Re: [Tagging] amenity=retirement_home and social facility

sent from a phone > Il giorno 02 lug 2016, alle ore 18:03, Colin Smale ha > scritto: > > A commercial website is not the same as a dictionary Commercial entities > can have an interest in not using generic terminology, whereas a dictionary > is all about ensuring a common understanding.

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

Javbw > On Jul 3, 2016, at 1:06 AM, Johnparis wrote: > > Are you seriously suggesting that virtually every single traffic signal in > the United States be tagged with "right turn permitted on red after stop" Might need to make this an admin level setting - 99. percent of all traffic s

Re: [Tagging] steps parallel to escalator

Hi Martin, hi Tobias, I can see the merit of both the "conveying:lanes" proposal, and e.g. this page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging states that: "Mapping of objects in OSM works best when there is no upfront requirement to immediately add everything in great detail." How

Re: [Tagging] Layer and highway=steps

Make sense to me! Bjoern On 2 July 2016 at 16:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > Il giorno 02 lug 2016, alle ore 14:13, Andrew Errington < > erringt...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > Consensus was that it should be 'up' based on the convention of > architectural drawing

Re: [Tagging] Layer and highway=steps

Hi Richard, hi Simon, thanks! The layer tag was already used widely, but I get that level is the one to use. I'll go through the tags, and add level. I'm working on a write-up of the discussion, as a kind of "case-study", see http://bjohas.de/wiki/Maps/Kings_Cross. I'll contribute this to the OSM

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

‎I think a set of rules and defaults for each country/territory would actually make a lot of sense. Sure it would be additional work in the beginning, but it would safe a lot of work in the long run. In the last c

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

Fully agree with you Tod. It could be so simple. On 2016-07-02 18:30, Tod Fitch wrote: > Been shot down already a year or two ago that I know of. > > I still think defaults per administrative area/boundary with inverse > hierarchical nesting (more local overrides less local) makes a lot of se

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

The defaults per territory concept exists since a -very- long time (2008) ... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions In this case IMHO given that the sign doesn't actually change access/routing it simply modifies the meaning of the traffic signal, any tagging

Re: [Tagging] Layer and highway=steps

Bjoern The layer attribute is only used for overlapping OSM elements to indicate their relative position ( indoor mapping should be using "level" (the SIT tagging scheme has already been referenced). In a pure indoor scenario I would consider layer unnecessary (JOSM will naturally complain bitterl

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

Been shot down already a year or two ago that I know of. I still think defaults per administrative area/boundary with inverse hierarchical nesting (more local overrides less local) makes a lot of sense. Example 1: The default speed limit assumption for a city take precedence over that of a stat

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

One of these days someone will introduce the concept of defaults per territory. My prediction is that this suggestion will either get mercilessly shot down in flames, or be quietly accepted, probably depending on who suggests it. //colin On 2016-07-02 18:06, Johnparis wrote: > Ooh, I think Mar

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

Ooh, I think Martin's suggestion would become a MAJOR project. If I recall correctly, "right turn permitted on red after stop" is the traffic law in the entire United States with the sole exception of New York City. (Wikipedia says this has been the case since late 1978.) Are you seriously sugges

Re: [Tagging] amenity=retirement_home and social facility

A commercial website is not the same as a dictionary Commercial entities can have an interest in not using generic terminology, whereas a dictionary is all about ensuring a common understanding. A "group home" is, to me (UK English native speaker), a phrase consisting of two words, and I can ea

Re: [Tagging] amenity=retirement_home and social facility

sent from a phone > Il giorno 02 lug 2016, alle ore 01:00, Greg Troxel ha > scritto: > > Again, none of these would ever be called (in the US) group homes. . Group home implies living in (small) groups. There are group homes for elderly (as a specific kind of assisted living). https://www

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

Most tools follow the rule described here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction "If the first word is "no_", then no routing is possible from the "from" to the "to" member. If it is "only_", then you know that the only

Re: [Tagging] amenity=retirement_home and social facility

sent from a phone > Il giorno 02 lug 2016, alle ore 01:36, Colin Smale ha > scritto: > > So if you think both a retirement home and assisted living accommodation are > the same thing, it doesn't matter much which of these is used in OSM (we > usually follow British English if possible). If

Re: [Tagging] Layer and highway=steps

sent from a phone > Il giorno 02 lug 2016, alle ore 14:13, Andrew Errington > ha scritto: > > Consensus was that it should be 'up' based on the convention of architectural > drawings. While I was in favor of this convention, I recall there wasn't any actual consensus. Personally, for me

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

sent from a phone > Il giorno 02 lug 2016, alle ore 16:55, Nathan Wessel > ha scritto: > > > Who is right here? Should I report this as a bug and change the wiki to allow > turns on "^no_.*" relations as standard or should the tagging be changed? And > how? > right turn on red is someth

[Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

Hi all, I've been running into some trouble with the following tag recently. 'restriction'='no_right_turn_on_red' mapped as a turn restriction relation. My problem is that OSRM treats it as a no_right_turn restriction, t

Re: [Tagging] Layer and highway=steps

On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 12:47:31PM +0100, Bjoern Hassler wrote: > Hi Volker, > > My question does relate to overlapping steps, see > http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/h5F for context (King's Cross underground, > London). Yes, layer rather than level. > > I'm thinking about accessibility, as well as ease

Re: [Tagging] steps parallel to escalator

sent from a phone > Il giorno 02 lug 2016, alle ore 12:23, Bjoern Hassler > ha scritto: > > Do you know how conveying:lanes is rendered e.g. in osm online, osmand, etc? it doesn't matter for mapping what is commonly understood/interpreted now, because they will take care of it in the futur

Re: [Tagging] steps parallel to escalator

sent from a phone > Il giorno 02 lug 2016, alle ore 11:59, Tobias Knerr ha > scritto: > > I hope this makes it clearer what I'm suggesting. and now with 1 landing in the central steps please, and step_count. How can we avoid the impression that there are now 6 escalators rather than 2? An

Re: [Tagging] steps parallel to escalator

sent from a phone > Il giorno 02 lug 2016, alle ore 07:58, Tobias Knerr ha > scritto: > > I think that doing it that way has significant benefits for rendering (i.e. > avoid the inevitable overlapping ways and gaps), and the approach might be > extended to other highway=step attributes wher

Re: [Tagging] amenity=retirement_home and social facility

> On Jul 2, 2016, at 8:08 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > few (maybe 3 in 100) will be younger, but have some kind of mobility or > cognitive impairment that basically is the same situation. My uncle was in a hospital-like nursing home (very institutional) which as full of old people, while he was

Re: [Tagging] Layer and highway=steps

The direction of the way was discussed a long time ago. Consensus was that it should be 'up' based on the convention of architectural drawings. It seemed as good a reason as any. That's all I have, really. Andrew On 2 Jul 2016 20:48, "Bjoern Hassler" wrote: > Hi Volker, > > My question does r

Re: [Tagging] Layer and highway=steps

Hi Volker, My question does relate to overlapping steps, see http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/h5F for context (King's Cross underground, London). Yes, layer rather than level. I'm thinking about accessibility, as well as ease of mapping. Suppose you are at a certain location, how do you determine what

Re: [Tagging] Layer and highway=steps

"layer" is not relevant here. The "layer" tag is only used to indicate the relative vertical position of the object with respect to other objects. So steps would only have a layer tag if they are crossing another way, but not connecting to it. To indicate the up or down direction of steps, you can

[Tagging] Layer and highway=steps

Hi all, What is the consensus on the layer tag for steps? In the direction of the way, steps should normally run uphill/upwards, say from layer=-2 to layer=-1. Should the steps be tagged with layer=-2 or layer=-1? Or both (using different tags)? Thanks, Bjoern _

Re: [Tagging] steps parallel to escalator

Hi Tobias, Thanks! Would you also set conveying=yes? I assume logically one would not. However, this means that a renderer that doesn't understand "conveying:lanes" renders the way as steps, meaning that people with luggage or difficulty walking may not find it. Thus it may be better to set conv

Re: [Tagging] steps parallel to escalator

Hi Bjoern, On 02.07.2016 10:14, Bjoern Hassler wrote: Would you be able to give me an example for the use of the tag? Say for steps running in parallel with two escalators (running up/down)? you didn't mention the exact arrangement of the escalators, so I'm going to assume two escalators (on

Re: [Tagging] steps parallel to escalator

Hi Tobias, Would you be able to give me an example for the use of the tag? Say for steps running in parallel with two escalators (running up/down)? Thanks, Bjoern On 2 Jul 2016 07:00, "Tobias Knerr" wrote: > On 01.07.2016 20:02, Michael Reichert wrote: > >> Am 01.07.2016 um 19:30 schrieb Bjoer