Re: [Tagging] gross weight - conclusions changes
2013/6/29 martinq osm-mart...@fantasymail.de Based on the interesting discussion so far, following conclusions from my side: (1) Remove the '_': maxgross_weight was a horrible choice from my side. If we have 'maxaxleload', then maxgrossweight is OK, but less irritating. (2) For consistency with (1), for the value in conditionals is also changed to 'grossweight' without '_', e.g. maxspeed:hgv = 80 @ (grossweight 7.5 AND 22:00-05:00) Do we really need 2 tags, maxgrossweight and grossweight? What is the difference? (3) Don't touch 'maxweight' definition: Since we must assume that 'maxweight' (100,000 uses!) was used for gross weight limits (e.g. signs with the lorry + weight) as well as for actual weight limits (e.g. signs with weight number only) in the past, any attempt to modify the tag retrospectively just causes chaos [the tag is somehow broken or at least very imprecise]. IMHO you can assume that maxweight is about the actual weight (this is for 4 years on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:maxweightoldid=358579), and ignore or better correct the few very recent pages that show the lorry+weight sign (AFAIK only 1 example on conditional tagging in the wiki). Obviously mappers that notice the problem will correct it, where grossweight (maxgrossweight) was intended but maxweight was tagged. Only gradual replacement by new more precise tags and the recommendation to use the new tags instead of the inaccurate 'maxweight' [deprecate maxweight] makes sense. -1, I'm against burning a well established and defined tag just because on one other recent wiki page there is a problem in the examples section. Better correct that contradiction. (4) If definition of 'maxweight' is not changed [see (3)], we need a new tag for the actual weight. first of all: of a vehicle combination (needed e.g. in Finland) or of a single vehicle (needed in most of the vienna convention countries)? The single vehicle is defined for maxweight. I'd stick with that. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on operational_status (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)
Am 29.06.2013 07:37, schrieb Bryce Nesbitt: This is a proposal to fill a hole in the life cycle concepts (that of facilities /intended/ to be operational): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status I have drawn from the HOT tagging, and from the experience mapping drinking fountain status with wetap:status Exactly, what you do describe won't work. Please use a prefix if something is broken. Software which wants to display these kind of broken objects can look for this prefix and all other simply ignore it. It would be really dangerous in a dry area if you need water and go to route to a amenity=drinking_water only to find it broken. I also do not think that we should use disused for something that has ceased to exist on the ground. Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] gross weight - conclusions changes
Do we really need 2 tags, maxgrossweight and grossweight? What is the difference? - maxgrossweight is a key - grossweight is no key. It is a property used on the right side of conditional restrictions, for example to express a speed limit that only applied to vehicles with a certain gross weight. Same as: maxlength/maxheight/maxwidth (key) vs. length/height/width (property in conditional restrictions). IMHO you can assume that maxweight is about the actual weight (this is for 4 years on the wiki: Discussion gave me a different impression. The issue is that the wiki page did not make people aware that different weight types exist. Therefore I - and also other people on this list - assume that maxweight has been used for anything that looks like a weight limitation. Additionally, be aware of your regional bias: If I look for example at this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom both signs (No goods vehicles exceeding maximum gross weight and Maximum weight) are suggesting maxweight for gross weight limitations. It does not matter how many people have used this specific page: It just demonstrates that the author of the page - working with the best intentions - came to another conclusion. And if there is one author, there will be mappers too. [...]Obviously mappers that notice the problem will correct it, where grossweight (maxgrossweight) was intended but maxweight was tagged. Only gradual replacement by new more precise tags and the recommendation to use the new tags instead of the inaccurate 'maxweight' [deprecate maxweight] makes sense. -1, I'm against burning a well established and defined tag just because on one other recent wiki page there is a problem in the examples section. Better correct that contradiction. It is well established, but sadly used in for different weight types, which makes it useless for data users: maxweight=5.5 can mean completely different things now. If it was for vehicle weight, I can pass with 5t truck + 5t trailer. But if the mapper meant gross weight, then I cannot pass with my unloaded permissible gross weight 7.5t truck... We cannot redefine the meaning and hope that people start checking every maxweight sign (how do people know that it has already been checked?). The only clean way is to deprecate maxweight, inform people why its no longer recommended to use it -- and the good reasons for doing this. This makes it possible to distinguish between old and ambiguous weight limit and the new limits with more precise meaning in the future. I cannot agree that 'maxweight' is burned simply because we deprecate it: The maxweight definition on the wiki and maxweight tag will remain in the database for many years. But we should stop adding more ambiguous 'maxweight' tags and start a gradual replacement of old 'maxweight' tags with their more meaningful counterparts. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on operational_status (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 5:07 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Exactly, what you do describe won't work. Please use a prefix if something is broken. Software which wants to display these kind of broken objects can look for this prefix and all other simply ignore it. This tag is for the opposite use case. This tag is for objects which are intended to remain mapped. Examples: - Hospital, windows blown out due to hurricane, observed to be closed 1 day later. - Drinking fountain, drain clogged with sand (needs repair, but still works.) - Gate, observed to be sticky (but you can walk around it 100 feet north). A specific use case is in drinking fountains where certain rendering software processes additional tags to alert operating agencies about a problem, but all other rendering agents continue to function normally. Most maps just show the drinking fountain. The enhanced maps show the last reported status of the drinking fountain (working, needs repair and why, broken and why). The disused: namespace prefix is fine for a different use case... if you want the object to be invisible to most processing agents. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on operational_status (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)
Am 29.06.2013 19:54, schrieb Bryce Nesbitt: On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 5:07 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Exactly, what you do describe won't work. Please use a prefix if something is broken. Software which wants to display these kind of broken objects can look for this prefix and all other simply ignore it. This tag is for the opposite use case. This tag is for objects which are intended to remain mapped. Examples: * Hospital, windows blown out due to hurricane, observed to be closed 1 day later. * Drinking fountain, drain clogged with sand (needs repair, but still works.) * Gate, observed to be sticky (but you can walk around it 100 feet north). A specific use case is in drinking fountains where certain rendering software processes additional tags to alert operating agencies about a problem, but all other rendering agents continue to function normally. Most maps just show the drinking fountain. The enhanced maps show the last reported status of the drinking fountain (working, needs repair and why, broken and why). I understood your intension. Sorry, but operational_status=closed is used in your example and this does not fit at all. It works as long as the primary function is available though somehow broken The disused: namespace prefix is fine for a different use case... if you want the object to be invisible to most processing agents. Yes, like operational_status=closed for a toilet which is broken and closed, but not like a burned down toilet where you can not tell if it had been a toilet and also wether it will ever open again. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] gross weight - conclusions changes
needed e.g. in Finland) or of a single vehicle (needed in most of the vienna convention countries) By far the most common sign is - even here - of the vehicle laden weight variant. Only the max gross weight of a vehicle combination sign does not (legally) exist - here, that is. Implying that we're not following the convention is just... uneducated. It would be best of someone living in the UK atm could check of most of the maxweight tagged ways there are in fact with a traffic sign no entry for goods vehicles with gross weight over X tonnes, or the laden weight limit variant. Regardless of what the wiki example photos show. -- alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
