Re: [Tagging] Postal verses locational addresses
On Sun, 2023-09-10 at 19:09 +1000, Warin wrote: > HI, > > I am coming across cases of OSM entered addresses on buildings that > are > some kilometers from the nominated address location. These appear to > be > 'gated communities', 'retirement villages' and possibly other things > that use some official address and thus keep deliveries from going to > the actual location but going through the office. > > I can probably lump all of a group together in some kind of relation > (e.g. landuse) that would reduce the warnings down from many to one. > But > I wonder if these postal addresses would be better entered in some > other > way. One issue is a routers to some address having more than one > result > - all with the same address.. > > Ideas? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Provides_feature Could fit the bill ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] navigational aid relation
On Wed, 2023-06-14 at 09:26 +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > Hi, > > Management Summary: > In navigation/routing the point the router is routing to is the > nearest > point on the routable network from the poi/address we like to > navigate > to. The nearest point may not be a location where the address/poi > can be > reached from. > I suggest a navigational aid relation hinting the link between > geocoding and router to use a different point on the routable > network. Please have a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Provides_feature Would that solve some of the issues you mention? Also note that the list of roles is open-ended ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fuzzy areas again: should we have them or not?
On Wed, 2020-12-23 at 09:55 -0800, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > 3) Archipelagos are partially cultural concepts but most often > represent island groups which are close together and share a > geological origin, as well as a human-created name. In OpenStreetMap > they are mapped as multipolygon relations which contain each island's > coastline, so this is quite precise and verifiable by visiting the > area in person and asking the local people the name of the island > group or chain. I believe that your statement is verifiably false. Take for example Stockholm archipelago, it is estimated to contain somewhere around 24.000 islands and has no official boundaries. You could well travel around the edges and ask the local people whether or not a specific island belongs to the Stockholm archipelago or not and get a different answer depending on who you ask. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 09:17 -0700, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > There used to be human-pulled rickshaws, but these no longer exist. > They were take over by pedicabs / aka bicycle rickshaws, since those > are much more efficient. Not so. I've seen human-pulled rickshaws in Japan. And they probably have an other name there. And yes it was a very touristic area, so you could probably only get a ride inside the large park/compound area. But they were waiting for rides at certain spots. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 20:53 +0200, Florimond Berthoux wrote: > For this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7wbi4wGbsg (Andrew's > example) > We're on the edge of tags definition : this a path limited cyclist, > where a mountain bike almost mandatory to ride there. Some features > help the cyclist. > > I would tag may be that with : > higway=path > access=no > bicycle=yes > mtb=designated > mtb:scale=2 For a path like that I wouldn't add bicycle=yes, because I think that it implies that an average person on an average bike could use it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?
On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 22:24 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote: > just usually only a certain kind of bicycle. Well, that's the problem, if one can't travel on a certain way with a general purpose bicycle, then it shouldn't be tagged highway=cycleway ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Area country borders
On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 17:35 +, Paul Allen wrote: > I just encountered this video > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw44wHG4KOc explaining that the > border between Germany and Luxembourg, along the Moselle river, is > not a line in the centre of the river but is the entire width of the > river. If you're in a boat on the river, or on the bridge crossing > it, you're legally in two countries simultaneously. > > Do we have a way of mapping this? Should we have a way of mapping > this? From what I can tell, it was already been done. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 13:47 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Redefining stuff without very, very good > reason seems to be a bad idea. I don't see it as any kind of redefinition. I've been mapping like that for many years. And as Florian Lohoff pointed out, so has many others also. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 12:48 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken < > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>: > > Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that legal separation MUST > > lead to > > way separation. Just that a rule that wouldn't allow it would be a > > very > > bad rule. What makes most sense based upon the ground truth should > > be > > followed. > > > > generally, in OSM the ways highway=* represent the carriageway. > "legal separations" often are just lane markings, i.e. they do not > constitute a carriageway, hence are not to be mapped individually > each with their way. We have generally followed this definition, Who is this 'we' you're speaking in behalf of? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 11:21 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 11:10 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken < > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>: > > It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic > > laws > > in the cause of getting as fast and as safe to where he needs to > > go. So > > he would use his own judgment and not so much what a routing engine > > tells him what he can do. > > > > you are missing the point: when the emergency vehicle gets the call, > the routing engine will suggest a route to approach the place of > action from where it is now, and depending on the osm data (and other > data like traffic congestion, unaccessible roads, etc.) it may > suggest different routes. Of course you can dismiss this in general > and say: "the driver will know where to go" or "will use his own > judgement", i.e. would not use OSM data at all, but this is not the > reality, in reality, OSM is used more and more in emergency > scenarios. There are companies dedicated to provide OSM-data-based > infrastructure for use by emergency services. I have seen it. Thanks for clearing that out. I still think it is better to map for the 99.99% of drivers who need to follow the law strictly. Special tagging for different emergency vehicles could be applied. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that legal separation MUST lead to way separation. Just that a rule that wouldn't allow it would be a very bad rule. What makes most sense based upon the ground truth should be followed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 11:32 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > 11 Oct 2019, 11:19 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com: > > My assumption is that pedestrian routing engine would stick to > > sidewalks and crossings and not to tell the pedestrian to cross a > > street where there is no crossing. The individual pedestrian can of > > course make up his own mind what legal/physical risks are > > acceptable to > > save a bit of time > > It again depends on a country. > And in same countries depends on additional details. > > In many places crossing road may be as > legal and/or as safe as crossing on a > designated crossing. I would think that whether it is safe or not would mostly depend on the time of day and how much traffic there happens to be and thus best left to the individual to judge. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 19:53 +0200, Markus wrote: > On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 16:10, Snusmumriken > wrote: > > For example if you try to create a routing advice for a car > > journey. > > Let's say that the journey starts at Main street number 10 and that > > Main street is a two way street where the two directions are > > legally > > separated. Let's say that number 10 is on the right-hand side of > > the > > road and we are in a country that drives on the right side. Let's > > further say that the shortest way to the destination would be to > > cross > > the legal separation and take left. But that would be illegal. But > > there is no way the routing engine could know that. Unless the two > > directions are separated. > > That's not true. There's another way to tell routers that it is > illegal to change lanes: by adding that information to the highway=* > way. There's already a tag for this: change:langes [1] (> 90 000 > uses). That tag is about lane changing, I don't see how it could be applied to my example > > While mapping separate ways where there is no physical barrier works > for car routing, it breaks pedestrian routing and there's likely no > way to fix this. Pedestrians usually are allowed to cross a painted > line that cars aren't allowed to cross (at least in Europe). > Therefore, if the road in your example is mapped with two separate > ways, a routing engine would make pedestrians do a detour (possibly a > long detour), even though they could just cross the street. My assumption is that pedestrian routing engine would stick to sidewalks and crossings and not to tell the pedestrian to cross a street where there is no crossing. The individual pedestrian can of course make up his own mind what legal/physical risks are acceptable to save a bit of time ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:57 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > 11 Oct 2019, 10:50 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com: > > On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:31 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 10:26 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken < > > > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>: > > > > A level strip of grass can be crossed by any car. With a big > > > SUV > > > > you > > > > can cross curbs and so on. It's just a questions about how big > > > your > > > > car > > > > is and the nature of the physical separation. But I don't think > > > > that > > > > OSM should be about that, but rather to be a map database to be > > > > able to > > > > provide a _legal_ route from A to B. > > > > > > > > > > > > what is not legal for you may be legal for someone else, for > > > example > > > an emergency vehicle... > > > > Yes, exactly, but as I wrote "You have to remember that some > > physical > > separation are just as easy to cross as a painted line." > > > > So a level strip of grass would be just as problematic for the > > emergency vehicle routing engine as a painted line. > > Maybe it depends on location but in > Poland emergency vehicles routinely > ignore road paintings, one-way restrictions, > traffic lights, turn restrictions etc. > > And I have never seen an emergency vehicle > crossing a grass median. > > And it seem obvious that crossing a grass median > is trickier than crossing just a painted line. It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic laws in the cause of getting as fast and as safe to where he needs to go. So he would use his own judgment and not so much what a routing engine tells him what he can do. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:31 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 10:26 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken < > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>: > > A level strip of grass can be crossed by any car. With a big SUV > > you > > can cross curbs and so on. It's just a questions about how big your > > car > > is and the nature of the physical separation. But I don't think > > that > > OSM should be about that, but rather to be a map database to be > > able to > > provide a _legal_ route from A to B. > > > > what is not legal for you may be legal for someone else, for example > an emergency vehicle... Yes, exactly, but as I wrote "You have to remember that some physical separation are just as easy to cross as a painted line." So a level strip of grass would be just as problematic for the emergency vehicle routing engine as a painted line. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 17:57 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 16:10 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken < > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>: > > For example if you try to create a routing advice for a car > > journey. > > Let's say that the journey starts at Main street number 10 and that > > Main street is a two way street where the two directions are > > legally > > separated. Let's say that number 10 is on the right-hand side of > > the > > road and we are in a country that drives on the right side. Let's > > further say that the shortest way to the destination would be to > > cross > > the legal separation and take left. But that would be illegal. But > > there is no way the routing engine could know that. Unless the two > > directions are separated. > > > or the kind of legal separation is mapped so that the software could > know. > Or you park your car on the opposite side of the road and cross it as > a pedestrian. Or maybe you'll finding a free parking spot much > farther away and have to walk quite a bit. Or maybe they drive on the > left, you're the prime minister, and your driver will park the car... > > Of course it does not matter for those cases where you may not cross > the divider legally and you do not plan to do so, and it is mapped as > if you could not even physically, but there are usecases where you > might want to either cross illegally, or you have the special right > to do so, and then it should be possible to determine whether there > is a physical possibility or not. You have to remember that some physical separation are just as easy to cross as a painted line. A level strip of grass can be crossed by any car. With a big SUV you can cross curbs and so on. It's just a questions about how big your car is and the nature of the physical separation. But I don't think that OSM should be about that, but rather to be a map database to be able to provide a _legal_ route from A to B. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 15:51 +0200, Peter Elderson wrote: > Why would it be inferior? Visually, you mean? Or would navigational > problems arise? There already exist roads with some parts physically > separated halves and other parts combined halves, does that give > problems? > > Mvg Peter Elderson > For example if you try to create a routing advice for a car journey. Let's say that the journey starts at Main street number 10 and that Main street is a two way street where the two directions are legally separated. Let's say that number 10 is on the right-hand side of the road and we are in a country that drives on the right side. Let's further say that the shortest way to the destination would be to cross the legal separation and take left. But that would be illegal. But there is no way the routing engine could know that. Unless the two directions are separated. > > Op 10 okt. 2019 om 15:01 heeft Snusmumriken < > > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com> het volgende geschreven: > > > > > On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 08:38 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where > > > a > > > local > > > mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway > > > (two > > > lanes in each direction, and a double continuous line painted in > > > the > > > middle which is physically possible but legally not allowed to > > > cross). > > > > > > Other mappers object to this saying that it violates the rule > > > that > > > there > > > must be some sort of physical division to allow that form of > > > mapping. > > > > > > The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes > > > ways is > > > clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn > > > restrictions > > > at junctions. Other mappers claim that the two-separate-way > > > mapping > > > is > > > violating rules and that OSM will soon become unusable if > > > everyone > > > maps > > > how they want. > > > > > > The question is basically two-fold; one, what are the established > > > standards and rules concerning this situation, > > > > I don't think that there are any rule that would say "legal > > separation > > => shared way". I also think that such a rule would lead to an > > inferior > > map. > > > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/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] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 08:38 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where a > local > mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway (two > lanes in each direction, and a double continuous line painted in the > middle which is physically possible but legally not allowed to > cross). > > Other mappers object to this saying that it violates the rule that > there > must be some sort of physical division to allow that form of mapping. > > The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is > clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn > restrictions > at junctions. Other mappers claim that the two-separate-way mapping > is > violating rules and that OSM will soon become unusable if everyone > maps > how they want. > > The question is basically two-fold; one, what are the established > standards and rules concerning this situation, I don't think that there are any rule that would say "legal separation => shared way". I also think that such a rule would lead to an inferior map. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?
On Mon, 2019-08-05 at 00:51 +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote: > And nothing renders anyway. So why don't we just start using other > public_transport values, like pole, waiting_area, and whatever we > want. We just start using them, and give them the "platform" role in > the relations. Rendering will come. Eh? What do you mean nothing renders? Everything that needs to render already does so, e.g. hw=bus_stop and hw=platform. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?
On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 10:11 +, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Thursday, 4 July 2019, Snusmumriken wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 14:03 -0600, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via > > talk > > wrote: > > > I've always had the impression we should not create separate > > > traffic > > > lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier > > > (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between > > > said > > > flows." > > > > A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a > > perfectly fine reason to have a separate way. > > > I would strongly disagree with this statement, as others have said > this is a place for lane mapping. > > As a map user I do not see a separate way, it results in confusing > navigation instructions, turn instead of take the first exit from the > roundabout. > > There are also times when lines are not visible due to snow, > whiteover with frost or just salt turning the road white. Where I'm from that would be a poor excuse if caught crossing a solid line. And wouldn't it be great if your favorite navigation software could tell you how traffic can legally flow? Even if the weather condition were such that you couldn't observe the solid line. Also I don't get how roundabouts are relevant for this discussion. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations
On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 08:18 +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 04:49, Dave F via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Platform should only be tagged when their is a *physical* object of > > a raise platform, not just an imaginary area of pavement. > > > > Sorry, but do you mean that this: > https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0841684,153.4150288,3a,75y,46.69h,72.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4hTF-eOoQp3yhcCIfyJelw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 > is not a public_transport=platform, which iD defines highway=bus_stop > as? > > If not, then what is it? I see a hedge, a bench, a sidewalk and a bus stop. But no platform. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
