Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Jack Burke]

Would love to compare notes on that, but it'll have to be later next week.

If you want to look at what I do for exits, feel free to examine pretty
much all of them on I 75 south of Atlanta, as well as through downtown.

--jack


On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> I've given it a little minor tag-completion update if anybody wants to
> compare notes.
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Duane Gearhart  wrote:
>
>> FYI - the exit 78 interchange information has been updated. The Mapzen
>> directions are calling out the exit as you expected
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car
>> ute=31.67026%2C-83.61169%3B31.66674%2C-83.61442#map=18/31.66803/-83.61124
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:06 AM, David Mease  wrote:
>>
>>> My interpretation:
>>>
>>> What is the proper method to use turn:lanes to tag freeway lanes
> approaching an exit, where the exit branches directly from an edge lane
> without being part of the freeway itself, but the freeway lanes are not
> signed with an arrow, such as this one?
>  http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw
>

>>> This exit has no turn lane. There is no staging lane prior to the exit
>>> where tags could be placed, one should not be created just so that there is
>>> a place to put tags. This freeway should not be split. You said yourself
>>> that the exit is not part of the freeway itself, so tags should not be
>>> placed on the freeway. This intersection is a candidate for the destination
>>> tag.
>>>
>>>
 mapping the road markings seems extremely strange - what if they are
 very faded, when do we map them ? is there a threshold of % of the paint
 left ?

>>> what is there are no road markings but there are signs ?

>>>
>>> Same difference. But the arrow in the above example is pointing to where
>>> the exit is, not describing a turn lane preceding the exit.
>>>
>>>
 do we remove those tags during the winter in some regions ?

>>>
>>> Do we remove the name tag from roads when the street signs get iced over
>>> or overgrown with vegetation?
>>>
>>> mapping of markings separately also seems to have no functional benefit.
 the information should be useful for navigation
>>>
>>>
>>> Road markings are both beneficial and useful for navigation. Cities and
>>> governments have paid a lot of money installing them all over globe
>>> precisely for these reasons. OSM would be well served to include them
>>> exactly as is. I don't hear a lot of people complaining about how those
>>> arrows on the roads led them astray.
>>>
>>> In the above example, I would not expect navigation software to direct
>>> me to get into the lane marked with a slight right arrow. In fact, I would
>>> be miffed when I found there was no such lane. All I would expect is a
>>> simple "In x distance take exit 78 towards Sycamore/Ocilla"
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> talk...@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> talk...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Artwork problems

[Dave Swarthout]

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

- historic=memorial + tourism=artwork + artwork_type=statue
>>
>> Which one should we use as canonical form?
>>
>
> I like the last one precisely because of the vague line between memorials
> and decorative pieces. If you don't know if it is a memorial, just put
> tourism=artwork. If you know that it is also a memorial, add
> historic=memorial. It's easy and clean.
>

Agreed.

I like the idea of sculpture_shape also. I have added several Buddha
statues to OSM and as Janko says, he is reclining in some, sitting upright
in others, so a sculpture_shape tag would help identify such variations.

-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Artwork problems

[Janko Mihelić]

pet, 2. ruj 2016. u 00:36 Daniel Koć  napisao je:

> There are 3 equivalents of a common case (memorial in the form of
> statue):
> - historic=memorial + memorial:type=statue
> - historic=memorial + memorial=statue
> - historic=memorial + tourism=artwork + artwork_type=statue
>
> Which one should we use as canonical form?
>

I like the last one precisely because of the vague line between memorials
and decorative pieces. If you don't know if it is a memorial, just put
tourism=artwork. If you know that it is also a memorial, add
historic=memorial. It's easy and clean.

And luckily, Taginfo says it is already mostly used like that (taginfo
doesn't have exact tag combinations available so I had to approximate):

- memorial:type=statue -- 724
- memorial=statue -- 1944
- historic=memorial + tourism=*  -- 3693


> How do we know when "main purpose is to remind us of a person or an
> event" or is just decorative?


Person on the ground knows best, but if you ask me, there's no way to draw
the line. They are always decorative, but sometimes they have the memorial
part. You could argue that all statues of real people are memorials.


> Where the sculpture_shape really belongs to? Is it somehow like
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/artwork_subject#values ? It sounds
> like artwork_type=sculpture + sculpture_shape=*, but what about statue?
> Do we need another type like artwork_type=statue + statue_shape=*?
>

Artwork_subject does not tell you the shape of the sculpture. The subject
could be Buddha, but it could be a standing, sitting, lying, kneeling or an
abstract Buddha. That's what sculpture_shape would tell you.

I wouldn't use statue_shape, all statues are sculptures anyway.

Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Artwork problems

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 31.08.2016 13:04, Janko Mihelić napisał(a):

čet, 25. kol 2016. u 15:30 Daniel Koć  napisao je:


I've also noticed that the line between artworks and memorials is
blurred, especially with statues


In my opinion, we can use both tags. If something is a sculpture, add
tourism=artwork+artwork_type=sculpture. If it is a sculpture whose
main purpose is to remind us of a person or an event, add
historic=memorial.

About the icon, I think we should add a new key, something like
sculpture_shape. It could have countless values, and only the most
frequent would have their unique icon. Values would be: human, child,
human_sitting, human_standing, human_on_horse, bust, horse, dog,
abstract. Those account for about 95% of sculptures. Others get the
default icon. Having an approximate shape of a sculpture on a map
helps a lot with orientation in space.


Both tags are somewhat overlapping and historic=memorial already has 
some types:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:memorial:type
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:memorial

There are 3 equivalents of a common case (memorial in the form of 
statue):

- historic=memorial + memorial:type=statue
- historic=memorial + memorial=statue
- historic=memorial + tourism=artwork + artwork_type=statue

Which one should we use as canonical form?

How do we know when "main purpose is to remind us of a person or an 
event" or is just decorative?


Where the sculpture_shape really belongs to? Is it somehow like 
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/artwork_subject#values ? It sounds 
like artwork_type=sculpture + sculpture_shape=*, but what about statue? 
Do we need another type like artwork_type=statue + statue_shape=*?


But this is rather subject for a Tagging list - let's move there.

--
"To co ludzie zwą marskością wątroby/ Tak naprawdę jest śmiercią z 
tęsknoty" [Afro Kolektyw]


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Permissive turn restrictions

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 01 set 2016, alle ore 12:00, Nick Hocking  
> ha scritto:
> 
> Turn restriction seem to be either mandatory (only) or prohibitive (no)  but 
> I think we need a permissive one, maybe (allowed)


Why not (also) map the ones where it isn't allowed? You probably can't count on 
routing software implementing all country specific defaults (at least currently 
it isn't the case with the popular osm-based ones, so they need specific advice 
from the mappers in order to work well).

To make sure that this is an relative exceptional situation in the context 
(country), for your fellow mappers? in any case you could also map the traffic 
sign, so your precious surveyed "insider knowledge" has better chances to 
persist in the db.

From a practical point of view, routing engines will generally be very 
reluctant to suggest u-turns, because they tend to take a lot of time or might 
even be close to impossible (with lots of traffic). 

This said, I could imagine restriction=allowed like you suggested. Logically, 
restriction=no would also make sense, but it bears the risk of being 
interpreted falsely (if someone checks for restriction=no* as short way for 
no_left_turn, no_right_turn etc.)

cheers,
Martin 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Permissive turn restrictions

[Nick Hocking]

Hi,


Apparently, in Australia the default rule at traffic lights is that u-turns
are not permitted.

At some ,there are signs saying " U Turn permitted".  How do we tag this.


Turn restriction seem to be either mandatory (only) or prohibitive (no)
but I think we need a permissive one, maybe (allowed)

Nick
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging