Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag lanes, not ways, was: Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
2009/8/30 Anthony : > > > > > > > > That solution would fail to allow us to attach nodes to individual lanes. This is just another hack to try and accomodate the existing framework and I think it's a bad idea to try and cram multiple values into a single keypair. We need a proper solution to do this properly, at some point OSM is going to need to move to more micro mapping, lanes isn't really a micro mapping issue, it's a subset of a way issue and we should treat it as such. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag lanes, not ways, was: Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 6:51 AM, John Smith wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Beach volleyball
Of course. I was just kidding, hence the ":)" emoticon.
I think that the tag
leisure = pitch
sport = volleyball
surface = sand
is enough to tag them.
Cheers,
2009/8/28 Matt Williams
> 2009/8/28 Arlindo Pereira :
> > Or not even limited to volleyball at all. Here in Rio de Janeiro it is
> very
> > common to play futevôlei ("footvolley", volley played with the foot, not
> > with the hand) in the volleyball pitches.
>
> Indeed. However, in most cases they *are* (beach) volleyball courts.
> That is that when a person looks at one, they think "that's a
> volleyball court" and not "that's some sand that I could play
> volleyball on but I could also play chess". Any local person could
> think, upon seeing a "beach volleyball court" on the map, "I could
> play futevôlei on that".
>
> I think this comes down to 'mapping what is on the ground', i.e. a
> volleyball court. That's not to say, however, that if the court
> really is appropriate for futevôlei then it shouldn't have some sort
> of extra tag to denote that.
>
> --
> Matt Williams
> http://milliams.com
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
--
Arlindo Saraiva Pereira Jr.
Bacharelando em Sistemas de Informação - UNIRIO - uniriotec.br
Consultor de Software Livre da Uniriotec Consultoria - uniriotec.com
Acadêmico: arlindo.pere...@uniriotec.br
Profissional: arlindo.pere...@uniriotec.com
Geral: cont...@arlindopereira.com
Tel.: +5521 92504072
Jabber/Google Talk: nig...@nighto.net
Skype: nighto_sumomo
Chave pública: BD065DEC
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
2009/8/29 Peteris Krisjanis : > IMHO highway=service leads to commercial non-residental entities and > subjects. Service roads also doesn't have strict restrictions like > living streets do. restrictions you can always model with access-tags. AFAIK service is used for all kind of entities, not only commercial. It is also for driveways, (private last metres to the garage and the like). There is even a special subtag service=driveway for this. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag lanes, not ways, was: Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:00 AM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/8/28 Peter Childs : > > A Way can have many lanes, Infact the default is lanes=2 (or is it?) > > > > oneway=yes infers lanes=1 > > Seems like a sane assumption. One with numerous counter-examples, then. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - conveyor
Proposal that suggests to use highway=conveyor for conveyors that transport persons, namely escalators and travelators (moving walkways). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conveyor ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag lanes, not ways, was: Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
I've had some more time to think about this, things should stay more or less how they are now, the only extension OSM DB wise would be an additional table storing lane information for ways. Also the existing API would only need a small extension to cope with this as well. This way nodes can apply to a way or just a specific lane, the same with tags, at least from an infrastructure point of view, all it needs then is editors to support it as well and renderers and so on. I'm not saying this is the best answer to the problem, but it's the best one I've been able to come up with so far. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
2009/8/29 John Smith : > 2009/8/29 Peteris Krisjanis : > >> Ok, maybe I haven't explained myself succesfully (English is not my >> first). It is more like street which goes trough yard (usually between >> big apartment houses). > > How does that differ from highway=service ? > IMHO highway=service leads to commercial non-residental entities and subjects. Service roads also doesn't have strict restrictions like living streets do. in my country's case, living street rules simply are equal with those for yard roads (it is what rule book says :)). So it is clear cut here. It could of course differ in any other country. Anyway, I offered it as example, that user's judgement, carefully vetted, is something we can depend on. Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
2009/8/29 Peteris Krisjanis : > Ok, maybe I haven't explained myself succesfully (English is not my > first). It is more like street which goes trough yard (usually between > big apartment houses). How does that differ from highway=service ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
> This definition seens certainly to be different from a "backstreet". The > tag living_street should not be used for cases where it is "just a small > backstreet in a residential area". There are other tags that could be used > for tagging those, e.g. width. > Ok, maybe I haven't explained myself succesfully (English is not my first). It is more like street which goes trough yard (usually between big apartment houses). P. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 09:32:27 +0100, "Mike Harris" wrote: >> However, after careful vetting, one of us found that law >> already says what I have suspected - backstreet streets are >> living streets by definition. > > > The law may say that in ?Poland? (apologies if I've guessed the wrong > Slavic language) - but I don't think it does in - for example - England. > Here, I have hardly ever - if ever - seen a 'living street' - at least as I > understand the wiki definition. I tend to use =residential for the > backstreets (assuming they have vehicular access). Am I wrong? Am I alone > in this? > Living streets are quite common in the Netherlands and some other countries and signposted specifically. They are residential streets where the maxspeed is very low (at least less then 30km/h). In some laws this is defined by a hard speedlimit e.g. 15km/h and in some other as a definition e.g. "walking pace". Additionally there are rules that say that e.g. pedestrians always have right of way over cars. This definition seens certainly to be different from a "backstreet". The tag living_street should not be used for cases where it is "just a small backstreet in a residential area". There are other tags that could be used for tagging those, e.g. width. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
2009/8/29 Mike Harris : > The law may say that in ?Poland? (apologies if I've guessed the wrong Slavic > language) - but I don't think it does in - for example - England. Here, I > have hardly ever - if ever - seen a 'living street' - at least as I > understand the wiki definition. I tend to use =residential for the > backstreets (assuming they have vehicular access). Am I wrong? Am I alone in > this? The only living streets I know were converted from a street to maxspeed=20 and pedestrians have right of way that's if cars are allowed any more. Three notable examples come to mind, they are Pitt Street and Martin Place in Sydney, and the Queen Street Mall in Brisbane: http://osm.org/go/u...@roooc9- http://osm.org/go/ued2...@6-- These are exceptions and usually rare, certainly not back streets as they are usually areas of very high pedestrian traffic. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
... Because in England locks almost always have unique (and often fascinating and historic) names that are nothing to do with the canal name. Mike Harris > -Original Message- > From: wynnd...@lavabit.com [mailto:wynnd...@lavabit.com] > Sent: 28 August 2009 13:07 > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock > > > On 27/08/09 12:13, Jack Stringer wrote: > > > >> lock=yes > >> lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock > > > > When you are tagging a way, you can't use name= because that will > > already contain the name of the canal. Hence lock_name=. > > > Why would you want to repeat the name of a canal on its > individual nodes? > Isnt that repeating the mistake of the TIGER node tags? > > > > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: Peteris Krisjanis [mailto:pec...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 28 August 2009 12:44
> To: Alex Mauer
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
>
> I second option that highway tag isn't used for physical purposes.
> Physical status of road *can* define it's importance (legal
> or subjective), and I think there is where disagreement is.
>
> More or less comon practice is to follow some kind of
> rules/laws when tagging roads. But it is also clear that it
> won't work for all 100%, there will be small perntage when
> road shall be tagged by user's judgement. What I think that
> user should have very clear guidelines how to act in scenario
> like that. For example, in my country there were discussions
> how to tag backstreet streets. I was thinking about
> living_street, but there were arguments, that "Living street"
> ("Dzīvojama zona" here) is legal term and there is special
> sign which indicates start or finish of such zone.
>
> However, after careful vetting, one of us found that law
> already says what I have suspected - backstreet streets are
> living streets by definition.
The law may say that in ?Poland? (apologies if I've guessed the wrong Slavic
language) - but I don't think it does in - for example - England. Here, I have
hardly ever - if ever - seen a 'living street' - at least as I understand the
wiki definition. I tend to use =residential for the backstreets (assuming they
have vehicular access). Am I wrong? Am I alone in this?
> So I think wiki must have clear rules how to act when
> highway's importance status is not known and trust people
> instincts - but in same time, user should investigate
> situation before doing so.
Agree with this - whether or not "importance" is the criterion!
> Cheers,
> Peteris.
>
> 2009/8/28 Alex Mauer :
> > On 08/28/2009 03:46 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> >> If dieterdriest has found a number of people who've been
> ignoring the
> >> definition,
> >
> > Nobody (that I know of) has been ignoring the definition.
> It's just
> > that the definitions didn't match the top-leveldescription.
> *None* of
> > the definitions of the highway values has ever described
> the physical
> > characteristics of the road, apart from motorway in a very
> limited sense.
> >
> > -Alex Mauer "hawke"
> >
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> mortigi tempo
> Pēteris Krišjānis
>
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
Gervase Thanks for the tip - I like the idea of using a relation here. Non-rendering is a downer (yes - I know - don't tag for the renderers) but sounds like some Good Samaritans have it in hand. If fully and universally implemented, this solution - which I feel is technically the right one - would create a huge number of new relations (a lot of bridges in the world!) - is this a problem anywhere in the software chain? Mike Harris > -Original Message- > From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv-gm...@gerv.net] > Sent: 28 August 2009 09:41 > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock > > On 27/08/09 14:27, Mike Harris wrote: > > On a related canal issue, I have a problem with deciding > how to tag a > > canal bridge as a segment of a way. The way will often already have > > name= and ref= tags as a highway; but I want to add a name= > and ref= > > tag for the canal bridge. Not keen on name_1 or ref_1 - any better > > ideas? I did wonder about adding a node in the middle of the bridge > > and then tagging this with the canal bridge information and > reserving > > the name and ref tags for the highway segment. > > The correct solution here is to use relations. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_ > and_Tunnels > > The relation should be as follows: > > type=bridge > across= > under= > ref= > > Optionally: > maxwidth= > maxheight= > name= > > However, no renderer yet shows this, although I've been > working with Steve Chilton for a while to get it done. > > Gerv > > > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
