Re: [Tagging] How to tag shop areas in a shopping mall ?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

With areas already mapped there is no reason to do that.

On 19 Jan 2018 8:54 a.m., "Mateusz Konieczny"  wrote:

> Yes, just move tags from nodes to areas, delete invalid building tags and
> no longer necessary nodes.
>
> On 18 Jan 2018 9:36 p.m., "Tobias Knerr"  wrote:
>
>> On 17.01.2018 23:16, OSMDoudou wrote:
>> > There is a shopping mall here [1] for which a mapper detailed the inside
>> > shops with a node for the "identity" and an area for the "physical
>> > perimeter" of the shop inside the mall. [...]
>> > Can you suggest tagging improvements ?
>>
>> My suggestion (based on Simple Indoor Tagging¹) is to tag the areas with
>> their shop tag, level, and and other attributes such as name. So you get
>> a closed way with some basic tags, for example:
>>
>> name = Jack & Jones
>> shop = clothes
>> level = 0
>>
>> There's no reason to keep the nodes around once you have mapped the
>> shops as areas, so move all other tags such as opening hours to the area
>> instead.
>>
>> At this point, you have a perfectly valid representation of the mall, so
>> you can stop here if you want. But if you're interested in adding more
>> details, there's a lot of possibilities: Add indoor=room or indoor=area
>> tags to the shop areas (depending on whether they're fully enclosed with
>> walls or not), and add walls (indoor=wall), corridors (indoor=corridor),
>> doors, elevators, staircases and so on.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Tobias
>>
>> ¹ https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging
>>
>> ___
>> 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] How to tag shop areas in a shopping mall ?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Yes, just move tags from nodes to areas, delete invalid building tags and
no longer necessary nodes.

On 18 Jan 2018 9:36 p.m., "Tobias Knerr"  wrote:

> On 17.01.2018 23:16, OSMDoudou wrote:
> > There is a shopping mall here [1] for which a mapper detailed the inside
> > shops with a node for the "identity" and an area for the "physical
> > perimeter" of the shop inside the mall. [...]
> > Can you suggest tagging improvements ?
>
> My suggestion (based on Simple Indoor Tagging¹) is to tag the areas with
> their shop tag, level, and and other attributes such as name. So you get
> a closed way with some basic tags, for example:
>
> name = Jack & Jones
> shop = clothes
> level = 0
>
> There's no reason to keep the nodes around once you have mapped the
> shops as areas, so move all other tags such as opening hours to the area
> instead.
>
> At this point, you have a perfectly valid representation of the mall, so
> you can stop here if you want. But if you're interested in adding more
> details, there's a lot of possibilities: Add indoor=room or indoor=area
> tags to the shop areas (depending on whether they're fully enclosed with
> walls or not), and add walls (indoor=wall), corridors (indoor=corridor),
> doors, elevators, staircases and so on.
>
> Yours,
> Tobias
>
> ¹ https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging
>
> ___
> 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] Way access mismatch relation route=bicycle

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 01/17/2018 03:45 PM, OSMDoudou wrote:
> (B)
> 
> This issue raises the question whether R50 should be tagged as trunk in
> the first place.
> 
> The Wiki page [6] refers to notions like "high performance" and road
> signs F9. But the road is limited to 70 km/h and there are no F9 signs
> on the entries and exits of R50, only C19 "No entry for pedestrians" and
> C11 + C9 "No entry for bicycles" + "No entry for mopeds (and mofas)",
> which tend to confirm it's not a trunk.
> 
> I wonder if primary wouldn't be more accurate classification, although
> the Wiki refers to a "highway linking large towns" [7], which is not the
> case here as the highway is a ring around the city not a road between
> cities.
Not sure what the situation is in Belgium, but here in the US a lot of
major city streets get tagged as primary. There are only two local roads
I can think of tagged as trunk in my area: the non-freeway/motorway
section of Texas 249 between Beltway 8 and I-45, and the controlled
access section of Memorial Drive (from Detering to downtown Houston
where it becomes Texas Avenue and Prairie Avenue). There are only a
handful tagged as primary, one of which I upgraded myself even though it
lacks a state/US highway designation (which otherwise seems to be a
requirement by whoever tagged the others).

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Way access mismatch relation route=bicycle

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:45 PM, OSMDoudou <
19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> This is a two-fold question in fact.
>
>
>
> (A)
>
>
>
> Osmose raises error "Way access mismatch relation route=bicycle" [1] on a
> segment of the R50 highway [2] [3].
>
>
>
> I'm guessing it's because the segment is part of relation for a bike route
> but it's tagged as trunk (as the rest of R50), and a trunk would imply a
> restriction for bicycles.
>
>
>
> Although, I see such an implication for motorways [4], I don't see it for
> trunks [5].
>
>
>
> Do you know what causes the access mismatch, because I don't see it from
> the tags ?
>

In such cases, I might be inclined to add bicycle=designated to the ways on
the affected route if they're also a part of a bicycle route.  Kind of a
"really, really" nod to data consumers.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

[Andrew Davidson]

On 19/01/18 13:23, Steve Doerr wrote:

Here's the OED definition:

'A tower or other structure, with a powerful light or lights (originally 
a beacon) at the top, erected at some important or dangerous point on or 
near the sea-coast for the guidance of mariners.'


That's pretty much the majority view of the very tiny, unscientific, 
sample of people, on this list, who have attempted a definition.


However, there is an alternative view that the definition should be 
based on the availability of accommodation for people within or nearby 
and the grandeur of the structure.


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

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

[Andrew Davidson]

On 19/01/18 13:23, Steve Doerr wrote:


Depends what you mean by 'houses'. 


I was hoping we meant in the sense of providing space for. As in this 
structure houses a light.


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

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

[Andrew Davidson]

On 19/01/18 01:25, Malcolm Herring wrote:

On 18/01/2018 13:52, Janko Mihelić wrote:

It is important mappers doing a surveys can apply correct tags to 
observed objects without any knowledge of their function.




Interesting tagging theory there. So I can only tag:

highway=road

because you need to know what function the road has to give it a 
hierarchy value? and:


highway=path

because you need to know what function it has before you can tag it 
footway or cycleway? and:


building=yes

and let's not forget:

man_made=tower

because you need to know what function a structure has before you can 
tag it man_made=lighthouse.


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

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

[Steve Doerr]

On 19/01/2018 02:16, Andrew Davidson wrote:

On 19/01/18 00:52, Janko Mihelić wrote:

Ok, the discussion at least came to an agreement that this:

https://imgur.com/a/U8SXn

is not a man_made=lighthouse. 


Don't be too sure about that. I thought that we could all agree that a 
lighthouse had some thing to do with light and houses, but it turns 
out that's not an universally held opinion.


Depends what you mean by 'houses'. The purpose of a lighthouse is to 
house a light: it doesn't need to house people. Here's the OED definition:


'A tower or other structure, with a powerful light or lights (originally 
a beacon) at the top, erected at some important or dangerous point on or 
near the sea-coast for the guidance of mariners.'


--
Steve

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

[Andrew Davidson]

On 19/01/18 00:52, Janko Mihelić wrote:

Ok, the discussion at least came to an agreement that this:

https://imgur.com/a/U8SXn

is not a man_made=lighthouse. 


Don't be too sure about that. I thought that we could all agree that a 
lighthouse had some thing to do with light and houses, but it turns out 
that's not an universally held opinion.


We have A LOT of those mapped as 
lighthouses (I think the majority of that tag is on the wrong element). 


To be fair to those mappers you need to go back and look at how a 
lighthouse was defined in the wiki article (eg: from the beginning of 
2016 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:man_made%3Dlighthouse=1257147) 
where they are defined as:


"A tower that emits (or emitted) a light signal assisting navigation on 
sea."


which is what is in your photo above.

The trick would be to redefine what a lighthouse is so that mappers 
might have a chance of getting it "right".


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag shop areas in a shopping mall ?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Or just tag the individual shops as nodes rather than mark the walls in?


On 19 January 2018 at 09:21, marc marc  wrote:
>
> maybe start with an indoor=yes without building tag on all indoor areas.
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag shop areas in a shopping mall ?

[marc marc]

Le 17. 01. 18 à 23:16, OSMDoudou a écrit :
> an area for the "physical perimeter" of the shop inside the mall.
> [3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/96140107

this area is not a building.
it's a indoor stuff.

> I gave a read at the Wiki on indoor tagging, but I couldn't find 
> something conclusive (indoor=room seems suitable for an office in a 
> building but doesn't represent the nature of a shop area in a mall).

indoor=room if the area have walls
indoor=area for an are without wall or if the walls are defined separately
indoor=yes if you don't care or it's mixed

maybe start with an indoor=yes without building tag on all indoor areas.

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

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalks and cycleways as tags vs as extra lines and StreetComplete

[Dave F]

On 18/01/2018 21:02, Fernando Trebien wrote:

I think this means... if the track is mapped as a different line with
highway=cycleway, you should not add cycleway=* on the main road's
line.



one should surely use cycleway=lane on the main way and also map the parallel 
track as a
separate line.


These two statements contradict each other. The first comment means 'do 
not add cycleway=* to the road under any circumstances'. Your OP should 
have made it clear that a separate cycle track & on road cycle lane are 
not mutually exclusive.


It should of read something like:
"When mapping a separate cycle track do not add the tags for that track 
on the main road."


DaveF



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

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalks and cycleways as tags vs as extra lines and StreetComplete

[Volker Schmidt]

Two nice examples of complex cases, which in my view would be best tagged
using the cycleway=lane tag *and* separate foot- and cycle-ways (both are
at present not yet correctly tagged in OSM)


mapillary.com/map/im/kRr5NPEzjLiwDsHWdAL-aw
(from left to right in the picture:))
| oneway single lane road | one-way cycle lane (same direction) |
segregated cycle-foot-way with one-way bicycle lane in the opposite
direction |

mapillary.com/map/im/6Ga2jVWZUd9TNFssCIAb-g
(from left to right in the picture:)
| separate side walk only for pedestrians (not visible) | oneway cycle lane
tords the camera | two-lane road with opposite directions |  separate
cycle-foot-way with segregation |

On 18 January 2018 at 22:02, Fernando Trebien 
wrote:

> "Note that a cycle track may alternatively be drawn as a separate way
> next to the road which is tagged as highway=cycleway. Both methods
> each have their pros and cons. While adding a single tag to an
> existing way takes less time and still often describes the cycle track
> accurately, a separately tagged cycle way is generally more flexible
> and allows to capture more detail. When mapping a cycle track as its
> own way, do not use any of the tags described below. "
>
> I think this means that, when trying to represent in OSM a road with a
> parallel cycle track, if the track is mapped as a different line with
> highway=cycleway, you should not add cycleway=* on the main road's
> line.
>
> Or is it about a road with both a cycle lane AND a parallel cycle
> track? If it is so, there would be no need to discuss pros and cons of
> either method (tag on main way vs separate way), one should surely use
> cycleway=lane on the main way and also map the parallel track as a
> separate line.
>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Dave F 
> wrote:
> > You've either misread the paragraph or misused the asterisk.
> >
> > Roads can have a separate cycle path running parallel to it *and* a
> > designated cycle lane in the road.
> >
> > DaveF
> >
> >
> > On 16/01/2018 19:31, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> >>
> >> Second paragraph here:
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Cycle_tracks
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Dave F 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 15/01/2018 14:47, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> 
>  The wiki also says that, when mapping a parallel cycleway as a
>  parallel line, one should not use the cycleway=* tag on the motorised
>  way
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> For clarity, could you confirm which wiki page that is written.
> >>>
> >>> DaveF
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Tagging mailing list
> >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Fernando Trebien
> +55 (51) 9962-5409
>
> "Nullius in verba."
>
> ___
> 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] Sidewalks and cycleways as tags vs as extra lines and StreetComplete

[Fernando Trebien]

"Note that a cycle track may alternatively be drawn as a separate way
next to the road which is tagged as highway=cycleway. Both methods
each have their pros and cons. While adding a single tag to an
existing way takes less time and still often describes the cycle track
accurately, a separately tagged cycle way is generally more flexible
and allows to capture more detail. When mapping a cycle track as its
own way, do not use any of the tags described below. "

I think this means that, when trying to represent in OSM a road with a
parallel cycle track, if the track is mapped as a different line with
highway=cycleway, you should not add cycleway=* on the main road's
line.

Or is it about a road with both a cycle lane AND a parallel cycle
track? If it is so, there would be no need to discuss pros and cons of
either method (tag on main way vs separate way), one should surely use
cycleway=lane on the main way and also map the parallel track as a
separate line.

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Dave F  wrote:
> You've either misread the paragraph or misused the asterisk.
>
> Roads can have a separate cycle path running parallel to it *and* a
> designated cycle lane in the road.
>
> DaveF
>
>
> On 16/01/2018 19:31, Fernando Trebien wrote:
>>
>> Second paragraph here:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Cycle_tracks
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Dave F 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15/01/2018 14:47, Fernando Trebien wrote:

 The wiki also says that, when mapping a parallel cycleway as a
 parallel line, one should not use the cycleway=* tag on the motorised
 way
>>>
>>>
>>> For clarity, could you confirm which wiki page that is written.
>>>
>>> DaveF
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"Nullius in verba."

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag shop areas in a shopping mall ?

[Tobias Knerr]

On 17.01.2018 23:16, OSMDoudou wrote:
> There is a shopping mall here [1] for which a mapper detailed the inside
> shops with a node for the "identity" and an area for the "physical
> perimeter" of the shop inside the mall. [...]
> Can you suggest tagging improvements ?

My suggestion (based on Simple Indoor Tagging¹) is to tag the areas with
their shop tag, level, and and other attributes such as name. So you get
a closed way with some basic tags, for example:

name = Jack & Jones
shop = clothes
level = 0

There's no reason to keep the nodes around once you have mapped the
shops as areas, so move all other tags such as opening hours to the area
instead.

At this point, you have a perfectly valid representation of the mall, so
you can stop here if you want. But if you're interested in adding more
details, there's a lot of possibilities: Add indoor=room or indoor=area
tags to the shop areas (depending on whether they're fully enclosed with
walls or not), and add walls (indoor=wall), corridors (indoor=corridor),
doors, elevators, staircases and so on.

Yours,
Tobias

¹ https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalks and cycleways as tags vs as extra lines and StreetComplete

[Dave F]

You've either misread the paragraph or misused the asterisk.

Roads can have a separate cycle path running parallel to it *and* a 
designated cycle lane in the road.


DaveF

On 16/01/2018 19:31, Fernando Trebien wrote:

Second paragraph here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Cycle_tracks

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Dave F  wrote:

On 15/01/2018 14:47, Fernando Trebien wrote:

The wiki also says that, when mapping a parallel cycleway as a
parallel line, one should not use the cycleway=* tag on the motorised
way


For clarity, could you confirm which wiki page that is written.

DaveF

___
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] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

[Malcolm Herring]

On 18/01/2018 15:27, Janko Mihelić wrote:
I'm in the process of making a new icon, and I can make a pull request 
on the openstreetmap-carto soon.




That is good - maybe it will prevent mappers using "lighthouse" just so 
that a symbol is placed on the map.


I have added some more examples of non-maritime beacons to the tag page


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

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

[Janko Mihelić]

čet, 18. sij 2018. u 15:27 Malcolm Herring 
napisao je:

> man_made=beacon *is* the appropriate tag for such structures. Tags in
> the "seamark" namespace relate only to the *navigational function* of an
> object, not the physical form. Many beacon objects have no navigational
> function & therefore do not carry "seamark" tags.
>

Ok, so man_made=beacon is used for the physical structure that is made to
cary the light, and the seamark tags are used to define what kind of a
light is it. That looks correct.

I'm in the process of making a new icon, and I can make a pull request on
the openstreetmap-carto soon.

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

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

[Malcolm Herring]

On 18/01/2018 13:52, Janko Mihelić wrote:
I looked at man_made=beacon. Taginfo says we have about 7 000 of those, 
and the wiki shows something that resembles what we are talking about, 
but not quite:




man_made=beacon *is* the appropriate tag for such structures. Tags in 
the "seamark" namespace relate only to the *navigational function* of an 
object, not the physical form. Many beacon objects have no navigational 
function & therefore do not carry "seamark" tags.


It is important mappers doing a surveys can apply correct tags to 
observed objects without any knowledge of their function.



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

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

[Janko Mihelić]

Ok, the discussion at least came to an agreement that this:

https://imgur.com/a/U8SXn

is not a man_made=lighthouse. We have A LOT of those mapped as lighthouses
(I think the majority of that tag is on the wrong element). One reason is
rendering, and we have to start rendering something. The question is what.

I looked at man_made=beacon. Taginfo says we have about 7 000 of those, and
the wiki shows something that resembles what we are talking about, but not
quite:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbeacon

Maybe just start rendering seamark=beacon? We have only about 2 000 of
those, but we have 40 000 seamark:type="beacon_lateral" or
"beacon_isolated_danger" or "beacon_special_purpose". We can add
seamark=beacon to those.

The icon would be something like man_made=lighthouse, but thinner.

sri, 17. sij 2018. u 13:09 Martin Koppenhoefer 
napisao je:

>
>
> 2018-01-16 12:36 GMT+01:00 Malcolm Herring  >:
>
>> On 16/01/2018 10:25, Andrew Davidson wrote:
>>
>>> OK. So a lighthouse has to have a rotating light then?
>>>
>>
>> A lighthouse does not have any particular type of light, or any light at
>> all, but it will have a lamp room at the top
>>
>
>
> I guess an open fire would be OK as well? Let's not forget, lighthouses
> are much older than (electric) lamps.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> 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] Way access mismatch relation route=bicycle

[OSMDoudou]

I didn't know about that page. It makes sense. Thx.

-Original Message-
From: "Volker Schmidt" 
Sent: ‎18-‎01-‎18 09:39
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Way access mismatch relation route=bicycle

I suppose Osmose uses the country specific tables in [1]

The table for Belgium states that bicycle=no is implicit for "highway=trunk".

Hence the short way in question would need to have the additional tag 
"bicycle=yes" for bicycle routing to pass along that cycle lane.

The road signs out there seem to be consistent, there are "no-bicycle" sign 
along the ring road, except for this short piece.


Your second point regarding the road classification trunk is a different issue, 
that needs to be discussed with the Belgian community.


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions



On 17 January 2018 at 22:45, OSMDoudou 
<19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:

Hello,
 
This is a two-fold question in fact.
 
(A)
 
Osmose raises error "Way access mismatch relation route=bicycle" [1] on a 
segment of the R50 highway [2] [3].
 
I'm guessing it's because the segment is part of relation for a bike route but 
it's tagged as trunk (as the rest of R50), and a trunk would imply a 
restriction for bicycles.
 
Although, I see such an implication for motorways [4], I don't see it for 
trunks [5].
 
Do you know what causes the access mismatch, because I don't see it from the 
tags ?
 
(B)
 
This issue raises the question whether R50 should be tagged as trunk in the 
first place.
 
The Wiki page [6] refers to notions like "high performance" and road signs F9. 
But the road is limited to 70 km/h and there are no F9 signs on the entries and 
exits of R50, only C19 "No entry for pedestrians" and C11 + C9 "No entry for 
bicycles" + "No entry for mopeds (and mofas)", which tend to confirm it's not a 
trunk.
 
I wonder if primary wouldn't be more accurate classification, although the Wiki 
refers to a "highway linking large towns" [7], which is not the case here as 
the highway is a ring around the city not a road between cities.
 
What type of road would you qualify the entire R50 ?
 
Thx.
 
[1] http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/error/15216104253
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/251684307
[3] https://goo.gl/maps/khpwvm8kxQw
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway
[5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trunk
[6] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Belgium
[7] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dprimary

___
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] Way access mismatch relation route=bicycle

[Volker Schmidt]

I suppose Osmose uses the country specific tables in [1]
The table for Belgium states that bicycle=no is implicit for
"highway=trunk".
Hence the short way in question would need to have the additional tag
"bicycle=yes" for bicycle routing to pass along that cycle lane.
The road signs out there seem to be consistent, there are "no-bicycle" sign
along the ring road, except for this short piece.

Your second point regarding the road classification trunk is a different
issue, that needs to be discussed with the Belgian community.

[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions

On 17 January 2018 at 22:45, OSMDoudou <
19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> This is a two-fold question in fact.
>
>
>
> (A)
>
>
>
> Osmose raises error "Way access mismatch relation route=bicycle" [1] on a
> segment of the R50 highway [2] [3].
>
>
>
> I'm guessing it's because the segment is part of relation for a bike route
> but it's tagged as trunk (as the rest of R50), and a trunk would imply a
> restriction for bicycles.
>
>
>
> Although, I see such an implication for motorways [4], I don't see it for
> trunks [5].
>
>
>
> Do you know what causes the access mismatch, because I don't see it from
> the tags ?
>
>
>
> (B)
>
>
>
> This issue raises the question whether R50 should be tagged as trunk in
> the first place.
>
>
>
> The Wiki page [6] refers to notions like "high performance" and road signs
> F9. But the road is limited to 70 km/h and there are no F9 signs on the
> entries and exits of R50, only C19 "No entry for pedestrians" and C11 + C9
> "No entry for bicycles" + "No entry for mopeds (and mofas)", which tend to
> confirm it's not a trunk.
>
>
>
> I wonder if primary wouldn't be more accurate classification, although the
> Wiki refers to a "highway linking large towns" [7], which is not the case
> here as the highway is a ring around the city not a road between cities.
>
>
>
> What type of road would you qualify the entire R50 ?
>
>
>
> Thx.
>
>
>
> [1] http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/error/15216104253
>
> [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/251684307
>
> [3] https://goo.gl/maps/khpwvm8kxQw
>
> [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway
>
> [5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trunk
>
> [6] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Belgium
>
> [7] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dprimary
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging