On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 17:33 +0200, André Pirard wrote:
> On 2012-09-17 16:57, David ``Smith'' wrote :
> > Excuse me if I don't understand the situation entirely, but I think
> > the problem is the actual access restriction or enforcement of it is
> > different from a literal reading of the signs.
Am 17.09.2012 um 17:33 schrieb André Pirard :
> But the legal terms say that C23 is a signal you can't pass, one way, that's
> all.
I would use a pragmatic approach here: from the position where the signs is up
to the next junction or end of this osm-way (one, single way; no connected,
followi
Hi André,
Am Montag, 17. September 2012, 17:10:11 schrieb André Pirard:
> In this C23 case, heavy vehicles are forbidden to go to Esneux, not to
> leave it.
> That would be extra fun; you have understood that, politically, the
> restriction is *before* the sign.
> One way restriction.
> And, to
On 2012-09-17 16:57, David ``Smith'' wrote :
Excuse me if I don't understand the situation entirely, but I think
the problem is the actual access restriction or enforcement of it is
different from a literal reading of the signs. This must be the case
if the signs don't give adequate informati
Hi David,
Am Montag, 17. September 2012, 10:57:16 schrieb David ``Smith'':
> Excuse me if I don't understand the situation entirely, but I think the
> problem is the actual access restriction or enforcement of it is different
> from a literal reading of the signs. This must be the case if the sig
On 2012-09-17 16:05, Richard Mann wrote :
It looks like it's just inside the village
(commune?) boundary. Maybe they mean the whole village?
No, that would stop commerce on the very much important N633 through
Esneux.
Behind the scene if you want to know, und
Excuse me if I don't understand the situation entirely, but I think the
problem is the actual access restriction or enforcement of it is different
from a literal reading of the signs. This must be the case if the signs
don't give adequate information to completely describe the restriction. In
that
2012/9/17 Philip Barnes
> -1
>
> The restriction applies to all nodes within the area, not just passing the
> sign. I do not think a node is appropriate in this case.
>
If I understood André correct, there is only one sign. So there is no
"area within" unless you want to add the whole world ;-)
-1
The restriction applies to all nodes within the area, not just passing the
sign. I do not think a node is appropriate in this case.
I suspect this should be a relation.
Phil
--
Sent from my Nokia N9
On 17/09/2012 15:04 Martin Vonwald wrote:
Hi!
2012/9/17 André Pirard
But now what does
Hi Martin,
Am Montag, 17. September 2012, 16:04:19 schrieb Martin Vonwald:
> My two cents: we should allow such kind of restriction to be placed on a
> node, because that's the way they work. They are just some kind of "legal
> barrier" and barriers on a road we (usually) map as a node.
that wou
It looks like it's just inside the village (commune?) boundary. Maybe they
mean the whole village?
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:55 PM, André Pirard wrote:
> **
> Hi,
>
> Summary: setting access restrictions on ways sometimes (often?)
> inappropriate
> Full story and conclusions: ...
>
> At 50.5308
Hi!
2012/9/17 André Pirard
> **
> But now what does that highway code tell us about C23 after all?
> "accès interdit" = "forbidden access": to where? To behind the sign, of
> course.
> Unlike C43 speed limit below which is bound to say "up to the next
> crossing" to tell you where you can speed
Surely a lift gate on a motorway will be a tollgate?
If you do map a lift gate make sure you tag access = yes, otherwise routers
will stall at that point.
Phil
--
Sent from my Nokia N9
On 17/09/2012 14:21 te...@free.fr wrote:
"Martin Koppenhoefer" said:
> I think that your article is miss
Hi,
Summary: setting access restrictions on ways sometimes (often?)
inappropriate
Full story and conclusions: ...
At 50.5308
5.5959, there's a C23 road sign (below) towards NW town
Esneux.
As understood with common sense, they don't want heavy
"Martin Koppenhoefer" said:
> I think that your article is missing one fundamental point when it comes
> to ideal node positions: that of intersections. I usually put a node on
> every intersection with other roads (or even driveways), because even if
> these intersecting roads are not yet mapped
Am 17.09.2012 um 03:40 schrieb André Pirard :
> Any remark regarding meaning or language welcome.
First of all I'd like to thank you for bringing this up, I also believe that
precise position of nodes is desirable, avoiding at the same time superfluous
nodes.
I think that your article is
Hi André,
Avast (anti-virus) blocks an element of this page, which refers to the site:
www dot fantastic-free-counters dot com
It is suspected to own some kind of trojan (RedirME-Inf [Trj]), unless this is
a false positive.
There exists plenty of other counters around the net, so you may want to
17 matches
Mail list logo
