2018-01-23 12:58 GMT+01:00 marc marc :
>
> it separates the work into 2 distinct tasks:
> if I see a "urban area" sign, I tag maxspeed:type=urban.
> I automatically take advantage of the default values existing on
> boundary without having to worry about which hierarchical level is
> responsible f
Le 23. 01. 18 à 12:38, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> those who add the panel in osm are not necessarily aware of the level
> of government that can change its default value.
> t...
> the solution would again to have a default:maxspeed on a boundary.
> the panels should be simp
2018-01-23 12:05 GMT+01:00 marc marc :
> > 2018-01-23 10:16 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :
> > If they already had the power, the source:maxspeed value should not
> > have referred to BE but to Flanders specifically (BE:VL?).
>
> This usecase show that the country prefix is not useful.
>
>>
>>
I
Le 23. 01. 18 à 10:31, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> 2018-01-23 10:16 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :
>
> Was the speed limit already the responsibility of the regional
> governments? Or was there a constitutional change to delegate that
> power to them?
>
> If they already had the powe
1) If we can agree that this is needed, I believe it can be built. We would
need to first agree on a notation (wiki is not machine readable), but the
rest should be fine. Worst case scenario is having a system that takes a
planet.osm file and "expands" it, resulting in a separate server with
period
Le 05. 01. 18 à 13:23, Matej Lieskovský a écrit :
> Could we perhaps agree that we need a way to list assumed and implied
> values on a smaller than global level?
there are two problems:
1) a list of some local default exists (e. g. speed values according to
the type of road per country). the p
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:48 PM, ael wrote:
> To suggest that we now have to include every possible tag with an
> explicit value on every element is just ridiculous: the logical
> consequence of an explicit oneway on all ways.
+1
The rule is and has always been in OSM the following : "if oneway
To suggest that we now have to include every possible tag with an
explicit value on every element is just ridiculous: the logical
consequence of an explicit oneway on all ways.
Where there really is a need to remove ambiguity, surely something like
an area or perhaps relation (less obvious to the
Am 29.08.2014 um 09:58 schrieb Xavier Noria:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Peter Wendorff
> wrote:
>
>> +0.5, as UIs are decoupled from the data in OSM. You may write your own
>> editor with a completely different UI, even one that doesn't know about
>> oneway at all, so reasoning on UI pref
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
> +0.5, as UIs are decoupled from the data in OSM. You may write your own
> editor with a completely different UI, even one that doesn't know about
> oneway at all, so reasoning on UI preferences may help to get the best
> default, but not to
Am 28.08.2014 um 23:02 schrieb Xavier Noria:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Peter Wendorff
> wrote:
>
>> No, it isn't.
>> The interpretation of the database, and the meaning, restricted to the
>> fact of the streets oneway-ness is the same, but no value at all does
>> not say "this is no one
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
> No, it isn't.
> The interpretation of the database, and the meaning, restricted to the
> fact of the streets oneway-ness is the same, but no value at all does
> not say "this is no oneway street", it says nothing more than "we don't
> know
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
> Am 28.08.2014 um 22:35 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
>> 2014-08-28 22:31 GMT+02:00 Xavier Noria :
>>
>>> that area in the center with many blue lines... almost all of them are
>>> wrong. You cannot rely on that default in Barcelona at all.
>>
Am 28.08.2014 um 22:35 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
> 2014-08-28 22:31 GMT+02:00 Xavier Noria :
>
>> that area in the center with many blue lines... almost all of them are
>> wrong. You cannot rely on that default in Barcelona at all.
>>
>
> And in this really rare situation it is reasonable to use
Am 28.08.2014 um 19:10 schrieb Xavier Noria:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:52 PM, John Packer wrote:
>
>>> For a street, there is no practical difference nowadays between "no"
>>> and "unset", which is a smell for me. Either way means no.
>>
>> For the software? No, there isn't a difference.
>> For
2014-08-28 22:31 GMT+02:00 Xavier Noria :
> that area in the center with many blue lines... almost all of them are
> wrong. You cannot rely on that default in Barcelona at all.
>
And in this really rare situation it is reasonable to use oneway=no.
___
T
Since I see the characteristics of Barcelona (and other cities/towns I
know) are exceptional for most of you guys, let me share a couple of
maps to explain where I am coming from.
This is a typical sector of Barcelona:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k7o32zbneoi8y6q/barcelona_sample.png?dl=0
As y
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 19:16 +0200, Xavier Noria wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > To use add oneway=no in selected areas to confirm the road has been
> > surveyed is fine, but not everywhere as that causes tag clutter and
> > makes it difficult for a
Am 28.08.2014 19:10, schrieb Xavier Noria:
...
> But for example, every single client software of OSM that is out of
> control of OSM is assuming that contract. That's what I believe makes
> a reset (no NULLs in the database) plus semantic change for NULLs
> would not be possible. No way to syn
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
> +1
>
> To use add oneway=no in selected areas to confirm the road has been
> surveyed is fine, but not everywhere as that causes tag clutter and
> makes it difficult for a mapper to see the important tags.
Which tools does a hard-core mappe
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 13:52 -0300, John Packer wrote:
> For a street, there is no practical difference nowadays
> between "no"
> and "unset", which is a smell for me. Either way means no.
> For the software? No, there isn't a difference.
> For the mapper? Yes, there is a di
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:52 PM, John Packer wrote:
>> For a street, there is no practical difference nowadays between "no"
>> and "unset", which is a smell for me. Either way means no.
>
> For the software? No, there isn't a difference.
> For the mapper? Yes, there is a difference.
The mapper
>
> For a street, there is no practical difference nowadays between "no"
> and "unset", which is a smell for me. Either way means no.
>
For the software? No, there isn't a difference.
For the mapper? Yes, there is a difference.
Since nowadays NULL for a street means oneway=no a change in the
> se
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
> In any case there are roughly 45 million highway segments on which a
> oneway tag could make sense, vs. roughly 6 million oneway=yes and 1.5
> million oneway=no. I suspect that it is really -far- too late to change
> the semantics of this spec
Am 28.08.2014 17:07, schrieb Xavier Noria:
...
>
> That makes me also wonder as a side-effect about the implication of
> the current contract and the usage patterns it promotes. Implications
> in particular for turn-by-turn indications, but that was secondary, my
> main motivation is the one abo
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
> I believe that you haven't explicitly said so, but probably essentially
> want to be able to find streets that haven't been surveyed and
> potentially need a oneway tag and avoid false positives (aka such that
> are actually bi-directional).
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Bryan Housel wrote:
> Right now, the oneway checkbox in iD cycles through “Yes” “No” and “Assumed
> to be No” (blank).
>
> There are a handful of situations that will switch this checkbox to say “Yes”
> “No” and “Assumed to be Yes” (blank).
> (for example, a `ju
I believe that you haven't explicitly said so, but probably essentially
want to be able to find streets that haven't been surveyed and
potentially need a oneway tag and avoid false positives (aka such that
are actually bi-directional).
I don't believe you'll get any further with the oneway tag, bu
Right now, the oneway checkbox in iD cycles through “Yes” “No” and “Assumed to
be No” (blank).
There are a handful of situations that will switch this checkbox to say “Yes”
“No” and “Assumed to be Yes” (blank).
(for example, a `junction=roundabout` or `highway=motorway` tag)
It sounds to me lik
For the sake of discussion, I believe the interface for setting this
attribute could be different (I am a software developer).
For example, in graphical interfaces like iD you could have "no"
preselected as convenience. But if you send "no", you are saying "no".
Otherwise, you could opt-out and le
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Dan S wrote:
>> 2) In cities and towns where two-way streets are exceptional like
>> Barcelona or Madrid, are people expected to tag them "no"? The
>> motivation for this question is that there seems to be the convention
>> not to tag them, and therefore you canno
On 2014-08-28 15:53, Dan S wrote:
As Peter said, the default for services using OSM is always to assume
a way is _not_ oneway unless tagged otherwise.
Unless it is tagged as junction=roundabout
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
ht
2014-08-28 14:45 GMT+01:00 Xavier Noria :
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Dave F. wrote:
>
>> I wish people in OSM would stop making things up, believing it makes their
>> point of view stronger.
>
> What?
>
> I am not assuming one-way would be a better default. Nor I am assuming
> anything abo
Xavier Noria wrote, on 2014-08-28 15:45:
2) In cities and towns where two-way streets are exceptional like
Barcelona or Madrid, are people expected to tag them "no"? The
motivation for this question is that there seems to be the convention
not to tag them, and therefore you cannot tell the conf
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Dave F. wrote:
> I wish people in OSM would stop making things up, believing it makes their
> point of view stronger.
What?
I am not assuming one-way would be a better default. Nor I am assuming
anything about the world at large. What are you talking about?
I o
I wish people in OSM would stop making things up, believing it makes
their point of view stronger.
On 28/08/2014 13:20, Xavier Noria wrote:
In the European cities and towns I know the majority of streets are
one-way.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus p
Xavier Noria writes:
In the European cities and towns I know the majority of streets are
one-way.
In not a single EU city I know of there is something close to "a majority
of streets" being one-way. Even more. In most of the villages the roads are
not one-way. Based on this it's a good rat
Hi Xavier,
"no" is the "default" value of the oneway tag as it's the most correct
assumption.
First as in general most roads are not oneway roads (considering any
road inside and outside of cities), and second as the other case around
would be even worse:
If "yes, this is a oneway street" would be
Hi,
The default value for "oneway" is "no" for most types of roads. That
is, if the attribute has no value set, "no" is assumed. Which is the
rationale for that default?
In the European cities and towns I know the majority of streets are
one-way. For example Barcelona, or Madrid, or Paris. In suc
39 matches
Mail list logo
