Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
2010/2/23 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: wide truck. But if it is tagged est_width=3.5, you will not... And let say I have a bigger truck than yours and is 5 meters wide. How can I find a way if none of the highways have a width tag ? are we talking about boats or trucks? If you drive a big truck you will either have an exceptional transport (and therefore not rely on any navigator but have local authorities determine your way and accompagny the convoi) or one that meets standard requirements. The latter will most probably not have issues because of it's width but for it's length (curve radius) and missing u-turn-possibilities (cul de sac). Anyway you will find your way sticking to the bigger (more important) streets with higher classification. But the aim is not to find a way in fact of missing width-tags but to complete the width tags. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: Don't want to stir up a whole new hornet's nest, but would that be kerb-to-kerb (i.e. tarmac width) or wall-to-wall (limiting the overall vehicle width)? Good question. The wiki simply says width of a way. So it's impossible to say without a more detailed definition, or knowledge of what others have been using it for. I would *guess* that, for a highway=*, it should refer to the maximum legally usable width by a vehicle, or something like that. So that would mean kerb-to-kerb width, unless it's legal to ride on the sidewalk in that locale. You could, of course, propose new tags: width:tarmac=* and width:clearance=* (or something), if you want to get more specific. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I come to a road with width=3 - that is indeed useful. I come to a road with narrow=yes - that is not as useful. I just don't understand how everyone can have the same argument, again and again, about every new tag or idea suggested. That's because it's a good argument. ... Now, the concept of narrow ... could be defined by the presence of warning signs, by reference to standard road widths in the area, or simply the mapper's intuition. If you propose a verifiable definition for narrow, I will support it. But warning signs OR reference to standard road width OR intuition is not verifiable. There you go, the same argument once again - it's not going to go away... :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: If a user is bad at estimating widths I suggest that he measures the exact width. Still narrow is not a good solution to the problem as many posters have already written above. I reckon 3 paces would be more helpful than narrow Australia doesn't have nice the width in metres on a sign for narrow bits. We get a road narrows sign only. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
On 22 February 2010 18:54, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: I reckon 3 paces would be more helpful than narrow Paces of a short or tall person? :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, John Smith wrote: On 22 February 2010 18:54, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: I reckon 3 paces would be more helpful than narrow Paces of a short or tall person? :) well they could add in the notes that they are 170cm tall and walking on crutches if they like ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: no, you can always compare it to the width of your vehicle, therefore it doesn't require that all streets are tagged width it. ?? With my Fiat 500 or you BMW X5 ? AND: you can always compare to the construction standards for new roads in your part of the world. But that's the point. If you write on a segment of residential width=4, it will be narrow in US and normal in old Europe. That's why I said that a width is only useful if you can compare it to something else. I'm still waiting a proposal for the default width per highway category. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
Pieren wrote: On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: no, you can always compare it to the width of your vehicle, therefore it doesn't require that all streets are tagged width it. ?? With my Fiat 500 or you BMW X5 ? AND: you can always compare to the construction standards for new roads in your part of the world. But that's the point. If you write on a segment of residential width=4, it will be narrow in US and normal in old Europe. That's why I said that a width is only useful if you can compare it to something else. I'm still waiting a proposal for the default width per highway category. Don't want to stir up a whole new hornet's nest, but would that be kerb-to-kerb (i.e. tarmac width) or wall-to-wall (limiting the overall vehicle width)? In the Netherlands, and probably other countries as well, there is an assumed minimum headroom (4.0m) and probably width as well. Any obstruction not marked with a sign can be assumed to be at least high/wide as the minimum. I know an international truck driver (UK-based) who has to know such details, as the assumed minimum headroom in e.g. UK is higher (16ft/5.03m according to Wikipedia). So if he is driving a truck 4.1m high he cannot rely on the signage in NL. Colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
On 23 February 2010 10:45, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: have a bigger truck than yours and is 5 meters wide. How can I find a way if none of the highways have a width tag ? So if a way is missing a maxspeed=* tag, that means we can travel at any speed we like, or should we use the information on street signs to determine how fast we're allowed to travel? :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: If users are so incompetent at judging distances then maybe they should never hve picked up a GPS in the first place. Hey, guys, come back to the real world. As you said, putting the width_est is only helpful if you can compare it, which means that you will need a width_est in ALL highways. And I'm not talking to just define a default width for the different highway categories. When I read this remark about incompetence and other threads about adding 2 or 3 different source tags, I think you should meet more average contributors before explaining how we should tag things. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
Pieren wrote: On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote: If users are so incompetent at judging distances then maybe they should never hve picked up a GPS in the first place. Hey, guys, come back to the real world. As you said, putting the width_est is only helpful if you can compare it, which means that you will need a width_est in ALL highways. Who said that? If you're referring to estimated difference. I meant to type distance. /If /you need to compare then it's with /everything /you've ever seen in your whole life to there's no compulsion to add tag to all roads. And I'm not talking to just define a default width for the different highway categories. When I read this remark about incompetence and other threads about adding 2 or 3 different source tags, I think you should meet more average contributors before explaining how we should tag things. So you think the accuracy of OSM should be compromised to appease users who are unwilling to learn? Please, come back to the real world. To get back on subject, an explanatory note as Roy W. suggests is the best way to describe any uncertainty. Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: Just estimate the width, width:est=* Narrow is too subjective where as width:est isn't much better but at least it puts a number to it Don't give again the same arguments as last time on this list. We just have to admit that many contributors find easier to say that a residential street is narrower than the others instead of making wrong estimates. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
On 19 February 2010 01:54, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: Don't give again the same arguments as last time on this list. We just have How is the argument given less relevent than last time? to admit that many contributors find easier to say that a residential street is narrower than the others instead of making wrong estimates. So what exactly is wrong with estimating the width than giving a subjective opinion that can't be verified by the next mapper? If I form an opinion stating 2m is narrow and someone forms an opinion stating 4m is narrow how is that helpful in the least? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, John Smith wrote: If I form an opinion stating 2m is narrow and someone forms an opinion stating 4m is narrow how is that helpful in the least? Narrow on foot or narrow in a truck imply different widths. So I'm in favour of estimating a width for this purpose, and not narrow. And if my English was poor, it would be a lot easier to understand putting in a number of metres than picking narrow, wide, average, too-bloody-small etc ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
Pieren wrote: On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Just estimate the width, width:est=* Narrow is too subjective where as width:est isn't much better but at least it puts a number to it Don't give again the same arguments as last time on this list. What's wrong with giving the same arguments? We just have to admit that many contributors find easier to say that a residential street is narrower than the others instead of making wrong estimates. No, no no again. They should be convinced by rational argument that there's a better way to do it. I've had it done to me a few times since joining OSM. I'm at a loss to understand how Narrow could be considered more accurate than an estimated difference. If users are so incompetent at judging distances then maybe they should never hve picked up a GPS in the first place. In theory, could the people who added ambiguous tags be emailed asked to suggest an alternative? I emphasize the word 'theory'. cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: If users are so incompetent at judging distances then maybe they should never hve picked up a GPS in the first place. Or they should use est_width=1.5m + note=road looks narrow - please confirm width ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
Roy Wallace wrote: On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: If users are so incompetent at judging distances then maybe they should never hve picked up a GPS in the first place. Or they should use est_width=1.5m + note=road looks narrow - please confirm width Indeed. You are correct. :-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
On 19 February 2010 10:19, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Or they should use est_width=1.5m + note=road looks narrow - please confirm width Which is what was being suggested in the proposal on the wiki: Lets say we define narrow as approximately =3m. Then a way with width=2.5 will be rendered as narrow. And on the other side we assume that any width=narrow ways are approximately =3m. So no matter which way you look at it, they are estimating the width. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
