Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

On fös 2.sep 2016 21:32, LeTopographeFou wrote: > Hi, > > When I add a way/node which has already been added in a relation JOSM > warn me and ask me to confirm or to cancel. So there is no issue with > JOSM, or at least with the actual revision, to add more than once a > way/node in a relation.

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

I'm not a big fan of the wiki. I'd have to reread it every 2 weeks. I can tell you how I map PT... Start with stops ordered in proper sequence If a stop is served twice, add it twice Then the ways, also ordered sequentially this allows visual check of continuity No forward/backward roles,

Re: [Tagging] Permissive turn restrictions

On fim 1.sep 2016 12:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Why not (also) map the ones where it isn't allowed? You probably can't count > on routing software implementing all country specific defaults (at least > currently it isn't the case with the popular osm-based ones, so they need > specific

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

Hi, When I add a way/node which has already been added in a relation JOSM warn me and ask me to confirm or to cancel. So there is no issue with JOSM, or at least with the actual revision, to add more than once a way/node in a relation. AFAIK order of members of type "way" in a relation of

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

On fös 2.sep 2016 20:54, André Pirard wrote: > On 2016-09-02 22:20, Svavar Kjarrval wrote: >> JOSM doesn't allow the user to add any repeats at all. Fortunately, it >> doesn't remove repeats which were already there. > I was showing nodes and Jo is showing ways. > Repeating nodes is not allowed

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

This is very odd, as there are definitely bus routes which serve the same stop more than once, so adding nodes more than once should be possible as well. Let me know if you need real life examples Jo 2016-09-02 22:54 GMT+02:00 André Pirard : > On 2016-09-02 22:20,

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

On 2016-09-02 22:20, Svavar Kjarrval wrote: > On fös 2.sep 2016 14:07, André Pirard wrote: >> On 2016-09-02 15:19, Jo wrote: >>> The way I understand this, no explicit tagging is needed. You could have >>> >>> aBBc >>> >>> Where c is the service way of the terminal. >> I think that, just like

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

Tagging maxspeed is purely for a router. So are turn restrictions. As for turn:lanes meant for complex intersectionsthe examples in the wiki show very simple uses. I can't see anything in it, or the discussion page, indicating that it is only for complex intersections. Certainly there is a

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

On fös 2.sep 2016 14:07, André Pirard wrote: > On 2016-09-02 15:19, Jo wrote: >> The way I understand this, no explicit tagging is needed. You could have >> >> aBBc >> >> Where c is the service way of the terminal. > I think that, just like within a plain highway, using the same node > (B) twice

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:18 PM, David Mease wrote: > I thing my reservations about this type of tagging is that this may be > "tagging for the router". > On some level, all of it is. > I still view the turn:lanes scheme as a (probably incomplete) way of > describing

Re: [Tagging] artificial cave, historic military shelter

2016-09-02 18:04 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić : > I'm not sure. Natural=cave is for natural caves, but the wiki on the cave > page says that man made caves are historic=mine: It doesn't say they are mines, it says that man made caves might be mines. It also says that "mining

Re: [Tagging] artificial cave, historic military shelter

I'm not sure. Natural=cave is for natural caves, but the wiki on the cave page says that man made caves are historic=mine: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cave#Man_Made Historic=mine wiki talks only about mineral mines. Shelter_type=rock_shelter is also a natural rock formation, not deep

Re: [Tagging] artificial cave, historic military shelter

sent from a phone > Il giorno 02 set 2016, alle ore 15:43, demon.box ha > scritto: > > hi, how can I tag correctly this artificial cave, used like a shelter for the > austriac soldiers during the 1915-1918 first world war? > >

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

On 2016-09-02 15:19, Jo wrote: > The way I understand this, no explicit tagging is needed. You could have > > aBBc > > Where c is the service way of the terminal. I think that, just like within a plain highway, using the same node (B) twice in succession makes no sense. I bet that JOSM won't be

[Tagging] artificial cave, historic military shelter

hi, how can I tag correctly this artificial cave, used like a shelter for the austriac soldiers during the 1915-1918 first world war? amenity=shelter shelter_type=rock_shelter man_made=yes historic=yes it could be correct? p.s. it's

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

The way I understand this, no explicit tagging is needed. You could have aBBc Where c is the service way of the terminal. Polyglot 2016-09-02 14:13 GMT+02:00 André Pirard : > On 2016-09-02 11:43, Michael Tsang wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am mapping bus routes in my

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

On 2016-09-02 11:43, Michael Tsang wrote: > Hi all, > > I am mapping bus routes in my city. There is a route where the buses need > reversing in order to enter the bus terminus. Is there a "standard" role in > the route relation which denotes that the bus is to reverse through that > segment of

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Artwork problems

2016-09-02 10:55 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć : > actually, if it's just decorative, it's not art ;-) >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decorative_arts > > =P admittedly it is not completely clear what osm "artwork" is referring to (it's "public art" according to the wiki), and

[Tagging] bus route with reversing

Hi all, I am mapping bus routes in my city. There is a route where the buses need reversing in order to enter the bus terminus. Is there a "standard" role in the route relation which denotes that the bus is to reverse through that segment of the road? Michael -- Sent from KMail

Re: [Tagging] Permissive turn restrictions

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > Il giorno 01 set 2016, alle ore 12:00, Nick Hocking < > nick.hock...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > Turn restriction seem to be either mandatory (only) or prohibitive (no) > but I think we need a permissive

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Artwork problems

sent from a phone > Il giorno 02 set 2016, alle ore 00:35, Daniel Koć ha scritto: > > How do we know when "main purpose is to remind us of a person or an event" or > is just decorative actually, if it's just decorative, it's not art ;-) cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jack Burke wrote: > Would love to compare notes on that, but it'll have to be later next week. > > If you want to look at what I do for exits, feel free to examine pretty > much all of them on I 75 south of Atlanta, as well as through downtown.