Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
2009/8/28 Norbert Hoffmann nhoffm...@spamfence.net: No, Roy wants to tag the semantics of the stop-sign. If this really simplifies the task of the data consumers, it's all the better. It seems the problem Roy is trying to solve is to seperate lanes out, of a dual direction way by use of a relation and pitting it against a near by junction, where this isn't the problem the needs to be solved, each lane may have individual restrictions of one sort or another, now instead of having 1 hacked up solution we now have 2, to describe how a stop sign effects one lane out of a pair. The problem that needs to be solved is tagging individual lanes on a way, regardless if the issue is a stop sign, different lanes have different speed limits, different lanes having turn restrictions or what ever the case may be, the problem is needing to tag individual lanes. We should not be tagging stop signs and junctions with a relation that doesn't solve the bigger issue. Stop signs stop you from entering a junction and are before the junction and that's how they should be tagged, however in this case traffic coming from the other direction and in the other lane isn't effected by any stop sign. If we could tag lanes instead of ways this would be a no brainer, just another speed bump of sorts, and in fact some speed bumps only effect one lane, and they can be in pairs but at different positions on a way and I bet they aren't being tagged properly either. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:18 PM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/28 Norbert Hoffmann nhoffm...@spamfence.net: No, Roy wants to tag the semantics of the stop-sign. If this really simplifies the task of the data consumers, it's all the better. It seems the problem Roy is trying to solve is to seperate lanes out, of a dual direction way by use of a relation and pitting it against a near by junction, Pretty much. Not necessarily by use of a relation (my suggestion above was a tag only). But yes - the concept of direction is necessary for a stop sign because, as I said before, stop signs are generally not double-sided. where this isn't the problem the needs to be solved, each lane may have individual restrictions of one sort or another, now instead of having 1 hacked up solution we now have 2, to describe how a stop sign effects one lane out of a pair. The problem that needs to be solved is tagging individual lanes on a way, regardless if the issue is a stop sign, different lanes have different speed limits, different lanes having turn restrictions or what ever the case may be, the problem is needing to tag individual lanes. We should not be tagging stop signs and junctions with a relation that doesn't solve the bigger issue. Stop signs stop you from entering a junction and are before the junction and that's how they should be tagged, however in this case traffic coming from the other direction and in the other lane isn't effected by any stop sign. If we could tag lanes instead of ways this would be a no brainer, just another speed bump of sorts, and in fact some speed bumps only effect one lane, and they can be in pairs but at different positions on a way and I bet they aren't being tagged properly either. So what are you proposing? How should we tag stop signs? To me, it seems you are suggesting that stop signs should *only* be tagged on ways that are oneway=yes. What are you proposing? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
2009/8/28 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: So what are you proposing? How should we tag stop signs? To me, it seems you are suggesting that stop signs should *only* be tagged on ways that are oneway=yes. What are you proposing? Nothing of the sort. We really don't seem to be on the same wave length at times. :) The real issue is the OSM DB and editors all treat all ways as always being symmetrical, real life however doesn't share the same simplicitic view of things. What we have now is when we tag a stop sign it has the implication of effecting both lanes and various suggestions put forth so far try to distingush this, but do so without addressing the real problem. We're taking pain killers to mask the pain rather than taking antibiotics to fix the underlying cause of the pain. Stop signs are a good example of this, as is needing to tag lanes with differing speed limits on motorways, as is tagging different clearences if bridges over ways slope, or lanes having different turning restrictions, and so on. What we need is a real solution to address all these problems which comes down to a fundemental problem of describing lanes, not ways. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
2009/8/28 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: This does bring up a few more combinations that are not currently covered. I've had a couple of runs over to Milton Keynes in the last couple of days, and GETTING into the correct lane even to go straight on can be a problem, with the outside lane of a pair forcing a right turn. Exactly, the problem is being able to tag lanes would solve a number of problems currently not solved. ( And I still think that complimenting highway=trunk with footway=? in this micromapping level makes more sense than additional highway=path for the pedestrian element of this ) A foot path attached to a road could just be another 'lane', but it needs to be tagged differently than the road part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
Hi Ideas? Comments? Flames? :-) I'll have to admit that I didn't read the proposal or any of the mails in this thread. However, I still have a comment: All I can think of when reading Key:stop is that I can't wait to finally see or use: stop=hammer time stop=in the name of love stop=collaborate and listen This is a motivation for me to update the osmdoc.com data more often. You may continue your discussion now. Lars ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
This brings up an interesting question, when you're finding the nearest junction to use for stop key on a node, what counts as a junction? It's going to be a node which belongs to the current way and at least one other way satisfying certain conditions, but what are those conditions? If we are to use the stop key, I think those conditions will need to be explicitly spelt out, so that you can process the data. It would have to be ANY junction, I think (the nearest node that belongs to more than one way, as you say). There should be as little dependence on other tags as possible. Otherwise - a maintenance nightmare... Note that by requiring a junction, you make it impossible to model stop signs don't involve a junction. I don't know how frequent these occur, but I can imagine cases where there is a sharp curve before which you're required to stop. And I believe there are roads near airports with low-flying plains crossing the road, thought these are usually regulated by traffic lights. (Just for the sake of completeness.) Regards, Marc -- Neu: GMX Doppel-FLAT mit Internet-Flatrate + Telefon-Flatrate für nur 19,99 Euro/mtl.!* http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
2009/8/27 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net: Note that by requiring a junction, you make it impossible to model stop signs don't involve a junction. I don't know how frequent these occur, but I can imagine cases where there is a sharp curve before which you're required to stop. And I believe there are roads near airports with low-flying plains crossing the road, thought these are usually regulated by traffic lights. (Just for the sake of completeness.) Un-lit, Level Crossings? While these are not common here in the UK except possibly on Farm Tracks and footpaths. I am sure they will appear a lot in countries without a well an advanced road system Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On 27/08/2009 09:37, Lars Francke wrote: Hi Ideas? Comments? Flames? :-) I'll have to admit that I didn't read the proposal or any of the mails in this thread. However, I still have a comment: All I can think of when reading Key:stop is that I can't wait to finally see or use: stop=hammer time stop=in the name of love stop=collaborate and listen This is a motivation for me to update the osmdoc.com data more often. You may continue your discussion now. How's about stop=war? There are quite a few stop signs around the world that have been modified in such a way. eg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OneWayStopWar.jpg Or why not just stop=worrying: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thisduckhere/2671360105/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Marc Schützschue...@gmx.net wrote: Note that by requiring a junction, you make it impossible to model stop signs don't involve a junction. Yeah, I was thinking about this too You could argue that a stop sign/requirement to stop should be modeled not by a way and a junction, nor by a node on a way and the nearest junction but by a *node on a way and a direction*. After all, stop signs are generally not double-sided. How about this...just tag a node (must be on a way) where the stop sign/line is in reality, with the following: stop:forward=yes, or stop:backward=yes, or stop=yes (for a node on a oneway=yes way, else implies the stop sign applies in both directions) Syntax negotiable, but you get the idea - the above was chosen to resemble some examples on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access. You might prefer highway:forward=stop, but I don't. Maybe this is a good compromise - it avoids the need for a relation, but also clearly and completely describes the effect of the stop sign. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
Disclaimer: I'm new to the OSM mailing lists, so hopefully I didn't screw up my email :D ~ I must say that I find both Relation:type=stop and Roy's ideas interesting. The former suggests that we abstract reality away while the latter suggests we mirror reality in OSM. Mirroring reality will always result in more precision, but there is often a tradeoff for simplicity. For instance, OSM maps multi-lane roads with a single way. Although mapping individual lanes would result in a map closer to reality, there are few benefits and the work required for mapping, rendering, and routing would be significant. Unless there are a number of benefits that arise from knowing the precice location of a stop sign it seems more reasonable to use relations for this job. They're slightly easier to map (no precision surveying required) and far easier to get software working with. The one downside I can see is that you loose the ability to know exactly WHERE a sign is -- information that I'm hard-pressed to think of a use for (not to say that there isn't a use, mind you). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
2009/8/28 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Marc Schützschue...@gmx.net wrote: Note that by requiring a junction, you make it impossible to model stop signs don't involve a junction. Yeah, I was thinking about this too You could argue that a stop sign/requirement to stop should be modeled not by a way and a junction, nor by a node on a way and the nearest junction but by a *node on a way and a direction*. After all, stop signs are generally not double-sided. How about this...just tag a node (must be on a way) where the stop sign/line is in reality, with the following: stop:forward=yes, or stop:backward=yes, or stop=yes (for a node on a oneway=yes way, else implies the stop sign applies in both directions) You are still trying to tag for routing software, or trying to compare a stop sign with a oneway segment, this really should be dealt with as a bigger issue of lanes rather than the hacks people seem to be coming up with. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
John Smith wrote: 2009/8/28 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: How about this...just tag a node (must be on a way) where the stop sign/line is in reality, with the following: stop:forward=yes, or stop:backward=yes, or stop=yes (for a node on a oneway=yes way, else implies the stop sign applies in both directions) +1 You are still trying to tag for routing software, or trying to compare a stop sign with a oneway segment, this really should be dealt with as a bigger issue of lanes rather than the hacks people seem to be coming up with. No, Roy wants to tag the semantics of the stop-sign. If this really simplifies the task of the data consumers, it's all the better. Norbert ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Only if the lanes are marked as separate ways, which they normally wouldn't be for a narrow road. They should be, anything other than lanes=2 should be tagged properly, lanes=2 is implied as that is the usual case for most roads. A single lane piece of way should be tagged lanes=1 and it usually coincides with layer=1,bridge=yes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On 26/08/2009, at 1:38 PM, John Smith wrote: I agree, we need more tags to describe the railway crossing's feature set, boom_gate=no, lights=no etc, however this is a special case for stop signs because they will exist either side of the junction and never applies to the railway line. Unlike junctions of road traffic which needs to be differentiated from the way. This brings up an interesting question, when you're finding the nearest junction to use for stop key on a node, what counts as a junction? It's going to be a node which belongs to the current way and at least one other way satisfying certain conditions, but what are those conditions? If we are to use the stop key, I think those conditions will need to be explicitly spelt out, so that you can process the data. One obvious possibility would be ways that have highway=* tags - should footway/cycleway/path crossing count as junctions? If we're going to automagically determine which junction the Stop applies to, why do we even need a new key with yes/both/-1 values? Surely we could just say that if the existing highway=stop tag is applied to a node belonging to a single way (and not an intersection, which has the current meaning), then the Stop applies to traffic on the current way approaching the closest junction. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On 26/08/2009, at 1:10 AM, Lester Caine wrote: I think the point here is that of being able to see easily what has been applied to the data. Nodes and ways are easy to see, but this extra data is probably not so obvious as you would not know that a node ON the way actually has extra data, or perhaps that some other relation is involved? This is starting to head in the territory where it depends on what editor you're using, or what tool you use to visualise the data. I'd argue that is your chosen tool doesn't tell you when something is a member of a relation, it should be fixed :) Using Potlatch, a node in a way belonging to a relation is just as easy to notice (blue outline) as a node in a way which is marked with tags (black fill). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: This brings up an interesting question, when you're finding the nearest junction to use for stop key on a node, what counts as a junction? It's going to be a node which belongs to the current way and at least one other way satisfying certain conditions, but what are those conditions? If we are to use the stop key, I think those conditions will need to be explicitly spelt out, so that you can process the data. Which is tagging for routing software, if you aren't supposed to tag for rendering software why should router software be different? Anything that needs to know which junction a stop sign applies to will know what junctions are what because they need to already for generating routing already. One obvious possibility would be ways that have highway=* tags - should footway/cycleway/path crossing count as junctions? These are usually before the junction, routing software usually should ignore these since cars can't go on foot paths, and cyclists/pedestrians have their own signage etc. If we're going to automagically determine which junction the Stop applies to, why do we even need a new key with yes/both/-1 values? Exactly. Surely we could just say that if the existing highway=stop tag is applied to a node belonging to a single way (and not an intersection, which has the current meaning), then the Stop applies to traffic on the current way approaching the closest junction. That's exactly what I've been saying :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:22 PM, James Livingstondoc...@mac.com wrote: On 26/08/2009, at 1:38 PM, John Smith wrote: This brings up an interesting question, when you're finding the nearest junction to use for stop key on a node, what counts as a junction? It's going to be a node which belongs to the current way and at least one other way satisfying certain conditions, but what are those conditions? If we are to use the stop key, I think those conditions will need to be explicitly spelt out, so that you can process the data. It would have to be ANY junction, I think (the nearest node that belongs to more than one way, as you say). There should be as little dependence on other tags as possible. Otherwise - a maintenance nightmare... If we're going to automagically determine which junction the Stop applies to, why do we even need a new key with yes/both/-1 values? Surely we could just say that if the existing highway=stop tag is applied to a node belonging to a single way (and not an intersection, which has the current meaning), then the Stop applies to traffic on the current way approaching the closest junction. I thought that was what we were talking about already. Remember there's three options. 1) your description above, which John seems to like 2) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stop 3) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:31 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 26/8/09, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: If we are to use the stop key, I think those conditions will need to be explicitly spelt out, so that you can process the data. Which is tagging for routing software, if you aren't supposed to tag for rendering software why should router software be different? I can't see why you keep bringing up tagging for routing software. We need to model the world. We need to define the meaning of the tags we use, *explicitly* (need I remind you of the path/footway/cycleway debacle?). That's all James is saying. A *side effect* is that it is able to be processed. Anything that needs to know which junction a stop sign applies to will know what junctions are what because they need to already for generating routing already. Knowing what junctions are what is not the same as knowing which junction a stop sign applies to. I don't see why you think this shouldn't be defined explicitly... Please let us know your definition, if you have one. You also seem to be saying that routing software should work out *for itself* which junction the stop sign applies to. I disagree - the mapper on the ground should be able to enter this information in the database. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Thu, 27/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: You also seem to be saying that routing software should work out *for itself* which junction the stop sign applies to. I disagree - the mapper on the ground should be able to enter this information in the database. Then we should add is_in tags to every node and every way and every relation to show what is where so software doesn't need to guess which boundary applies to which node, way, relation. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:15 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 27/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: You also seem to be saying that routing software should work out *for itself* which junction the stop sign applies to. I disagree - the mapper on the ground should be able to enter this information in the database. Then we should add is_in tags to every node and every way and every relation to show what is where so software doesn't need to guess which boundary applies to which node, way, relation. There are two important differences: 1) The meaning of a particular way or node is separate from the value of is_in. On the other hand, the meaning of a requirement to stop is NOT separate from knowledge of the junction to which it applies. 2) ANY kind of way/node could be marked with is_in. On the other hand, marking the junction to which a requirement to stop applies is only relevant to that particular requirement to stop. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Thu, 27/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: There are two important differences: 1) The meaning of a particular way or node is separate from the value of is_in. On the other hand, the meaning of a requirement to stop is NOT separate from knowledge of the junction to which it applies. I fail to see the difference, they are all distance based calculations. 2) ANY kind of way/node could be marked with is_in. On the other hand, marking the junction to which a requirement to stop applies is only relevant to that particular requirement to stop. And marking all nodes, ways and relations with is_in is relevant to where in the world that node, way or relation is, it's a non-nonsensical argument that just isn't true. Besides why should you care about needing this explicit information, if it's rendered you will see a sign, you will also see the nearest junction and your mind can put 2 and 2 together. A computer can do the exact same thing. This is why I keep saying this is tagging for software, you are explicitly tagging for software to know which junction the stop sign applies to, where as just like you it can see a junction and it can see a stop sign and it will know that the stop sign applies to that junction. So if we can't tag for rendering we aren't allowed to tag for routing software either. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:06 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: Besides why should you care about needing this explicit information, if it's rendered you will see a sign, you will also see the nearest junction and your mind can put 2 and 2 together. A computer can do the exact same thing. You're asking why should we tag things explicitly? Because we're building a database. A huge, complex database that's used by lots of different people and software all over the world. And as I've said before, fudging a solution always seems like a great idea at the time (e.g. oh, this'll do the job, it's easier, and it's good enough - why bother doing it properly/explicitly) - until it breaks due to unforeseen circumstances. This is why I keep saying this is tagging for software, you are explicitly tagging for software to know which junction the stop sign applies to, where as just like you it can see a junction and it can see a stop sign and it will know that the stop sign applies to that junction. So if we can't tag for rendering we aren't allowed to tag for routing software either. Please listen to me. A requirement to stop *intrinsically involves a way AND an intersection*. A requirement to stop **IS** an interaction between a way AND an intersection. This is why I would suggest using a relation. Not because a relation is easier for software, but because a relation describes the **nature** of the thing to be described. But hey, I'll go along with the majority in whatever's decided. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Thu, 27/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: You're asking why should we tag things explicitly? Because we're building a database. A huge, complex database that's used by lots of That's just a straw man argument, you keep building the same thing up again and again but it keeps blowing away the first sign of a logical argument. Besides, I asked you personally why you cared, why do you care, or how will it benefit you personally how a stop sign is marked? Unless you can answer that question logically without all the hand waving and implications about how there might be a problem, you really don't have a good argument. different people and software all over the world. And as I've said before, fudging a solution always seems like a great idea at the time (e.g. oh, this'll do the job, it's easier, and it's good enough - why bother doing it properly/explicitly) - until it breaks due to unforeseen circumstances. Utter hand waving and doom and gloom. I'm yet to see any situation that tagging roads properly, eg number of lanes, and tagging a single node will fail. Please provide a valid example of a situation where a proximity based searching will fail. Please listen to me. A requirement to stop *intrinsically No you listen to me and stop trying to envoke emotive arguments when you have no rational or logical ones to back your position. involves a way AND an intersection*. A requirement to stop **IS** an interaction between a way AND an intersection. This is why I would suggest using a relation. Not because a relation is easier for software, but because a relation describes the **nature** of the thing to be described. Utterly useless hand waving about doom and gloom, but absolutely no substance either. But hey, I'll go along with the majority in whatever's decided. Yet another straw man argument that has no basis in fact or logic because you seem to be siding with a vocal minority, the majority has never spoken on such issues. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:14 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 27/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Besides, I asked you personally why you cared, why do you care, or how will it benefit you personally how a stop sign is marked? My apologies, I misinterpreted your question why should you care about needing this explicit information. To answer your question, I do not care personally. It will not benefit me personally whatsoever how a stop sign is marked. I'm just trying to contribute to OSM into the long-term future. I'm yet to see any situation that tagging roads properly, eg number of lanes, and tagging a single node will fail. Please provide a valid example of a situation where a proximity based searching will fail. I cannot. I can only contribute some hand waving and warn of unforeseen circumstances, and advocate tagging things explicitly - if you don't see any value in that, feel free to ignore it. Don't forget - I actually think the method you're suggesting is not too bad. If using a proximity search, it will be necessary to clearly define nearest junction, though. And if a way travels through an intersection but has stop signs on both sides, it will need to be split and two stop nodes will need to be added. There may be issues like this that need sorting out that only arise when a full proposal is written up and/or it's in use. But no, I can't think of any fail examples right now. No you listen to me and stop trying to envoke emotive arguments when you have no rational or logical ones to back your position. Sorry if I've offended you. I believe I understand and respect your position but it appears I'm not stating mine clearly enough. Apologies. And feel free to ignore my input where you think it is irrational and/or illogical. Yet another straw man argument that has no basis in fact or logic because you seem to be siding with a vocal minority, the majority has never spoken on such issues. I'm not siding with anyone, just contributing my thoughts. I too look forward to hearing from everyone else :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Thu, 27/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: My apologies, I misinterpreted your question why should you care about needing this explicit information. To answer your question, I do not care personally. It will not benefit me personally whatsoever how a stop sign is marked. I'm just trying to contribute to OSM into the long-term future. Ok, so your goal is to contribute to OSM in a meaningful way, that's fair enough but lets not get emotive over an issue but look at the logical outcome from simplest to most complex and test if they fail at all to address the issue, we shouldn't just pick the most complex for the sake of it because it might be more extensible than a simpler answer, which is only useful if that extensibility is actually useful. I cannot. I can only contribute some hand waving and warn of I don't have a problem with playing devils advocate, but to conduct these things rationally and logically we need conditions to test against, if we can't find a test that fails than it's a valid solution. If using a proximity search, it will be necessary to clearly define nearest junction, though. And if a way travels through an intersection but has stop signs on both sides, it will need to be split and two stop nodes will need to be added. There may be issues like this that need sorting out that only arise when a full proposal is written up and/or it's in use. But no, I can't think of any fail examples right now. That's just it, there is no need to split the way, you just put a stop sign node either side of the junction, or on 3, 4 or more ways that intersect with applicable stop sign nodes. Any software needing to know junctions will already have this coded. Then it's just a case of applying a proximity search when it parses stop signs to know which junction a stop sign applies to. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I see what you mean, but the stop sign does NOT apply to just an intersection - it applies to a way(s) AND an intersection. This is because the applicability of the stop sign at an intersection might depend on your direction of approach. Yes, and you add the node on the way itself, so you know on which road it belongs to. To be more precise, an instersection like this: +-o--+ where + is an intersection o the node tagged with highway=stop doesn't require a relation or additional tags because software should be enough clever to understand that the stop belongs to the right intersection, not the left. In such case: +-o--+ where the intersection on which the stop sign belongs is not obvious, you add a relation linking the stop node and the intersection node. For someone interrested by the subject (I mean, someone who really needs stop signs information), he could setup an application reporting all stop signs present in the db that couldn't be linked to its intersection either because the node is not closed to an intersection or relation is missing. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I see what you mean, but the stop sign does NOT apply to just an intersection - it applies to a way(s) AND an intersection. This is because the applicability of the stop sign at an intersection might depend on your direction of approach. Yes, and you add the node on the way itself, so you know on which road it belongs to. You say the node when you mean a node somewhere near the node. I don't like your proposed solution. Nothing personal :) Perhaps others would like to state their preference from the following so we can narrow down the options?: 1) a relation with the node and the way as members, as in, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop) 2) the way tagged with indirect reference to the node (i.e. start or end node of way) - as in, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stop 3) an extra node tagged, placed on the way, near the intersection (Pieren's email) I prefer 1) for a number of reasons. IMHO, 2) and 3) are more or less attempts to mimic 1) in order to avoid using a relation. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote: You say the node when you mean a node somewhere near the node. near means where the sign is. I prefer 1) for a number of reasons. IMHO, 2) and 3) are more or less attempts to mimic 1) in order to avoid using a relation. I'm not againt relations when it is adding information. If I have a 100 meters way and a single stop sign node 5 meters before the intersection, It is just waste of time and resource to add a relation for something obvious. I have better things to do than helping lazy software developers. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Tue, 25/8/09, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not againt relations when it is adding information. If I have a 100 meters way and a single stop sign node 5 meters before the intersection, It is just waste of time and resource to add a relation for something obvious. I have better things to do than helping lazy software developers. This whole argument seems to be about tagging for routing software which is as bad as tagging for render. What's so bad about sticking a stop node 3-5m before the intersection, after all how many junctions have a stop sign after you pass through them? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:31 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: This whole argument seems to be about tagging for routing software which is as bad as tagging for render. What's so bad about sticking a stop node 3-5m before the intersection, after all how many junctions have a stop sign after you pass through them? That's exactly what I say. Stick the node where the real life stop sign is - nothing arbitrary here - then let software calculate the distances and find the nearest intersection. If and only if the nearest intersection is not easy to find (e.g. because the distance from the two intersections is the same or nearly the same), then add the relation. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:31 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: This whole argument seems to be about tagging for routing software which is as bad as tagging for render. What's so bad about sticking a stop node 3-5m before the intersection, after all how many junctions have a stop sign after you pass through them? This is not about tagging for routing software. To denote a requirement to stop, you need to mark the direction of approach, and the intersection. This is not a matter of opinion. You may argue that a node 3-5m before the intersection is the best approach and should be used to mark both of these things simultaneously, but I respectfully disagree. Pieren said I'm not against relations when it is adding information. I have a different stance - I am against using anything that isn't a relation when a relation is necessary. And a relation is necessary when a tag involves an inseparable interaction of ways/nodes, as in this case. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Tue, 25/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: This is not about tagging for routing software. Then what is it? I'll ask again, how many stop signs appear after you go through an intersection? In my experience the answer is none, so it's a simple calculation to establish which junction the stop sign is for. Plain and simple no relation needed and one simple node with one simple tag. I keep getting told to stop tagging for rendering software, well stop trying to tag for routing software. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I have a different stance - I am against using anything that isn't a relation when a relation is necessary. no problem with that. And a relation is necessary when a tag involves an inseparable interaction of ways/nodes, as in this case. First interaction is the coordinates/positions of these elements. We shouldn't create relations if the information can be deduced from the positions. We had a similar discussion about identifying all objects inside a polygon (tag is_in or a special relation). Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Tue, 25/8/09, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: Or we could just always use a relation, so that mapping and software don't have to check for two different things, when editing and processing data respectively. Or in other words, tagging for the routing software, this information can be dealt with in pre-processing. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On 25/08/2009, at 10:22 PM, John Smith wrote: --- On Tue, 25/8/09, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: Or we could just always use a relation, so that mapping and software don't have to check for two different things, when editing and processing data respectively. Or in other words, tagging for the routing software, this information can be dealt with in pre-processing. Sorry, I had a typo in that sentence - it should read so that mappers and software As well as software, it makes it easier for mappers who wouldn't have to check arbitrary nodes around a junction. I completely agree that tagging for renderers/routers/whatever is a bad idea, but I'm not certain this counts. You shouldn't tag things incorrectly to make it render properly, or make a tagging scheme worse to that some piece of software can avoid doing some work, but what is wrong with the tagging scheme making it easier to process if the scheme is otherwise just as good? Of course, whether it is just as good is pretty much what this argument is about. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote: 1) a relation with the node and the way as members, as in, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop) 2) the way tagged with indirect reference to the node (i.e. start or end node of way) - as in, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stop 3) an extra node tagged, placed on the way, near the intersection (Pieren's email) I prefer 1) for a number of reasons. IMHO, 2) and 3) are more or less attempts to mimic 1) in order to avoid using a relation. A small pic is better than a long speach. One example with one major street and six minor streets all having stops when intersecting with the major street: | ---+--- | ---+--- | ---+--- | 1) add 6 relations + minor streets split 2) add 6 different tags stop=yes/both/-1 + minor streets split 3) add 6 nodes on the minor streets themselves and closed to the intersections and all tagged with highway=stop All solutions are valid but 3) makes contributor's life easier. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:34:52 + (GMT) John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: I'll ask again, how many stop signs appear after you go through an intersection? I'm a little tired of reading about this, so I'm going to contribute my two cents: Almost every intersection I've seen has the stop sign *at* the intersection. Here, State law holds that you stop directly *at* a stop sign (usually there is a white line from one, but there doesn't have to be). This to me starts the intersection. If you want to micro-map the intersection, using a square way for the road and mapping all the stop signs and traffic signals, fine, but I don't think that kind of micro-mapping is possible at this time. Not trying to twist the proposals into something they don't cover, just trying to point out how absurd it is to map the stop signs that define the start of the intersections. Furthermore, how would you tag lights like http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2041/2234314943_bdcd95d800.jpg?v=0 ? Flashing red lights are the same (legally and for routers) as stop signs, and I have seen them in the middle of the road (like some traffic signals are). Using a relation is flexible enough for this. It is flexible enough to handle weird cases with multiple modes of transportation. It is flexible enough to allow one to map the stop sign (with a role=stop or something), if your locality doesn't have that right at the intersection. The biggest issue for me is that it is simpler, not only for routers but for editors. You gain nothing with the proposals raised compared to relations, except some avoidance of relations. With relations the tagging is much simpler, it makes sense intuitively when you come across it in the data, access and restrictions can be done, it scales much nicer when you have a large number of roads (okay, don't know how common that is for stop-sign-controlled intersections), and it is flexible enough to tag when there isn't a stop sign along the way (like the hanging flashing red light). -- Joseph Booker signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Tue, 25/8/09, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: Sorry, I had a typo in that sentence - it should read so that mappers and software As well as software, it makes it easier for mappers who wouldn't have to check arbitrary nodes around a junction. No, the easiest thing for mappers/contributors is a single node near the intersection tagged as highway=stop, going into relations for something as trivial as a stop sign isn't in the interest of mappers/contributors, it's in the interest of those making routing software. but what is wrong with the tagging scheme making it easier to process What is wrong is it makes things more difficult than it needs to be for mappers. if the scheme is otherwise just as good? Of course, whether it is just as good is pretty much what this argument is about. I'm yet to be swayed by the fact anything more than a node is needed to indicate a stop sign, the only benefit of which is to routing software, it won't effect how things are rendered, not will it benefit the contributors by making things more difficult. Have a look at the awful way someone came up with tagging speed cameras, I couldn't figure it out at the time so I ended up tagging speed cameras as a single node with highway=speed_camera. Why would making it harder or less obvious methods in tagging stop signs make people use them? Chances are they won't so all this talk about relations and splitting ways will be used by a minority, the majority will just keep doing what is easiest, which is a single node with a single tag. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Tue, 25/8/09, Joseph Booker j...@neoturbine.net wrote: Almost every intersection I've seen has the stop sign *at* the intersection. The intersection is the middle of the two or more ways intersecting, the stop sign is always before the intersection, not at the intersection. Here, State law holds that you stop directly *at* a stop sign (usually How many stop signs are in the middle of intersections? Not trying to twist the proposals into something they don't cover, just trying to point out how absurd it is to map the stop signs that define the start of the intersections. However in reality they do mark the start of the intersection, not the middle nor the end but the start. Furthermore, how would you tag lights like http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2041/2234314943_bdcd95d800.jpg?v=0 ? Flashing red lights are the same (legally and for routers) as stop signs, and I have seen them in the middle of the road (like some traffic signals are). The same way traffic lights are tagged already. intersection. The biggest issue for me is that it is simpler, not only for routers but for editors. How can mapping out a node not be simple? It is a lot simpler than mapping out a relation or splitting a way etc etc etc and the only thing that benefits from stop sign information is routing software, editors don't, mappers don't so making it more complicated than it needs to be everyone except routing software coders. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:06:19 +0200 Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote: 1) a relation with the node and the way as members, as in, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop) 2) the way tagged with indirect reference to the node (i.e. start or end node of way) - as in, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stop 3) an extra node tagged, placed on the way, near the intersection (Pieren's email) I prefer 1) for a number of reasons. IMHO, 2) and 3) are more or less attempts to mimic 1) in order to avoid using a relation. A small pic is better than a long speach. One example with one major street and six minor streets all having stops when intersecting with the major street: | ---+--- | ---+--- | ---+--- | 1) add 6 relations + minor streets split 2) add 6 different tags stop=yes/both/-1 + minor streets split 3) add 6 nodes on the minor streets themselves and closed to the intersections and all tagged with highway=stop All solutions are valid but 3) makes contributor's life easier. Pieren According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop , it seems like you would just have 3 relations. The first relation would include the node for the top intersection and the two streets with the stop signs. I didn't consider 3), but it doesn't seem right to have an approach that requires stop signs to be tagged separately from the intersection (see my other email). Somewhat off topic, but what about expanding the stop relation proposal to handle traffic signals, yield signs, and whatever else is appropriate? (with highway=stop or highway=traffic_signals allowed for nodes where all the ways coming in are restricted by the stop or lights). -- Joseph Booker signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
2009/8/25 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: How can mapping out a node not be simple? It is a lot simpler than mapping out a relation or splitting a way etc etc etc and the only thing that benefits from stop sign information is routing software, editors don't, mappers don't so making it more complicated than it needs to be everyone except routing software coders. How do relations make life simple for routing software. Surly its folly the way, if we meet a stop sign add slight pause and continue. A realtion is just another thing to look at, and handle. The only time I can see a relation actually helping is with stuff that is difficult to map like no left turn Mostly I just see a relation as a thing to use for long distance stuff. and hence I have never bothered with them yet. Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Joseph Bookerj...@neoturbine.net wrote: According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop , it seems like you would just have 3 relations. The first relation would include the node for the top intersection and the two streets with the stop signs. Yes, you are right, with the current proposal we needs only 3 relations and no split. The disadvantage is that you have to split if the stop is only on one side of the intersection. I also see that the proposal includes the case when all ways have a stop then you have one relation with the intersection node only. Why am I so stupid that I tag traffic_lights since years with the stupid single intersection node and missed a relation for that ;-) Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Joseph Booker j...@neoturbine.net wrote: It's not a normal traffic light. It is legally and practically treated the same as a stop sign. My state describes it as This sign is used at intersections when a stop sign alone is hard to see or where additional emphasis on the stop sign is needed. I would tag it as a stop sign, I only mention it as a legitimate case of a stop being in the middle of the intersection. The key bit as I see it, It's used in addition to, not instead of. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
Pieren wrote: A small pic is better than a long speach. One example with one major street and six minor streets all having stops when intersecting with the major street: Or three minor roads all crossing the same major one | ---+--- | ---+--- | ---+--- | 3) add 6 nodes on the minor streets themselves and closed to the intersections and all tagged with highway=stop Or highway=give_way, and there is no need to split each of the cross roads at the main road and convert the three cross ways into 6 roads which then need relations to link each pair back together again? All solutions are valid but 3) makes contributor's life easier. I think the point here is that of being able to see easily what has been applied to the data. Nodes and ways are easy to see, but this extra data is probably not so obvious as you would not know that a node ON the way actually has extra data, or perhaps that some other relation is involved? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:34 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Tue, 25/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: This is not about tagging for routing software. Then what is it? It's about choosing the most appropriate way to tag something that *intrinsically* involves both a way AND an intersection. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:06 PM, James Livingstondoc...@mac.com wrote: Or we could just always use a relation, so that [mappers] and software don't have to check for two different things, when editing and processing data respectively. Yup. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Pierenpier...@gmail.com wrote: First interaction is the coordinates/positions of these elements. We shouldn't create relations if the information can be deduced from the positions. We had a similar discussion about identifying all objects inside a polygon (tag is_in or a special relation). Hmm. For the is_in case, I can see that identifying objects inside a polygon is clear enough. I'm not sure that deducing the meaning of a node tagged with stop from the positions of the ways and nodes in the vicinity is equally clear. I know you disagree. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Joseph Bookerj...@neoturbine.net wrote: You gain nothing with the proposals raised compared to relations, except some avoidance of relations. With relations the tagging is much simpler, it makes sense intuitively when you come across it in the data... Exactly. A question for those who do not like the idea of using a relation for this - have you used relations previously? Have you tried out http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop ? Can we stop talking about whether we like using relations and start talking about whether a relation is the best way to model something that intrinsically involves a way AND an intersection? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:06 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: Have a look at the awful way someone came up with tagging speed cameras, I couldn't figure it out at the time so I ended up tagging speed cameras as a single node with highway=speed_camera. Why would making it harder or less obvious methods in tagging stop signs make people use them? What was your difficulty? I'd be happy to help if you like. When choosing how to model something, the primary goal IMO isn't to make people use it, it's to choose the best way to model it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Peter Childspchi...@bcs.org wrote: The only time I can see a relation actually helping is with stuff that is difficult to map like no left turn Do you realise why you need a relation for no left turn? It's because the restriction *intrinsically involves more than one way/node*. The alternative would be to *put a single node 3-5m before the intersection and tag it restriction=no_left_turn*. Which, of course, isn't the best way to model the restriction. And it isn't the best way to model a requirement to stop. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure that deducing the meaning of a node tagged with stop from the positions of the ways and nodes in the vicinity is equally clear. I know you disagree. Pre-processor finds a stop sign, looks for the nearest junction node which it would already know is a junction for routing purposes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:29 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure that deducing the meaning of a node tagged with stop from the positions of the ways and nodes in the vicinity is equally clear. I know you disagree. Pre-processor finds a stop sign, looks for the nearest junction node which it would already know is a junction for routing purposes. Not too bad when you put it like that. Thanks :) If this is written up as a proposal, I would prefer it worded like that (with reference to a *requirement to stop* at the *nearest junction node* when *approached from the way on which the node is placed*), rather than referring to stop signs. I still think it isn't best-practice, for the reasons I've already described, but I admit it is attractive if you really, really don't like relations (for some reason...). I wonder if you preferred a similar solution for turn restrictions (i.e. add an additional node to implicitly refer to the nearest junction), to avoid relations for those also? If not, why not? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I still think it isn't best-practice, for the reasons I've already described, but I admit it is attractive if you really, really don't like relations (for some reason...). It's not that I dislike relations, I think they're absolutely wonderful for somethings, like marking out long sections of motorways instead of individual ways. That said I just don't think it's the right tool in this case, ever tried to hammer in a nail with a screw driver, sure you can do it but it's not the best tool for that job. I wonder if you preferred a similar solution for turn restrictions (i.e. add an additional node to implicitly refer to the nearest junction), to avoid relations for those also? If not, why not? Possibly, but I haven't thought about it, nor have I tagged a turning restriction to this point in time, I have had to think about how to tag stop signs. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
2009/8/26 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:29 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Pre-processor finds a stop sign, looks for the nearest junction node which it would already know is a junction for routing purposes. Not too bad when you put it like that. Thanks :) If this is written up as a proposal, I would prefer it worded like that (with reference to a *requirement to stop* at the *nearest junction node* when *approached from the way on which the node is placed*), rather than referring to stop signs. What about railway crossings? I've seen railway crossings with no lights, gates or similar, just a stop sign. Usually way out in the middle of nowhere, so there may not be a routable junction for quite some distance, and even if there was, the sign doesn't apply to that junction anyway. Would a railway/road crossing count as a nearest node junction, or would it try and apply it to something else? Stephen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: What about railway crossings? I've seen railway crossings with no lights, gates or similar, just a stop sign. Usually way out in the middle of nowhere, so there may not be a routable junction for quite some distance, and even if there was, the sign doesn't apply to that junction anyway. Would a railway/road crossing count as a nearest node junction, or would it try and apply it to something else? I agree, we need more tags to describe the railway crossing's feature set, boom_gate=no, lights=no etc, however this is a special case for stop signs because they will exist either side of the junction and never applies to the railway line. Unlike junctions of road traffic which needs to be differentiated from the way. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: What about railway crossings? I've seen railway crossings with no lights, gates or similar, just a stop sign. Usually way out in the middle of nowhere, so there may not be a routable junction for quite some distance, and even if there was, the sign doesn't apply to that junction anyway. Would a railway/road crossing count as a nearest node junction, or would it try and apply it to something else? Good point. Also, how about a straight section of road that becomes narrow (single lane) in one section, and therefore has a stop (or give way) sign on one side of the narrow section. There's no junction at all in this case. This is the risk with using a fudge solution (i.e. implicitly referring to another node using proximity, rather than using a relation) - there could be other *unforeseen* cases that will break the fudge in future... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Good point. Also, how about a straight section of road that becomes narrow (single lane) in one section, and therefore has a stop (or give way) sign on one side of the narrow section. There's no junction at all in this case. Actually there is still a junction from when it goes from 2 lanes to 1 lane, and the (usually in .au) give way sign is before the junction of the 2 lanes into one. This is the risk with using a fudge solution (i.e. implicitly referring to another node using proximity, rather than using a relation) - there could be other *unforeseen* cases that will break the fudge in future... Neither of these cases need fudging, in the case of railway=level_crossing it's already in wide spread usage, as for 2 lanes to one this can still be done via proximity searches. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:32 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: Actually there is still a junction from when it goes from 2 lanes to 1 lane, and the (usually in .au) give way sign is before the junction of the 2 lanes into one. Only if the lanes are marked as separate ways, which they normally wouldn't be for a narrow road. Neither of these cases need fudging, in the case of railway=level_crossing it's already in wide spread usage, as for 2 lanes to one this can still be done via proximity searches. Look, if you insist that a proximity search is a better way to relate a way to a node, as opposed to a relation, I respectfully disagree. I've got nothing more to say :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:53:53 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote: On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in favour of using stop=yes/both/-1. First impression: the value of the tag is extremely ambiguous, and in no way self-explanatory. I don't like it at all. It has the same values as oneway=*. If you use Key:oneway, you know how to use Key:stop. 1) no, it doesn't (yes/both/-1 vs yes/no/-1) 2) the meaning of yes and -1 is different for oneway! (yes means forward as opposed to on the last node; -1 means in the reverse direction as opposed to on the first node) Seriously, stop=-1 is not self-explanatory! Even if the values of oneway matched up (which they don't), it still wouldn't make stop=-1 self-explanatory. Aren't we tagging what we see in the real world? I'm of the opposite opinion, we tag stop *signs* (horizontal or vertical signs), and we're trying to relate those signs to the junction they have effect on. If you want to put a stop *sign* on the map, use a separate node with traffic_sign=*. If you want to describe an attribute of the intersection of ways, it's quite alright to assign this attribute to the way/intersection itself, because it is indeed an attribute of the way/intersection. How about stop=at_last_node, stop=at_first_node and stop=at_first_and_last_node? More verbose, but a lot clearer than yes/-1/both. That can be done too. More concise: stop=first (-1) stop=last (yes) stop=both (both) Hrmm that is more concise, but I think less self-explanatory (remember that not everyone reads the wiki before editing). E.g. stop=both could be misunderstood to mean both directions, or both intersecting ways, etc. Also, need to clarify something...: Let's say way A is drawn from West to East, then at some point becomes (intersects with) way B, which continues to the East. And let's say East-bound travelers have to *stop* at the junction (for some reason), but West-bound travelers don't. This would be tagged as A being stop=at_last_node. Right? For West-bound travelers, at the instant they cross from B to A, this would imply that they should stop, because they're at the last_node of A. Which is not the case. In other words, it would seem to me that the proposal needs clarification in the form of something like: The stop=* tag is applied to a way to specify the node at which the stop sign applies. However, the stop sign only applies when the node is approached from the way that is tagged. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Mon, 24/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: stop=first (-1) stop=last (yes) stop=both (both) Hrmm that is more concise, but I think less self-explanatory (remember that not everyone reads the wiki before editing). E.g. stop=both could be misunderstood to mean both directions, or both intersecting ways, etc. What happens at T intersections where there is a stop sign on all ways, and cross intersection with 4 stop signs, the US version of a roundabout effectively. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:44 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: What happens at T intersections where there is a stop sign on all ways, and cross intersection with 4 stop signs, the US version of a roundabout effectively. The ways must be split so that they end (or begin) at the intersection. (This is required for most of the relation proposals anyway, IIRC.) Then, each way to which a stop sign applies should be tagged with stop=at_last_node (or stop=at_first_node). Seems simple enough. It's a pity that _last_ and/or _first must be specified, but that is the only way you get away with not making a relation - it encodes way and node information in a single tag. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Mon, 24/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: The ways must be split so that they end (or begin) at the intersection. (This is required for most of the relation proposals anyway, IIRC.) Then, each way to which a stop sign applies should be tagged with stop=at_last_node (or stop=at_first_node). Seems simple enough. It's a pity that _last_ and/or _first must be specified, but that is the only way you get away with not making a relation - it encodes way and node information in a single tag. I liked your suggestion of putting a node just before the intersection and tagging it, making relations and splitting ways sounds like something very convulted just for a stop sign so most people probably won't be bothered. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On 24/08/2009, at 8:53 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: I don't like this, because before is arbitrary. If the stop requirement applies to the intersection, I think it should be applied to the intersection itself (either directly or as a member of a relation). I agree that these kind of things should be related to the intersection or way, rather than an arbitrary node before the intersection. What happens when someone wants to reverse the direction of the way? Currently you need to check the tags on the way, in case one of them is direction-dependent - I don't want to have to start checking all the 'nearby' nodes in case one of them has a tag which is dependent on the direction of the way. Personally, I think that using a relation (and splitting the way if necessary) would be nicer than having to check a bunch of nodes in case one of them has an way-direction-sensitive tag on it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:22 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: I liked your suggestion of putting a node just before the intersection and tagging it, making relations and splitting ways sounds like something very convulted just for a stop sign so most people probably won't be bothered. It wasn't my suggestion. I don't like the idea of putting a node just before the intersection, because that is arbitrary. If we're tagging an attribute of the way, tag the way - if we're tagging an attribute of the intersection, tag the intersection. I don't know why you make the comment that making relations and splitting ways is convoluted. One of the main reasons for David's proposal here is to avoid the need for a relation. And splitting ways is already quite a common way to deal with these issues in OSM, is it not (e.g. turn restrictions)? As for whether people will be bothered to tag a way, well, I'm not sure. But I don't think mappers are generally lazy. Prone to misunderstanding and confusion, sure, but not lazy. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Mon, 24/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: It wasn't my suggestion. I don't like the idea of putting a node just before the intersection, because that is arbitrary. If we're tagging an attribute of the way, tag the way - if we're tagging an attribute of the intersection, tag the intersection. So tag it to the side the road where the GPS cords are then. I don't know why you make the comment that making relations and splitting ways is convoluted. One of the main reasons for David's proposal here is to avoid the need for a relation. And splitting ways is already quite a common way to deal with these issues in OSM, is it not (e.g. turn restrictions)? I didn't say that I agreed with that practice either. As for whether people will be bothered to tag a way, well, I'm not sure. But I don't think mappers are generally lazy. Prone to misunderstanding and confusion, sure, but not lazy. Some people aren't interested in the finer points of mapping, especially when you have a blank canvas. Going out of your way to map stop signs in a difficult way isn't high on the priority list when streets aren't mapped yet. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
John Smith wrote: --- On Mon, 24/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: The ways must be split so that they end (or begin) at the intersection. (This is required for most of the relation proposals anyway, IIRC.) Then, each way to which a stop sign applies should be tagged with stop=at_last_node (or stop=at_first_node). Seems simple enough. It's a pity that _last_ and/or _first must be specified, but that is the only way you get away with not making a relation - it encodes way and node information in a single tag. I liked your suggestion of putting a node just before the intersection and tagging it, making relations and splitting ways sounds like something very convulted just for a stop sign so most people probably won't be bothered. The exact problem here is that the 'STOP' requirement only relates to the junction with another road and is therefore not a tag of the way or the intersection, but rather information relating to approaching one from the other. Adding an extra node does make sense, but probably needs a 'relation' to the intersection as well? In any case the direction through this new node is the critical piece of information? Tagging ways would require that every section of a way is broken up. I'm thinking of some route around here that have several intersections along them, many but not all of which are compulsory stop along that single way. Simply adding nodes on the correct side of each intersection would be somewhat easier to implement, while currently these restrictions are not recorded. The information is only really needed for routing software, where the trip time will be affected by HAVING to slow to a stop for each of those junctions on a route, but in this case, the exact location is not critical, as in practice one physically stops short of the actual intersection anyway. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
--- On Mon, 24/8/09, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Adding an extra node does make sense, but probably needs a 'relation' to the intersection as well? In any case the direction through this new node is the critical piece of information? Tagging ways would require that every section of a way is broken up. I'm thinking of some route around here that have several intersections along them, many but not all of which are compulsory stop along that single way. Simply adding nodes on the correct side of each intersection would be somewhat easier to implement, while currently these restrictions are not recorded. I've seen a lot of talk about stop signs, but in Australia there is also give way signs, which can imped flow of traffic similar to stop signs. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:00:14 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote: On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:53:53 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote: On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in favour of using stop=yes/both/-1. First impression: the value of the tag is extremely ambiguous, and in no way self-explanatory. I don't like it at all. It has the same values as oneway=*. If you use Key:oneway, you know how to use Key:stop. 1) no, it doesn't (yes/both/-1 vs yes/no/-1) Fair enough. 2) the meaning of yes and -1 is different for oneway! (yes means forward as opposed to on the last node; -1 means in the reverse direction as opposed to on the first node) Think broader: yes might mean apply this in the same direction of the way, while -1 → opposite direction. However, I don't want to nitpick about this ;-) Seriously, stop=-1 is not self-explanatory! Even if the values of oneway matched up (which they don't), it still wouldn't make stop=-1 self-explanatory. Ok, fine. Aren't we tagging what we see in the real world? I'm of the opposite opinion, we tag stop *signs* (horizontal or vertical signs), and we're trying to relate those signs to the junction they have effect on. If you want to put a stop *sign* on the map, use a separate node with traffic_sign=*. If you want to describe an attribute of the intersection of ways, it's quite alright to assign this attribute to the way/intersection itself, because it is indeed an attribute of the way/intersection. Both things are related -- you shouldn't use Key:stop if there's no stop sign in the real world. How about stop=at_last_node, stop=at_first_node and stop=at_first_and_last_node? More verbose, but a lot clearer than yes/-1/both. That can be done too. More concise: stop=first (-1) stop=last (yes) stop=both (both) Hrmm that is more concise, but I think less self-explanatory (remember that not everyone reads the wiki before editing). Well, they must IMHO. The wiki explains the ontology of the tags we're using, and the wiki is the main regulamentation for tags. Otherwise we go wild, and everyone uses what she likes best. E.g. stop=both could be misunderstood to mean both directions, or both intersecting ways, etc. stop=both_sides? Propose something :-) Also, need to clarify something...: Let's say way A is drawn from West to East, then at some point becomes (intersects with) way B, which continues to the East. And let's say East-bound travelers have to *stop* at the junction (for some reason), but West-bound travelers don't. If I understood East-bound and West-bound correctly, you mean: http://imagebin.ca/view/bJWJB6.html ? This would be tagged as A being stop=at_last_node. Right? No, it would be stop=at_first_node (or whatever we decide it to be) assigned to the second segment of B. [1] For West-bound travelers, at the instant they cross from B to A, From the drawing I made above, B has no West-bound travelers. Maybe I misunderstood your description? this would imply that they should stop, because they're at the last_node of A. Which is not the case. In other words, it would seem to me that the proposal needs clarification in the form of something like: The stop=* tag is applied to a way to specify the node at which the stop sign applies. However, the stop sign only applies when the node is approached from the way that is tagged. [1] the use of first_node, first, -1, whatever, means that the stop applies to people coming from the opposite direction the way is drawn. This is basically what you're suggesting here, I suppose? Probably some drawing by you would be best! ;) Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: The exact problem here is that the 'STOP' requirement only relates to the junction with another road and is therefore not a tag of the way or the intersection, but rather information relating to approaching one from the other. That's right. There's two acceptable approaches to dealing with this: 1) use a relation to relate the way and intersection - for this, I see nothing wrong with http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop or 2) use a way and an implicit reference to a node to relate the way and intersection - this is what David is proposing here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stop The implicit reference to a node is in the form of at_first_node/at_last_node, etc. So IMHO David's proposal is a good way to avoid the use of a relation - if that is what people want. I personally don't mind relations as they're more explicit and not dependent on way direction. Either way, you have to split the way at the junction where the stop sign applies. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:23 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: I've seen a lot of talk about stop signs, but in Australia there is also give way signs, which can imped flow of traffic similar to stop signs. Replacing stop with give_way (or similar) should do the trick. The proposal could be extended to include this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:32:46 +0200, Renaud MICHEL wrote: Le lundi 24 août 2009 à 15:25, Lester Caine a écrit : Adding an extra node does make sense, but probably needs a 'relation' to the intersection as well? In any case the direction through this new node is the critical piece of information? Tagging ways would require that every section of a way is broken up. I'm thinking of some route around here that have several intersections along them, many but not all of which are compulsory stop along that single way. Simply adding nodes on the correct side of each intersection would be somewhat easier to implement, while currently these restrictions are not recorded. How about simply creating a relation with those two nodes? You have an intersection of two (or more) roads and when you come to that intersection from one particular road (in one particular direction) you have a stop. Then you add a node on that way before the intersection, then create a relation (let's say of type=stop, or any more self-explanatory value) where you have the stop node with role stop_from and the intersection with role stop_at. Sorry, this is useless. We could just use highway=stop and teach routing software that they're valid only if coming from a certain direction, decided on a distance-from-nearest-junction basis. This is what we're (I am, at least) trying to avoid: arbitrary placement of real-world nodes -- if we all had 1cm-resolution GPS units, then we would just use highway=stop. IMHO, YMMV. Such a scheme can be easily interpreted as: when you pass over a node highway=stop that is a member of a relation type=stop with role stop_from, then you must stop at the node of that relation that has the role stop_to. No, you must NOT. In this case, you would stop in the middle of the intersection. A stop signal instructs you to stop *before* the intersection. :) Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:54:00 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote: So IMHO David's proposal is a good way to avoid the use of a relation - if that is what people want. I personally don't mind relations as they're more explicit and not dependent on way direction. I don't mind relations either, I use lots of them -- just don't want to pollute the relations namespace where we could accomplish the same effect with a tag. Either way, I'm up to what the community decides/adopts :) David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:58 AM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote: Well, they must IMHO. The wiki explains the ontology of the tags we're using, and the wiki is the main regulamentation for tags. Otherwise we go wild, and everyone uses what she likes best. Yes, but STILL - tags should be self-explanatory. It would make life easier for everyone (even those that DO read the wiki). People will make less mistakes if tags are self-explanatory. Self-explanatory tags are also easier to memorise. I'm not suggesting at all that people shouldn't read the wiki. E.g. stop=both could be misunderstood to mean both directions, or both intersecting ways, etc. stop=both_sides? Propose something :-) I already did: stop=at_last_node stop=at_first_node stop=at_first_and_last_node This is, after all, *exactly* what you're trying to denote. If I understood East-bound and West-bound correctly, you mean: http://imagebin.ca/view/bJWJB6.html Unfortunately I can't access that image :( See mine: http://imagebin.org/60947 So for A, stop=at_last_node. We need to make clear that the green car doesn't have to stop when it crosses the last node of A. Hence, maybe something like The stop sign only applies when the node is approached from the way that is tagged. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:16:34 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:58 AM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, they must IMHO. The wiki explains the ontology of the tags we're
using, and the wiki is the main regulamentation for tags. Otherwise we go
wild, and everyone uses what she likes best.
Yes, but STILL - tags should be self-explanatory. It would make life
easier for everyone (even those that DO read the wiki). People will
make less mistakes if tags are self-explanatory. Self-explanatory tags
are also easier to memorise. I'm not suggesting at all that people
shouldn't read the wiki.
Ok, I misunderstood you, sorry :)
E.g. stop=both could be misunderstood to mean both directions, or both
intersecting ways, etc.
stop=both_sides? Propose something :-)
I already did:
stop=at_last_node
stop=at_first_node
stop=at_first_and_last_node
This is, after all, *exactly* what you're trying to denote.
Yes, I don't particularly like the wording but, hey, I can't get everything
from life! ;)
If I understood East-bound and West-bound correctly, you mean:
http://imagebin.ca/view/bJWJB6.html
Unfortunately I can't access that image :( See mine: http://imagebin.org/60947
So for A, stop=at_last_node. We need to make clear that the green car
doesn't have to stop when it crosses the last node of A. Hence, maybe
something like The stop sign only applies when the node is approached
from the way that is tagged.
Ok, great, that's exactly what I understood from your last mail.
Yes, the stop sign only applies (with respect to the value
at_{last,first}_node) when it is approached from its own way.
In particular, the value at_first_node (in my/Stemby's proposal, -1), should
be used when the way is oneway=no [1], but for any reason we don't want to
change its direction (i.e. R in josm) -- the stop applies to the junction
which the first node of the way takes part to.
Hope this is clearer.
Still, like I said, I don't like the particular wording, I bet we can still
find something better. Sure your wording is much more self-explainatory than
mine.
Kindly,
David
[1] this is obvious -- having stop=at_first_node/stop=-1 in a oneway=yes way
would grant a maplint error (I'd put it even in JOSM's validator plugin)
--
. ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
People, please *don't* CC me. I'm subscribed to the list. On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:02:30 +0200, Pieren wrote: Tagging a whole way just because you have to stop at the end is a deep modeling mistake. Please, explain why. There is no similarity between the oneway which applies to the way with a stop sign which applies to an intersection. I didn't say it is in similar to oneway. In some previous mail I explained it had the same tagging values as oneway (which seems like we're changing now), and in my last mail I explained one possible usecase which is totally *wrong* and should be detected. Anyway, I haven't thanked you yet for moving the page under Proposed_features/ :) →→ Thank you! Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Pierenpier...@gmail.com wrote: Tagging a whole way just because you have to stop at the end is a deep modeling mistake. There is no similarity between the oneway which applies to the way with a stop sign which applies to an intersection. I see what you mean, but the stop sign does NOT apply to just an intersection - it applies to a way(s) AND an intersection. This is because the applicability of the stop sign at an intersection might depend on your direction of approach. Hence the need to either 1) tag both the way and intersection explicitly (with a relation) or 2) tag the way explictly and intersection implicity (using at_*_node). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
Hello, I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in favour of using stop=yes/both/-1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stop Unfortunately, when the page was first created, it was mistakenly put directly under the root namespace, instead of Proposed_features/. Before moving it and starting the usual Voting period, I'd like to trigger discussion here -- maybe it's ok for everyone and we can keep it where it is now ;-) The rationale for this is: there are different usages of highway=stop, and none of them are correct. The first usage is putting highway=stop in the node where ways intersect: this is not right, since that intersection represents (more-or-less) the center of the junction, and I've never seen a stop sign in the middle of a junction ;-) Consequent to this, I previously adopted the habit to put a highway=stop node *before* the junction, on a separate node (on the same way, obviously), for each of the streets having it. I believe this is a bit complicated for routing services -- let me give an example. Imagine we have Foo Road intersecting Bar Avenue -- and Foo Road has stops on both sides of the junction, on separate nodes. This is what routing softwares (I believe) will say: Go straight on Foo Road, then stop, continue on Foo Road, then pass the junction with Bar Avenue, go on Foo Road, stop, continue on Foo Road This is obviously wrong. Yes, we could link those stops with the junction in a relation -- but adopting a proper Key:stop stop seems *much* cleaner to me. Also, TagWatch shows some usage of this tag in Europe: http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Europe/En/keystats_stop.html (not commits by me, I found this yesterday :-) -- I'm hijacking this proposal due to lack of time of the original maintainer) Ideas? Comments? Flames? :-) Please also tell me if I need to move the page into a proper template under Proposed_features. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote: The first usage is putting highway=stop in the node where ways intersect: this is not right, since that intersection represents (more-or-less) the center of the junction, and I've never seen a stop sign in the middle of a junction ;-) They are countries where intersections have a stop sign to all ways. The sign is maybe not in the middle of the junction but the rule applies for all ways and I would say tagging the intersection node in this particular case is correct. It's not because you didn't see one of them to say it is incorrect usage. Imagine we have Foo Road intersecting Bar Avenue -- and Foo Road has stops on both sides of the junction, on separate nodes. This is what routing softwares (I believe) will say: Go straight on Foo Road, then stop, continue on Foo Road, then pass the junction with Bar Avenue, go on Foo Road, stop, continue on Foo Road This is obviously wrong. In your case, it's more a bug in the software that is not able to interpret the topology of the intersection. If the stop nodes are very closed to the intersection, it's easy to find out on which intersection the rule applies. In special cases or complex intersections, I would rather create a relation as it is already proposed on the wiki. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
[...] This is obviously wrong. Yes, we could link those stops with the junction in a relation -- but adopting a proper Key:stop stop seems *much* cleaner to me. [...] Yes, the highway=stop is not a good solution. However, I prefer the suggested relation instead. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop Konrad ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:46:35 +0200, Pieren wrote: On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote: The first usage is putting highway=stop in the node where ways intersect: this is not right, since that intersection represents (more-or-less) the center of the junction, and I've never seen a stop sign in the middle of a junction ;-) They are countries where intersections have a stop sign to all ways. Then just add stop=yes to all ways (or stop=both, or -1, whatever applies). However, I can't understand how a stop sign to all ways is in any way different from no sign at any way. Could you please explain this? The sign is maybe not in the middle of the junction but the rule applies for all ways and I would say tagging the intersection node in this particular case is correct. It's not because you didn't see one of them to say it is incorrect usage. Sure, but then highway=stop would only be useful in these kind of junctions! (and I've seen none yet) Imagine we have Foo Road intersecting Bar Avenue -- and Foo Road has stops on both sides of the junction, on separate nodes. This is what routing softwares (I believe) will say: Go straight on Foo Road, then stop, continue on Foo Road, then pass the junction with Bar Avenue, go on Foo Road, stop, continue on Foo Road This is obviously wrong. In your case, it's more a bug in the software that is not able to interpret the topology of the intersection. Fair enough. If the stop nodes are very closed to the intersection, it's easy to find out on which intersection the rule applies. How much close do you put the node to the intersection? That's arbitrary -- and I don't personally like that much :-) In special cases or complex intersections, I would rather create a relation as it is already proposed on the wiki. Still I believe a tag for involved ways would be much better than any kind of relation. Since junctions are composed of streets, tagging the streets on which you read a stop sign with stop=* doesn't add much complexity. Sure, it would then be software's duty to understand the tag. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:27:42 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote: David Paleino wrote: I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in favour of using stop=yes/both/-1. How about adding forward/backward information to each stop sign node instead? Would depend on way direction, of course, but as the stop nodes would be placed on single ways rather than intersections, it would be possible. Is there a reason why you didn't choose this approach? Read my reply to Pieren: how close you put the stop sign to the effective junction is pretty arbitrary, that's why I'm trying to abandon my established way of mapping those. Thanks for your reply, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:17:02 +0200, Konrad Skeri wrote: [...] This is obviously wrong. Yes, we could link those stops with the junction in a relation -- but adopting a proper Key:stop stop seems *much* cleaner to me. [...] Yes, the highway=stop is not a good solution. However, I prefer the suggested relation instead. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop I've read the both the wiki and the talk page, and saw no gain over simple tagging, while still adding the burden of maintaining yet-another-relation-type. The talk page also features a comment by Eimai, Easier method?, which is basically the same as Key:stop. As I wrote there, I still see no difference when talking about the right_of_way of the crossing road. Also, according to Tagwatch, it's less used than Key:stop. But since we're discussing it, I'm open to any comment :-) Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On 23/08/2009 15:45, David Paleino wrote: On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:27:42 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote: David Paleino wrote: I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in favour of using stop=yes/both/-1. How about adding forward/backward information to each stop sign node instead? Would depend on way direction, of course, but as the stop nodes would be placed on single ways rather than intersections, it would be possible. Is there a reason why you didn't choose this approach? Read my reply to Pieren: how close you put the stop sign to the effective junction is pretty arbitrary, that's why I'm trying to abandon my established way of mapping those. Why not place the stop sign node where the stop line / stop sign is physically located? Nothing arbitrary about that. You can measure the distance from the stop line to the centre of the junction of you want. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:58:36 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote: On 23/08/2009 15:45, David Paleino wrote: On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:27:42 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote: David Paleino wrote: I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in favour of using stop=yes/both/-1. How about adding forward/backward information to each stop sign node instead? Would depend on way direction, of course, but as the stop nodes would be placed on single ways rather than intersections, it would be possible. Is there a reason why you didn't choose this approach? Read my reply to Pieren: how close you put the stop sign to the effective junction is pretty arbitrary, that's why I'm trying to abandon my established way of mapping those. Why not place the stop sign node where the stop line / stop sign is physically located? Nothing arbitrary about that. You can measure the distance from the stop line to the centre of the junction of you want. You'd still need some kind of relationship for that to be effective (i.e. to relate the highway=stop to the junction node) -- and AFAICT typical consumer GPS units aren't that precise. (btw, that's what I've done until now, taking waypoints where stop signs/lines physically were) David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On 23/08/2009 17:15, David Paleino wrote: On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:58:36 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote: On 23/08/2009 15:45, David Paleino wrote: Read my reply to Pieren: how close you put the stop sign to the effective junction is pretty arbitrary, that's why I'm trying to abandon my established way of mapping those. Why not place the stop sign node where the stop line / stop sign is physically located? Nothing arbitrary about that. You can measure the distance from the stop line to the centre of the junction of you want. You'd still need some kind of relationship for that to be effective (i.e. to relate the highway=stop to the junction node) -- and AFAICT typical consumer GPS units aren't that precise. Why is it necessary to relate the highway=stop to the junction node? Isn't it obvious that if a highway=stop is within a few metres of a junction, then its part of the same junction. It shouldn't affect routing software etc anyway. And it doesn't have to be very precise. Its easy to estimate the width of a road, and how far away from the road edge the stop line is. (and on a related note, is there any of mapping advanced stop lines (for cyclists etc)?) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:48:58 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote: On 23/08/2009 17:15, David Paleino wrote: On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:58:36 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote: Why not place the stop sign node where the stop line / stop sign is physically located? Nothing arbitrary about that. You can measure the distance from the stop line to the centre of the junction of you want. You'd still need some kind of relationship for that to be effective (i.e. to relate the highway=stop to the junction node) -- and AFAICT typical consumer GPS units aren't that precise. Why is it necessary to relate the highway=stop to the junction node? Isn't it obvious that if a highway=stop is within a few metres of a junction, then its part of the same junction. It shouldn't affect routing software etc anyway. Well, one thing I could think of is short roads ~10m long or so. I've seen quite of these, but fortunately none of them had a stop sign -- with the current GPS accuracy (3m for my unit, at least nominally) it would've been a problem taking a waypoint for a stop sign placed there. Am I totally wrong/biased? :-) (just out of curiosity: I've also seen roads 4-5m long) And it doesn't have to be very precise. Its easy to estimate the width of a road, and how far away from the road edge the stop line is. If we were to use highway=stop, it should be *on* the way (part of it), not on one side. (and on a related note, is there any of mapping advanced stop lines (for cyclists etc)?) I believe not, but we could easily adapt highway=stop for this. Still, if we deprecate it, we should think at something else :-) Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On 23/08/2009 18:09, David Paleino wrote: On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:48:58 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote: Why is it necessary to relate the highway=stop to the junction node? Isn't it obvious that if a highway=stop is within a few metres of a junction, then its part of the same junction. It shouldn't affect routing software etc anyway. Well, one thing I could think of is short roads ~10m long or so. I've seen quite of these, but fortunately none of them had a stop sign -- with the current GPS accuracy (3m for my unit, at least nominally) it would've been a problem taking a waypoint for a stop sign placed there. Am I totally wrong/biased? :-) (just out of curiosity: I've also seen roads 4-5m long) I think for things like this, the relative position is more important than the absolute accuracy. eg its more useful to know the stop sign is 5m away from the centre of the junction in this direction, than it is to know the its exact latitude and longitude. So instead of just marking a waypoint, you can measure/estimate the relative distances on the ground, and note them down. Or what I usually do is just take a photo (and geotag it), then I can estimate the distances from that later. And it doesn't have to be very precise. Its easy to estimate the width of a road, and how far away from the road edge the stop line is. If we were to use highway=stop, it should be *on* the way (part of it), not on one side. Sorry, I meant how far away from the edge of the 'other' road, ie the one going across the junction. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in favour of using stop=yes/both/-1. First impression: the value of the tag is extremely ambiguous, and in no way self-explanatory. I don't like it at all. The first usage is putting highway=stop in the node where ways intersect: this is not right, since that intersection represents (more-or-less) the center of the junction, and I've never seen a stop sign in the middle of a junction ;-) I don't see a problem with this. As far as I'm concerned, highway=stop does not represent a particular stop *sign*, but rather the effect of the stop sign - i.e. the fact that vehicles must stop before proceeding through the intersecting node. Consequent to this, I previously adopted the habit to put a highway=stop node *before* the junction, on a separate node (on the same way, obviously), for each of the streets having it. I don't like this, because before is arbitrary. If the stop requirement applies to the intersection, I think it should be applied to the intersection itself (either directly or as a member of a relation). Overall, I admire the attempt to avoid having a use a relation - but to convince me, the meaning of the tag must be self-explanatory. How about stop=at_last_node, stop=at_first_node and stop=at_first_and_last_node? More verbose, but a lot clearer than yes/-1/both. Also, I would remove the references to stop signs - replace with references to the requirement to stop - this is, after all, the characteristic of the way that is being tagged, not the fact that there is a sign near the way. In Australia, for example, I believe a stop line (solid white line) has the same legal effect as a stop sign. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:53:53 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote: On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in favour of using stop=yes/both/-1. First impression: the value of the tag is extremely ambiguous, and in no way self-explanatory. I don't like it at all. It has the same values as oneway=*. If you use Key:oneway, you know how to use Key:stop. The first usage is putting highway=stop in the node where ways intersect: this is not right, since that intersection represents (more-or-less) the center of the junction, and I've never seen a stop sign in the middle of a junction ;-) I don't see a problem with this. As far as I'm concerned, highway=stop does not represent a particular stop *sign*, but rather the effect of the stop sign - i.e. the fact that vehicles must stop before proceeding through the intersecting node. Aren't we tagging what we see in the real world? I'm of the opposite opinion, we tag stop *signs* (horizontal or vertical signs), and we're trying to relate those signs to the junction they have effect on. [..] Overall, I admire the attempt to avoid having a use a relation - but to convince me, the meaning of the tag must be self-explanatory. Read above :-) How about stop=at_last_node, stop=at_first_node and stop=at_first_and_last_node? More verbose, but a lot clearer than yes/-1/both. That can be done too. More concise: stop=first (-1) stop=last (yes) stop=both (both) Also, I would remove the references to stop signs - replace with references to the requirement to stop - this is, after all, the characteristic of the way that is being tagged, not the fact that there is a sign near the way. ACK. In Australia, for example, I believe a stop line (solid white line) has the same legal effect as a stop sign. That's in Italy too. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
