Hi Martin,
Am Dienstag, 16. Oktober 2012, 02:18:30 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> > apparently Conditional Restrictions has become an approved feature, even
> > though nobody mentioned it here. While I still believe that this is a
> > sub-optimal solution (and still nobody has passed the test I
I'd go with option b. Despite being a single way, you're committed to
taking the ramp by that point (due to the double-white solid lines), making
it functionally an extension of the ramp.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Some kind of short how-would-you-tag-this-s
Tobias wrote:
>
> I would choose (a) [One way with lanes=4] and reserve separate ways for
> _actual_ physical separation.
+1.
Agree, different reasoning.
Paint is not asphalt.
(Maybe this legal separation should be like a turn restriction.)
Early notification of coming turn is build into GPS s
Please read carefully:
one thing is a legal barrier (e.g. continuous line), one thing is a real
barrier (e.g. guard rail, Jersey barrier).
A legal barrier can be crossed by a vehicle if necessary, a real barrier
not.
We don't need to tag any exception for emergency vehicles. The routing
software (n
2012/10/15 Eckhart Wörner :
> Hi everybody,
>
> apparently Conditional Restrictions has become an approved feature, even
> though nobody mentioned it here. While I still believe that this is a
> sub-optimal solution (and still nobody has passed the test I created earlier
> in the discussion, eve
I think that misses the point a little. maxspeed=signals/variable is
useful, but becomes more useful with maxspeed:maximum=n and
maxspeed:minimum=n. North American school zones are probably the best
example. maxspeed:maximum=65 mph, maxspeed:minimum=45 mph,
maxspeed=signals would be a fairly acc
On 15.10.2012 20:08, Colin Smale wrote:
> I don't understand why emergency vehicles are so important in this
> discussion.
They are often allowed to ignore legal restrictions, but cannot
generally ignore physical restrictions, so it's an obvious example where
this distinction matters.
But before
I think there's some confusion here. Imagic's question was on a motorway
example.
Three things on this.
1. I've noticed these OSM'ers in favour of option a: Junker, Tobias K.,
Martin, Simone, Alberto and Eckhart. Could any of these OSM'ers please put
an example (older than today [?]) of this tagg
Then it could be easy for them to tailor those requirements to ignore
restrictions into the routing software.
- Svavar Kjarrval
On 15/10/12 18:45, Colin Smale wrote:
> Not in the UK or the Netherlands at least. They can do whatever they
> see fit in the course of duty, especially with lights and
The law varies from country to country. In the UK, it is legal to cross
a solid white line to turn into a side road, or driveway. You can also
cross one to overtake a slow moving vehicle, such as a cyclist or
tractor.
In France, where it is illegal to cross a solid line even to enter a
driveway. I
Hi Svavar,
Am Montag, 15. Oktober 2012, 18:26:02 schrieb Svavar Kjarrval:
> I think most laws require that even emergency vehicles observe
> restrictions like oneway streets. If there are any restrictions which
> can be broken in case of emergency vehicles, I think they'd program
> their routing s
Not in the UK or the Netherlands at least. They can do whatever they see
fit in the course of duty, especially with lights and sirens. Of course
they can be called to account if anything goes wrong. But a policeman
chasing a criminal who turns the wrong way up a one way street is going
to follo
I think most laws require that even emergency vehicles observe
restrictions like oneway streets. If there are any restrictions which
can be broken in case of emergency vehicles, I think they'd program
their routing software to them.
- Svavar Kjarrval
On 15/10/12 18:16, Eckhart Wörner wrote:
> Hi
"Eckhart Wörner" wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
>
> Am Sonntag, 14. Oktober 2012, 14:40:45 schrieb Tobias Knerr:
> > You could combine "Conditional restrictions" and the lanes suffix¹:
> >
> > lanes=3
> >
> > access:lanes = yes | yes | no
> > emergency:lanes = | | yes
> > psv:condi
Hi Colin,
Am Montag, 15. Oktober 2012, 20:08:01 schrieb Colin Smale:
> I don't understand why emergency vehicles are so important in this
> discussion. In the first place they have wide-ranging exemptions from
> traffic rules, which (let's be honest) we are never going to tag in OSM.
> Secondly
I don't understand why emergency vehicles are so important in this
discussion. In the first place they have wide-ranging exemptions from
traffic rules, which (let's be honest) we are never going to tag in OSM.
Secondly they are never going to be relying on OSM data (or indeed any
normal sat-nav
> > a) One way with lanes=4
> > b) Two separate ways with lanes=2 each
> > c) Tell me!
a) because distinction between physical and legal barriers is important.
Ok in that picture there is no much difference, but as Simone pointed out,
for long roads there is a big difference: if any router can't d
>I created a new picture very much based on the old one. Just made the road
gray to try to make it more clearer?
>http://minkarta.no-ip.org/Lanes_Example_2.svg
>Im not sure how to upload it so if anyone thinks this is better please do,
otherwise I atleast learned a little what I can do in inkscape
Hi everybody,
apparently Conditional Restrictions has become an approved feature, even though
nobody mentioned it here. While I still believe that this is a sub-optimal
solution (and still nobody has passed the test I created earlier in the
discussion, even though a lot of people tried), I have
Am 15.10.2012 um 17:55 schrieb Markus Lindholm :
> But as I'm sure you've noticed there's some divided opinion about this.
That's why I asked! Actually I don't think that we see any consensus about this
soon. But then I can document at least that there are two variants under
discussion.
If I c
On 15 October 2012 10:56, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Some kind of short how-would-you-tag-this-survey. Have a look at part
> five of this motorway:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png
>
> Only part 5 is relevant. Assume there is no physical separation just a
> double
2012/10/15 Martin Koppenhoefer :
> There are already some 6800 values for "branch" in the db:
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/branch#values so as proponent of
> this tag you should IMHO check these values if they are in accordance
> with your proposed intention (and given that there are man
Hi Martin,
Am Montag, 15. Oktober 2012, 16:35:59 schrieb Martin Vonwald:
> And I would like to suggest a different tag: instead of
> dynamic_maxspeed I would prefer maxspeed:variable for the following
> reasons:
> * as far as I know those kind of speed limits are usually called
> variable speed li
2012/10/15 Andrew Errington :
> Hello everyone,
>
> It's my responsibility to keep this proposal going. Sorry about the delay,
> but I would like to open this proposal for a vote.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:branch
>
> Since I first put up the proposal I have wanted more and more to
Maxspeed is always variable, because you have to adjust your speed
according to road conditions (snow, fog, traffic). Signals just make that
visible, but it is always there, even without the signals. The only thing I
would map is the maximal value the sign can show and put it in the maxspeed
tag.
I would like to draw attention again to this proposal as I stumbled
across a pretty useless maxspeed=signals again.
And I would like to suggest a different tag: instead of
dynamic_maxspeed I would prefer maxspeed:variable for the following
reasons:
* as far as I know those kind of speed limits are
I created a new picture very much based on the old one. Just made the
road gray to try to make it more clearer?
http://minkarta.no-ip.org/Lanes_Example_2.svg
Im not sure how to upload it so if anyone thinks this is better please
do, otherwise I atleast learned a little what I can do in inkscape :
Hi.
I would suggest to add a few well known examples to the page to make it
more clear what it's about at first glance.
Currently these are on the talk page, but IMHO they should be on the
wiki page itself, too.
And: I would like to see a distinction between branch and the adress.
Sometimes b
2012/10/15 Tobias Knerr
> On 15.10.2012 10:56, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png
> >
> > Only part 5 is relevant. Assume there is no physical separation just a
> > double line between the upper and lower two lanes. How would you tag
> > this:
>
Hello everyone,
It's my responsibility to keep this proposal going. Sorry about the delay,
but I would like to open this proposal for a vote.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:branch
Since I first put up the proposal I have wanted more and more to be able to
use it. There were two posit
2012/10/15 Martin Vonwald :
> Hi!
>
> The tag building=stable (resp: building:use=stable) is currently used
> to identify a building as a stable. It is used over 500 times which is
> IMO quite a lot for a feature that is rarely mapped. I couldn't find
> any competing tags for it. Because it was nev
I use b. Because thats the only way I was/am aware of to tag whats on
the ground. A divider.
But yes I would like there to be an easy way to tag it in the same
way.. I even think there should be a possibility to tag a physical
divider in the same way, because some roads with physical dividers
real
2012/10/15 Tobias Knerr :
> I would choose (a) and reserve separate ways for _actual_ physical
> separation.
>
> One practical reason for doing so is that there would simply be no
> possibility to distinguish legally separate ways from physically
> separate ways if we used the same mapping (splitti
On 15.10.2012 10:56, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png
>
> Only part 5 is relevant. Assume there is no physical separation just a
> double line between the upper and lower two lanes. How would you tag
> this:
> a) One way with lanes=4
> b) Two sepa
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Sorry, you are wrong - I drew the image ;-) But because the image is
> not 100% clear I added a note in the related article and now I have to
> make sure the note is correct and clear.
Your image and note are not really helping. The figur
Hi!
The tag building=stable (resp: building:use=stable) is currently used
to identify a building as a stable. It is used over 500 times which is
IMO quite a lot for a feature that is rarely mapped. I couldn't find
any competing tags for it. Because it was never documented I wrote a
proposal [1] fo
One way with lanes=4.
If firemen ever want to use osm, i want them to have good data.
Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
2012/10/15 Colin Smale :
> I am not sure I would interpret the diagram in that way though; the fact
> that there are no arrows on the road from part 5 onwards suggests to me that
> there is no chance of changing your mind.
There is no chance of (legally) changing your mind, because there are
doubl
I would opt for (b) even though I know that this is not the "offcial" way
of tagging.
The reason:
In section (4) the driver can still change lanes, at least on the middle
lanes, whereas in section (5) he cannot (legally) change lanes any more
between the middle lanes.
This example clearly illustr
I would choose option b).
Even if all four lanes are one piece of carriageway, it is useful for
routing directions etc to be able to make a distinction between the left
and right parts of the road. Normal mortals are supposed to treat the
solid white lines as if they were a brick wall anyway,
Hi!
Some kind of short how-would-you-tag-this-survey. Have a look at part
five of this motorway:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png
Only part 5 is relevant. Assume there is no physical separation just a
double line between the upper and lower two lanes. How would you tag
2012/10/15 Colin Smale :
> Slightly OT: Can I put in a plea to continue to populate these tags on the
> way as a whole even when the :lanes: data is present?
That's the way I do it: destination:lanes before the
split/slip-road/link and destination after it.
Martin
__
I saw the choice between dest_ref and destination_ref and adopted
dest_ref for the simple reason that it's shorter. In my mkgmap styles I
allow for either, and recently added destination:ref to that list.
I'm not particularly bothered which one wins, but I'm always in favour
of a bit of standa
Hi!
Up to now I usually used the tag destination_ref to specify the ref of
the road where a link-road is heading, in analogy with the destination
key. Now I've seen the key dest_ref in use and also destination:ref.
Of course none is documented in the wiki ;-)
What should we do? I could write a pr
2012/10/14 Eric SIBERT :
> lanes=* wiki would need to be modified to not count temporary lanes. It
> would be more consistent as most of the time only two lanes are available.
The last discussion and update of this article was in April. If I
remember correct the intention was that lanes that are a
45 matches
Mail list logo
