Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

See also: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension#The_issues_with_the_lanes_tag (which is from the approved proposal that established the :lanes suffix). From: osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au Sent: Thursday,

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

The “lanes=count” key gives the number of full lanes for motorized traffic. This gives a good estimate for total carrying capacity for vehicle traffic on this road for software that isn’t too concerned about the details, or simply older software that doesn’t know about the :lanes suffix. If

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

I strongly dispute the suggestion in the wiki in regards to lane tagging as this greatly reduces accuracy for complex lane situations and are NOT analogous to the other excluded situations. The wiki is wrong. On Wed, May 9, 2018, 23:46 wrote: > If I may

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

If I may correct your suggestion, that’s not quite right. To quote the wiki for lanes: The lanes=* key should be used to specify the total number of marked lanesof a road. The following lanes should be included: * General purpose

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

If it's exclusive the normal tagging would be: access=no disabled=yes ...to be consistent with other such, like access=no bus=yes Though I would argue that they all should use the access: prefix in this case access=no access:disabled=yes On Thu, May 10, 2018, 02:51 Andrew Davidson

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

My suggestion: cycleway=lane lanes=4 lanes:forward=2 lanes:backward=2 motor_vehicle:lanes:forward=yes|no motor_vehicle:lanes:backward=yes|no bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|designated (maybe no|designated if you're not allowed out of the bike lane on a bike) bicycle:lanes:backward=yes|designated

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On 10/5/18 10:34, Warin wrote: and then the consumer would need to test it for exclusivity. That does appear to be the logic applied. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On 10/05/18 10:32, Andrew Davidson wrote: If you want to go down to the level of mapping individual parking spots have you looked at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space ? No, not individual spaces but a small collection ... See Concord Hospital - best imagery

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On 10/05/18 10:29, Andrew Davidson wrote: Have you looked at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:capacity ? How does it exclude others? Humm would need more than one addition... amenity=parking capacity:disabled=3 capacity=3 and then the consumer would need to test it for exclusivity.

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

If you want to go down to the level of mapping individual parking spots have you looked at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space ? On 10/5/18 10:19, Warin wrote: Hi, I'm tagging a 'disabled parking area' - these are fairly common in my country. There appears to

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

Have you looked at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:capacity ? On 10/5/18 10:19, Warin wrote: Hi, I'm tagging a 'disabled parking area' - these are fairly common in my country. There appears to be no documented way to tag these. I think the present practice is to use the 'access'

[Tagging] access=disabled

Hi, I'm tagging a 'disabled parking area' - these are fairly common in my country. There appears to be no documented way to tag these. I think the present practice is to use the 'access' tag, things like customers, delivery, forestry all specify a restricted access. There are some 400 uses

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

sent from a phone > On 9. May 2018, at 10:38, Erkin Alp Güney wrote: > > It can also be generalised to railways. railway=rail where road_level > corresponds to > > 0=high speed railroad (vmax>250km/h, no level crossings, fully -1, it is a bad idea to use a tag named

[Tagging] address property vs. housenumber as a feature

Is there a way to indicate a housenumber is a feature, vs. a property? In many places, housenumbers refer to buildings or sites, and you might omit addresses on contained features (because you can hope for inheritance from the containing address object). Unfortunately the situation in Italy is

Re: [Tagging] Odd and even ranges of addresses

sent from a phone > On 9. May 2018, at 08:03, Andrew Hain wrote: > > I have been using addr:interpolation to model this I usually add multiple numbers into addr:housenumber in these cases, the interpolation is not intended for this case (same object with

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

The tagging as you described is correct. An alternative is to use simply cycleway=lane or cycleway:left=lane cycleway:right=lane if you want to be explicit about that there are lanes on both sides of the street. I venture to say that any data consumer that processes bicycle-data will

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

Hi, I would assume that in-carriageway cycle lanes (not separate cycle tracks) are one-way by default, just like the general traffic lanes they are part of. Certainly where I live, I do not feel the need to tag them as one-way. Kind regards, Adam On Wed, 9 May 2018, 18:13 Volker Schmidt,

[Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

I want to tag a road (one of thousands in this country) that has two lanes for cars (one in each direction) and two cycle lanes, one on each side. Thes cycle lanes are by law one-way in the same direction of the motorized traffic in the neighbouring road lane. My (basic) tagging would be:

Re: [Tagging] Odd and even ranges of addresses

It is unclear for me what and how you tag. Can you link example OSM object (way/node)? "building tagged addr:housenumber=100-102 may be even numbers only leaving out 101" So building has 100 and 102 housenumber assigned to it? I would use two address nodes placed on a building, but

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

> Road level sounds to me like how high it is. Or on which level in a > complex crossing with fly-overs and stuff.  > Beside that, would it be a problem to add a key for generic road > classification while still keeping the old values? Users could use the > generic classification by preference,

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

Road level sounds to me like how high it is. Or on which level in a complex crossing with fly-overs and stuff. Beside that, would it be a problem to add a key for generic road classification while still keeping the old values? Users could use the generic classification by preference, and default

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

8. May 2018 22:41 by pla16...@gmail.com : > The bit(s) that caused this whole thread to take place. :)  Let's try to > avoid this happening a year or two > down the line. > See the first post - I already changed wiki. I noticed that asking "I think that XYZ,

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

8. May 2018 22:56 by erkinalp9...@gmail.com : > I hereby propose a new tagging scheme. highway=primary ... tertiary > deprecated. highway=road road_level= where values > correspond to > > 0=trunk, 1=primary, 2=secondary, 3=tertiary etc. highway=motorway and > other

[Tagging] Odd and even ranges of addresses

Where I live in Britain some properties have a range of numbers in their address. Depending on how the the road is numbered a building tagged addr:housenumber=100-102 may be even numbers only leaving out 101. I have been using addr:interpolation to model this but Osmose gives a warning. Is