Re: [Tagging] Warning traffic signs - Invitation to discussion
On Mar 14, 2012 2:58 PM, "John F. Eldredge" wrote: > > Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:32 PM, OSM user wrote: > > > You can look at these signs here: > > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Traffic_sign#dangerous_turn_and_dangerous_turns > > > . > > > These signs mean: > > > *) there will be dangerous turn to the right > > > *) there will be dangerous turn to the left > > > *) there will be several dangerous turns, the first of them is turn > > to the right > > > *) there will be several dangerous turns, the first of them is turn > > to the left > > > > I wonder if these are country-specific signs or if we're having a > > failure in communication? > > > > > The USA uses similar signs, except that ours tend to be on a yellow diamond-shaped sign, rather than a red-and-white triangle. Aah, so curve, sharp turn and reverse turn signs. At least with the US versions, they simply indicate the presence of a curve, not a particular additional danger. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] dispute about center island in a turning circle
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Josh Doe wrote: > >> 1) "Force" everyone to draw a loop around the island (too tedious) > > Or just silently fix it. That's what I do. JOSM has great drawing > tools for making nice, neat circles. FYI, Overpass API [1] and the JOSM Todo plugin [1] make a great combo for fixing your own tagging mistakes. Just execute the following to get all the mini-roundabouts and connected ways last edited by myself (or anyone): ( node(user:"JoshD")["highway"="mini_roundabout"]; rel(bn)->.x; way(bn); node(w)->.x; rel(bw); ); out meta; I didn't finish, but I drew ways for most, and used turning_circle plus fixme for others. -Josh [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API [2]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/TODO_list ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Warning traffic signs - Invitation to discussion
Paul Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:32 PM, OSM user wrote: > > You can look at these signs here: > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Traffic_sign#dangerous_turn_and_dangerous_turns > > . > > These signs mean: > > *) there will be dangerous turn to the right > > *) there will be dangerous turn to the left > > *) there will be several dangerous turns, the first of them is turn > to the right > > *) there will be several dangerous turns, the first of them is turn > to the left > > I wonder if these are country-specific signs or if we're having a > failure in communication? > The USA uses similar signs, except that ours tend to be on a yellow diamond-shaped sign, rather than a red-and-white triangle. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Warning traffic signs - Invitation to discussion
On 3/14/2012 5:39 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:32 PM, OSM user wrote: You can look at these signs here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Traffic_sign#dangerous_turn_and_dangerous_turns . These signs mean: *) there will be dangerous turn to the right *) there will be dangerous turn to the left *) there will be several dangerous turns, the first of them is turn to the right *) there will be several dangerous turns, the first of them is turn to the left I wonder if these are country-specific signs or if we're having a failure in communication? I think they're *curve* warning signs (MUTCD W1-2L/R). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Warning traffic signs - Invitation to discussion
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:32 PM, OSM user wrote: > You can look at these signs here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Traffic_sign#dangerous_turn_and_dangerous_turns > . > These signs mean: > *) there will be dangerous turn to the right > *) there will be dangerous turn to the left > *) there will be several dangerous turns, the first of them is turn to the > right > *) there will be several dangerous turns, the first of them is turn to the > left I wonder if these are country-specific signs or if we're having a failure in communication? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Preventing traffic signs - Invitation to discussion
Am 14. März 2012 13:10 schrieb Ronnie Soak : > Also the meaning of some signs already has a tag of its own. A > traffic_sign=maxspeed is tagged as maxspeed=* on the way. A > traffic_sign=oneway is tagged as oneway=yes, a traffic_sign=cycleway > is tagged as access=no; bicycle=designated. in the case of maxspeed (but also other restrictions like maxweight, maxheight, maxwidth) I find it useful to map both: the restriction on the road and the maxspeed sign at the side of the road. IMHO it helps a lot to have the positions of the signs in the editor (even more if several mappers are active in the same area). traffic_sign is a tag about a traffic sign. For the here suggested intention (tag highways with implications from signs) I would use different keys. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Warning traffic signs - Invitation to discussion
You can look at these signs here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Traffic_sign#dangerous_turn_and_dangerous_turns . These signs mean: *) there will be dangerous turn to the right *) there will be dangerous turn to the left *) there will be several dangerous turns, the first of them is turn to the right *) there will be several dangerous turns, the first of them is turn to the left - 2012/3/14 Paul Johnson : > On Mar 14, 2012 3:25 AM, "OSM user" wrote: > >> I want to use some designations for preventing traffic signs: >> traffic_sign=dangerous_turn_right, traffic_sign=dangerous_turn_left, >> traffic_sign=dangerous_turns_right and >> traffic_sign=dangerous_turns_left, > > Not sure what signs you mean with these tags. Could you give some examples? > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Preventing traffic signs - Invitation to discussion
I think most points are adressed on the proposal or talk pages, but here we go: > > Putting lots of traffic signs on nodes on the way would result in a lot of > new nodes on the ways, which will need optimising out by routers/mkgmap > etc. The node count will increase anyway, the tools need to scale accordingly. Probably mapping one smooth corner adds about as much complexity as all the signs on that road. You could put the nodes for the signs beside the road, where they are located in reality. But then the connection with the road needs to be established by other means, possibly a relation. This also adds complexity. And this kind is hard on the mapper, not just on some script. Also tagging the hazard on the road will introduce new road splits and nodes. > The sign is not really an attribute of the road. Putting a tag on the road > segment to which the warning applies would seem to me a more logical way of > indicating these semantics, and a whole lot more usable for the routers. An > indicative node for the sign itself (so then we are mapping "street > furniture" i.e. the post itself with the signs attached to it, not the > characteristics of the road) would be fine IMHO although I do wonder if > this level of micromapping would be productive in the long run. > That's what I proposed some mails ago: tagging the hazard on the road segment or node where it belongs, then adding the sign as a node on its physical location. Will it carry any useful information? Well, I also think the hazard is more important than the sign itself, but who knows what use it may be to some people. I myself once needed to know the locations of all city limit signs of one town. The answer was one XAPI call away. Also the sign position serves as a kind of verification and source reference for the hazard tag. > If there are multiple signs on a single post, we will get (I assume) > constructions like traffic_sign=sign1;sign2;**sign3. As we know > multiple-valued tags are currently poorly supported by the available > tooling (correct me if I'm wrong) > I think there is no tooling yet which uses traffic signs at all. > > Signs often have "sub-signs" qualifying the main sign, e.g. slippery road > "when wet". This will need a place in the tagging as well. How would we > handle multiple signs on a post, each with its own "sub-sign"? > Same goes for textual signs. No idea. There are schemes for opening hours which also could apply to signs. The "extent" of the hazard has already been mentioned (e.g. sharp bends > "for 5km"). Often a warning sign gives advance notice of the hazard (e.g. > low bridge "in 2 km") so the sign's location differs from the location of > the hazard it is indicating. Most of those information is already contained in the hazard tagging of the road segment. Both the position and the extend of the hazard are given there. For tagging the sign itself (for the sake of completeness alone), see above: no idea so far .. just my 2 cents Chaos99 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Route Relations and Special (Bannered) Routes
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: > * Richard Weait [2012-03-13 10:30 -0400]: >> adding a tag for banner=Alternate/Business/Truck is my least-favourite >> option of those above. > > Why? Why add a tag to further describe an arcane, minor detail, in a small portion of the world, when we already have network to do exactly that? :-) >> increasing specificity on the network tag like network=US:US:Alt >> follows the original intent of the network tag. It also offers the >> least surprise to naive consumers of the data. > > So you get the reverse questions from NE2. };> We (so far) mostly use > the network tag as a hierarchy of ownership, not containment: the US:MD > network is for Maryland's roads and Maryland is in the US, but its roads > are not members of the "US" network. Does it make sense to double up on > the meanings of network tags, so that, say, US:NJ:Business would be a > business route that's a member of the New Jersey state highway network, > but US:NJ:CR would be a county road that's not a member of the state > network? Is it still easier for data consumers if they have to > differentiate between those two cases? > > Compared to the scenario where we add a modifier tag for special routes, > data consumers already have to consider two tags to work with route > relations. Would adding a third make a difference? As I said, "We already got one." :-) I've always considered network as "describing the sign" and ref as "the number on it". When we describe even more details of the sign, that should stay in the same tag. So US 66 (Historic), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Route66_sign.jpg would be ref = 66 network = US:US:historic ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Route Relations and Special (Bannered) Routes
* Richard Weait [2012-03-13 10:30 -0400]: > adding a tag for banner=Alternate/Business/Truck is my least-favourite > option of those above. Why? > increasing specificity on the network tag like network=US:US:Alt > follows the original intent of the network tag. It also offers the > least surprise to naive consumers of the data. So you get the reverse questions from NE2. };> We (so far) mostly use the network tag as a hierarchy of ownership, not containment: the US:MD network is for Maryland's roads and Maryland is in the US, but its roads are not members of the "US" network. Does it make sense to double up on the meanings of network tags, so that, say, US:NJ:Business would be a business route that's a member of the New Jersey state highway network, but US:NJ:CR would be a county road that's not a member of the state network? Is it still easier for data consumers if they have to differentiate between those two cases? Compared to the scenario where we add a modifier tag for special routes, data consumers already have to consider two tags to work with route relations. Would adding a third make a difference? -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Frederick! He's eating a screw! -- "Eat-Man '98" --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Preventing traffic signs - Invitation to discussion
Putting lots of traffic signs on nodes on the way would result in a lot of new nodes on the ways, which will need optimising out by routers/mkgmap etc. The sign is not really an attribute of the road. Putting a tag on the road segment to which the warning applies would seem to me a more logical way of indicating these semantics, and a whole lot more usable for the routers. An indicative node for the sign itself (so then we are mapping "street furniture" i.e. the post itself with the signs attached to it, not the characteristics of the road) would be fine IMHO although I do wonder if this level of micromapping would be productive in the long run. If there are multiple signs on a single post, we will get (I assume) constructions like traffic_sign=sign1;sign2;sign3. As we know multiple-valued tags are currently poorly supported by the available tooling (correct me if I'm wrong) Signs often have "sub-signs" qualifying the main sign, e.g. slippery road "when wet". This will need a place in the tagging as well. How would we handle multiple signs on a post, each with its own "sub-sign"? The "extent" of the hazard has already been mentioned (e.g. sharp bends "for 5km"). Often a warning sign gives advance notice of the hazard (e.g. low bridge "in 2 km") so the sign's location differs from the location of the hazard it is indicating. Colin On 14/03/2012 14:15, Martin Vonwald wrote: 2012/3/14 Ronnie Soak: Please also see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hazard_warning What about a combination of both? Tagging the traffic_sign=* at the node on the way roughly where the sign is, then tag the hazard=* along the way or on the node where the actual danger is. This is so simple and so correct. I agree with Ronnie: tag the sign as node with traffic_sign=* and the danger on the way as hazard=* . In my opinion this would be a consistent mapping. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Preventing traffic signs - Invitation to discussion
On Mar 14, 2012 3:25 AM, "OSM user" wrote: > I want to use some designations for preventing traffic signs: > traffic_sign=dangerous_turn_right, traffic_sign=dangerous_turn_left, > traffic_sign=dangerous_turns_right and > traffic_sign=dangerous_turns_left, Not sure what signs you mean with these tags. Could you give some examples? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Preventing traffic signs - Invitation to discussion
2012/3/14 Ronnie Soak : > Please also see > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hazard_warning > > What about a combination of both? Tagging the traffic_sign=* at the > node on the way roughly where the sign is, then tag the hazard=* along > the way or on the node where the actual danger is. This is so simple and so correct. I agree with Ronnie: tag the sign as node with traffic_sign=* and the danger on the way as hazard=* . In my opinion this would be a consistent mapping. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Preventing traffic signs - Invitation to discussion
Please also see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hazard_warning What about a combination of both? Tagging the traffic_sign=* at the node on the way roughly where the sign is, then tag the hazard=* along the way or on the node where the actual danger is. Regards, Chaos99 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Preventing traffic signs - Invitation to discussion
This is a complex matter. Verbose names are good. Looking up numeral codes is tedious for the human mapper and hinders wider usage of the tag. Also the country prefix is redundant, as this can be determined out of the location of the sign. Also linking together signs of the same meaning in different countries is a good idea in general. But there is missing a key element to the (original) proposal: There are signs for both point features (traffic light ahead, railway crossing) and signs for conditions in effect for a stretch of way (maxspeed, gravel). Sometimes it's ambiguous (no u-turn, dead end street). We would need a definitive list for what is what and if it's tagged on a node on the way or an the way itself. Also the meaning of some signs already has a tag of its own. A traffic_sign=maxspeed is tagged as maxspeed=* on the way. A traffic_sign=oneway is tagged as oneway=yes, a traffic_sign=cycleway is tagged as access=no; bicycle=designated. What do we do about that? Do we translate every sign into an existing tag combination/invent new ones? Then why think about the traffic_sign tag at all? Do we tag the sign in addition to the existing information? Do we replace the old information? (Surely not!) Any Ideas? Regards, Chaos99 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Preventing traffic signs - Invitation to discussion
Thank you! I changed the title. Link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Traffic_sign#Warning_traffic_signs --- 2012/3/14 John Sturdy : > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:25 AM, OSM user wrote: >> Hello! >> I want to use some designations for preventing traffic signs: > > I think the usual English term is "warning signs" rather than > "preventing signs". > > (In modern English, "to prevent" is to stop something happening, > although it had a different meaning centuries ago: to go in front of > something.) > > __John > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Preventing traffic signs - Invitation to discussion
I propose additional tag traffic_sign:extent= . Link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Traffic_sign#traffic_sign:extent - 2012/3/14 Martin Koppenhoefer : > Am 14. März 2012 11:25 schrieb OSM user : >> Please, look at my proposals, support them or propose another. >> Page: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Traffic_sign#Preventing >> traffic signs > > > I support this idea, but there should be a way to add supplementary > signs as well (e.g. often there is indications how long a danger might > persist, e.g. curvy road for 4 kilometers). Or children on schooldays. > > cheers, > Martin > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Preventing traffic signs - Invitation to discussion
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:25 AM, OSM user wrote: > Hello! > I want to use some designations for preventing traffic signs: I think the usual English term is "warning signs" rather than "preventing signs". (In modern English, "to prevent" is to stop something happening, although it had a different meaning centuries ago: to go in front of something.) __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Preventing traffic signs - Invitation to discussion
Am 14. März 2012 11:25 schrieb OSM user : > Please, look at my proposals, support them or propose another. > Page: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Traffic_sign#Preventing > traffic signs I support this idea, but there should be a way to add supplementary signs as well (e.g. often there is indications how long a danger might persist, e.g. curvy road for 4 kilometers). Or children on schooldays. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Preventing traffic signs - Invitation to discussion
Hello! I want to use some designations for preventing traffic signs: traffic_sign=dangerous_turn_right, traffic_sign=dangerous_turn_left, traffic_sign=dangerous_turns_right and traffic_sign=dangerous_turns_left, traffic_sign=slippery_road, traffic_sign=rough_road, traffic_sign=emission_of_gravel, traffic_sign=dangerous_kerb, traffic_sign=falling_rocks, traffic_sign=crosswind, traffic_sign=low-flying_airplanes, traffic_sign=children, traffic_sign=driving_of_cattle, traffic_sign=wild_animals, traffic_sign=traffic_jam, traffic_sign=danger. Please, look at my proposals, support them or propose another. Page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Traffic_sign#Preventing traffic signs Truly yours, Dinamik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Business being operated out of a home?
Ronnie Soak wrote: So maybe it's ok if you can get the information from elsewhere (like for historic features no longer visible or abstract concepts like administrative borders), Personally I'd add a source tag anywhere that there might be some doubt as to what something might be called, so at least future mappers have that to go on. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Business being operated out of a home?
2012/3/14, Pieren : > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Ronnie Soak > wrote: > >> But take a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability >> If he has no sign on the door, he probably shouldn't be mapped. > > You might verify in different ways. A sign on the door is not the only one. Just took a close look at my own link. On the 'Good practice' page it says '[a second mapper could] come to the same place and collect the same data ', but on the 'Verifiability' page it doesn't mention being physically there. So maybe it's ok if you can get the information from elsewhere (like for historic features no longer visible or abstract concepts like administrative borders), but I think for businesses it is quite a good practice to require some sort of physical sign/logo/label. Regards, Chaos99 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Business being operated out of a home?
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Ronnie Soak wrote: > But take a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability > If he has no sign on the door, he probably shouldn't be mapped. You might verify in different ways. A sign on the door is not the only one. But I see a tagging problem here. The business itself is not qualified. Excepted the address, we see a tag 'building' and a tag 'name'. So we could interpret the tag 'name' as the building name which is certainly not the case. Or is it ? In addition, the street name in the address does not match the highway name. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Business being operated out of a home?
If he operates an 'office' where public customers or partners might want to go to: Yes, why not? But take a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability If he has no sign on the door, he probably shouldn't be mapped. I just ask myself when mapping businesses: How likely is it that somebody wants to enter that into their satnav to find the place? If it's just the owner itself and maybe some direct partners/customers, I don't tag it. my 2 cents, Chaos99 2012/3/14, Nathan Edgars II : > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1584729508 > This is a residential apartment building. Is it appropriate for one of > the residents to add a "digital marketing" business he owns? > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Business being operated out of a home?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1584729508 This is a residential apartment building. Is it appropriate for one of the residents to add a "digital marketing" business he owns? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
