Re: [Tagging] Removing name_1 and alt_name_1 from Wiki

replace ;; with ;) and then remove the whole tag if the list is empty? --colin On 2016-01-20 00:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > >> Am 19.01.2016 um 20:02 schrieb Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: >> >> Tags and values are for machine proc

Re: [Tagging] Priority over/for oncoming traffic

See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:priority for the answer. This won't work on a single node, as nodes have no concept of direction and can be shared with other ways. //colin On 2016-01-19 13:41, David Marchal wrote: > Hello, there! > > How should I model roads on which one traffic

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage amenity=public_building

How would you translate or apply these tags in e.g. the UK or the Netherlands (my home countries)? What is a "state government"? What is a "local government seat"? These things will mean different things to different people. Although this is phrased a bit rhetorically, I do think we should be

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage amenity=public_building

On 2016-01-16 00:12, Warin wrote: > On 16/01/2016 8:35 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > >> How would you translate or apply these tags in e.g. the UK or the >> Netherlands (my home countries)? What is a "state government"? What is a >> "local government seat&qu

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

I agree, John. The boundary between "public buildings" and others is becoming increasingly vague. Many "governmental" tasks are carried out by third parties nowadays, for example many prisons are operated by private companies on behalf of the state, same with a lot of healthcare provision (which

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

So if all the elevations in OSM should be interpreted as WGS84, but many (most?) of them are not, we have no way of knowing which are "right" and which are "wrong". Even if the numerical value of ele=* is correct, we have unreliable data. Where do we go from here? Maybe we should encourage an

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

On 2016-01-08 17:18, Greg Troxel wrote: > So we just have to fix things that are wrong, and transform heights in > other datums into WGS84 before entering them. This is exactly the same > situation that we encounter for horizonal datums, except that people are > even less aware of which vertical

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

Nobody will be using the raw data to fly a plane. It doesn't matter if we use the ele tag for the top or the bottom - as long as the height is given, the other value can easily be derived. What is important is consistency, both in its definition and it's usage. Defining it as sometimes the top

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

Indeed. On 7 January 2016 23:57:40 CET, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> >wrote: > >> Cliffs are never truly vertical. A bird's eye view from above will >show >> that. If they are

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

Cliffs are never truly vertical. A bird's eye view from above will show that. If they are steep enough they could be modelled as a line, but in general we should allow for a polygon, with a high side and a low side. On 7 January 2016 17:32:49 CET, Martin Koppenhoefer

Re: [Tagging] Specifying maxweight, when different weight limits are signed

The three types of vehicles shown on the sign in the original post are all HGVs. The differences are in the vehicle configuration - standalone, with a semitrailer and with a "proper" trailer. So it would need to be something like maxweight:hgv:notrailer=X, maxweight:hgv:semitrailer=Y,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Aquatics centre

John, I think you will find that many water/ice sports including the ones you mention have specific requirements regarding the pools/rinks. A pool for water polo/swimming/diving/ice hockey as a proper sport requires that a pool/rink be of a certain shape, size and depth and with certain markings,

Re: [Tagging] Specifying maxweight, when different weight limits are signed

Looking at the photo in the original post, it looks like the categories are a bit more specific than "hgv" - possibly articulated/semitrailers vs. drawbar trailers, possibly based on the number of axles. What is the proper/legal defintion of the vehicle categories that the symbols represent?

Re: [Tagging] Specifying maxweight, when different weight limits are signed

s the unit should be explicitly mentioned in the value (irrespective of which tag is used), e.g. "25 st". //colin [1] http://www.flhsmv.gov/fhp/cve/2013TruckingManual.pdf On 2015-12-31 14:51, Colin Smale wrote: > Looking at the photo in the original post, it looks like the categ

Re: [Tagging] No Entry Signs

I would insert a very short way segment with oneway=yes, cycleway=opposite. You often get this kind of construction at the end of the road - I think it's called a "plug". But this one is in the middle of the road, splitting it into two sections: one part for the residential stuff, and one part for

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

+1... There are often large, ornamental gardens associated with "stately homes" (huge residences for aristocracy in the past) which are full of colourful plants. This sounds very similar, possibly without the residence. //colin On 2015-11-30 08:23, Dudley Ibbett wrote: > Do you need a

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

that it's a lot of data (4MB when it could be 10kb or so). Any idea what happens when a lower-level relation (i.e. what I want in the result) is only partially within the search area? //colin On 2015-11-27 16:37, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Colin Smale <co

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

tware stack including PostGIS etc. Did I mention I refer to the history of the objects as well? //colin On 2015-11-27 11:05, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-11-27 10:54 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > >> Can you describe some *real problems* the use

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

Can you give the query for this? The relation for Kent is 172385, and I want to retrieve the relations for the 12 Districts it contains. On 2015-11-27 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-11-27 12:02 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > >> One concrete u

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

Re: Belgium: I thought at first that the Official Language could be a simple attribute (French, Flemish, French/Flemish bilingual, or German) of a municipality, but I read on Wikipedia that there are actually parliaments for the language communities, which do not exactly coincide with the three

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

tion. There is little consensus on good vs. bad, or right vs. wrong. It might just be "good enough" for various uses, and that's good enough for many people. //colin On 2015-11-27 10:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-11-26 20:24 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

I use the subarea member because it makes cross-checking easy. Have all the lower-level boundaries in my higher-level admin area been added to OSM? Unfortunately the various admin levels do not always form a strict hierarchy. A small area at (lets say) admin_level=10 might be enclosed

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalk Tagging for Routing

So has the "street" relation just been born? It could solve some other puzzles as well: dual carriageways, cycle tracks, bridges... On 2015-11-24 11:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-11-24 11:30 GMT+01:00 Gerd Petermann : > >> And this problem is not

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalk Tagging for Routing

and still be the same road. //colin On 2015-11-24 12:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-11-24 11:45 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > >> So has the "street" relation just been born? It could solve some other >> puzzles as well: dual carriag

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalk Tagging for Routing

On 2015-11-24 13:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-11-24 12:43 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > >> One issue with dual carriageways (and now I think about it, also railway >> lines) is about generalisations at certain zoom levels. If you zoom

Re: [Tagging] improve tagging of traffic_calming

+1 to that. On 2015-11-21 10:15, Dave Swarthout wrote: > On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Gerd Petermann > wrote: > >> Well, of course diversity in tagging is a problem. For each data consumer >> and >> for each new mapper who tries to find out how to map

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

I would assume that there are many, many more consumers than producers... --colin On 2015-11-11 17:27, Richard Welty wrote: > On 11/11/15 9:51 AM, David Earl wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 at 14:01 Richard Welty > > wrote: >> >>

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

The fact that tools don't currently support something is no reason to oppose its introduction either. If it were, we would never be able to change anything. On 2015-11-11 21:26, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:50:41 +0100 > Joachim wrote: > >> Many

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

Konieczny wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:54:45 +0100 > Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> Duck test: short link between two primaries is primary_link, so a >> short link between two residentials is residential_link. The fact >> that it is a very ra

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

Duck test: short link between two primaries is primary_link, so a short link between two residentials is residential_link. The fact that it is a very rare scenario does not detract from the fact that it is existable. Why resort to a different tagging pattern if it fits in the one we use for

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

ably loads of other keys which should be attacked and deprecated as well, and actual usage (however small) seems to trump any arguments about correctness of the underlying tagging model including "key fragmentation". //colin On 2015-11-10 14:05, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > Colin Smale wr

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

Surely the fact that it is difficult to get it 100% perfect should not stop us from moving at all? As with all "big" problems, a divide-and-conquer strategy often helps to make things achievable which at first glance seem insurmountable. As this functionality really should be built into each

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

On 2015-11-06 14:26, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I was looking at a what I surmise to be a ferry route earlier today and it > had a tag of route=fairway. Did the mapper not realize what he was doing or > are the diagnostic tools for determining errors in relations not that robust? Are you sure

Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

t; On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 05:35:53PM +0100, Colin Smale wrote: > >> Hi Gerd, >> >> Personally from a navigation point of view I expect roundabouts and >> mini-roundabouts to be treated the same, i.e. "take the first exit at > > They are currently not - Mo

Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

lues for the obstacle? > > Gerd > > > Von: Florian Lohoff <f...@zz.de> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. November 2015 11:03 > An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > Betreff: Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle &

Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

Hi Gerd, Personally from a navigation point of view I expect roundabouts and mini-roundabouts to be treated the same, i.e. "take the first exit at the roundabout" not simply "turn right". In the UK (where there are lot of mini-roundabouts) you are expected to drive "around" a painted

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

On 2015-10-30 12:52, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Colin Smale wrote: > >> Can you give some examples of the "tagfiddling" you refer to, >> that annoys you? How do we fix that? > > highway=path and the associated access tags are the canonical example. >

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

Richard, you are entirely forgiven. Thanks for your contributions. I had to look up "Golgafrincham B Ark" but unfortunately I can see your point... Have a good weekend Colin On 2015-10-30 14:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Colin Smale wrote: > >> Is the situatio

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

What's wrong with amenity? A weighbridge IS often an amenity, in the sense that people can make use of it as they require to help them stay within the law, for example. The man_made tag is a complete last resort - just about everything we map is man-made. Lets try and get a bit closer to

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

, not any particular (database) manifestation of it... //colin On 2015-10-29 21:56, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > On 29/10/2015 20:40, Colin Smale wrote: > >> How can that spatial lookup be made very cheaply? How long will it take >> to do a point-in-polygon for every road sign

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

and refactor "legacy" tagging (to name but a few of the many things that IMHO "need attention"). //colin On 2015-10-29 23:18, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > On 29/10/2015 21:52, Colin Smale wrote: > >> I don't have any examples to counter your statement. But I am a

Re: [Tagging] when should highway=centreline be used?

On 2015-10-28 13:58, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Wed Oct 28 10:51:34 2015 GMT, Colin Smale wrote: > >> In the UK a double white line does not mean no overtaking - it means >> don't cross the line (except in certain circumstances). Overtaking of >> one motorcyc

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

Only the rectangular blue sign means one way traffic... The round blue one tells you which way to drive at a junction which is subtly different. What is the round red one you have in mind? --colin On 28 October 2015 00:30:58 CET, Jo wrote: >Also keep in mind there are 2

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

Does the pipe have to be below the road? There could be another tunnel below the culvert as well. In any case the pipe and the road are (in real life, and by design) not connected and if they share a node it will doubtless lead to all kinds of QA complaints. --colin On 2015-10-25 10:38,

Re: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

On 2015-10-22 11:27, Andy Townsend wrote: > I'd agree with that. I can think of more than a few examples of "the > road/path used to go here, but now it doesn't", and even if the imagery gets > updated, underlying GPS traces won't. Has anyone thought of a way of limiting returned GPS

Re: [Tagging] manège - area for horse training

Seems to be a hot item in the equestrian world: https://www.google.com/search?q=menage+manege=menage+manege=chrome..69i57j69i60.6298j0j7=chrome_sm=0=UTF-8 Management summary is that manège is correct (it is the proper french word), menage really means something different (household or

Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

Hi Francois, On 2015-10-11 13:28, François Lacombe wrote: > Hi Colin > > Le 9 oct. 2015 7:26 PM, "Colin Smale" <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> a écrit : >> Are you just saying it is unlikely, or do you mean that it would no longer >> be called a pipeli

Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

; > The waterway=penstock should exist on the wiki to summarize all this > interesting discussion. > > All the best > François Lacombe > > fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com > www.infos-reseaux.com [1] > @InfosReseaux > > 2015-10-09 17:40 GMT+02:00 Colin

Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

I see a pipeline as analogous to a route, i.e. from one place to another, made up of many contiguous segments of varying types. Many of these segments may be (steel) pipes, but they may also be drilled through rock or whatever. A penstock is a particular function of certain pipelines, for

Re: [Tagging] Shop values review

Great idea John. But we are going to have to deal with "mixed" shops, which fall into multiple categories at once. Our reluctance to find a proper solution for multi-valued attributes has already caused zillions of brain-hours to be expended on heated, protracted discussions with no sign of

Re: [Tagging] new access value

cle of law with the full definition. //colin On 2015-10-06 09:04, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> And the Dutch/Flemish "plaatselijk verkeer" is better translated as "local >> traf

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Instead of trying to translate the words on the signs, why look at what the relevant laws say. There is only room on the sign for one or two words, but in the laws which define the signing there will/may be more detailed definitions of what is meant; these definitions will of course be

Re: [Tagging] new access value

of the values and any deviation must be explicity tagged. //colin On 2015-10-06 09:57, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > On 06.10.2015 08:47, Colin Smale wrote: > >> Instead of trying to translate the words on the signs, why look at what the >> relevant laws say. There is only ro

Re: [Tagging] Semi-detached houses: undocumented iD preset

Can we assume the houses at the ends of terraces are to be tagged as semi detached? This needs a bit more thinking through... On 17 September 2015 16:48:48 CEST, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > >sent from a phone > >> Am 17.09.2015 um 16:29 schrieb Ruben Maes

Re: [Tagging] Handle with care

ut this provenance information in the database, the accuracy is unknown to other mappers, and may in fact be worse (for example an armchair mapper digitising from small scale map). --colin On 2015-09-11 20:02, Greg Troxel wrote: > Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> writes: > >>

Re: [Tagging] Handle with care

And let's not forget that what is correct to one person, may be inaccurate according to another. 50.N may be exactly accurate according to a particular frame of reference at a certain point in time, but if a surveyor with sub-centimeter accuracy equipment says it's 50.0001 then he is also

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

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

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > > Am 08.09.2015 um 09:09 schrieb Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > >> This is overloading the maxwidth tag - sometimes it means legal, sometimes >> it means physical. > > maxwidth is

Re: [Tagging] works_as_highway=primary

A better router might weight physical attributes such as lanes, surface and effective speed more prominently than heuristics based on logical stuff like administrative classifications and legal maximum speeds. Artificially manipulating the tagging to influence the results of routing algorithms

Re: [Tagging] waterway=stream oneway=1

What happens if the direction of the traffic is different to the direction of flow? Thinking of bridges with central supports. On 2015-07-04 22:20, Volker Schmidt wrote: Hi, without looking up anything on the wiki, I would spontaneously say that oneway on a waterway indicates the

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (US:DMV)

Also in the U.K. as Northern Ireland had its own system. On 9 June 2015 23:13:55 CEST, John Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: In the USA, how it is handled varies from state to state, so there is at least one country where it isn't uniformly handled on a national level. -- John F. Eldredge

Re: [Tagging] Changes + additions: shop= photo, hobby, model

Try to understand that there is a serious point being made here. Multi-valued keys always cause arguments on these lists. Unfortunately the forces of nature have decided that some shops fit in multiple categories at the same time, and some roads have multiple ref's and there are plenty of

Re: [Tagging] Data metamodels

On 2015-06-06 15:55, Daniel Koć wrote: W dniu 06.06.2015 11:29, Colin Smale napisał(a): Time to work towards an updated metamodel, with: * Multiple values (lists of values - sorting out the semicolon business?) Sure! * Complex values (data structures - formalising the namespace

Re: [Tagging] Changes + additions: shop= photo, hobby, model

And how to distinguish a range like 63-67 from a flat number written as 63-67? I.e. flat 67, in a building/complex whose address is 63. Regarding the question whether the range is continuous, or only odd numbers (in this case), I have seen this solved by using a short interpolation way within

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-GB] Data Model for Address

housenumber, supplement, street, place model. Jerry On 29 May 2015 at 15:26, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: If anyone is interested in the data model used by Royal Mail in UK addresses, this will tell you loads: http://www.poweredbypaf.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Latest

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

That's a circular definition. What is the actual difference between the two types of address, in your model? On 2015-05-29 02:27, pmailkeey . wrote: On 28 May 2015 at 08:24, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: Mike, what's a node address and what's an area address (without

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

. wrote: On 28 May 2015 at 07:32, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: In the UK we have postal addresses which are for Royal Mail's convenience, not yours. Often your (correct) postal address suggests you are in a different town, and sometimes even a different country. What would you

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

On 2015-05-29 11:58, pmailkeey . wrote: On 29 May 2015 at 07:34, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: Only Royal Mail think Chepstow is in Gloucestershire, England. Normal people think it is in Monmouthshire, Wales. This is the correct postal address: 1 Bigstone Meadow Tutshill

[Tagging] Data Model for Address

If anyone is interested in the data model used by Royal Mail in UK addresses, this will tell you loads: http://www.poweredbypaf.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Latest-Programmers_guide_Edition-7-Version-6.pdf [1] Warning: you may find yourself uttering things in rather unparliamentary

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

not even in Wales. On 27 May 2015 at 08:07, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: Martin et al., It might help to have some kind of paradigm here as I think our frames of reference may be divergent. If we don't have consensus about the question we will never agree about the answer except

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

Mike, what's a node address and what's an area address (without resorting to circular definitions)? I have never seen a flag for this in any of the many address databases I have worked with. On 2015-05-28 02:04, pmailkeey . wrote: On 28 May 2015 at 00:39, Eugene Alvin Villar

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

to get Eircode[3] which looks incredibly complex for what it is. //colin [1] http://what3words.com/ [2] http://www.myloc8ion.com/ [2] [3] http://www.eircode.ie/ On 2015-05-28 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 28.05.2015 um 09:24 schrieb Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: Mike, what's

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

On 2015-05-28 12:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-05-28 12:12 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: If you have a block of flats with 2000 people apparently living at the same address, I can't imagine that a single, shared letter box will be enough. Each apartment will have

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

On 2015-05-28 11:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-05-28 10:49 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: Addresses are just labels, with (in the general case) an N:M relation with areas. Addresses are not used to identify buildings, as that would imply that all buildings (even

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

A block of flats will also have many addresses. Each individual apartment will have its own. If there is a garage down the street which is part of the property of the flat, you could say that the garage is also part of the address. Things can get very messy... Depending on the definition you

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

Don't know if this can happen in the Australian model, but there may be multiple visitor entrances which are true alternatives (i.e. not one main plus one side entrance). I would hope the routing would pick the most appropriate entrance, given an ultimate destination in the middle somewhere and

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

Martin et al., It might help to have some kind of paradigm here as I think our frames of reference may be divergent. If we don't have consensus about the question we will never agree about the answer except by coincidence, and that would be the worst situation of all. What are the use cases

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

Mike, you are missing the point... A building and an address are two different things. A building may have 0 to N addresses. An address may or may not refer to a building. The business rules to link the two concepts vary by country. An address is not usually a unique identifier of a building -

Re: [Tagging] Wiki: Key:level: proposed rewrite

The ele tag specifically refers to the height above sea level. What we would want here is a height above ambient ground level. Overloading ele in this way would lead to untold confusion and be a recipe for disaster. //colin On 2015-05-25 15:29, pmailkeey . wrote: On 25 May 2015 at 14:08,

Re: [Tagging] Airport power and USB stations

There are two types of big sides (as far as charging is concerned): USB 1/2/3 which we all know, and then there's USB type C - new, reversible - not compatible cable-wise. Also the max. charging current might be useful to know. At 500mA it takes a lng time to charge a tablet - so

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

In general, there is a many-to-many relationship between buildings and addresses. Within one building, amenities/enterprises may each have their own address. An address may also refer to multiple buildings. //colin On 2015-05-21 11:30, André Pirard wrote: On 2015-05-20 19:26, Andreas

Re: [Tagging] Maxspeed

ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: Don't agree with this... there have been discussions in the past about whether the width of a way includes the pavements etc... Where a road goes under a bridge, where do you measure

Re: [Tagging] Maxspeed

). But this distinction is extremely important for emergency vehicles which can ignore environmental limits but not physical ones. //colin On 2015-05-13 10:47, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-05-13 10:31 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: maxheight and maxwidth are indeed not advisory

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

On 2015-04-15 07:40, Dave Swarthout wrote: Rethinking it again, no router will send you the wrong way on a oneway street. It would be a pretty poor routing program that would do that. ...except for emergency vehicles possibly? They can ignore legal restrictions (like oneway) but not

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

Before the old customs shed in Dover Harbour (UK) there was one that was referred to as a Cat's Claw but it looks like that might be a trade mark. http://www.britishbodyguard.co.uk/CatsClawProducts.html They have rebuilt that whole area recently and it looks like the cat's claw has gone

Re: [Tagging] Straw pole Temperature=objective default unit?

a). I have not come across a precedent for region-dependent default units. The wiki pages for Units and maxspeed seem to be quite clear that the default unit is km/h. If they are to be region-dependent we will also need a default default, if you are outside of any region with a defined

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable right of access supported by law. On 2015-04-03 09:56, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote Aren't all camp sites access=private ? You always need the permission

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

From an IT perspective we should be keeping form and function separate. There are two facts here: 1) the altitude of that point is 14505 ft - it is what it is, whatever units you use. Saying the altitude is 4421.124m is also correct. The value needs a number and a unit, in an agreed format.

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps

On 2015-03-05 12:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-03-05 12:29 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: In case of more complicated steps, you can add a new tag, step_count:left=* and step_count:right=*, and put those ways on the dividing line, where you have a different number of

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

Bus bays like this? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/287489422 On 2015-02-27 18:38, Jo wrote: I can't help but keep hoping that a way to tag bus bays emerges as a side product of this discussion. At the moment I'm resorting to drawing the platform way, the cycleway or the landuse

Re: [Tagging] Canopy radius for natural=tree

No adjectives here... Crown diameter is a compound noun composed of two nouns. More likely a germanic language where the juxtaposition implies a genitive - diameter crown -- diameter of the crown. Could certainly be Dutch or German - it's a very common construct. On 2015-02-23 23:22, John

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

As lots of people frequently point out, what about emergency vehicles? They can (often) ignore legal restrictions, but not physical ones: if(i_am_an_emergency_vehicle) maxfoo = min(maxfoo:physical, maxfoo:legal) else maxfoo = maxfoo:physical; On 2015-02-17 19:57, moltonel 3x Combo

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

In the UK frequent use is made of legal weight and width limits, often to keep heavy traffic out of residential areas or away from country lanes. In this case the road sign usually has a qualifier except for access. An emergency vehicle can ignore these legal limits of course, but they would be

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Surely there is never a law against breaking down. When your car dies, it dies. If the intention is to persuade people to try to get their dying vehicle as far as possible to the right (left in the UK), well, we don't need to tag for that because it is standard. If the intention is to go

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

for that distinction? On 2015-02-03 11:54, Richard Welty wrote: On 2/3/15 4:36 AM, Colin Smale wrote: Then they are access=no (with foot=yes or whatever as appropriate) or barrier=boulder. The way is blocked both for emergency services and mere mortals. No need for access=emergency. then how do you

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

car is dying?)? On 2015-02-03 12:03, Martin Vonwald wrote: Hi! 2015-02-03 11:54 GMT+01:00 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net: On 2/3/15 4:36 AM, Colin Smale wrote: Then they are access=no (with foot=yes or whatever as appropriate) or barrier=boulder. The way is blocked both

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

-02-03 12:18 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: That's an easy one: shoulder=yes. Can you please explain to me, how this answers the question WHERE the shoulder is? It does NOT have to be the leftmost or rightmost lane. ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

...@ursamundi.org: Unless I'm way off, maybe a gore point? Transition into a traditional toll plaza? On Feb 3, 2015 5:30 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: A shoulder lane in the middle of the carriageway? Maybe you can illustrate your scenario. Under normal circumstances

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

of telling (from current tagging) whether a 10-ton fire truck will cause the bridge to collapse, or if the restriction is there for political reasons to keep heavy trucks out of residential areas or country lanes. On 2015-02-03 13:23, Richard Welty wrote: On 2/3/15 6:14 AM, Colin Smale wrote

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

On 2015-02-03 10:20, Paul Johnson wrote: On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: Surely there is never a law against breaking down. And yet, in Oklahoma and Germany, it's considered preventable and, as such, prohibited on roads with minimum posted limits. The irony

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >