John Willis wrote:
If it's 42 f, you'd go into hypothermia almost instantly. =}
Not instantly, it's a popular hobby in some countries to swim
in a hole in the ice. Look up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_swimming
Assuming c unless explicit should be enough for mapping.
Agree.
Greg Troxel wrote:
Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com writes:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/37.64529/-118.97450
There's a big difference between transmission and distribution.
Those may be US terms, but I think the concept is pretty universal:
there are fairly high-voltage pretty
Jan van Bekkum wrote:
There are two fundamental approaches to this and I believe that in this
discussion the two are mixed:
1. The physical status of the road is described
2. The tagger determines how hard it will be to use
Over the years, I've seen the different assessment ideas and
Now that the arguments on both sides have been repeated
a couple of times, I'd like to offer my solution; me and some
nearby have been using this for some years already.
First, I believe, why the points mentioned are incompatible:
There's two ways to look at the keys (not just this key):
1)
Tobias Knerr wrote:
The odd one out is clearly that introduction of the Key:maxheight page.
And that also used to clearly state that the key refers to legal limits,
until this edit:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Amaxheightdiff=806806oldid=762233
The history of the
Martin Vonwald wrote:
My understanding so far:
* width: this is the actual width of a feature
* maxwidth: this is a legal limitation; nothing wider than the given value may
use the feature
* maxwidth:physical: according to the wiki page: a physical limit
The width of the vehicle that could use
Volker Schmidt wrote:
I am very cautious about any of this kind of measurement for the following
reasons:
1) the results will be very difficult to standardise
2) the effort is far beyond that what a mapper can reasonably do.
Oh well, I guess I'll have to write a comment here, because I recently
Warin wrote:
highway=track is wider than highway=path,
tracks being useable for at least one 4WD,
So their width should be say 2 metres?
The first sentence is a common misstatement. Although track requires enough
width for four wheeled vehicles, this does not mean path (or footway, or any
Personally, i use maxheight = x + maxheight:physical=x for these, but saying
that signs are the only thing that can be tagged gives bad data.
You may not collide with a bridge, signed or unsigned. Ultrasound range finders
can sometimes be purchased for under 10 euros, so without a sign there
Simon Wüllhorst wrote:
I was a bit confused about the inconsistent usage of landuse and natural tag.
Sometimes it’s not clear why there is used the natural or landuse key.
Landuse and natural tags have different keys, so that
you can have both; they describe different properties.
It's just that
bulwersator wrote:
In my opinion all relevant access tags should be on way and its nodes,
otherwise it is unclear whatever road inherits access data from area.
Yes, and it shouldn't be a goal to inherit access tags from surrounding areas.
Even if mappers would consistently set layer=* on the way
David Bannon wrote:
Should I use this road or not ?
tracktype= does claim to use that approach
It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at
documenting. The part about how well maintained
on the Key:tracktype page was added later after
the values. There is a connection, but tracktype
johnw wrote:
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
there is a lot of stuff that isn't yet covered by
the well introduced landuses, including:
And somebody mentioned landuse=institutional at 68 uses. There's 332 cases of
landuse=civil, which we have used for areas and plots used for state or
municipality
Martin Vonwald wrote:
3 Cut the way where the sign is into a tiny piece of way. Add a
motorcar:backward =no to this tiny piece of way.
That variant has been used in my area. The tiny piece is usually the part
from the junction up to where the sign is located.
This is the oldest common simple
Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
does not represent what's on the ground: there won't be a one way street
sign.
Dual carriage roads don't have one way signs, either, but the parts have
oneway=yes. I just noticed that the relatively recently changed description on
the Key:oneway wiki page is even wrong
Johan C wrote:
As often, it depends on the definition :-) : A tunnel is an underground
passage for a road or similar.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tunnel
People use the word tunnel (or their equivalent word) in different countries in
various contexts; many times these do include all
Anectotal evidence: while driving around Iceland in a Suzuki Jimny
(technically a 4x4),
I would never try to tag that half hour of prose into an OSM key.
Would it not benefit the next driver to know somebody in a (stock) Jimny got
through - or didn't? Even for those driving something else. The
I propose to move psv (including taxi and bus) from the vehicle classes
section to the section by use, because that's what it is.
I agree. (Usage, that relies on the current hierarchy should be limited to
non-existent)
Country differences again. Around here (Finland) all signs(* refer to just
Tracktype= has about 2.5 million grade2 and beyond ways. Tracktype is a
measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor road is.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tracktype
Having now read through the messages, I find that nobody has mentioned a thing
about tracktype, as it was initially
it won't be a clearly defined border where some meters more or less matter or
are clearly definable
IMO one can always ask the locals/local geologists is this location/point a
part of the mountain/mountain range. At some point, everybody agrees that it
is, and somewhere further down the
when access=destination already exists for exactly this situation.
Besides the other arguments about other users already mentioned, the value
'destination' would not work in practice either.
For all we know, routing algorithms currently used don't work like a human
brain, but they handle
What's the difference between road: you may not cycle, cyclepath: you may
cycle and road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath, cyclepath: you may
cycle?
Because it's not
road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath,
but
road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath if the cyclepath is going
2) if the cyclepath is going where you're headed,
you are obliged to use the cyclepath, to the
exclusion of all other carriageways
I think number 2) is intended here?
Yes, the original was an unreviewed sentence. In the original the if only
applies to only, not to may.
Normally in
Using if an able person can jump it as the rule has some issues. How far
Not only that, but as it was described years back* (Maybe you can just jump
over it. from January 2008) did not seem like a hard set rule, but like a soft
description.
*
Can anyone state that in her/his country this traffic_sign is official
and not made up by some people ?
Not my country, but in the UK it's listed here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/5/made
Some countries have a blanket allowance for using a text only sign when no
Martin Koppenhoefer:
Btw.: What about monocycles? Are you alled to carry a monocycle in these
streets?
What would the traffic ticket claim as the offence?
FWIW, our law has a clause that on a footway a pedestrian may not push a bike,
moped, kicksled, ski or skate or carry a big load if it can
Pieren wrote:
was placed on the intersection node itself.
routine engine where routes with traffic signals
are penalized.
I won't be saying anything about the discussed
alternatives at this time, but just wish to point
out that this intersection is controlled by signals
when used only on
More generally, should we tag things that we don't normally map, that
There's no such existing thing as we don't normally map. People map what is
of interest to them. Just use a tag that doesn't already mean something
different.
FWIW, I've used aerial_line=telephone for such telephone lines on
Lester Caine :
This was part of the discussion on tracks and paths at the time.
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
AFAIK that distinction was always made by width
Just to be precise, this choise between track/path based on width only works
in one direction: something that is narrower than a two
connecting the driveways to the road, which they don't
The driveways do connect to the road, even up to the center line, just as much
as normal roads connect through each other in every intersection. All roads and
paths are both: a surface, and a connection. It's an inherent consequence of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement
- Power lines refarming with power=cable deprecation.
Power lines refarming does not at all sound like what it is; diluting
power=line from current usage as a big visibile structure with towers and
cables up in
In the UK, the most common weight restriction is '7.5t except for
access'.
Which doesn't answer the question, so I had to do some digging: no sources seem
to mention any traffic signs in the UK that would limit the actual laden weight
- only the what's-in-the-papers-maximum is used. Which
needed e.g. in Finland) or of
a single vehicle (needed in
most of the vienna convention
countries)
By far the most common sign is - even here - of the vehicle laden weight
variant. Only the max gross weight of a vehicle combination sign does not
(legally) exist - here, that is. Implying that
sign does not exclude vehicles
transporting people
Indeed, yes, I missed the last bit: ausgenommen Personenkraftwagen und
Kraftomnibuse
Seems strange to put it that way (everything but not X), when they mean Y.
--
alv
___
Tagging mailing list
maxweight:type=gross_vehicle, gross_train, laden, empty, etc.
definitions + _weight can be used
as properties in conditional
restriction, eg. maxspeed=80 @
(empty_weight5.5).
Drawback is that only one
maxweight-restriction per way
is possible.
Just today I drove past a sign that means
(Sorry, the previous message was sent prematurely.)
Different weight restrictions exist together on some roads, they need to be
different keys.
--
alv
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
I take it the gross weight
item on the driver's license
Just to make sure, not all countries' driving licenses directly refer to
weight; mine only states the allowed vehicle classes, and I can check the
vehicle's papers to see of it's a B or a C. Effectively the difference is still
max gross
there are weight restrictions
sometimes given
as maximum-per-axis-weight, indicated by traffic sign 263
(see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_263.svg ),
which is
similar, but not the same.
There's
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxaxleload
--
Alv
this example, http://osrm.at/36D
To stay on the A511 no instruction to turn is given,
That just looks like a bug in the osrm.
--
Alv
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Martin Atkins wrote:
Refine the basic railway=* tagging to have a more specific definition,
taking inspiration from the tagging conventions around highway=* .
IMO this is flawed in two ways:
- on empty highways, one can drive in circles on the whole road surface (not
that one may or should, but
Description:
type=route - this is a route
route=road - this is a route for motorcars
network=e-road - this is a cars' route, which is related
to E-road network
IMO network=* should be read as is a route, which is a
part of the E-road network. These connections are not
a real part of the
And usually we
use the key source for how we collect the data, but not the key
source:maxspeed
Realistically, to know that there is a speed limit
sign, or that there isn't one (i.e. =sign
vs. =XX:urban), one has had to visit the place,
so source:maxspeed key effectively says the data
is from a
buffers), I think a landuse= value is appropriate. It isn't
residential, industrial, or retail. Probably the same landuse tag is
appropriate for a big resort as for a regular hotel.
In the beginning it took a while to realize, that the osm tagging
system as-it-was-at-the-start omits some tags
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
* natural - geographical features (e.g. a named forest) abstract
IMO there's no need to limit the key natural to geographical
features only, and never has there been such a distinction.
The natural=wood / landuse=forest distinction is flawed and creates
In practise
By consumer, we all think about renderer (which is in my knowledge
the only consumer looking for bridges in OSM atm). If you keep the
bridge tag on the multiple highways, it is duplicating the
information.
I believe there's no obvious reason not to think that bridge=yes
on a highway could be
there and so on - so: keep them splitted and it's less work with more
backwards compatibility.
If they are not, it's up to you as a mapper if you want outdated
renderers to use the old scheme or not.
Most renderers and conversion tools work internally without
a database (even if they first fetch
Ronnie Soak wrote:
Several addresses per building: addr:* tags on entrance nodes along the
building outline.
Just a reminder that in many countries buildings can have several addresses,
each address on different streets; none of the addresses is a primary
address, and all staircases of said
Simone Saviolo:
if you need to tag the maxspeed anyway, then what's the point of that tag?
It's not about the maxspeed, but the area that supposed to be considered
urban, and interesting in itself.
The rural/urban distinction affects other rules, even outside of the traffic
code.
Here the
The idea is that with a 30 driving rules list applying to an agglomération
If it's just the traffic rules urban vs. rural, there's the tag (with 37 000+
uses)
zone:traffic=**:rural
zone:traffic=**:urban
where ** is the two letter country code.
Don't count on anything ever deriving the rules
specifically, no U-turn is the common signage in many jurisdictions, and
that's a
turn restriction, not an access restriction. in a perfect world, that's how
we'd have
Mostly we are interested in the result, not the signs. It's the traffic
code's
limitation, that their best option is to
Can we start using relations for this already? Really seems like that
provides the specifics we want for this.
So far nobody has provided a real world example of a place where the simple
distance-to-next would not be correct. If somebody does that, then a relation
could be made up.
Only part 5 is relevant.
Having just returned from my (mapping) trip, and having finally
browsed through all these messages on this subjet, I don't think
anybody mentioned it explicitly: You can't consider only part 5.
At part 6, the ways are physically separated, so IMO there
should be two
I don't like the lanes tag where there are no lines on the street, it
misses the point.
It completely misses the point! The lanes tag should only be used for lanes
that are somehow marked - usually with lines.
There are an abundance of unpaved, 6 to 8, or even 10 meter wide roads that
must
Rob Nickerson wrote:
Although I don't know the history of the access
tag, I would expect that designated and
permissive might have something to do with
Public Rights of Way in the UK:
Just a recap on how the values have evolved,
not to open the path controversy, but just to
give some
according to the wiki, for smaller areas of mown and managed grass
for example in the middle of a roundabout, verges beside a road or in
So this isn't actually a tag for every spot where you can find grass,
but it is a tag for auxiliary areas dedicated to traffic.
It reads for example above. My
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
2) A relation exists with member ways without ref tag. This means that
the route is essentially mapped and any further editor is correcting
errors, that he found. Then someone comes and adds a ref tag to one of
the ways - why?
He drove by, and saw a different ref
Pieren wrote:
but the wiki doesn't say explicitely that overtaking=no means no
u-turn as well. Could we write this assertion ?
Probably not.
Here they leave a small (about 3 meter long) gap
in the solid line whenever there's a tiny one lane
side road (or a driveway) and it's not necessary
to
Here's one option: http://osm.org/go/euu1t7NMP--
The dual carriageway (Shenley Road) is brought to a point (node) at
the intersection.
Even if it's currently the only way, it should be
noted that it has the unfortunate effect of
mangling the geometry; there's no slight-right turn
followed by
As long as
(just my favorite example) you have to move x ways to move a street
by a few meters, this will no succeed.
Nobody says that we should not map buildings, bus stops, pubs, benches,
restaurants, post boxes, streams, pubs, trees, advertising columns, etc.
just because one would have to
Before that I added a point in the Open issues section about lanes=1.5
and modified the note at the end of the section Narrow road. As
So, today I got a chance to revisit an unpaved residential road
I've tagged as lanes=1.5 in the distant past. Here's two
pictures of it (in one)
Above, usual
Looks as if 2 cars can pass each other without big problems.
Only in the utopia where all drivers can confidently
manouver their cars at speed to gaps only 10-20 cm
wider than their car. Most people don't.
The white car already has it's right hand wheels
outside the normal driving surface. And
police doesn't enforce the official rules, then there are factually
more lanes on the ground than painted on the road.
Isn't that equal to cycling on sidewalks: we shouldn't tag
sidewalks with bicycle=yes (in coutries where cyclists may
not use them), even if only a dozen or so get a fine each
IMHO it would be a good idea to remove fractional lanes amounts and
forget about them. They are too subjective.
What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here:
Am 21.04.2012 um 13:34 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi:
...What I don't really care if it is called lanes=1.5 or
lanes=1/2+some_other_agreed_tag_which_is_not_an_estimated_width=x, but
simply saying that use lanes=1/2 alone instead I oppose.
I would recommend lanes=2 and
This was discussed intensely some time ago for maxheight, I suggest
you read the archives on this. I agree that a physical restriction is
Originally there was little mention of any of them tags depicting
purely legal restrictions. Even access/*=no was unsuitable or not
allowed, but later, as it
4. building:levels=*Number of stories of the building above ground.
- why only above ground? I find this missleading as well. The logical
meaning of a tag building:levels would be the total amount of
building levels. If it is for the levels above ground, why not
building:levels:above_ground
Are there examples of places where taxis can't use a bus lane?
Like in Germany, also in Finland some bus lanes are just for buses,
whereas on some roads the traffic sign includes the word taxi
to allow both.
___
Tagging mailing list
Are there any other OSM conventions that indicate a lack of a facility? Maybe:
toilets=no
Not going into the wiki-approved new schemes, currently many highway=bus_stop
nodes have one or more of:
shelter=no (54800)
bench=no
timetable=no
waste_basket=no
departures_board=no
Each of these
What data source are you suggesting that the renderer should use, if not the
OSM database?
The same one that the cycle map layer uses to draw contour lines.
Unfortunately that srtm data ends at 60° N: http://osm.org/go/0TORO--
And it's eventually way too scarse.
'established' is a big word. I'm surprised by the taginfo stats. I
never used this tag myself and I don't remember if it was really
discussed in the international lists. It is in the wiki since July.
Taginfo won't show the combinations at the moment, but location=*
is, afaik, used on ways with
Left out a significant word by mistake:
is, afaik, *mostly* used on ways with man_made=pipeline and nodes
The fire hydrant page now suggests fire_hydrant:type=underground/wall etc.,
but many old mappers try to avoid type=* as a key - or as a part of a
key.
--
Alv
The tag lanes should be reserved for the straight
forward lanes.
At a T-junction, the road ending there would then be
lanes=0, given that wording. Nice.
As a result, we just add a node for a minor information and do not
damage the existing highways.
There's bound to be, eventually, enormous
osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
I guess nobody has bothered tagging storm drains yet?
While deducing other underground pipelines from markers and
manhole/valve lids, I have occasionally added some nodes with
manhole=drain, too. Some could do with a, say, location=kerb
tag if the
73 matches
Mail list logo
