,
or is adding it to the hazmat wiki page enough?
I'd do so - hazmat is a very rare tag so adding more
information/clarification/proposals would be a good thing.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
„Für eine ausgewogene Energiepolitik über das Jahr 2020
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
- but using the solid_line
as indication for turning is not. All IMHO.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http
in 40cm of snow. This was during April.
/offtopic
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
?
The only issue i have with the above scheme is the implicit dimensional
extension using the pipe | symbole
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing
. The result is that nominatim returns the name
of the city in the county address detail and no city (due to the lack of
further admin_level 8 boundarys).
A fix would be an admin_level=6;8 on the boundary or duplicating
the relation.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f
on the
relation data?
For Germany the name on the relation is in fact the citys name not
the countys but you cant tell which is which.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 04:55:42PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote:
A fix would be an admin_level=6;8 on the boundary or duplicating
the relation.
I'm surprised you still have such questions in Germany. Your
description is not clear
).
With the German Kreisfreie Staedte these Citys take the administrative
Burden from the coutnys and citys.
So i think do we have more than one administrative instance is bogus.
They take both level of administrative functionality.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f
.
http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:OberirdischeLinie_Endmast.jpg
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https
for keepright to come up with layer violations.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org
already had something in place for telecoms street
cabinets for cable distribution but i cant seem to find it.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging
, and more specific tags can eventually
give details of inside devices and equipment. But it's out of the scope of
the current proposal.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
a node.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https
outdoor_dslam casing around.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
you'll produce
errors in navigational intructions.
Turn left on Road A - Continue on Road B
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 02:42:23PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
Am 24.06.2015 um 11:08 schrieb Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de:
motorway_link is not a different highway type - Its some attribute which
slipped into the highway type.
I don't agree. It might work
? A heuristic always breaks
on some occasions and we have no solutions.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
but i dont
think residential_link or unclassified_link do exist.
motorway_link is not a different highway type - Its some attribute which
slipped into the highway type.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable
as beeing parts of the crossing.
Do we have tags for this?
I'd love to improve route guidance by tagging ramps, cross sections etc.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today
and universal attribution.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
and more especially on hinting the Text to Speech engines. We want
precise and few instructions.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
you have an tunnel= with an extent/length
of near 0 ...
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
ult to all attached objects?
We should reduce errors by implicitly assuming something not
increase them.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!
signature.asc
Des
data integrity. If there are oneway signs but
no street without a oneway there is definitly something wrong.
I am currently doing so with street lamps. Adding street lamps is
no replacement for lit=yes on the streets. Still the existance
of individual street_lamps shows the validity of a li
here the ditch goes underground and where it comes back.
So i map it as this - a small way of tunnel=culvert layer=-1.
When somebody now starts mapping streets as areas hopefully my culvert
is already correct and matches the street sides.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff
special case.
junction=roundabout
center_obstacle=clear/yes/no/drivable
roundabout=flat/obstacle
Whatever ... So processing a roundabout is ALWAYS the same from the
navigational perspective and changes only from route selection when
your vehicle is getting longer.
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:52:08PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 08.10.2015 14:59, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > You dont get it dont you?
>
> This quarrel is pointless. Contribute something useful, or get a life.
>
Shortening a response to not contain the content and then
(a), your'e just lacking motivation. You won't get us forward
> with such a mindset.
>
> I do not care about (b), as that's not a tagging issue.
Okay - please sit down and write parser for access tags and ill feed it
vehicle type, and destination and the tags and you return if i am allowed to
e
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 08:54:09PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 06.10.2015 19:31, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> >> So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you
> >> use when you need to include them?
> >
> >
by
the driver itself. The navigaton application simply points you a
direction.
Flo
PS: Making "access=destination" really behave correctly in navigational
apps is REALLY complicated. Just increasing the graphs costs on that
roads is plain wrong. Basically connected roads for destinati
showing the sign.
I have opened a lot of notes about foot/bicycle/access/hgv/psv=no
because often these are wrong and set just be the feeling of the
mapper.
There is no solution than communication on a local level.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
When
you include them - its the public which is allowed to enter. Then there
is no restriction.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildtafel_der_Verkehrszeichen_in_der_Bundesrepublik_Deutschland_seit_2013
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
We need to self-defense - GnuPG/P
y=service
surface=gravel
service=driveway
IMHO it cant be a track as long as there are residential
buildings.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!
signature.asc
Description: Dig
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 09:29:18AM +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 03:00:47PM +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > Can someone provide the correct way to tag a wikipedia link? It seems the
> > Wiki wants it one way and JOSM another. The wiki wants version 1) but J
u jump to the history of that object on the openstreetmap.org website
and the wikipedia tag should be a link ;)
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!
signatur
es today.
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/LeaK3riwsMuv7f0i3Jt3XA/photo
I dont know how it is tagged right now but its a traffic calming
AND a crossing.
Just a quick example.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable y
ally even break up at field boundaries
seen in differences in plant growths etc as thats typically the
boundary for changes in usage in the future.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enab
nt 'imaginary' crossings to not break
> pedestrian routing
Thats the point. I am missing more complex mapping examples
than the single, simple crossing.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
here is only one house/company/farm"
valid?
Flo
1) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fenwidmung
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
ot make such an assumption although i would very much
appreciate this.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_
ional
> > tagging.
> I would always tag access=private for private road rather
> than leaving it as supposedly obvious.
When there is a sign "Private road" i wouldnt tag anything. Thats
just a liability issue. When there is "A
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:54:13AM +0900, John Willis wrote:
> > On May 25, 2018, at 2:29 AM, Florian Lohoff <f...@zz.de> wrote:
> >
> > Interestingly the key:highway wiki page lists unclassified as
> > the lowest classification of a road:
>
> That
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 08:14:34PM +1000, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On 23 May 2018 at 23:09, Florian Lohoff <f...@zz.de> wrote:
> >
> > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/service#values
> >
> > Looking at the values only 10% of the service=* are alley.
> >
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 03:09:14PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:28:43PM +1000, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> > > in the past 10 years or so my impression of a service road was that it
> > > is typically not a public road per se and not pa
streetmap.org/wiki/HOWTO_map_a_golf_course_2013
And it contradicts Best mapping practices by encouraging name tag abuse.
I have seen some Golf courses and all of them have heavy name tag abuse
for descriptions.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Tes
to fix the announcements
of the navigation which i reverted.
Is there tagging to let announcements ignore that flare?
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:26:01PM +0200, André Pirard wrote:
> On 2018-10-05 20:35, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > Hi,
> > is there a tag to ignore a roundabout flare in counting the exits?
> Is it a good idea for a navigator to ignore an exit and risk confusion?
> What number sh
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 10:46:08PM +0200, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2018, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > Is there tagging to let announcements ignore that flare?
>
> I think that if the driveway is tagged highway=service, this should be
> enough informatio
e still required to drive safely.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Taggin
maxspeed:type mostly in use in the UK.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
menity=school area
without any name and amenity=school + name nodes for the schools.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Descript
Hi Jeroen,
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 04:11:19PM +0200, Jeroen Hoek wrote:
> On 04-04-19 15:41, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > Schools have forever been landuse=residential as schools belong to
> > residential areas.
>
> This is not always the case, especially in cases where sch
ir own agenda and push assumptions which are far off the
original - at least without stating so.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
l disturbed by this kind
of micromapping.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mail
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 04:54:09AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > From the original meaning unclassified was the lowest class road
> > in rural or off city limits. residential was the lowest class road
> > within city limits. (Assuming
is used for roads accessing or around residential areas."
So - bringing this together - as soon as there is residential usage
it cant be unclassified? Am i so wrong?
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran awa
zzled
what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
all roads.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP
s in Germany to have no sidewalk
(Probably around 80% of road distances dont have sidewalks)
Still 99% of roads (Except motorway) are legal to be walked.
And we have that as defaults - motorway/trunk -> foot=no - others
are by default foot=yes
A sidewalk=no does not change any of these assumptions.
ation whether to use unclassified or
residential.
Am i wrong with that usage?
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
the German article for unclassified which do not match
(but oppose) the English versions which i typically use and prefer.
Its not the first time i find the German articles to contain a hidden
agenda bei a minority or single mappers trying to steer the community.
Flo
--
Florian Lohof
some simple hints where to start enables to produce maps
like this:
https://www.kompf.de/gps/rivermap.html
The page is German but also describes common problems in Waterway
connectivity.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The
er of
defining whom to exclude not if.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@open
of technology.
So in the end its not "Mailing lists" but age which make you believe
you have a culture of dissent?
Flo
PS: I will not participate in a Forum. It turns the responsibilities
for around. You suddenly have the obligation to POLL on threads.
--
Florian Lohoff
te RFC1855 - Change the subject if your dicussion
fades.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging maili
istribute
those Contents under our current licence terms. If You do not have that
right,
You risk having Your contribution deleted (see below).
You have multiple times been told that you do NOT have the right to redistribute
this data under the current license (ODbL).
Flo
--
t all. Most likely somebody joined track
segments without noticing the different grades and the editor
joined it.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Descript
ked.
Just 2 examples for the last 10 days or so. And footways wont help
you in a car profile. You could bring a footway directly connecting
the entrance to the Street.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 09:43:31AM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > Can you give example of residential building with fully mapped roads,
> > footways
> > and obstacles where well written router will fail?
>
> - Baumstraße 43a, Gütersloh, Germany
> It
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 08:31:03AM +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 07:47, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > - Houses which are routeable by road a but are near road b or vice
> > versa.
>
> That could be a "problem" due to GPS (?) system b
tly works by accident and because people tweak
the data to get their result. Either geometries, additional tags
or additional name tags on unrelated objects.
People start mapping for the router/nav software. A relation like this
could help solve the need of hinting the software without abusing
ot
the bus stop (in which case you switch mode of
transportation and have your next destination from the navaid relation)
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
our. No parking at the selected spot - Private
property.
You are trying to fix an algorithm with new assumptions which break in
other aspects. You need to have a way to EXPLICITLY define a location
where to navigate to.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
> - use your proposed relation
footway != car
And it wont solve the issue. See the school example. There is a footway
and it will prefer the location it does not most likely. Still broken.
nearest road point will only be on roads for THAT mode of
transportation.
> I see no reason for pr
ters should direct car to mapped
> parking within school area (it is a public parking, right?).
Search for it - When i add a link i add a specific location - I did this
intentionally - Because with the search you map object -> specific
location and then you can query OSRM again for routing.
It
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 09:13:14AM +, marc marc wrote:
> Le 22.05.19 à 09:43, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
> >> Can you give example of residential building with fully mapped roads,
> >> footways and obstacles where well written router will fail?
> >
> > - B
issing, now you tell me the software is broken.
And there is a footway - its directly in front of the door. Still - you
will get routed to a differen street. The footway is NOT in the graph
for cars.
All objects you put into this argument do not have any influence on any
routing app/software menti
ten with a stick about those things aswell.
The more people use your tools the broader your consensus must be in
interpreting data.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Descriptio
has the source object, destination
node on the routeable network and the vehicle/mode of transportation
to use this for (car, bicycle and foot may have different destinations)
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after
Hi marc,
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:02:53PM +, marc marc wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 21.05.19 à 23:46, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
> > Currently all Routing/Navigation application try hard to find
> > the nearest or best point on the routeable network for a given
> > de
for surface a lot of
consumers will assume it to be some kind of bad/worse surface and
reduce the average speed to expect.
I'd rather propose surface=asphalt asphalt=whisper or the like.
asphalt:type would also be okay with me. There are more likely 100s of types
of asphalt.
Flo
--
Flo
tagged with the leisure key. On the talk page I saw that
> there are more objections
For me a leisure=* in OSM has some public usability assumption. Mapping
every little green strip as a leisure=garden i would consider a tagging
abuse.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff
atural=water/water=pond
Its not for the public leisure.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging
e a service because both
of them share the concept of not beeing for the general public.
Or vice versa. If you make A a service B cant be a public road.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
si
hes of primary roads
in Madagascar should carry a surface=dirt - So yes - highway=primary
surface=dirt is a pretty likely combination.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Descript
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 12:25:49PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2019-08-04 11:57, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
> > This is why i get to the point "is it a public road" and "a public
> > road cant be service". If we agree on this you can as some zoom scale
oad
- Not classified
- Housing
This has been a constant argument on different mailinglist for multiple
years. Defacto handle routing engines those two identical so retagging
a residential to unclassified does not make them "quicker" in terms
of rout
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 11:46:26AM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 2019-08-04, sk, 11:32 Florian Lohoff rašė:
> > For me unclassified is the same as residential. <...>
>
> Ok, so unclassified vs residential is regionally defined, as I wrote.
>
> But what
c road? Make
it unclassified. Otherwise people cant navigate their POI.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
ng residential within city
boundarys, and unclassified outside of city boundaries where there
is no residential usage - because everything else is highly disputable
and only provable with traffic analysis and statistics.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 01:18:13PM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 2019-08-04, sk, 12:59 Florian Lohoff rašė:
> > If B is a public road A cant be private property and thus not be
> > a service. If B is a track A can be a service because both
> > of them share the
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
> > On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> >
> > Their difference is usage. In case of residential its usage is
> > predominantly access to an residential are
ypically dont have
names. And if they are named its a bug in 97% of the cases.
And in the QA i do i do not flag 100% issues - but objects you might
want to take a look at because they are fishy. And typically its not
just that one object but some blocks which have been mapped with strange
assumptions.
highway=service, or a highway=track, then it's probably an unclassified
road."
So the statement removed in February is a "NOOP" statement. Saying
"you cant be A if you are B"
Now you changed it to something compl
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 07:55:16PM +0100, ael wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 04:23:03PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > sent from a phone
> > > On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > > A residential is also an unclassified road.
> >
>
.
Now i discovery the contrary. Every data consumer has to make
a long list of every barrier possible and the default settings.
Does that make sense?
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
efore propose that it be “addr:milestone=* / (* - Km.
> ##)”, which does seem to meet the criteria and can be easily
> interpreted and used accordingly by any editor.
So you propose to put the address on the Milestone or on the housing
which uses this Address?
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff
e point. I agree
that bollards are a little obvious as a pedestrian will most likely
be able to pass.
But for the sake of simplicity i would rather call for only
explicit tagging so people can process barriers whatever they are
called - No if/then/else/otherwise/maybe spaghetti in all data
cons
7 exits or even more? There is no left/right
...
https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/75857317
And the node can not help you identify the dimensions of the roundabout
which might be nice to show in the map.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:00:13PM +0200, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> On 23.10.2019 11:35, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > > These are a very common feature, it does seem odd that routers are not
> > > supporting them.
> >
> > The point is that a mini roundabout does need
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
