Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

0:08:01 schrieb Colin Smale: I don't understand why emergency vehicles are so important in this discussion. In the first place they have wide-ranging exemptions from traffic rules, which (let's be honest) we are never going to tag in OSM. Secondly they are never going to be relying on OSM d

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

I don't understand why emergency vehicles are so important in this discussion. In the first place they have wide-ranging exemptions from traffic rules, which (let's be honest) we are never going to tag in OSM. Secondly they are never going to be relying on OSM data (or indeed any normal sat-nav

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

I would choose option b). Even if all four lanes are one piece of carriageway, it is useful for routing directions etc to be able to make a distinction between the left and right parts of the road. Normal mortals are supposed to treat the solid white lines as if they were a brick wall anyway,

Re: [Tagging] destination_ref vs. dest_ref vs. destination:ref

I saw the choice between dest_ref and destination_ref and adopted dest_ref for the simple reason that it's shorter. In my mkgmap styles I allow for either, and recently added destination:ref to that list. I'm not particularly bothered which one wins, but I'm always in favour of a bit of standa

Re: [Tagging] Naming boundary ways - the — separation character

On 10/10/2012 21:53, Alexander wrote: Hi, I think the separation sign should be chosen by the render. +1 Why not adding new tags like: name:left=Mexico name:right=USA -1 This looks to me like blatant "tagging for the renderer", i.e. manipulating the tagging to produce an optically pleasi

Re: [Tagging] name of river/admin area

On 04/09/2012 15:30, Phil! Gold wrote: I fully agree that there's no way to set a global standard; it should be left to the locals, who know the features best. But how local is local? It's obvious that a single standard for the whole world is not going to happen, but there has to be some level

[Tagging] name of river/admin area

I can't find any guidance or consistency in the data, so I thought I'd let up a balloon here... Should the name=* for a river include the word "River"? Is it "name=Thames" or "name=River Thames"? According to the wiki [1] we should only use "Thames" in this case. If we consider "River Thames

Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider

I live in hope that, one day, we might have documented defaults or implied values per territory. Until that time, we may have to map both the tangible artefact (solid line) and the implications for routing (no u-turns etc.) separately. They are distinct concepts, related by the rules of the ter

Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider

Isn't that what turn restrictions are for? Colin On 20/08/2012 13:10, Markus Lindholm wrote: On 20 August 2012 12:57, Markus Lindholm wrote: On 20 August 2012 09:39, Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote: On 2012-08-19 at 14:09:18 +0200, Markus Lindholm wrote: In my opinion it's best to treat legal

Re: [Tagging] traffic=fast

As every track segment has a maximum speed, why not just apply the existing maxspeed=* tag to the tracks? It is not clear to me whether your intention with traffic=fast refers to some attribute of the track itself, or the use to which it is put. Is it some "official" designation (from Network R

Re: [Tagging] Advice & clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

While we're at it, what's traffic=fast on a rail line? What other values could there be? Weren't we using service=* for this kind of thing? Colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover

On 03/08/2012 13:36, Martin Vonwald wrote: To cut a long story short: landcover=herbs would also be fine, IF we would expect that those tag will be often used and the difference to landcover=grass is substantial enough. As I doubt that I would recommend landcover=grass and grass=herbs. Grass is

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

On 03/07/2012 13:29, Janko Mihelić wrote: I think "no_left_turn" is the best solution. The line on the middle of the street is not a u-turn indicator, it is an overtake indicator which can be tagged with overtaking=no and overtaking=both. Are you sure that the dotted overtake line allows you t

Re: [Tagging] Ref tag

upon Hull) to Esbjerg". A well thought out route? Phil -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 19/06/2012 11:46 Colin Smale wrote: Strictly speaking the international E-numbers are routes, not roads. The European Route Network is overlaid on top of the national networks and doesn't bother abou

Re: [Tagging] Ref tag

Strictly speaking the international E-numbers are routes, not roads. The European Route Network is overlaid on top of the national networks and doesn't bother about international boundaries. In Belgium however it is very common to use the E-route numbers on signs instead of any local A-number w

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate

Hi Eckhart, On 15/06/2012 01:08, Eckhart Wörner wrote: Hi Colin, Am Freitag, 15. Juni 2012, 00:24:18 schrieb Colin Smale: "If I were king" I would be looking for a system that: * makes common cases easy Extended conditions: ☑ * makes complex cases possible Extended conditions: ☑

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate

Martin, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it had better be a duck... What I mean with this, is if the grammar is so English-like such that people are tempted to use constructions which are not (or not quite) supported by the grammar, or if the way it works is contrary to how

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate

On 14/06/2012 13:00, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 14.06.2012 08:38, Colin Smale wrote: My concern with this is that it may become unwieldy and cumbersome with anything beyond fairly trivial cases such as your maxspeed example. For me, the goal is to make the common cases *easy*, and the rare complex

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate

On 14/06/2012 12:53, Flaimo wrote: this notation has the same flaw as the current access scheme. it mixes transportation modes and user roles. "motor_vehicle" is a transportation mode. "agricultural" is a user role. not everywhere on this planet "agricultural" automatically means "motor_vehicle

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate

On 14/06/2012 11:19, Pieren wrote: On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Colin Smale wrote: Back to my idea to move all 'variables' to the value : Let say we create a new access keyword : "condition" (or "access_condition", "cond", "expr" or "w

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate

Tobias, thanks for your constructive response. On 14/06/2012 03:22, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 13.06.2012 23:48, Colin Smale wrote: Taking the access discussion to a higher level of abstraction, and without abandoning the key-value pair paradigm, I believe we are looking for a way of giving a tag

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate

a bit contrived, but it serves to illustrate the way this technique could be used in other ways. I will leave the XML representation as an exercise for the reader... Colin On 13/06/2012 21:16, Martin Vonwald wrote: Am 13.06.2012 um 20:47 schrieb Colin Smale : my sarcasm detection seems t

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate

On 13/06/2012 18:23, Eckhart Wörner wrote: Hi Colin, Am Mittwoch, 13. Juni 2012, 18:11:53 schrieb Colin Smale: For some reason everyone seems determined to come up with the most complex system imaginable, instead of taking successful ideas from the rest of the world. This trait is what causes

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate

For some reason everyone seems determined to come up with the most complex system imaginable, instead of taking successful ideas from the rest of the world. This trait is what causes many projects to fail. Let's not look at this as simply a discussion about "access tags", but an opportunity to

Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts

On 06/06/2012 09:13, Martin Vonwald wrote: If you want to specify the dimension of the mini-roundabout I think it would be sufficient to specify the width of the approaching roads. Martin How about diameter=15 on the mini-roundabout node? This is factually correct, verifiable on the ground and

Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?

On 01/06/2012 14:19, Jason Cunningham wrote: On 1 June 2012 08:09, Martin Vonwald > wrote: But we have to make sure, that this values are only applied if real indications (e.g. signposts) are present and not e.g. if one just thinks that some vehicle can n

Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?

When a UK sign says "unsuitable for motor vehicles" or "unsuitable for HGVs" it means "discouraged" in your terms. There is no guarantee that you *will* get into problems, but it is just a strong warning. A road that becomes a muddy track might present a problem for a normal car, but a trial bi

[Tagging] Golf courses: clubhouse and course entrance?

I'd like to get some input about tagging golf courses as navigation targets. I found a detailed page describing the tagging for the actual sporting areas (tees, greens etc) but no clear pointers about how to tag things to get you to the course in the first place. The club house building is oft

Re: [Tagging] Another reset on roundabouts

On 18/05/2012 17:31, Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: Am 18.05.2012 um 16:32 schrieb Tobias Johansson: Are we talking about this?http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Uvl-p3eVBeM/Tr8xUuhRYbI/Iho/NJZGrhCH6yk/s400/53242_1431458077448_1562786087_30891073_4275686_o.jpg If would think this is a Magic Ro

Re: [Tagging] (Mini)Roundabout: examples

It would be nice if these "rond-points" would be explicitly tagged (e.g. junction=rond_point???) so mkgmap can still easily be taught to recognise it and treat it as a roundabout even if it doesn't comply with the OSM semantics for one. Otherwise your satnav will tell you to turn right at the j

Re: [Tagging] (Mini)Roundabout: examples

On 15/05/2012 16:30, Anthony wrote: Okay, so, for OSM terminology, a roundabout means 1) traffic goes in one direction; 2) entering traffic must yield; and 3) entering traffic need not stop (no stop signs). I hope not...OSM currently has no way of reflecting priority at junctions. Introducing t

Re: [Tagging] addr

In general, the world considers a city to be a "very large town". In the UK (and possibly other places) the concept of "city" has specific connotations, namely the granting of Letters Patent by the Crown (a cathedral is not a prerequisite, nor is it a guarantee of city status!) A similar syste

Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

Wouldn't this discussion benefit from a summary of the use cases we are trying to address? I see multiple semantics being suggested for the lanes tag, and at the end of the day we will have to choose one. * Renderers such as mapnik might want to reflect the number of lanes in the width of the

Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

There are three cases in NL, all referred to as "spitsstrook" (literally, rush-hour lane): 1) the hard shoulder is sometimes opened to traffic, creating an extra lane on the right 2) the left-most lane is sometimes open (if traffic is heavier), and sometimes closed (if the extra capacity is no

Re: [Tagging] Weigh stations

In Europe at any rate there are proper weighbridges which drivers/operators can use to check for compliancy with weight limits or for the registration of the transport of certain bulk materials (such as coal, oil etc - the truck is weighed before and after (un)loading). There are also invisible

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer

On 13/04/2012 08:20, Peter Wendorff wrote: -10 for adding defaults as a hint for mappers!!! What would you do with this page? Enhance/complete it, or delete it? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions Just noticed that links to a proposal for defaults - ht

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer

cality. Given that data consumers have a need for good data quality, one way of achieving that is by full explicit tagging. I just don't see that happening. A more heuristic approach involving documenting assumptions/defaults would allow the data's usability dramatically to be improve

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer

Yes please! I was also thinking on the lines of documenting implicit tagging: *to save mappers time *to save space in the database *to avoid confusion *to allow a single point of maintenance At a generic "territory" level with some kind of hierarchy please, so for example cities

Re: [Tagging] Preventing traffic signs - Invitation to discussion

Putting lots of traffic signs on nodes on the way would result in a lot of new nodes on the ways, which will need optimising out by routers/mkgmap etc. The sign is not really an attribute of the road. Putting a tag on the road segment to which the warning applies would seem to me a more logic

Re: [Tagging] A leisure tag for bathe

There seem to be several dimensions to this. "Bathing" can mean different things to different people, with different English words/usage. I can give a few examples. Firstly, the activity itself: *to get clean (with soap etc) *to exercise or as a sport (swimming pool with lanes) *as

Re: [Tagging] Multi-value tagging and Lane Groups

On 08/02/2012 22:00, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 2/8/2012 3:47 PM, Colin Smale wrote: For building floors, are there any cultures which number their floors downwards? The Troglodytes. :-D There is of course the common leaving off of the 13th floor. Mentioned that a couple of posts ago

Re: [Tagging] Multi-value tagging and Lane Groups

On 08/02/2012 21:03, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 2/8/2012 2:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: The lane-case is a little different though, because if you have multiple values there (plus a definition from where to start) you won't need lane numbering. For buildings you will have unambigous numbers

Re: [Tagging] Multi-value tagging and Lane Groups

On 08/02/2012 20:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2012/2/8 Colin Smale: On 08/02/2012 16:00, Martin Vonwald wrote: question of syntax rather than concept. What triggered my post was actually a comment by Martin K who also felt a need for multi-value tags (i.e. arrays) in the context of the floors

Re: [Tagging] Multi-value tagging and Lane Groups

On 08/02/2012 17:52, Martin Vonwald wrote: I suggest putting the "lanes" qualifier in front, allowing arbitrary tag hierarchies to follow at a fixed location. This was suggested, but dropped for better readability: see "Default values; minimise ambiguity" on the Discussion page. Yes, I see that

Re: [Tagging] Multi-value tagging and Lane Groups

On 08/02/2012 16:00, Martin Vonwald wrote: What you describe is proposed here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension Martin Martin, I had looked at your proposal, and I can see some similarities and some differences. Both of us would like to have a gener

Re: [Tagging] Multi-value tagging and Lane Groups

On 08/02/2012 13:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 6. building:levelPlan=* What each storey is used for, Examples: 0-2: shop, 3-12: residential; 0: restaurant, 1: residential; -1: unused, 0: lobby, 1: restuarant, 2-12: offices, 13: unused, 14-66: offices -> missleading key (one would expect a link

Re: [Tagging] access=no (was Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking))

On 17/01/2012 14:20, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Colin Smale wrote: On 17/01/2012 03:31, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM, John Sturdywrote: I understand "access=no" as meaning no *public* access, but perhaps that is better covered by "

Re: [Tagging] access=no (was Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking))

On 17/01/2012 03:31, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM, John Sturdy wrote: I understand "access=no" as meaning no *public* access, but perhaps that is better covered by "access=private". access=private doesn't make much sense on land that is publicly owned. Right of access is dif

Re: [Tagging] RFC: highway=tidal_road

On 22/11/2011 21:33, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 11/22/2011 09:17 PM, Colin Smale wrote: Surely the road in this case simply has tide-related opening times (and a variable surface?). It may be secondary, tertiary, unclassified or whatever. The fact that it is sometimes closed by the tide

Re: [Tagging] RFC: highway=tidal_road

On 22/11/2011 20:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: This is the proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tidal_road Surely the road in this case simply has tide-related opening times (and a variable surface?). It may be secondary, tertiary, unclassified or whatever. The fact t

Re: [Tagging] barrier=?

On 20/10/2011 19:34, David Earl wrote: While we're at it, you also sometimes find barriers on car park exits which have fierce, curved, spring-loaded spikes which are pushed into the ground if you drive over them in the intended direction, but which would rip your tyres to shreds if you attempt

Re: [Tagging] railways, subway stations and train stations

On 22/09/2011 13:50, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 09/22/11 13:43, Greg Troxel wrote: More seriously, in Boston we sometimes use the word "subway" to refer to several MBTA lines, and non-train-nerds don't really distinguish between the Green Line (which is probably "light rail") and the others.

Re: [Tagging] Tag:bicycle accident=true

On 22/08/2011 18:50, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/8/17 Colin Smale: On 17/08/2011 12:19, Sander Deryckere wrote: It has a bad discription, it's a tag for a temporary feature (at least how I interpret it) and it didn't go via the voting process. So I would just delete it and

Re: [Tagging] Tag:bicycle accident=true

On 17/08/2011 12:19, Sander Deryckere wrote: It has a bad discription, it's a tag for a temporary feature (at least how I interpret it) and it didn't go via the voting process. So I would just delete it and point the writer to the voting process. Since when is the voting process mandatory?

Re: [Tagging] suitable tag for garden and forest machinery shop

On 22/06/2011 09:00, Stephen Hope wrote: On 22 June 2011 16:14, Colin Smale wrote: That's for the renderer to sort out... We just need to make sure that the data makes/enables the distinctions that we do as humans. The renderer can always map multiple tags onto the same icon if it wants

Re: [Tagging] suitable tag for garden and forest machinery shop

On 22/06/2011 03:18, Steve Bennett wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Mihkel Rämmel wrote: If i'm not wrong then there seems to be no tag for shop that is specialised in selling (and repairing) garden and forest machinery (lawnmovers, chainsaws, trimming machines, etc.) and lightweight gar

Re: [Tagging] Landuse govt official civil

On 20/05/2011 11:05, pavithran wrote: How do we tag a land which belongs to the government . tags like landuse = official landuse = civil landuse = government sound nice . There was a proposed feature which got abandoned . http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Civil What you

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tunnel ADR Category

On 17/05/2011 20:51, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: I propose hazmat:adr_tunnel_category= Teddy Now that one I can definitely live with. It gets grouped with the other hazmat values, and contains the (for me) key elements of "adr", "tunnel" and "category". I wish I had thought of it myself!

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tunnel ADR Category

On 15/05/2011 23:50, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/15/2011 5:35 PM, Colin Smale wrote: On 15/05/2011 23:25, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/15/2011 4:49 PM, Colin Smale wrote: Following a brief exchange on the list a couple of weeks ago I have now put this into a formal proposal. The proposal

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tunnel ADR Category

On 15/05/2011 23:25, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/15/2011 4:49 PM, Colin Smale wrote: Following a brief exchange on the list a couple of weeks ago I have now put this into a formal proposal. The proposal is to introduce a new tag "tunnel:adr_category" to contain the ADR (hazardous ma

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tunnel ADR Category

Following a brief exchange on the list a couple of weeks ago I have now put this into a formal proposal. The proposal is to introduce a new tag "tunnel:adr_category" to contain the ADR (hazardous materials by road) category of a tunnel. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tun

Re: [Tagging] Tags for neighborhoods / subdivisions

On 11/05/2011 20:28, Josh Doe wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I agree that they're important to map. But they're not administrative units, and shouldn't be mapped as such. How do you suggest doing this without breaking the way people expect a service like Nomina

Re: [Tagging] Tags for neighborhoods / subdivisions

On 11/05/2011 05:27, Josh Doe wrote: It's been about a month now, and I've gotten some feedback from the talk page. My thoughts are that we either: * reuse the existing place=suburb (as the wiki definition seems like it might work) * use the new place=neighbourhood Either way I think we need to

[Tagging] ADR Tunnel Categories

ADR (see [1]) is a set of rules governing transport of hazardous materials by road, produced by UNECE (see [2]). It is responsible for those yellow/orange diamond-shaped signs on trucks with a UN substance number and particular hazard warnings. It also covers classifications of tunnels in major

Re: [Tagging] Any support for a flow tag?

On 01/04/2011 17:47, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: One example of a waterway with reversing flow would be the estuary of a river. While the tide is rising, the flow in the estuary may slow, come to a standstill, or even temporarily reverse directions (called a tidal bore). Surely most estuaries r

Re: [Tagging] landuse:illegal and illegal:yes/no

If the boundary between legal and illegal was so clear, the world wouldn't have so many lawyers! I would prefer to see an objective value, such as operator="Insert your local council here". If there is no operator given you can draw your own conclusions. Colin On 08/03/2011 12:00, grin wrot

Re: [Tagging] Counterflow Lanes

On 21/02/2011 02:51, Paul Johnson wrote: This whole question suggests that we're somehow responsible for data consumers paying more attention to their navigation than what's out their windshield, which is an entirely specious argument for obvious reasons. OSM officially only does the data, not th

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-dev] capitals; normalizing true, yes and 1

I'm not sure that it would be wise to imply that a capital of an area is also the capital of lower-level areas. There are plenty of examples where this is NOT the case; Amsterdam is the capital of The Netherlands (but NOT the seat of government), but Haarlem is the capital of the province which

Re: [Tagging] Ultimate list of approved keys

On 02/01/2011 19:24, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: On 01/02/2011 05:42 PM, Robert Elsenaar wrote: This was a expected answer. I frequently try to discover the reason OSM mappers accepting this anarchistic rule of NOT having tagging rules at all. What are the advantages for this? I prefer this over be

Re: [Tagging] Why addr:state rather than is_in:state? (response to 2010-12-26 05:29:46)

Surely is_in is purely geographic/geometric and can only strictly apply to nodes? A way can straddle a border, therefore a route relation can also. Ways and route relations can have "name" and "ref" tags, which are issued by a certain authority, i.e.are within a certain namespace. So if a way o

Re: [Tagging] Deprecated features - highway=disused

As the concept of "disused" could apply to millions of different things, I would prefer to see a more generic system which could be applied uniformly. I would like to see the "life_cycle" tag resurrected (proposed in 2008) something like this: life_cycle=planned (only exists on paper) l

Re: [Tagging] New tag?

This sounds like it might be similar to the "minicab" in the UK. They are licensed differently from taxis and are only permitted to operate on a "pre-booked" basis, i.e. you can't just stop one on the street but you have to phone or go to the office to make a "reservation". They are not allowed

Re: [Tagging] Busways

On 14/11/2010 22:39, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:09 PM, esperanza wrote: Is it right to use busway or should we use another tag ? (like psv ?) psv includes taxis; use access=no bus=yes unless taxis are allowed. The definition of psv will vary by territory. The "legal" ter

Re: [Tagging] Tagging average speed [Was: Re: Residential roads]

From the "better late than never" department: I just discovered a description of how Inrix work with speeds to assist with predicted journey times. Inrix are a leading supplier of this kind of information to organisations such as ITIS (in the UK) and TomTom, so I think they have probably tho

Re: [Tagging] Layer=* tags disappearing

On 12/10/2010 17:51, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Pieren wrote: "layer" is just saying what is on the top when two objects/lines are crossing each other. If you have only one element, the layer tag is really optionnal (this until someone is tracing what is below).

Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover

Could this not be collapsed into with "surface=*"? If not, what would be the relationship/difference between "surface" and "landcover"? On 07/10/2010 19:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I know we already talked about this, but actually no actions followed ;-) What is the current feeling for a n

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Overtaking Restrictions

On 07/10/2010 01:03, Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote: On 2010-10-06 at 21:20:08 +0200, Colin Smale wrote: Some places but not all...At least in NL you are not allowed to turn left or make a U-turn across a solid centre line, nor are you allowed to cross the line to overtake anything at

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Overtaking Restrictions

On 06/10/2010 21:05, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Colin Smale wrote: This came into the limelight in NL following a discussion about single-carriageway (main) roads with a double white line (i.e. "do not cross", effectively "no overtaking") and

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Overtaking Restrictions

On 06/10/2010 00:12, John Smith wrote: Someone just added this, it's a good idea on principal, but is this the best way to tag it? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highway&oldid=534629&diff=next The page for the overtaking tag appears to have been in existe

Re: [Tagging] Tagging average speed [Was: Re: Residential roads]

On 04/10/2010 22:30, John F. Eldredge wrote: On 10/04/2010 05:51 AM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote: On 2010-10-04 at 10:57:19 +0100, Woll Newall wrote: I wouldn't use 'average speed' for the tag, because it implies something else, but that's what the OP chose for this thread. 'traffic speed' or

Re: [Tagging] Doorgetrokken middenstreep

Oops, sorry, wrong list! On 04/10/2010 00:41, Colin Smale wrote: Sinds kort bestaat de N201 tussen Vinkeveen en de A2 nu (in OSM) uit twee wegen met oneway=yes, alsof het gescheiden weghelften zouden zijn. Ik heb altijd begrepen dat alleen fysieke afscheidingen tellen (zie [1]), en die zijn

[Tagging] Doorgetrokken middenstreep

Sinds kort bestaat de N201 tussen Vinkeveen en de A2 nu (in OSM) uit twee wegen met oneway=yes, alsof het gescheiden weghelften zouden zijn. Ik heb altijd begrepen dat alleen fysieke afscheidingen tellen (zie [1]), en die zijn er daar niet, alleen een doorgetrokken streep. Maar ik had me al ve

Re: [Tagging] Tagging average speed [Was: Re: Residential roads]

On 03/10/2010 17:36, Peter Wendorff wrote: On 03.10.2010 17:16, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: On 10/03/2010 05:04 PM, Anthony wrote: Maybe it's just because of where I live, but I don't see how it would be. Well, where I live (Germany) we have a legal limit of 100 kph on roads outside of cities, m

Re: [Tagging] Residential roads

On 02/10/2010 02:07, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/9/30 Colin Smale: Also important for routing systems is the "practical speed" for a road. Many country roads may have a high legal limit, but for reasons including width and curviness you may never achieve anywhere near that i

Re: [Tagging] Residential roads

> we as mappers have no control over how the different routing systems > select default speeds. we should not be making assumptions about that. Also important for routing systems is the "practical speed" for a road. Many country roads may have a high legal limit, but for reasons including width a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Roundabout Priority

> What I'm usually doing for such traffic circles is drawing a circle tagged > "highway=*" + "oneway=yes" + a "note=this is not a roundabout". If you leave it at that, a navigation program might not recognise it as a {roundabout|traffic_circle} so instead of saying "at the next roundabout take the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Roundabout Priority

The discussion here (and in talk-nl) seems to boil down to the question whether these traffic circles are a subtype of roundabout, or a junction type in their own right. I fully support all those who suggest they are a separate junction type. My proposal was based on the premise that "most people"

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Roundabout Priority

I am making a simple proposal of "roundabout=priority_to_right" to indicate a specific non-standard priority arrangement on some roundabouts occurring in some parts of mainland Europe. Please see: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Roundabout_Priority Comments and suggestion

Re: [Tagging] Give Way and Stop in two-way street

> Hello all: > > There are some streets which, being two-way, one way has a Stop or Give > Way > and the other has not. How to tag them? > > My proposal is splitting the street in two highways with same name, same > tags, > etc, each one being one-way and exactly the same nodes, with one of them >

Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying "x is attached to y"?

On 04/09/2010 06:53, Steve Bennett wrote: On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:37 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: so you are talking about rendering? Primarily, yes. But could be useful for other applications. For example, to do public transport routing, you would want to operate at the level of "the tra

Re: [Tagging] football or soccer ?

On 08/08/2010 20:39, Paul Johnson wrote: Let this side of the Atlantic win at least one tagging war, please...after all, we call them freeways and expressways, not motorways and trunks; guess who won that one? Surely the whole point is that there shouldn't be these tagging wars. There is (I th

Re: [Tagging] football or soccer ?

On 02/08/2010 17:28, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Anthony wrote: If I wanted the list of colors to be controlled and finite I'd use a check constraint. By the way, if I were going to use a separate table for the list of colors, for instance for performance purposes, I'd sti

Re: [Tagging] football or soccer ?

On 01/07/2010 15:25, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:08 AM, John F. Eldredge > wrote: In fact, the technique of having the user select from a list of words, but actually storing the value as an arbitrary ID (generally numeric), is the recommended

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

I think there might be more types of "public fire control equipment"... I remember often seeing fire beaters (broomstick with flaps of rubber/leather) in a rack on moor and heathland prone to fires. Maybe amenity=fire_beater can be added to the proposal? Colin On 28/07/2010 02:41, Richard We

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

Shouldn't the layer_change be on the common point, not a way? A way (usually) has two ends, so putting the tag on a way will not indicate at which end of the way the layer change takes place. But then it degenerates to two (or more) connected ways with a different layer=* value, so the layer c

Re: [Tagging] Zone 30 (maxspeed)

On 06/07/2010 21:02, Ulf Lamping wrote: Am 06.07.2010 20:38, schrieb Colin Smale: On 06/07/2010 18:44, Richard Mann wrote: I'm not really clear what is the value of tagging a "zone", except in a note. Why not just use the standard maxspeed tag? +1 Here in NL it warns you

Re: [Tagging] Zone 30 (maxspeed)

On 06/07/2010 18:44, Richard Mann wrote: I'm not really clear what is the value of tagging a "zone", except in a note. Why not just use the standard maxspeed tag? +1 Here in NL it warns you that the given road sign (could be maxspeed, could be some other restriction) is valid "until further

Re: [Tagging] Counting lanes: include merging or turn lanes?

I have been thinking recently about how to represent "special lanes" in OSM. I have been working on a flexible scheme for this which I am calling "lane groups". Below is my current draft...If there is any support out there I will turn it into a wiki-page and get the ball rolling. All comments

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width

Pieren wrote: On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote: no, you can always compare it to the width of your vehicle, therefore it doesn't require that all streets are tagged width it. ?? With my Fiat 500 or you BMW X5 ? AND:

Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?

Bill Ricker wrote: i generally also set access=private for the official vehicle only u-turns. would access=official here be an overly fussy distinction ? "access=official" sounds as if it would need a lot more definition. In many countries anything with blue flashing lights and/or sire

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >