Am Mi., 9. Okt. 2019 um 22:05 Uhr schrieb Leif Rasmussen <354...@gmail.com>:
> I'd go with landuse=forestry on the property, a tag that was suggested
> here a while back. This isn't official or anything, but moving towards
> tagging forest parcels differently from the trees seems important.
>
Hi Frederik, hi everyone,
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 08:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> The question is basically two-fold; one, what are the established
> standards and rules concerning this situation, and two, in how far is it
> acceptable to deviate from these standards if a local mapper thinks it
>
On 10/10/19 20:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm
mailto:frede...@remote.org>>:
The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is
clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn
restrictions
at
10 Oct 2019, 08:38 by frede...@remote.org:
> The question is basically two-fold; one, what are the established
> standards and rules concerning this situation
>
Splitting road on physical separation
seems to be a standard.
And painted line is not considered
as physical separation.
Among
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:38:28AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where a local
> mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway (two
> lanes in each direction, and a double continuous line painted in the
> middle
Asking OSM mappers if they have "strict standards" on this issue is chasing
a fantasy, IMHO. We discussed this in our local Thailand mapping forum and
AFAIK, it wasn't resolved. In one example, a five-lane highway with no
physical barrier and the "fifth lane" painted with big yellow stripes, the
Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <
frede...@remote.org>:
> The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is
> clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn restrictions
> at junctions.
this is an interesting aspect: why do we need turn
Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 12:41 Uhr schrieb Andrew Harvey <
andrew.harv...@gmail.com>:
> That sounds very similar to
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking which let's you
> determine when you can cross that dividing line when tagged as a single
> undivided way.
>
overtaking is a
Hi,
DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where a local
mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway (two
lanes in each direction, and a double continuous line painted in the
middle which is physically possible but legally not allowed to cross).
Other
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 21:23, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/19 20:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <
> frede...@remote.org>:
>
>> The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is
>> clearer and
Tagging mailing list wrote
> Our local Primary School (ages 4 - 11 years, just in case there is any
> doubt) has shade sails over part of the playground to protect the little
> darlings from the sun whilst playing outside.
> You would not get as very warm welcome, if you turned up there in your
>
On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 08:38 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where a
> local
> mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway (two
> lanes in each direction, and a double continuous line painted in the
> middle which
10 Oct 2019, 10:44 by f...@zz.de:
> And i see fit in the original "Conventions" document [1] which terms
> it as "Divided highways should be drawn as separate ways." for divided
> highways.
> First - "should" is a relaxed term which is no MUST and second -
> it does not make any statement about
Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 00:30, Vɑdɪm
> vadp.devl@
> wrote:
>
>>
>> As for sunshades (or parasoles), they are used by sunbathers en masse, in
>> particular to cast a shadow on the face.
>>
>
> Maybe at the places that you sunbathe, but certainly not everywhere!
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:38 AM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Personally I believe that "physical division => separate ways; no
> physical division => shared way" is the standard in OSM, or perhaps at
> least the "rule of thumb". But (since people in the German discussion
> have more or less claimed
Markus-5 wrote
> The problem here is that pedestrians are routed along the highway=*
> way and, as you wrote, tram tracks are usually (unfortunately) mapped
> as separate ways. Consequently, the railway=crossing node is
> disconnected from the highway=* way with the highway=crossing node
> (that
Why would it be inferior? Visually, you mean? Or would navigational problems
arise? There already exist roads with some parts physically separated halves
and other parts combined halves, does that give problems?
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 10 okt. 2019 om 15:01 heeft Snusmumriken
> het volgende
On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 15:51 +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Why would it be inferior? Visually, you mean? Or would navigational
> problems arise? There already exist roads with some parts physically
> separated halves and other parts combined halves, does that give
> problems?
>
> Mvg Peter
Florian Lohoff-2 wrote
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:38:28AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Mapping large, multi-lane roads with a "do not cross line" in the
> middle as single line requires 4-5 times the number of turn
> restrictions. These are number i am estimating from my own experience
>
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 16:39, Vɑdɪm wrote:
>
> Paul Allen wrote
> > The presence or absences of sunshades is not a reliable indicator.
>
> Did I say the opposite?
>
> Yes, you said this earlier in the thread:
There is no any requirement for sunshades in the proposal. Albeit I think
> they could
do we really want to repeat for another hundred posts "sunshades,
sunshades"?
Either make new points, or please refrain from repetitive posting.
Thank you
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 02:28:51PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> 10 Oct 2019, 10:44 by f...@zz.de:
> > And i see fit in the original "Conventions" document [1] which terms
> > it as "Divided highways should be drawn as separate ways." for divided
> > highways.
> > First - "should" is a
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 16:04, Vɑdɪm wrote:
>
> Perhaps that's question of a definition. Please have a look at 3 pictures
> posted here earlier and let me know what do you think of them.
>
To what end? You've found pictures of sunbathing areas with sunshades.
Others have
found pictures of
Paul Allen wrote
> You've found pictures of sunbathing areas with sunshades.
> Others have found pictures of sunbathing areas without sunshades. Yet
> others have
> found pictures of sunshades that are most definitely not in sunbathing
> areas.
Great! That sounds good to me.
Paul Allen wrote
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:38:28AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where a local
> mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway (two
> lanes in each direction, and a double continuous line painted in the
> middle
Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 16:45 Uhr schrieb Florian Lohoff :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Node
> "Where ways intersect at the same altitude, the two ways must share a
> node (for example, a road junction)"
>
>
altitude?
I'm not sure what this is trying to say. What is the typical
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 17:13, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 16:45 Uhr schrieb Florian Lohoff :
>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Node
>> "Where ways intersect at the same altitude, the two ways must share a
>> node (for example, a road junction)"
>>
>
> altitude?
>
Paul Allen wrote
> They are not a good indicator either
> way and therefore should not be mentioned in the proposal even as a
> possible indicator.
Perhaps that's question of a definition. Please have a look at 3 pictures
posted here earlier and let me know what do you think of them.
--
Sent
Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 16:10 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
> For example if you try to create a routing advice for a car journey.
> Let's say that the journey starts at Main street number 10 and that
> Main street is a two way street where the two directions are
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:22 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/19 20:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <
> frede...@remote.org>:
>
>> The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is
>> clearer and
10 Oct 2019, 16:29 by f...@zz.de:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:38:28AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where a local
>> mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway (two
>> lanes in each direction, and a
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 16:10, Snusmumriken
wrote:
>
> For example if you try to create a routing advice for a car journey.
> Let's say that the journey starts at Main street number 10 and that
> Main street is a two way street where the two directions are legally
> separated. Let's say that
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 07:53:39PM +0200, Markus wrote:
>
> That's not true. There's another way to tell routers that it is
> illegal to change lanes: by adding that information to the highway=*
> way. There's already a tag for this: change:langes [1] (> 90 000
> uses).
>
> While mapping
33 matches
Mail list logo
