Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote: For several applications, such as navigation software, a distinction would be very interesting, allowing the display of rural primaries and secondaries when zooming out, a more accurate speed guess when the maxspeed tag is missing (based on these tables, which seem to assume that the urban/rural boundary is mapped using a place=* tag, perhaps an old idea: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Maxspeed). The only benefit I can see of mixing the two classification systems into a single system is not being required to duplicate a rendering rule. If you tag differently urban roads and rural roads, where is the difference between using two highway values or simply two maxspeed values on the same highway ? Btw, I never understood why the maxspeed=countrycode:zone type was not simply a maxspeed=zone type since OSM is a spatial db and knows in which country the way is. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways
Both maxspeed=countrycode:zone type and maxspeed=zone type are evil, as we need to have a separate DB for those zonal limits. Please, just use maxspeed=number. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways
2014-06-17 11:09 GMT+02:00 Andrew Shadura and...@shadura.me: Both maxspeed=countrycode:zone type and maxspeed=zone type are evil, as we need to have a separate DB for those zonal limits. Please, just use maxspeed=number. I see this similarly, use maxspeed=number and source:maxspeed (to show where the limit comes from), e.g. http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/source:maxspeed#values source:maxspeed=DE:zone:30 (currently the most used value, if I had to propose a new tag I agree I'd use something more simple like zone30 or zone:30 because this is not about the implicit value according to country specifics but it is implicit by inheriting from the zone). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways
I disagree with just using a number, the tags are there to indicate that the mapper had interpreted the speed limit from the type of road. Should the limits change they make finding the limits that require changes easier. The number should be tagged, and I would not expect a data consumer to use maxspeed tags, they are useful for validation. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 17/06/2014 10:09 Andrew Shadura wrote: Both maxspeed=countrycode:zone type and maxspeed=zone type are evil, as we need to have a separate DB for those zonal limits. Please, just use maxspeed=number. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways
On 6/17/14 5:24 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: The number should be tagged, and I would not expect a data consumer to use maxspeed tags, they are useful for validation. there are any number of reasons why a consumer might use a maxspeed tag, the most obvious of them being a routing engine attempting to approximate a fastest route. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways
Hello, On 17 June 2014 13:36, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 6/17/14 5:24 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: The number should be tagged, and I would not expect a data consumer to use maxspeed tags, they are useful for validation. there are any number of reasons why a consumer might use a maxspeed tag, the most obvious of them being a routing engine attempting to approximate a fastest route. There's one even more obvious reasons: displaying a speed limit to a user in a navigation software. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways
Hello, On 17 June 2014 11:24, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I disagree with just using a number, the tags are there to indicate that the mapper had interpreted the speed limit from the type of road. Should the limits change they make finding the limits that require changes easier. How do users find out what the maxspeed actually is there if they don't have any external database, but just OSM dump? What you describe is more a task source:*=* tags solve. The number should be tagged, and I would not expect a data consumer to use maxspeed tags, they are useful for validation. Your expectation don't correspond the reality: these data are used very often, so they need to be in a usable form. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways
There are several differences in my view: 1. When viewing the map offline, the user wants to see only rural roads when zooming out really far. 2. If you don't have maxspeed for a particular way, a clever app that knows typical speeds for each type of way in each country can make a more educated guess. This leads to better routes and better time estimations. 3. The rural and the urban systems are often planned by different authorities following very different prÃnciples. If one wished to study one system, but not the other, it would be easier to filter out the data with such a distinction. This could all be solved either by a different classification system or also by a new urban=no tag on the way. On 17 Jun 2014 05:06, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote: For several applications, such as navigation software, a distinction would be very interesting, allowing the display of rural primaries and secondaries when zooming out, a more accurate speed guess when the maxspeed tag is missing (based on these tables, which seem to assume that the urban/rural boundary is mapped using a place=* tag, perhaps an old idea: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Maxspeed). The only benefit I can see of mixing the two classification systems into a single system is not being required to duplicate a rendering rule. If you tag differently urban roads and rural roads, where is the difference between using two highway values or simply two maxspeed values on the same highway ? Btw, I never understood why the maxspeed=countrycode:zone type was not simply a maxspeed=zone type since OSM is a spatial db and knows in which country the way is. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways
Andrew Shadura wrote: Both maxspeed=countrycode:zone type and maxspeed=zone type are evil, as we need to have a separate DB for those zonal limits. Please, just use maxspeed=number. Any router that deals with more than one type of traffic will need to do that anyway, as many places have different limits that apply to cars, lorries, buses, things towing other things, etc. The calculation is then something like The speed limit for cars here is X. For me that therefore means that the road type is Y and the speed limit for me is Z. I've argued in the past for recording the fact that something isn't a numeric speed limit, but along with other people in the UK have adapted to the requirements of people writing car routers (which presumably support no other form of traffic*) by using maxspeed:type=whatever where it's a non-numeric maxspeed (leaving source:maxspeed for sign etc.), as that's often still needed too. Cheers, Andy * I've yet to see a bicycle router enforce the (pedalling) furiously implications of http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/10-11/89#pb3-l1g18 , for example! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways
On 6/17/14 8:24 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: * I've yet to see a bicycle router enforce the (pedalling) furiously implications of http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/10-11/89#pb3-l1g18 , for example! i think there's a lot of interest in pedestrian and cycling routing, but it still has a long way to go. we should be providing for it because it is coming (eventually). richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: Door Values
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: My suggestion therefor is to be more explicit with the key identifiers, e.g. * door_type (or door:type) for hinged / sliding / revolving / ... (still this is somehow ambiguous, because type might also be interpreted as glass door, wooden door, ...) -1 where is the difference between door=* and door_type=* ? very confusing for newcomers. I would prefer a door=yes/hinged/sliding/... + automatic=yes or manual=yes (saying default is manual) 'not sure about door=opening means... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: Door Values
On 17/06/14 14:28, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: My suggestion therefor is to be more explicit with the key identifiers, e.g. * door_type (or door:type) for hinged / sliding / revolving / ... (still this is somehow ambiguous, because type might also be interpreted as glass door, wooden door, ...) -1 where is the difference between door=* and door_type=* ? very confusing for newcomers. +1 that was my intention: a simple key for the model of a door. I would prefer a door=yes/hinged/sliding/... + automatic=yes or manual=yes (saying default is manual) What does the list think about an additional proposal for each door attribute? Or trying to squeeze every imaginable attribute into one proposal? 'not sure about door=opening means... Seems to be used on two (!) locations worldwide as a tag for an indoor door. http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/3LO Pieren Thanks for your opinion, Michael -- Michael Maier, Student of Telematics @ Graz University of Technology OpenStreetMap Graz http://osm.org/go/0Iz@paV http://wiki.osm.org/Graz http://wiki.osm.org/Graz/Stammtisch signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signal-controlled roundabouts
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: This roundabout originally had no lights, but they were added with the ring road. Interesting. Now you get the disadvantages of both systems : you have the unnecessary waitings on red lights and you use a maximum of land space for a junction... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: Door Values
2014-06-17 14:28 GMT+02:00 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: My suggestion therefor is to be more explicit with the key identifiers, e.g. * door_type (or door:type) for hinged / sliding / revolving / ... (still this is somehow ambiguous, because type might also be interpreted as glass door, wooden door, ...) -1 where is the difference between door=* and door_type=* ? very confusing for newcomers. I would prefer a door=yes/hinged/sliding/... + automatic=yes or manual=yes (saying default is manual) 'not sure about door=opening means... the difference between door and door_type is that you can imagine from the key-name what door_type is about, while using door will more easily lead to different interpretations. You can see this by the current actual value automatic which isn't a door type like hinged / sliding etc. but describing additional features (a motor to open / close + a device/button to detect that door shall open / close). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: Door Values
At a guess, door=opening means that there is an open doorway, with no door present to close it off. On June 17, 2014 8:12:49 AM CDT, Michael Maier michael.ma...@student.tugraz.at wrote: On 17/06/14 14:28, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: My suggestion therefor is to be more explicit with the key identifiers, e.g. * door_type (or door:type) for hinged / sliding / revolving / ... (still this is somehow ambiguous, because type might also be interpreted as glass door, wooden door, ...) -1 where is the difference between door=* and door_type=* ? very confusing for newcomers. +1 that was my intention: a simple key for the model of a door. I would prefer a door=yes/hinged/sliding/... + automatic=yes or manual=yes (saying default is manual) What does the list think about an additional proposal for each door attribute? Or trying to squeeze every imaginable attribute into one proposal? 'not sure about door=opening means... Seems to be used on two (!) locations worldwide as a tag for an indoor door. http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/3LO Pieren Thanks for your opinion, Michael -- Michael Maier, Student of Telematics @ Graz University of Technology OpenStreetMap Graz http://osm.org/go/0Iz@paV http://wiki.osm.org/Graz http://wiki.osm.org/Graz/Stammtisch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signal-controlled roundabouts
There is a similar situation near Geel, Belgium. First they constructed several roundabouts along the R14, then they turned them back to regular crossings Only the roundabout with the N19 is kept at the moment, but there they placed traffic signals (http://osm.org/go/0ErQgoDk--?m=relation=1263541 ) No more money ? The roundabout N19/R14 didn't work IMHO, since the traffic was not evenly spread along all directions. m On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: This roundabout originally had no lights, but they were added with the ring road. Interesting. Now you get the disadvantages of both systems : you have the unnecessary waitings on red lights and you use a maximum of land space for a junction... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signal-controlled roundabouts
2014-06-17 16:29 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com: There is a similar situation near Geel, Belgium. First they constructed several roundabouts along the R14, then they turned them back to regular crossings Only the roundabout with the N19 is kept at the moment, but there they placed traffic signals (http://osm.org/go/0ErQgoDk--?m=relation=1263541 ) No more money ? The roundabout N19/R14 didn't work IMHO, since the traffic was not evenly spread along all directions. you can find big roundabouts with traffic lights in most of the big European cities, another reason (besides the controlling the motorized traffic) is to let pedestrians (and sometimes cyclists) cross. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signal-controlled roundabouts
* Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com [2014-06-17 16:43 +0200]: you can find big roundabouts with traffic lights in most of the big European cities, another reason (besides the controlling the motorized traffic) is to let pedestrians (and sometimes cyclists) cross. I know of a traffic circle (here: http://osm.org/go/ZZd4GvISp--) that has a traffic light on the non-freeway entrance. The light stops entrants to the circle from that direction when there's too much of a queue on the freeway offramp. I'd still consider it a roundabout, though. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signal-controlled roundabouts
Not as rare as you think, and growing more common. I go through 2 or 3 roundabouts regularly. The US official definitions defined in the MUTCD are that roundabouts are uncontrolled or have yield signs entering, traffic circles have stop signs. Neither are signal controlled in the MUTCD. We do not have anything equivalent to the mini roundabout in the US (and likely Canada, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands) at all, so intersections tagged as such are probably wrong. On Jun 13, 2014 11:30 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote: Coming from the US where any form of roundabout is rare, I would consider any circular intersection a roundabout. Some have signals, some don't have signals. I know that some people in the US distinguish between the two, where a 'roundabout' has no signals and a 'traffic circle' does have signals. Either way, it makes sense to me to tag it as a roundabout because: 1) it is a junction of multiple roads 2) all traffic must enter a circular roadway, and then get off at some point Out of curiosity, what are others' criteria for a roundabout? On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I used to believe that, by definition, all roundabouts have free transit and right of way along the circle, and that anything that didn't display that property isn't a roundabout (just a circle). But reading the wiki once again, I'm a little in doubt. The wiki mentions that this is a roundabout, but I would previously have thought it wasn't because of the traffic lights within it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.59689/-1.14146 So why is it a roundabout? Is it because of the circular shape? Or could it be because it's impossible to infer that any of the entering ways have right of way, since they are all controlled by traffic lights? -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 Nullius in verba. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signal-controlled roundabouts
At least one roundabout in Portland is actually square. On Jun 13, 2014 3:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 13/giu/2014 um 18:28 schrieb Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com: Out of curiosity, what are others' criteria for a roundabout? priority for the inner traffic is the main circular is not a requirement, can have any shape (usually they are indeed circular) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signal-controlled roundabouts
Arc du Triumph? On Jun 17, 2014 8:32 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: This roundabout originally had no lights, but they were added with the ring road. Interesting. Now you get the disadvantages of both systems : you have the unnecessary waitings on red lights and you use a maximum of land space for a junction... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signal-controlled roundabouts
How would you tag this intersection in Mountain View, California? https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mountain+View,+CA/@37.387343,-122.080352,3a,89.9y,118.3h,70.82t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHblffm0KZ7pzUXLakrlBQw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x808fb7495bec0189:0x7c17d44a466baf9b Should it be tagged as traffic_calming=island instead of highway=mini_roundabout? On Jun 17, 2014, at 1:10 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Not as rare as you think, and growing more common. I go through 2 or 3 roundabouts regularly. The US official definitions defined in the MUTCD are that roundabouts are uncontrolled or have yield signs entering, traffic circles have stop signs. Neither are signal controlled in the MUTCD. We do not have anything equivalent to the mini roundabout in the US (and likely Canada, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands) at all, so intersections tagged as such are probably wrong. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signal-controlled roundabouts
I'd call it a full blown roundabout, since you're still expected to go around it to the right in order to go left. On Jun 17, 2014 3:43 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: How would you tag this intersection in Mountain View, California? https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mountain+View,+CA/@37.387343,-122.080352,3a,89.9y,118.3h,70.82t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHblffm0KZ7pzUXLakrlBQw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x808fb7495bec0189:0x7c17d44a466baf9b Should it be tagged as traffic_calming=island instead of highway=mini_roundabout? On Jun 17, 2014, at 1:10 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Not as rare as you think, and growing more common. I go through 2 or 3 roundabouts regularly. The US official definitions defined in the MUTCD are that roundabouts are uncontrolled or have yield signs entering, traffic circles have stop signs. Neither are signal controlled in the MUTCD. We do not have anything equivalent to the mini roundabout in the US (and likely Canada, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands) at all, so intersections tagged as such are probably wrong. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signal-controlled roundabouts
It's certainly not a mini-roundabout, because the centre piece is not intended to be traversed by vehicles (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout) On 17 June 2014 22:43, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: How would you tag this intersection in Mountain View, California? https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mountain+View,+CA/@37.387343,-122.080352,3a,89.9y,118.3h,70.82t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHblffm0KZ7pzUXLakrlBQw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x808fb7495bec0189:0x7c17d44a466baf9b Should it be tagged as traffic_calming=island instead of highway=mini_roundabout? On Jun 17, 2014, at 1:10 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Not as rare as you think, and growing more common. I go through 2 or 3 roundabouts regularly. The US official definitions defined in the MUTCD are that roundabouts are uncontrolled or have yield signs entering, traffic circles have stop signs. Neither are signal controlled in the MUTCD. We do not have anything equivalent to the mini roundabout in the US (and likely Canada, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands) at all, so intersections tagged as such are probably wrong. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways
This was my thoughts against proposing zone tagging for Oregon speed limits. On Jun 17, 2014 4:10 AM, Andrew Shadura and...@shadura.me wrote: Both maxspeed=countrycode:zone type and maxspeed=zone type are evil, as we need to have a separate DB for those zonal limits. Please, just use maxspeed=number. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways
Osmand and pretty much any other nav software worth it's salt already interprets maxspeed (though I wish minspeed was also factored in more often). On Jun 17, 2014 4:25 AM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I disagree with just using a number, the tags are there to indicate that the mapper had interpreted the speed limit from the type of road. Should the limits change they make finding the limits that require changes easier. The number should be tagged, and I would not expect a data consumer to use maxspeed tags, they are useful for validation. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 17/06/2014 10:09 Andrew Shadura wrote: Both maxspeed=countrycode:zone type and maxspeed=zone type are evil, as we need to have a separate DB for those zonal limits. Please, just use maxspeed=number. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways
Maxspeed is not the only issue. See my previous message: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-June/017860.html On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Osmand and pretty much any other nav software worth it's salt already interprets maxspeed (though I wish minspeed was also factored in more often). On Jun 17, 2014 4:25 AM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I disagree with just using a number, the tags are there to indicate that the mapper had interpreted the speed limit from the type of road. Should the limits change they make finding the limits that require changes easier. The number should be tagged, and I would not expect a data consumer to use maxspeed tags, they are useful for validation. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 17/06/2014 10:09 Andrew Shadura wrote: Both maxspeed=countrycode:zone type and maxspeed=zone type are evil, as we need to have a separate DB for those zonal limits. Please, just use maxspeed=number. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 Nullius in verba. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signal-controlled roundabouts
No. One of the characteristics of a roundabout is that you have precedence when you are in it. In this case there is a main road that has precedence over the two minor roads. If you want to turn left (looking in the direction of the photo) you have to yield to oncoming traffic coming from the opposite direction. This is a main road crossing a minor road with an island (or short piece of dual carriageway) in the middle of the junction On 17 June 2014 22:47, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: I'd call it a full blown roundabout, since you're still expected to go around it to the right in order to go left. On Jun 17, 2014 3:43 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: How would you tag this intersection in Mountain View, California? https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mountain+View,+CA/@37.387343,-122.080352,3a,89.9y,118.3h,70.82t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHblffm0KZ7pzUXLakrlBQw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x808fb7495bec0189:0x7c17d44a466baf9b Should it be tagged as traffic_calming=island instead of highway=mini_roundabout? On Jun 17, 2014, at 1:10 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Not as rare as you think, and growing more common. I go through 2 or 3 roundabouts regularly. The US official definitions defined in the MUTCD are that roundabouts are uncontrolled or have yield signs entering, traffic circles have stop signs. Neither are signal controlled in the MUTCD. We do not have anything equivalent to the mini roundabout in the US (and likely Canada, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands) at all, so intersections tagged as such are probably wrong. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signal-controlled roundabouts
Wow, really? Got a photo? On Jun 17, 2014 4:22 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: I've seen one actual mini round about in Seattle and one in Mount Vernon. Certainly there are numerous traffic calming islands incorrectly tagged as mini runabouts. On Jun 17, 2014 1:10 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Not as rare as you think, and growing more common. I go through 2 or 3 roundabouts regularly. The US official definitions defined in the MUTCD are that roundabouts are uncontrolled or have yield signs entering, traffic circles have stop signs. Neither are signal controlled in the MUTCD. We do not have anything equivalent to the mini roundabout in the US (and likely Canada, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands) at all, so intersections tagged as such are probably wrong. On Jun 13, 2014 11:30 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote: Coming from the US where any form of roundabout is rare, I would consider any circular intersection a roundabout. Some have signals, some don't have signals. I know that some people in the US distinguish between the two, where a 'roundabout' has no signals and a 'traffic circle' does have signals. Either way, it makes sense to me to tag it as a roundabout because: 1) it is a junction of multiple roads 2) all traffic must enter a circular roadway, and then get off at some point Out of curiosity, what are others' criteria for a roundabout? On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I used to believe that, by definition, all roundabouts have free transit and right of way along the circle, and that anything that didn't display that property isn't a roundabout (just a circle). But reading the wiki once again, I'm a little in doubt. The wiki mentions that this is a roundabout, but I would previously have thought it wasn't because of the traffic lights within it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.59689/-1.14146 So why is it a roundabout? Is it because of the circular shape? Or could it be because it's impossible to infer that any of the entering ways have right of way, since they are all controlled by traffic lights? -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 Nullius in verba. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signal-controlled roundabouts
Wonder if we're talking regional differences. The south of France is known to follow the Vienna Convention on Traffic (traffic in the circle yields to traffic entering from the right), and the US and Canada make no signage differences between a roundabout and a traffic circle. For navigation purposes, they're functionally identical contexts, as to who has the right of way, I believe that should be best clarified by strategically placed nodes or relations for traffic signals, stop or give way. On Jun 17, 2014 4:27 PM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote: No. One of the characteristics of a roundabout is that you have precedence when you are in it. In this case there is a main road that has precedence over the two minor roads. If you want to turn left (looking in the direction of the photo) you have to yield to oncoming traffic coming from the opposite direction. This is a main road crossing a minor road with an island (or short piece of dual carriageway) in the middle of the junction On 17 June 2014 22:47, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: I'd call it a full blown roundabout, since you're still expected to go around it to the right in order to go left. On Jun 17, 2014 3:43 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: How would you tag this intersection in Mountain View, California? https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mountain+View,+CA/@37.387343,-122.080352,3a,89.9y,118.3h,70.82t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHblffm0KZ7pzUXLakrlBQw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x808fb7495bec0189:0x7c17d44a466baf9b Should it be tagged as traffic_calming=island instead of highway=mini_roundabout? On Jun 17, 2014, at 1:10 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Not as rare as you think, and growing more common. I go through 2 or 3 roundabouts regularly. The US official definitions defined in the MUTCD are that roundabouts are uncontrolled or have yield signs entering, traffic circles have stop signs. Neither are signal controlled in the MUTCD. We do not have anything equivalent to the mini roundabout in the US (and likely Canada, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands) at all, so intersections tagged as such are probably wrong. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signal-controlled roundabouts
IMHO I think that the main idea in the concept of roundabout is that the center of the cycle (which may not be a perfect circle, sometimes not even an ellipse) has right of way over entering traffic. That's why I find it weird when: - Croatian (and perhaps some other) authorities apply the roundabout sign to a circle where entering traffic has right of way (that's the exact opposite of the original idea) - US authorities won't consider a roundabout a circle when all entrances have stop signs - Brazilians (but not the authorities) call pretty much any circular structure a roundabout (I'm Brazilian btw) However, these could probably be considered local adaptations of the original concept - which kind of defeat its original purpose. When using navigation apps, it makes sense to get special instructions only (and always) when you have right of way because of the many factors the driver needs to pay attention to while in the circle. In other non-roundabout circles, the driver has to stop within the circle, so he/she may receive additional voice instructions at each stop. Other than navigation, I don't see a good reason to tag roundabouts. On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Wonder if we're talking regional differences. The south of France is known to follow the Vienna Convention on Traffic (traffic in the circle yields to traffic entering from the right), and the US and Canada make no signage differences between a roundabout and a traffic circle. For navigation purposes, they're functionally identical contexts, as to who has the right of way, I believe that should be best clarified by strategically placed nodes or relations for traffic signals, stop or give way. On Jun 17, 2014 4:27 PM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote: No. One of the characteristics of a roundabout is that you have precedence when you are in it. In this case there is a main road that has precedence over the two minor roads. If you want to turn left (looking in the direction of the photo) you have to yield to oncoming traffic coming from the opposite direction. This is a main road crossing a minor road with an island (or short piece of dual carriageway) in the middle of the junction On 17 June 2014 22:47, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: I'd call it a full blown roundabout, since you're still expected to go around it to the right in order to go left. On Jun 17, 2014 3:43 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: How would you tag this intersection in Mountain View, California? https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mountain+View,+CA/@37.387343,-122.080352,3a,89.9y,118.3h,70.82t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHblffm0KZ7pzUXLakrlBQw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x808fb7495bec0189:0x7c17d44a466baf9b Should it be tagged as traffic_calming=island instead of highway=mini_roundabout? On Jun 17, 2014, at 1:10 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Not as rare as you think, and growing more common. I go through 2 or 3 roundabouts regularly. The US official definitions defined in the MUTCD are that roundabouts are uncontrolled or have yield signs entering, traffic circles have stop signs. Neither are signal controlled in the MUTCD. We do not have anything equivalent to the mini roundabout in the US (and likely Canada, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands) at all, so intersections tagged as such are probably wrong. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 Nullius in verba. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
