Re: [Tagging] How to tag house numbers based on decametres?
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:02 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/12 Anthony o...@inbox.org: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:15 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The only problem then is how to tag the start/end of a numbering section, based on that document major roads are broken up into sections of 100km. Relation: node for start, node for end, list of ways to connect from start to end mmm, thanks... now to document it... Not sure if you saw it before, but http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2009-October/38.html Is that in agreement with what you'd like to see? On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: And how are you going to find the start and end of those sections without surveying? You won't, not unless you have some external data to import (and you didn't mention anything about that). Surveying a few points every 100km is easier than surveying every house. And it's likely that most of the starting/end points will already be in the database (e.g. the intersection of X Street and Y Street). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag house numbers based on decametres?
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org wrote: 2009/10/12 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Surveying a few points every 100km is easier than surveying every house. And it's likely that most of the starting/end points will already be in the database (e.g. the intersection of X Street and Y Street). If we could get away with only survey 1 point every 100km we would have already have finished earth some years ago and be onto the next planet Quite true. I suspect you will need to survey which houses are nearest each road junction plus any gaps, I suspect surveying a few points every 100m is going to be nearer what you need. Need for what? The more survey points, the better. The accuracy gradually gets better and better as more points are added. Eventually you've surveyed every house - sort of: you'll probably never finish (unless all the postal services in the world decide to release their databases into the public domain), because while you were out surveying some more houses popped up. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Housenumber interpolation with regularlyskipped numbers
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote: There are plans in the US to import Tiger address interpolation information - which is intentionally obfuscated for privacy reasons by law. Tobias mentioned a possible tag interpolation:complete=yes to represent fully accurate address interpolation, which sounds like a simple solution. If it is necessary to tag estimated address interpolation differently, it would be good to know before the Tiger address interpolation import begins. The Karlsruhe Schema doesn't fit well with the Tiger data. It makes very little sense to use it for Tiger data. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
2009/10/13 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: IMHO landuse=military is already what you want to express with boundary=military. Then all the landuse=military tags can be changed, and landuse=military can be deprecated. On the other hand, ownership=military and/or access=military makes more sense than boundary=military. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Housenumber interpolation with regularlyskippednumbers
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Randy Thomson rwtnospam-...@yahoo.com wrote: Sounds good Martin. I have about 3000-5000 houses to tag, I'll tag the beginning and ending house addresses, on each street, if you'll tag the 15-20 individual houses in between. They're in the satellite images, so it shouldn't be a problem. I'll give it a try. Send me a list of the ways. I'll set up a script to automatically create the nodes, and I'll just move them into place if they're not lined up over the houses. Or if you want, I'll give you the script. Just kidding, but hopefully you'll get the point that it's a pretty labor intensive job, and interpolation, with an appropriate skip factor would make the job a lot more likely to eventually reach completion. Or even easier and more likely to reach completion without the skip factor. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Anthony wrote: What happens when there's a section of forest which people are using as their residence? No matter what the size, I see these as mutually exclusive. In other words they can't both occur in the same place. I fully agree with you - as I said, I think landuse=forest should be reserved for things like tree farms, where the *use* of the land is growing trees. Whether they get mapped like that is up to the mapper depending time/fussiness. If there was an easyway to put holes in areas it would encourage mappers to do it. add a fixme=create_hole tag and a bot could go around fixing them... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: Residential isn't exclusive at all. Not to say that what it's actually used for in OSM can have different meanings amongst different mappers. You'll find many parks in OSM for example inside a residential polygon. I've never seen holes in a landuse=residential polygon at locations where shops are. By far most uses I've seen for landuse=residential are for areas which are generally used for where people live, and usually have entire villages or cities inside one polygon. That's not ground cover, that's telling what the area is used for. Proper ground cover would have no such thing as a residential area. It would have tags for building (and subtags for what kind of building it is), or garden. Well then ground cover isn't what we need. We need land use. Land use is generally studied on a parcel by parcel basis. The fact that OSM mappers make these huge polygons which cover entire towns is fine, as an approximation, but ultimately we should be striving to get down to the parcel level, or even more detailed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: Anthony wrote: Well then ground cover isn't what we need. We need land use. Land use is generally studied on a parcel by parcel basis. The fact that OSM mappers make these huge polygons which cover entire towns is fine, as an approximation, but ultimately we should be striving to get down to the parcel level, or even more detailed. A typical example of a land use map: http://cityofypsilanti.com/maps/images/mastermap2006www.jpg Well, we need both land use *and* ground cover. The former telling what people use the area for, the latter telling what you can actually see on the ground. The former says park, the latter says grass, trees... for the same area. University vs buildings, grass, garden, trees... Residential vs buildings, gardens, parks, construction sites... Military vs buildings, woods, crop fields, heath, meadows... etc Maybe we need ground cover. I'm not convinced of it, but maybe we do. But this is a completely different problem - it's the opposite problem of landuse=*, in fact. Instead of using one tag for multiple things, we're using lots of tags (amenity=*, man_made=*, natural=*, leisure=*) for what you're arguing to be one thing (as I said, I'm not yet convinced). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal covered=yes
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com wrote: Possibly just building=roof would work (not my idea, someone else suggested it). I have a much bigger preference to building=roof or building=cover on the element on the top instead of some attribute on some hypothetical element below . Or man_made=canopy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canopy_(building) I think I'm going with man_made=canopy. But that doesn't work for a building with a contiguous floor over a parking area, unless you split the building, in order to use multiple layer tags. The building exists at both layer=0 and layer=1. Honestly, I don't like covered=yes here. It's a hack, but unless and until there is support for true three dimensional mapping, any solution is going to be a hack. Splitting the building into two parts, one at layer=0, touching the parking area, and one at layer=1, encompassing both the area next to and under the parking area, is another solution. It's similar to what we'd do with a highway when we want it to exist at multiple layers. But it's probably unprecedented for buildings. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal covered=yes
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Splitting the building into two parts, one at layer=0, touching the parking area, and one at layer=1, encompassing both the area next to and under the parking area, is another solution. It's similar to what we'd do with a highway when we want it to exist at multiple layers. But it's probably unprecedented for buildings. Actually, that wouldn't work if the ground level itself differs from one part of the building to the other, which is something I've seen before in malls (the second floor on one side is the first floor on the other). I can't think of a proper way to map this without changing everything... I don't know. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal covered=yes
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: If a highway and a building cross at the same layer, the building should be made partially transparent so the way can be seen to be covering it. Covering it - covered by it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC-(boundary=military)
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com wrote: Anthony wrote: On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com wrote: I'd rather see boundary=federal enclave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_enclave) or something like that to represent this. You'd still likely want something=military in addition, but the jurisdictional issue should be solved once, not repeatedly for each different situation. I'm OK with that. I assume you mean the something=military is a property of the boundary way, as well. Only when the military area is exactly equal to the federal enclave area. This may or may not be the case depending on the definition of the military area and the specifics of the situation. It overtly fits the description of federal enclave in wikipedia. What would you suggest as a name for the key, something, or is there something out there already? Depends on what you want to describe. If it's the ownership, ownership. If it's who is allowed to access the land, access. If it's what the land is used for (and not who it's used by), landuse. On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com wrote: What would you suggest as a name for the key, something, or is there something out there already? If not, possibly this needs to be thrown to region.us. Wikipedia defines federal enclave in US terms. I thought about a more general approach with boundary=enclave, admin_level=2, but, there is a relation role=enclave, that doesn't really fit the federal enclave situation, since the federal enclave is actually within the federal boundary, but excludes lower levels of administration. The current enclave role might fit a US base hosted in a foreign country, though. I would guess it's very much a US-specific thing, since we're one of the few (only?) places with that whole dual-sovereignty thing going on. Admin_level=3? Admin_level=5? Admin_level=4? I don't know. What's used for the District of Columbia? This is similar, jurisdiction-wise, though it differs in the fact that the land wasn't actually ceded from the state. (Answer is admin_level=4, but in that case it's *also* a state border, because the state actually ceded the land.) As for the use of the term enclave, it's a bit too confusing trying to wrap my head around how to apply enclave in the face of dual-sovereignty. I certainly wouldn't use that term by itself - it'd be far too ambiguous. Federal enclave seems to be well defined and unambiguous. But it's long and has a space in it. Honestly, I don't really like the whole admin_level thing in the first place. It doesn't fit the reality of the situation - Florida is not an administrative level of the United States, just as France is not an administrative level of the EU. So I'll let others battle that one out. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 6:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/11/4 Richard Bullock rb...@cantab.net We don't *have* to stick to dictionary definitions here when tagging, as long as the meaning is clear; exactly, this is not generally about dictionary definitions but about the meaning of words. Dictionaries can give you hints if you're unsure. If we use tunnel for all kind of holes you can creep in, the meaning will no longer be clear. Personally I'm fine with a definition of tunnel that doesn't include underground. But we need a definition. So far no one seems to have provided one. A passageway through a building (but, say, without being inside that building) is, to all intents and purposes, a tunnel. a passageway through a building that is not inside that building will be hard to find. (how do you define: is not inside?) http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8client=firefox-aie=UTF8q=mosi+tampafb=1gl=ushq=mosihnear=tampacid=0,0,4145233176872570172ei=kpbxSpL3BtTY8Aa95d2MCQved=0CA0QnwIwAAll=28.054341,-82.404791spn=0,359.981289t=hz=16layer=ccbll=28.054341,-82.404885panoid=utISmaJ6ph__dBBezFDBpQcbp=12,185.93,,0,0.05 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] shared driveways (was How to tag un-named roundabout?)
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Anthony o...@inbox.org writes: But I've come across situations where the unnamed road is not a roundabout, though. In one of these cases I used highway=unclassified, because it was just a dirt road that was really just a shared driveway (it was imported from TIGER because it used to be a real road). here, the question is the road's legal status. If it's a private or public way going to houses, it would be highway=residential. If it's really a driveway legally now, highway=service service=driveway, or highway=track if it's really atrocious. MassGIS data has a lot of driveways showing up as ways that got mapped to residential, and I've been fixing them in my town. What's the legal distinction between a private way going to houses and a shared driveway? The road in question is definitely private - if the shared owners want to put up a gate and restrict access to the way, they have every right to do so. So I'd say it's *both* a private way going to houses *and* a shared driveway. Another situation which I run into more often is the case of a private road owned by a condominium association (or mobile home park), or by an apartment complex. Should these be tagged as something other than highway=residential? I've always reserved highway=service for non-residential roads. I now see on the wiki that highway=service can also be used with service=driveway, but what's the distinction between a driveway and a private road owned by a condominium association or an apartment complex? One distinction is whether or not the way is shared, but then a shared driveway is shared as well. Cross-posting to talk-us, this might be a US-specific issue. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shared driveways
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Well, that's how I would tend to see it, but it being in practice street like and large and having a name makes it feel like it's fair to label it as if it were a private way. I wonder if it really is a private way and the parcel data is out of date. Regarding the apartment complex, the parcel data is not out of date. That's just the way apartment complexes are parceled here. There's only one owner. Condominium associations would have a separate parcel for shared areas, because there's more than one owner. I found the appropriate definition in Florida's statutes: (53) STREET OR HIGHWAY.-- (b) The entire width between the boundary lines of any privately owned way or place used for vehicular travel by the owner and those having express or implied permission from the owner, but not by other persons In mass, private ways look like public streets, and I have never seen a no trespassing sign on one. Do you have gated communities? We have them all over the place here in Florida. I can get you some pictures if you want. I sort of remember ones without gates but with no trespassing signs, but I might have some difficulty finding examples of that to take pictures. On a driveway (in a gated community, on a person's house), no trespassing signs are not at all odd. Are you saying that everything behind the gate in a gated community is a driveway, or am I misreading that? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] shared driveways
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net writes: With regard to apartment complexes, condo complexes, mobile home complexes, and gated single-family-home complexes, I usually tag: - The ways that cross the boundary line from public street into the complex are highway=service*** + service=driveway. These are also role=access in the relation. - Other roads completely internal to the complex are highway=service*** - If it is a gated community and/or there is a legal no-trespassing posting, additionally tag all roads and other features within the posted area as access=private. *** I have sometimes used highway=residential instead of highway=service when the roads are named, have actual postal addresses along them, and clearly up to public road standards (width, surface, maintenance, etc.). This would apply to some condo and most gated single-family-home complexes. I rarely draw driveways into businesses or, even more rarely, single-family home lots. If I do, they are highway=service + service=driveway, with access=private if gated or posted no-trespassing. This is an excellent description of more or less what I was trying to say (but didn't so well), and I think it would be a good addition to formal tagging guidelines. Yes, it effectively answers my question. For a private road I'll use highway=residential if the road is named and recognized by our county property appraiser, and I'll use highway=service otherwise. Additionally, I'll sprinkle access=private as appropriate. I don't understand what was meant by These are also role=access in the relation. What relation? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] shared driveways
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: We tend to explicitly tag whether something belongs to the site or not. That doesn't make it right. Anthony wrote: It's redundant to have the same information expressed twice, and doing so will only lead to conflicting data. The relation would express whether something is logically part of the site; the geometry would express whether something covers the same ground as the site. This is not the same information. How not? A bridge which goes over a site would be in a different layer, and wouldn't cover the same ground. A road which goes through the site, but is not considered part of the site, would split the site into two parts, and would make the perimeter a multipolygon. Note that all I said is If you can outline a perimeter, you don't need a relation. If you can't outline a perimeter, then you may need a relation. Having a perimeter and a relation is the problem. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Implied oneway tag for highway=*_link, wiki edits
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: My point was about newcomers to the project, who haven't sat in on endless tedious tagging discussions (and may have no wish to do so) assuming that because every instance of a type of road they know is one way that it's an inherent property. Showing their assumption is false doesn't change their behaviour. Option 1: If you're unsure of the default, tag it - no harm in that. Option 2: If you're unsure of the default, check the wiki. For the latter option, something more constrained than the wiki would be preferable, though. One problem with the wiki is that it sometimes (often?) contradicts itself. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:31 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: So, tagging list, how are you supposed to tag cyclists must dismount, bicycle=no tag no bicycles bicycle=no and what does bicycle=no mean? bicycle=no means you're not allowed to ride a bicycle. What does no bicycles mean? Can you show a picture of a sign which means you aren't allowed to carry a bicycle through this area? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: What does no bicycles mean? Can you show a picture of a sign which means you aren't allowed to carry a bicycle through this area? Perhaps, as James wondered, a sign consisting of a crossed red circle with a bike in it? Anyone know what that means in their local area? In Australia it means Cyclists must not ride on a footpath where there is a NO BICYCLES sign. http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/Home/General_information/Rules_and_regulations/Road/Cycling_rules/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: As in, bicycle=carriage_prohibited. You can't have bicycle=carriage_prohibited along with bicycle=no. It needs to be a different tag altogether, because it represents something different. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: As in, bicycle=carriage_prohibited. You can't have bicycle=carriage_prohibited along with bicycle=no. It needs to be a different tag altogether, because it represents something different. Ok, so you mean bicycle=* refers to riding a bicycle, so we need a new *key* that means walking alongside a bicycle. Well, the exact definition is tricky - should the tag mean that you are barred from carrying a bicycle? What if the bicycle is foldable? with_bicycle=*? I guess. I really wish OSM had better support for sets, so you could do something more like cant_push=bicycle;shopping cart;stroller. But, I guess that support isn't really here yet. So with_bicycle=no, with_shopping_cart=no, with_stroller=no, etc. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: with_stroller=no, etc. British English is pushchair. Baby buggy may be more international, but one underscore is more than enough. Fine with me. with_dog=* might prove to be as useful as with_bicycle=*. And it suggests the answer to my question about carrying. The tag with_dog=no means no dogs whatsoever. The tag with_dog=carry means you can carry your (presumably small) dog, but can't walk it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: but one underscore is more than enough. One of these days I'm going to propose a tag with a space in it. They're not banned. Why don't we use them? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:09 AM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: I'd hope that bicycle=no would have the same implications for having a bicycle without riding it as other *=no tags would for their transports. For example I would guess that where horse=no is used, you often can't walk your horse as well as not riding it. But if horse=no is on an expressway, that probably doesn't mean you can't carry your horse in a horse trailer. I would think horse=no means you can't ride your horse, and whether or not you can walk your horse is a separate issue. I'm not an expert in horse laws, but I bet that's the way the law is here where I live, too. If you can walk your dog, then why not your horse or your bike? http://hamsterprophet.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/a-small-horse-3.jpeg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote: Now whether one set of 20 nodes or a different set of 20 nodes better represent the shape of a road is a matter of creative subjectivity. Neither set is more mistaken nor more inaccurate than the other. What set of nodes constitutes a best fit to a given shape with a given number of points, is fairly objective. You may creatively choose something other than the best solution, but again, I don't think that constitutes copyrightability. Not within context. (If you intentionally chose something other than the best fit, for something sort of stylistic purpose, fine, but I really don't see how that's applicable to road mapping.) I think that's borderline at best. But I do agree with your greater point, that there probably is some sort of thin copyright to the OSM database. (Of course, that thin copyright is then further diluted among a couple hundred thousand contributors, making it very thin indeed.) For practical purposes, we can't add an infinite number of nodes or should even add 100 nodes to represent a perfectly circular roundabout, We could, however, introduce a arc tag. And if I was better at making proposals (and/or the OSM processes were better at accepting proposals), it would probably already be introduced. To represent an arc, you only need three points (start, end, and any third point on the arc uniquely defines a triangle which is circumscribed by exactly one circle). This could even be made backward compatible. Just split the way at the beginning and end of the arc and put arc=yes. Renderers that don't know about arcs would use three points (or four, or five, or whatever). Renderers that do know about them would use as many as is necessary for the resolution of the image. (In the case of an arc=yes tag with more than three points Of course, I can't copyright this idea... So you're free to use it if you'd like with or without attribution to me. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Stephen Gower socks-openstreetmap.org@ earth.li wrote: Christ Church (College) Meadows: http://oxford.cyclestreets.net/location/17860/ No Bicycles either wheeled or ridden For clarification, is that gate strictly for motor vehicle traffic? I see it also says no pedestrians through this gate. Yes, in both cases these are private land, but in both cases they are very useful pedestrian routes. A routing engine should use these paths for foot traffic (during daylight hours - another problem!), but know not to use them for bicycles, not even with a dismount for this section instruction. Agreed. In the case of no dogs allowed it should route people who are walking their dogs around as well. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Fortunately, you're not mapping for a router. If there's no verifiable data, you shouldn't map anything at all. I guess unknown would also be acceptable, though. I think this is an important point. It becomes a problem when people try to map the *law*, because legal status is often difficult to verify - e.g. you can't see it! I think that's true in some situations, but that's not exactly what I was getting at. My response was to a situation where the honest truth is that it's private land and the owner doesn't seem to care. The private land part is mostly likely verifiable, and can be tagged. The owner doesn't seem to care, is, in my opinion, best expressed with the *lack* of a tag. Legal status often *is* verifiable. It's not always mapping what's on the ground, but I think we've got a ways to go before we can get away with only mapping what's on the ground. I agree it's a good ideal, but to follow it strictly, the routers would need a separate database to hold a list of jurisdiction-specific defaults. For example, just one example, here in Florida bicycles are allowed to use certain roadways (most roadways, in fact, but I'm too lazy to look up the exact law right this second). I'm not sure that's a universal law, applicable everyone in the world. But it's a law here in Florida, and there are no signs which say bicycles allowed. Thus there's nothing on the ground to map. In theory we shouldn't map this. That means in Florida, we don't map bicycles allowed, and in X-land (where bicycles aren't allowed by default, but there aren't any bicycles prohibited signs), we don't map bicycles prohibited. However, that requires routers to know if they're in Florida or X-land (relatively simple, we have boundary relations for that), and to know what the default law is in Florida and X-land (that's the part we don't currently have). The alternative, is to use a completely different set of highway tags in Florida and X-land, which I suppose is one of the myriad of currently proposed solutions (mixed in with lots of other solutions, and lots of non-solutions as well). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: On Tuesday 08 December 2009 17:53:33 Anthony wrote: Information about tag support is a *good* thing, not a bad one. I now realise that Mapnik doesn't recognise *any* sport=* tags, but that's not going to stop me using them. But it will make me be careful to always use it with a tag that it *does* support as well. See how this is beneficial? Actually, I think that's a good example of the harmfulness in tagging for a renderer. We shouldn't have redundant data in the database, at least when this is at all feasible. Wow, so now it is already harmfull to osm to know you have to map leisure=sports_centre|pitch|track|etc in addition to sport=* to have it show up with renderer X, but with renderer Y there would be no need for that. No, sorry for the confusion. The wiki is clear about sport=*: Since this is a non-physical tag it should be combined with one of these (physical) tags It has nothing to do with the renderer, though. In fact, the wiki specifically cautions you not to worry about the renderer: Though most of these tags are rendered when used stand-alone, a combination with a physical tag is strongly encouraged to avoid misunderstandings. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: As I've said before, I have absolutely no idea how suitable a particular way is for bicycling. Sure, but presumably you could follow directions if they were spelt out for you. I could, but quite frankly, I won't. I'm not going through a lookup table of road surfaces and their suitability for bicycling when I could just tag the road surface and let a computer do that. Especially since if we have to map suitability for bicycling, then we ought to also map suitability for motorcycle riding, and suitability for walking, and suitability for walking your dog, and suitability for golf carts, etc. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: We must be operating under different assumptions. I'm thinking it's *easier* to use a single tag, like bicycle:suitability=medium for a stretch of a few kilometres, rather than tagging the width each time it changes, the surface each time that changes, etc etc. What kind of surface/width changes are we talking about? I'd support a relaxaton of the width tag to support a range of tags (width=2-3). The tag est_width=2.5 is already in the wiki. As for surface changes, I don't know how common that is, especially not if you don't mind surface=paved. Even surface=unpaved is better than what you're going to get out of me if you insist I consult a table of bicycle suitabilities, which is nothing. But in case, I don't think there is ever an expectation that people tag things outside their area of interest or expertise. That's why I suggest using tags that apply to lots of different interests. Knowing the width helps everyone. Knowing the surface (at least to the precision of paved/grass/unpaved) helps everyone. Whereas bicycle:suitability=medium helps bicyclists. Make that some bicyclists. Make that some bicyclists, sometimes. By the way, you mentioned curbs. I'm kind of shocked we don't have it, but I strongly suggest we introduce a barrier=curb. If I feel masochistic, I might even make up a proposal for it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: There's a big difference between a fence intended to keep cars out, and one that keeps people out. *Sigh*. I'll bite. What would be a fence which is a barrier to one, but not to the other? You know barrier doesn't mean impenetrable, right? (Actually I'm probably just misremembering, you're probably supposed to use access tags). Yes, you are. And presumably certain types of barriers have different defaults. But a fence which allows access? Oh, and add barrier=barricade, for a low anti-car obstruction. (barrier=roadblock? I'm thinking of these barriers you often see around parks here, two vertical poles with a long vertical pole bolted across, about knee height. Usually treated pine.) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dcycle_barrier ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Yep. Fortunately, there aren't too many ways which use both highway=* and barrier=*. Yeah...but still. I'm not a fan of having bicycle=no mean two similar, but distinctly different things, when applied to different kinds of objects. There's no way everyone's going to remember those subtleties, and the different meanings will leak from one to the other. Technically, this approach possible. Pragmatically and socially, it seems unwise. And besides, it's just as likely that we'd want to tag the legalities of a barrier, as the practicalities. And then how would we do *that*? Hmm, thinking about it I'm not so sure we aren't mapping the legalities, at least not in situations where it makes sense to ask the question of whether or not crossing a barrier is legal. The purpose of a barrier, at least a barrier in a public way, is to make the illegal impractical. (I think. Maybe it only makes sense to tag the legalities of the things on either side: the park is vehicle=no, the path leading to it is vehicle=yes, maybe the barrier doesn't need a legal status marking.) There are quite a lot of barriers which are vehicle=yes on both sides, but vehicle=no for the barrier. Both legally and practically. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Yep. Fortunately, there aren't too many ways which use both highway=* and barrier=*. Yeah...but still. I'm not a fan of having bicycle=no mean two similar, but distinctly different things, when applied to different kinds of objects. There's no way everyone's going to remember those subtleties, and the different meanings will leak from one to the other. Technically, this approach possible. Pragmatically and socially, it seems unwise. And besides, it's just as likely that we'd want to tag the legalities of a barrier, as the practicalities. And then how would we do *that*? Hmm, thinking about it I'm not so sure we aren't mapping the legalities, at least not in situations where it makes sense to ask the question of whether or not crossing a barrier is legal. The purpose of a barrier, at least a barrier in a public way, is to make the illegal impractical. The problem with using an access tag on a highway which is also a barrier is that the access tag on a barrier goes perpendicular, but the access tag on a highway goes along the way. We could probably define access tags on barriers in terms of legality and not practicality, and still have the vast majority of them be correct (at least, if we treated no as equivalent to private and yes as equivalent to permissive in terms of non-public land, which is probably necessary for highway tags as well (I don't know about you, but I'd tag a road through an ungated apartment complex as bicycle=yes even though technically according to the wiki it should be bicycle=permissive). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:02 AM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: On 11/12/2009, at 5:44 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: The current wiki definition of highway=cycleway is mainly or exclusively for bicycles. This I cannot be sure of from the aerial imagery, nor can I of anything to do with the law. What to do... Ah, the curse of NearMap being too good. This is NearMap? Can't you take a sample of people traveling over the way, and if it's more than 50% bicyclists, use highway=cycleway? Or is it too short and there aren't any people traveling over the way? Anyway, I like highway=road or highway=path, with surface=paved and width=*. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I spotted two or three bicyclists near two or three pedestrians. Looks like shared-use, which means highway=path. I vehemently object to this rule that shareduse means highway=path. I think the wiki just hasn't caught up with reality yet. The reason I object is that non-shared-use cycleways are practically non existent in most countries, rendering the cycleway=* tag pretty much useless. Heh, you say that as though it's a bad thing. I think the cycleway tag already is pretty much useless. So, what's your definition of cycleway? On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Anthony wrote: Still, I think I spotted two or three bicyclists near two or three pedestrians. Looks like shared-use, which means highway=path. No a cycleway is a way which is free of bicycle obstructions and that is not implicit in the path at all. Sounds like 95% of ways tagged with highway=*, including many ones where bicycles aren't allowed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: currently i'm looking at the Australian legal definitions because i'm sure the traffic engineers have answered these questions for us already. Maybe if by us you mean Australians. not at all Researching a topic means looking for other people who have solved the problem of how you define place-where-people-walk place_where_people_cycle place_where_people_drive_vehicles You don't know how to define place_where_people_walk/cycle/drive_vehicles? It's a place, where people walk/cycle/drive_vehicles. Legal definitions aren't going to help you with that. Well, maybe the legal definition of vehicle (which here in Florida includes bicycles). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sun, 13 Dec 2009, Anthony wrote: You don't know how to define place_where_people_walk/cycle/drive_vehicles? It's a place, where people walk/cycle/drive_vehicles. Legal definitions aren't going to help you with that. Well, maybe the legal definition of vehicle (which here in Florida includes bicycles). Of course, we all know, but when we try to define the boundaries of those divisions we arrive at the big long discussions on the mail lists and a proliferation of wiki pages. There aren't boundaries. There are plenty of places where people walk, cycle, and drive vehicles. The three are not mutually exclusive. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Anthony wrote: Hmm, the resolution isn't quite as good as I was expecting. Still, I think I spotted two or three bicyclists near two or three pedestrians. Looks like shared-use, which means highway=path. I think this is the wrong way to decide. You're being presumptive. Just because you */see /*cyclists/walkers it doesn't mean they have the */right /*to go there. That's why I didn't suggest using any access tags. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Anthony wrote: Hmm, the resolution isn't quite as good as I was expecting. Still, I think I spotted two or three bicyclists near two or three pedestrians. Looks like shared-use, which means highway=path. I think this is the wrong way to decide. You're being presumptive. Just because you */see /*cyclists/walkers it doesn't mean they have the */right /*to go there. Honestly, tagging on the basis of measured human activity doesn't work. Plenty of genuine bike paths get more foot traffic than wheeled traffic. What makes them genuine bike paths, then? The Great Divide Trail hiking trail gets more mountain bikes than hikers. The only viable approaches are those based on physical observations and legislation/planning documents. Umm, measured human activity is a physical observation. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Anthony wrote: What makes them genuine bike paths, then? Signage, or non-copyrighted data telling the user that a cyclist can go down it. So anything that a cyclists is allowed to travel on (presumably, excluding roads) is a bike path? What counts as telling the user (?) that a cyclist can go down a path? If the law is silent on the matter (therefore, it is allowed), would I need a court ruling? Is a law clearly saying that bikes are allowed even sufficient? Umm, measured human activity is a physical observation. Physical observations of signage, not a couple of blurred images of a micro-second snapshot. What if the images weren't blurred? What if I actually saw the people? Not every jurisdiction puts up signs everywhere telling people that they're allowed to do things. A bikes allowed sign is redundant here in Florida. Might as well have signs for teenagers allowed and dogs allowed and GPS devices allowed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: What makes them genuine bike paths, then? Bike signs. Painted bike symbols. Documentation to that effect. Fair enough. But in the absence of such conclusive evidence, then what? On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Umm, measured human activity is a physical observation. A pretty bad one. I go and count 18 cyclists and 12 walkers. I tag it cycleway. You measure 15 walkers and 10 walkers. You tag it footway. Now what? Now nothing. What does it matter if the way is tagged as footway or cycleway or path? Some people like to get worked up about these things, but according to the definitions I read, so long as you include bicycle=yes on a footway which allows bicycle traffic, it really doesn't matter. Personally, I'd have probably used highway=path if it's that evenly split. If you've got a better proposal, write it down, put it up somewhere on the wiki, and we'll vote on it. I appreciate that you're trying to solve this. I really do. But until you have a complete and consistent proposal, which is accepted by the majority of the community, I'm sticking with making a judgementas best as I can. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Anthony wrote: For example, just one example, here in Florida bicycles are allowed to use certain roadways (most roadways, in fact, but I'm too lazy to look up the exact law right this second). I'm not sure that's a universal law, applicable everyone in the world. Unless Florida is somehow declaring themselves independent from the rest of the United States, which signed on to the Vienna Convention on Traffic, then all roads are open to bicycles unless specifically posted otherwise, just like every other state and province in north america. I'm not sure if the Vienna Convention on Traffic is self-executing (or if not, if there is any implementing legislation), but that's interesting to know nonetheless. I'd guess the vast majority of (if not all) roads on which bicycles are not allowed are going to be marked as such, both here in Florida and in every other state and province in north america. Makes things a lot easier :). Except, I just checked, and it doesn't seem they are. I take it all roads are open to bicycles unless specifically posted otherwise isn't an exact quote (or that roads has a non-standard definition). Where can I find the exact rule? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Steve Bennett wrote: On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Depends on the country. I'm gonna have to disagree... if it allows both pedestrians and bicycles, that would be a cycleway in most cases. Disagree all you like. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions This isn't even accurate, it shows foot=no, bicycle=no for motorways in the US, but this is wrong. The default, unless otherwise posted, for all ways in the US, is =yes. That's the MUTCD saying that, not just my observation. Motorway is not a term defined in the MUTCD, the MUTCD just plain doesn't say that, and that completely contradicts state law in many parts of the United States. Of course, requiring tagging rules to be consistent across the entire United States makes about as much sense as requiring them to be consistent across all of Europe. There are many consistent rules, but within each state there are many state-specific ones. In some states, bicycles are banned from interstates. In other states, they aren't. (*) In the latter states, I'd question the use of the tag motorway, as the very word motorway implies a way dedicated to motor vehicles. (*) Each State establishes the operating rules that determine which vehicles are allowed on the Interstate highways under their jurisdiction. Most States do not allow bicyclists on the Interstate shoulders, but bicycle use is permitted in some States, particularly in the west where there is less traffic and where good alternative routes may not exist for bicycles. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Motorway is not a term defined in the MUTCD It is, however, a term defined in the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, which says: On motorways and, if so provided in domestic legislation, on special approach roads to and exit roads from motorways: (a) The use of the road shall be prohibited to pedestrians, animals, cycles, mopeds unless they are treated as motor cycles, and all vehicles other than motor vehicles and their trailers, and to motor vehicles or motor-vehicle trailers which are incapable, by virtue of their design, of attaining on a flat road a speed specified by domestic legislation; ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.netalan_mintz%2b...@earthlink.net wrote: At 2009-12-22 11:59, Roy Wallace wrote: I think Karlsruhe is still the best approach - e.g. even if you have 4, 6, 12, 18, 50, an even interpolation way from 4 to 50 is the best you can do short of mapping each address individually. Except for this pesky line in the wiki page, which is what implies the presence of all housenumbers on an interpolation way: For missing house numbers (e.g. missing 12) two ways need to be drawn (e.g. 1-11 and 13-25). This is impractical anywhere I've been. I feel your pain. But if you're going to use addr tags anyway, shouldn't your pseudo=yes be addr:pseudo=yes? Or maybe even addr:inclusion=pseudo? I'd prefer this be in the addr: namespace, this way at least there's a hint to any renderers/geocoders that there's something about this addr tag that the renderer/geocoder doesn't understand. Looking at your sample node ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/587389651), it seems to be at least approximately in line with Karlsruhe backward-compatibility-wise. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Should 'highway=incline[_steep]' be discouraged?
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.netwrote: Are there any other official node tags that depend on a parent way to be fully defined? Barrier=entrance et. al. spring to mind. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Should 'highway=incline[_steep]' be discouraged?
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.netwrote: Are there any other official node tags that depend on a parent way to be fully defined? Barrier=entrance et. al. spring to mind. Also highway/railway=crossing. The highway=ford tag depends on at least two parent ways. The traffic_calming tags mostly depend on ways to be fully defined. However, none of them, as far as I know, depend on the *direction* of the way on which they are defined. Now, arguably, I don't really know that incline as applied to a node is meant to be directional in the first place. The information is useful regardless of direction, though it's of course more useful if a direction is also included. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Should 'highway=incline[_steep]' be discouraged?
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.netwrote: While a road might be a pre-requisite for a speed bump I wouldn't say that the road defines the speed bump. The orientation of the road defines the orientation of the speed bump, though. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Should 'highway=incline[_steep]' be discouraged?
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.netwrote: Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com writes: If you want to define steep as meaning greater than or equal to 15% incline, THEN it has meaning. But until then, it's meaningless. If you know the actual incline you can tag it with its value. If you have to estimate it anyway then a hard definition on what is steep is not worth that much anymore. It's certainly worth something. If I know steep is greater than or equal to 15% incline, and I estimate an incline is between 15% and 20%, then I know it's steep. Whereas, without that definition, I have no idea whether or not between 15% and 20% is steep. I would say all the incline tags should be moved to the ways. Moved how, by going out and resurveying them? I guess in most cases you could get a topography map, in order to find the direction of the incline, then split the way into three ways, with the middle one being really really short, and then tag the middle one with the incline tag. That wouldn't require resurveying. But I don't see much benefit to doing that, either. Ideally we'd have elevation tags on each node, and incline tags would then become redundant. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: The primary purpose of OSM is to create useful maps, not to provide some kind of look-up service for the real world. Isn't that what a map is? Some kind of look-up service for the real world? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Why is that? Presumably you think the dedicated cycleway is a better way to get somewhere. I argue that it's not the sign that makes that the case, it's the construction of the path, its location, etc. Doesn't the lack of pedestrians make for a better way to get somewhere? Is http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/05/25/nyregion/25broadway.xlarge1.jpga good cycleway? It's closed to motor vehicles, wide, paved, and straight. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
Lightbulb goes off. Now I get it. highway=cycleway means highway=path, bicycle=designated. bicycle=designated means bicycles are explicitly allowed (generally, by signage) highway=footway means highway=path, foot=designated therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway, foot=designated, which means highway=path, foot=designated, bicycle=designated. Hmm, okay, I think I can deal with that. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway, foot=designated, which means highway=path, foot=designated, bicycle=designated. No, a highway=footway, bicycle=designated is not the same as highway=cycleway, foot=designated. If you just try to understand the wiki definitions and not over-interpret them, you see that cycleway is mainly/exclusively for bicycles where pedestrians might be allowed or tolerated (depending of the country) and a footway is mainly/exclusively for pedestrians where bicycles might be allowed or tolerated. Seems to me the wiki is inconsistent about how to treat http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:120px-Zeichen_240.svg.png and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:120px-Zeichen_241.svg.png then. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath/Examples says that such A path designated for pedestrians and cyclists equally. can be tagged as highway=cycleway, foot=designated OR highway=path, foot=designated, bicycle=designated. I assume, for the sake of logical consistency, that highway=footway, bicycle=designated would also be allowed. These definitions feet well for countries where the mainly/exclusively role is easy to determin which seems to be the case in Europe. Those signs I showed you are European signs, right? Is the wiki wrong? On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, it's a bit ugly. Should we be deprecating one or the other, or doing mass updates or something? I don't think it's ugly at all. I think it finally makes sense. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Bill Ricker bill.n1...@gmail.com wrote: i generally also set access=private for the official vehicle only u-turns. would access=official here be an overly fussy distinction ? I would think access=official would mean all types of traffic have official access. To follow the standard, it'd have to be official=yes, wouldn't it? I'd use access=no, assuming it was public land. access=private would be for privately owned land. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote: On 1/11/10 11:49 AM, Anthony wrote: It may sound like access=official means official access only, but any programs which have encoded access=* and *=official will be completely confused by such a designation. i'll be using access=no for now. as far as alternatives, how about: access=authorized Is there a situation where authorized traffic is not allowed? I say don't tag the defaults. If there actually is a scenario where authorized traffic is not allowed (which seems like a contradiction in terms), you could use access=no, authorized=no. But I doubt such a thing exists. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Can you picture a use case where it matters whether police=yes is set? Not really. But at least it's harmless. All emergency services will drive wherever physically possible. But maybe I'm oversimplifying or overgeneralising. Well, here in Florida police are not exempt from any traffic laws (*) except under certain specific situations. On the other hand, if a sign said police use only, then that would be a blanket exception regardless of the circumstance. (*) Here in Florida, even those emergency situations, certain traffic laws still apply, and drive wherever physically possible is never the rule for anyone. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What's a power=station?
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: To me power is energy. It's not a physical entity. That's just silly. Energy is a physical entity. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What's a power=station?
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/20 Anthony o...@inbox.org On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.comwrote: We map everything we can. What in the world is that supposed to mean? It's either untrue (as there are plenty of things that can be mapped which aren't mapped) or begs the question. no, it's not untrue. It's simply not finished (nor will it ever be). Then it begs the question, which is what we should be mapping *today*, not at some indefinite point in the future (or, possibly, never at all). I have data on the homeowner of every single family residence in Hillsborough County. Should I map that? go and do it, and see what happens. I'm not interested in doing it, as a map is not a good place to store such information. Phone book information belongs in a phone book, not a map. How about the phone numbers of every land-line in the United States? Do you have the data as well? Or is this just rethorical? I have it. It's simply not finished (nor will it ever be). ;) What evidence do you have for that? What's a lot of people? When you say it's one big reason, are you saying they wouldn't map at all were it not for the ability to map what's being sold in a particular store? keep it low. Everybody maps whatever she likes, and if she's not interested you will not be able to force her. You don't want to map POIs? Don't do it. Fine with me, that's what I'm doing (*). I also occasionally make a suggestion that a map might not be the best place to store such information. I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything, just trying to use reason. (*) Sort of. I do map POIs, and I have no problem with mapping POIs. What I think is silly and counter-productive is tagging those POIs with certain details, like what the ratio of alcoholic beverage to food sales was last year. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What's a power=station?
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.comwrote: Just a little rant, but please chill down as there is no need to get so excited like this: you have no control over the situation, simple as that. The only thing I have to say about that is that the very idea of keeping directory data out of OSM is one I got from someone else on this list. So I think I do have *some* control over the situation, in that presenting reasonable arguments on the list can convince reasonable people to rethink things. And as I've written to you privately. I'm not upset or excited. At least I wasn't until the emails from you and Martin suggesting that I'm trying to force people to do certain things. I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything. I'm just relaying what I thought was a good suggestion. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Islands in Parking Lots
I went with a multipolygon tagged as amenity=parking. Inner nodes for the islands tagged barrier=curb. In the center of the island I stuck a natural=tree. I also tagged the strip of parking blocks with barrier=parking block. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.12551lon=-82.501338zoom=18layers=B000FTF On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 4:31 PM, David Fawcett david.fawc...@gmail.comwrote: I am editing a large parking lot that has curbed 'islands' in it. There are bushes and trees planted on these islands. I am trying to figure out how they should be tagged, of course with an eye on the renderer... I think that they should show up in a way that it indicates that they are planted and not pavement. I can't find a landuse or other attribute that seems appropriate. How are other people tagging areas like these? David. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Islands in Parking Lots
Just to clarify, I meant for the barrier=curb to represent a perimeter, not an area. The area would be tagged as grass or shrubs or pavement or rocks or whatever - in this case I couldn't find an appropriate tag for the area (if I had I guess I would have used another multipolygon since you can't tag the same way as a perimeter and an area), so I just used a natural=tree node in the center (which probably is overkill - I imagined it being used by the blind in navigating the parking lot but that's probably completely unrealistic). I didn't want to use landuse=grass, because that doesn't describe the *use* of the land. Although I suppose I compromised with natural=tree - the trees are by no means a natural occurrence. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Sounds like the right solution is a generalised highway=traffic_island or something. Can't see that a carpark island is any different from any other traffic island or raised section of kerb. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I went with a multipolygon tagged as amenity=parking. Inner nodes for the islands tagged barrier=curb. In the center of the island I stuck a natural=tree. I also tagged the strip of parking blocks with barrier=parking block. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Islands in Parking Lots
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: a tree may be in a parking area, but how exactly do you propose to park on it? The more important question is what does amenity=parking apply to? a) a parking area, or b) a place you can park. I prefer a), because otherwise many, many flat surfaces near roads would be amenity=parking. In which case you don't need the inner polygons because a tree can be *in* an amenity=parking. What tag should we use for places that people can park? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Race track
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 7:44 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 31 January 2010 10:34, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Sure, but what about mapping the way *as an area*, e.g. if you want to accurately trace over wide vs. narrow parts of the track? I remember this came up a little while ago in the context of should all highways be mapped as areas, but I'm not sure if there were any tagging guidelines produced as an outcome of that... it is just a matter of adding area=yes? Are we producing maps or photo realistic depictions of the earth? Maps. If a bunch of treetops are blocking the view of a road, we'd show the road, not the treetops. How is that even relevant? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Race track
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:46 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: Again, are we trying to make a map look photo realistic? To me a map is a set of abstract ideas that express information about reality that can't be seen from photo imagery. Mapping road widths can be done by estimate based on a number of factors that are both vector and meta information, I fail to see how presenting an area will actually present any more information to a person. If they want such information and if there is aerial imagery they can just switch tile sets. Among other things, I want to be able to produce http://mytechnews.info/b/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/nuvi-lane-assistance.jpg That's not photorealism, and it's not raster data, but that gore area is best mapped as an area (the lanes could be linear, but that would require a bit more OSM redesign). On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:49 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 February 2010 01:43, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Maps. If a bunch of treetops are blocking the view of a road, we'd show the road, not the treetops. How is that even relevant? The current line of thinking almost goes so far as to map the trees and tag them layer=1 etc... Which still has nothing to do with photorealism. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Race track
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:59 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 February 2010 01:51, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Among other things, I want to be able to produce http://mytechnews.info/b/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/nuvi-lane-assistance.jpg That's not photorealism, and it's not raster data, but that gore area is best mapped as an area (the lanes could be linear, but that would require a bit more OSM redesign). Why is it best mapped as an area? Because it has a variable width. It's a bunch of lanes and comes back to micro mapping lanes, which has nothing to do with areas... Maybe your implementation of micro mapping lanes doesn't have anything to do with areas, but then, if so it probably doesn't work. How do you represent gore areas which have highly variable widths as anything but areas? If you've got a solution for it I'm all ears. Areas are also by far the easiest way to indicate both widths and connectivity. In order to map http://mytechnews.info/b/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/nuvi-lane-assistance.jpgyou need to represent the two lanes on the right and the three on the left as separate ways. But you also need to show that it is possible to route between them (although with extra caution - i.e. a solid white line). Whether you want to call it a relation or an area I suppose is debatable, but if you want to avoid a lot of complicated work you have to map the *sides* of the (sets of) lanes, not the *middle* of them. On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote: in the case of the race track example, using a way as a centerline and including width= tags should encompass what's needed. It works as long as everything is nice and neat, and has a constant width, and has equal sized lanes, etc. It fails as soon as you start to try mapping the real world. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Race track
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:15 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 February 2010 02:10, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Maybe your implementation of micro mapping lanes doesn't have anything to do with areas, but then, if so it probably doesn't work. How do you represent gore areas which have highly variable widths as anything but areas? If you've got a solution for it I'm all ears. Think railway tracks... I think railway tracks have constant widths. Otherwise the trains would have a lot of problems. Why do you need to represent road way area so accurately to show the lane to be in to exit as depicted, I highly doubt that depiction used area information to display the lanes etc, it would have been estimations. I don't understand the question. Areas are also by far the easiest way to indicate both widths and connectivity. In order to map Areas are of limited value besides showing where the road base occupies, and even then it won't be 100% accurate since we're not doing raster mapping. Why is raster mapping more accurate? I thought the point of vector graphics was that they were *more* accurate. Nothing is going to be 100% accurate, of course. Limited value besides... Fine, at least you agree it is of some value. As for connectivity, highly doubtful, you can't indicate valid direction that traffic can go. You can if you designate one way as left and one way as right. I do not mean for area to imply single closed way. http://mytechnews.info/b/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/nuvi-lane-assistance.jpg you need to represent the two lanes on the right and the three on the left as separate ways. But you also need to show that it is possible to route between them (although with extra caution - i.e. a solid white line). Again, think railway tracks... how do railway tracks merge and split? Not like roadways. Trains can only drive along tracks. Those tracks are a fixed distance apart. It's nothing like a highway. but if you want to avoid a lot of complicated work you have to map the *sides* of the (sets of) lanes, not the *middle* of them. Or using some kind of cascade method from ways so you can use the existing way tags to flow down into lanes... I'll stick with the specific solution I've already worked out, rather than some kind of cascade method. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Race track
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:57 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 February 2010 02:50, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: That it doesn't make sense? Show me the complex interchange. Then you An example given in the past is a tri-deck road way, from memory the middle deck is motorway with slower roadways above and below, obviously there will be interconnections on and off all 3 decks... Lat and lon please. and I can both show how we'd map them, and we can compare the two. Let's do At present OSM wouldn't cope with my suggestions as there needs to be extensions made to tag lanes, So give me the XML. this on the wiki though. Just point us to the wiki page so we don't have to Why does it need to be done through the wiki? It's a horrible way to discuss things. I'm not interested in discussing things. I'm interested in seeing your proposed solution in the real world. bore everyone with the details of this argument. Or put it up at There is a lot of people that would love micro-mapping to be solved once and for all, this is a complicated enough topic that it may warrant a temporary mailing list to solve this problem. Maybe. But in any case, I want to see hard real-world examples, not reiterate the same arguments over and over. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Race track
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:22 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 February 2010 03:16, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: If you're not going to give a real world example (complete with a latitude and longitude), don't bother. I've told you where to look I googled 2009 SoTM videos on 3D mapping and didn't find anything of note. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Race track
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:22 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 February 2010 03:16, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: If you're not going to give a real world example (complete with a latitude and longitude), don't bother. I've told you where to look I googled 2009 SoTM videos on 3D mapping and didn't find anything of note. Just watched http://www.vimeo.com/5673183 Yeah, ultimately we're going to need to use areas with elevation information and/or full blown polyhedra. Yes, 2D mapping isn't sufficient. But 2D is closer to 3D than 1D. :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Islands in Parking Lots
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: What tag should we use for places that people can park? If you literally mean place that people can park, this is verging on unverifiable (e.g. well *I* think I can park there...) On the other hand, a parking bay (i.e. marked with lines) is fine if you want to tag the little rectangles of concrete - I'm not sure on a tag though. Well, I was using your terminology. http://maps.google.com/?ll=28.089529,-82.507252spn=0.000721,0.001155z=20doesn't have any lines, but I'd refer to it as a parking area. It's in OSM as http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.089546lon=-82.506839zoom=18layers=B000FTF It's unverifiable in the same way any unofficial highway on private land is unverifiable (and as much as what constitutes a parking area is unverifiable). I don't think it poses much of a problem in practice. I think the analogy with highway=pedestrian is a good one. Maybe highway=service, service=parking, area=yes. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Micro Mapping, was Race track
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:38 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: Going with Richards idea, what about making the editor do the grunt work, place a node at a point, and then have the editor calculate the width by stretching the road way side ways, then apply the width values against nodes, which would make areas redundent. I've got no problem with letting the editor do the grunt work. But a way with a width is difficult to connect lengthwise to another way with a width, or to an area. If we also define the numbe of lanes on a per node basis we wouldn't need to split ways just because lanes increased or descreased. Way information should not be on nodes. What happens when someone connects a second way to the same node? Now they have to examine the node to check whether or not there are tags on it? No. Bad idea. --- Now, I'm all about real world examples, so here's one: http://maps.google.com/?ll=28.083511,-82.505397spn=0.000721,0.001155z=20 Take a look at the Northbound traffic. You have three main lanes of traffic, two left turning lanes on the left, and a right turning lane on the right. You also have an entrance/exit to a shopping area on the right. Now, good lane-based navigation software is going to let you know to get into (or avoid) the right hand turning lane well before the shopping area entrance. This is not a six lane road, it's a three lane road with three additional turning lanes. However, traffic exiting the shopping area is not limited to the right turning lane. It can certainly enter the three main lanes, and if you're feeling lucky (or if it's a low traffic time of the day), can even make it into the left turning lanes. This is a great case for mapping lanes, and it's a tricky one to get right. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Micro Mapping, was Race track
I've heard that before about GPS equipment, but I'm not convinced it a) is true; and b) isn't easy to workaround, even if true. The raw data received by a GPS is timing data. How can they mess up the altitude without messing up the lat and lon? And even if they can (presumably by lying about the altitude of the satellites?), can't some sort of DGPS, using known altitudes of fixed locations, be used to counteract the deliberate errors? Granted, I don't think GPS is ever going to be a good way to get precise altitude information. As I understand it this is a matter of geometry and that altitude error will always be worse than lat/lon error. But I think that's a good argument for not recording absolute elevation but rather recording some sort of relative elevation. http://www.na-motorsports.com/Tracks/NY/images/glen/elev.gif is a good example of relative elevation. Even if we just used a relation among the nodes making up the track that would be quite useful. We could go back later and find out a precise elevation for one point on the track to convert that to absolute elevation, but in the mean time relative elevation would be quite useful. On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 9:42 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote: It may be difficult to obtain GPS equipment that has accurate altitude data. The GPS satellite system is maintained by the US military, and I have read that the altitude information available to civilian equipment has deliberate errors, in order to make it harder for terrorists, or non-US militaries, to use that equipment to plan out artillery attacks in advance. The equipment used by the US military makes use of a more accurate, but encrypted, altitude signal. In the US, at least, such equipment is classified and not legally available to civilians. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria -Original Message- From: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:10:59 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related toolstagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Micro Mapping, was Race track The only other problem left to solve is the 3D bit, elevation could be added to nodes as well, but all we need then is GPS equipment that has more accurate elevation. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Micro Mapping, was Race track
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:28 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 February 2010 13:19, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I've got no problem with letting the editor do the grunt work. But a way with a width is difficult to connect lengthwise to another way with a width, or to an area. Why would it be any more difficult than using areas, if the editors display the data correctly then you can edit it correctly too. It's trivial with areas. If the borders touch, the areas touch. You can't do that using a way and a width, unless you expect to do a bunch of calculations behind the scenes (in the editors, in the routers, in the renderers, etc). Way information should not be on nodes. What happens when someone connects Nodes are the perfect point to do it, they are the 2D location, ways give you direction, nodes give you width. a second way to the same node? Now they have to examine the node to check whether or not there are tags on it? No. Bad idea. You are assuming we are using the same tools we are using now to do stuff, if the editors become smart enough to enter width information they can display it as well. I'm assuming the data is being put on the nodes, because that's the suggestion. Nodes can be shared by multiple ways. If you're saying that's not true, fine, but then you're not really talking about nodes any more. In the current system, this might be implemented using a relation between a node and a way - okay, fine, that would work, though it seems more kludgy than just mapping the left and right borders as ways, which gives you an implicit width, plus gives you hooks so you can do things like show that the right hand side of the road is directly adjacent (and routeable) to a particular pedestrian area (see the thread a while ago on how to connect pedestrian areas to ways, whether to lie about the pedestrian area, lie about the way, or add in a bunch of arbitrary connecting ways). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Micro Mapping, was Race track
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:46 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 February 2010 13:38, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: It's trivial with areas. If the borders touch, the areas touch. You can't do that using a way and a width, unless you expect to do a bunch of calculations behind the scenes (in the editors, in the routers, in the renderers, etc). Which would happen with areas too, since we're dealing with vectors everything has to be calculated from points and extrapolated as to where the area should exist as a raster type image. With areas, you'd share nodes (or, with areas formed with relations, share ways). For the problem, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.9461664259434lon=11.577060520649zoom=18 Luitpoldplatz should be connected to the pedestrian area adjacent to the west. But since Luitpoldplatz is represented as a way, and not an area, this is not possible without inaccurately mapping the way or the area. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Micro Mapping, was Race track
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:26 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 February 2010 14:21, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: 1) use tags on nodes to describe an area 2) use an area to describe an area Generally speaking, I predict 2) will be easier. Just like ways there is a lot of meta information to describe lanes, can you change lanes, do lanes have different speed limits, sure areas could be used for this, but the down side is you still need a way to describe the legal direction of travel, so the problem still exists an area alone doesn't describe everything. Not necessarily. A way is generally part of an area. Even if you used a single way, clockwise could represent one direction and counter-clockwise could represent the other direction. But for these areas relations would probably work better. Really, we should probably stop using the term area, as OSM doesn't have areas, it has nodes, ways, and relations. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Micro Mapping, was Race track
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Here's a brainstorming picture, plenty of kinks to be worked out if anyone's up for a challenge: http://www.myimgs.net/images/psgb.gif E.g. if we're mapping ways as areas, how should the intersection area be tagged? Instead of role=area, I'd suggest separate ways: role=left, role=right, and role=outer. The role=center way could then be optional, solely for backward compatibility. This way you can indicate direction directly on the relation. Plus you can share ways, so the role=left way for one lane (or set of lanes, or landuse area, or pedestrian area, or gore area, or barrier, etc.) can be the role=right way for another lane (or...). I set up a list of example situations to ponder at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:%E2%A0%A0%E2%A0%81%E2%A0%9D%E2%A0%9E%E2%A0%93%E2%A0%95%E2%A0%9D%E2%A0%BD ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Micro Mapping, was Race track
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:59 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 February 2010 13:31, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: that altitude error will always be worse than lat/lon error. But I think that's a good argument for not recording absolute elevation but rather recording some sort of relative elevation. The reason for absolute elevation is simply because most GPS software isn't capable of differentiating between relative layers, although now that I think about it some more, from a programming point of view this seems it should only be an issue until the GPS figured out which layer you are currently driving on. I'm not sure what GPS software you're talking about. For recording of altitudes, I'm not sure GPS is not accurate enough to be very useful. Also, there's the issue of what vertical datum is being used. For most GPSes it is easy to set the datum for the lat/lon to WGS84, but the vertical datums vary quite a bit, they're often hard to determine, and in many cases they can't be changed. On the other hand, it's pretty easy to find out the height of an overpass, and/or estimate it (by photographs, by memory, or even by triangulation using free apps available on some smart phones). Therefore, I believe these two measurements should be stored separately. We know that overpass A passes 6 meters over road B, within say 1/3 of a meter. Whereas we know that road B is at 10 meters above sea level, with respect to NAVD83, within say 4 meters (which is a reasonable vertical GPS error bound). If we had measured the roads separately and given them absolute elevations, we might be off by 4 meters on overpass A, and 4 meters in the opposite direction on road B, and not even know which one is above the other. And then when we drive on the road our GPS readings might be off by another 4 meters. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Proposed feature: Gated Communities
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/2/3 Chango640 chango...@gmail.com: If you are interested in this proposal, please visit http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Gated_community to see full details and discuss. Why not use landuse=residential I agree with this, although where feasible I'd rather see landuse=residential only on the residential sections of the gated community. together with another tag, say community=gated (where community could also become other stuff like religious, seniors, female, Adding community=gated seems redundant. Just map the wall or fence itself. ... and or add access=private? I guess you could put access=private on the wall/fence, but isn't that the default? I'd definitely put access=private on all the roads, parking spaces, parks, etc. Anyway I would suggest to map the extent of the gated area by adding the fence barrier=fence and the entraces / gates. Yeah, definitely. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] US Speed Limits, truck routes, bike routes, access
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: I'm not sure what FHWA's thinking was with the End School Zone sign (what about traffic that doesn't remember what the previous speed zone was because they turned into the school zone at a midpoint?). Same thing they would have done if there ws no school zone in the first place. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] US Speed Limits, truck routes, bike routes, access
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: The school zone ends where the next speed zone starts. Hmm, I just checked a school zone near my house and I don't think that's correct. The 35 Mph sign comes before for the End School Zone sign. Do you have any source for that? I thought school zones were designated by statute, not by sign. The signs are just there to remind people of the statute. I'm not sure what FHWA's thinking was with the End School Zone sign (what about traffic that doesn't remember what the previous speed zone was because they turned into the school zone at a midpoint?). What about traffic that turns in a school zone when it's not school hours? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] US Speed Limits, truck routes, bike routes, access
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Anthony wrote: On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: The school zone ends where the next speed zone starts. Hmm, I just checked a school zone near my house and I don't think that's correct. The 35 Mph sign comes before for the End School Zone sign. Do you have any source for that? Yeah, the US Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part7/fig7b-03_longdesc.htm That's the 2003 edition. The 2009 edition removes that option. See for example http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part7/fig7b_05_longdesc.htm I thought school zones were designated by statute, not by sign. The signs are just there to remind people of the statute. The signs themselves do have consistency standards at the national level. Placing another speed limit sign before an end school zone sign suggests your local traffic engineer either can't read a manual or takes no pride in his job. Yeah, whoever put that sign up there screwed up big time. Still, for mapping purposes we should map the actual school zone. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Marking intersections complete
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.netalan_mintz%2b...@earthlink.net wrote: At 2010-03-12 20:07, John Smith wrote: On 13 March 2010 14:05, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.netalan_mintz%2b...@earthlink.net wrote: Any suggestion on how to tag an intersection as complete (that is, to state that all turn restrictions have been tagged)? Why not just tag those that are incomplete? incomplete=yes/no That would be most of the planet, as opposed to just a few thousand that I may actually survey/tag :) The vast majority of intersections in OSM are complete (that is, all turn restrictions have been tagged). Of course, that's because the vast majority of intersections in OSM don't have any turn restrictions. Verified as complete, on the other hand, is a different story. If you're talking about verified as complete, then you're looking for some sort of source:* tag. Source:restriction=image? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:46 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 12 April 2010 01:36, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: For a while now, I've been drawing and tagging drive through lanes at fast food restaurants with highway=service and service=drive_thru (and sometimes also oneway=yes since it seems that the implicit vs. explicit tags debate is No idea if this is a good idea or not, is there a need to tag drive through differently? Depending on the situation it might affect routing. I have indeed tagged a couple of these, using highway=service, service=drive-through, access=private, oneway=yes. In my experience the oneway is usually explicit, as there are arrows on the ground. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:13 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 12 April 2010 01:56, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: In my experience the oneway is usually explicit, as there are arrows on the ground. junction=roundabout implies oneway=yes, which is why you don't need to add a oneway tag as well. Ah, I see. Now, if we really want to start a flame war, maybe I should ask whether or not to include bicycle=no :). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:41 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 12 April 2010 22:44, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: If you want to be consistent, use underscores not hyphens, eg service=drive_through I still vote for drive-through (or, alternatively, drive-thru). I've never seen anyone call one a drive_through. I see no value in consistency if it means being consistently wrong. I'm talking consistency with almost every other OSM tag, OSM tagging predominantly converts spaces and hyphens to underscores. I'm not aware of any hyphens which are converted into underscores, let alone that this is predominantly the case. And even if it is predominantly the case, that's no reason not to do things correctly in the future. What's the point of converting a hyphen into an underscore? Well, I now see that there are a few. I still don't understand why, though, and I don't think we should keep doing something which makes no sense just because we've done it in the past. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:08 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 13 April 2010 03:54, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Well, I now see that there are a few. I still don't understand why, though, and I don't think we should keep doing something which makes no sense just because we've done it in the past. It makes perfect sense if you come from a programming point of view. Depends on the language. If you have a COBOL background you might just be tempted to convert underscores to hyphens :). Using your logic we should start using German as the main language for keywords, since 40% of edits are made by Germans. No. There are probably more OSMers that know basic English than OSMers that know basic German. And we all know where the hyphen key is. Anyway, whatever, if you want to make it drive_through, go ahead. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.netwrote: Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com writes: On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I have indeed tagged a couple of these, using highway=service, service=drive-through, access=private, oneway=yes. highway=service + oneway=yes + access=destination Pieren An explicit tag would be better since routers can then let the user filter for fast food restaurants that have drive-throughs and then route them to the selected drive-through entrance appropriately. Whether or not a restaurant (or pharmacy, or bank, or whatever) has a drive-through should be a property of the restaurant and not of the street, IMO. Yeah, but then how do you route the person to the proper entrance? Sounds like a job for a relation, really. But so far I've been too lazy to map that much detail. And I still don't like access=destination. If access=destination means a privately owned road which should only be used for access to a building, motorway service station, beach, campsite, industrial estate, business park, etc then access=destination is already implied by highway=service. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 04/12/2010 12:48 PM, Anthony wrote: Yeah, that's what I was quoting above. However, with drive-thrus (at least here in Florida), the public does not have any right of access whatsoever. Really? So you can’t actually use a drive-thru in Florida? That seems kind of silly. Why would anyone bother building one if no one is allowed to use it? There is a difference (here, in Florida, I won't speak for other locations) between having a right of access and having an implied permission of access. A right of access cannot be taken away except by the government. Permission to use a drive-through can be taken away by the property owner - the public does not have a right of access. Compare access=yes to access=permissive. The public has an official, legally-enshrined right of access, i.e. it's a right of way. vs. The owner gives general permission for access. Now, note that access=destination uses the term the public has a right of access [in certain circumstances], not the owner gives general permission for access [in certain circumstances]. Drive-thrus are an instance of the latter, not the former. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Ways that change names while crossing divided roadways
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: Just don't give a name to the small ways between the left and right streets. It's not part of either road on both sides anyway. Seems like the best way to go - easy for routers to simply ignore really short unnamed ways. The other alternatives aren't so bad either. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Roadside maps
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote: the other issue, of course, is when the map contains mistakes, which may be intentional on the part of the map maker. And then what about when the map mistakes become the commonly accepted name of the road, and then wind up going on the signs? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Parking for businesses..
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com wrote: Almost all of these types of parking lots will have some kind of notice that tow-away is enforced for unauthorized parking. So the general idea is you're free to park there, ONLY if you're visiting the businesses serviced by the lot. Sounds like access=private, unless and until there's a more specific tag. Access=public? No, the public has no right of access. Access=permissive? No, the owner does not give *general* permission to access. Access=destination? No, the public has no right of access. Something specific like access=customer would be better. Or maybe access=restricted; access:restriction=whatever is actually written on the sign. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Parking for businesses..
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: * Anthony o...@inbox.org [2010-05-18 20:47 -0400]: On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com wrote: Almost all of these types of parking lots will have some kind of notice that tow-away is enforced for unauthorized parking. So the general idea is you're free to park there, ONLY if you're visiting the businesses serviced by the lot. Access=destination? No, the public has no right of access. I thought the description of access=destination matched this scenario fairly well. You're saying that it only applies if the road is publicly owned? (i.e. a strict reading of right of access rather than you're allowed to be here if...) I do think access=destination should only be used where people have a right of access. But furthermore, you're allowed to be here if isn't the same as there aren't any signs saying you're not allowed to be here if. If there were a sign which said anyone may use this parking lot if this is their destination, maybe access=destination is appropriate. But I've never seen such a sign. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FW: Parking for businesses..
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:55 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 20 May 2010 06:28, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: One problem I have with the concept of access=destination, even beyond the fact that it says right of access, is that parking lots quite often aren't connected to the places they serve. Something like access=customer is therefore *more general*. The parking lot might be across the street from the destination. Is access=destination accurate then? I did make a comment about access=customer/access=destination the other day, in both cases you would nearly need a relation to link the car park to the shop that has claim to 1 or more parking spaces. As for your example above, the car park is the destination by car for going to certain shops, after that you need to walk, if you are walking or any other form of transport you most likely don't need to care about the car park. The car park is the destination by car for going anywhere, if what you are doing is parking there. Access=destination would be for a public parking lot with a sign that says no through traffic. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FW: FW: Parking for businesses..
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com wrote: I think in most circumstances it is probably pretty clear which business a parking lot is intended for though. Agreed, although the situations in which it's not so clear are the ones where OSM could really get an advantage over the competition. So many times I'm directed by Google Maps to a location quite a distance away from the parking lot I'm trying to get to. It's especially annoying when there are one-way streets or divided highways which cause significant routing differences between a route directly to the location and a route to the correct parking lot. I'll smile when my GPS tells me to drive to X, park, walk across the pedestrian bridge etc. Even moreso if it's done using OSM data. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FW: FW: Parking for businesses..
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:50 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 20 May 2010 22:46, Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com wrote: Lol, now just think if we micro-mapped each tree in the parking lot you could get your GPS to determine the spot that is likely to be in shade for a large part of the day, keeping your car nice and cool! :) Ok, too far perhaps. Some people do map individual trees complete with latin names for the plant. I saw some of the larger trees modeled in the winner of the Google 3D Model Your Town contest. I'd say something like that is realistic at the point where making a 3D model is as simple as taking a video and letting a computer figure everything out. Probably not too far, but a little bit ahead of its time. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=motorway and motorroad (implies)
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: It was said here that some motorways allow bicycle in US. But nowhere else. The US does not recognize motorway as a designation. So a motorway is whatever we define it to be. I'd say that by definition a motorway does not allow non-motor vehicles. Does it mean that for 3 highways which require a bicycle=yes in US, we have to add bicycle=no to thousands others worldwide ? There are lots of highways in the US which allow bicycles. There are even interstate highways in the US which allow bicycles. But I wouldn't call them motorways. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=motorway and motorroad (implies)
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.comwrote: IMO, if the law defines motorways to have certain features, these should be implied. How about the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic: [quote]Motorway means a road specially designed and built for motor traffic [plus other stuff]...[/quote] [quote] On motorways and, if so provided in domestic legislation, on special approach roads to and exit roads from motorways: (a) The use of the road shall be prohibited to pedestrians, animals, cycles, mopeds unless they are treated as motor cycles, and all vehicles other than motor vehicles and their trailers, and to motor vehicles or motor-vehicle trailers which are incapable, by virtue of their design, of attaining on a flat road a speed specified by domestic legislation [/quote] On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:23 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote: If there are any motorways in the USA that allow bicycles, they would be unusual, and probably be roads under local or state jurisdiction, not federal (national) jurisdiction. The Interstate highway system, usually cited as the US equivalent of motorways, does not allow bicycles, animal-drawn vehicles, or mopeds (all because of their low speeds), but does allow motorcycles, automobiles, trucks, buses, etc. That's incorrect. There are interstates in the US which allow bicycles. And I'm not sure what you mean about a road being under federal jurisdiction. The laws which apply to the vast majority of interstate highways (i.e. ones which are not within a federal enclave) are state laws. The police that patrol these highways are state police. See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm [quote]Each State establishes the operating rules that determine which vehicles are allowed on the Interstate highways under their jurisdiction. Most States do not allow bicyclists on the Interstate shoulders, but bicycle use is permitted in some States, particularly in the west where there is less traffic and where good alternative routes may not exist for bicycles.[/quote] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=motorway and motorroad (implies)
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: They should be tagged highway=motorway bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated. Based on that second pdf, wouldn't something like bicycle=shoulder_only be more accurate? In any case, I don't think it should be called a motorway if bicycles are allowed. I suppose if bicycles are restricted to the shoulder it's arguably still a motorway, but still, I think I'd rather see them tagged as highway=trunk. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=motorway and motorroad (implies)
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: Anthony wrote: I wouldn't suggest tagging a road with bicycle=yes if bicycles are only permitted in a bike lane either. How's a router supposed to know how to handle turns if it thinks the bikes are allowed to use the road? When you cycle, how do *you* handle a (left) turn? In Florida you have two options - move over to the left like any other driver, or stop on the right and cross the entire roadway. The router will tell you to turn left, and you'll choose how to do that. It seems to me that the latter isn't always available, at least not safely and legally. Granted, I don't know of any roads (in Florida or otherwise) where bicycles are permitted, but they are only permitted to use the shoulder, so I can't think of an example off the top of my head. But what if there's something like this: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8hq=ll=28.058596,-82.503741spn=0.00152,0.001778t=kz=19 If bicycles are only permitted to use the shoulder, that means they can't use the left turning lane, and instead have to go to the next traffic light and make a U-turn. If bicycles are allowed to use the roadway, then they can get in the left turning lane and make the turn directly. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
