Re: [Tagging] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

>On 29. Oktober 2015 10:34 Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] wrote: > > Bicycle lanes are lanes of travel, This depends on your definition of “lanes” > and may or may not be exclusive to bicycle traffic, and may or may not be the > outermost lane of travel. Agreed. But what

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-10-29 13:38: sent from a phone Am 29.10.2015 um 13:05 schrieb Tom Pfeifer : man_made=weighbridge for checking trucks there are also other vehicles that are weighted, ... man_made=weighbridge for checking vehicles, so to include

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-10-29 12:29: it's still a bit unclear, which variation makes it, as amenity=weighbridge itself has less than 400 occurencies at the moment, my guess is that these alternate links have been set up for this reason (i.e. those are actually used variants, and

Re: [Tagging] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Hubert wrote: > Thanks for the link. > > I agree for „lanes=*“. > > > > But “*:lanes=*” is still a different story. One could also use “*:lanes=*” > on segregated foot- and cycleways. For example > > highway=path > > degregated=yes > >

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

I agree that I was very surprised to see that amenity=weighbridge is documented in the wiki. I also don't like the idea that it is a some kind of highway, so man_made=weighbridge seems to be the new favorite. Von: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Gesendet:

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

IMO, this is another of those issues that depends on what country you're in. I have always used the term weigh_station in the U.S. I see that weighbridge and its variants is more popular but the situation is a mess at the moment. I had never heard of the term weightbridge until I looked it up on

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

On Thu Oct 29 12:20:37 2015 GMT, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > Also FYI, I noticed but did not add to OSM a sensor type weighing device in > Thailand the other day. My quick glance at the sign suggests it is a type > of scale you merely drive over and the weight is computer somehow without > the

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > > > On Thu Oct 29 12:20:37 2015 GMT, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > > > Also FYI, I noticed but did not add to OSM a sensor type weighing device > in > > Thailand the other day. My quick glance at the sign suggests it is a

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

reg. contact tool: I agree that spamming is a problem. My current way to contact the mapper is to add a comment to the changeset, did that > 100 times now, typically with good response. A typical comment looks like this: Please review [way(s) / node(s) ] id,id,... The tag tagkey1=tagvalue1

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

sent from a phone > Am 29.10.2015 um 13:05 schrieb Tom Pfeifer : > > man_made=weighbridge for checking trucks there are also other vehicles that are weighted, e.g. at German (I guess elsewhere as well) car manufacturing plants the cars that get exported to

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

2015-10-29 12:01 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer : > The wiki is weird in listing spelling variations as "see also", > in particular as these are redlinks. This should read "do not > use those other variations". > it's still a bit unclear, which variation makes it, as

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:56:38PM +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 04:06:33PM +0100, Richard wrote: > > agreed. But this is open-STREET-map so perhaps the streets should > > be fixed first. Does not make much sense to map culverts with > > sub-meter precission while

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 04:06:33PM +0100, Richard wrote: > agreed. But this is open-STREET-map so perhaps the streets should > be fixed first. Does not make much sense to map culverts with > sub-meter precission while freeways are still linear ways. I dont think we should act like "fix a before

Re: [Tagging] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Steve Doerr wrote: > UN convention, apparently: > > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-September/008578.html > Well, this would

Re: [Tagging] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

Thanks for the link. I agree for „lanes=*“. But “*:lanes=*” is still a different story. One could also use “*:lanes=*” on segregated foot- and cycleways. For example highway=path degregated=yes bicycle=designated bicycle:lanes=yes|no foot=designated foot:lanes=no|yes Although

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Gerd Petermann < gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Well, the word amenity seems to imply some kind of pleasure (at least the > translations that I found do so), > There are a lot of other amenity tags that are not necessarily pleasurable, such as

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

Well, the word amenity seems to imply some kind of pleasure (at least the translations that I found do so), I don't see any fun in using it ;-) You are right, man_made is also not very good. What about highway[,railway]=service,service=weighbridge ? Von:

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Gerd Petermann < gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Well, the word amenity seems to imply some kind of pleasure (at least the > translations that I found do so), > > I don't see any fun in using it ;-) > Well, if the Vermont State Police in Super Troopers

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

What's wrong with amenity? A weighbridge IS often an amenity, in the sense that people can make use of it as they require to help them stay within the law, for example. The man_made tag is a complete last resort - just about everything we map is man-made. Lets try and get a bit closer to

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

2015-10-29 13:40 GMT+01:00 Richard : > On the other end of the complexitiy scale it would be nice to have > a simple method to map insignificant culverts with a single node. > IMHO, if you don't consider them significant enough to be mapped as a way you should maybe not map

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

Another idea might be to use man_made=monitoring_station + monitoring=weigh. But It I think isn't fitting very well because monitoring stations sounds like something is continuously analyzed. I would prefer *weighbridge *over *truck_scale *(because we mostly stick to tags in British English) and

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On 2015-10-29 16:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : > > 2015-10-29 13:40 GMT+01:00 Richard >: > > On the other end of the complexitiy scale it would be nice to have > a simple method to map insignificant culverts with a single node. > > > >

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

Michael Reichert wrote: > That's why I suggest to use the country prefixes followed by a number > or the name depending if the country numbers its traffic signs (like > Germany) or not (like Austria). There's no need to do that. OSM is a spatial database: you can find out whether a sign is to

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

I think he is referring to the "do not enter" sign, a red circle with a horizontal white bar. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King, Jr. On October

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

On 29/10/2015 20:40, Colin Smale wrote: How can that spatial lookup be made very cheaply? How long will it take to do a point-in-polygon for every road sign in Europe? It's very cheap. I do polyline-in-polygon for every single road and path I render on cycle.travel, because I have different

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

I don't have any examples to counter your statement. But I am assuming you are referring to the use of a spatial database. It is IMHO a high barrier to entry. Are we to expect users to have that kind of infrastructure and skills at their disposal? What about mkgmap and the many other consumers

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

On 30/10/2015 1:41 AM, Colin Smale wrote: What's wrong with amenity? A weighbridge IS often an amenity, in the sense that people can make use of it as they require to help them stay within the law, for example. The man_made tag is a complete last resort - just about everything we map is

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

On 29/10/2015 21:52, Colin Smale wrote: I don't have any examples to counter your statement. But I am assuming you are referring to the use of a spatial database. It is IMHO a high barrier to entry. Are we to expect users to have that kind of infrastructure and skills at their disposal? What

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

On 2015-10-29 21:00, John Eldredge wrote : > > I think he is referring to the "do not enter" sign, a red circle with > a horizontal white bar. > Jo sometimes speaks vaguely and publishes search/guessing exercises ;-) . What he means is: > Also keep in mind there are 2 'oneway' signs. A blue one

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Motorway link no default oneway

On 2015-10-29 20:45, Joachim wrote : > I invite you to vote on the proposal "Motorway link no default > oneway". The following is proposed: > > Strongly recommend explicit tagging of oneway=* on highway=motorway_link. > > Define that highway=motorway_link without tagged oneway=* has no > implied

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

sent from a phone > Am 29.10.2015 um 21:40 schrieb Colin Smale : > > How can that spatial lookup be made very cheaply? I agree. Also, the current scheme uses (where applicable) country code + sign code in that country:

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

Ok, I'm impressed... Can you give some examples of the "tagfiddling" you refer to, that annoys you? How do we fix that? What tires me, is the lack of any decision-making process which is paralysing the whole business, and the lack of any (formal) attention for the data quality. Where is the

Re: [Tagging] when should highway=centreline be used?

Looks like this would primarily be obsoleted by the much more orthagonal lanes:*, change:lanes:* and various access related keys already (though along these same lines, I still believe bicycle lanes need to be included in these counts to give consumers an accurate representation of where lanes are

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a "overhead electronic display" ?

2015-10-29 9:33 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson : > I think we'd have to invent a tag. I only know them to be called a > "programmable changeable message sign", so I'd probably tag it > traffic_sign=pcms > please, let's continue to avoid abbreviations. "pcms" is cryptic to me and

Re: [Tagging] post_box:type values, meter in particular

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:30 PM, John Eldredge wrote: > U.S. Post Offices used to have separate collection slots for stamped mail > and metered mail (postage printed on it by a machine), but it is several > years since I last remember seeing such. They're still somewhat

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a "overhead electronic display" ?

I think we'd have to invent a tag. I only know them to be called a "programmable changeable message sign", so I'd probably tag it traffic_sign=pcms On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Gerd Petermann < gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Please see > >

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a "overhead electronic display" ?

well, in the meantime I found a tag highway=overhead_road_sign, but I think this is just another case of putting to much information into one tag value. My understanding is that we should try to avoid that, esp. for rather rare objects. So, this could be something like traffic_sign=display

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a "overhead electronic display" ?

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2015-10-29 9:33 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson : > >> I think we'd have to invent a tag. I only know them to be called a >> "programmable changeable message sign", so I'd probably tag it >>

[Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

Hi all, the wiki documents amenity=weighbridge (taginfo reports 386 uses) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aamenity%3Dweighbridge

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

Gerd Petermann wrote on 2015-10-29 11:39: amenity=weighbridge (taginfo reports 386 uses) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aamenity%3Dweighbridge I agree that they mean all the same thing, with some exception, > weight_sensor=yes (1) might actually be a monitoring device rather

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

On 29/10/2015 9:39 PM, Gerd Petermann wrote: Hi all, the wiki documents amenity=weighbridge (taginfo reports 386 uses) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aamenity%3Dweighbridge I would NOT use amenity! And status=in_use? less than 400 total. Besides several different spellings

Re: [Tagging] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

UN convention, apparently: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-September/008578.html Steve On 13/10/2015 12:40, Paul Johnson wrote: But why? It seems tools aren't expecting lanes tags with more lanes than in the lanes count. Seems exceptionally arbitrary and very