Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider

2012-08-26 Thread Markus Lindholm
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

2012-08-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
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

2012-08-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
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

2012-08-26 Thread Craig Wallace

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

2012-08-26 Thread Martin Vonwald (Imagic)
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

2012-08-26 Thread Erik Johansson
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?

2012-08-26 Thread Nathan Oliver
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?

2012-08-26 Thread Ole Nielsen
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)

2012-08-26 Thread Ilari Kajaste
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

2012-08-26 Thread Philip Barnes
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

2012-08-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
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)

2012-08-26 Thread LM_1
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