Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > The term motorway implies a lot of rules, > No Pedestrians. > No Cyclists. > Not necessarily. In some US states you can legally bike on the freeway. Wyoming is one of them: 'Although bicyclists are discouraged from riding on interstate highways, there are locations where alternate routes are not available'[1]. [1] http://www.dot.state.wy.us/files/content/sites/wydot/files/shared/Planning/Wyoming%20Bicycle%20&%20Pedestrian%20Transportation%20Plan.pdf, page 5 -- martijn van exel geospatial omnivore 1109 1st ave #2 salt lake city, ut 84103 801-550-5815 http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
Am 11.04.2012 12:47, schrieb p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
I am wondering what happens where there are no crossings, or outside of built
up areas where there are no sidewalks.
That's quite easy:
Where there are no crossings - no crossings can be used, any routing
will use the nearest point approach - with 'wild crossing' ("your
destination is on the other side of the road") or "use the road" - the
rest is your personal responsibility to adhere the laws and to preserve
your health.
Where there are no sidewalks - well, there are no sidewalks, you and the
router will have to use the 'road'.
A router that does consider sidewalks, will _prefer_ sidewalks and use
roads otherwise.
A router that does not consider sidewalks will use the roads anyway.
Georg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 19:50 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 4/11/2012 7:17 PM, Philip Barnes wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 13:28 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > >> On 4/11/2012 4:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >>> If sidewalks were tagged without the highway tag, routing would > >>> continue to work like it does for everybody > >> > >> Except when a motorway has a sidewalk. > > Do motorways ever have a sidewalk? Sometimes a footpath/cycle track > > follows the motorway, and often there are footpath/cycle tracks where > > motorway bridges cross estuarys, but they are separate ways. > > What are you asking? A sidewalk is almost always a separate physical way > (if not, it's a shoulder, except on minor urban streets with flush > sidewalks and no curb). In the Netherlands I have sometimes seen cycleways paralleling motorways, some 20-30 metres away, and on long estuary bridges there is often a cycleway but beyond that motorways never have a sidewalk. The term motorway implies a lot of rules, No Pedestrians. No Cyclists. No Learner Drivers. No Tracked Vehicles. No Agricultural Vehicles. No Motorcycles under 50cc. Horses Mobility Scooters Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
Am 11.04.2012 11:35, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: in the case of parallel ways it is impossible to tell whether you can filter them out or not (there could be a separation or they could be on different height levels), especially if people are mapping sidewalks the same as separated footways. Thats a point - and the differentiation should be really considered in the tagging. My main concern is routing, not rendering. I wouldn't take them into account in routing, because I feel you would get worse results. E.g. 100 m South of the spot you posted above: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=53.865988&mlon=27.651201&zoom=18&layers=M Imagine you stand there and want to go to the parking on the other side of the road: You take very 'short way' examples - to show the point of concern, thats ok. But these are examples where - I think - no one would even consider to use routing. On the other hand: 1. Use 'practicable' examples (far longer ways) and you will see, that many (not all) of these 'problems' fade away, because the routing will use those crossings anyway and lead to the right side before . If there is no sidewalk on the destination side or another adequate footway - it will use your approach anyway ... 2. A person who can see the situation can see the routing too - and may shorten the route on his own risk. A person who does not .. well, I would not recommend them a shorting anyway ... Another similar issue is that with these sidewalks people often don't connect crossing footways to the street, they only connect them to the sidewalk. There are examples for this also in your area, so unfortunately simply omitting them won't do the job either, because you would get gaps near crossings. A crossing footway over a street with bothside sidewalk must not always be connected to the street - carriageway and sidewalk are considered as different transport route with different usage then. For routing there is no need to connect them. For renderer there is no need to consider which is top or bottom - he may choose itself by usage preference. (Distinction of bridge and tunnel presumed.) The signal points or the 'consider a hazard' points may be outside of the crossing point itself. Connections are only needed at points where you can really use a parting transport way (which may be a street without sidewalk). Third, try to cross these not on the crossing staying alive: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Partyzanski_praspekt_8.jpg/300px-Partyzanski_praspekt_8.jpg http://kp.ru/f/4/image/26/67/396726.jpg I'll do next time I visit your town. What should be the problem? You wait until there is no car coming or all cars stop and then you cross. Yes - I see, you have _seen_ the point already. ;-) cheers, Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
On 4/11/2012 7:17 PM, Philip Barnes wrote: On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 13:28 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/11/2012 4:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: If sidewalks were tagged without the highway tag, routing would continue to work like it does for everybody Except when a motorway has a sidewalk. Do motorways ever have a sidewalk? Sometimes a footpath/cycle track follows the motorway, and often there are footpath/cycle tracks where motorway bridges cross estuarys, but they are separate ways. What are you asking? A sidewalk is almost always a separate physical way (if not, it's a shoulder, except on minor urban streets with flush sidewalks and no curb). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 13:28 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 4/11/2012 4:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > If sidewalks were tagged without the highway tag, routing would > > continue to work like it does for everybody > > Except when a motorway has a sidewalk. Do motorways ever have a sidewalk? Sometimes a footpath/cycle track follows the motorway, and often there are footpath/cycle tracks where motorway bridges cross estuarys, but they are separate ways. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Extension of the "payment:*" keys
Am 11. April 2012 14:54 schrieb : > I should add that the most useful key would be: > > cards_accepted:amex Please, read the mails, the OP already linked to the wiki page with definitions for these and for debit cards: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Payment The problem was: "there's no concise way of doing this: I'd have to mark it as "payment:=no" for every type of card. " cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Turn Restriction usage
On 11 April 2012 22:12, Ross Scanlon wrote: Likewise as below the router should not make u turns at traffic lights. > I don't have a problem with this, except we then are going to need some way to tag "U-turn allowed" to mark the cases where you are allowed to turn. These are generally traffic lights that have a turning lane for cross traffic and a dedicated turn signal. If we started using a "U-turn allowed" turn restriction, would that be too confusing? Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett & paving_stones
Clearly the change that was made was disruptive and changes the meaning of the 80,000 or so surface=cobblestone tags already in existence. I have thus changed the definition back and commented out surface=sett for the moment. Now, some issues with introducing sett: 1) No one knows what "sett" means. 2) The distinction is probably not important to most people. 3) There is far more sett than true cobblestone in the world. 4) We can't introduce a distinction by splitting an existing tag this way. Clearly surface=cobblestone means "Cobblestone or sett". There are too many instances to change that. So, whoever really wants to introduce this distinction is going to have to find another way, perhaps "surface=cobblestone, cobblestone=sett". Steve On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I'm pushing this one up because we have taken no action so far. Can we > agree how we want to deal with this? > > here is the full thread: > http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Wikifiddling-surface-cobblestone-vs-sett-amp-paving-stones-tt5498912.html#none > > 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] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
On 4/11/2012 4:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: If sidewalks were tagged without the highway tag, routing would continue to work like it does for everybody Except when a motorway has a sidewalk. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
On 11.04.2012 02:04, Martijn van Exel wrote: > On 4/10/2012 4:38 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: >> A sidewalk=left/right/both fails when you want to define the relative >> ordering, and separate footway=cycleway fail in practice because no >> renderer is actually able to puzzle the highway back together from >> unconnected parallel ways. > > What is the use case for being able to do that? What can you do that you > can't with a separate geometry for a sidewalk that may be as much as 6 > feet from the main roadway? For one, you can render them without overlaps and gaps between the sidewalk and roadway. Around here, sidewalks are usually just the width of a kerb (~ 15 cm) away from the main roadway. That's not wider than a white line on the road and isn't much of a physical separation (which contributes to my reluctance to treat them as separate ways). This also means that, with separate ways for the sidewalk, the mapper would have to draw with unlikely precision to avoid graphical glitches - a few pixels too far from the road, and there's a very noticeable gap between road and sidewalk that does not exist in reality. A few pixels less, and the sidewalk disappears below the road - or the other way round. And of course: As soon as you don't render road and/or sidewalk not to scale, rendering breaks down even with centimetre-precise mapping. With tags on a highway, on the other hand, the sidewalk is part of the render style of the highway and is always placed perfectly. Besides rendering, other reasons why a program would want to associate the sidewalk with the highway include: routing instructions; adding the possibility to cross the road anywhere to the routing graph where this is allowed; and accessing the name or other attributes of the highway (unless all relevant tags are copied to the sidewalk). Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am 11. April 2012 10:49 schrieb Komяpa : >> First, there are road behaviour rules, that basically disallow that. >> You MUST go to crossing to cross a road here. > > you can't asume this to be a global law. In other countries (e.g. > Germany or Italy) you must use a pedestrian crossing if it is close to > you. If you are more then x meters away (i.e. you are in the middle of > a road) you can simply cross anywhere, provided you don't endanger the > traffic or yourself. I find it difficult to believe that belarussian > law urges pedestrians to only cross on a crossing, and if there is > none, they will have to walk kilometers just to cross the street, or > did I get this wrong? This seems like something the router would need to be more aware of than anything; mapping the sidewalks as adjacent footways would allow safety- and/or citation-conscious pedestrians to get routed ideally on the sidewalks, while pedestrians that aren't bound by such obligations could still get routed across the open space (many routers, Garmin included, have been known to do some routing parkour with open spaces given that pedestrians aren't anywhere near as bound to known mapped objects as vehicles are). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
On 10/04/12 06:12, Martijn van Exel wrote: > On 4/9/2012 9:33 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: >> On 3/29/2012 7:01 AM, Heinrich Knauf wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> infoware GmbH, Bonn, Germany, and Geofabrik GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany, >>> have developed an >>> improved tagging scheme for TMC data which we would like to propopose >>> to the OSM community. >>> >>> Currently, this feature is explained in German only. >>> >>> Pelase refer to >>> >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme >>> >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_TMC_Scheme >>> >>> Your comments are greatly appreceated! I still do not get one major point which was totally left out on the first scheme. What actually belongs to a "point" and how are they tagged. Especially on big crossings and roundabouts I always was confused (e.g. it might be possible that a part of this point is blocked but how do I know which one and you might be able to use the first/last exit/entrance of a junction but not the rest. ) >> That looks like a huge improvement from the existing proposal. A few >> questions for clarification and discussion: >> * In this proposal, the actual TMC LCDs are not technically required, >> are they? If all the ways are tagged according to this schema, you can >> look up the segments just by looking at the ways? I guess having the LCD >> encoded onto nodes will speed up lookup. >> * How do you plan to make this huge effort (even just for Germany) >> manageable? I mean, it's simpler than it looks, but it still is a *lot* >> of work. A JOSM plugin? A dedicated website to track progress and show >> bugs / inconsistencies? Other supporting tools for mappers? There was only the inspector and a overlay for the first round in Germany and it worked. > On that topic: how was this updated? Manually? Or was there some monitoring > bot > active that kept these values updated? > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TMC/TMC_Import_Germany/Roads#roads_to_import_2 Think this was all handwork. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Turn Restriction usage
2012/4/11 Ross Scanlon : >>> No. The router should know not to do this. Likewise as below the router >>> should not make u turns at traffic lights. >> >> >> Based on what? How does the router know that the two ways are two >> carriageways of a single road? Couldn't they be a straight road, that >> becomes a oneway street at a certain point, and at that point a >> junction brings to a oneway secondary road? > > > The name of the way, the fact that you are turning > 180 degrees on the same > way. I don't agree. First, if you're on the same way, you're not turning, but going straight and following the road. In the case of the OP, I expect to see three ways, two of which tagged oneway=yes. Second, if you turn more than 180 degrees, you're hopefully going on a bridge ;-) Third, think of a situation like this: http://osm.org/go/0CKuMhs89- Suppose that the tertiary has to be split at the junction for any reason (a relation needs only a part of it, or the surface changes, or the incline changes, whatever). Also suppose that the tertiary is oneway=yes. You would end up with two ways with the same name, both oneway=yes, with an acute angle between them and a third way exiting from the junction. Would you, as a router, ban the prosecution on the tertiary? Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Extension of the "payment:*" keys
I should add that the most useful key would be: cards_accepted:amex As a general rule, everywhere accepts debit cards, non-foodie pubs are cash only. The helpful tag would be amex as so few places accept it, and all of my business expenses should be on my corporate amex card, usual routine is to walk in to several resturants and walk out again, until I find one that will take it. Phil On 11/04/2012 13:35 p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: Debit cards are accepted in most shops, but not usually accepted in pubs. The point I was making is that Aldi and Lidl accept debit cards but not credit cards. Phil On 11/04/2012 13:10 Simone Saviolo wrote: 2012/4/11 : > You also need: > > payment:debit_cards for shops such as aldi and lidl. Would you mind to clarify that? Debit cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debit_card) are accepted in most shops, not only Lidl. I'm not sure I understood what you meant. Thanks, Simone ___ 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] Turn Restriction usage
No. The router should know not to do this. Likewise as below the router should not make u turns at traffic lights. Based on what? How does the router know that the two ways are two carriageways of a single road? Couldn't they be a straight road, that becomes a oneway street at a certain point, and at that point a junction brings to a oneway secondary road? The name of the way, the fact that you are turning > 180 degrees on the same way. Cheers Ross ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Extension of the "payment:*" keys
Debit cards are accepted in most shops, but not usually accepted in pubs. The point I was making is that Aldi and Lidl accept debit cards but not credit cards. Phil On 11/04/2012 13:10 Simone Saviolo wrote: 2012/4/11 : > You also need: > > payment:debit_cards for shops such as aldi and lidl. Would you mind to clarify that? Debit cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debit_card) are accepted in most shops, not only Lidl. I'm not sure I understood what you meant. Thanks, Simone ___ 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] Turn Restriction usage
2012/4/11 Ross Scanlon : >> In one case there is a road where a two way section comes to a divider >> and becomes two one way sections for a while. The suggested route came >> along one of the one way sections, then turned about 340 degrees to go >> down the other side of the road. It may be legal to do a u-turn there, >> but I don't think it's safe, or even possible for most cars. I was >> thinking about it, and many other divided road are similar where they >> split/join. Should we be putting no u-turn restrictions on these? >> There's no actual signs. > > No. The router should know not to do this. Likewise as below the router > should not make u turns at traffic lights. Based on what? How does the router know that the two ways are two carriageways of a single road? Couldn't they be a straight road, that becomes a oneway street at a certain point, and at that point a junction brings to a oneway secondary road? Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Turn Restriction usage
In one case there is a road where a two way section comes to a divider and becomes two one way sections for a while. The suggested route came along one of the one way sections, then turned about 340 degrees to go down the other side of the road. It may be legal to do a u-turn there, but I don't think it's safe, or even possible for most cars. I was thinking about it, and many other divided road are similar where they split/join. Should we be putting no u-turn restrictions on these? There's no actual signs. No. The router should know not to do this. Likewise as below the router should not make u turns at traffic lights. The other thing I was wondering about is traffic lights. Where I live, it is illegal to do a u-turn at an intersection with traffic lights unless there is a sign allowing you to. There's no signs saying not to, you're just supposed to know. There has been some discussion in the past with routers that have this sort of knowledge built in. Did anything come of this, or should I just start putting four turn restriction relations on all the traffic light intersections in my neighbourhood? That's going to be painful, not to mention causing a lot of road splitting. Stephen Cheers Ross ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Extension of the "payment:*" keys
2012/4/11 : > You also need: > > payment:debit_cards for shops such as aldi and lidl. Would you mind to clarify that? Debit cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debit_card) are accepted in most shops, not only Lidl. I'm not sure I understood what you meant. Thanks, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Turn Restriction usage
I've been clearing up some routing bugs reported in my area on Mapdust. Some of them are valid errors, and I've fixed them. Some I'm not so sure about. In one case there is a road where a two way section comes to a divider and becomes two one way sections for a while. The suggested route came along one of the one way sections, then turned about 340 degrees to go down the other side of the road. It may be legal to do a u-turn there, but I don't think it's safe, or even possible for most cars. I was thinking about it, and many other divided road are similar where they split/join. Should we be putting no u-turn restrictions on these? There's no actual signs. The other thing I was wondering about is traffic lights. Where I live, it is illegal to do a u-turn at an intersection with traffic lights unless there is a sign allowing you to. There's no signs saying not to, you're just supposed to know. There has been some discussion in the past with routers that have this sort of knowledge built in. Did anything come of this, or should I just start putting four turn restriction relations on all the traffic light intersections in my neighbourhood? That's going to be painful, not to mention causing a lot of road splitting. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
Da: Martin Koppenhoefer A: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Inviato: Mercoledì 11 Aprile 2012 11:35 Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer Am 11. April 2012 10:49 schrieb Komяpa : > First, there are road behaviour rules, that basically disallow that. > You MUST go to crossing to cross a road here. you can't asume this to be a global law. In other countries (e.g. Germany or Italy) you must use a pedestrian crossing if it is close to you. If you are more then x meters away (i.e. you are in the middle of a road) you can simply cross anywhere, provided you don't endanger the traffic or yourself. In Italy this is true (only if you cross perpendicularly to the street), but how can we map where this is not possible without drawing the sidewalk separately? I'm not so experienced in tagging and I wonder which tags can we use on the highway for cases like in [1] or even more complicated? Maybe if you are in shape you can jump over the fence :-), if you are in a wheelchair you can't even cross the small step of the sidewalk.. [1] http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=it&ll=41.886113,12.528148&spn=0.64,0.042787&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.886165,12.503703&panoid=pWjJuW1TM-RXzrD5-gI8iw&cbp=12,354.51,,0,11.24 Cheers, Emiliano ___ 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] Extension of the "payment:*" keys
You also need: payment:debit_cards for shops such as aldi and lidl. Phil On 11/04/2012 11:09 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 10. April 2012 20:55 schrieb John Sturdy : > (1) a "payment:cards" key, intended specifically for use with the > value "no", to indicate that a shop / pub / whatever doesn't take > electronic payment; the mostly used keys are: payment:credit_cards payment:account_cards > (2) a "payment:other" key, intended specifically for use with the > value "no", to indicate that a shop / pub / whatever takes only the > forms of payment that have been listed with other keys. you could also tag: payment:cash=only and no other key would be needed. 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] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
I am wondering what happens where there are no crossings, or outside of built up areas where there are no sidewalks. Phil On 11/04/2012 11:32 John Sturdy wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am 10. April 2012 22:01 schrieb Komяpa : >> It's possible to have pedestrian routing without separate ways for >> sidewalks, but it's nicer when it shows you where you can actually >> cross the road. > The thing is that you can generally cross any road at any spot, as > long it is not impossible or too dangerous ;-), i.e. in most of the > cases you can simply cross the road if your destination is right on > the other side for example. I think that in some countries this is illegal. > With explicit footways your router will > send you to the next crossing and tell you to cross the road there and > then come back. This is probably useful information for blind people. ___ 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] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am 10. April 2012 22:01 schrieb Komяpa : >> It's possible to have pedestrian routing without separate ways for >> sidewalks, but it's nicer when it shows you where you can actually >> cross the road. > The thing is that you can generally cross any road at any spot, as > long it is not impossible or too dangerous ;-), i.e. in most of the > cases you can simply cross the road if your destination is right on > the other side for example. I think that in some countries this is illegal. > With explicit footways your router will > send you to the next crossing and tell you to cross the road there and > then come back. This is probably useful information for blind people. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Extension of the "payment:*" keys
Am 10. April 2012 20:55 schrieb John Sturdy : > (1) a "payment:cards" key, intended specifically for use with the > value "no", to indicate that a shop / pub / whatever doesn't take > electronic payment; the mostly used keys are: payment:credit_cards payment:account_cards > (2) a "payment:other" key, intended specifically for use with the > value "no", to indicate that a shop / pub / whatever takes only the > forms of payment that have been listed with other keys. you could also tag: payment:cash=only and no other key would be needed. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett & paving_stones
I'm pushing this one up because we have taken no action so far. Can we agree how we want to deal with this? here is the full thread: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Wikifiddling-surface-cobblestone-vs-sett-amp-paving-stones-tt5498912.html#none cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
Am 11. April 2012 11:35 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer : > Another similar issue is that with these sidewalks people often don't > connect crossing footways to the street, they only connect them to the > sidewalk. There are examples for this also in your area, so > unfortunately simply omitting them won't do the job either, because > you would get gaps near crossings. sorry, forgot an example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.865684&lon=27.657735&zoom=18&layers=M cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
Am 11. April 2012 10:49 schrieb Komяpa : > First, there are road behaviour rules, that basically disallow that. > You MUST go to crossing to cross a road here. you can't asume this to be a global law. In other countries (e.g. Germany or Italy) you must use a pedestrian crossing if it is close to you. If you are more then x meters away (i.e. you are in the middle of a road) you can simply cross anywhere, provided you don't endanger the traffic or yourself. I find it difficult to believe that belarussian law urges pedestrians to only cross on a crossing, and if there is none, they will have to walk kilometers just to cross the street, or did I get this wrong? > Second, if you want to hide sidewalks on rendering, postgis's > ST_DFullyWithin is your friend. You don't have to TAG everything you > can rather easily distinguish geometrically. in the case of parallel ways it is impossible to tell whether you can filter them out or not (there could be a separation or they could be on different height levels), especially if people are mapping sidewalks the same as separated footways. My main concern is routing, not rendering. I wouldn't take them into account in routing, because I feel you would get worse results. E.g. 100 m South of the spot you posted above: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=53.865988&mlon=27.651201&zoom=18&layers=M Imagine you stand there and want to go to the parking on the other side of the road: http://openrouteservice.org/index.php?start=27.6511152,53.8661793&end=27.6513996,53.8661698&pref=Pedestrian&lang=de&noMotorways=false&noTollways=false http://openrouteservice.org/index.php?start=27.6526656,53.8626553&end=27.6529552,53.8627217&pref=Pedestrian&lang=de&noMotorways=false&noTollways=false You find this everywhere: http://openrouteservice.org/index.php?start=27.6555434,53.866273&end=27.6557157,53.8662298&pref=Pedestrian&lang=en&noMotorways=false&noTollways=false Another similar issue is that with these sidewalks people often don't connect crossing footways to the street, they only connect them to the sidewalk. There are examples for this also in your area, so unfortunately simply omitting them won't do the job either, because you would get gaps near crossings. > Third, try to cross these not on the crossing staying alive: > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Partyzanski_praspekt_8.jpg/300px-Partyzanski_praspekt_8.jpg > http://kp.ru/f/4/image/26/67/396726.jpg I'll do next time I visit your town. What should be the problem? You wait until there is no car coming or all cars stop and then you cross. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
2012/4/11 Martin Koppenhoefer : > Am 10. April 2012 22:01 schrieb Komяpa : >> In Minsk, we've come to agreement that highway=* are just routing >> lines, with highway=footway as a part of routing graph for >> pedestrians, and highway=cycleway - for cyclists. >> It's possible to have pedestrian routing without separate ways for >> sidewalks, but it's nicer when it shows you where you can actually >> cross the road. > The thing is that you can generally cross any road at any spot, as > long it is not impossible or too dangerous ;-), i.e. in most of the > cases you can simply cross the road if your destination is right on > the other side for example. With explicit footways your router will > send you to the next crossing and tell you to cross the road there and > then come back. First, there are road behaviour rules, that basically disallow that. You MUST go to crossing to cross a road here. Second, if you want to hide sidewalks on rendering, postgis's ST_DFullyWithin is your friend. You don't have to TAG everything you can rather easily distinguish geometrically. Third, try to cross these not on the crossing staying alive: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Partyzanski_praspekt_8.jpg/300px-Partyzanski_praspekt_8.jpg http://kp.ru/f/4/image/26/67/396726.jpg -- Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski OSM BY Team - http://openstreetmap.by/ xmpp:m...@komzpa.net mailto:m...@komzpa.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
Am 10. April 2012 22:01 schrieb Komяpa : > In Minsk, we've come to agreement that highway=* are just routing > lines, with highway=footway as a part of routing graph for > pedestrians, and highway=cycleway - for cyclists. > > It's possible to have pedestrian routing without separate ways for > sidewalks, but it's nicer when it shows you where you can actually > cross the road. The thing is that you can generally cross any road at any spot, as long it is not impossible or too dangerous ;-), i.e. in most of the cases you can simply cross the road if your destination is right on the other side for example. With explicit footways your router will send you to the next crossing and tell you to cross the road there and then come back. If sidewalks were tagged without the highway tag, routing would continue to work like it does for everybody and only who wants to take the risk of routing also on explicit sidewalks could do so by adding the footway=sidewalk elements into consideration. People that want to add an additional element would do so explicitly. The way it is now suggested to do will instead require additional action for everybody who does NOT want them in his data: they will have to filter out everything from their highway=* selection that has a footway=sidewalk attached. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
