Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am 15/mar/2013 um 02:00 schrieb James Mast : > > > Why wouldn't something like a node tagged "highway:forward=give_way" > work? > > > Because a node doesn't have direction. Why does it have to be a node of > the way? You could set t

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

Am 15/mar/2013 um 02:00 schrieb James Mast : > Why wouldn't something like a node tagged "highway:forward=give_way" work? Because a node doesn't have direction. Why does it have to be a node of the way? You could set the node slightly right (or left where people drive on the strange side)

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

Why wouldn't something like a node tagged "highway:forward=give_way" work? -James ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

2013/3/14 Pieren > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Richard Fairhurst > > That's fiendishly clever given that OpenStreetMap didn't exist nine years > > ago... > > ^^ > But, a silly question : where does it help to put so much efforts in > tagging a give-way traffic sign ? It's not for routing. I

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Pieren wrote: > But, a silly question : where does it help to put so much efforts in > tagging a give-way traffic sign ? It's not for routing. If it is for > rendering, a simple node is enough. So why a relation ? for blind > drivers ? > Not quite. Blind pedestr

Re: [Tagging] Power proposals

Hi Phil, 2013/3/14 Phil! Gold > > In Maryland, the Dickerson Generating Station, which is privately owned > and uses coal and oil is directly adjacent to the Montgomery County > Resource Facility, which is owned by the state and burns trash. > > OSM: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.20497

Re: [Tagging] Power proposals

* François Lacombe [2013-03-14 18:52 +0100]: > Foremost, areas must reflect land occupation. If 2 different operators' > plants are contiguous in reality then areas must be contiguous too. > > Do you have any example which can illustrate such situation in the wiki? I know of a couple. In Maryl

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features/Connecting of routes - RFC

if say in common, road of class A is a major road (numbers from E01 to E99 and even numbers from E101 to E129), road of class B is shorter road and with lower significance. If we get network of e-roads of class A, we should get united network, if we get network of e-roads of class A and B, we shoul

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Richard Fairhurst That's fiendishly clever given that OpenStreetMap didn't exist nine years > ago... ^^ But, a silly question : where does it help to put so much efforts in tagging a give-way traffic sign ? It's not for routing. If it is for rendering, a simple no

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features/Connecting of routes - RFC

indeed, European routes sometimes don't exist too, because only cities and towns are written on base agreement; sometimes, European route contain a section, where ferry is expected, but it doesn't exist, or contain a section, where road is expected, but it doesn't exist; European routes are mostly

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features/Connecting of routes - RFC

on the one hand, connecting roads between e-roads, as you said, are not fully parts of e-road network, because such connecting roads are not formally marked as e-roads, on the other hand, connecting roads are necessary parts of e-road system as a united network: without such connection roads the ne

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

Simone Saviolo wrote: > I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] > has been in draft for nine solid years. That's fiendishly clever given that OpenStreetMap didn't exist nine years ago... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com

Re: [Tagging] access restrictions by emission class (cars), EURO 1, etc.

2013/3/14 René Kirchhoff : > Hi. > I found in the Wiki the german "Umweltzone": > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Umweltzone > Also, you can read the DISK from LEZ: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Low_emission_zone > by reneman Yes, I know this (see also the initial thread), but the

Re: [Tagging] access restrictions by emission class (cars), EURO 1, etc.

Hi. I found in the Wiki the german "Umweltzone": http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Umweltzone Also, you can read the DISK from LEZ: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Low_emission_zone by reneman 2013/3/14 Martin Koppenhoefer > In Rome there a different zones (low emission zones and limite

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

On 14.03.2013 17:01, Jo wrote: > 2013/3/14 Simone Saviolo > > > 2013/3/14 Steve Doerr > > I think the two ways may coexist: the node method being easier on > the mappers, and the relation being easier on the consum

Re: [Tagging] Power proposals

Good question. It may be up to each mapper to make the distinction. Myself I would definitely use operators distinguishing : If a whole big plant is divided between two or more operators, I would map a separate area for each operator. Foremost, areas must reflect land occupation. If 2 different o

Re: [Tagging] Power proposals

Could you explain when we should map several adjacent plants, and when they would be considered one big power plant consisting of several parts? How can the distinction be made? Does the area have to be contiguous? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing lis

[Tagging] access restrictions by emission class (cars), EURO 1, etc.

In Rome there a different zones (low emission zones and limited traffic zones) which restrict the access of certain vehicle types, based on a series of criteria (e.g. public transport or private vehicle, resident with special permission or not, date and time (e.g. restriction only on Friday and Sat

[Tagging] Power proposals

Hi mappers, Some work is still under way on the power proposals. We have now four main entries on proposed features page. All "proposal stuff" must had completely been moved from other wiki pages. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/list#Proposed_features_-_Power * Power generat

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

On 2013-03-14 15:43, Simone Saviolo wrote : Hi everyone! I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

2013/3/14 Simone Saviolo > 2013/3/14 Steve Doerr > >> I suppose the main downside is that it requires a relation. I've not >> mapped give-way relationships myself, but it would be good to map them, and >> the node method seems simpler and would involve less database bloat than >> adding a relat

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

2013/3/14 Steve Doerr > I suppose the main downside is that it requires a relation. I've not > mapped give-way relationships myself, but it would be good to map them, and > the node method seems simpler and would involve less database bloat than > adding a relation at, basically, every junction.

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

2013/3/14 Chris Hill > On 14/03/13 14:43, Simone Saviolo wrote: > >> I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been >> in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current >> limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a >

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

I suppose the main downside is that it requires a relation. I've not mapped give-way relationships myself, but it would be good to map them, and the node method seems simpler and would involve less database bloat than adding a relation at, basically, every junction. I would think the node metho

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

On 14/03/13 14:43, Simone Saviolo wrote: I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme that is widely acc

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

A good idea. Just thought I should mention the relation through_route, which is related to this, where the main road though a junction so that routers can give correct turn instructions, although none I know of support this. Often the through route is not the straight ahead, so a turn is often i

[Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

Hi everyone! I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme that is widely accepted both by mappers and by co

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features/Connecting of routes - RFC

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Dinamik wrote: > example, European routes (see WikiProject Europe/E-road network). The > network has some gaps, which are caused by formal reasons. Problem with that proposal is that you tag something which does not exist. I have the feeling that you just act as a

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features/Connecting of routes - RFC

>Description: >type=route - this is a route >route=road - this is a route for motorcars >network=e-road - this is a cars' route, which is related >to E-road network IMO network=* should be read as "is a route, which is a part of the E-road network". These connections are not a real part of the a