Re: [Tagging] Border crossing with restrictions
2012/11/22 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org On Thursday, November 22, 2012, Volker Schmidt wrote: Any suggestions or precedents on how to map such restrictions. This argument is obviously also important for routing. For a start, I suggest access=no. People who can cross the border usualy know it, but other people are more likely to depend on the map. I think we are far from a router that will route only locals through that border :) Such a router would have to ask you much more than car, bike or pedestrian. That's why I think a fixme=* or note=* is enough for now. Janko Mihelić ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clean-up the seamark landmark tags on the wiki (and perhaps later in the db)
Any tag whose key is in the form seamark: is from the OpenSeaMap tagging scheme. Landmarks that bear these tags are features that can be seen from the sea or river and can be usefully used for navigational purposes. This is additional information, not duplicate information, so they may well co-exist with the conventional OSM tags for whatever type of map feature the object is. It is true that our tagging scheme is not well documented. This is being addressed, but as always, this task gets a low priority. In the case of landmarks, there is some documentation: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/Landmarks Note that there are some tags with the key seamark. These are not OpenSeaMap tags, but belong to another tagging scheme that was proposed about 3 years ago, but the proposal was abandoned before any voting took place. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clean-up the seamark landmark tags on the wiki (and perhaps later in the db)
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Malcolm Herring malcolm.herr...@btinternet.com wrote: This is additional information, not duplicate information, so they may well co-exist with the conventional OSM tags for whatever type of map feature the object is. If you call: landuse=cemetery + landmark=cemetery + seamark=landmark + seamark:type=landmark + seamark:landmark:category = cemetery not duplicates, I don't know what you need more for duplicates ;-) As I said, a simple landmark tag is enough. It does not need to specifiy again it is a cemetery when we can combine it with already existing OSM tags (like the landuse=cemetery). The tag can be seamark = landmark or seamark:type=landmark, I don't care. But only one single key/value pair providing this information is enough. If nobody is interested by the subject, I will decide myself to deprecate one of them in the wiki, e.g. the seamark:type=landmark. Although it is the most widely used, it sounds over complicated when we have a simpler version like seamark=landmark. (and of course, deprecate all semark:landmark:category=*). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clean-up the seamark landmark tags on the wiki (and perhaps later in the db)
On 23/11/2012 10:24, Pieren wrote: landuse=cemetery + landmark=cemetery + seamark=landmark + seamark:type=landmark + seamark:landmark:category = cemetery As I said, those latter two tags would only appear on cemeteries that can be seen from the water and can be used as navigational markers. We need these differentiated tags for the various marine navigation specific renderers other applications. It is the second two tags that should be considered for deprecation, as they belong an abandoned tagging proposal. We do not ask that our tags be applied by the wider mapping community, only that where they are found, not to delete them! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clean-up the seamark landmark tags on the wiki (and perhaps later in the db)
Hi, On 11/23/2012 11:24 AM, Pieren wrote: As I said, a simple landmark tag is enough. It does not need to specifiy again it is a cemetery when we can combine it with already existing OSM tags (like the landuse=cemetery). The tag can be seamark = landmark or seamark:type=landmark, I don't care. But only one single key/value pair providing this information is enough. True - a cemetery is a cemetery and whether or not cemeteries are used as landmarks by seamen doesn't change that. It is inconceivable to have something tagged landuse=cemetery and seamark:landmark:category=ferris_wheel. Furthermore, is landmark really something that can be sensibly limited to the scope of naval tagging? Can there be something that is a landmark for navigation on water but not a landmark for other purposes, and vice versa? Will OpenSeaMap soon start adding seamark:type=shop, seamark:shop=convenience to existing shop=convenience objects if these shops can be used by sailors? I have a suspicion that this duplication of tags is largely the result of OpenSeaMap trying to opt out of the rest of the community - if we use our own namespace then we don't have to discuss with those landlubbers. We have bothered much about that as long as OpenSeaMap tagged offshore stuff but I think we cannot tolerate this on the 30% of the world surface that have 99.9% of the data ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clean-up the seamark landmark tags on the wiki (and perhaps later in the db)
Hi, On 11/23/2012 11:48 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: We have bothered much about that as long as OpenSeaMap tagged offshore haven't Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Border crossing with restrictions
2012/11/23 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: 2012/11/22 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org On Thursday, November 22, 2012, Volker Schmidt wrote: Any suggestions or precedents on how to map such restrictions. This argument is obviously also important for routing. For a start, I suggest access=no. People who can cross the border usualy know it, but other people are more likely to depend on the map. I'd prefer access=private as no doesn't apply (some people can cross so no would be plain wrong). Maybe access=residents? We might also use this for some Italian roads where destination is not the right restriction (as you need also a written permit which residents get, on the other hand maybe those cases could also be private? What are your comments about access=residents?). I think we are far from a router that will route only locals through that border :) Such a router would have to ask you much more than car, bike or pedestrian. That's why I think a fixme=* or note=* is enough for now. at least we shouldn't put wrong restrictions on purpose, because this will prevent any software or human from understanding the situation. A fixme is there to sign an error, it is not something I'd want to have peramently on the map, and a note is OK for human trying to understand the situation but we shouldn't rely on this when tagging a situation. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clean-up the seamark landmark tags on the wiki (and perhaps later in the db)
Does something qualify as a seamark if it is visible from the sea? Maybe a visible_from_sea=yes is enough? Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clean-up the seamark landmark tags on the wiki (and perhaps later in the db)
Frederik Ramm wrote: I have a suspicion that this duplication of tags is largely the result of OpenSeaMap trying to opt out of the rest of the community - if we use our own namespace then we don't have to discuss with those landlubbers. We have not bothered much about that as long as OpenSeaMap tagged offshore stuff But we should. OSM is not a hosting platform for a thousand-and-one discreet mapping projects. It is one big database that anyone can consult. You can't just say we're building Bill'sMarineMap, so I'm going to stuff the database with Bill's custom tags which Bill'sMarineMap will use. How OSM works is that you use universal tags that any client can parse. We survey for OSM, not for Bill'sMarineMap; because Fred or Brian or Jill or Winston might want to make a sea map, too. I'm making waterway maps from OSM data. If I want to make a map of the River Trent Navigation from source to sea, including the canals that branch off it, I shouldn't have to parse four distinct tagging schemes devised for individual projects: OpenSeaMap tagging scheme, the OpenCanalMap tagging scheme, the OpenRiverMap tagging scheme, and the standard OSM tagging scheme. I should just have to parse OSM tags. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Clean-up-the-seamark-landmark-tags-on-the-wiki-and-perhaps-later-in-the-db-tp5736980p5737154.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Border crossing with restrictions
2012/11/23 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com Maybe access=residents? Access=residents is a bit too general, but that's exactly how signs in Croatia look: No access except residents. (Then I say, well I'm a resident and laugh to myself). at least we shouldn't put wrong restrictions on purpose, because this will prevent any software or human from understanding the situation. A fixme is there to sign an error, it is not something I'd want to have peramently on the map, and a note is OK for human trying to understand the situation but we shouldn't rely on this when tagging a situation. cheers, Martin I had an idea to take this further. For example, you have to map a case where residents of an address number can access a road. You make a relation with members that are exactly like a turn restriction that forbids turning into that road. Than you add new members to that relation, like housenumbers, private parking places, or maybe a village. Their roles could be something like except. That way, if somebody asks a router to go to that address, router can automaticaly pass him through. Or if the router can route through a border that only residents of a certain village can go through, the router could ask are you from this village. Janko Mihelić ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Escape_lane - Approved
Okay, as the proposed feature highway=escape has been approved, now it is time for clean_up. I have completely no idea how to do it, so... can anyone do that for me?? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/escape_lane Thank you very much :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] Zones 30 in Belgium (from )
2012/11/22 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com On the other hand it would be possible to join them to the ways, since the ways need to be split anyway as the maxspeed changes there. Ouch. They are POIs, so, often near the middle of the way, probably at a school door. The best you could do is extend them by 100 m both side. That would mean that the POIs' data wouldn't be flashing, that nobody would care to check and that real bogus data would have been introduced like written before: either they are features (i.e. traffic signs) and then worth putting them into OSM or they are POI points somewhere in the middle of a way that has a certain maxspeed restriction, than they are pretty useless IMHO (they don't tell you neither the direction of the speed limit, nor the start or end), and I'd not import them. You could put them in OSB to encourage people to do a survey for speed limits there (but even that has limited usefulness). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] R: agglom?ration
2012/11/21 Alberto albertoferra...@fastwebnet.it: How do we tag agglom?rations? What's about the proposal for urban settlements? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Urban_settlements I'd got for place. Place IS the tag for human settlements and also for parts of them (e.g. suburb, neighbourhood) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Escape_lane - Approved
On vendredi 23 novembre 2012, José Juan Sánchez del Arco wrote: Okay, as the proposed feature highway=escape has been approved, now it is time for clean_up. I have completely no idea how to do it, so... can anyone do that for me?? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/escape_lane Thank you very much :) Here we go : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Descape Basically, it's a copy/pasted version of the proposal page, using the template for tags. -- sly qui suis-je : http://sly.letuffe.org email perso : sylvain chez letuffe un point org ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire district boundaries
2012/11/22 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: I wouldn't use boundary=admin with admin_level unless there is actually a hierarchical relationship with the levels above/below. Otherwise they should really be in their own hierarchy, using something like boundary=fire_service. +1 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] agglomération
On 2012-11-22 16:57, Simone Saviolo wrote : 2012/11/21 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com Hi, I wanted to map the agglomeration of my village and I am wondering again. [...] How do we tag agglomérations? Currently, with place=* and their relative info on a closed way. I have written a proposal which aims to change this tagging scheme: [1] However, on a second thought, what you talk about is probably a different concept. An agglomération has precise entry and exit points, marked by the city limit sign - in Italy it's the same. I know that many mappers don't want to have this defined by a polygon, arguing that this would force consumers to do a spatial query to understand what the speed limit is; however, the legal constraint also involves other restrictions (e.g., no honking), and a dedicated tag would work better in this sense. Hello everybody, According to my explanation (well, my government's definition), an agglomération is just a set of roads and hence not an area nor a multipolygon (there's no speed limit or parking restrictions in the meadows ;-)) but, as I stated it, a plain relation. Yet, for larger cities (without meadows ;-)) a multipolygon could be used to gather already made subareas the day OSM will go recursing (nesting), but what's outside the roads is undecided. The idea is that with a 30 driving rules list applying to an agglomération (some 10 practically), you'd better have a global idea of where it spans (e.g. highlight all its roads), entry/exit you speak of, rather than ask yourself and OSM the question for every new street you traverse. As well as for exceeding the speed limit, you can be booked in agglomérations for parking partly on the roadside, or on the wrong alternated side, not letting a bus leave its stop point, etc... Should there be a country-dependent agglomération tag, should the driving rules be tagged one by one and should they be tagged on every road or on a relation? Finally, should we try to tag everything or rather go and swim or play tennis? Cheers, André. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Urban_settlements ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Stop sign?
Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: I (would) do this mostly for consistency. I have to admit I never HAD to do it, most stop signs in Belgium are used for their intended purpose: give priority to the main road, not inhibit all traffic arriving at an intersection. A node on the way approaching a main road is unambiguous enough. One one the intersection itself is harder to 'interpret'. Concerning traffic lights it would depend on the size of the intersection. Traffic lights tend to have an influence on all ways arriving at the intersection, whereas stop signs make traffic on some ways 'inferior' to the ways of the main road. So it's not the same situation. It also depends on the quality of the Bing imagery. It has now become possible to indicate where highway=give_way applies for many places in Europe. Polyglot 2012/11/21 Pieren pier...@gmail.com On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: What I never do anymore is to tag the node of the crossing with it. So even if all 4 roads have a stop sign, I'd create for nodes for them on all approaches. Are you doing the same for traffic_signals ? if not, why simply not accept that such signals on the cross node implies that all intersecting ways are concerned ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging In the USA, all-way stop signs are used at intersections where all of the roads in question have equal priority, and the expected traffic volume is small enough that you won't have a large backlog of traffic waiting to go through. From what you are saying, would Belgium always give one of the roads the right-of-way, so that its traffic does not have to stop, or would it always have an electric traffic signal at such an intersection, regardless of how small the expected traffic volume is? -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Stop sign?
In Belgium on such intersections it's always the traffic coming from the right that has right of way. There is almost never an obligation to make a full stop at such intersections. The stop sign is used on intersections where visibility is limited and one (pair of) road(s) is considered less important than the other. Jo 2012/11/23 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: I (would) do this mostly for consistency. I have to admit I never HAD to do it, most stop signs in Belgium are used for their intended purpose: give priority to the main road, not inhibit all traffic arriving at an intersection. A node on the way approaching a main road is unambiguous enough. One one the intersection itself is harder to 'interpret'. Concerning traffic lights it would depend on the size of the intersection. Traffic lights tend to have an influence on all ways arriving at the intersection, whereas stop signs make traffic on some ways 'inferior' to the ways of the main road. So it's not the same situation. It also depends on the quality of the Bing imagery. It has now become possible to indicate where highway=give_way applies for many places in Europe. Polyglot 2012/11/21 Pieren pier...@gmail.com On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: What I never do anymore is to tag the node of the crossing with it. So even if all 4 roads have a stop sign, I'd create for nodes for them on all approaches. Are you doing the same for traffic_signals ? if not, why simply not accept that such signals on the cross node implies that all intersecting ways are concerned ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging In the USA, all-way stop signs are used at intersections where all of the roads in question have equal priority, and the expected traffic volume is small enough that you won't have a large backlog of traffic waiting to go through. From what you are saying, would Belgium always give one of the roads the right-of-way, so that its traffic does not have to stop, or would it always have an electric traffic signal at such an intersection, regardless of how small the expected traffic volume is? -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ 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] Zones 30 in Belgium (from [OSM-talk-be] )
2012/11/21 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com Is the error having no speed limit or having a dummy node showing there should be a limit? For maxspeed you could either a) tag a sign position (on a node) to show: here starts (or continues) the speed limit. b) and (more important) you should tag the speed limit to the part of the highway it applies to. In your case you can't do a) (because the positions you have are not sign positions) and you can't do b) (because you have just node positions and don't know where the limit starts or ends). As this data is not helpful, you shouldn't import it at all. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] agglomération
What I'm doing right now is tag the roads inside this zone with maxspeed=50 and source:maxspeed=city_limit. This doesn't fit entirely, as it doesn't only influence maxspeed. Maybe adding a tag city_limit=yes would be more appropriate? Besides there is a conflict when inside those city limits there is a zone30. I'm tagging those with maxspeed=30 and source:maxspeed=zone30. The zone30 also has some extra consequences, besides maxspeed though. Would it be more correct to use zone30=yes? We also have zone50 and zone70. I have been tagging the location of city_limit signs for several years now, but since we didn't have a tag for it, I simply used note=city limit or bebouwde kom (nl). I hope a proper way of tagging them will come from this discussion. Polyglot 2012/11/23 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com On 2012-11-22 16:57, Simone Saviolo wrote : 2012/11/21 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com Hi, I wanted to map the agglomeration of my village and I am wondering again. [...] How do we tag agglomérations? Currently, with place=* and their relative info on a closed way. I have written a proposal which aims to change this tagging scheme: [1] However, on a second thought, what you talk about is probably a different concept. An agglomération has precise entry and exit points, marked by the city limit sign - in Italy it's the same. I know that many mappers don't want to have this defined by a polygon, arguing that this would force consumers to do a spatial query to understand what the speed limit is; however, the legal constraint also involves other restrictions (e.g., no honking), and a dedicated tag would work better in this sense. Hello everybody, According to my explanation (well, my government's definition), an agglomération is just a set of roads and hence not an area nor a multipolygon (there's no speed limit or parking restrictions in the meadows ;-)) but, as I stated it, a plain relation. Yet, for larger cities (without meadows ;-)) a multipolygon could be used to gather already made subareas the day OSM will go recursing (nesting), but what's outside the roads is undecided. The idea is that with a 30 driving rules list applying to an agglomération (some 10 practically), you'd better have a global idea of where it spans (e.g. highlight all its roads), entry/exit you speak of, rather than ask yourself and OSM the question for every new street you traverse. As well as for exceeding the speed limit, you can be booked in agglomérations for parking partly on the roadside, or on the wrong alternated side, not letting a bus leave its stop point, etc... Should there be a country-dependent agglomération tag, should the driving rules be tagged one by one and should they be tagged on every road or on a relation? Finally, should we try to tag everything or rather go and swim or play tennis? Cheers, André. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Urban_settlements ___ 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] Stop sign?
On Fri, 2012-11-23 at 12:14 -0600, John F. Eldredge wrote: In the USA, all-way stop signs are used at intersections where all of the roads in question have equal priority, and the expected traffic volume is small enough that you won't have a large backlog of traffic waiting to go through. From what you are saying, would Belgium always give one of the roads the right-of-way, so that its traffic does not have to stop, or would it always have an electric traffic signal at such an intersection, regardless of how small the expected traffic volume is? The 'all way stop' is I think unique to North America, it does not exist in the UK and as far as I know does not exist in Europe. From my experience of driving in North America, the 'all way stop' is used in place where in Europe, and particularly the UK a mini-roundabout would be used in most of these cases. Otherwise a road would be assigned right of way. Again in most of Western Europe, not the UK, a system giving priority to traffic from the right exists so many minor junctions have no road markings but the priority to the right rule exists. My experience is, I have no problem giving way but taking it took some time to master. In Europe when a stop sign is used, there is always a main road which has priority. Stop signs are much less common in the UK than North America, in most cases the minor road just has to give way sign, or in the UK just road markings on minor roads. Stop signs are relatively rare in the UK, they are generally only used where visibility is difficult. In other countries I find myself thinking, 'why the stop sign, I can see'. Hope this kind of bridges the understanding issues with this thread. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Stop sign?
On Nov 23, 2012 1:04 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: The 'all way stop' is I think unique to North America, it does not exist in the UK and as far as I know does not exist in Europe. From my experience of driving in North America, the 'all way stop' is used in place where in Europe, and particularly the UK a mini-roundabout would be used in most of these cases. Otherwise a road would be assigned right of way Stop signs are much less common in the UK than North America, in most cases the minor road just has to give way sign, or in the UK just road markings on minor roads. Stop signs are relatively rare in the UK, they are generally only used where visibility is difficult. In other countries I find myself thinking, 'why the stop sign, I can see'. North America is starting to see this more, too. There's noticeably greater number of roundabouts and posted all-way yields in recent years. Mini roundabouts are so rare they're not mentioned in the laws anywhere stateside from what I can tell ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Stop sign?
On 11/23/12 3:13 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: North America is starting to see this more, too. There's noticeably greater number of roundabouts and posted all-way yields in recent years. Mini roundabouts are so rare they're not mentioned in the laws anywhere stateside from what I can tell there's been a pretty significant move to roundabouts in NY in recent years; many difficult intersections (mostly ones with traffic lights and rush hour congestion problems) have been converted to roundabouts. stop signs still remain prevalent at low traffic rural intersections and in residential neighborhoods, though. i don't think that will change. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] agglomération
The idea is that with a 30 driving rules list applying to an agglomération If it's just the traffic rules urban vs. rural, there's the tag (with 37 000+ uses) zone:traffic=**:rural zone:traffic=**:urban where ** is the two letter country code. Don't count on anything ever deriving the rules (like maxspeed) from that tag, so tag the maxspeed anyway. If, on the other hand, it's about the area that is considered agglomerated, irrespective of the (not) implied traffic rules, there are probably/apparently different rules in every country for calculating the area, for example by buffering all residential buildings and combining the area formed by that operation. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Zones 30 in Belgium (from [OSM-talk-be] )
On 2012-11-23 19:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : 2012/11/21 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com Is the error having no speed limit or having a dummy node showing there should be a limit? For maxspeed you could either a) tag a sign position (on a node) to show: here starts (or continues) the speed limit. b) and (more important) you should tag the speed limit to the part of the highway it applies to. In your case you can't do a) (because the positions you have are not sign positions) and you can't do b) (because you have just node positions and don't know where the limit starts or ends). As this data is not helpful, you shouldn't import it at all. That has been said 10 times and I (I suppose, why me?) was accused not to reply. So I do: I think we can stop. PLEASE! 1) someone now uploaded the POI data to OSB 2) I said several times that, by uploading it to OSM, the helpfulness would *NOT* be to have meaningful data in OSM but to have innocuous markers producing OSMOSE and OSMI errors. They would have been spotted by mappers only and removed once the corresponding Zone30 limit was mapped or when believed that keeping the markers is vain. It's written in the tags. Too difficult to understand. André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] piste:type=nordic but without underlying track
sounds like they would tag the whole meadow area. I think tagging areas with piste:type is more for downhill piste. Michael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] agglomération
I'm a bit unhappy with the term urban instead of built-up or city_limit/city_limits. But it's better than source:maxspeed=city_limits, so I'll start using it. Hopefully it gets out of the proposed state one day, it was proposed in 2009 Jo 2012/11/23 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi The idea is that with a 30 driving rules list applying to an agglomération If it's just the traffic rules urban vs. rural, there's the tag (with 37 000+ uses) zone:traffic=**:rural zone:traffic=**:urban where ** is the two letter country code. Don't count on anything ever deriving the rules (like maxspeed) from that tag, so tag the maxspeed anyway. If, on the other hand, it's about the area that is considered agglomerated, irrespective of the (not) implied traffic rules, there are probably/apparently different rules in every country for calculating the area, for example by buffering all residential buildings and combining the area formed by that operation. -- Alv ___ 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] Stop sign?
On 2012-11-23 20:03, Philip Barnes wrote : Again in most of Western Europe, not the UK, a system giving priority to traffic from the right exists so many minor junctions have no road markings but the priority to the right rule exists. My experience is, I have no problem giving way but taking it took some time to master. In Europe when a stop sign is used, there is always a main road which has priority. The priority to the right is quite a story in Belgium. One day, lawyers correctly noticed that some minor crossings had no priority signals or that rust or a crash can have them fall down. So, mainly for a matter of law, so that a culprit would exist instead of the administration, right of way to the right by default was decided. But then, bourgmestres/burgemeesters (mayors) decided to /*remove*/ some existing priority signs, mostly in towns, alleging that this would slow down the traffic and increase security. And the more they did the more the next towns would do too. This resulted in anti-natural priority and in drivers from minor road not daring to use their priority right and stopping anyway. Fortunately, there was a rule stating that someone who stops looses his priority and people knew how to behave in that case. But now, that rule has been abolished, so that if someone gently waves at you to go first, your answer must be a no no. The four cars at a crossing situation has never been solved. I remember having discussed that with an Englishman. He couldn't understand much of what I was saying. To him, priority was always natural. Indeed, most of the crossings in that (new)town were T crossings, or otherwise clearly prioritized, one could not miss the Major Road Ahead and, on the main roads, the roundabouts were plenty and wide, where you can revolve until you're sure of your direction. Some Belgian roundabouts I call a stone in the middle of the road around which those who U-turn have priority over those driving straight ahead (indeed they're sometimes so small that you almost cross them in a straight line and the center is almost flat so that the line can be perfectly straight for the lorries). Stop signs are much less common in the UK than North America, in most cases the minor road just has to give way sign, or in the UK just road markings on minor roads. Stop signs are relatively rare in the UK, they are generally only used where visibility is difficult. In other countries I find myself thinking, 'why the stop sign, I can see'. Stop signs are rare in Belgium. Their reason for being is to to stop even if no traffic is coming on the major road. I think they were decided where accidents occurred. They fit my definition of the ideal road sign: warning from whose who know the place to those who don't. Each country his story. I wonder about Roman ways ;-) (don't you ever mock OSM http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=46.567lon=6.788zoom=9layers=Mrelation=124582.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Stop sign?
A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-11-23 20:03, Philip Barnes wrote : Again in most of Western Europe, not the UK, a system giving priority to traffic from the right exists so many minor junctions have no road markings but the priority to the right rule exists. My experience is, I have no problem giving way but taking it took some time to master. In Europe when a stop sign is used, there is always a main road which has priority. The priority to the right is quite a story in Belgium. One day, lawyers correctly noticed that some minor crossings had no priority signals or that rust or a crash can have them fall down. So, mainly for a matter of law, so that a culprit would exist instead of the administration, right of way to the right by default was decided. But then, bourgmestres/burgemeesters (mayors) decided to /*remove*/ some existing priority signs, mostly in towns, alleging that this would slow down the traffic and increase security. And the more they did the more the next towns would do too. This resulted in anti-natural priority and in drivers from minor road not daring to use their priority right and stopping anyway. Fortunately, there was a rule stating that someone who stops looses his priority and people knew how to behave in that case. But now, that rule has been abolished, so that if someone gently waves at you to go first, your answer must be a no no. The four cars at a crossing situation has never been solved. I remember having discussed that with an Englishman. He couldn't understand much of what I was saying. To him, priority was always natural. Indeed, most of the crossings in that (new)town were T crossings, or otherwise clearly prioritized, one could not miss the Major Road Ahead and, on the main roads, the roundabouts were plenty and wide, where you can revolve until you're sure of your direction. Some Belgian roundabouts I call a stone in the middle of the road around which those who U-turn have priority over those driving straight ahead (indeed they're sometimes so small that you almost cross them in a straight line and the center is almost flat so that the line can be perfectly straight for the lorries). Stop signs are much less common in the UK than North America, in most cases the minor road just has to give way sign, or in the UK just road markings on minor roads. Stop signs are relatively rare in the UK, they are generally only used where visibility is difficult. In other countries I find myself thinking, 'why the stop sign, I can see'. Stop signs are rare in Belgium. Their reason for being is to to stop even if no traffic is coming on the major road. I think they were decided where accidents occurred. They fit my definition of the ideal road sign: warning from whose who know the place to those who don't. Each country his story. I wonder about Roman ways ;-) (don't you ever mock OSM http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=46.567lon=6.788zoom=9layers=Mrelation=124582.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging I suspect the Roman rules of the road were based more on rank than anything else. Anyone who failed to yield the right of way to the emperor was likely to end up as lion chow in the Coliseum. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] piste:type=nordic but without underlying track
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Michael S mich...@elfu.de wrote: I think tagging areas with piste:type is more for downhill piste. Interesting - according to the wiki (key:piste:type): piste:type=nordic (way only, not area) A nordic/cross country ski trail (also see #Style or kind of grooming). The direction of the way should be the preferred/compulsory skiing direction (see piste:oneway below). Nordic pistes are circular ways if the first and the last point are the same and cannot be rendered as areas. Currently implemented in this way by Osmarender. piste:type=skitour (way or area) A recommended ski tour way or area that is generally used by many skiers during a season for the purpose of a nordic ascent and a downhill descent in the backcountry. Generally the descent is recommended near the ascent route for safety and terrain judgement and the descent is not mapped. To map an alternate descent, use piste:type=downhill with piste:grooming=backcountry. Implies piste:grooming=backcountry. Also defined in the wikipedia Ski touring. Rendered as area if first and last point are the same. If a circular way is needed, do not close the way (first and last point is not exactly the same). It's a pity they didn't just follow the area=yes/no convention. Do not close the way makes it sound like you should leave the end hanging free - but they probably mean to make it connect to a different way. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Stop sign?
On Wednesday 2012-11-21 08:50 +, Kytömaa Lauri wrote: Can we start using relations for this already? Really seems like that provides the specifics we want for this. So far nobody has provided a real world example of a place where the simple distance-to-next would not be correct. If somebody does that, then a relation could be made up. An example in my neighborhood of San Francisco is the stop signs on 21st Street where it crosses the J-Church MUNI tram line (where the J-Church is deviating from Church Street to go around a steep hill): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.7566lon=-122.4269zoom=18layers=M There are stop signs on both sides of the tram line (which I tagged as nodes with highway=stop). These are visible in the Bing imagery: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=37.7565lon=-122.4269zoom=21 since many urban areas in California have the habit of painting their stop signs as markings in the road (the word STOP and then a thick white line, representing the stop line) in addition to using signs. The stop sign on the east side of the tram line, however, is (I think) closer to Chattanooga Street than it is to the tram line. (Traffic turning left from Chattanooga Street northbound onto 21st Street westbound must, in theory, stop *twice*, the first time due to the implicit stop sign from California's rule for unmarked T-intersections, and then again just after turning for the stop sign.) Even worse, there isn't actually an intersection node between 21st Street and the J-Church tram line. So I fully admit this is a particularly hard case [1]; even using http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop would require adding an extra node. -David [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
