[OSM-talk] RFC: render explicitly used oneway=no
oneway=no is the default in most cases, so it is rarely needed tag. But once it is mentioned explicitly, it should be rendered somehow, as the mapper probably wants to emphasize this fact. Proposal: Use - symbol wherever oneway=no is explicitly used. Alternate proposal: New tag render_oneway=yes or new value for oneway=no:visible. Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.07918lon=14.41608zoom=17layers=0B0FTFT Residential street Pstrossova consists of four segments (from up to down): - - - - Without proper rendering of a bi-dir arrow in the second segment, one will never guess, that the arrow from first and third arrow are invalid for the second segment and the whole area would become an unsolvable maze. oneway=no would be typically used in two cases: - One segment of one way street has traffic in both directions. - Overwriting the default for some types of way or relation. -- Stanislav Brabec http://www.penguin.cz/~utx ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC: render explicitly used oneway=no
2008/9/1 Stanislav Brabec [EMAIL PROTECTED]: oneway=no is the default in most cases, so it is rarely needed tag. But once it is mentioned explicitly, it should be rendered somehow, as the mapper probably wants to emphasize this fact. I sometimes tag in this way. The only case I can think of where I do it is that of motorway_link (or trunk_link, *_link), and in these cases, I think that a human map reader would usually infer the truth without requiring visual clues. My reasoning for the explicit tag in these cases is that some routing engines might consider that a link (which is usually a ramp) is usually one way, the same way roundabouts are supposed to be treated. So for my use, I don't see the need. But maybe there are other cases. Dermot -- -- Iren sind menschlich ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC: render explicitly used oneway=no
Stanislav Brabec wrote: oneway=no is the default in most cases, so it is rarely needed tag. But once it is mentioned explicitly, it should be rendered somehow, as the mapper probably wants to emphasize this fact. [...] I quite often use this tag, just because Mapnik has it in it's standard entries for roads and I just fill them because they are proposed. I would only render some arrows if the default behaviour of the street tagged oneway=no would be oneway=yes. That would make sense to me. Norbert smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC: render explicitly used oneway=no
Tordanik wrote: Alternate proposal: New tag render_oneway=yes or new value for oneway=no:visible. So it's plainly a rendering hint for a certain set of applications, right? Yes. Currently there is no way to specify, that the highway layout is very complex and the standard one arrow per defined distance may be confusing. See the link in the first mail for an example - one street has just only four segments, but each segment has a different oneway status (up, bi-dir, down, up). In Prague downtown there is a lot of streets that change oneway status in the middle or even reverse the direction in the middle (and one has to turn there). (Not for all of them, e.g. not for a renderer that uses colors to mark a oneway street. A renderer could also get most of these cases algorithmically. Actually, very hardly (find all objects connected to the same node, which either have the same name or they are continuing in an angle near to 180 degrees. If these objects have oneway tag and the part in question does not, then the part in question should be rendered with bi-dir arrow.). In future it may be simpler with Segmented tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Segmented_Tag ) I do not really like this sort of tags, but I'd at least suggest that you explicitly state that it is application specific by using a osmarender: or rendering: prefix or something similar for the key. OK. What aboutthe next proposal: rendering:oneway=yes Rendering hint: The way has complex layout. oneway tag needs precise rendering. For example: Render arrow in each path segment, render double arrow for segments with oneway=no. Stanislav Brabec http://www.penguin.cz/~utx ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC: render explicitly used oneway=no
Norbert Wenzel wrote: I quite often use this tag, just because Mapnik has it in it's standard entries for roads and I just fill them because they are proposed. I just saw the bullsh*t I wrote. I meant Merkaartor, not Mapnik. Shouldn't do three things at the same time I guess. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC: render explicitly used oneway=no
Norbert Wenzel wrote: I would only render some arrows if the default behaviour of the street tagged oneway=no would be oneway=yes. That would make sense to me. Yes, then my revised proposal - rendering:oneway=yes or rendering:complex_oneways=yes or something similar as a rendering hint to draw arrows for each segment would work better. Stanislav Brabec http://www.penguin.cz/~utx ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
