Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I'd expect the width to be the width of the bollard and maxwidth the (in theory legal) width of the vehicle that can pass through (e.g. number taken by reading off a sign) and you might want to add maxwidth:physical=1.22m (the actual maximum width of a vehicle or person that can pass through). Oregon's got some badly designed cycleways, since in theory anything human powered up to 3 feet wide can legally traverse unless otherwise signed, but there are bollards and bike barriers that are closer spaced than this and present a real hazard (particularly underwidth bicycle barriers, since these tend to have other spacing problems that make larger standard bicycles and some increasingly common varieties (particularly larger ones like goods bikes http://dguides.com/portland/events/upcoming-events/the-school-lunch-shakedown-tour-wheels-around-portland-free-salads-september-24-25-2011/, bikes with extended wheelbases http://bakfiets.nl/eng/, or pretty much anything pulling trailers http://www.utilitycycling.org/2011/01/carrying-your-stuff-bicycle-cargo-trailers/, that are otherwise perfectly legal, difficult to completely impossible to navigate). In other words: A potential tag combination might be maxwidth=3', maxwidth:physical=2'3... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
As lots of people frequently point out, what about emergency vehicles? They can (often) ignore legal restrictions, but not physical ones: if(i_am_an_emergency_vehicle) maxfoo = min(maxfoo:physical, maxfoo:legal) else maxfoo = maxfoo:physical; On 2015-02-17 19:57, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: On 16/02/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-02-16 10:42 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: * maxwidth: this is a legal limitation; nothing wider than the given value may use the feature +1, there is also the synonym maxwidth:legal (IMHO not advisable, as this is the same than the more used maxwidth) That's what the maxwidth wiki page states, but it is strangely inconsistent with maxheight. It really should be the same definition for both, and I think the height variant makes more sense. maxfoo = min(maxfoo:physical, maxfoo:legal) Don't assume that legal = physical. For example, many roads have a default legal max but didn't bother setting a legal limit on individual chokepoints. When physical != legal, you may want to add the subkeyed tag for the bigger value (or both), but most data users will only care about the simple key. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
Am 17.02.2015 um 19:57 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: maxfoo = min(maxfoo:physical, maxfoo:legal) -1, maxfoo was always defined as a legal restriction so this function should go into your data evaluator but not be the rule for the data entering mapper cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
On 18/02/2015, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: As lots of people frequently point out, what about emergency vehicles? They can (often) ignore legal restrictions, but not physical ones: if(i_am_an_emergency_vehicle) maxfoo = min(maxfoo:physical, maxfoo:legal) else maxfoo = maxfoo:physical; The other way around, but yes :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
On 18/02/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 17.02.2015 um 19:57 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: maxfoo = min(maxfoo:physical, maxfoo:legal) -1, maxfoo was always defined as a legal restriction so this function should go into your data evaluator but not be the rule for the data entering mapper Allow me to disagree: * maxheight is defined this way. Having maxwidth defined differently is asking for trouble. * The vast majority of consumers only care about min(physical,legal); expecting them to know about and handle that particular quirk of the osm schema (instead of simply taking the maxwidth value) is asking for more trouble. * There is currently a grand total of 22 maxwidth:physical tags in the db (12500 maxwidth, 0 maxwidth:legal), and none of them have a complementary plain maxwidth tag (one could argue that this is poor tagging, like tagging name:en without name). So there's really no backward compatibility to be worried about (and this whole thread is dealing with a theoretical problem, not a practical one). * I didn't do an exhaustive search, but even looking at maxheight I didn't find any object where maxfoo isn't = maxfoo:*. http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/7J5 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
On 18.02.2015 10:39, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: Allow me to disagree: * maxheight is defined this way. Having maxwidth defined differently is asking for trouble. I agree with you that we should define all the max* keys in the same way. But it would actually make much more sense to achieve that standardization by reserving them all for legal restriction. Look at the current situation: maxwidth: legal limit according to all sources maxspeed: legal limit according to all sources maxweight: legal limit according to all sources maxaxleload: legal limit according to all sources maxheight: legal limit according to infobox, min(legal,physical) according to introduction text The odd one out is clearly that introduction of the Key:maxheight page. And that also used to clearly state that the key refers to legal limits, until this edit: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Amaxheightdiff=806806oldid=762233 Now while this was a long time ago, I don't get the impression that it was based on a consensus when looking on the talk page. So imo the easiest way to get back to a consistent situation is to revert that change. ___ 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] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
Tobias Knerr wrote: The odd one out is clearly that introduction of the Key:maxheight page. And that also used to clearly state that the key refers to legal limits, until this edit: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Amaxheightdiff=806806oldid=762233 The history of the descriptions is scattered among several pages, including at least: Key:access Key:maxheight Map Features In 2006 (17 March), the original Map Features listed these tags as table rows: Linear, Restrictions, maxheight, Num, height limit in metres and so on, linking to the Key:access page. Created on that same day in 2006, the original Key:access read just Section General statutory restrictions and later changed to Size and statutory restrictions, included all max* and min* keys, i.e. also maxspeed and minspeed, The restricted width limit in metres, eg 2m / The restricted headroom limit in metres, eg 2.5m Even the page introduction didn't refer to legal accessibility. Later the infobox one sentence description was written as who may access an element, and this was changed on 10 July 2008 to the legal accessibility of ..., here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:accessdiff=122326oldid=122039 The examples of maxheight / maxwidth, a couple of lines above this, were changed only once, on 22 June 2011, link below, and are still ambiguous for the outcome of this discussion: the maximum vehicle height is 2.5 meters - this doesn't refer to physical nor legal. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:accessdiff=649233oldid=649213 The page Key:maxheight at first (April 2008) just redirected to Key:access, and the legal bit was added on 31 July 2009: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:maxheightdiff=prevoldid=312926 This edit summary does refer to some recent discussion in talk-mailinglist for the change. It IMO comes down to the different views of two starting points for the modelling: 1) are you legally allowed to crash a too tall vehicle to the bridge, if there's no height limit sign? 2) which is more important, the existence of traffic signs or whether a driver of a vehicle of height x can use that section of the road. No matter what one answers to these, the keys *:legal= and *:physical= are explicit. And mappers can measure the clearance, e.g. with an ultrasound distance meter, even when it's not signposted. If there's (I seem to have written these with maxheight, but the statements apply equally to width): maxheight:legal=x, maxheight=x, one knows that x is a signposted limit. maxheight:legal=x, maxheight=y (but y is smaller than x), then one knows there has to be something physical preventing taller vehicles passing maxheight:legal=x, maxheight:physical=z (and z is larger than x), then one knows there's a sign, but even taller vehicles could get through if they have a permission, or other right to disobey the sign. maxheight:physical=z, maxheight=y (where y is smaller than z), there's presumably a sign with the value y. maxheight:physical=z, maxheight=y (where y is larger than z), there's presumably a sign with the value y, but it's wrong and a tall vehicle could hit the low hanging barrier. On a related note, regarding the fact that when turning, the physical maximum width depends on the length of the vehicle: road planners have the concept of a design vehicle which roughly corresponds to the largest allowed vehicle in that vehicle category, and the turning radius such vehicles should be able to achieve. So a tag maxwidth:physical:hgv could describe how wide such a vehicle could be to be able to navigate that curve, supposing the other attributes of the vehicle would correspond to the design vehicle. That leaves a lot of cases undefined, but could be a start. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
2015-02-18 12:10 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: So imo the easiest way to get back to a consistent situation is to revert that change. +1 this is just another prove that changes to tagdefinitions should be preceded by a discussion to reduce the probability of inconsistencies. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
On 18/02/2015, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
On 18.02.2015 10:39, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
Allow me to disagree:
* maxheight is defined this way. Having maxwidth defined differently
is asking for trouble.
I agree with you that we should define all the max* keys in the same
way. But it would actually make much more sense to achieve that
standardization by reserving them all for legal restriction. Look at the
current situation:
maxwidth:
legal limit according to all sources
maxspeed:
legal limit according to all sources
maxweight:
legal limit according to all sources
maxaxleload:
legal limit according to all sources
maxheight:
legal limit according to infobox,
min(legal,physical) according to introduction text
The odd one out is clearly that introduction of the Key:maxheight page.
Fair enough, except that :physical doesn't make sense for speed, and
is pretty much impossible to measure for weight and axleload (or
rather the engineers calculated it, and the legal people took the
value verbatim). Because of that, legal == min(legal,physical) for all
those, so it doesn't make any difference and the simpler phrasing
wins, but the min(A,B) phrasing would be just as accurate.
maxspeed is actually much more complex, with lots of subkeys, and a
routing engine (for example) probably has to take many of them into
account. So a naive rule like maxspeed = min(legal,practical) would
not make sense.
Legal vs physical does make sense for height and width. The fact that
only height got an updated wiki page certainly comes from maxwidth:*
being basically unused.
As you point out, reverting the definition of maxheight to mean
maxheight:legal would make the wiki pages look more consistent. But
it'd make the data less usable. You go ahead and tell the owner of a
damaged vehicle that his satnav should have taken both
max{height,width} and max{height,width}:physical into account, I
prefer to avoid this using the min(legal,physical) definition.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
On 16/02/2015, Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi wrote: The width of the vehicle that could use the way can be wider than the way itself [...] Another example where width != maxwidth:physical is a twisty tunnel. The longer a vehicle is, the more margin it requires to be able to pass. So a tunnel with width=2.5 could easily have a maxwidth:physical=2. Width concerns the feature itself, maxwidth(:physical) concerns the vehicles using the feature. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
On 16/02/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-02-16 10:42 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: * maxwidth: this is a legal limitation; nothing wider than the given value may use the feature +1, there is also the synonym maxwidth:legal (IMHO not advisable, as this is the same than the more used maxwidth) That's what the maxwidth wiki page states, but it is strangely inconsistent with maxheight. It really should be the same definition for both, and I think the height variant makes more sense. maxfoo = min(maxfoo:physical, maxfoo:legal) Don't assume that legal = physical. For example, many roads have a default legal max but didn't bother setting a legal limit on individual chokepoints. When physical != legal, you may want to add the subkeyed tag for the bigger value (or both), but most data users will only care about the simple key. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
Hi! 2015-02-16 10:58 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: * maxwidth:physical: according to the wiki page: a physical limit IIRR there were users of latin american countries telling that their bridges sometimes had 2 height informations signposted: maxheight and maxheight:physical and that this was the reason for the introduction of maxheight:physical (I assume that maxwidth is working just the same). The width of a feature in my understanding is a physical limit. -1, the width is one dimension of a feature (depending on the kind of thing you are describing, there are other dimensions like height, length, diameter, depth, etc.), I wouldn't call this (in all cases) a limit Ok. But that didn't really answer my question. When should maxwidth:physical be used? Does this have to be signposted? Measured? What exactly does it describe? When should one use it and when should width or maxwidth be used? So when should maxwidth:physical be used? One example I can think of might be a way with varying width, i.e. it is not possible to specify width and maxwidth:physical should be used to specify the minimum width along the way. Another one might be the maximum width of a vehicle, that may pass a barrier (this is indicated in the first sentence of the article). if there was something tagged like (example made up): barrier=bollard width=0.2m maxwidth=1.2m What about maxwidth:physical in this example? Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
Martin Vonwald wrote: My understanding so far: * width: this is the actual width of a feature * maxwidth: this is a legal limitation; nothing wider than the given value may use the feature * maxwidth:physical: according to the wiki page: a physical limit The width of the vehicle that could use the way can be wider than the way itself, even if it depends on the conditions whether they're allowed to. For an example, a way in a park might be, say, 2 meters wide, but if there's just grass around it, a maintenance or construction vehicle or what ever could use that way even if all wheels don't fit on the intended surface (supposing the soil isn't too soft). Or a cycleway; the asphalt is 2.5 meters (width), but if there's no guard rail, a police van can use it even if they're wider than that (with mirrors included) - but if there's a guard rail on one side and a hedge on the other side, the physical maximum width could be just 2.6 meters (numbers off the top of my head.) Another likely case is when the width of a gate is, say, 3 meters (the whole structure), but the gap between the sides is only 2 meters: width=3 + maxwidth:physical=2 Less likely cases could be a road with trees next to it, such that the road is 6 meters wide, but for a section the branches limit the physical width usable for vehicles to, for example, 4 meters. Or a divider on the pedestrian crossing limits the physical width of passing vehicles to x meters, yet the road is more than 2*x wide. I haven't looked up if the maximum legal width sign refers to the actual width (with mirrors etc) or to the width stated in the vehicle's registration documents. Nevertheless, a road with a width of 2.6 meters (e.g. a narrow old town alley or a courtyard entrance) may, or may not, physically allow a vehicle with a width of 2.55 m + mirrors to pass. It's true that good example photos would be a nice touch to the documentation. Considering the possibilities of different special loads, with the transported object surpassing the width of the vehicle, should IMO be beyond the applicability of these tags as such; a 4 meter wide load supported 2 meters above the road surface could or would, for example, just go over the pedestrian crossing middle island traffic signs, whereas a four meter wide harvester couldn't navigate that location at all. I don't yet have an idea how that should be best spelled out in the wiki. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
Maybe it's for special cargo. If you are a regular truck, you have to use maxwidth. But if you are a truck that has oversize load[1] you use maxwidth:physical. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversize_load Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
Hi! I just stumbled upon the wiki article regarding maxwidth:physical. From reading it - and the articles about maxwidth and width - I don't really understand when to use each key. My understanding so far: * width: this is the actual width of a feature * maxwidth: this is a legal limitation; nothing wider than the given value may use the feature * maxwidth:physical: according to the wiki page: a physical limit The width of a feature in my understanding is a physical limit. So when should maxwidth:physical be used? One example I can think of might be a way with varying width, i.e. it is not possible to specify width and maxwidth:physical should be used to specify the minimum width along the way. Another one might be the maximum width of a vehicle, that may pass a barrier (this is indicated in the first sentence of the article). Is this the intention of maxwidth:physical? Some additional examples and a section When to use might be helpful. best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
2015-02-16 10:42 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: Hi! I just stumbled upon the wiki article regarding maxwidth:physical. From reading it - and the articles about maxwidth and width - I don't really understand when to use each key. My understanding so far: * width: this is the actual width of a feature +1 * maxwidth: this is a legal limitation; nothing wider than the given value may use the feature +1, there is also the synonym maxwidth:legal (IMHO not advisable, as this is the same than the more used maxwidth) * maxwidth:physical: according to the wiki page: a physical limit IIRR there were users of latin american countries telling that their bridges sometimes had 2 height informations signposted: maxheight and maxheight:physical and that this was the reason for the introduction of maxheight:physical (I assume that maxwidth is working just the same). The width of a feature in my understanding is a physical limit. -1, the width is one dimension of a feature (depending on the kind of thing you are describing, there are other dimensions like height, length, diameter, depth, etc.), I wouldn't call this (in all cases) a limit So when should maxwidth:physical be used? One example I can think of might be a way with varying width, i.e. it is not possible to specify width and maxwidth:physical should be used to specify the minimum width along the way. Another one might be the maximum width of a vehicle, that may pass a barrier (this is indicated in the first sentence of the article). if there was something tagged like (example made up): barrier=bollard width=0.2m maxwidth=1.2m I'd expect the width to be the width of the bollard and maxwidth the (in theory legal) width of the vehicle that can pass through (e.g. number taken by reading off a sign) and you might want to add maxwidth:physical=1.22m (the actual maximum width of a vehicle or person that can pass through). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
In the UK frequent use is made of legal weight and width limits, often to keep heavy traffic out of residential areas or away from country lanes. In this case the road sign usually has a qualifier except for access. An emergency vehicle can ignore these legal limits of course, but they would be ill-advised to ignore physical limits. So a clear definition and consistent usage is definitely a good idea. On 2015-02-16 10:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-02-16 10:42 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: Hi! I just stumbled upon the wiki article regarding maxwidth:physical. From reading it - and the articles about maxwidth and width - I don't really understand when to use each key. My understanding so far: * width: this is the actual width of a feature +1 * maxwidth: this is a legal limitation; nothing wider than the given value may use the feature +1, there is also the synonym maxwidth:legal (IMHO not advisable, as this is the same than the more used maxwidth) * maxwidth:physical: according to the wiki page: a physical limit IIRR there were users of latin american countries telling that their bridges sometimes had 2 height informations signposted: maxheight and maxheight:physical and that this was the reason for the introduction of maxheight:physical (I assume that maxwidth is working just the same). The width of a feature in my understanding is a physical limit. -1, the width is one dimension of a feature (depending on the kind of thing you are describing, there are other dimensions like height, length, diameter, depth, etc.), I wouldn't call this (in all cases) a limit So when should maxwidth:physical be used? One example I can think of might be a way with varying width, i.e. it is not possible to specify width and maxwidth:physical should be used to specify the minimum width along the way. Another one might be the maximum width of a vehicle, that may pass a barrier (this is indicated in the first sentence of the article). if there was something tagged like (example made up): barrier=bollard width=0.2m maxwidth=1.2m I'd expect the width to be the width of the bollard and maxwidth the (in theory legal) width of the vehicle that can pass through (e.g. number taken by reading off a sign) and you might want to add maxwidth:physical=1.22m (the actual maximum width of a vehicle or person that can pass through). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
2015-02-16 11:12 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: if there was something tagged like (example made up): barrier=bollard width=0.2m maxwidth=1.2m What about maxwidth:physical in this example? Like I wrote above: I'd expect the width to be the width of the bollard and maxwidth the (in theory legal) width of the vehicle that can pass through (e.g. number taken by reading off a sign) and you might want to add maxwidth:physical=1.22m (the actual maximum width of a vehicle or person that can pass through). If there were maxwidth=1.2 and maxwidth:physical=1.22 tagged (e.g.), I'd expect the 1.2 coming off a sign and the 1.22 being measured. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
Hi! 2015-02-16 11:16 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: The width of the vehicle that could use the way can be wider than the way itself, even if it depends on the conditions whether they're allowed to. For an example, a way in a park might be, say, 2 meters wide, but if there's just grass around it, a maintenance or construction vehicle or what ever could use that way even if all wheels don't fit on the intended surface (supposing the soil isn't too soft). Or a cycleway; the asphalt is 2.5 meters (width), but if there's no guard rail, a police van can use it even if they're wider than that (with mirrors included) - but if there's a guard rail on one side and a hedge on the other side, the physical maximum width could be just 2.6 meters (numbers off the top of my head.) Another likely case is when the width of a gate is, say, 3 meters (the whole structure), but the gap between the sides is only 2 meters: width=3 + maxwidth:physical=2 Less likely cases could be a road with trees next to it, such that the road is 6 meters wide, but for a section the branches limit the physical width usable for vehicles to, for example, 4 meters. Or a divider on the pedestrian crossing limits the physical width of passing vehicles to x meters, yet the road is more than 2*x wide. I haven't looked up if the maximum legal width sign refers to the actual width (with mirrors etc) or to the width stated in the vehicle's registration documents. Nevertheless, a road with a width of 2.6 meters (e.g. a narrow old town alley or a courtyard entrance) may, or may not, physically allow a vehicle with a width of 2.55 m + mirrors to pass. Thanks for all the examples. It's true that good example photos would be a nice touch to the documentation. That was the original intention of my question ;-) Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
2015-02-16 11:18 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: Maybe If you read a documentation and afterwards you maybe know what it means, the documentation might need some kind of improvement. ;-) I think we got enough good examples in this thread. Anyone willing to update the wiki? Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
