Re: [Tagging] Mapping freeway stub ends?

[John F. Eldredge]

The instance I was speaking of is Briley Parkway, a ring road through the 
outer portion of Nashville,  TN. It is an odd mix, with portions 
implemented as a limited-access freeway, and other portions as ordinary 
city streets. Some parts were purpise-built, other parts involved 
connectinng existing roadways. The northwest quadrant, which passes over 
the Cumberland River and then goes through a mostly-undeveloped portion of 
Davidson County, was not built until about 20 years after the rest of the 
roadway opened.



On March 1, 2017 5:55:46 AM Volker Schmidt  wrote:


The original example
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8190845,-76.8530417,857m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en-US
is now a set of ways that can be used as non-freeway highways. I would most
likely tag them as either service or track with surface and tracktype tags.
Important to check on the ground the access rights and add exact width,
surface and smoothness tags.
In addition I would tag them in addition with abandoned:highway=motorway if
they were ever used as freeways (which seem not to be the case). I would
not use the construction tag as this would mean that this is part of a
freeway under construction.

Volker

On 1 March 2017 at 05:28, John F. Eldredge  wrote:


In some cases, the distinction between "abandoned" and "on indefinite
hold" can be a bit blurry. One ring road here in Nashville, TN, USA was
left in an incomplete state for about twenty years before the politicians
finally allocated the money, and the last segment of the road was built.

On February 27, 2017 1:09:03 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:


On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Paul Johnson 
wrote:


For the above situation, I'd tag it as highway=construction,
construction=* and abandoned=yes since it was abandoned under
construction...




Hmm. I'm reluctant to use different lifecycle
 stages for the
same object.
How relevant is it to map the fact that it skipped 'present' and 'disused'
and went directly to 'abandoned' from 'construction'? Is that fact visible
on the ground and important?

Example near me: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/36835272 is a
motorway link that was abandoned during construction. Construction
never began for the associated motorway, which would have run
northwest into the airport. The link was repurposed as the ring road
surrounding an office park, which therefore enjoys a disproportionately
large motorway interchange combined with very poor access to the
local surface streets.

I found no reason to tag the history of the road. It's the ring road of
an office park now.

Random trivia: There was infighting among agencies of the state
government regarding the proposal. Part of the reason for building
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6121261 where it stands
was that it was then the offices of the Conservation Department,
and was sited to block the proposed route. In a supreme irony,
the Transportation Department now occupies the building. In the
last fifty years, enough development has taken place that it
would not be feasible to route a motorway through there. At
the time of the proposal, which was finally abandoned in 1970,
the area of the proposed route was mostly swamp land.
___
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] Mapping freeway stub ends?

[Richard Welty]

On 3/1/17 6:54 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> The original example
> https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8190845,-76.8530417,857m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en-US
> 
> is now a set of ways that can be used as non-freeway highways. I would
> most likely tag them as either service or track with surface and
> tracktype tags. Important to check on the ground the access rights and
> add exact width, surface and smoothness tags.
> In addition I would tag them in addition with
> abandoned:highway=motorway if they were ever used as freeways (which
> seem not to be the case). I would not use the construction tag as this
> would mean that this is part of a freeway under construction.
the disused namespace makes a lot of sense for this kind of in between
circumstance. there are a few things in the Albany NY area that fall in
this category, like the stub ends of the Dunn Bridge which are there, and
have to be maintained because they're part of a heavily used bridge, but
are supposed to connect to a highway that will never be constructed.

https://osm.org/go/ZdrEu0QBY--

note that i just noticed the tagging was less than ideal, and tweaked it,
so the rendering may reflect the older tagging for a little bit.

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] Mapping freeway stub ends?

[Volker Schmidt]

The original example
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8190845,-76.8530417,857m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en-US
is now a set of ways that can be used as non-freeway highways. I would most
likely tag them as either service or track with surface and tracktype tags.
Important to check on the ground the access rights and add exact width,
surface and smoothness tags.
In addition I would tag them in addition with abandoned:highway=motorway if
they were ever used as freeways (which seem not to be the case). I would
not use the construction tag as this would mean that this is part of a
freeway under construction.

Volker

On 1 March 2017 at 05:28, John F. Eldredge  wrote:

> In some cases, the distinction between "abandoned" and "on indefinite
> hold" can be a bit blurry. One ring road here in Nashville, TN, USA was
> left in an incomplete state for about twenty years before the politicians
> finally allocated the money, and the last segment of the road was built.
>
> On February 27, 2017 1:09:03 PM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Paul Johnson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> For the above situation, I'd tag it as highway=construction,
>>> construction=* and abandoned=yes since it was abandoned under
>>> construction...
>>> 
>>
>>
>> Hmm. I'm reluctant to use different lifecycle
>>  stages for the
>> same object.
>> How relevant is it to map the fact that it skipped 'present' and 'disused'
>> and went directly to 'abandoned' from 'construction'? Is that fact visible
>> on the ground and important?
>>
>> Example near me: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/36835272 is a
>> motorway link that was abandoned during construction. Construction
>> never began for the associated motorway, which would have run
>> northwest into the airport. The link was repurposed as the ring road
>> surrounding an office park, which therefore enjoys a disproportionately
>> large motorway interchange combined with very poor access to the
>> local surface streets.
>>
>> I found no reason to tag the history of the road. It's the ring road of
>> an office park now.
>>
>> Random trivia: There was infighting among agencies of the state
>> government regarding the proposal. Part of the reason for building
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6121261 where it stands
>> was that it was then the offices of the Conservation Department,
>> and was sited to block the proposed route. In a supreme irony,
>> the Transportation Department now occupies the building. In the
>> last fifty years, enough development has taken place that it
>> would not be feasible to route a motorway through there. At
>> the time of the proposal, which was finally abandoned in 1970,
>> the area of the proposed route was mostly swamp land.
>> ___
>> 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] amenity=vending_machine and vending=public_transport_plans?

[John Willis]

On Feb 18, 2017, at 5:39 PM, David Bannon  wrote:

>>> detail, as this is quite volatile data, and there are often lots of 
>>> different options
> 
> Yes, I strongly agree Martin. A far better approach would be to include a 
> link to an authoritative source.

+1

I think mapping the vending machines will require mapping roughly what type of 
transport option they vend- passes, tickets, plans, as there are easily mapped 
machines that cater to different types of items in proximity to each other in a 
station (banks of ticket machines at each entrance, with a fare adjustment 
machine and pass management machine only near one gate). The location of the 
machines should be mapped.

Linking to a source that details what those options are vended is best. ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging