Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging hazardous routes
Andy Street schrieb: I'd like to include these paths in OSM[1] as they do exist on the ground but would like to tag them in such a way that their use is discouraged (e.g. higher cost in routing, warning signs on walking maps). Has anyone mapped something similar we discussed in talk.de just recently something simmilar regarding Wattwege (ways in Mudflat). They change often and they are also somehow hazardous if you walk them at the wrong time (tidal). So this should be tagged. This is somehow simmilar to the problem mentioned above. But we are still searching for appropriate tags. Best regards, Michael. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging hazardous routes
When the A3 bypass[0] was constructed the route crossed several existing rights of way. Rather than building bridges or underpasses it appears that the planners struck on the novel idea of asking pedestrians to walk across four lanes of heavy traffic moving at 70-80 mph. I'd like to include these paths in OSM[1] as they do exist on the ground but would like to tag them in such a way that their use is discouraged (e.g. higher cost in routing, warning signs on walking maps). Has anyone mapped something similar? I know precisely where you mean, I tried mapping some of them on the East Hants party some 18 months ago. useless=yes? ;-) As an aside: it has to be said that this is a particularly annoying case as said paths formerly were part of a direct link from Petersfield to Butser Hill. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging hazardous routes
Andy Street schrieb: When the A3 bypass[0] was constructed the route crossed several existing rights of way. Rather than building bridges or underpasses it appears that the planners struck on the novel idea of asking pedestrians to walk across four lanes of heavy traffic moving at 70-80 mph. Not four lanes, two times two lanes ;-) http://www.osm.org/?lat=50.98727lon=-0.95844zoom=16layers=B000FTF Google Maps shows a way connecting the two footways: http://www.google.com/maps?ll=50.9874,-0.9588z=20 A crossing of this type outside UK I would say: Pedestrians are guided in this way, that they alway look against traffic. It is a highly recommended feature for security, used at every new tram crossing here in Karlsruhe/Germany. But this road is in UK... Does a continental engineer planned this road? ;-) Or does the old age insurance sponsored this crossing? ;-) I'd like to include these paths in OSM[1] as they do exist on the ground but would like to tag them in such a way that their use is discouraged (e.g. higher cost in routing, warning signs on walking maps). Has anyone mapped something similar? [0] http://www.osm.org/?lat=50.98727lon=-0.95844zoom=16layers=B000FTF [1] They have been added but currently do not connect. You should connect and add the way in the middle of the trunk and search something from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing or discuss a new value there ;-) Heiko Mueck Jacobs ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging hazardous routes
When the A3 bypass[0] was constructed the route crossed several existing rights of way. Rather than building bridges or underpasses it appears that the planners struck on the novel idea of asking pedestrians to walk across four lanes of heavy traffic moving at 70-80 mph. I've seen a number of places when driving where there are warning signs about pedestrians; since mapping I notice more things when driving and usually this corresponds with a footpath crossing the dual carriageway (I'm thinking A120/A12/A14 which is a route I've driven quite a bit). Usually the bit where they are to cross is evidenced by the crash barriers between the carriageways suddenly being two barriers with a gap between them, so effectively there is a footpath between the two barriers. I'd be tempted just to draw the ways on, stick maxspeed tags on the A3, and hope that whichever routing engine you have in mind can put a penalty on paths that cross roads with high maxspeeds and no light controlled crossing on the node(s). Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging hazardous routes
I'd be tempted just to draw the ways on, stick maxspeed tags on the A3, and hope that whichever routing engine you have in mind can put a penalty on paths that cross roads with high maxspeeds and no light controlled crossing on the node(s). I'm definitely new to the OSM scene, but this sounds like a reasonable solution. Couple it with dangerous:yes, hazardous:yes, (cursory looks on tagwatch and OSMdoc reveal neither of these are in much use) potentially_may_be_squashed_to_resemble_a_crepe:yes or something similar (though that last one is too specific). I think a potentially unsafe key would be good--whatever it is called--because it could also be used for unsafe hiking routes, river fords, logging roads, alleys in the bad part of town, all floodways, air strips, swimming holes, all bomb ranges, etc. search something from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing or discuss a new value there ;-) Having crossing=dangerous or similar would also work, but would be less universally usable (roads, paths, rivers and.. lava flows?) Just my 2ยข. -Tyler ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Tagging hazardous routes
When the A3 bypass[0] was constructed the route crossed several existing rights of way. Rather than building bridges or underpasses it appears that the planners struck on the novel idea of asking pedestrians to walk across four lanes of heavy traffic moving at 70-80 mph. I'd like to include these paths in OSM[1] as they do exist on the ground but would like to tag them in such a way that their use is discouraged (e.g. higher cost in routing, warning signs on walking maps). Has anyone mapped something similar? Cheers, Andy [0] http://www.osm.org/?lat=50.98727lon=-0.95844zoom=16layers=B000FTF [1] They have been added but currently do not connect. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
