Re: [OSM-talk] Best-practice-idea traffic_sign
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 01:07:08 +0200, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: 2. It says that the main use is for city_limit. Again, why not. But the other examples are very questionable : traffic_sign=maxspeed:30 or traffic_sign=DE:239 break some practices we had until now like key=value and not key=key:value or like key:country=value and not key=country:value. You can tag the sign as city_limit. It's a nice thing for rendering but be warned that it is completely useless for navigation. (For the later a polygon (e.g. place=*)describing where the city-limits are in all directions are needed as opposed to mapping the location of some signs on some roads that leave the city for various reasons.) Also keep in mind that there are 3 different city-limits. * where traffic is considered inside a build-up area (navigation) * where postal addresses contain to that city (searching) * where the outermost buildings end. (rendering) So, any comments about this Best-practice-idea process ? Is it possible to have a real discussion about the examples or is it too late ? It has been discussed at length before. Please consult the archive first. Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Best-practice-idea traffic_sign
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:08:28 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I know about others: maxspeedtype=ITA:city for example, or maxspeed=DE:walk I don't understand why key:country=value is different to key=country:value but I would like to learn about it. In that one case it's okay. Reason: * There can only be ONE maxspeed on a road. ever! * What is tagged here is not a given speed-limitation but the fact that the default maxspeed of the country of italy for roads inside cities applies. I don't know anyone who actually evaluates that yet but given the disastrous state of missing city-polygons it may help in speed/time based routing-metrics. However as opposed to city-polygons it does not act as a city-limit to make postal address-searches better. (So you could get a more realistic ETA but get swamped with way too many roads that may be the one you want to navigate when searching for your destination.) Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Best-practice-idea traffic_sign
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:36:10AM +0200, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 01:07:08 +0200, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: 2. It says that the main use is for city_limit. Again, why not. But the other examples are very questionable : traffic_sign=maxspeed:30 or traffic_sign=DE:239 break some practices we had until now like key=value and not key=key:value or like key:country=value and not key=country:value. You can tag the sign as city_limit. It's a nice thing for rendering but be warned that it is completely useless for navigation. (For the later a polygon (e.g. place=*)describing where the city-limits are in all directions are needed as opposed to mapping the location of some signs on some roads that leave the city for various reasons.) I started tagging the sign when i started with maxspeed as it sometimes help the orientation in the data when adding maxspeed. Also keep in mind that there are 3 different city-limits. * where traffic is considered inside a build-up area (navigation) * where postal addresses contain to that city (searching) * where the outermost buildings end. (rendering) administrative boundarys Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Best-practice-idea traffic_sign
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:36 AM, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote: It has been discussed at length before. Please consult the archive first. Did you check yourself the archive before submitting this comment ? I did and the only mention I found (searching traffic_sign) was inside another thread called Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path) which is not exactly the subject here. Perhaps it was discussed on the talk-de ML... Exactly. I haven't been involved in the discussion, I don't use it myself, and I find it strange to talk about a best-practice idea (because best practice comes from practice, not from ideas). Nevertheless, if there are people who think this is good and works for them - let them use it. Nice when people have ideas. The problem is that it is not publicly discussed or, at least, not on the main mailing list and the idea becomes a core recommended feature when it is moving to the Map Features (which is what is said on the top of the page). My main concerns about this tag is not the city_limit but - the country-code set into the value and not anymore on the key like the tag name - and the trend to use this tag to replace the restrictions set on the ways (see the discussions on Talk:Key:traffic sign and Talk:Proposed features/Traffic sign.) Also the wiki pages are not cleaned-up. We have now the main page saying please submit your comments on Talk:Proposed features/Traffic sign. Either we keep this tag as a proposal and remove the official wiki page Key:traffic sign or we adopt the tag, remove the Proposed features/Traffic sign and discuss on Talk:Key:traffic sign but please, stop juggle with a tag being approved and proposed at the same time on the wiki ! Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Best-practice-idea traffic_sign
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Florian Lohofff...@rfc822.org wrote: I started tagging the sign when i started with maxspeed as it sometimes help the orientation in the data when adding maxspeed. Could you explain what you mean by help the orientation in the data ? Do you mean that maxspeed set on the way is not enough ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Best-practice-idea traffic_sign
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Pieren wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Florian Lohofff...@rfc822.org wrote: I started tagging the sign when i started with maxspeed as it sometimes help the orientation in the data when adding maxspeed. Could you explain what you mean by help the orientation in the data ? Do you mean that maxspeed set on the way is not enough ? You add maxspeed later and know that the speed ends at the city boundarys its easy to tell where they are - split the way at the sign and put a city limit on the way within the city ... The city limit might continue beyond the sign but at least until the sign you can tell the speed limit. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Best-practice-idea traffic_sign
Hi, Pieren wrote: Today I saw for the first time on the area I'm contributing a tag called traffic_sign=city_limit. Then I went on the map features and discovered it. Huh, why not... Exactly. I haven't been involved in the discussion, I don't use it myself, and I find it strange to talk about a best-practice idea (because best practice comes from practice, not from ideas). Nevertheless, if there are people who think this is good and works for them - let them use it. So, any comments about this Best-practice-idea process? I don't think there is such a process. It's just a bunch of people who thought this was a good idea. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Best-practice-idea traffic_sign
2009/7/30 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: true it's going faster. Or I missed the announcement somewhere on a mailing-list... maybe it was just announced on the German ML, but I remember about it 2. It says that the main use is for city_limit. Again, why not. But the other examples are very questionable : traffic_sign=maxspeed:30 or traffic_sign=DE:239 break some practices we had until now like key=value and not key=key:value or like key:country=value and not key=country:value. Well, I know about others: maxspeedtype=ITA:city for example, or maxspeed=DE:walk I don't understand why key:country=value is different to key=country:value but I would like to learn about it. So, any comments about this Best-practice-idea process ? Is it possible to have a real discussion about the examples or is it too late ? it's never too late, and you can always discuss. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Best-practice-idea traffic_sign
--- On Wed, 29/7/09, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: the other examples are very questionable : traffic_sign=maxspeed:30 That does look questionable if for no other reason that maxspeed should be used consistently so routing doesn't have to look for 50 different tags or parse all tags looking for those with maxspeed in them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Best-practice-idea traffic_sign
--- On Wed, 29/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: To me, that looks like somebody is marking *the sign*, as opposed to marking *the maxspeed restriction*. Seems fine to me - because the sign does physically exist on the ground - but the restriction should also be mapped, using maxspeed=30. Have things reached the level that people have nothing but street signs to map as POIs? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Best-practice-idea traffic_sign
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 29/7/09, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: the other examples are very questionable : traffic_sign=maxspeed:30 That does look questionable if for no other reason that maxspeed should be used consistently so routing doesn't have to look for 50 different tags or parse all tags looking for those with maxspeed in them. To me, that looks like somebody is marking *the sign*, as opposed to marking *the maxspeed restriction*. Seems fine to me - because the sign does physically exist on the ground - but the restriction should also be mapped, using maxspeed=30. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Best-practice-idea traffic_sign
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:05 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: Have things reached the level that people have nothing but street signs to map as POIs? Hehe. I don't see why we should discourage a high level of detail. Users can decide for themselves what they want to contribute, as long as they annotate it correctly, which seems to be the case here IMHO. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
