Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider
On 25 August 2012 01:25, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/8/20 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: I've been mostly mapping in large cities, hardly anything in the countryside. So I can only say that I've found it purposeful in the city to map with two highways when legally separated. purposeful in this case translates to mapping for the router *1 in OSM-speak. We're not supposed to map for the renderer nor the router. Exactly for whom are we to map? There is a convention in OSM that two highways represent two carriageways, so when a single carriageway with a legal divider is mapped like this, it is simply wrong according to our conventions. Sounds like you're the official spokesperson for OSM, are you? The convention you're referring to simply states (physically) Divided highways should be drawn as separate ways. It doesn't say anything about legally divided highways, that is left out. Currently mappers treat legally divided highways in different ways. I'm definitely not the only one to map them as two ways. Also, no one has offered any other solution to the routing issue. The divider tag has been proposed, but I think it has been demonstrated not to work, as routing decision are made on the node and not on the line. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Potale
2012/8/26 Michael Krämer ohr...@gmail.com: How about historic=wayside_shrine? Unfortunately my French is rather limited so I basically could only look at the pictures in the Wikipedia. But this looked quite a bit like these wayside shrines. In the past I also used wayside_shrine for these (or similar ones) in Italy, where there is really lots of these niches with St. Mary or others saints inside, but this might merit also its own tag. We could distinguish between freestanding boxes and niches in walls and buildings, and use the shrine-tag only for the first. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Potale
probably we should also add a religion=christian (and maybe denomination) and we could invent a new tag to express to whow the object is dedicated. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider
On 26/08/2012 08:42, Markus Lindholm wrote: Also, no one has offered any other solution to the routing issue. The divider tag has been proposed, but I think it has been demonstrated not to work, as routing decision are made on the node and not on the line. Where has it been demonstrated not to work? What do you mean by routing decision are made on the node and not on the line? Yes, the divider tag is probably not supported by any current routing software. But it would not be too hard to modify the software to allow for it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Completely off-topic: native speakers for a short survey needed
Hi, First I have to excuse myself for this 100% off-topic mail. I nonetheless sent it to this mailing list because here might(!) be the right target group. I need a few volunteers for a short survey. They need to be native speakers, preferable from GB, and not(!) involved in the legal or financial sector (that's why I'm looking here). I would send them a few terms and they should tell me what they think what these terms mean. This shouldn't take longer than a few minutes. Background for this is the standardisation of terms in some part of the financial sector within the EU. Currently many terms used in this sector are very hard to understand for people not involved in the financial sector. To improve this situation a new set of terms should be defined which is easier to understand for everyone. If you want to take part in this survey please contact me direct and do not(!) send your response to the list. Once again: sorry for this off-topic mail. Kind regards, Martin Vonwald ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote: On 26/08/2012 08:42, Markus Lindholm wrote: Also, no one has offered any other solution to the routing issue. The divider tag has been proposed, but I think it has been demonstrated not to work, as routing decision are made on the node and not on the line. Where has it been demonstrated not to work? What do you mean by routing decision are made on the node and not on the line? Yes, the divider tag is probably not supported by any current routing software. But it would not be too hard to modify the software to allow for it. This is an area which has two ways instead of one: http://osm.org/go/0bCzT1kfr-- Here is an route example: http://map.project-osrm.org/1cL Without two ways you would be routed directly to the end point, but with two ways you will be routed with the needed detour. It's especially interesting if you go by bike but then it's more of a psychological divider than a physical (which is another story). I don't like mapping like this, but I'm pragmatic and it does solve a real problem, so I decided no to fight Markus on this. So what is the recommendation for mapping this. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging for checkpoints?
This agricultural inspection station [1] has the tag barrier=checkpoint, which OSRM appears to interpret as access=no. [2] Is this a bug in the router, or should additional/different tags be used? I've consulted the wiki, and can't find anything definitive about how this should tagged. Any suggestions? I'm tempted to simply add access=yes, since I'm pretty sure that everyone is allowed to pass (unless they have forbidden produce), but I thought I'd consult the crowd. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/848749487 [2] http://map.project-osrm.org/1cN Nathan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging for checkpoints?
Yes, you need to add access=yes. The router does not know who may pass a checkpoint and access=yes is definitely not the default for a checkpoint (private would be more likely). This is a general issue for all point type barriers where a default access is unknown and mappers forget to add the access tags. For some types of barriers default access rules can be assumed. Bollards for example allow narrow vehicles (bicycles, mopeds) to pass but not wide vehicles like motorcars. Ole On 26/08/2012 21:02, Nathan Oliver wrote: This agricultural inspection station [1] has the tag barrier=checkpoint, which OSRM appears to interpret as access=no. [2] Is this a bug in the router, or should additional/different tags be used? I've consulted the wiki, and can't find anything definitive about how this should tagged. Any suggestions? I'm tempted to simply add access=yes, since I'm pretty sure that everyone is allowed to pass (unless they have forbidden produce), but I thought I'd consult the crowd. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/848749487 [2] http://map.project-osrm.org/1cN Nathan ___ 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] The OSM philosophy (was: Carriageway divider)
On 26 August 2012 10:42, Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote: We're not supposed to map for the renderer nor the router. Exactly for whom are we to map? For nothing, and no one. Which also means: for anything, everything and all. The OSM approach - as I understand it - is to collect data about reality in best way possible, and let the use of that data come afterwards. Let the renderers, routers and whatnot determine how they can best utilize the data. The reasoning behind that is this: If we map focusing on one single case, or even multiple cases, we set ourselves up for bad data that just happens to produce the right result in the case we're looking at. This easily leads to the data becoming unusable for anything else. If we instead map for no particular case, just trying to model reality in best way possible, we might not see any end result immediately, but the data is left intact, in good quality for any emergent uses we're not even thinking about yet. I think it's a very, very good approach. Uses come and go, but the data is what matters, in the end. It's the data itself, the modelling of reality, we need to focus on. -- - Ilari Kajaste - E-Mail: ilari.kaja...@iki.fi WWW: http://iki.fi/ilari.kajaste ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider
On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 20:30 +0200, Erik Johansson wrote: On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote: On 26/08/2012 08:42, Markus Lindholm wrote: Also, no one has offered any other solution to the routing issue. The divider tag has been proposed, but I think it has been demonstrated not to work, as routing decision are made on the node and not on the line. Where has it been demonstrated not to work? What do you mean by routing decision are made on the node and not on the line? Yes, the divider tag is probably not supported by any current routing software. But it would not be too hard to modify the software to allow for it. This is an area which has two ways instead of one: http://osm.org/go/0bCzT1kfr-- Here is an route example: http://map.project-osrm.org/1cL Without two ways you would be routed directly to the end point, but with two ways you will be routed with the needed detour. It's especially interesting if you go by bike but then it's more of a psychological divider than a physical (which is another story). I don't like mapping like this, but I'm pragmatic and it does solve a real problem, so I decided no to fight Markus on this. So what is the recommendation for mapping this. Its a difficult question. The pragmatic approach I would take is the driver should follow the rules and let the satnav catch up. I must admit I have cheated here, and looked at streetview. The U-turn that the router has come up with looks very wrong to me, the road just isn't wide enough to complete the turn from the left lane. To do a U-turn from the right lane, across straight ahead traffic is dangerous. In this case the false dual carriageway seems wrong and gives a wrong impression of what is on the ground. I think the correct and safe answer is this http://map.project-osrm.org/1cX Outside of a built up area, using this method will give the false impression of the existence of dual carriageway and anyone using OSM as a map will expect a fast road and will find a slow one where overtaking is impossible. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider
2012/8/26 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: On 25 August 2012 01:25, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: purposeful in this case translates to mapping for the router *1 in OSM-speak. We're not supposed to map for the renderer nor the router. Exactly for whom are we to map? I guess this is a misconception. With mapping for the router I didn't mean that the data should not be used also for routing. Rather this is read to mean: map something in a way that it does represent something else but in a certain application under certain conditions (e.g. router that does not do routing for emergency vehicles or pedestrians) it still works as if was mapped correctly. There is a convention in OSM that two highways represent two carriageways, so when a single carriageway with a legal divider is mapped like this, it is simply wrong according to our conventions. Sounds like you're the official spokesperson for OSM, are you? No, I am not. I am simply telling you what I remember from former discussions about this topic. This is not the first time someone thinks that it doesn't matter to distinguish between physical (impossible) and legal (forbidden but possible) separation. The convention you're referring to simply states (physically) Divided highways should be drawn as separate ways. It doesn't say anything about legally divided highways, yes, it's how we do documentation. We do (almost) never state what something is not to mean or when it is not to be used, instead we say when it _is_ to be used. Otherwise the wiki gets really hard to read, because there is usually far more things to which a certain tag does not apply. I'm definitely not the only one to map them as two ways. yes, hence the public comment, otherwise I might have written in private to you Also, no one has offered any other solution to the routing issue. there is a proposal (divider tag) and there are turn restrictions. If you separate highways which are not physically divided you create problems for some other use cases like emergency vehicles, pedestrians, bank robbers and so on. The divider tag has been proposed, but I think it has been demonstrated not to work, as routing decision are made on the node and not on the line. I can't remember that there was a demonstration that this approach doesn't work. Routing engines usually get data that is postprocessed, so the important thing is that the correct information is contained in the data and can be derived. My guess is that nobody has seriously tried to evaluate the divider tag for routing so far. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] The OSM philosophy (was: Carriageway divider)
This not tagging for renderer is quite misleading. I would always agree that mapping incorrectly for any reason is wrong. But if the mapping is accurate I do not mind that it is for renderer. After all these discussions do not show any globally acknowledged way of modelling reality and renderers/routers seem to be a natural point of unification (There are not many features rendered by the main Mapnik style that are not widely mapped...). LM_1 2012/8/26 Ilari Kajaste ilari.kaja...@iki.fi: On 26 August 2012 10:42, Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote: We're not supposed to map for the renderer nor the router. Exactly for whom are we to map? For nothing, and no one. Which also means: for anything, everything and all. The OSM approach - as I understand it - is to collect data about reality in best way possible, and let the use of that data come afterwards. Let the renderers, routers and whatnot determine how they can best utilize the data. The reasoning behind that is this: If we map focusing on one single case, or even multiple cases, we set ourselves up for bad data that just happens to produce the right result in the case we're looking at. This easily leads to the data becoming unusable for anything else. If we instead map for no particular case, just trying to model reality in best way possible, we might not see any end result immediately, but the data is left intact, in good quality for any emergent uses we're not even thinking about yet. I think it's a very, very good approach. Uses come and go, but the data is what matters, in the end. It's the data itself, the modelling of reality, we need to focus on. -- - Ilari Kajaste - E-Mail: ilari.kaja...@iki.fi WWW: http://iki.fi/ilari.kajaste ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging