Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[John Willis]

Im talking about how to tag the barrier. That thing was **tight** and very 
unusual to find in a major urban area. 

The amount of scars on the poles was amazing. 

The hight restriction barrier (a common thing) is tagged along with maxheight - 
this barrier seemed to be the same - if you are over max you will hit and 
severely damage your vehecle on the barrier - not the bridge or overpass or 
whatever. 

Javbw

> On Sep 8, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Andrew Errington  wrote:
> 
> I don't think a new tag is warranted.  maxwidth=* is fairly unequivocal.  If 
> map users or routers want to interpret it as "max width, but probably not 
> really, there's probably a bit of extra space, I mean, who's going to be that 
> petty" then that's not your problem.
> 
> Since most roads do not have a maxwidth=* restriction it is safe to assume 
> that the road is suitable for any vehicle*, but if you add a maxwidth tag 
> somewhere it is immediately clear it was done purposefully.
> 
> 
> 
>> On 8 September 2015 at 12:38, johnw  wrote:
>> I was driving in Chiba and Saitama yesterday and encountered a couple new 
>> types of barriers. I realized later one is traffic_calming=chicane. 
>> 
>> 
>> The other one is all over rural Japan as traffic_calming=choker on rural 
>> roads that could bypass traffic near the rivers, - but this one is not for 
>> traffic calming, it is for enforcement of maxwidth of the bridge, similar to 
>> barrier=hight_restrictor. 
>> . They put very strong steel poles or guardrails along the sides and center 
>> of the road at the maxwidth + 20 cm of a standard car.  car can pass 
>> (barely, my mirrors were 5 cm away from each pole), but a large dump truck 
>> cannot pass. Both are in areas where commercial dump trucks or other large 
>> vehicles are nearby, but this one is used to enforce access to the narrow 
>> bridge near a very very busy area to keep a massive traffic jam from 
>> occurring from a stuck dump truck. 
>> 
>> https://goo.gl/maps/8KUw7  The maxwidth is signed and guardrails are doing 
>> the job. This is width limited for the very narrow bridge in the background. 
>> 
>> https://goo.gl/maps/3NT9X  The other direction. Poles are used. 
>> 
>> Is this a reason for creating barrier=width_restrictor ? 
>> 
>> 
>> Javbw
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Andrew Errington]

So tag a short section of the road before and after the bridge with a
maxwidth tag.  It could differ from the maxwidth of the bridge, but routing
software should determine the minimum maxwidth for any section of a route
(and avoid or penaliseit accordingly).

On 8 September 2015 at 14:59, John Willis  wrote:

> Im talking about how to tag the barrier. That thing was **tight** and very
> unusual to find in a major urban area.
>
> The amount of scars on the poles was amazing.
>
> The hight restriction barrier (a common thing) is tagged along with
> maxheight - this barrier seemed to be the same - if you are over max you
> will hit and severely damage your vehecle on the barrier - not the bridge
> or overpass or whatever.
>
> Javbw
>
> On Sep 8, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Andrew Errington  wrote:
>
> I don't think a new tag is warranted.  maxwidth=* is fairly unequivocal.
> If map users or routers want to interpret it as "max width, but probably
> not really, there's probably a bit of extra space, I mean, who's going to
> be that petty" then that's not your problem.
>
> Since most roads do not have a maxwidth=* restriction it is safe to assume
> that the road is suitable for any vehicle*, but if you add a maxwidth tag
> somewhere it is immediately clear it was done purposefully.
>
>
>
> On 8 September 2015 at 12:38, johnw  wrote:
>
>> I was driving in Chiba and Saitama yesterday and encountered a couple new
>> types of barriers. I realized later one is traffic_calming=chicane.
>>
>>
>> The other one is all over rural Japan as traffic_calming=choker on rural
>> roads that could bypass traffic near the rivers, - but this one is not for
>> traffic calming, it is for enforcement of maxwidth of the bridge, similar
>> to barrier=hight_restrictor.
>> . They put very strong steel poles or guardrails along the sides and
>> center of the road at the maxwidth + 20 cm of a standard car.  car can pass
>> (barely, my mirrors were 5 cm away from each pole), but a large dump truck
>> cannot pass. Both are in areas where commercial dump trucks or other large
>> vehicles are nearby, but this one is used to enforce access to the narrow
>> bridge near a very very busy area to keep a massive traffic jam from
>> occurring from a stuck dump truck.
>>
>> https://goo.gl/maps/8KUw7  The maxwidth is signed and guardrails are
>> doing the job. This is width limited for the very narrow bridge in the
>> background.
>>
>> https://goo.gl/maps/3NT9X  The other direction. Poles are used.
>>
>> Is this a reason for creating barrier=width_restrictor ?
>>
>>
>> Javbw
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Drafting proposal: use oneway=reversible or create tag?

[Warin]

On 8/09/2015 12:43 PM, johnw wrote:


On Sep 8, 2015, at 9:46 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


Flow direction is the best of these (so far). It is descriptive of 
what is to be tagged.


What do they use for pipelines? I imagine there is some tag based on 
the way direction that can indicate flow.





I don't know. But I do know of one group of pipelines that are used in 
doth directions;


When electricity generation is required they flow water down hill to 
power electrical turbines.


When there is an excess of electrical generation they pump water uphill.

From the pipeline wiki this looks to be used ...

flow_direction 
=forward/backward/both 
.. note that flow_direction is undocumented.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 08:44:07 +0200
Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> If there is an object on the road that physicslly limits the width of
> the vehicles you can use the tag barrier=block like this
> barrier=block
> material=concrete
> maxwidth=2
> vehicle=yes
> foot=yes
> 
> Replace concrete with metal and you have a tag for your metal-pole
> width restrictor


Using barrier=block to mark that road narrower seems to be a poor idea.
Current definition suggests rather complete or nearly complete block
rather than restriction ("Large immobile block(s) barring free access
along a way").

And definition is not fitting this situation ("Any large, solid,
immobile block that can be moved only with heavy machinery or great
effort.").

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Volker Schmidt]

I use "maxwidth" to map the max width road signs, which represent a legal
access restriction, not necessaryly a physical acess restriction.

I use "width" to tag the physical width of a road.

If there is an object on the road that physicslly limits the width of the
vehicles you can use the tag barrier=block like this
barrier=block
material=concrete
maxwidth=2
vehicle=yes
foot=yes

Replace concrete with metal and you have a tag for your metal-pole width
restrictor

Volker
Padova, Italy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[johnw]

> On Sep 8, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:38:53 +0900
> johnw > wrote:
> 
>> Is this a reason for creating barrier=width_restrictor ? 
> 
> Yes, construction itself also may be mapped (in addition to maxwidth).
> Though it would be a good idea to document it on wiki (maybe put through
> proposal to ensure that it is not duplicating something already
> documented).

The next time I’m down in the area (in a couple weeks) I’ll take a picture and 
then create a RFC page. Without a picture, people will think it is merely a 
chicane or something. 

If they had these in America, there would be a Semi truck wrapped around it 
every week - so I think there are several countries where these wouldn’t be 
found at all - especially in an urban environment adjacent to a gigantic mall 
and a busy train station like this one is. All the roads around that place are 
weird. 

Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:38:53 +0900
johnw  wrote:

> Is this a reason for creating barrier=width_restrictor ? 

Yes, construction itself also may be mapped (in addition to maxwidth).
Though it would be a good idea to document it on wiki (maybe put through
proposal to ensure that it is not duplicating something already
documented).

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Colin Smale]

 

This is overloading the maxwidth tag - sometimes it means legal,
sometimes it means physical. This distinction needs to be crystal clear
as it can be a matter of life and death (emergency vehicles can ignore
legal limits but not physical ones...) so making its semantics so
context-dependent is not a good idea... 

maxwidth:physical is being used to tag the actual available width -
which by the way is not the same as the distance between the kerbs or
the width of the whole carriageway including paths/grass etc. That may
be better tagged using width=* but the description of that in the wiki
is not particularly clear. 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxwidth:physical 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:width 

--colin 

On 2015-09-08 08:44, Volker Schmidt wrote: 

> I use "maxwidth" to map the max width road signs, which represent a legal 
> access restriction, not necessaryly a physical acess restriction.
> 
> I use "width" to tag the physical width of a road.
> 
> If there is an object on the road that physicslly limits the width of the 
> vehicles you can use the tag barrier=block like this
> 
> barrier=block
> material=concrete
> maxwidth=2
> vehicle=yes
> foot=yes 
> Replace concrete with metal and you have a tag for your metal-pole width 
> restrictor 
> 
> Volker 
> Padova, Italy 
> 
> ___
> 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] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Carl von Einem]

johnw wrote on 08.09.15 05:38:

(...)
https://goo.gl/maps/8KUw7  The maxwidth is signed and guardrails are
doing the job. This is width limited for the very narrow bridge in the
background.


barrier=guard_rail
maxwidth=2.2
traffic_sign=maxwidth


https://goo.gl/maps/3NT9X  The other direction. Poles are used.


see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dbollard

barrier=bollard
maxwidth=2.2 (should be the same width as above)
motor_vehicle=yes (to be set in this case since bollard implies "no" by 
default)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 08.09.2015 um 09:09 schrieb Colin Smale :
> 
> This is overloading the maxwidth tag - sometimes it means legal, sometimes it 
> means physical.
> 


maxwidth is a legal limit, typically signposted.

> This distinction needs to be crystal clear as it can be a matter of life and 
> death (emergency vehicles can ignore legal limits but not physical ones...) 
> so making its semantics so context-dependent is not a good idea...
> 
> maxwidth:physical is being used to tag the actual available width
> 


the maxwidth:physical tag was introduced IIRR by Latin American mappers because 
in their country there are 2 kinds of signposted widths/heights (i.e. in these 
countries also maxwidth:physical is signposted)

> - which by the way is not the same as the distance between the kerbs or the 
> width of the whole carriageway including paths/grass etc. That may be better 
> tagged using width=* but the description of that in the wiki is not 
> particularly clear.
> 


width is OK in some contexts, but as it refers to the object it is tagged on, 
it is not working in others like bollards for instance (would denote the width 
of the bollard, not of the opening). I'd use maxwidth:physical for those cases 
(even if not signposted).

maxwidth:legal is just a synonym for maxwidth (IMHO), rarely used and 
introduced for symmetry reasons by the people that advocated for 
maxwidth:physical .

cheers 
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:12:22 +0200
Carl von Einem  wrote:

> > https://goo.gl/maps/3NT9X  The other direction. Poles are used.
> 
> see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dbollard
> 
> barrier=bollard
> maxwidth=2.2 (should be the same width as above)
> motor_vehicle=yes (to be set in this case since bollard implies "no"
> by default)

Certainly not only motor_vehicle. At least horse=yes is missing.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 08.09.2015 um 11:12 schrieb Carl von Einem :
> 
> barrier=guard_rail
> maxwidth=2.2
> traffic_sign=maxwidth


traffic_sign is a tag used to tag actual traffic signs at their position, it 
doesn't look right together with a linear barrier like a guard rail which very 
likely isn't a traffic sign itself along all its way


cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Drafting proposal: use oneway=reversible or create tag?

[John Willis]

I think using it for pipes and waterways is a good thing, especially when used 
with the way's inherent direction.

There are pipes, canals, and other waterways where both directions occur, but 
like the incline tag, it is best to specify what direction the way's inherent 
direction implies in some circumstances (like near very convoluted river, 
canal, and drain systems found in rainy /low lying places).

Javbw

> On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:04 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 8/09/2015 12:43 PM, johnw wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sep 8, 2015, at 9:46 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Flow direction is the best of these (so far). It is descriptive of what is 
>>> to be tagged. 
>> 
>> What do they use for pipelines? I imagine there is some tag based on the way 
>> direction that can indicate flow. 
> 
> I don't know. But I do know of one group of pipelines that are used in doth 
> directions;
> 
> When electricity generation is required they flow water down hill to power 
> electrical turbines. 
> 
> When there is an excess of electrical generation they pump water uphill. 
> 
> From the pipeline wiki this looks to be used ... 
> 
> flow_direction=forward/backward/both .. note that flow_direction is 
> undocumented. 
> ___
> 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] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[John Willis]

I use bollards all the time , guardrails too. 

If i tagged it as you suggest, we wouldn't need any of the cycle barriers,  
pinches, nor chicanes if they happened to be made of poles. we could use 
bollards for it all. 

The guardrails are there not to contain a car nor block access, they are 
positioned for enforcing maxwidth - just as a barrier=height_restriction is not 
there as a lamp post or sign. A chicane or pinch point is not a bollard either 
- a bollard is meant to completely block access by being in the way. This is a 
set of "bollards" positioned to do a different job as a set (like the ones used 
to make a traffic calming=chicane or a pinch) - so i feel that a guardrail or 
bollard would not reflect the item properly in the database nor be rendered 
properly either. 

Javbw

> On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:12 PM, Carl von Einem  wrote:
> 
> johnw wrote on 08.09.15 05:38:
>> (...)
>> https://goo.gl/maps/8KUw7  The maxwidth is signed and guardrails are
>> doing the job. This is width limited for the very narrow bridge in the
>> background.
> 
> barrier=guard_rail
> maxwidth=2.2
> traffic_sign=maxwidth
> 
>> https://goo.gl/maps/3NT9X  The other direction. Poles are used.
> 
> see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dbollard
> 
> barrier=bollard
> maxwidth=2.2 (should be the same width as above)
> motor_vehicle=yes (to be set in this case since bollard implies "no" by 
> default)
> 
> ___
> 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] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Colin Smale]

 

Sorry Martin, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Supporting or
undermining? It's rather difficult to tell. 

Regarding maxwidth:physical, the examples in the wiki are actually from
Finland where they apparently have explicit signs for the physical
width. 

--colin 

On 2015-09-08 11:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 

> sent from a phone 
> 
> Am 08.09.2015 um 09:09 schrieb Colin Smale :
> 
>> This is overloading the maxwidth tag - sometimes it means legal, sometimes 
>> it means physical.
> 
> maxwidth is a legal limit, typically signposted. 
> 
>> This distinction needs to be crystal clear as it can be a matter of life and 
>> death (emergency vehicles can ignore legal limits but not physical ones...) 
>> so making its semantics so context-dependent is not a good idea... 
>> 
>> maxwidth:physical is being used to tag the actual available width
> 
> the maxwidth:physical tag was introduced IIRR by Latin American mappers 
> because in their country there are 2 kinds of signposted widths/heights (i.e. 
> in these countries also maxwidth:physical is signposted) 
> 
>> - which by the way is not the same as the distance between the kerbs or the 
>> width of the whole carriageway including paths/grass etc. That may be better 
>> tagged using width=* but the description of that in the wiki is not 
>> particularly clear.
> 
> width is OK in some contexts, but as it refers to the object it is tagged on, 
> it is not working in others like bollards for instance (would denote the 
> width of the bollard, not of the opening). I'd use maxwidth:physical for 
> those cases (even if not signposted). 
> 
> maxwidth:legal is just a synonym for maxwidth (IMHO), rarely used and 
> introduced for symmetry reasons by the people that advocated for 
> maxwidth:physical . 
> 
> 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] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Carl von Einem]

Ok, I misread "The other direction." I read it as "the width enforcement 
on the other side of the bridge" (since two images were linked) and 
there I see bollards on both sides of the road to prevent lorries to use 
the wrong lane...


John Willis wrote on 08.09.15 12:01:

I use bollards all the time , guardrails too.

If i tagged it as you suggest, we wouldn't need any of the cycle barriers,  
pinches, nor chicanes if they happened to be made of poles. we could use 
bollards for it all.

The guardrails are there not to contain a car nor block access, they are positioned for 
enforcing maxwidth - just as a barrier=height_restriction is not there as a lamp post or 
sign. A chicane or pinch point is not a bollard either - a bollard is meant to completely 
block access by being in the way. This is a set of "bollards" positioned to do 
a different job as a set (like the ones used to make a traffic calming=chicane or a 
pinch) - so i feel that a guardrail or bollard would not reflect the item properly in the 
database nor be rendered properly either.

Javbw


On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:12 PM, Carl von Einem  wrote:

johnw wrote on 08.09.15 05:38:

(...)
https://goo.gl/maps/8KUw7  The maxwidth is signed and guardrails are
doing the job. This is width limited for the very narrow bridge in the
background.


barrier=guard_rail
maxwidth=2.2
traffic_sign=maxwidth


https://goo.gl/maps/3NT9X  The other direction. Poles are used.


see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dbollard

barrier=bollard
maxwidth=2.2 (should be the same width as above)
motor_vehicle=yes (to be set in this case since bollard implies "no" by default)

___
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] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Carl von Einem]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 08.09.15 11:53:



Am 08.09.2015 um 11:12 schrieb Carl von Einem :

barrier=guard_rail
maxwidth=2.2
traffic_sign=maxwidth


traffic_sign is a tag used to tag actual traffic signs
at their position, it doesn't look right together with
a linear barrier like a guard rail which very likely
isn't a traffic sign itself along all its way


Did I write it must be a part of a way? I think both (node or way) work, 
but it should definitely be on the way: as a node on the actual position 
of the traffic sign it's maybe nice as a landmark but completely useless 
for routing software.


Also the traffic_sign tag indicates (to other mappers...) that the 
maxwidth value isn't just estimated. I definitely see the traffic sign: 
https://goo.gl/maps/8KUw7


According to  the 
tag traffic_sign can actually be used on a way: "The tag is not meant to 
mark the actual position of the sign in this case, but the affected way 
or area instead."



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 08.09.2015 um 06:52 schrieb Andrew Errington :
> 
> Since most roads do not have a maxwidth=* restriction it is safe to assume 
> that the road is suitable for any vehicle*, but if you add a maxwidth tag 
> somewhere it is immediately clear it was done purposefully.


without signs posted there are still general restrictions for vehicles, e.g. in 
Germany this is 4 meters height and 2,50 width. It is not a maxwidth for the 
road (hence should not be tagged like that) but its effect surely was taken 
into account when designing the road. There are of course vehicles that exceed 
these general maximum dimensions and have to be moved in exceptional convoys 
(i.e. would be nice to have real dimensions in osm to be able to assist 
planning even in these cases).

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 08.09.2015 um 12:07 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny :
> 
> Certainly not only motor_vehicle. At least horse=yes is missing.


+1, the exact kind of access for a bollard depends on the kind of road it is on 
and its access restrictions. 

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 08.09.2015 um 12:56 schrieb Colin Smale :
> 
> Sorry Martin, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Supporting or 
> undermining? It's rather difficult to tell.


I'd say I'm more agreeing than not, but wanted to point out that width doesn't 
work for all kinds of barriers, as it will indicate the width of the barrier 
rather than that of the passage.

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Lauri Kytömaa]

Colin Smale wrote:
> Regarding maxwidth:physical, the examples in the wiki are actually from
> Finland where they apparently have explicit signs for the physical width.

Just for clarification: even here in Finland the signs are rare, and
the only two
examples I remember straight away on public roads are on reasonably
remote low traffic highways where the carriageway width is otherwise maybe
6 meters (just enough for a lorry and a passenger car to pass each other at
speed and passing places at regular intervals), but at a single point a bridge
is narrower, but wide enough for two oncoming passenger cars to cross the
bridge at the same time. They don't need a sign giving the other direction
priority over the the other, but drivers need to realize they might have to slow
down or even stop if there's oncoming traffic. A fellow mapper here recalled
seeing them on some garage entrances, too.

The signs for physical width might possibly have, just as the signs of
physical free height do have, a number that's rounded down to nearest
10 cm minus 0,1 meters. For height signs that's the supposed margin of
error (to allow for changes in height due to repaving, for some snow on the
ground and on the vehicles, and to leave some air space anyway).

It's probably illegal to ram your vehicle into a too narrow gap on
public roads, even if there are no signs telling the available width. In a
sense maxwidth:legal= (when in addition to maxwidth), when they're
the same, tells the parser that the width is "just" a signposted legal
limit, if a physical maximum isn't present.

Even if the signs usually tell most of the facts, osm data shouldn't be
only about the signs.

-- 
alv

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

Am 08.09.2015 um 12:52 schrieb Carl von Einem :

>>> barrier=guard_rail
>>> maxwidth=2.2
>>> traffic_sign=maxwidth
>> 
>> traffic_sign is a tag used to tag actual traffic signs
>> at their position, it doesn't look right together with
>> a linear barrier like a guard rail which very likely
>> isn't a traffic sign itself along all its way
> 
> Did I write it must be a part of a way?


The proposed tagging doesn't make any sense to me at all. guard rails neither 
will get maxwidth tags, despite the fact they're the physical reason for an 
actual maxwidth.


> I think both (node or way) work, but it should definitely be on the way: as a 
> node on the actual position of the traffic sign it's maybe nice as a landmark 
> but completely useless for routing software.



indeed traffic_sign=* nodes are completely useless for common routing software 
(maybe there's some software that could automatically interpret them, but 
that's not the reason why I map them, I'm doing it for other mappers to explain 
my mapping).


> 
> Also the traffic_sign tag indicates (to other mappers...) that the maxwidth 
> value isn't just estimated. I definitely see the traffic sign: 
> https://goo.gl/maps/8KUw7


I'd expect on the highway:
highway=*
maxwidth=2.2m (or without explicit unit)
source:maxwidth=sign

then on another way at the position of the guard rail:
barrier=guard_rail


If you like you could add another node (not part of the highway) with:
traffic_sign=maxwidth 
maxwidth=2.2

(for fellow mappers / as 'landmark')

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] The wki pages ... for the mapper? or the render? or both?

[Warin]

The some of the wiki pages appear to be written for the renders, while 
others look to be written for the mappers. This is confusing!
I believe there should be two versions of the wiki pages - one for 
mappers who need simple descriptions of the tag/s and another for 
renders that give information on rendering the tag/s. So two pages - 
mappers version and renders version.


As a small example;
The properties page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Properties
this list a number of what a mapper would call an object (bridge, 
tunnel, cutting)
but a render associates with another object to render it correctly and 
thus calls it a property.

Thus there are two conflicting views that lead to confusion.


Note I have cross posted this to the general talk group,
but have raised it here as the tagging group has a little more knowledge 
of the wiki pages for tagging.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging