine better. That is just one of many examples, does this one work? http://osrm.at/3Is http://goo.gl/maps/tHHkf It should give a turn right or turn slightly right instruction, the through route continues onto Main Street. This is the one reported by a Scobbler user that set me off on this campaign. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Last call for comments on Proposed features/childcare2.0
Hi everybody, after more than a month of waiting for comments on the proposed feature i'd like to start the voting. Before doing so i kindly request everybody who wants to get involved to provide their comments on the subject. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare2.0 All the best defonion ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
Restrictions on road access in many countries of the world make use of two different types of weight: 1) Actual weight of vehicle including empty vehicle + driver + passengers + load [the weight on a weighbridge] 2) Maximum permissible weight for a vehicle, typically used for registration and found in vehicle documents [and is a fixed number for a specific vehicle, not depending on the load] But current tagging does not distinguish the two types, neither maxweight=x nor access:conditional=... @ (weightx). But the difference is important for HGV routing and truck drivers and should be tagged more precisely. Since most car driver [and thus the average mapper] typically don't have to care know details about weight restrictions, I assume that many mappers are not aware of the subtle difference in the meaning of weight related road signs [at least I haven't until I investigated the situation]. Thus I decided to summarize previous discussions and my knowledge in following proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/gross_weight I have added many examples to illustrate when road signs mean gross weight and when the refer to the actual weight. To avoid a German/Austrian bias I based many examples on the Vienna Convention on road signs and signals, which has been implemented in many countries in the world (this convention is the reasons why road signs look very similar in many countries). I know that some countries have not fully implemented this convention and thus there a country specific deviations, thus please update the comment column of the example if your country deviates from the convention rules. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Last call for comments on Proposed features/childcare2.0
Hi, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/childcare2.0 The proposal seems intuitive but has lots of disambiguations. What if there is a kindergarten with an after school included? I'd propose amenity=childcare, childcare:kindergarten=yes, childcare:after_school=yes, childcare:after_school:opening_hours=*, etc. I know it's longer, I know it's more difficult to write but editors nowadays should really take care of this and this is the logical way to do it. --andreas.balzer 20:51, 18 June 2013 (GMT+1) Andreas Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:08:12 +0200 From: defon...@googlemail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Tagging] Last call for comments on Proposed features/childcare2.0 Hi everybody, after more than a month of waiting for comments on the proposed feature i'd like to start the voting. Before doing so i kindly request everybody who wants to get involved to provide their comments on the subject. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare2.0 All the best defonion ___ 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] Through_route next steps
No, it doesn't. Two reasons for that: 1. the road names in your example are wrong, see: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/viewer/ . If the correct road names are applied, the routing engine will know that one road is connected through an interchange to another road 2. it's important to use Bing here to map the roads correctly: Markfield Lane should be in an angle of 90 degrees to Botcheston road. Any routing engine algorithm will turn 90 degrees into 'left' or 'right'. Cheers, Johan 2013/6/18 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 19:23 +0200, Johan C wrote: For my Garmin both B5065 examples are routed correct by Mapsource. If the OSRM heuristics are wrong, than OSRM should get a ticket to make its engine better. That is just one of many examples, does this one work? http://osrm.at/3Is http://goo.gl/maps/tHHkf It should give a turn right or turn slightly right instruction, the through route continues onto Main Street. This is the one reported by a Scobbler user that set me off on this campaign. Phil (trigpoint) ___ 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] Tagging camp sites within campground
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.comwrote: Is it reasonable to expect the routing people to extend to lot numbers (e.g. find me lot 252 of Camp Mingo at 801 Mingo Road)? Ever order a pizza in any but the tiniest apartment complexes, campgrounds or RV sites? This problem is common enough I just give the pizza guy a missile address and tell 'em it's the trailer in front of the Malibu parked at those coordinates. Reason being, RV's made in the last decade or so are all so identical (typically white, typically with bad marketing graphics if nobody's peeled 'em off) that trying to describe a trailer to someone trying to find it is like pointing for a cat. Also, turns out thanks to advances in technology, you can now address a pizza and an ICBM in the same manner... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground
With bit coin? — Elliott Plack Sent from Mailbox on iPhone 5 about.me/elliottp On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.comwrote: Is it reasonable to expect the routing people to extend to lot numbers (e.g. find me lot 252 of Camp Mingo at 801 Mingo Road)? Ever order a pizza in any but the tiniest apartment complexes, campgrounds or RV sites? This problem is common enough I just give the pizza guy a missile address and tell 'em it's the trailer in front of the Malibu parked at those coordinates. Reason being, RV's made in the last decade or so are all so identical (typically white, typically with bad marketing graphics if nobody's peeled 'em off) that trying to describe a trailer to someone trying to find it is like pointing for a cat. Also, turns out thanks to advances in technology, you can now address a pizza and an ICBM in the same manner...___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
