uch to volatile to make sense in OSM.
Cellphone Networks are constantly changing, frequencies, modulation,
coverage, sector antennas are replaced constantly. So GSM may fade out,
LTE comes in. Different frequency, different coverage.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff
choose the correct location.
When looking for the "Fire Station Mitsubishi Papers, Bielefeld" i simply
get "Mitsubishi Papers, Gate 1" or something to navigate to.
So - we have a multitude of issues where there is no "One location does
f
re on a track near the big dig)
Addresses with long distance to the road network. The next road is
basically a dead-end for this address:
"45883 Gelsenkirchen, Grothusstraße 199" (On the other side of the Canal)
"45357 Essen, Klaumerbruch 40a" (On the oth
h for
e.g. "Frankfurt Airport" and a Menu pops up shows you
"Parking lot A", "Parking lot B" as destinations for going to "Frankfurt
Airport". This is why i wanted a "name" in the relation.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff
scussions about necessity of this
relation, as it is obvious that this or something similiar is needed and
the problem is unfixable with data manipulation while keeping to
"Ground truth". I am more interested in people Geocoding and Routing
whether this would be a viable way to go, or if anyone ca
th a traversable center gets tagged by mappers as mini
roundabout.
So we have a problem with the wiki documentation.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
signature.asc
Descri
the point. The mini_roundabout is a UK speciality and most
likely should not have appeared anywhere else.
A mini_roundabout _must_ have a traversable center, a traversable center
does _not_ make a mini_roundabout.
Thats the major misconception a lot of people have.
Flo
--
Flori
rity problem in busy
junctions.
So in case you have 12m diameter and a traversable center i would not
say thats a mini_roundabout.
And while at it - We should introduce a tag "traversable=yes" or
something on the junction=roundabout way.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff
is more likely
landuse=forest isnt it?
At least for me natural=wood is a non artifical forest, but those are
pretty rare at least around where i live. All of the forest has been
chopped down at least a hundret times since mankind arrived in Europe.
Flo
--
ling allowed. Its not a track
as its not for agricultural purposes.
> Either service should mean "one level below unclassified" and soften
Its not - Service (as tracks) are not part of the public road network. A
service is NOT a "small unclassifie
which have loads of parking spaces. So using some
healthcare specific tag is probably misleading.
These will be temporary things (Timeframe be years) but LOADS of people
will try to find it. And its a global issue.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f
g down, sleeping or
> sitting.
Its not just anti-homeless there are also features which are explicitly
anti-skateboard etc
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signatur
. With this concept
it may sometimes refer to one or more roads which are connected to the
roundabout. This basically makes the information useless.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran a
ction=roundabout" is not part of the streets and has a life of
its own with e.g. established with the name tag - same should and must
apply to the ref. This does not prohibit adding the roundabout to some
kind of relation containing all parts of
this so i would like to revert this.
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@ope
name, sometimes its abused as replacement for ref
of buildings. Sometimes its just a duplication of some other
tags content.
And most of the time you find that you'll find even more tag abuse
and random invented tags. In my case they were mostly 8+ years old.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff
a because
some QA frontend showed it red, i'd rather do some universal
and consensual hinting of "you dont need to look at this data"
from a consistency based approach, please ignore it, or better
hint the QA to make better decisions.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff
city=Marienfeld" on the admin_level=9
boundary. So the address validator knows that addresses contained within
this al9 should carry a different addr:city than they normally would
using the al8.
Other ideas?
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 T
now refreshing.
I wished OSM would offer a similar service integrated into our
toolsets etc. As long as we dont have it we need to be thankful
somebody else has build a businessmodel which pays for the gigantic
storage and processing needed.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff
ere can only be ONE usage of
an area. I could agree on that a military area could contain a
natural=beach, or a wetland - but still landuse may not overlap landuse
and natural not natural. Its either a residential or miliary or
industrial or commercia
ral=wood or a landuse=farmland. You cant include the same
area in two types of usages or naturals.
So in any case you need a MP relation.
But that might just be me. I have created a validation layer for parts
of Germany for this.
In your specific case - Its a wetland which IMHO implies that it
ucks
- postal services
If anything is seen on that road it cant be a track. A track is defined
as a road for exclusive or mostly agricultural usage. So as soon as
there is a single residential building the amount of traffic for that
building outweights the amount of agricultural traffic by orders.
)
Thats the point with the whole driveway discussion. Tagging any further
restriction on a driveway does at best change nothing, worst
case make it unusable. You wont _gain_ anything.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ra
very jurisdication a cyclist pushing his bike is
considered a pedestrian?
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:10:17AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 25. May 2020, at 20:37, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> >
> > i'd expect OSM
> > offering me a conflict free (in legal and physical terms)
bility of access restrictions there is no way to turn
back to a common ground. Reality will not matter anymore and we will
have tons of discussions with mappers about some invented or fictional
access restrictions.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Te
liberal but in case of dispute we need to stick with "On the
ground"
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
hicles or all motor_vehicles. So no needs
to list them individually. We have a tag for that.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
o - To quote from Postels Law - On of the inventors of the Internet:
"Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others"
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
s
through with your bicycle"
But from the point of expectation. Could a OSM User expect the
tagging in OSM to be legally perfect? I suggest we as OSM would
not send people through roads we are not shure are legally usable.
And if you are unshure if a cyclist is allowed to go there shouldnt
you avo
roundabouts have an implicit oneway=yes and dont need it.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mail
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway>=yes"
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:oneway%3Dyes>
>
> What is the agreed standard, if any?
In ancient OSM history roundabouts and motorways had oneways. This has
since been obsol
its a natural=scrub or a landuse=farmland. It cant be both.
I agree that there are corner cases where this fails. E.g a pond
in a landuse=residential or landuse=forest. Its still the forest.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Tes
landfills from the 60ies and 70ies have been
opened again for maintenance. They are forest by now but all trees have
been removed beforehand. So those landfills are now observable.
I'd like to map them now - so i see the issue of mapping closed
landfills.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff
t solvable without mapper input as a huge area like
an Airport can not be mapped to a single "best point" on the
routable network.
And there are tons of "corner cases" which make this impossible.
In case of my example - there is confusing from which Street
a House is rea
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 09:34:32AM -0500, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 04:22, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > OTOH in the dense urban areas you have the problem of Address for road A
> > nearer to Road B. So you get navigated to the wrong spot on the road
> &g
l they are nearest to street B. So anyone
routing there by car will end up on street B.
There is no way you'll be able to solve this by a spatial relation.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran aw
raph. So the nearest road to the area of the
campsite was the road on the other side of the river.
You need additional hinting to solve this. A machine cant do that for
you.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test
ctation is that a Nav Software offering a destination
to go to should REALLY know how to get there - Or show some
error bar e.g. "I can get you near the spot but its just an
approximation and my the error range is 1.5km"
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff
he only decision is right now "nearest road with matching mode of
transport" and nearest is in a large number of cases not the place to
be.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Tes
gating Object.
So i try to seperate out the individual functions of the objects. Makes
it much simpler in maintaining the data.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
De
On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 11:04:21PM +, marc marc wrote:
> Le 06.01.20 à 08:47, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
> > If you have HUGE Buildings i use a node with an address.
>
> it's amazing the difference in usage.
> I find that addr nodes are very problematic for hudge buildings lik
s a single building with no seperation
inbetween but multiple entrances with individual housenumbers. I
use nodes on those.
All simple buildings e.g. individual residential detached houses
i put it on the outline.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
ke a junction.
Anything else?
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing l
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
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 09:53:33AM +, marc marc wrote:
> Le 23.10.19 à 11:35, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
> > You need to eliminate the node and replace it with a circular road
>
> a junction=roundabout is also allowed as a node
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/juncti
s seem odd that routers are not
> supporting them.
The point is that a mini roundabout does need a LOT of preprocessing to
put it into some graph for your classical A* or Dijkstra. You need to
eliminate the node and replace it with a circular road much like a
junction.
Flo
--
Florian Loho
case which is mostly
unsupported.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing li
nt fix them because i think they are perfect as they are.
Isnt that an acceptable way of thinking that there are more
mappers happy to map how they see fit? It happens everywhere.
As long as there something which is utterly broken by
the way we map why not be liberal and ac
.
And these stuff is not some ice road at the north pole. These
are streets which have been touched by 1000s of mappers and
you call all of them beeing inexperienced noobs making mistakes?
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test:
estion here (where is originated) is foot=no.
So no pedestrians.
And IMHO change:lanes describes whether changing to a different lane
going the SAME direction is legal.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran
age
> is (from what I see) not forbidding
> other mappers to revert to single way
> version.
It does not even talk about non divided ways beeing mapped as seperated
ways. So if lawyering correctly this whole discussion is moot because i
dont think there is a place in wiki talking about ways
://www.mapillary.com/map/im/71ALZI8c9agMDxtL0z3nuA
Staropolska - Gdansk
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/p3wF7yrx634ow6fcd6oyPg
Kärtner Straße - Graz
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/qApIUsfERpNItMIcsspZdA
Heidelberg - Ernst-Walz-Brücke
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/IffdeSsK58iFdjU-5_Q
tatement about whether we MUST draw a non physically
divided highway as one line. (I dont oppose the fact that in 99% of the
cases it makes absolute sense to do so).
Flo
[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions
--
Florian Lohoff
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
.
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
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.
> >
>
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.
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
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 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
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
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
___
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
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
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
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
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
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
--
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
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
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
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
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
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
> - 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
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
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
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
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
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
___
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
___
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
