2012/10/14 Eric SIBERT courr...@eric.sibert.fr:
lanes=* wiki would need to be modified to not count temporary lanes. It
would be more consistent as most of the time only two lanes are available.
The last discussion and update of this article was in April. If I
remember correct the intention was
Hi!
Up to now I usually used the tag destination_ref to specify the ref of
the road where a link-road is heading, in analogy with the destination
key. Now I've seen the key dest_ref in use and also destination:ref.
Of course none is documented in the wiki ;-)
What should we do? I could write a
I saw the choice between dest_ref and destination_ref and adopted
dest_ref for the simple reason that it's shorter. In my mkgmap styles I
allow for either, and recently added destination:ref to that list.
I'm not particularly bothered which one wins, but I'm always in favour
of a bit of
2012/10/15 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
Slightly OT: Can I put in a plea to continue to populate these tags on the
way as a whole even when the :lanes: data is present?
That's the way I do it: destination:lanes before the
split/slip-road/link and destination after it.
Martin
Hi!
Some kind of short how-would-you-tag-this-survey. Have a look at part
five of this motorway:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png
Only part 5 is relevant. Assume there is no physical separation just a
double line between the upper and lower two lanes. How would you tag
I would choose option b).
Even if all four lanes are one piece of carriageway, it is useful for
routing directions etc to be able to make a distinction between the left
and right parts of the road. Normal mortals are supposed to treat the
solid white lines as if they were a brick wall anyway,
I would opt for (b) even though I know that this is not the offcial way
of tagging.
The reason:
In section (4) the driver can still change lanes, at least on the middle
lanes, whereas in section (5) he cannot (legally) change lanes any more
between the middle lanes.
This example clearly
Hi.
I would suggest to add a few well known examples to the page to make it
more clear what it's about at first glance.
Currently these are on the talk page, but IMHO they should be on the
wiki page itself, too.
And: I would like to see a distinction between branch and the adress.
Sometimes
I created a new picture very much based on the old one. Just made the
road gray to try to make it more clearer?
http://minkarta.no-ip.org/Lanes_Example_2.svg
Im not sure how to upload it so if anyone thinks this is better please
do, otherwise I atleast learned a little what I can do in inkscape
I would like to draw attention again to this proposal as I stumbled
across a pretty useless maxspeed=signals again.
And I would like to suggest a different tag: instead of
dynamic_maxspeed I would prefer maxspeed:variable for the following
reasons:
* as far as I know those kind of speed limits
Maxspeed is always variable, because you have to adjust your speed
according to road conditions (snow, fog, traffic). Signals just make that
visible, but it is always there, even without the signals. The only thing I
would map is the maximal value the sign can show and put it in the maxspeed
tag.
2012/10/15 Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com:
Hello everyone,
It's my responsibility to keep this proposal going. Sorry about the delay,
but I would like to open this proposal for a vote.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:branch
Since I first put up the proposal I have wanted
Hi Martin,
Am Montag, 15. Oktober 2012, 16:35:59 schrieb Martin Vonwald:
And I would like to suggest a different tag: instead of
dynamic_maxspeed I would prefer maxspeed:variable for the following
reasons:
* as far as I know those kind of speed limits are usually called
variable speed limit
2012/10/15 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
There are already some 6800 values for branch in the db:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/branch#values so as proponent of
this tag you should IMHO check these values if they are in accordance
with your proposed intention (and given
On 15 October 2012 10:56, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
Some kind of short how-would-you-tag-this-survey. Have a look at part
five of this motorway:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png
Only part 5 is relevant. Assume there is no physical separation
Am 15.10.2012 um 17:55 schrieb Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
But as I'm sure you've noticed there's some divided opinion about this.
That's why I asked! Actually I don't think that we see any consensus about this
soon. But then I can document at least that there are two variants
Hi everybody,
apparently Conditional Restrictions has become an approved feature, even though
nobody mentioned it here. While I still believe that this is a sub-optimal
solution (and still nobody has passed the test I created earlier in the
discussion, even though a lot of people tried), I
I created a new picture very much based on the old one. Just made the road
gray to try to make it more clearer?
http://minkarta.no-ip.org/Lanes_Example_2.svg
Im not sure how to upload it so if anyone thinks this is better please do,
otherwise I atleast learned a little what I can do in inkscape
a) One way with lanes=4
b) Two separate ways with lanes=2 each
c) Tell me!
a) because distinction between physical and legal barriers is important.
Ok in that picture there is no much difference, but as Simone pointed out,
for long roads there is a big difference: if any router can't
I don't understand why emergency vehicles are so important in this
discussion. In the first place they have wide-ranging exemptions from
traffic rules, which (let's be honest) we are never going to tag in OSM.
Secondly they are never going to be relying on OSM data (or indeed any
normal
Hi Colin,
Am Montag, 15. Oktober 2012, 20:08:01 schrieb Colin Smale:
I don't understand why emergency vehicles are so important in this
discussion. In the first place they have wide-ranging exemptions from
traffic rules, which (let's be honest) we are never going to tag in OSM.
Secondly
Eckhart Wörner ewoer...@kde.org wrote:
Hi Tobias,
Am Sonntag, 14. Oktober 2012, 14:40:45 schrieb Tobias Knerr:
You could combine Conditional restrictions and the lanes suffix¹:
lanes=3
access:lanes = yes | yes | no
emergency:lanes = | | yes
I think most laws require that even emergency vehicles observe
restrictions like oneway streets. If there are any restrictions which
can be broken in case of emergency vehicles, I think they'd program
their routing software to them.
- Svavar Kjarrval
On 15/10/12 18:16, Eckhart Wörner wrote:
Hi
I'd go with option b. Despite being a single way, you're committed to
taking the ramp by that point (due to the double-white solid lines), making
it functionally an extension of the ramp.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.comwrote:
Hi!
Some kind of short
Hi Martin,
Am Dienstag, 16. Oktober 2012, 02:18:30 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
apparently Conditional Restrictions has become an approved feature, even
though nobody mentioned it here. While I still believe that this is a
sub-optimal solution (and still nobody has passed the test I
25 matches
Mail list logo
