Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 14:36 SelfishSeahorse wrote: >> >> I wasn't aware that it is allowed to cross a single solid line in the >> USA. Hence forget the overtaking:lanes:=* tags in >> the example in my last message. On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:48 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > It's a recentish (late

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

It's a recentish (late 90s/early 2000s) update to the MUTCD, before that you would be correct (and usually as a stopgap between striping, places where this is still the case is highlighted by signage, but this is getting to be rare as most plsces have had long enough to require a repaint if not a

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

I wasn't aware that it is allowed to cross a single solid line in the USA. Hence forget the overtaking:lanes:=* tags in the example in my last message. On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 20:38, Paul Johnson wrote: > > I see it as a variation on no turn on red/turn after stop OK on red > dichotomy. Not

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:38 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > I see it as a variation on no turn on red/turn after stop OK on red > dichotomy. Not really significant enough to bring up in the map data > specifically, so long as the signal itself is mapped. And the single white > line seems to not

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

I see it as a variation on no turn on red/turn after stop OK on red dichotomy. Not really significant enough to bring up in the map data specifically, so long as the signal itself is mapped. And the single white line seems to not be of special significance in most cases, only meaning that you

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

I would leave the short passing_place as is, i.e. the one that also gives space to pass oncoming traffic. For the ones intended for letting same direction traffic pass I would really not differentiate by short (what is short?), long or alternating. /Tobi Am 08.09.2018 um 02:29 schrieb Warin:

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

The solid line is a special case. So many other turn-outs/climbing lanes/... have a dashed line or even no line at all. I wouldn't make a difference based on markings. I also strongly favor the lines solution but wonder if we could not stretch the turn key a bit. Something along

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

I don't think so. Really the only thing throwing this off seems to be the same thing throwing off people who think bus and bicycle lanes shouldn't be counted as lanes: the solid line. On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 11:50 Kevin Kenny wrote: > It seems to me that the key attribute of the 'climbing lane'

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

It seems to me that the key attribute of the 'climbing lane' situation that Dave mentions is that it's an additional lane. It's provided for slow-moving vehicles, sure, but that's really a special case of the near-universal convention that slow-moving traffic gives way to overtaking traffic by

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

I'd say that it would be better to leave them unmapped than to incorrectly map them as separate service roads. If they are only divided by a single painted line, they are just lanes, not a separate roadway. And it's not too difficult to split the way twice and paste on a couple of tags On Mon,

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 08:17 Dave Swarthout wrote: Although these lanes are not physically separated by a barrier other than a > painted line, I'm going to opt for the service road scenario. It is simple, > much, much less error prone to map, and IMHO, would do the job better than > the lanes

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

You're welcome! I understand that the lanes method is time-consuming. Alternatively, you could skip the three lines section as it is rather short. Then you would just have to split the road way twice and copy-paste the tags. I think this is even faster than drawing and tagging two additional

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

Wow, thanks for the help, Markus. I really appreciate it. But I must say, if I have to use that method to tag all the turnouts on the Sterling Highway, I'm going to leave them unmapped. Life is too short and there is a lot of other mapping yet to do in Alaska. Although these lanes are not

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 11:17, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I'm still not convinced the lanes:smv tagging scenario is the best solution > but were I to change my mind, how would I tag my turnouts? Here is another > screen shot of the particular section of highway with a turnout on both sides > of

Re: [Tagging] Designated value as a key

On 09/09/2018 13:53, Johnparis wrote: I agree that it is theoretically a problem for the software not to use access:bicycle=yes (for example) instead of bicycle=yes. I believe I've seen (from Thorsten?) a list of such tags, as a hierarchy.

Re: [Tagging] Designated value as a key

What if there are 2 groups that have designated access (e.g. foot & bicycle) ? Then we have to start the discussion of the semi-colon separator all over again, during which someone will propose to move the value back to the key (or as part of a key). and we end up with bicycle=designated;

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

On 10/09/18 19:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2018-09-10 10:41 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale >: The baseline is defined by the state, in accordance with the UNCLOS rules, and published to the world by deposition with the UN. The basis for the baseline is: "the

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

On 2018-09-10 11:34, Colin Smale wrote: > On 2018-09-10 11:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2018-09-10 10:41 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale : > > The baseline is defined by the state, in accordance with the UNCLOS rules, > and published to the world by deposition with the UN. The basis for the >

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

On 2018-09-10 11:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2018-09-10 10:41 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale : > >> The baseline is defined by the state, in accordance with the UNCLOS rules, >> and published to the world by deposition with the UN. The basis for the >> baseline is: "the normal baseline for

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

2018-09-10 10:41 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale : > > The baseline is defined by the state, in accordance with the UNCLOS rules, > and published to the world by deposition with the UN. The basis for the > baseline is: "the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the > territorial sea is the low-water

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

>The video is from the 70s, more passing places on more modern S1s are longer and will not require the vehicle being passed to slow down. If you time it right it is >common to pass vehicles travelling in the opposite direction at 60 mph. So it is in Alaska where my scenario is located. When I'm

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

On 2018-09-10 10:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> On 10. Sep 2018, at 02:09, Joseph Eisenberg >> wrote: >> >> The legal definition of the baseline is the low tide line and also cuts >> across bays, inlets and estuaries. > > I thought the baseline was generally defined politically/legally.

Re: [Tagging] What is a terrace after all?

Am 10.09.2018 um 02:27 schrieb André Pirard: What should I do? building=terrace describes mapping separate houses as an *alternative*. Erase what another mapper did, and replace that element with houses? That's what I do. You may

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

sent from a phone > On 10. Sep 2018, at 02:09, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > The legal definition of the baseline is the low tide line and also cuts > across bays, inlets and estuaries. I thought the baseline was generally defined politically/legally. In Italy for example there is a law

Re: [Tagging] What is a terrace after all?

sent from a phone > On 10. Sep 2018, at 09:46, Colin Smale wrote: > > For an individual dwelling, we have building=house. For the entire row as a > single building, building=terrace_of_houses might be better, or otherwise > building=housing_terrace. But not building=terraced_house as that

Re: [Tagging] Designated value as a key

sent from a phone > On 10. Sep 2018, at 01:09, Johnparis wrote: > > I said "for example." Taginfo has 2716 different values for the "access" key, > only a few of which are documented. there’ll always be a long tail in a system that allows to use any tags you like. Documentation makes most

Re: [Tagging] What is a terrace after all?

On 10/09/2018 08:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I agree that building=terrace is not a nice tag, I would prefer building=terraced_house To my mind, a terrace consists of a number of terraced houses. Each house in the terrace is one terraced house, but the whole block of houses (mapped as a

Re: [Tagging] What is a terrace after all?

For an individual dwelling, we have building=house. For the entire row as a single building, building=terrace_of_houses might be better, or otherwise building=housing_terrace. But not building=terraced_house as that implies a single dwelling. On 2018-09-10 09:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

Graeme, You suggest that coastline and baseline might be the same thing. Unfortunately I, and many other people would take a different view. The coastline (especially as used in OSM) is a geographically defined line, that no law or declaration can change. It is normally taken to be connected to

Re: [Tagging] What is a terrace after all?

sent from a phone > On 10. Sep 2018, at 02:27, André Pirard wrote: > > In my mind, building=terrace is a bad tag. It should be: > building=house > house:terraced=yes > be it as a row of houses or a single one. I agree that building=terrace is not a nice tag, I would prefer

Re: [Tagging] What is a terrace after all?

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:19 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 10/09/18 10:27, André Pirard wrote: > > > On the other hand, I once asked how to map a part of the street that is > fitted with tables and seats near a café or restaurant. > That is a real terrace. > > > But it is not a