Am 27.08.2013 17:38, schrieb Pieren:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Peter Wendorff
wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote:
It's more reliable to guess the direction by
nearest-distance-to-next-intersection than to rely on any mappers to
keep that up to date, especially with iD making it extremly
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Peter Wendorff
wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote:
First, this can controlled by a QA tool and fixed.
Fixed?
What's wrong with that?
It's a totally valid mapping situation, as long as the idea with
direction on nodes is (as it is yet) not the common tagging
2013/8/28 Pieren pier...@gmail.com
I misunderstood your case. I think in editors like josm, when you
change the direction of the way, you are prompted for the tags which
could be changed. I guess the same could be done for the child nodes.
The mapper would have to decide which node/tag is
Am 28.08.2013 10:35, schrieb Volker Schmidt:
Thanks for your useful comments, which essentially reflect the reasons for
which I brought up the issue. Objective criteria are difficult to define.
In particular max_width and max_length are useless because they are linked
variables.
Locally
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:58 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
One can tag the maximum width that can fit through, given zero length, and
can tag the maximum length that can fit through, given zero width, but a
trailer that has BOTH the maximum length and maximum width will not
bicycle:trailer=no would say it's not ALLOWED to cross this barrier
with a trailer - and that is simple but wrong.
You have a point there.
What I want ideally is the equivalent of width (which I can measure) and
not of max_width (which is written on an official road sign).
But on a cycle
Good point James,
We just have to use tower:type=power;communication;whatever for these
situations.
*François Lacombe*
francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com
2013/8/28 James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
But what if the pole has both telephone and
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:35 AM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:
But what if the pole has both telephone and power on it? ;) That's what's
common here in my neighborhood. I can look out my front door and see a pole
with both of them using it.
For that, I'd suggest man_made=pole
On 27/08/2013 19:36, Volker Schmidt wrote:
I am particularly interested in tagging cycling routes, including the
national long-distance cycling network Bicitalia in Italy.
In Italy cycle paths are frequently de facto blocked by chicane-type
bicycle barriers.
So my tagging is typically a node
In many cases (as shown on the web page) cycle barriers are not designed to
make the rider dismount, just slow down. The bicycle=dismount should be
used when there is an actual requirement to get off, such as a sign saying
so or some steps.
Here in Padova, Italy, these cycle barriers are more
2013/8/28 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de
bicycle:trailer=no would say it's not ALLOWED to cross this barrier
with a trailer - and that is simple but wrong.
-1, as this is a new key it would probably not be defined to be an
access-restriction but to be the physical possibility.
2013/8/28 John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com
Yes, even if you micromapped the whole geometry, it's hard to tell how
large an object you can get through the restrictions --- see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_sofa_problem for an open
mathematical problem related to chicanes!
You could
2013/8/28 John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com
For that, I'd suggest man_made=pole with power=yes and telephone=yes,
or something like that (maybe communication instead of telephone,
as telephone lines are also used for ADSL etc).
I don't think every single node has to get these attributes, it
Pieren wrote:
was placed on the intersection node itself.
routine engine where routes with traffic signals
are penalized.
I won't be saying anything about the discussed
alternatives at this time, but just wish to point
out that this intersection is controlled by signals
when used only on
Am 28.08.2013 13:21, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2013/8/28 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de
bicycle:trailer=no would say it's not ALLOWED to cross this barrier
with a trailer - and that is simple but wrong.
-1, as this is a new key it would probably not be defined to be an
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi wrote:
I'd be happy to see someone explain here how their
router does something more complex with the
highway=traffic_signals nodes.
When I check OSRM, it seems that at the moment, a node tagged with
2013/8/28 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi
I won't be saying anything about the discussed
alternatives at this time, but just wish to point
out that this intersection is controlled by signals
when used only on the intersection nodes, can't
be straight away used as a constant time penalty
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
(to reduce traffic in certain areas). Routing algorithms would have to know
all phases of the traffic lights for a perfect result.
About the green wave, it could be modelized with another relation
(or
Am 28.08.2013 15:16, schrieb Pieren:
But another point is traffic signals where a bicycle can ignore red
light stop when he is turning to right (right-hand traffic). This is
allowed in some coutries, sometimes only with a specific road sign. I
don't know how it is tagged currently.
I know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It's depends on the geometry of the barrier.
# ... pole
- - ... bar
1.
##
quiet easy, width between two poles is enough
2.
#-#
#-#
you'll need the space to the left/right and the distance between the
two parts
3.
##-#
|
And who is doing in your opinion:
1) the precision measurement of the barrier?
2) the precision measurement of the bicycle?
3) how does the routing work? You have to give it the paramaters of the
bike trailer?
This is simply not practical. We need a more pragmatic approach
Volker
On 28
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Volker
Am 28.08.2013 18:43, schrieb Volker Schmidt:
1) the precision measurement of the barrier?
the mapper
2) the precision measurement of the bicycle?
the cyclist
Unfortunately this is the only real solution. All other solutions with
a
We've established:
1. There are all manner of vehicles that may have trouble getting
through the chicane
(bikes, trikes, tandems, trailers, wheelchairs, canoe trailers,
trail-a-bikes, land-rover baby strollers, etc.)
2. No simple geometry measurement determines what will fit (
+1 Martin, it would make the model simpler.
* man_made=tower + tower:type=utility
* man_made=pole
I don't think there something smaller, do you ?
*François Lacombe*
francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com
2013/8/28 Martin Koppenhoefer
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Fernando Trebien
fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:
However, routing would double count traffic lights in two-way roads
(as in Kytömaa's counting), though guessing the direction by proximity
to the intersection should be accurate here in about 99% of the cases,
How about a lightweight version of this, for the rather common situation
where the power infrastructure follows the roads, and the mapping won't be
detailed due to lack of micro-mapping energy? Think miles and miles of
rural highway... are you planning to trace each road? Can't you map a lot
Il giorno 28/ago/2013, alle ore 20:15, François Lacombe
francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu ha scritto:
+1 Martin, it would make the model simpler.
* man_made=tower + tower:type=utility
* man_made=pole
I don't think there something smaller, do you ?
I'd not use man_made tower for
Il giorno 28/ago/2013, alle ore 20:34, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com ha
scritto:
We have lots of geometry that follows roads: sidewalks, bike lanes,
cycleways, contraflow cycleways, kerbs. Why not power?
I can follow your argument (who's gonna do all that dumb work of tracing power
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pack_station
I assume it should be tourism=something but what the something is is not
obvious.
Nothing shows in the wiki or taginfo that I can see or outfitter or
pack_station, etc.
From Wikipedia, it seems this might be a regional name but the hints on
what
2013/8/28 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
I'd not use man_made tower for power towers, no need to pull them all
there.
We don't want to pull power towers in man_made from power=*
power=tower isn't proposed for deprecation yet.
The fact is we need power=* for other features which
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno 28/ago/2013, alle ore 20:34, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com
ha scritto:
We have lots of geometry that follows roads: sidewalks, bike lanes,
cycleways, contraflow cycleways, kerbs. Why not
underground is an attribute in local government databases of roads around
here: for earthquake purposes the
major arterial routes have priority for utility undergrounding. Thus it it
even possible to robottag huge swathes, subject to the usual concerns about
robotagging.
That's right, even in the best case scenario (mapping them at their
actual locations and expressing their impact on roads using
relations), we'd still end up with approximated delays for routing
which may be completely unrelated to the resulting, emerging traffic
patterns. So mapping the lights at
33 matches
Mail list logo
