Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels
Am Mi., 9. Okt. 2019 um 22:05 Uhr schrieb Leif Rasmussen <354...@gmail.com>: > I'd go with landuse=forestry on the property, a tag that was suggested > here a while back. This isn't official or anything, but moving towards > tagging forest parcels differently from the trees seems important. > I agree the parcels should not get the same tag as the trees, because not all parcels will be covered 100% by trees. I would not use the "landuse"-tag for these. Maybe "boundary" could be an acceptable key. (there are for example around 175 boundary=parcel according to taginfo). Generally, we are not mapping parcels as such at all, neither in built-up areas nor in natural areas. There seems to be a consensus against it (personally, I have different priorities for now, but I would not stop others from mapping parcel boundaries if they can be verified) and in the past, the parcels/propery boundaries that had been imported in the past (somewhere in the US, AFAIR from PD data) have been removed afterwards, I think by the Data Working Group. Questions of verifiability have been raised. In my area, many parcel boundaries (at least effective parcel boundaries) can be surveyed, there are fences, hedges, walls and buildings. For forest parcel boundaries. I could imagine it would be more difficult, or are these fenced off? In some areas I have seen there are place=locality nodes in the forest to store the names of small areas, and while these are not really comparable to parcel boundaries, they may be an alternative method if you are mostly interested in names. Cheers Martin ___ 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
Hi Frederik, hi everyone, On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 08:40, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > The question is basically two-fold; one, what are the established > standards and rules concerning this situation, and two, in how far is it > acceptable to deviate from these standards if a local mapper thinks it > is a good idea. To your first question: i have the impression that the "physical division -> separate ways; no physical division -> shared way" principle usually is followed. One situation where it is not always followed are motorway exits divided only by road markings. To your second question: i think that local mapping deviations make our map less usable. I would prefer if people who think that a rule doesn't make sense don't simply ignore it, but discuss it on this global mailing list. Regards Markus ___ 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 10/10/19 20:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm mailto:frede...@remote.org>>: 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. this is an interesting aspect: why do we need turn restrictions, wouldn't it be sufficient to tell the routing engine that there is a line that cannot be crossed (and add a tag for interruptions to this on the junction nodes where you can cross), and we could save a lot of turn restriction relations which would be already implied? I recall this was suggested many years ago, but for some reason it did not fly. Maybe it is because it was too complicated to find out under which circumstances (in which jurisdictions) white lines had which meaning? Maybe we should not map the lines physically, but according to their legal meaning, something like (shorter tags would be chosen): divider that cannot be crossed (legally), divider that can be crossed legally, divider that can be crossed but only for turning left not for u-turns, etc. Allowing for different diving on different sides of the road? Centre cannot be crossed (all) Centre cannot be crossed for U turns (turn offs allowed) Centre cannot be crossed for turns (U turns allowed) Centre cannot be crossed for turn offs (U turns, turn ons allowed) Centre cannot be crossed for turn ons (U turns , turn offs allowed) centre =no_crossing/no_u_crossing/no_turn_crossing/no_off_crossing/no_on_crossing/yes_crossing/??? Will need further though, but the above provides for either side of the road driving. ___ 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
10 Oct 2019, 08:38 by frede...@remote.org: > The question is basically two-fold; one, what are the established > standards and rules concerning this situation > Splitting road on physical separation seems to be a standard. And painted line is not considered as physical separation. Among obvious reasons is consistency, not changing popular things without really good reason and routing for emergency vehicles. Main issues is handling crossing with dual carriageway - even without physical separation on crossing itself ways typically continue split in two, or start splitting before crossing. (I can send images if that is unclear) It is also disputed whatever splitting road on small separations like crossing with island is advisable. > andtwo, in how far is it > acceptable to deviate from these standards if a local mapper thinks it > is a good idea. > It seems poor idea like retagging highway=motorway into droga=autostrada because local mappers dislike English. > Personally I believe that "physical division => separate ways; no > physical division => shared way" is the standard in OSM, or perhaps at > least the "rule of thumb". But (since people in the German discussion > have more or less claimed that the world is going to end if local > mappers are allowed to treat this differently) I'd like to hear from > mappers in other countries how rigidly this standard is applied. > During travel I made edits removing invalid separation (only painted line) that I spotted. I never felt that I needed to consult local community or that opening note would be preferable. In Poland some people expressed that changing road mapped as two ways into single one is waste of time, but I don't remember anyone claiming that it is wrong to do this. Though I remember cases of highly complex junctions where it seemed to be necessary/advisable to not follow this rule. Theoretical example: equivalent of Magic Roundabout in Swindon, marked solely by paint, without physical separation would be place where violating this rule would make sense.___ 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, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:38:28AM +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). I am one of those mappers - So disclaimer applies - i am tainted. I am in favour of relaxing this rule. We currently have strips of road where we currently handle this relaxed e.g. Motorway links or exits where we (OSM Germany) map ~50% of the exits with completely seperate ways although there is only a single line in the middle. I'd like to use it for a 4 lane motorway size like road where is only a double line in the middle. Double line means, not allowed to cross, and additionally - no part of a vehicle may leap over the line. So in practice left turns are not allowed, u-turn is not allowed. And for this specific strip foot and bicycle are disallowed and we had no speed limit for years (Was introduced couple years back). Rational: Mapping large, multi-lane roads with a "do not cross line" in the middle as single line requires 4-5 times the number of turn restrictions. These are number i am estimating from my own experience mapping it one or the other way. At every way junction one has to model every disallowed way/turn. From my experience this is very error prone. I am doing a lot of QA concerning routing (100K routes every 2 hours for the region i am mostly interested in). From the experience doing this the last 6 years it shows that meanwhile handling of turn restrictions is causing 90% of routing problems due to people unintentional breaking, abusing, misinterpreting or overcomplicating turn restrictions. So - in other words. I am in favour of the KISS principle. Make it easy for the average mapper and let them handle as they seem fit. As a rule of thumb the current handling is okay. But there is no "one size fits all". And I'd like to relax the rules in favour of reduced complexity. And i see fit in the original "Conventions" document [1] which terms it as "Divided highways should be drawn as separate ways." for divided highways. First - "should" is a relaxed term which is no MUST and second - it does not make any statement about whether we MUST draw a non physically divided highway as one line. (I dont oppose the fact that in 99% of the cases it makes absolute sense to do so). Flo [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Asking OSM mappers if they have "strict standards" on this issue is chasing a fantasy, IMHO. We discussed this in our local Thailand mapping forum and AFAIK, it wasn't resolved. In one example, a five-lane highway with no physical barrier and the "fifth lane" painted with big yellow stripes, the mapper used two separate ways, both tagged oneway=yes to represent the situation. I disagreed. My thinking is that OSM prefers having a physical barrier before tagging two separate ways and I do too. By the way, Google maps uses two lanes both tagged as oneway for this particular example. YMMV On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:40 PM 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, and two, in how far is it > acceptable to deviate from these standards if a local mapper thinks it > is a good idea. > > Personally I believe that "physical division => separate ways; no > physical division => shared way" is the standard in OSM, or perhaps at > least the "rule of thumb". But (since people in the German discussion > have more or less claimed that the world is going to end if local > mappers are allowed to treat this differently) I'd like to hear from > mappers in other countries how rigidly this standard is applied. Is it > something where local mappers have some freedom of judgment (like when > choosing which highway=* category to apply to a road) or do you have > strict standards and definitions? > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ 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
Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm < frede...@remote.org>: > 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. this is an interesting aspect: why do we need turn restrictions, wouldn't it be sufficient to tell the routing engine that there is a line that cannot be crossed (and add a tag for interruptions to this on the junction nodes where you can cross), and we could save a lot of turn restriction relations which would be already implied? I recall this was suggested many years ago, but for some reason it did not fly. Maybe it is because it was too complicated to find out under which circumstances (in which jurisdictions) white lines had which meaning? Maybe we should not map the lines physically, but according to their legal meaning, something like (shorter tags would be chosen): divider that cannot be crossed (legally), divider that can be crossed legally, divider that can be crossed but only for turning left not for u-turns, etc. Cheers Martin ___ 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
Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 12:41 Uhr schrieb Andrew Harvey < andrew.harv...@gmail.com>: > That sounds very similar to > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking which let's you > determine when you can cross that dividing line when tagged as a single > undivided way. > overtaking is a different issue, because it does not say whether you can cross a dividing line, it says whether you can overtake another vehicle (there may be sufficient space within the same lane or no road markings at all, but you still cannot overtake when there is an overtaking restriction, and you can overtake even with an uninterrupted divider when there is no overtaking restriction, as long as you do not cross the divider line. At least this is the legal situation in some countries where I am familiar with the rules, not sure about the UK. The overtaking flag does not say anything about implicit turning restrictions anyway, so it really governs different situations. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
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, and two, in how far is it acceptable to deviate from these standards if a local mapper thinks it is a good idea. Personally I believe that "physical division => separate ways; no physical division => shared way" is the standard in OSM, or perhaps at least the "rule of thumb". But (since people in the German discussion have more or less claimed that the world is going to end if local mappers are allowed to treat this differently) I'd like to hear from mappers in other countries how rigidly this standard is applied. Is it something where local mappers have some freedom of judgment (like when choosing which highway=* category to apply to a road) or do you have strict standards and definitions? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ 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, 10 Oct 2019 at 21:23, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/10/19 20:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm < > frede...@remote.org>: > >> 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. > > > > > this is an interesting aspect: why do we need turn restrictions, wouldn't > it be sufficient to tell the routing engine that there is a line that > cannot be crossed (and add a tag for interruptions to this on the junction > nodes where you can cross), and we could save a lot of turn restriction > relations which would be already implied? > > I recall this was suggested many years ago, but for some reason it did not > fly. Maybe it is because it was too complicated to find out under which > circumstances (in which jurisdictions) white lines had which meaning? Maybe > we should not map the lines physically, but according to their legal > meaning, something like (shorter tags would be chosen): divider that cannot > be crossed (legally), divider that can be crossed legally, divider that can > be crossed but only for turning left not for u-turns, etc. > > > Allowing for different diving on different sides of the road? > > Centre cannot be crossed (all) > > Centre cannot be crossed for U turns (turn offs allowed) > > Centre cannot be crossed for turns (U turns allowed) > > Centre cannot be crossed for turn offs (U turns, turn ons allowed) > > Centre cannot be crossed for turn ons (U turns , turn offs allowed) > > > > centre > =no_crossing/no_u_crossing/no_turn_crossing/no_off_crossing/no_on_crossing/yes_crossing/??? > > Will need further though, but the above provides for either side of the > road driving. > That sounds very similar to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking which let's you determine when you can cross that dividing line when tagged as a single undivided way. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
Tagging mailing list wrote > Our local Primary School (ages 4 - 11 years, just in case there is any > doubt) has shade sails over part of the playground to protect the little > darlings from the sun whilst playing outside. > You would not get as very warm welcome, if you turned up there in your > bikini, or budgie smugglers, asking to use the designated sunbathing area > that was shown on your map! Blimey I didn't say sunshades == sunbathing. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ 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] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
10 Oct 2019, 10:44 by f...@zz.de: > And i see fit in the original "Conventions" document [1] which terms > it as "Divided highways should be drawn as separate ways." for divided > highways. > First - "should" is a relaxed term which is no MUST and second - > it does not make any statement about > OSM Wiki is not following RFC 2119. Generally accepted rules are usually stated as "should" and similar. And in case of lawyering - the same page is (from what I see) not forbidding other mappers to revert to single way version.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote > On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 00:30, Vɑdɪm > vadp.devl@ > wrote: > >> >> As for sunshades (or parasoles), they are used by sunbathers en masse, in >> particular to cast a shadow on the face. >> > > Maybe at the places that you sunbathe, but certainly not everywhere! That's right, they aren't a precondition. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ 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, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:38 AM Frederik Ramm wrote: > Personally I believe that "physical division => separate ways; no > physical division => shared way" is the standard in OSM, or perhaps at > least the "rule of thumb". But (since people in the German discussion > have more or less claimed that the world is going to end if local > mappers are allowed to treat this differently) I'd like to hear from > mappers in other countries how rigidly this standard is applied. Is it > something where local mappers have some freedom of judgment (like when > choosing which highway=* category to apply to a road) or do you have > strict standards and definitions? > So, single carriage freeway? In the US, that'd be a single way, highway=trunk, oneway=no. About the only time I map it otherwise is where a single carriageway results in spurious directions due to the angles required to make it come together (like the one block of South Lewis Avenue between 51st Street and Skelly Drive in Tulsa, where the distance between the end of the median and the center of the intersection results in a nearly right angle if it were to be mapped more strictly). Or at exit ramps (where I start a placement=transition segment even with the start of the theoretical gore and ends centered on the ramp through lanes, preventing consumers from giving the instruction too soon as happens extending the ramp vector straight line to the motorway or too late when going as close to the physical bullnose as possible). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Pedestrian and highway crossings of tramways
Markus-5 wrote > The problem here is that pedestrians are routed along the highway=* > way and, as you wrote, tram tracks are usually (unfortunately) mapped > as separate ways. Consequently, the railway=crossing node is > disconnected from the highway=* way with the highway=crossing node > (that is, on another way). Therefore a router doesn't know that trams > also pass this pedestrian crossing (except if pavements and pedestrian > crossings are mapped as separate ways, which, however, has other > drawbacks). Oh, I see now what did you mean. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ 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
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 > Op 10 okt. 2019 om 15:01 heeft Snusmumriken > 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
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
Florian Lohoff-2 wrote > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:38:28AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Mapping large, multi-lane roads with a "do not cross line" in the > middle as single line requires 4-5 times the number of turn > restrictions. These are number i am estimating from my own experience > mapping it one or the other way. > At every way junction one has to model every disallowed way/turn. > From my experience this is very error prone. +1 Also there are some arrangements which probably do not have a simple solution even with centre=* tag suggested here. For example a street with a tramway track in the middle separated from the rest of the roadbed by dividing lines at each side which vehicles cannot cross: https://goo.gl/maps/VHKbwjMoCVwawHxU9. By the way tramway tracks are drawn with two separate ways, so a single way line in the middle would make you think that the tramway tracks are not in the middle of the roadbed but at its sides. Another example is a bus lane in the middle of the road: 2 lanes of forward traffic, a forward bus lane, a backward bus lane, backward traffic https://goo.gl/maps/FubkLdHRP6DHLkv86. Yes another one is a bus lane on the right side, but it turns on the left through 4 lanes of normal forward traffic which not allowed to turn left https://goo.gl/maps/QFcfDW9h7cQ3UMJaA. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 16:39, Vɑdɪm wrote: > > Paul Allen wrote > > The presence or absences of sunshades is not a reliable indicator. > > Did I say the opposite? > > Yes, you said this earlier in the thread: There is no any requirement for sunshades in the proposal. Albeit I think > they could be used as one of the indicators. Please have a look at the > examples. > And then, multiple times later in the thread you again bring up sunshades and ask us to look at the examples. Which is consistent with you continuing to think that they could be used as one of the indicators. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
do we really want to repeat for another hundred posts "sunshades, sunshades"? Either make new points, or please refrain from repetitive posting. Thank you Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Must/Should and Lawyering - Re: Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 02:28:51PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 10 Oct 2019, 10:44 by f...@zz.de: > > And i see fit in the original "Conventions" document [1] which terms > > it as "Divided highways should be drawn as separate ways." for divided > > highways. > > First - "should" is a relaxed term which is no MUST and second - > > it does not make any statement about > > > OSM Wiki is not following RFC 2119. RFC2119 is just formalising and explaining English for non native speakers in this respect. > Generally accepted rules are usually > stated as "should" and similar. "Generally accepted" is correctly mapped to "should". But there are others which are really a must: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Node "Where ways intersect at the same altitude, the two ways must share a node (for example, a road junction)" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight "You must explicitly specify the unit if it is not in metric tonnes." So the English language is used appropriate in the Wiki. > And in case of lawyering - the same page > is (from what I see) not forbidding > other mappers to revert to single way > version. It does not even talk about non divided ways beeing mapped as seperated ways. So if lawyering correctly this whole discussion is moot because i dont think there is a place in wiki talking about ways without a divide to be mapped as 2 ways. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 16:04, Vɑdɪm wrote: > > Perhaps that's question of a definition. Please have a look at 3 pictures > posted here earlier and let me know what do you think of them. > To what end? You've found pictures of sunbathing areas with sunshades. Others have found pictures of sunbathing areas without sunshades. Yet others have found pictures of sunshades that are most definitely not in sunbathing areas. The presence or absences of sunshades is not a reliable indicator. Measles has a diagnostic indicator: characteristic spots. I've found three pictures of people with measles who are wearing sunglasses. I shall ignore the fact that most people with measles do not wear sunglasses and exhibit no photosensitivity of any kind. I shall ignore the fact that most people who wear sunglasses do not have measles. I shall declare that sunglasses are indicative of measles. Do you see how silly that would be? Nevertheless, I shall continue to insist that medical textbooks be revised to show sunglasses as being indicative of measles. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
Paul Allen wrote > You've found pictures of sunbathing areas with sunshades. > Others have found pictures of sunbathing areas without sunshades. Yet > others have > found pictures of sunshades that are most definitely not in sunbathing > areas. Great! That sounds good to me. Paul Allen wrote > The presence or absences of sunshades is not a reliable indicator. Did I say the opposite? -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ 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, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:38:28AM +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. I had a quick 10 Minute Look at Mapillary and i have found 10s of examples of separate way although no physical barrier. I guess this proves that people follow this way of mapping when they see fit: Hochstraße - Kamen: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/nPGchWcPI-HhCVYM833SlA Emil-Zimmerman-Allee - Buer https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/2Y-I_7hwiM3slXyTgqTwoQ Horster Straße - Gladbeck https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/_2HTDw3EEs8vKNR8KGKlTA Kaiser-Wilhelm-Straße - Essen https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/PAjeQdRW3t6BmQEMsXHZfQ Friedrich-Ebert-Straße - Essen https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/a0J5HGAJI1GVVuP5sG7M3Q Boulevard Pinel - Lyon https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/71ALZI8c9agMDxtL0z3nuA Staropolska - Gdansk https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/p3wF7yrx634ow6fcd6oyPg Kärtner Straße - Graz https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/qApIUsfERpNItMIcsspZdA Heidelberg - Ernst-Walz-Brücke https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/IffdeSsK58iFdjU-5_QBCA Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Must/Should and Lawyering - Re: Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 16:45 Uhr schrieb Florian Lohoff : > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Node > "Where ways intersect at the same altitude, the two ways must share a > node (for example, a road junction)" > > altitude? I'm not sure what this is trying to say. What is the typical altitude of a boundary? IMHO the cited wiki article should be fixed. It does not make sense to speak about altitudes for almost any of the objects that we map, (it's a term that fits well for an airplane or maybe the ISS), and connections should be created following a topological model. It wouldn't make sense to speak about "elevation" either, because many of the things that we map have a height, so there is a range of elevations. And many lines that we map are logical or legal, rather than physical. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Must/Should and Lawyering - Re: Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 17:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 16:45 Uhr schrieb Florian Lohoff : > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Node >> "Where ways intersect at the same altitude, the two ways must share a >> node (for example, a road junction)" >> > > altitude? > I'm not sure what this is trying to say. > I assume that "level" is meant. There isn't a bridge or tunnel involved. IMHO the cited wiki article should be fixed. > If we're reasonably sure level is meant, then it should be fixed to say so. Or at least fixed to say nobody knows what "altitude" means there. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
Paul Allen wrote > They are not a good indicator either > way and therefore should not be mentioned in the proposal even as a > possible indicator. Perhaps that's question of a definition. Please have a look at 3 pictures posted here earlier and let me know what do you think of them. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ 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
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. Cheers, Martin ___ 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, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:22 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/10/19 20:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm < > frede...@remote.org>: > >> 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. > > > > > this is an interesting aspect: why do we need turn restrictions, wouldn't > it be sufficient to tell the routing engine that there is a line that > cannot be crossed (and add a tag for interruptions to this on the junction > nodes where you can cross), and we could save a lot of turn restriction > relations which would be already implied? > > I recall this was suggested many years ago, but for some reason it did not > fly. Maybe it is because it was too complicated to find out under which > circumstances (in which jurisdictions) white lines had which meaning? Maybe > we should not map the lines physically, but according to their legal > meaning, something like (shorter tags would be chosen): divider that cannot > be crossed (legally), divider that can be crossed legally, divider that can > be crossed but only for turning left not for u-turns, etc. > > > Allowing for different diving on different sides of the road? > > Centre cannot be crossed (all) > > Centre cannot be crossed for U turns (turn offs allowed) > > Centre cannot be crossed for turns (U turns allowed) > > Centre cannot be crossed for turn offs (U turns, turn ons allowed) > > Centre cannot be crossed for turn ons (U turns , turn offs allowed) > > > > centre > =no_crossing/no_u_crossing/no_turn_crossing/no_off_crossing/no_on_crossing/yes_crossing/??? > > Will need further though, but the above provides for either side of the > road driving. > Something that I wish routing engines would be better about: Whether or not to allow U-turns. Because I seriously doubt all 3,700+ intersections in Oregon that don't allow U-turns (literally every traffic light that doesn't have a "U Turns OK" sign per Oregon state law), and I know not all of the 831 signalized intersections in Tulsa (no U turn allowed at traffic signals, it's never posted otherwise, per city code) are tagged with No U Turn restrictions. ___ 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
10 Oct 2019, 16:29 by f...@zz.de: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:38:28AM +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. >> > > I had a quick 10 Minute Look at Mapillary and i have found 10s of > examples of separate way although no physical barrier. > It can be easily done for any kind of mistake. Have you tried comparing it to split way tagging? It may be a good argument is that tagging is appearing often. Just because it is appearing at all is not very interesting, we know this.___ 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, 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). 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. [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/change Regards Markus ___ 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, Oct 10, 2019 at 07:53:39PM +0200, Markus wrote: > > 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). > > 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. > > [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/change The road in question here (where is originated) is foot=no. So no pedestrians. And IMHO change:lanes describes whether changing to a different lane going the SAME direction is legal. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
