Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
Hi, lots of the national wikis refer to bridge=humpback which is missing in the English wiki, how to add it? Also, should the key:bridge pages really encourage user defined bridge values? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
I don't think so. Can you please define meaning of bridge=humpback? PS. Tag covered=yes was proposed to mark covered ways. For example covered bridges. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/covered, from examples section: http://www.travelbygps.com/special/covered/covered_bridge.JPG 2014-08-10 12:33 GMT+04:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: Hi, lots of the national wikis refer to bridge=humpback which is missing in the English wiki, how to add it? Also, should the key:bridge pages really encourage user defined bridge values? Richard ___ 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] bridge=humpback ?
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 01:04:20PM +0400, Никита wrote: I don't think so. Can you please define meaning of bridge=humpback? it was at least among the values of the German and French wiki and in the proposed values of the Russian and Ukrainian wikis. bridge=humpback — Bogenbrücke, bei der die Fahrbahn in einem Bogen geschwungen und immer Höher als die seitlichen Rampen ist. (auch moon bridge genannt) Pont dont la partie centrale est plus élevée que les extrémités bridge=humpback Так называемый Горбатый мост. Обычно арочной конструкции. Такие мосты отличаются своей формой: они существенно выгнуты вверх. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/thumb/3/3c/Bridge.bourton.750pix.jpg/100px-Bridge.bourton.750pix.jpg Richard PS. Tag covered=yes was proposed to mark covered ways. For example covered bridges. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/covered, from examples section: http://www.travelbygps.com/special/covered/covered_bridge.JPG 2014-08-10 12:33 GMT+04:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: Hi, lots of the national wikis refer to bridge=humpback which is missing in the English wiki, how to add it? Also, should the key:bridge pages really encourage user defined bridge values? Richard ___ 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] bridge=humpback ?
I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. On other hand, bridge=movable have application in routing software (user preferences). 2014-08-10 13:43 GMT+04:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 01:04:20PM +0400, Никита wrote: I don't think so. Can you please define meaning of bridge=humpback? it was at least among the values of the German and French wiki and in the proposed values of the Russian and Ukrainian wikis. bridge=humpback — Bogenbrücke, bei der die Fahrbahn in einem Bogen geschwungen und immer Höher als die seitlichen Rampen ist. (auch moon bridge genannt) Pont dont la partie centrale est plus élevée que les extrémités bridge=humpback Так называемый Горбатый мост. Обычно арочной конструкции. Такие мосты отличаются своей формой: они существенно выгнуты вверх. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/thumb/3/3c/Bridge.bourton.750pix.jpg/100px-Bridge.bourton.750pix.jpg Richard PS. Tag covered=yes was proposed to mark covered ways. For example covered bridges. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/covered, from examples section: http://www.travelbygps.com/special/covered/covered_bridge.JPG 2014-08-10 12:33 GMT+04:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: Hi, lots of the national wikis refer to bridge=humpback which is missing in the English wiki, how to add it? Also, should the key:bridge pages really encourage user defined bridge values? Richard ___ 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] bridge=humpback ?
On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition. If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define humpiness of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without speed reduction or it is me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This is really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves yve...@gmail.com: There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin -- Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. ___ 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] Using highway=footway as an area
Am 09.08.2014 18:06, schrieb Dave F.: Hi http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.49428/-0.12149 I've noticed highway=footway is being used as an area across Lambeth Bridge: North side as a closed polygon; South side within a relation. (checking the history previously they were both highway=pedestrian. I thought that tag should be used linearly only, as per the wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Footway areas should be highway=pedestrian. You'll notice though that mapnik renders them the same way. Is that part of the recent carto upgrade? To me, having two different tags (footway, pedestrian) to represent the same type of object is confusing, as is using the same tag (footway) to represent two different types of object. Mmh, I tend to differ between an area signed as pedestrian and a square without any sign or signs for foot, bicycle and other modes. I also met highway=path + area=yes. In general highway=pedestrian is often interpreted wrong, especially if lots of special access condition are tag. At least for bicycle this is less problematic if we are using path or footway. Why do we use highway=pedestrians at all instead of footway or path as long as it is not explicitly signed ? Is there any problem with interpreting all three values with area=yes as equal or maybe even consider them a bit different ? cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign, which may indicate that a bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback (as stated in the wiki[1]). There is also a sign for explicitly indicating a risk of grounding often seen at railway crossings. In the UK it can be made objective by linking the use of the tag to the presence of the sign, but then we would miss the many bridges which the average person would call a hump bridge but are not signed as such. I would suggest something like a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Not sure this depends on who is driving by the way, the laws of dynamics apply to all of us equally. But I agree that calculating whether a particular truck can pass a particular bridge is not easy to put into simple tags. It can be rather complex, which is why products like [2] exist. --colin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [2] http://www.autopath.co.uk/ On 2014-08-10 15:34, Никита wrote: I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition. If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define humpiness of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without speed reduction or it is me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This is really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves yve...@gmail.com: There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [1] [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP [2] Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin - Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [3] -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [3] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [3] Links: -- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [2] https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP [3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using highway=footway as an area
On 09/08/2014 17:06, Dave F. wrote: Hi http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.49428/-0.12149 I've noticed highway=footway is being used as an area across Lambeth Bridge: North side as a closed polygon; South side within a relation. (checking the history previously they were both highway=pedestrian. Regardless of whether it's mapped as a footway or as a pedestrian area it looks like a fairly extreme case of mapping for the renderer with no thought given to map usability. If you look in the area of this node: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2622468074 The data as it exists now suggests that there's no access west from this footway island to the pedestrian crossing across Millbank, or actually anywhere on the west bank of the Thames. This pedestrian island functionally duplicates the real footway http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/256600109 (from which you can get north and south, though not west) I'd be in favour of a similar linear / area split as there is with rivers = waterway=river - is the line of the river for e.g. routing purposes; waterway=riverbankthe outline of the bank which can be used for rendering but ignored for routing. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some barrier=*? cu fly Am 10.08.2014 16:23, schrieb Colin Smale: No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign, which may indicate that a bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback (as stated in the wiki[1]). There is also a sign for explicitly indicating a risk of grounding often seen at railway crossings. In the UK it can be made objective by linking the use of the tag to the presence of the sign, but then we would miss the many bridges which the average person would call a hump bridge but are not signed as such. I would suggest something like a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Not sure this depends on who is driving by the way, the laws of dynamics apply to all of us equally. But I agree that calculating whether a particular truck can pass a particular bridge is not easy to put into simple tags. It can be rather complex, which is why products like [2] exist. --colin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [2] http://www.autopath.co.uk/ On 2014-08-10 15:34, Никита wrote: I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition. If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define humpiness of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without speed reduction or it is me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This is really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves yve...@gmail.com mailto:yve...@gmail.com: There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto: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] bridge=humpback ?
I will be fine with bridge=yes, traffic_calming=humpback. But again, as Colin Smale said, we will miss unmarked bridges, without signs. barrier=* is not option here, there no block in any form. 2014-08-10 19:52 GMT+04:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some barrier=*? cu fly Am 10.08.2014 16:23, schrieb Colin Smale: No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign, which may indicate that a bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback (as stated in the wiki[1]). There is also a sign for explicitly indicating a risk of grounding often seen at railway crossings. In the UK it can be made objective by linking the use of the tag to the presence of the sign, but then we would miss the many bridges which the average person would call a hump bridge but are not signed as such. I would suggest something like a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Not sure this depends on who is driving by the way, the laws of dynamics apply to all of us equally. But I agree that calculating whether a particular truck can pass a particular bridge is not easy to put into simple tags. It can be rather complex, which is why products like [2] exist. --colin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [2] http://www.autopath.co.uk/ On 2014-08-10 15:34, Никита wrote: I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition. If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define humpiness of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without speed reduction or it is me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This is really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves yve...@gmail.com mailto:yve...@gmail.com: There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto: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] bridge=humpback ?
It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is clearly a different attribute. --colin On 2014-08-10 17:52, fly wrote: Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some barrier=*? cu fly Am 10.08.2014 16:23, schrieb Colin Smale: No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign, which may indicate that a bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback (as stated in the wiki[1 [1]]). There is also a sign for explicitly indicating a risk of grounding often seen at railway crossings. In the UK it can be made objective by linking the use of the tag to the presence of the sign, but then we would miss the many bridges which the average person would call a hump bridge but are not signed as such. I would suggest something like a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Not sure this depends on who is driving by the way, the laws of dynamics apply to all of us equally. But I agree that calculating whether a particular truck can pass a particular bridge is not easy to put into simple tags. It can be rather complex, which is why products like [2 [2]] exist. --colin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [1] [2] http://www.autopath.co.uk/ [2] On 2014-08-10 15:34, Никита wrote: I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition. If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define humpiness of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without speed reduction or it is me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This is really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves yve...@gmail.com mailto:yve...@gmail.com: There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [3] [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP [4] Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [5] -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [5] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [5] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [5] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [5] Links: -- [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [2] http://www.autopath.co.uk/ [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [4] https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP [5] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
Yeah, traffic_calming was bad idea too, we use it for artificial objects with purpose of calming traffic. Back to the topic: a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Is okay definition, but we must add reference for not-UK users that there specific road sign for this in UK. Mappers should only apply this tag if there risk for some category of drivers and not just any bridge with varying attitude. So be it. 2014-08-10 20:14 GMT+04:00 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is clearly a different attribute. --colin On 2014-08-10 17:52, fly wrote: Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some barrier=*? cu fly Am 10.08.2014 16:23, schrieb Colin Smale: No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign, which may indicate that a bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback (as stated in the wiki[1 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom]). There is also a sign for explicitly indicating a risk of grounding often seen at railway crossings. In the UK it can be made objective by linking the use of the tag to the presence of the sign, but then we would miss the many bridges which the average person would call a hump bridge but are not signed as such. I would suggest something like a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Not sure this depends on who is driving by the way, the laws of dynamics apply to all of us equally. But I agree that calculating whether a particular truck can pass a particular bridge is not easy to put into simple tags. It can be rather complex, which is why products like [2 http://www.autopath.co.uk/] exist. --colin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [2] http://www.autopath.co.uk/ On 2014-08-10 15:34, Никита wrote: I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition. If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define humpiness of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without speed reduction or it is me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This is really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves yve...@gmail.com mailto:yve...@gmail.com: There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl mailto: colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto: Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
Is there a tag for a non-intended, not speed-enforcing hump on a road? This can occurs on a railway crossing, or due to the roots of a vigorous tree. On 10 août 2014 18:24:05 UTC+02:00, Никита acr...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, traffic_calming was bad idea too, we use it for artificial objects with purpose of calming traffic. Back to the topic: a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Is okay definition, but we must add reference for not-UK users that there specific road sign for this in UK. Mappers should only apply this tag if there risk for some category of drivers and not just any bridge with varying attitude. So be it. 2014-08-10 20:14 GMT+04:00 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is clearly a different attribute. --colin On 2014-08-10 17:52, fly wrote: Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some barrier=*? cu fly Am 10.08.2014 16:23, schrieb Colin Smale: No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign, which may indicate that a bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback (as stated in the wiki[1 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom]). There is also a sign for explicitly indicating a risk of grounding often seen at railway crossings. In the UK it can be made objective by linking the use of the tag to the presence of the sign, but then we would miss the many bridges which the average person would call a hump bridge but are not signed as such. I would suggest something like a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Not sure this depends on who is driving by the way, the laws of dynamics apply to all of us equally. But I agree that calculating whether a particular truck can pass a particular bridge is not easy to put into simple tags. It can be rather complex, which is why products like [2 http://www.autopath.co.uk/] exist. --colin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [2] http://www.autopath.co.uk/ On 2014-08-10 15:34, Никита wrote: I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition. If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define humpiness of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without speed reduction or it is me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This is really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves yve...@gmail.com mailto:yve...@gmail.com: There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl mailto: colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto: Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On 10/08/2014 10:04, Никита wrote: I don't think so. Can you please define meaning of bridge=humpback? Shorter Oxford has 'a small bridge with a steep ascent and descent'. -- Steve --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is clearly a different attribute. without clear speed limits or hazzard signs it is just a very abstract danger of which plenty are more evil than a humpback bridge but not tagged in any way.. generations of drivers did drive there. We don't tag narrow winding mountain roads with special attributes, nor do we expect routing software to deduce that wisdom from road geometry? Sometimes I wish we would have something like key:reasonable_max_speed but we don't. So either bridge=humpback is a substitute for key:reasonable_max_speed - than we should think about that - or it is more an optical thing which could be handled within bridge:structure? On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 08:24:05PM +0400, Никита wrote: Yeah, traffic_calming was bad idea too, we use it for artificial objects with purpose of calming traffic. Back to the topic: a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). very similar danger situation like hazard=dip, some railway crossings and any number of similar situations. Would it be worth to have an abstraction for that? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:41:22PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... that is true, but shouldn't the routing sw be able to evaluate bridge:structure and bridge:movable as well? The intention was to add swinging rope bridges as a value of bridge:structure and those may be relevant for routing as well. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
Exactly my point. In the UK you can be objective by linking it to the presence of the sign, other countries may not use a sign. Having established that such information (this bridge requires you to slow down to avoid being launched) may be useful in certain cases, now we are trying to represent that information in OSM. The reasonable_max_speed would be a start, but if it is accompanied by some indication of WHY the speed is what it is, like reasonable_max_speed:reason=hump_bridge, then everybody could be happy. OSM is essentially a 2D system. Whereas hazards like sharp bends can possibly be derived from 2D information, anything significant in the vertical plane needs all the help it can get, including hump bridges and steep inclines. I'm not sure where you are from Richard, but don't you agree a bridge like this is asking for some special tag? http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1263/1186115057_7f88a4aaed_o.jpg Same applies as far as I'm concerned for dips and steep hills which constitute a hazard. As they can't be derived from 2D geometry, let's find a way of marking them explicitly. There has already been work done on incline=*: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Incline --colin On 2014-08-10 23:28, Richard Z. wrote: On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is clearly a different attribute. without clear speed limits or hazzard signs it is just a very abstract danger of which plenty are more evil than a humpback bridge but not tagged in any way.. generations of drivers did drive there. We don't tag narrow winding mountain roads with special attributes, nor do we expect routing software to deduce that wisdom from road geometry? Sometimes I wish we would have something like key:reasonable_max_speed but we don't. So either bridge=humpback is a substitute for key:reasonable_max_speed - than we should think about that - or it is more an optical thing which could be handled within bridge:structure? On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 08:24:05PM +0400, Никита wrote: Yeah, traffic_calming was bad idea too, we use it for artificial objects with purpose of calming traffic. Back to the topic: a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). very similar danger situation like hazard=dip, some railway crossings and any number of similar situations. Would it be worth to have an abstraction for that? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using highway=footway as an area
Il giorno 10/ago/2014, alle ore 16:53, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk ha scritto: Hi http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.49428/-0.12149 I've noticed highway=footway is being used as an area across Lambeth Bridge: North side as a closed polygon; South side within a relation. (checking the history previously they were both highway=pedestrian. Regardless of whether it's mapped as a footway or as a pedestrian area it looks like a fairly extreme case of mapping for the renderer with no thought given to map usability. There could be a Bridge polygon for instance to unify the ways on the bridge Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
