Re: [Tagging] question: best practices for micromapping ped areas and footpaths?
On Dec 30, 2014, at 4:29 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 5:27 AM, johnw jo...@mac.com mailto:jo...@mac.com wrote: I mapped the open sections as highway=pedestrian+area=yes, while I traced the covered walkways (that connect the bus shelters) and tagged it as building=roof highway=footway For me this means that you walk on the roof. You should have 2 separate OSM objects, one for the roof and one for the footway. The roof should be tagged as building=roof, layer=1. Ahh, I see - that makes sense. so, I should leave the pedestrain areas as they are, and add an additional area for the roof (so I would have two areas - one the footpath and the other a roof with the adjacent areas as pedestrian) or make the entire area highway=pedestrian and have the building=roof are on a layer above it? BTW, highway=pedestrian+area=yes does not play nice with the layer tag - it renders over everything else, even when separated by layers (last time I checked). does this mean I should tag it in some other (more correct) fashion, or is this simply a rendering error that needs to be resolved and I should refrain from tagging for the renderer? Javbw regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
On 04.12.2014 10:31, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
For me, English common sense says a 'water source' could be a river,
lake, spring etc...
the portability of water is not a measure of its source (where it comes
from) but its purity...
So I'd think the key should be
Water_purity with the key values 'potable', 'nonpotable' and 'unknown'
('yes' does not imply anything in the context of water purity nor water
source).
That key can be added to rives, lakes, drinking fountains etc etc .. no
changes are required for present tags. Simply the additional information
can be added.
Warin, I don't know if you followed the discussion and saw the proposal in
the wiki.
In short, it all started with the lack of good option to map a source of
non-potable water, like a water tap. It evolved from there to the current
state. The proposal from the last email reflects to ~90 % everything
suggested as the discussion proceeded.
In German, we have a verb verschlimmbessern, which means to make something
worse by improving it. I agree with Warin that water_source=potable does not
seem right. It mixes source (origin) and target (use). water_source=* may be
fine with another set of values, and *=potable may be fine with another key
(drinkable=* and drinking_water=* are in use, and water:quality=* and
water_purity=* were suggested in this discussion).
--
Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] question: best practices for micromapping ped areas and footpaths?
Hallo. Maybe covered=yes http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered is what you are looking for? Yours Hubert Am 30. Dezember 2014 05:27:43 MEZ, schrieb johnw jo...@mac.com: I'm micromapping some public areas, in this case train stations. two questions: 1) there are large open concrete areas for pedestrians, but there are also covered walkways through them as well. http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/36.38380/139.07281 I mapped the open sections as highway=pedestrian+area=yes, while I traced the covered walkways (that connect the bus shelters) and tagged it as building=roof highway=footway I'm not sure if I should just create single area of highway=pedestrian and put the building=roof over it or what. Also, the roof doesn't render as a building, but as a white pedestrian area. I think if it is tagged at building=roof, I should ask -carto to render it as a building, but it logically remains a footpath as well. I'm unsure of how to tag it all. I assume I have made a mistake mixing pedestrian and footway tags. 2) what is the best practices for tracing sidewalks? when following a sidewalk along a road, and you reach an intersection, does the footpath way cross the road via the sidewalk (continuing along the road, or does it turn the corner, following the sidewalk encompassing the block, and the sidewalks are separate ways ( rather than a node) that join disparate footpaths at the corners of the intersection? This is an intersection mapped with footpaths following the sidewalks around the block, with sidewalk ways connecting the corners at the intersection. http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/36.42339/139.05830 I'm guessing for simplicity, the way follows the street through the intersections, but to map the sidewalk as a way would require segmentation of the ways anyways, so following the sidewalk around the corner seems to be a cleaner choice, especially with the heavy paint work here in Japan for sidewalks. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] question: best practices for micromapping ped areas and footpaths?
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 9:40 AM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: make the entire area highway=pedestrian and have the building=roof are on a layer above it? I would go for this option. You could go for covered=xxx as well, as Hubert indicated BTW, highway=pedestrian+area=yes does not play nice with the layer tag - it renders over everything else, even when separated by layers (last time I checked). does this mean I should tag it in some other (more correct) fashion, or is this simply a rendering error that needs to be resolved and I should refrain from tagging for the renderer? I consider this as a render issue. regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] question: best practices for micromapping ped areas and footpaths?
2014-12-30 9:40 GMT+01:00 johnw jo...@mac.com: Ahh, I see - that makes sense. so, I should leave the pedestrain areas as they are, and add an additional area for the roof (so I would have two areas - one the footpath and the other a roof with the adjacent areas as pedestrian) or make the entire area highway=pedestrian and have the building=roof are on a layer above it? BTW, highway=pedestrian+area=yes does not play nice with the layer tag - it renders over everything else, even when separated by layers (last time I checked). does this mean I should tag it in some other (more correct) fashion, or is this simply a rendering error that needs to be resolved and I should refrain from tagging for the renderer? This is deliberate, and was explained in a mail in June: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-June/018043.html highway=pedestrian + area=yes will always be over everything else. There's nothing you can do about it, except make your own renderer :) Or try to change their minds here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/688 As for your mapping, If you ask me, it would be better to map sidewalks as lines tagged with highway=footway. That makes it much easier for routers to get you to your wanted platform. If you really want to map sidewalk areas, you can tag them as area:highway=footway. It's currently just a proposed tag, but I think its philosophy is the best so far for mapping areas of highways. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] question: best practices for micromapping ped areas and footpaths?
On 30 December 2014 at 11:14, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: This is deliberate, and was explained in a mail in June: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-June/018043.html highway=pedestrian + area=yes will always be over everything else. There's nothing you can do about it, except make your own renderer :) Or try to change their minds here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/688 Note that this issue is still open, which means we recognize this is a problem with the rendering. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams
On 28/12/2014, Ole Nielsen / osm on-...@xs4all.nl wrote: It depends. Sometimes it is useful to add this tag. I typically add it to bidirectional cycle paths along roads as you would normally expect such cycleways to be oneway. Adding a oneway=no indicates that it has been surveyed and found to be bidirectional and will further prevent eager mappers adding the missing oneway=yes tag to this cycleway. Another usecase that was presented on the list at some stage is town centers that have more oneways than not (I think the example was in Spain). In that context, oneway=no is usefull for mappers. I'm sure that most foo=default_value tags are the result of cluelessness/mishaps, but it's not always the case. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams
On 28.12.2014 17:45, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: you'd probably want to discuss that over at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues; I thought that https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2220 will fix this problem. Maybe that's why most of the oneway=no I checked come from Potlatch. I know little about that editor, because there's no Flash plugin available for my platform. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
Einverstanden :)
Please vote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
Cheers,
Kotya
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
On 04.12.2014 10:31, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
For me, English common sense says a 'water source' could be a river,
lake, spring etc...
the portability of water is not a measure of its source (where it
comes
from) but its purity...
So I'd think the key should be
Water_purity with the key values 'potable', 'nonpotable' and
'unknown'
('yes' does not imply anything in the context of water purity nor
water
source).
That key can be added to rives, lakes, drinking fountains etc etc ..
no
changes are required for present tags. Simply the additional
information
can be added.
Warin, I don't know if you followed the discussion and saw the proposal
in
the wiki.
In short, it all started with the lack of good option to map a source of
non-potable water, like a water tap. It evolved from there to the current
state. The proposal from the last email reflects to ~90 % everything
suggested as the discussion proceeded.
In German, we have a verb verschlimmbessern, which means to make
something
worse by improving it. I agree with Warin that water_source=potable does
not
seem right. It mixes source (origin) and target (use). water_source=* may
be
fine with another set of values, and *=potable may be fine with another key
(drinkable=* and drinking_water=* are in use, and water:quality=* and
water_purity=* were suggested in this discussion).
--
Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
I agree. Voting page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting Thanks everyone for the in-depth consideration. Cheers, Kotya On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 29/12/2014 9:33 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Message: 8 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 02:18:28 -0800 From: Bryce Nesbittbry...@obviously.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap (Kotya Karapetyan) Message-ID: CAC9LFPe1V1VMf=wJzs_HxE-cuL9HO4XE0_Zx1UH_MO-aCABZrQ@ mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdreist@ gmail.com wrote: not sure if purity is a good choice. Completely pure water is not potable (distilled water), you'd die if you drank too much (OK, you'll also die when drinking too much normal water [1], but the second too much is much more than the first). purity is a judgement call. Generally those don't go well in OSM. How about tags for signage, e.g. It's marked as potable, it's marked as untested, it's marked as non-potable. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/ tagging/attachments/20141229/8e58bbdf/attachment-0001.html -- I suggest the tag for taps go ahead for voting. But remove all the purity/potable things .. just vote on the tap. I don't see any problem there. The sub tag for potable can then be raised as a separate wiki entry .. and discussion on 'portable' continued. Such as when the tap carries no marking; I'd think this will be country sepcific .. some countries will have unmarked taps as potable, other countries as non-potable, and others as 'unknown'. Note that this sub tag can be applied to things other than taps... springs, fountains ... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey
Hi Warin and all, I am not sure what you dislike in accuracy. Accuracy is how far the measured mean value is from the actual value ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision). However we can start calling it a trueness, to follow the ISO definition. If you mean something else, please explain, and I believe it would deserve a page in OSM wiki. Now, I am talking about the absolute trueness. That is, how far a POI is according to the map from its actual position on the planet. No, I don't forget that the planet surface is moving relative to the GPS coordinates. Even more so, there are local surface movements, especially if the survey marker is located, say, on a bridge or close to an excavation site. It should be considered when defining this non-movable POIs. Taking into account the inherent precision of the survey marker position (they are designed to have a well-defined position), it does make sense to have OSM data for them defined better than for all usual elements. At the same time, if you are talking about common use, these POIs are of little interest to normal users. So their specific properties will not disturb anyone. However, some mappers may be in possession of the surveying tools allowing them to have better trueness than possible with a GPS, provided that they have some good reference points. Survey markers are designed just for that. For these mappers, the absolute location of the survey markers is important, and I see no reason to prevent them from having it in OSM. OSM renders distort road widths according to their classification .. that is normal mapping for road navigation. If you wanted air navigation then the actual road width would be better to render, with runways having more emphasis. True. However the underlying data is independent from how a specific renderer represents each element. A street is usually just a line, thus having no width. Cheers, Kotya On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/12/2014 6:41 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:27:23 +0100 From: Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com kotya.li...@gmail.com To: Rainer Fügenstein r...@oudeis.org r...@oudeis.org, Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey Message-ID: cak2dj-whwqajz+0-oxjue9bhn-w1eldcypm4am4xidn2fp5...@mail.gmail.com cak2dj-whwqajz+0-oxjue9bhn-w1eldcypm4am4xidn2fp5...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Since such reference points are quite common, I would support the idea of creating a special tag for them, requiring that they are not moved. However we need a clear consensus on how we define the sufficient accuracy and how the data for such points will be updated. Ultimate 'accuracy'? You do realise that the tectonic plates are moving? So your reference points need to include a date so they can be corrected for the drift. You'll find that data is available for those survey reference points .. together with their precision. Do you want to update these points to maintain their 'accuracy'? How often? Survey reference points are 'quite common' in built up areas ... but not in remote locations. And depending an the age and how precise the survey was will have some effect on their 'accuracy'. One surveor in Australia forget to allow for the temperature effect on this measurement chain back when chains were used. I disagree with the point of view that an accuracy sufficient for consumer GPS devices is sufficient for OSM and therefore there is no problem here. Nobody ever declared that OSM is for smartphone users. We are trying to map the world, and accuracy should be of primary interest for this project. Again the word 'accuracy'. Context 1. I have advised one mapper in their diary that most, if not all, users will be using their data entry with similar equipment to what they have .. so any 'inaccuracy' will also be present for the other users. Thus what they map should represent what is there and should be usable as a map .. considering that the GPS information may be very vague under the tree cover present and the local cliffs etc. Context 2 I will be mapping a track that is covered in a few places .. by an over hanging cliff. As such it is not visible by satellite .. nor will the GPS track be that 'accurate'. So I'll be mapping it from the available information that I have then - a few photos, my track and the satellite image. It will take me about a week to traverse the area. No shops etc. I would rather have the less 'accurate' representation of what is there compared to a blank area. I've plotted one track that goes from one place to another (personal knowledge).. where it is not visible on the satellite view I've plotted it as a straight line.. I know it is not a straight line but it is the best I can do and conveys the
Re: [Tagging] lanes=-1 especially in Canada
On 12/29/2014 04:16 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: I rolled the map-roulette wheel, and found a series of highways in Canada marked with lanes=-1, all part of a CANVEC import. I see 17,943 uses of this value: it's less popular than 5 lanes but more popular than 6. What does it mean, if anything? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging It may well mean what it says, a one-lane road. Some rural areas in the USA still have one-lane roads, with occasional wider spots where one vehicle can pause to allow a vehicle going the other direction to pass by. Given how sparsely-populated some of the northern regions of Canada are, I would not be surprised to find some one-lane roads, and some extensive areas with no roads at all. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey
W Ultimate 'accuracy'? You do realise that the tectonic plates are moving? btw: as a result of the Mar.2011 earthquake, japan has moved by at least 5m. how did OSM react? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes=-1 especially in Canada
2014-12-30 22:16 GMT+01:00 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com: It may well mean what it says, a one-lane road. Some rural areas in the USA still have one-lane roads, with occasional wider spots where one vehicle can pause to allow a vehicle going the other direction to pass by. Given how sparsely-populated some of the northern regions of Canada are, I would not be surprised to find some one-lane roads, and some extensive areas with no roads at all. I think you missed the minus sign. It's minus one lanes. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Replying to raw digests considered harmful
On 28/12/2014, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Could you please consider either subscribing to the nondigested version of the mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging or use procmail to split each digest into it's constituent messages http://pm-doc.sourceforge.net/doc/#splitting_digest? Replying to the emails containing the digested mbox breaks threading by not preserving the In-Reply-To or Subject headers and makes everyone else's mailboxes harder to manage (particularly for folks filtering by thread; most folks are likely to filter anything with digest in the subject straight to trash or mute it without reading). +1. For what it's worth, I have little enough time available for mailing lists that I just delete digest replies without reading them (I check the subject before deciding to read or delete a thread). While you're at it, could you please consider not top-posting, only quoting the relevant parts in your replies, and hitting compose instead of reply when you're starting a new thread ? :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes=-1 especially in Canada
On 12/30/2014 03:16 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: On 12/29/2014 04:16 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: I rolled the map-roulette wheel, and found a series of highways in Canada marked with lanes=-1, all part of a CANVEC import. I see 17,943 uses of this value: it's less popular than 5 lanes but more popular than 6. What does it mean, if anything? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging It may well mean what it says, a one-lane road. Some rural areas in the USA still have one-lane roads, with occasional wider spots where one vehicle can pause to allow a vehicle going the other direction to pass by. Given how sparsely-populated some of the northern regions of Canada are, I would not be surprised to find some one-lane roads, and some extensive areas with no roads at all. I just re-read this, and realized that the value was negative 1, not positive 1. Negative 1 probably represents some editor program's way of tagging lanes as unknown. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes=-1 especially in Canada
There are many of these lanes=-1 in the Canvec import in Quebec. I would assume they mean ‘Unknown’. In my opinion we could just delete them all (at least in Quebec) since they bring no pertinent information. Guillaume Le 2014-12-30 à 16:16, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com a écrit : On 12/29/2014 04:16 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: I rolled the map-roulette wheel, and found a series of highways in Canada marked with lanes=-1, all part of a CANVEC import. I see 17,943 uses of this value: it's less popular than 5 lanes but more popular than 6. What does it mean, if anything? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging It may well mean what it says, a one-lane road. Some rural areas in the USA still have one-lane roads, with occasional wider spots where one vehicle can pause to allow a vehicle going the other direction to pass by. Given how sparsely-populated some of the northern regions of Canada are, I would not be surprised to find some one-lane roads, and some extensive areas with no roads at all. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey
2014-12-24 0:21 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: I used estimated_accuracy=* or gps_accuracy=* a couple of times, but I doubt that it prevents other mappers from moving or even deleting them. Some use editors like Potlatch, so they are not aware of tags. Some do thousands of edits, all of which are validator based corrections. They do not ask nor think nor look at tags, except at those reported by the validator. the effects of those semi-mass-edits or other careless following edits must not be feared too much: as long as the original tag is preserved (otherwise it will unlikely be noticed unless it is searched for) other mappers might take a look and see from the history to which coordinates the note belongs. I think notes are a good way of passing particular information about the survey conditions to other mappers. Positional accuracy should not be overestimated, in dense areas it is more important to have good relative positioning (things should relate in the map like they do in the real world, e.g. with regard to left or right side of the road, crossing in the same point or 2 adjacent crossings, angles, line of sight, size relations, parallel vs. not, etc. In these settings you typically won't find a GPS of much use when mapping today in a well mapped urban area. In lower density areas (e.g. countryside, mountain areas) it usually doesn't matter to have cm-precision, 10-15m are more than sufficient, bare some potentially very rare counter examples. Still I can understand that when you use equipment with significant higher or lower precision than average you'd want to have a dedicated tag to formalize entering the presumed precision in a machine readable way. just do it ;-) Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes=-1 especially in Canada
2014-12-30 22:36 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: 2014-12-30 22:16 GMT+01:00 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com: It may well mean what it says, a one-lane road. Some rural areas in the USA still have one-lane roads, with occasional wider spots where one vehicle can pause to allow a vehicle going the other direction to pass by. Given how sparsely-populated some of the northern regions of Canada are, I would not be surprised to find some one-lane roads, and some extensive areas with no roads at all. I think you missed the minus sign. It's minus one lanes. When I read this, some small bell rang at the backside of my brain. If think I remember that a few years ago I read somewhere in the wiki, that lanes=-1 means a very narrow road. I might be completely mistaken and I'm pretty sure that this was already removed from the wiki, but that might be the origin of it. Of course it doesn't make any sense to use lanes=-1 for that; instead simply use width. Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
