2012/8/26 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
[...]
The
divider tag has been proposed, but I think it has been demonstrated
not to work, as routing decision are made on the node and not on the
line.
I can't remember that there was a demonstration that this approach
doesn't
On 25 August 2012 01:25, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/8/20 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
I've been mostly mapping in large cities, hardly anything in the
countryside. So I can only say that I've found it purposeful in the
city to map with two highways
On 26/08/2012 08:42, Markus Lindholm wrote:
Also, no one has offered any other solution to the routing issue. The
divider tag has been proposed, but I think it has been demonstrated
not to work, as routing decision are made on the node and not on the
line.
Where has it been demonstrated not to
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On 26/08/2012 08:42, Markus Lindholm wrote:
Also, no one has offered any other solution to the routing issue. The
divider tag has been proposed, but I think it has been demonstrated
not to work, as routing decision are
On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 20:30 +0200, Erik Johansson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On 26/08/2012 08:42, Markus Lindholm wrote:
Also, no one has offered any other solution to the routing issue. The
divider tag has been proposed, but I think
2012/8/26 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
On 25 August 2012 01:25, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
purposeful in this case translates to mapping for the router *1 in
OSM-speak.
We're not supposed to map for the renderer nor the router. Exactly for
whom are we to
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
So I think that mapping divider based on pattern type is a better choice
than mapping them based on their legal effects.
Until now in OSM tagging, all turning restrictions have been described
by the restriction, not by
-Original Message-
From: Markus Lindholm [mailto:markus.lindh...@gmail.com]
Sent: 20 August 2012 11:51
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider
On 20 August 2012 10:55, Gregory Williams
greg...@gregorywilliams.me.uk wrote
-Original Message-
From: Gregory Williams [mailto:grego...@geode.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 21 August 2012 09:32
To: 'winfi...@gmail.com'; 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'
Subject: RE: [Tagging] Carriageway divider
From: Jo [mailto:winfi...@gmail.com]
Sent: 20 August 2012 10
You are allowed to cross a solid line, providing it is safe, to enter
ajoining premises or a side road.
In cases where this is prohibited there will be a sign and this should
be tagged with a turn restrictions.
The rules are country-specific.
In the UK you are allowed to do this.
In
I live in hope that, one day, we might have documented defaults or
implied values per territory. Until that time, we may have to map both
the tangible artefact (solid line) and the implications for routing (no
u-turns etc.) separately. They are distinct concepts, related by the
rules of the
Le 21/08/2012 13:04, Colin Smale a écrit :
I live in hope that, one day, we might have documented defaults or
implied values per territory. Until that time, we may have to map both
the tangible artefact (solid line) and the implications for routing
(no u-turns etc.) separately. They are
On 2012-08-19 at 14:09:18 +0200, Markus Lindholm wrote:
In my opinion it's best to treat legal separation (i.e. solid_line)
the same way as physical separation, i.e. create two separate
highways, one in each direction.
This doesn't correspond to reality: I believe that an emergency
vehicle
During a similar discussion in july ([1]) about u-turn, another
existing tag was provided:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking
It's about overtaking but the description could be easily enhanced
with u-turn restriction as well.
Pieren
[1]
For which purpose would the two highways be reassembled?
Split highways may be reassembled when you're not interested in the
attributes that do change between them. For example when you want to
reassemble the portions of the same road with the same class and name
together but aren't
On 20 August 2012 10:55, Gregory Williams greg...@gregorywilliams.me.uk wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Markus Lindholm [mailto:markus.lindh...@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 August 2012 19:26
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider
On 19
On 20 August 2012 09:39, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-08-19 at 14:09:18 +0200, Markus Lindholm wrote:
In my opinion it's best to treat legal separation (i.e. solid_line)
the same way as physical separation, i.e. create two separate
highways, one in each
On 20 August 2012 12:57, Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 August 2012 09:39, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2012-08-19 at 14:09:18 +0200, Markus Lindholm wrote:
In my opinion it's best to treat legal separation (i.e. solid_line)
the same way as
Isn't that what turn restrictions are for?
Colin
On 20/08/2012 13:10, Markus Lindholm wrote:
On 20 August 2012 12:57, Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 August 2012 09:39, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-08-19 at 14:09:18 +0200, Markus
On 2012-08-20 at 12:57:42 +0200, Markus Lindholm wrote:
I consider legal restrictions to be part of reality. Also consider
that a physical separation might be nothing more than a 20cm high curb
that could be as easy to cross for an emergency vehicle as a painted
line.
you can't pass a 20cm
On 20 August 2012 13:25, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Isn't that what turn restrictions are for?
No.
Turn restrictions restrict from which highway object to which highway
object one can traverse, they can't tell whether you're allowed to
make a left or right turn at the start of
On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 13:39 +0200, Markus Lindholm wrote:
On 20 August 2012 13:25, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Isn't that what turn restrictions are for?
No.
Turn restrictions restrict from which highway object to which highway
object one can traverse, they can't tell
On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 12:57 +0200, Markus Lindholm wrote:
On 20 August 2012 09:39, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2012-08-19 at 14:09:18 +0200, Markus Lindholm wrote:
In my opinion it's best to treat legal separation (i.e. solid_line)
the same way as physical
Hi,
On 08/20/2012 12:57 PM, Markus Lindholm wrote:
This doesn't correspond to reality: I believe that an emergency
vehicle can cross a solid line, while of course they would
have problems with a physically separated road.
I consider legal restrictions to be part of reality.
Yes, but we must
On 2012-08-20 at 14:09:28 +0200, Peter Wendorff wrote:
You are allowed to cross a solid line, providing it is safe, to enter
ajoining premises or a side road.
In cases where this is prohibited there will be a sign and this should
be tagged with a turn restrictions.
In Germany that's not the
Yes, when I first read through this thread I was thinking hang on, what's
the fuss about? Solid lines don't stop you entering or exiting adjoining
premises! But apparently this is not true in many countries of the
world. You learn something new every day, etc. So this thread does not
apply to
I think that is the reason why we sould stick with explicit turn restrictions.
The law on solid lines varies from country to country, and we cannot expect the
routers to code, or know the law for every country, mappers on the ground will
be aware of the restrictions however.
Phil
--
Sent from
Am 20.08.2012 15:01, schrieb Philip Barnes:
I think that is the reason why we sould stick with explicit turn
restrictions.
The law on solid lines varies from country to country, and we cannot
expect the routers to code, or know the law for every country, mappers
on the ground will be
On 20 August 2012 14:06, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 08/20/2012 12:57 PM, Markus Lindholm wrote:
This doesn't correspond to reality: I believe that an emergency
vehicle can cross a solid line, while of course they would
have problems with a physically separated road.
2012/8/20 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com
Yes, I understand why one would reassemble highway segments on a route
that only differ on the maxspeed tag or other such minor issue. But
why would one want to reassemble two highways going in opposite
direction and from which there is no
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Markus Lindholm
markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote:
The proposal with divider=solid_line has a disadvantage : the
meaning of a solid line differs in countries/continents. It should be
better tagged with divider=no_u_turn or no_crossing or whatever
you like describing
Then it is up to the driver to follow the rules, and allow the router to
re-plan.
Mapping to this level is really a non-starter, mapping every solid line is not
going to happen. On rural trunk roads they are just frequent, ass they are used
to prevent overtaking on bends, and there are a lot
2012/8/19 Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de:
The turn happens on a node and not on
a line.
+1, that is true, but each of these nodes is also part of at least 2
highways, and this is not too difficult to evaluate so common
turn_restrictions could be created automatically (on a local copy) for
routing.
On 20 August 2012 16:50, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/8/20 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com
Yes, I understand why one would reassemble highway segments on a route
that only differ on the maxspeed tag or other such minor issue. But
why would one want to reassemble two
On 20.08.2012 12:51, Markus Lindholm wrote:
But why would one want to reassemble two highways going in opposite
direction and from which there is no direct legal route to the other?
The obvious reason would be implementing any rendering style that
represents one physical highway as one line,
On 20.08.2012 16:53, Pieren wrote:
The proposal with divider=solid_line has a disadvantage : the
meaning of a solid line differs in countries/continents. It should be
better tagged with divider=no_u_turn or no_crossing or whatever
you like describing the restriction, not the painted line
After a short discussion on the italian talk, I would move the discussion
in this list. After some tests with OSRM, I missed the availability of a
tag to mark the continuos (or discontinued) line that divide the lanes in
several single carriageway.
In my opinion this is an important indication
On 19 August 2012 11:44, Fabrizio Carrai fabrizio.car...@gmail.com wrote:
After a short discussion on the italian talk, I would move the discussion in
this list. After some tests with OSRM, I missed the availability of a tag
to mark the continuos (or discontinued) line that divide the lanes in
On 19.08.2012 14:09, Markus Lindholm wrote:
On 19 August 2012 11:44, Fabrizio Carrai fabrizio.car...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed a Divider=solid_line proposal [3] was already presented . I'm would
revamp such proposal.
What is your opinion ? Is there any router developer here ?
In my opinion
On 19 August 2012 14:49, Fabrizio Carrai fabrizio.car...@gmail.com wrote:
This could be a solution but it is against the reality: this kind of road
are indeed a single entity. The legal division, i.e. the solid_line is
just an attribute.
There's a multitude of cases where a single entity is
On 19 August 2012 15:04, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
On 19.08.2012 14:09, Markus Lindholm wrote:
On 19 August 2012 11:44, Fabrizio Carrai fabrizio.car...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed a Divider=solid_line proposal [3] was already presented . I'm would
revamp such proposal.
What is
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:44:21AM +0200, Fabrizio Carrai wrote:
After a short discussion on the italian talk, I would move the discussion
in this list. After some tests with OSRM, I missed the availability of a
tag to mark the continuos (or discontinued) line that divide the lanes in
several
On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 15:04 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote:
On 19.08.2012 14:09, Markus Lindholm wrote:
On 19 August 2012 11:44, Fabrizio Carrai fabrizio.car...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed a Divider=solid_line proposal [3] was already presented . I'm
would
revamp such proposal.
What is your
On 19.08.2012 15:09, Markus Lindholm wrote:
On 19 August 2012 14:49, Fabrizio Carrai fabrizio.car...@gmail.com wrote:
This could be a solution but it is against the reality: this kind of road
are indeed a single entity. The legal division, i.e. the solid_line is
just an attribute.
There's a
On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 11:44 +0200, Fabrizio Carrai wrote:
After a short discussion on the italian talk, I would move the
discussion in this list. After some tests with OSRM, I missed the
availability of a tag to mark the continuos (or discontinued) line
that divide the lanes in several single
On 19 August 2012 18:23, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
On 19.08.2012 15:09, Markus Lindholm wrote:
On 19 August 2012 14:49, Fabrizio Carrai fabrizio.car...@gmail.com wrote:
This could be a solution but it is against the reality: this kind of road
are indeed a single entity. The
On 19 August 2012 15:26, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 15:04 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote:
On 19.08.2012 14:09, Markus Lindholm wrote:
On 19 August 2012 11:44, Fabrizio Carrai fabrizio.car...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed a Divider=solid_line proposal [3] was
47 matches
Mail list logo
