Re: [Tagging] Spillways

[John Willis]

> On Mar 25, 2017, at 12:54 AM, Richard  wrote:
> 
> This would include most 
> levees even if we usualy don't map them explicitly.

We have a dyke tag because the levees do not block the flow of the river. They 
prevent it from flooding out of the path the river is already flowing. 

In this system, except for two-three gates (about 50m total), nothing 
explicitly is built "across" the river. They contain it. 

They built this weird thing out of levees, rather than putting a big gravity 
dam across the river and making a traditional big reservoir. 

This whole thing is built like a radiator's overflow reservoir. It only takes 
in water when the river flows over the weirs in the sides of the levees. The 
river always continues, without hinderance, without passing through a weir or a 
gate, to meet the larger river. There is no dam. 
Only the surge that overflows at the narrowing part is captured and slowed 
down. 

I admit, this is weird, and the gates at the bottom of the reservoir could be 
considered a dam, but it is actually a whole lot of levees. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign's relevant direction: direction=* vs. relation [Was: traffic_signals:direction=* vs. direction=*]

[yo paseopor]

I would start a "definitive thread" with all the options, all the
possibilities, all the points of view, all the information and then,
passing all to the wiki with a votting or aproved by list complete
proposal. Some people is watching us and in a near future will try to
collaboret with us so it would be interesting to be ready to this "big
thing"

Salut i senyals de trànsit (Health and traffic signs)
yopaseopor
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - amenity=courier

[muzirian]

Please vote for the proposal,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcourier

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

Re: [Tagging] Spillways

[Richard]

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 09:42:35AM +0900, John Willis wrote:
> 
> The thing I am tagging is not a dam. It is a series of flood basins, one of 
> which is a "reservoir". They are made by levees that surround the rivers, but 
> in a very complicated way. They eventually return all the water back to the 
> river, shortly after it is captured. 
> 
> I explain that below, if you are interested, 
> 
> But the TL;DR is that it is a weird combination of levees, weirs, spillways, 
> gates (which are possibly considered a dam), channels, valves, and other 
> things that are not properly fleshed out in OSM, and they should have tags 
> created/expanded for them. 

well I was asking because for me any kind of artificial wall designed to impound
water is a waterway=dam (or weir if water runs over it). This would include 
most 
levees even if we usualy don't map them explicitly.
They could be mapped as embankment but if you consider waterway=dam inadequate 
for
it I would prefer a special levee tag or refining waterway=dam with additional 
attributes.

The waterway=dam definition is showing age and could use some refinement
anyway.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign's relevant direction: direction=* vs. relation [Was: traffic_signals:direction=* vs. direction=*]

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 07:22:44 -0700
Tod Fitch  wrote:
>
> It is not clear what we have gained by spitting the original topic
> into multiple parts.

Nothing... Had I been aware of the other thread I would probably not
have started this one !

Oh well... 'git merge' for mailing list messages ?

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

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign's relevant direction: direction=* vs. relation [Was: traffic_signals:direction=* vs. direction=*]

[Tod Fitch]

> On Mar 24, 2017, at 7:04 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:15:41 +0100
> yo paseopor  wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>>  wrote:  
 On 23 Mar 2017, at 17:23, Jean-Marc Liotier 
 wrote:
 
 - highway=stop+direction=forward node on the incoming way... Only
 covers the simple case but covers it simply  
>> 
>> I prefer the subkey :forward / :backward because then we save one
>> pair of key=value we can use to put the future unification of the
>> meaning of traffic signs groups.
> 
> I was thinking about unifying using direction=* for all of them
> starting now... But well - yours is an alternate way, which I find
> acceptable too.
> 

It seems to me that having multiple orthogonal semantics for “direction=*” is 
less than ideal. If “direction= forward | backward” is retained and promoted 
for a node that is on a way, then alternatives to “direction = N | NE | E | SE 
| S | SW | W | NW | 0-360” be promoted for nodes that are not on a way.

We now have three related threads on this general topic at present: “The 
direction= tag”, “traffic_signals:direction vs direction=*” and “Traffic sign’s 
relevant direction: direction-* vs. relation”. It is not clear what we have 
gained by spitting the original topic into multiple parts.



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign's relevant direction: direction=* vs. relation [Was: traffic_signals:direction=* vs. direction=*]

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:15:41 +0100
yo paseopor  wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:  
> > > On 23 Mar 2017, at 17:23, Jean-Marc Liotier 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > - highway=stop+direction=forward node on the incoming way... Only
> > >  covers the simple case but covers it simply  
> 
> I prefer the subkey :forward / :backward because then we save one
> pair of key=value we can use to put the future unification of the
> meaning of traffic signs groups.

I was thinking about unifying using direction=* for all of them
starting now... But well - yours is an alternate way, which I find
acceptable too.

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

Re: [Tagging] Spillways

[Lorenzo "Beba" Beltrami]

2017-03-24 1:42 GMT+01:00 John Willis :

>
> The thing I am tagging is not a dam. It is a series of flood basins, one
> of which is a "reservoir". They are made by levees that surround the
> rivers, but in a very complicated way. They eventually return all the water
> back to the river, shortly after it is captured.
>

I had the same problem here in the Po valley[1].
In the whole Po valley there are very complicated systems of levees to
manage the river floods.

Months ago we started a discussion here[2] that led only to few
considerations.

Lorenzo

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Po_Valley
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-
November/030693.html
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign's relevant direction: direction=* vs. relation [Was: traffic_signals:direction=* vs. direction=*]

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 21:03:47 +0100
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> > On 23 Mar 2017, at 17:23, Jean-Marc Liotier  wrote:
> > 
> > - highway=stop+direction=forward node on the incoming way... Only
> >  covers the simple case but covers it simply  
> 
> 
> while this might work often with stop signs it'll hardly work with
> maxspeed signs, because the changing maxspeed requires to split the
> highway, so that there would be 2 highways ending in the same node
> and forward would not be clear of which way.

Maxspeed is a way attribute... Some may tag the sign anyway - I'll let
them have their fun but it doesn't make any sense to me.

stop, give_way and traffic_signals on the other hand, they are nodes.

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

Re: [Tagging] Spillways

[John Willis]

> On Mar 24, 2017, at 9:42 AM, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> The thing I am tagging is not a dam. It is a series of flood basins, one of 
> which is a "reservoir". They are made by levees that surround the rivers, but 
> in a very complicated way. They eventually return all the water back to the 
> river, shortly after it is captured. 

I made a quick way around the entire extent of the feature. It is really big. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/482421468#map=13/36.2357/139.6842 


I will delete the way later. ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign's relevant direction: direction=* vs. relation [Was: traffic_signals:direction=* vs. direction=*]

[Topographe Fou]

It's a different topic: speed, height... Mainly apply to a way whereas stops 
mainly (always ?) apply to a node.

Speeds can still be tagged on the way and the sign put appart from the road, 
mainly for rendering purpose because the way it applies to is already tagged 
with the consequence (the speed).

In this thread I already proposed the same mechanism for stops, i.e. a node for 
the sign at it's exact location (for renderers) + a node on the way at the 
location where the car has to stop/halt/slow down (for routing engine). This 
way we can address both needs (routing engine are not the only data consumer ;) 
). What do you think?

LeTopographeFou 


  Message original  
De: dieterdre...@gmail.com
Envoyé: 23 mars 2017 9:05 PM
À: j...@liotier.org
Répondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Cc: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Objet: Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign's relevant direction: direction=* vs. 
relation [Was: traffic_signals:direction=* vs. direction=*]

sent from a phone

> On 23 Mar 2017, at 17:23, Jean-Marc Liotier  wrote:
> 
> - highway=stop+direction=forward node on the incoming way... Only
>  covers the simple case but covers it simply

while this might work often with stop signs it'll hardly work with maxspeed 
signs, because the changing maxspeed requires to split the highway, so that 
there would be 2 highways ending in the same node and forward would not be 
clear of which way.

When I map traffic signs it's mostly city limit, maxspeed/maxweight/maxheight 
and I do it generally for fellow mappers (including myself) because the effect 
of the sign I will map on the highway (typically linear, not just a point). 
Mapping on the side of the road has worked out perfectly for this scope.

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