Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
Vikas Yadav schrieb: > I made this icon for JOSM. > My not an artist. > This is the top with walls on both sides. Hi Vidas! I'm not an artist as well. Anyway, I've took your icon as an inspiration (your icon looked blurred when scaled down to 16*16 pixels) and added a similar one to the JOSM display. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Therefore I would explicitly recommend that the way starts at the > turn-stile following the direction of passing through it, as you will > never turn back once passed, while you might always turn back before > you pass it. You can add this to the wiki as a recommendation if you want. Of course, this would require that barrier=turnstile was properly documented in the first place. Apparently, it still isn't. (It's mentioned on Key:barrier, but is not part of the table and doesn't have an own page either.) Does anyone object to adding it? Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
2009/8/11 Tobias Knerr : > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>> This can be applied to any way as long as that way needs to be used when >>> passing the stile. The stile should be a node on that way, but whether >>> it is the first/last node or any node inbetween doesn't matter at all. >> >> I see this differently as the restriction does not apply to the whole >> footway but just to the part crossing the style. If the footway is >> some kilometres in length, why would you want to map it as oneway for >> all this part? > > I wouldn't, I originally thought about adding something along the lines > of "of course, that way shouldn't be kilometres long", but thought it > was obvious anyway... > > In most situations reality will provide a way section with a length of a > few meters whose only purpose is to go through the stile, so there will > be a "natural" way to use for this. Otherwise, people will probably be > intelligent enough to just split it. > >> IMHO you have to split the way after ~50cm after the >> stile (width of the stile) and not to start before your inside the >> stile (otherwise you will get "trapped" inside a normal footway (for >> routers) not beeing able to return if e.g. the stile is closed. > > I don't think that this "trapping" situation is relevant in realistic > cases (i.e. a few metres of way tagged like that) - it will even be > below GPS accuracy. when talking about how to tag a feature I wouldn't make too many assumptions on GPS-accuracy and other practical issues. This is about how to represent the situation in an adequate manner. Why not use the best solution, if you are all free (there is no in-use tags for this until now)? Actually I don't want a tag that works "in most situations", but one that works best at least in "all currently imaginable situations". Therefore I would explicitly recommend that the way starts at the turn-stile following the direction of passing through it, as you will never turn back once passed, while you might always turn back before you pass it. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> This can be applied to any way as long as that way needs to be used when >> passing the stile. The stile should be a node on that way, but whether >> it is the first/last node or any node inbetween doesn't matter at all. > > I see this differently as the restriction does not apply to the whole > footway but just to the part crossing the style. If the footway is > some kilometres in length, why would you want to map it as oneway for > all this part? I wouldn't, I originally thought about adding something along the lines of "of course, that way shouldn't be kilometres long", but thought it was obvious anyway... In most situations reality will provide a way section with a length of a few meters whose only purpose is to go through the stile, so there will be a "natural" way to use for this. Otherwise, people will probably be intelligent enough to just split it. > IMHO you have to split the way after ~50cm after the > stile (width of the stile) and not to start before your inside the > stile (otherwise you will get "trapped" inside a normal footway (for > routers) not beeing able to return if e.g. the stile is closed. I don't think that this "trapping" situation is relevant in realistic cases (i.e. a few metres of way tagged like that) - it will even be below GPS accuracy. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
2009/8/11 Tobias Knerr : > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>> I'd therefore use something like foot[backward]=no (or whatever syntax >>> for conditional tagging is your personal favourite) on that footway >>> leading through the turnstile. >> >> does this imply to split the way on the stile? Do you split it on >> either side? > > This can be applied to any way as long as that way needs to be used when > passing the stile. The stile should be a node on that way, but whether > it is the first/last node or any node inbetween doesn't matter at all. I see this differently as the restriction does not apply to the whole footway but just to the part crossing the style. If the footway is some kilometres in length, why would you want to map it as oneway for all this part? IMHO you have to split the way after ~50cm after the stile (width of the stile) and not to start before your inside the stile (otherwise you will get "trapped" inside a normal footway (for routers) not beeing able to return if e.g. the stile is closed. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
On 11 Aug 2009, at 18:01, Tobias Knerr wrote: Shaun McDonald wrote: oneway=yes isn't a good idea, as oneway is generally assumed to / not/ affect pedestrians. (Or how many of you actually add an exception for pedestrians when mapping a highway with oneway=yes?) The exception being highways that are for pedestrians, i.e. footway and pedestrian. That exception isn't documented anywhere, really rare and as such unlikely to be included with all applications. It might make sense to you as a human, but what's the general rule that would describe the desired behaviour? For example: Would oneway apply to pedestrians if used on highway=path? Would this depend on the access tags used together with it? It hasn't been documented yet because noone has been mapping to that level of detail yet. I'd therefore use something like foot[backward]=no (or whatever syntax for conditional tagging is your personal favourite) on that footway leading through the turnstile. That's an uggly looking tag. That sort of tag or anything equivalently expressive is required to represent some situations. I'm not proposing it specifically as a solution for this case. However, as a general solution for conditional tagging (depending on direction, vehicle, time, etc.) is needed anyway, it can be used to solve this as well. oneway:foot=yes is what I would use in that case as it would follow the same pattern as several other tags. Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> I'd therefore use something like foot[backward]=no (or whatever syntax >> for conditional tagging is your personal favourite) on that footway >> leading through the turnstile. > > does this imply to split the way on the stile? Do you split it on > either side? This can be applied to any way as long as that way needs to be used when passing the stile. The stile should be a node on that way, but whether it is the first/last node or any node inbetween doesn't matter at all. > What about splitting it directly on the stile. By this > you could just tag one snip of the way towards the side you are > allowed to go as "stile_direction=yes" or something similar, without > being dependant on the direction of way. Similarly a relation could be > imagined (like turn_restriction). This is a special case useful *only* for this situation - which is an unnecessary burden for implementation of routing applications. It's preferable to use something that can be used to handle all sorts of different situations (and therefore needs to be implemented anyway). You can do something like stile_direction or a relation if you expect it to be used in rendering, but I'd definitely recommend to also use a tag like the one I suggested on the way to allow a more generic evaluation for routing/navigation. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
2009/8/11 Shaun McDonald : > On 11 Aug 2009, at 17:39, Tobias Knerr wrote: >> Shaun McDonald wrote: Another property that turnstiles have is that usually one can pass in only one direction. But how that is going to be tagged if a turnstile is just a node I have no idea. >>> A footway going through it with the tag oneway=yes? >> oneway=yes isn't a good idea, as oneway is generally assumed to /not/ >> affect pedestrians. (Or how many of you actually add an exception for >> pedestrians when mapping a highway with oneway=yes?) > > The exception being highways that are for pedestrians, i.e. footway and > pedestrian. > no, the exception for highway=pedestrian is that you can put oneway=yes for cars that have exceptional right to use the road. It will not be considered for pedestrians. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
Shaun McDonald wrote: >> oneway=yes isn't a good idea, as oneway is generally assumed to /not/ >> affect pedestrians. (Or how many of you actually add an exception for >> pedestrians when mapping a highway with oneway=yes?) > > The exception being highways that are for pedestrians, i.e. footway and > pedestrian. That exception isn't documented anywhere, really rare and as such unlikely to be included with all applications. It might make sense to you as a human, but what's the general rule that would describe the desired behaviour? For example: Would oneway apply to pedestrians if used on highway=path? Would this depend on the access tags used together with it? >> I'd therefore use something like foot[backward]=no (or whatever syntax >> for conditional tagging is your personal favourite) on that footway >> leading through the turnstile. > > That's an uggly looking tag. That sort of tag or anything equivalently expressive is required to represent some situations. I'm not proposing it specifically as a solution for this case. However, as a general solution for conditional tagging (depending on direction, vehicle, time, etc.) is needed anyway, it can be used to solve this as well. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
On 11 Aug 2009, at 17:39, Tobias Knerr wrote: Shaun McDonald wrote: Another property that turnstiles have is that usually one can pass in only one direction. But how that is going to be tagged if a turnstile is just a node I have no idea. A footway going through it with the tag oneway=yes? oneway=yes isn't a good idea, as oneway is generally assumed to /not/ affect pedestrians. (Or how many of you actually add an exception for pedestrians when mapping a highway with oneway=yes?) The exception being highways that are for pedestrians, i.e. footway and pedestrian. I'd therefore use something like foot[backward]=no (or whatever syntax for conditional tagging is your personal favourite) on that footway leading through the turnstile. That's an uggly looking tag. Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
2009/8/11 Tobias Knerr : > Shaun McDonald wrote: >>> Another property that turnstiles have is that usually one can pass in >>> only one direction. But how that is going to be tagged if a turnstile >>> is just a node I have no idea. >> >> A footway going through it with the tag oneway=yes? > > oneway=yes isn't a good idea, as oneway is generally assumed to /not/ > affect pedestrians. (Or how many of you actually add an exception for > pedestrians when mapping a highway with oneway=yes?) > > I'd therefore use something like foot[backward]=no (or whatever syntax > for conditional tagging is your personal favourite) on that footway > leading through the turnstile. does this imply to split the way on the stile? Do you split it on either side? What about splitting it directly on the stile. By this you could just tag one snip of the way towards the side you are allowed to go as "stile_direction=yes" or something similar, without being dependant on the direction of way. Similarly a relation could be imagined (like turn_restriction). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
Shaun McDonald wrote: >> Another property that turnstiles have is that usually one can pass in >> only one direction. But how that is going to be tagged if a turnstile >> is just a node I have no idea. > > A footway going through it with the tag oneway=yes? oneway=yes isn't a good idea, as oneway is generally assumed to /not/ affect pedestrians. (Or how many of you actually add an exception for pedestrians when mapping a highway with oneway=yes?) I'd therefore use something like foot[backward]=no (or whatever syntax for conditional tagging is your personal favourite) on that footway leading through the turnstile. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
On 11 Aug 2009, at 17:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/8/11 Shaun McDonald : Another property that turnstiles have is that usually one can pass in only one direction. But how that is going to be tagged if a turnstile is just a node I have no idea. A footway going through it with the tag oneway=yes? yes, or a "helper-object" used for a relation to indicate direction. I'm interested to know, which of those would be actually considered a turnstile by native speakers: 1- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Drehkreuz.jpg 2- http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Drehkreuz_Mannheim.JPG&filetimestamp=20090424202501 3- http://www.nieros.si/fileadmin/template/main/images/katalog/higiena/DK-F.jpg The above are turnstiles 4- http://www.baulinks.com/webplugin/2005/i/1603-besam.jpg That is just a rotating door. and if there are already ideas how to tag accessories like card-readers (chip /magnetic/RFID), PIN-Code-keyboards, biometrical identification systems, etc. Not really thought about that yet. Too many blank or unnamed parts of the map to map to be able to think about it. Shaun cheers, Martin smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
2009/8/11 Shaun McDonald : >> Another property that turnstiles have is that usually one can pass in >> only one direction. But how that is going to be tagged if a turnstile >> is just a node I have no idea. >> > > A footway going through it with the tag oneway=yes? yes, or a "helper-object" used for a relation to indicate direction. I'm interested to know, which of those would be actually considered a turnstile by native speakers: 1- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Drehkreuz.jpg 2- http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Drehkreuz_Mannheim.JPG&filetimestamp=20090424202501 3- http://www.nieros.si/fileadmin/template/main/images/katalog/higiena/DK-F.jpg 4- http://www.baulinks.com/webplugin/2005/i/1603-besam.jpg and if there are already ideas how to tag accessories like card-readers (chip /magnetic/RFID), PIN-Code-keyboards, biometrical identification systems, etc. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
On 11 Aug 2009, at 16:03, Markus Lindholm wrote: 2009/8/8 Tobias Knerr : Mike Harris wrote: And I still don't think turnstile is in any way a type of stile any more than a stile is a type of gate. +1 The English word for turnstiles may end with "stile" for some reason I don't understand, but that doesn't mean it actually is a type of stile. barrier=turnstile is clearly the better solution. This really cannot be described by any of the existing barrier values. (Otherwise, I'd of course suggest a sub-tag.) After all, renderers can still use the same icon for different tags if the developers don't consider the distinction relevant for the rendering. Another property that turnstiles have is that usually one can pass in only one direction. But how that is going to be tagged if a turnstile is just a node I have no idea. A footway going through it with the tag oneway=yes? Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
2009/8/8 Tobias Knerr : > Mike Harris wrote: >> And I still don't think turnstile is in any way a type of stile any more >> than a stile is a type of gate. > > +1 > > The English word for turnstiles may end with "stile" for some reason I > don't understand, but that doesn't mean it actually is a type of stile. > > barrier=turnstile is clearly the better solution. This really cannot be > described by any of the existing barrier values. (Otherwise, I'd of > course suggest a sub-tag.) After all, renderers can still use the same > icon for different tags if the developers don't consider the distinction > relevant for the rendering. > Another property that turnstiles have is that usually one can pass in only one direction. But how that is going to be tagged if a turnstile is just a node I have no idea. /Markus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
Mike Harris wrote: > And I still don't think turnstile is in any way a type of stile any more than > a stile is a type of gate. +1 The English word for turnstiles may end with "stile" for some reason I don't understand, but that doesn't mean it actually is a type of stile. barrier=turnstile is clearly the better solution. This really cannot be described by any of the existing barrier values. (Otherwise, I'd of course suggest a sub-tag.) After all, renderers can still use the same icon for different tags if the developers don't consider the distinction relevant for the rendering. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
Do not tag for the renderer! And I still don't think turnstile is in any way a type of stile any more than a stile is a type of gate. In fact, to be contentious, perhaps a turnstile is indeed a type of gate! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: John Smith [mailto:delta_foxt...@yahoo.com] Sent: 27 July 2009 08:47 To: Shaun McDonald Cc: Vikas Yadav; osm-talk; Karl Newman Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier --- On Mon, 27/7/09, Shaun McDonald wrote: > Then file a trac ticket at http://josm.openstreetmap.de to get one added. Do we really need to file bugs on all types of stiles? or would it be better to list it as barrier=stile and subtype? > Remember that in OSM you can tag as you like. It is perfectly easy to > add extra tags, and perfectly valid. A tag that is not on Map Features > is perfectly valid, as that page should only contain the n most common > and important tags. Exactly, consistency is the point of having things render, but do we really want/need 50 types of stiles being rendered? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
I tend to disagree - the purpose, design and access aspects of a turnstile are normally very different from those of a stile. I think there is a good case for barrier=turnstile - even, if like many other barrier tags, it is not yet rendered. I do not regard a turnstile as a subtype of 'stile'. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: John Smith [mailto:delta_foxt...@yahoo.com] Sent: 27 July 2009 06:26 To: Vikas Yadav; Shaun McDonald Cc: osm-talk; Karl Newman Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier --- On Sun, 26/7/09, Shaun McDonald wrote: > I think that you should use > barrier=turnstile, otherwise data users will think they are > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stile "Turnstiles were originally used, like other forms of stile, to allow human beings to pass whilst keeping sheep or other livestock penned in." So barrier=stile is still the most correct barrier tag, however if you want to save people from being confused you subtype, eg stile:type=turnstile ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
But is you use barrier=stile doesn't that imply that a pedestrian can (and is intended to) climb over it? Whereas a turnstile is most often something that you cannot climb over and access is usually (but perhaps not always) subject to a coin- or car-in-the-slot payment or validation? Mike Harris _ From: Vikas Yadav [mailto:vi...@thevikas.com] Sent: 26 July 2009 17:35 To: Karl Newman Cc: osm-talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier Exactly this: Full-height turnstiles in the same wikipedia page. Ones here are just a metre high without a roof. Ill use barrier=stile for these gates. Thanks a lot. Vikas 2009/7/26 Karl Newman On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 8:16 AM, John Smith wrote: --- On Sun, 26/7/09, ヴィカス ヤダワ (vikas yadav) wrote: > Is there a park barrier like this: > Like its made of metal, circular in shape, two > perpendicular diagonals separator, rotates and prevents any > sort of vehicles including cycles to be brought in. > Only one person can enter at a time. > > > I checked the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Barrier > but could not locate it. barrier=stile? The definition of that tag on the wiki is exactly what I imagined a "stile" to be, but that's not quite what he's describing. He's talking about a turnstile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnstile). I suppose barrier=stile could apply, but if that's the case the wiki should be updated to show that variant. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
If I understand rightly, this sounds like barrier=turnstile? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: John Smith [mailto:delta_foxt...@yahoo.com] Sent: 26 July 2009 16:16 To: osm-talk; vi...@thevikas.com Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier --- On Sun, 26/7/09, ヴィカス ヤダワ (vikas yadav) wrote: > Is there a park barrier like this: > Like its made of metal, circular in shape, two perpendicular diagonals > separator, rotates and prevents any sort of vehicles including cycles > to be brought in. > Only one person can enter at a time. > > > I checked the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Barrier > but could not locate it. barrier=stile? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
I made this icon for JOSM. My not an artist. This is the top with walls on both sides. 2009/7/27 Martin Koppenhoefer > 2009/7/27 John Smith : > > --- On Mon, 27/7/09, Shaun McDonald wrote: > > > >> Then file a trac ticket at http://josm.openstreetmap.de to get one > added. > > > > Do we really need to file bugs on all types of stiles? or would it be > better to list it as barrier=stile and subtype? > > well, maybe it's more efficient to attach a proposed icon ;-). I think > we could/should have icons for all kind of barriers that are described > on the wiki. > > Btw: what about "swing gate" (like a lift gate but swinging, blocks > just cars, whilst pedestrians can cross), "block", "rope" and "chain". > They are also common barriers, at least in my area. Would you just add > them to the barrier page in the wiki or is there a lengthy proposal > process needed? > > cheers, > Martin > <>___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
2009/7/27 John Smith : > --- On Mon, 27/7/09, Shaun McDonald wrote: > >> Then file a trac ticket at http://josm.openstreetmap.de to get one added. > > Do we really need to file bugs on all types of stiles? or would it be better > to list it as barrier=stile and subtype? well, maybe it's more efficient to attach a proposed icon ;-). I think we could/should have icons for all kind of barriers that are described on the wiki. Btw: what about "swing gate" (like a lift gate but swinging, blocks just cars, whilst pedestrians can cross), "block", "rope" and "chain". They are also common barriers, at least in my area. Would you just add them to the barrier page in the wiki or is there a lengthy proposal process needed? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Shaun McDonald wrote: > Then file a trac ticket at http://josm.openstreetmap.de to get one added. Do we really need to file bugs on all types of stiles? or would it be better to list it as barrier=stile and subtype? > Remember that in OSM you can tag as you like. It is > perfectly easy to add extra tags, and perfectly valid. A tag > that is not on Map Features is perfectly valid, as that page > should only contain the n most common and important tags. Exactly, consistency is the point of having things render, but do we really want/need 50 types of stiles being rendered? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
On 27 Jul 2009, at 04:43, John Smith wrote: > > > > --- On Sun, 26/7/09, Vikas Yadav wrote: > >> btw, JOSM does not recognize turnstile while it had an icon >> for stile. > Then file a trac ticket at http://josm.openstreetmap.de to get one added. > there is no "official" turnstile tag with OSM, stile is the same > thing. > Remember that in OSM you can tag as you like. It is perfectly easy to add extra tags, and perfectly valid. A tag that is not on Map Features is perfectly valid, as that page should only contain the n most common and important tags. Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
--- On Sun, 26/7/09, Shaun McDonald wrote: > I think that you should use > barrier=turnstile, otherwise data users will think they are > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stile "Turnstiles were originally used, like other forms of stile, to allow human beings to pass whilst keeping sheep or other livestock penned in." So barrier=stile is still the most correct barrier tag, however if you want to save people from being confused you subtype, eg stile:type=turnstile ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
--- On Sun, 26/7/09, Vikas Yadav wrote: > btw, JOSM does not recognize turnstile while it had an icon > for stile. there is no "official" turnstile tag with OSM, stile is the same thing. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
Thanks. changed my gates to turnstile. btw, JOSM does not recognize turnstile while it had an icon for stile. 2009/7/27 Shaun McDonald > I think that you should use barrier=turnstile, otherwise data users will > think they are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stile > Shaun > > On 26 Jul 2009, at 17:34, Vikas Yadav wrote: > > Exactly this: Full-height turnstiles in the same wikipedia page. > Ones here are just a metre high without a roof. > > Ill use barrier=stile for these gates. > > Thanks a lot. > Vikas > > 2009/7/26 Karl Newman > >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 8:16 AM, John Smith wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- On Sun, 26/7/09, ヴィカス ヤダワ (vikas yadav) wrote: >>> >>> >>> > Is there a park barrier like this: >>> > Like its made of metal, circular in shape, two >>> > perpendicular diagonals separator, rotates and prevents any >>> > sort of vehicles including cycles to be brought in. >>> > Only one person can enter at a time. >>> > >>> > >>> > I checked the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Barrier >>> > but could not locate it. >>> >>> barrier=stile? >>> >> >> The definition of that tag on the wiki is exactly what I imagined a >> "stile" to be, but that's not quite what he's describing. He's talking about >> a turnstile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnstile). I suppose >> barrier=stile could apply, but if that's the case the wiki should be updated >> to show that variant. >> >> Karl >> > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
I think that you should use barrier=turnstile, otherwise data users will think they are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stile Shaun On 26 Jul 2009, at 17:34, Vikas Yadav wrote: Exactly this: Full-height turnstiles in the same wikipedia page. Ones here are just a metre high without a roof. Ill use barrier=stile for these gates. Thanks a lot. Vikas 2009/7/26 Karl Newman On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 8:16 AM, John Smith wrote: --- On Sun, 26/7/09, ヴィカス ヤダワ (vikas yadav) wrote: > Is there a park barrier like this: > Like its made of metal, circular in shape, two > perpendicular diagonals separator, rotates and prevents any > sort of vehicles including cycles to be brought in. > Only one person can enter at a time. > > > I checked the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Barrier > but could not locate it. barrier=stile? The definition of that tag on the wiki is exactly what I imagined a "stile" to be, but that's not quite what he's describing. He's talking about a turnstile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnstile). I suppose barrier=stile could apply, but if that's the case the wiki should be updated to show that variant. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
Exactly this: Full-height turnstiles in the same wikipedia page. Ones here are just a metre high without a roof. Ill use barrier=stile for these gates. Thanks a lot. Vikas 2009/7/26 Karl Newman > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 8:16 AM, John Smith wrote: > >> >> >> >> --- On Sun, 26/7/09, ヴィカス ヤダワ (vikas yadav) wrote: >> >> >> > Is there a park barrier like this: >> > Like its made of metal, circular in shape, two >> > perpendicular diagonals separator, rotates and prevents any >> > sort of vehicles including cycles to be brought in. >> > Only one person can enter at a time. >> > >> > >> > I checked the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Barrier >> > but could not locate it. >> >> barrier=stile? >> > > The definition of that tag on the wiki is exactly what I imagined a "stile" > to be, but that's not quite what he's describing. He's talking about a > turnstile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnstile). I suppose > barrier=stile could apply, but if that's the case the wiki should be updated > to show that variant. > > Karl > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 8:16 AM, John Smith wrote: > > > > --- On Sun, 26/7/09, ヴィカス ヤダワ (vikas yadav) wrote: > > > > Is there a park barrier like this: > > Like its made of metal, circular in shape, two > > perpendicular diagonals separator, rotates and prevents any > > sort of vehicles including cycles to be brought in. > > Only one person can enter at a time. > > > > > > I checked the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Barrier > > but could not locate it. > > barrier=stile? > The definition of that tag on the wiki is exactly what I imagined a "stile" to be, but that's not quite what he's describing. He's talking about a turnstile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnstile). I suppose barrier=stile could apply, but if that's the case the wiki should be updated to show that variant. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
Sounds like a turnstile. It's not yet in the list of barriers, but the list can be extended. Cheers, Chris ヴィカス ヤダワ (vikas yadav) wrote: Hi, Is there a park barrier like this: Like its made of metal, circular in shape, two perpendicular diagonals separator, rotates and prevents any sort of vehicles including cycles to be brought in. Only one person can enter at a time. I checked the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Barrier but could not locate it. Thanks, Vikas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
--- On Sun, 26/7/09, ヴィカス ヤダワ (vikas yadav) wrote: > Is there a park barrier like this: > Like its made of metal, circular in shape, two > perpendicular diagonals separator, rotates and prevents any > sort of vehicles including cycles to be brought in. > Only one person can enter at a time. > > > I checked the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Barrier > but could not locate it. barrier=stile? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
