Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
Steve Bennett wrote: On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: i think anthony's proposal access=no police=yes foo=yes ... is sensible. Sure. OTOH, why bother? Can you picture a use case where it matters whether police=yes is set? There are essentially two categories of roads: 1) Roads you can drive on 2) Roads you can't drive on, but someone else can. In the case of 2, is there a benefit to describing *who* can? All emergency services will drive wherever physically possible. But maybe I'm oversimplifying or overgeneralising. emergency=* tags already exist for emergency services, and I can think of at least one location in Oregon where a route is open only to emergency services and no others (oddly enough, it's also a rare instance where Americans drive left of the median). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
Richard Welty wrote: On 1/10/10 6:43 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: On 01/07/2010 09:59 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: When a divided motorway/trunk/primary/... has a spot for turning or u-turning, should that be marked as primary or primary_link? The wiki isn't clear. If it’s for service/emergency vehicles only, I’d use highway=service. Otherwise, *_link. i generally also set access=private for the official vehicle only u-turns. access=no emergency=yes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
i generally also set access=private for the official vehicle only u-turns. would access=official here be an overly fussy distinction ? -- Bill n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Bill Ricker bill.n1...@gmail.com wrote: i generally also set access=private for the official vehicle only u-turns. would access=official here be an overly fussy distinction ? I would think access=official would mean all types of traffic have official access. To follow the standard, it'd have to be official=yes, wouldn't it? I'd use access=no, assuming it was public land. access=private would be for privately owned land. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
Bill Ricker wrote: i generally also set access=private for the official vehicle only u-turns. would access=official here be an overly fussy distinction ? access=official sounds as if it would need a lot more definition. In many countries anything with blue flashing lights and/or sirens has a blanket exemption from little details like no-entry signs anyway. Would the Highways Agency be official? Or the local council? Or an emergency vehicle not engaged on an emergency call? -- Bill n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com ___ 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] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
On 1/11/10 11:49 AM, Anthony wrote: It may sound like access=official means official access only, but any programs which have encoded access=* and *=official will be completely confused by such a designation. i'll be using access=no for now. as far as alternatives, how about: access=authorized richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote: On 1/11/10 11:49 AM, Anthony wrote: It may sound like access=official means official access only, but any programs which have encoded access=* and *=official will be completely confused by such a designation. i'll be using access=no for now. as far as alternatives, how about: access=authorized Is there a situation where authorized traffic is not allowed? I say don't tag the defaults. If there actually is a scenario where authorized traffic is not allowed (which seems like a contradiction in terms), you could use access=no, authorized=no. But I doubt such a thing exists. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
On 1/11/10 9:11 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: The only question I have about this stuff is whether access=no has any use to mean you physically cannot get past here. If so, then it's worth having a tag like access=emergency_services to indicate that it's physically traversable, but no members of the public are allowed to use it. Which actually sounds an awful lot like access=private. emergency_services would be too strict a term, unless you can categorize speed traps and construction vehicles under the term (i wouldn't.) i think anthony's proposal access=no police=yes foo=yes ... is sensible. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Can you picture a use case where it matters whether police=yes is set? Not really. But at least it's harmless. All emergency services will drive wherever physically possible. But maybe I'm oversimplifying or overgeneralising. Well, here in Florida police are not exempt from any traffic laws (*) except under certain specific situations. On the other hand, if a sign said police use only, then that would be a blanket exception regardless of the circumstance. (*) Here in Florida, even those emergency situations, certain traffic laws still apply, and drive wherever physically possible is never the rule for anyone. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Steve Bennett wrote: Yeah actually you're probably right - even emergency services probably can't just drive through private land to get to an emergency. In NSW, the fire services can do as they please in those circumstances. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
On 01/07/2010 09:59 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: When a divided motorway/trunk/primary/... has a spot for turning or u-turning, should that be marked as primary or primary_link? The wiki isn't clear. If it’s for service/emergency vehicles only, I’d use highway=service. Otherwise, *_link. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
On 1/10/10 6:43 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: On 01/07/2010 09:59 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: When a divided motorway/trunk/primary/... has a spot for turning or u-turning, should that be marked as primary or primary_link? The wiki isn't clear. If it’s for service/emergency vehicles only, I’d use highway=service. Otherwise, *_link. i generally also set access=private for the official vehicle only u-turns. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
When a divided motorway/trunk/primary/... has a spot for turning or u-turning, should that be marked as primary or primary_link? The wiki isn't clear. Thanks, Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: When a divided motorway/trunk/primary/... has a spot for turning or u-turning, should that be marked as primary or primary_link? The wiki isn't clear. Well, what is it better described by: 1) link roads (sliproads / ramps) -- primary_link 2) A major highway linking large towns -- primary Given that, I'd say it's either primary_link, or something else. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
At 2010-01-07 19:59, Steve Bennett wrote: When a divided motorway/trunk/primary/... has a spot for turning or u-turning, should that be marked as primary or primary_link? The wiki isn't clear. I tag them as highway=x_link where the roads being linked are tagged highway=x (e.g. highway=motorway_link if the roads are highway=motorway). This seems consistent with the description of highway=*_link. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
