Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 10:38 PM, johnw wrote: > I was driving in Chiba and Saitama yesterday and encountered a couple new > types of barriers. I realized later one is traffic_calming=chicane. > > > The other one is all over rural Japan as traffic_calming=choker on rural > roads

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Andrew Errington wrote: > I don't think a new tag is warranted. maxwidth=* is fairly unequivocal. > If map users or routers want to interpret it as "max width, but probably > not really, there's probably a bit of extra space, I mean, who's

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

Im talking about how to tag the barrier. That thing was **tight** and very unusual to find in a major urban area. The amount of scars on the poles was amazing. The hight restriction barrier (a common thing) is tagged along with maxheight - this barrier seemed to be the same - if you are over

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

So tag a short section of the road before and after the bridge with a maxwidth tag. It could differ from the maxwidth of the bridge, but routing software should determine the minimum maxwidth for any section of a route (and avoid or penaliseit accordingly). On 8 September 2015 at 14:59, John

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 08:44:07 +0200 Volker Schmidt wrote: > If there is an object on the road that physicslly limits the width of > the vehicles you can use the tag barrier=block like this > barrier=block > material=concrete > maxwidth=2 > vehicle=yes > foot=yes > > Replace

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

I use "maxwidth" to map the max width road signs, which represent a legal access restriction, not necessaryly a physical acess restriction. I use "width" to tag the physical width of a road. If there is an object on the road that physicslly limits the width of the vehicles you can use the tag

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

> On Sep 8, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:38:53 +0900 > johnw > wrote: > >> Is this a reason for creating barrier=width_restrictor ? > > Yes, construction itself also may be mapped (in addition

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:38:53 +0900 johnw wrote: > Is this a reason for creating barrier=width_restrictor ? Yes, construction itself also may be mapped (in addition to maxwidth). Though it would be a good idea to document it on wiki (maybe put through proposal to ensure that it

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

This is overloading the maxwidth tag - sometimes it means legal, sometimes it means physical. This distinction needs to be crystal clear as it can be a matter of life and death (emergency vehicles can ignore legal limits but not physical ones...) so making its semantics so context-dependent is

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

johnw wrote on 08.09.15 05:38: (...) https://goo.gl/maps/8KUw7 The maxwidth is signed and guardrails are doing the job. This is width limited for the very narrow bridge in the background. barrier=guard_rail maxwidth=2.2 traffic_sign=maxwidth https://goo.gl/maps/3NT9X The other direction.

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

sent from a phone > Am 08.09.2015 um 09:09 schrieb Colin Smale : > > This is overloading the maxwidth tag - sometimes it means legal, sometimes it > means physical. > maxwidth is a legal limit, typically signposted. > This distinction needs to be crystal clear as it

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:12:22 +0200 Carl von Einem wrote: > > https://goo.gl/maps/3NT9X The other direction. Poles are used. > > see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dbollard > > barrier=bollard > maxwidth=2.2 (should be the same width as above) >

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

sent from a phone > Am 08.09.2015 um 11:12 schrieb Carl von Einem : > > barrier=guard_rail > maxwidth=2.2 > traffic_sign=maxwidth traffic_sign is a tag used to tag actual traffic signs at their position, it doesn't look right together with a linear barrier like a guard rail

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

I use bollards all the time , guardrails too. If i tagged it as you suggest, we wouldn't need any of the cycle barriers, pinches, nor chicanes if they happened to be made of poles. we could use bollards for it all. The guardrails are there not to contain a car nor block access, they are

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

Sorry Martin, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Supporting or undermining? It's rather difficult to tell. Regarding maxwidth:physical, the examples in the wiki are actually from Finland where they apparently have explicit signs for the physical width. --colin On 2015-09-08 11:50,

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

Ok, I misread "The other direction." I read it as "the width enforcement on the other side of the bridge" (since two images were linked) and there I see bollards on both sides of the road to prevent lorries to use the wrong lane... John Willis wrote on 08.09.15 12:01: I use bollards all the

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 08.09.15 11:53: Am 08.09.2015 um 11:12 schrieb Carl von Einem : barrier=guard_rail maxwidth=2.2 traffic_sign=maxwidth traffic_sign is a tag used to tag actual traffic signs at their position, it doesn't look right together with a linear barrier

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

sent from a phone > Am 08.09.2015 um 06:52 schrieb Andrew Errington : > > Since most roads do not have a maxwidth=* restriction it is safe to assume > that the road is suitable for any vehicle*, but if you add a maxwidth tag > somewhere it is immediately clear it was

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

sent from a phone > Am 08.09.2015 um 12:07 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : > > Certainly not only motor_vehicle. At least horse=yes is missing. +1, the exact kind of access for a bollard depends on the kind of road it is on and its access restrictions. cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

sent from a phone > Am 08.09.2015 um 12:56 schrieb Colin Smale : > > Sorry Martin, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Supporting or > undermining? It's rather difficult to tell. I'd say I'm more agreeing than not, but wanted to point out that width doesn't work

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

Colin Smale wrote: > Regarding maxwidth:physical, the examples in the wiki are actually from > Finland where they apparently have explicit signs for the physical width. Just for clarification: even here in Finland the signs are rare, and the only two examples I remember straight away on public

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

sent from a phone Am 08.09.2015 um 12:52 schrieb Carl von Einem : >>> barrier=guard_rail >>> maxwidth=2.2 >>> traffic_sign=maxwidth >> >> traffic_sign is a tag used to tag actual traffic signs >> at their position, it doesn't look right together with >> a linear barrier like a

[Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

I was driving in Chiba and Saitama yesterday and encountered a couple new types of barriers. I realized later one is traffic_calming=chicane. The other one is all over rural Japan as traffic_calming=choker on rural roads that could bypass traffic near the rivers, - but this one is not for

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

I don't think a new tag is warranted. maxwidth=* is fairly unequivocal. If map users or routers want to interpret it as "max width, but probably not really, there's probably a bit of extra space, I mean, who's going to be that petty" then that's not your problem. Since most roads do not have a