Re: [Tagging] foot=yes or bicycle=yes on track without other limitations?
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: It is better to tag signs: bicycle=yes only if there is a bicycle free sign. Same with other signs. So if we see the tags, we know which sign is there, and backwards. I don't see a benefit of mapping the traffic signs themselves, though. It only matters which restrictions apply to which ways, not how the signs look like or where they are located. It depends. I've found numerous bugs from osm data and in real world traffic signs too since we started mapping them around here. Once I've them all on the map, I can easily determine from osm data alone if the ways are tagged correctly or not. I don't need to remember all details in the head anymore nor collect them for an area at once since they exist now in the osm too as traffic signs (there are unbelievable number of inconsistensies in foot/bicycle/horse related traffic signs around here which will require lots of :forward/backward style trickery that would be hard to master for any non-trivially sized area without all related signs either in head or in osm). Besides, the head approach is limited to one person and around here there is more than one person doing this so the use of osm as a notepad enables significant collaboration too. However, I can also understand why many people don't see the point with the actual signs :-) ...and the quality of the signage might be area dependent. -- i. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] foot=yes or bicycle=yes on track without other limitations?
On 11/lug/2013, at 08:21, Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi wrote: However, I can also understand why many people don't see the point with the actual signs :-) ...and the quality of the signage might be area dependent. +1, I also find Traffic signs useful, especially maxspeed signs, as those seem to be set in very creative ways around here. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridleway/hiking trail/bike track tags
Primarily a horse trail (not so good for cycling or walking): highway=bridleway Primarily a hiking trail: highway=path Primarily a mountain biking trail: highway=path, mtb=yes (maybe foot=no) Primarily a normal bike path: highway=cycleway, foot=yes (And one hundred other opinions. :)) Adding route relations also helps different kinds of renderers show the right kind of trails to the right kinds of users. Steve On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:34 AM, doug brown dougc...@hotmail.com wrote: I wish to map the trails in a state park, many of which are multiple use horse trails, hiking trails, and mountain biking trails. What tagging scheme would be appropriate for these trails? ___ 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] Bridleway/hiking trail/bike track tags
Am 10.07.2013 20:34, schrieb doug brown: I wish to map the trails in a state park, many of which are multiple use horse trails, hiking trails, and mountain biking trails. What tagging scheme would be appropriate for these trails? I stopped using *ways as values and only use path with bicycle/foot/horse=(official/)designated/yes/no. everything else goes to extra tags: mtb:scale=* sac_scale=* uiaa_scale=* smoothness=* surface=* width=* barrier=* obstacle=* fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] foot=yes or bicycle=yes on track without other limitations?
Wouldn't bicycle-free mean an absence of bicycles, in other words bicycle=no? Masi Master masi-mas...@gmx.de wrote: Hi, some mappers think, they have to set these access tags. Potlatch and iD have a select menue, which shout hey, please select foot bicycle are allowed. But I think this is not good! It is better to tag signs: bicycle=yes only if there is a bicycle free sign. Same with other signs. So if we see the tags, we know which sign is there, and backwards. It helps if there is something like this [1] included in the editors, which create the right tags by means of sign! A major error is something like this: access=forestry (for sign motor_vehicle=forestry) For the possibility to use the way by foot or bicycle, better tag walking=yes or cycling=yes or something like that. [1] http://osmtools.de/traffic_signs Regards, Masi Am 10.07.2013, 15:41 Uhr, schrieb Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com: Yes, highway=path or =track normally allow foot access by default. You can still add the foot=yes tag to show that you have actively verified the fact that indeed access is granted on that way. For example when other ways around have foot=no or the Bing layer looks like it's not accessible etc... Regards, Chaos 2013/7/10 Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl Is there a deeper meaning of adding foot=yes or bicycle=yes to highway=track or highway=path without adding other limitations? I thought track and path are by default routable for foot and bicycle, so IMHO they add nothing. Examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/53561813 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68796031 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/195440134 Regards, Maarten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] foot=yes or bicycle=yes on track without other limitations?
Am 10.07.2013 15:42, schrieb Richard Mann: If you add bicycle=yes, they render differently in opencyclemap (not saying that's a good thing, just an observation). It seems to be used to imply that it's reasonably passable by bike, and nobody seems to object. Yeah this is a problem with tagging for the renderer/routing software. Especially lots of Router/Maps for bicycles do not work that well with path and foot/bicycle=official/designated/yes/no. Missing advice in preset about optional tags is not helpful, too. I would deprecate bicycleway/bridleway/footway and only use path but that is out of scope right now. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] foot=yes or bicycle=yes on track without other limitations?
not bicycle-free!it means that bicycles are freed from the law by the upper sign.Example: http://stefanhock.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ubstadt_haltestelleuhlandstrac39fe_schild_20120513_2_1024.jpgok, "bicycles allowed" match better to the sign.Am 11.07.2013, 16:09 Uhr, schrieb John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com:Wouldn't bicycle-free mean an absence of bicycles, in other words bicycle=no? Masi Master masi-mas...@gmx.de wrote: Hi,some mappers think, they have to set these access tags. Potlatch and iD have a select menue, which shout "hey, please select foot bicycle are allowed". But I think this is not good! It is better to tag signs: bicycle=yes only if there is a "bicycle free" sign. Same with other signs. So if we see the tags, we know which sign is there, and backwards. It helps if there is something like this [1] included in the editors, which create the right tags by means of sign! A major error is something like this: access=forestry (for sign motor_vehicle=forestry)For the possibility to use the way by foot or bicycle, better tag walking=yes or cycling=yes or something like that.[1] http://osmtools.de/traffic_signsRegards,MasiAm 10.07.2013, 15:41 Uhr, schrieb Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com:Yes, highway=path or =track normally allow foot access by default.You can still add the foot=yes tag to show that you have actively verified the fact that indeed access is granted on that way. For example when other ways around have foot=no or the Bing layer looks like it's not accessible etc... Regards,Chaos2013/7/10 Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl Is there a deeper meaning of adding foot=yes or bicycle=yes to highway=track or highway=path without adding other limitations? I thought track and path are by default routable for foot and bicycle, so IMHO they add nothing. Examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/53561813 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68796031 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/195440134 Regards, Maarten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] foot=yes or bicycle=yes on track without other limitations?
Am 11.07.2013, 04:42 Uhr, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: On 10.07.2013 18:39, Masi Master wrote: some mappers think, they have to set these access tags. Potlatch and iD have a select menue, which shout hey, please select foot bicycle are allowed. But I think this is not good! That's also my impression. Potlatch users often set lots of unnecessary tags just because they are selectable. It's like a form which you try to fill out completely. It is better to tag signs: bicycle=yes only if there is a bicycle free sign. Same with other signs. So if we see the tags, we know which sign is there, and backwards. Yes, we should tag what we see, not the restrictions implied by laws. Those should be defined via Wiki pages like: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions I don't see a benefit of mapping the traffic signs themselves, though. It only matters which restrictions apply to which ways, not how the signs look like or where they are located. Sorry, I wrote a bit fuzzy. I don't mean mapping traffic signs themselves. Only tagging the meaning of them at the way. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - reference_point
On 07/02/2013 09:46 PM, Felix Delattre wrote: Dear community, please vote for this feature proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/reference_point One week has passed and so far the proposal has three votes. All are approvals and all are from the first day. I would like to ask for some attention. Maybe you have a spare time and can look over it. Please help and vote! Thank you! Felix This is needed to get proper route-planning working in all Central American countries. Thank you for all the feedback given and special thanks to Brycenesbitt [1] for reviewing the English language and cleaning up the proposal to provide only concrete, understandable and necessary information. If you wish you can have a look into prior communication logs: Initial conversation: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2012-March/009613.html Request for comments: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-June/013791.html Cheers, Felix ___ 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 - shop=bakery,confectionery
An update on the proposal. Following a suggestion on the talk page, I have dropped sometimes from the proposal page and replaced it with conditional, a tag expressing more information and in greater use. A few other refinements have be made on the proposal page. After trial tagging with artisan and finding it useful for bakery, I will likely include artisan on the proposal page. Still considering dropping artisan_sweet as a confectionery type and introducing the artisan tag to the confectionery part of the proposal. Any objection? The concept of produced_on_site and/or outlet is useful, but still looking for feed back. Will one work without the other? Does outlet=no always mean produced_on_site? Having both allows ranking style tags: produced_on_site=most. As far as terminology, other than the Oxford dictionary, most reference sources do not use an at a discount qualifier to define outlet. Typical definition of outlet: a commercial establishment retailing the goods of a particular producer or wholesaler. Distinguishing between local and commercial outlets is useful. Is outlet=yes/no/local/commercial better of worse than local_outlet=yes/no, commercial_outlet=yes/no? Two other possibilities for the tag: supplier or producer with values [on_site], local, commercial; neither is really in use as a tag. Still leaning toward separate produced_on_site tag so it can be used with yes/only/most/some/few/no. If this remains muddy, I may put this as a discussion paragraph on the proposal page rather than an entry in the use with tag table. Any other feedback that would refine the proposal and remove objections before a vote would be appreciated. I will likely open the proposal for voting within the week, leaving off any unsettled Useful Combination tags. The link to the (revised) proposal page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal/Shop%3Dbakery,confectionery Murry ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridleway/hiking trail/bike track tags
Am 11.07.2013, 16:06 Uhr, schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Am 10.07.2013 20:34, schrieb doug brown: I wish to map the trails in a state park, many of which are multiple use horse trails, hiking trails, and mountain biking trails. What tagging scheme would be appropriate for these trails? I stopped using *ways as values and only use path with bicycle/foot/horse=(official/)designated/yes/no. I think, it is nice to see for who the trail is made for! So I would prefer bridleway cycleway etc. (A minor problem is the high-ranking/strict default-value (i mean designated), better it is only *=yes) You propose access-tags, but i think they only should used if there is a access-sign or symbol!? everything else goes to extra tags: mtb:scale=* sac_scale=* uiaa_scale=* smoothness=* surface=* width=* barrier=* obstacle=* using extra tags is verry good! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridleway/hiking trail/bike track tags
On 7/11/13 4:55 PM, Masi Master wrote: Am 11.07.2013, 16:06 Uhr, schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Am 10.07.2013 20:34, schrieb doug brown: I wish to map the trails in a state park, many of which are multiple use horse trails, hiking trails, and mountain biking trails. What tagging scheme would be appropriate for these trails? I stopped using *ways as values and only use path with bicycle/foot/horse=(official/)designated/yes/no. I think, it is nice to see for who the trail is made for! So I would prefer bridleway cycleway etc. (A minor problem is the high-ranking/strict default-value (i mean designated), better it is only *=yes) in the US, new trails are frequently multi use from the start, so path + specific tags more accurately reflects who the trail is made for. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridleway/hiking trail/bike track tags
Am 11.07.2013 23:02, schrieb fly: Am 11.07.2013 22:55, schrieb Masi Master: Am 11.07.2013, 16:06 Uhr, schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Am 10.07.2013 20:34, schrieb doug brown: I wish to map the trails in a state park, many of which are multiple use horse trails, hiking trails, and mountain biking trails. What tagging scheme would be appropriate for these trails? I stopped using *ways as values and only use path with bicycle/foot/horse=(official/)designated/yes/no. I think, it is nice to see for who the trail is made for! So I would prefer bridleway cycleway etc. (A minor problem is the high-ranking/strict default-value (i mean designated), better it is only *=yes) You can not often tell for who the ways are mode for. Many are multiuse , some change over the seasons and it always needs on personal conditions and abilities. +1 You I right I missed that. Especially considering trails or pathes in the wilderness. Sorry whole block above was the comment to sentence below !!! You propose access-tags, but i think they only should used if there is a access-sign or symbol!? everything else goes to extra tags: mtb:scale=* sac_scale=* uiaa_scale=* smoothness=* surface=* width=* barrier=* obstacle=* using extra tags is verry good! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] gross weight - conclusions changes
In the UK, the most common weight restriction is '7.5t except for access'. Which doesn't answer the question, so I had to do some digging: no sources seem to mention any traffic signs in the UK that would limit the actual laden weight - only the what's-in-the-papers-maximum is used. Which seems strange, since the signs even refer to goods vehicles only, but a weak bridge does not care what sort of a too heavy vehicle is about to cross said bridge. surely its simply a hgv tag, or a maxweight tag Just yesterday I found a nice example bridge (far away from where I usually roam) with all sorts of weight limits (I can only later try to extract the video frame(s) with the signs). At the previous intersection there was a sign (freely translated as) no entry for goods vehicles with a maximum mass of over 3.5 tonnes. That does not affect for example buses at all. Right after that, there were signs maximum axle load 8 tonnes and maximum bogie load 13 tonnes. Then, just before the old bridge, there was a sign no entry for vehicle combinations of over 32 tonnes laden mass. -- alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
