A proposal for a completely extensible and generic extension to allow
definitions of lane properties:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension
Based on this at least the following problems should be solvable:
* Different properties for each lane, e.g. maxspeed,
Am 08.02.2012 um 15:38 schrieb Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
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:
What you describe is proposed here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension
Martin
Am 08.02.2012 um 15:38 schrieb Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
On 08/02/2012 13:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
6. building:levelPlan=*What each storey is used for,
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.
You introduce a new tag applies_to to limit the lane to a
As there is some discussion on this mailing list about adding either a
suffix or prefix would be better for the mentioned proposal, I added a
section at the end of the Discussions page and reopened the issue
there. Please comment on this there.
Many thanks!
Martin
--- Sorry - I forgot the link in my last mail. ---
As there is some discussion on this mailing list about adding either a
suffix or prefix would be better for the mentioned proposal, I added a
section at the end of the Discussions page and reopened the issue
there. Please comment on this there.
issues weren't solved there. I really tried to
incorporate as much as possible in this proposal, but still keep it
simple. I hope I was successful.
Finally I want to thank all of you who took part in the discussion and
helped to bring this proposal on its way.
Martin Vonwald
and extendible I
assume it will stay this way.
Thanks for your feedback.
Martin
2012/3/5 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
Martin Vonwald wrote:
The proposal
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension
is now open for voting.
Is voting on this really helpful right
The much more relevant precedent are existing attempts to tag lanes. One
example is indeed lanes:forward/backward. But there are other examples for
existing lane tagging which are also documented on the wiki, and used more
frequently than your example according to taginfo:
~ 11.500
2012/3/7 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
Martin Vonwald wrote:
~ 11.500 cycleway:left/right
~ 10.000 footway=left/right, 22.000 if you count both (same proposal)
~ 4.500 footway:left/right/both:*
As far as I understand, those are ways next to the carriageway.
If they are mapped as tags
2012/3/13 Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com:
Definitely not a turning_circle. Either map as a loop
Yes.
or mini_roundabout.
Definitively no. You can drive straight through a mini-roundabout. You
could try this at this road at your own risk! (I recommend a good car
and health insurance ;-) )
See
2012/3/13 Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com:
Ah, another UK peculiarity. I guess I've been misapplying
As far as I know it is the same e.g. in Hungary.
highway=mini_roundabout; but if so, we need to change this language on
the wiki page:
The mini-roundabout _usually_ does not have a physical island
2012/3/13 Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com:
The German Wiki (probably translated from the English original) states
that the difference is exactly (and only) the form of the central
island and the tagging should be done according to this feature.
As far as I know, this is correct. The
2012/3/13 Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com:
4) Tag as turning_circle, perhaps additionally using a
traffic_calming=* value such as island [2]
My vote is for #4. Time for me to try out Overpass to get my
mis-tagged features...
For me this sounds like using two inappropriate tags instead of one.
2012/3/14 Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com:
Please also see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hazard_warning
What about a combination of both? Tagging the traffic_sign=* at the
node on the way roughly where the sign is, then tag the hazard=* along
the way or on
Hi!
This is a follow-up proposal for the :lanes proposal. I suggest the
introduction of a new key to tag all kinds of reversible lanes:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/reversible_lane
Your comments are welcome.
Martin
___
Tagging
:
On 3/26/2012 7:18 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
Hi!
This is a follow-up proposal for the :lanes proposal. I suggest the
introduction of a new key to tag all kinds of reversible lanes:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/reversible_lane
A center turn lane is not a reversible lane
!
Martin
2012/3/26 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com:
On 3/26/2012 7:47 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
I took the notation from the wikipedia page linked in the proposal.
I don't know why Wikipedia groups them, but it at least doesn't say that a
center turn lane is a reversible lane.
http
Thanks for that. That proposal might come in handy for tagging
information about left-hand/right-hand traffic, which is needed to
render individual lanes.
Martin
2012/3/27 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote:
This thread shouldn't
Hi!
Something new to comment on:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway%3Djunction
The intention is to make mapping of junctions easier and provide some
information about the extent of a junction and what
nodes/ways/features belong to a single, individual junction.
Please
Hi!
I'm planning to improve the articles (english, german and russian) for
the lanes-tag (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes). Right
now a few points are left open and desperately need some
clarification. As some of the latest changes lead to some dispute (see
[1]) I will let you know
2012/4/19 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
* PSV lanes SHOULD be included (also [2]). Example: lanes=3 and
lanes:psv=1 means we have three lanes and one OF THEM is for PSV only.
Don't forget other reserved lanes like taxi lanes...
Thanks - I won't.
* Parking lanes/spaces should NOT be included
2012/4/19 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:14 PM, fly
But how to map it ?
bicycle:lanes:forward:psv=yes ?
As Pieren already wrote: this is beyond the scope of the lanes tag.
But as you already asked: if you want to tag the mere presence of a
cycle lane, use cycleway=lane
2012/4/19 Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net:
* PSV lanes SHOULD be included (also [2]). Example: lanes=3 and
lanes:psv=1 means we have three lanes and one OF THEM is for PSV only.
Same goes for HOV (high-occupancy-vehicles) lanes, unless they are
separately mapped (which is a better
There is a discussion about PSV lanes, but what about emergency lanes.
Nobody is allowed to use it, with the exception of people who have to stop
for a car problem, or by emergency vehicles when there is a traffic jam on
the other lanes (at least, that's the case in Belgium).
This is not one
Am 21.04.2012 um 14:23 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi:
I would recommend lanes=2 and width=xxx. Maybe give some examples for
the widths of some common, narrow roads? Can someone provide photos
and widths?
!?! ...No! Unfortunately this was exactly what I oppose!
Sorry, I
2012/4/21 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
You can Tag lanes:forward= and lanes:backward=
Would this make sense?
Lanes=3
Lanes:forward=2
Lanes:backward=2
No, it wouldn't. This was one of the reasons, why I suggested an
additional suffix both-ways in the original version of the lanes
2012/4/21 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
The words the use are 'generally more than 4m wide' and 'generally less
than 4m wide'. Roads of this width will vary in width, they are almost
never the same width throughout.
Can we agree on that for narrow roads, where one can not determine the
2012/4/22 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the lanes=1.5
would less confusing for narrow two lane roads.
The problem with lanes=1.5 stays: data consumers might not be able to
handle this correctly.
What we need right now is a
On April 23rd 2012 13:05 many people wrote
something about car width .
The only reason we started discussing about the width of vehicles was
a recommendation for narrow roads with two lanes to replace the
lanes=1.5: if someone can not or does not want to measure the width of
the road,
2012/4/23 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
Problem with that, and why I am said this is far more complex than I first
thought, is some people responding to lanes=1.5 by saying 'computers' only
like whole numbers. This suggests width=4.3 would need to be rounded to
either width=4 or
2012/4/23 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:
If one does not consider parked cars _at all_, the first example
of my previous post (at the end) with a 9 meter wide
carriageway and no markings would have to be lanes=3
Of course not. It would be lanes=2. The width isn't decisive for the
lane
The german article still has the recommendation of adding area=yes.
One of the biggest problems in the wiki is the fact, that very often
articles in different languages are not really translations, but
different articles.
As the tag railway=platform is applicable to areas as well, according
to
Hi all!
I'm trying to view the OSMI layers in JOSM. The all-knowing,
all-seeing trash heap pointed me to this (german) article:
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=9315
There it is recommended to use the following link in JOSM:
schreef Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com het
volgende:
Hi all!
I'm trying to view the OSMI layers in JOSM. The all-knowing,
all-seeing trash heap pointed me to this (german) article:
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=9315
There it is recommended to use the following link
To give you an advance warning: the updated article is finished and
currently available here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt
If there are no major objections I will update the lanes article
tomorrow. Minor objections we can further discuss after the update -
otherwise it
of the
hard shoulder on managed sections of motorway, but I cannot read dutch.
We have these on the M6 and M42.
Thanks Phil
On 26/04/2012 10:30 Martin Vonwald wrote:
To give you an advance warning: the updated article is finished and
currently available here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org
2012/4/26 Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de:
Shall this lane
- be counted - because it is a managed lane, but that it is only sometimes
- or not - because it is most of the time an emergency lane
Yes, it shall be counted, because it is all the time a managed lane,
that is sometimes open for
I added a sentence explaining what a managed lane is. Understandable now?
2012/4/26 Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de:
Am 26.04.2012 13:07, schrieb Colin Smale:
1) the hard shoulder is sometimes opened to traffic, creating an extra
lane on the right
this case is used in Germany in
The narrow road example was clearly the wrong image. I changed that
to lanes=1 and added a photo from Philip Barnes as example for a
narrow two-lane road.
Further I removed the assumptions for two-way motorways/trunks, as it
is recommend to map their carriageways as two separate way.
Anyone else
Those examples are very good. Any chance we could get some
license-compatible photos in the near future?
2012/4/21 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 10:19 +0200, Ronnie Soak wrote:
I would only use a lanes value other than 2 if there are clear road
markings, signs or
As no further issues were raised with the updated article I will
replace the current lanes-article with my current version.
Before that I added a point in the Open issues section about lanes=1.5
and modified the note at the end of the section Narrow road. As
lanes=1.5 wasn't documented before and
The difference between a roundabout and a mini-roundabout is the
center: you can - and in fact are allowed to under certain
circumstances - drive straight over the island in the middle of a
mini-roundabout. You better not try this on a roundabout. ;-)
For a more detailed explanation see
Hi,
Because of the (again) discussion concerning mini-roundabouts, I'm looking for
photos of the following:
* (real) mini-roundabouts
* small roundabouts (not mini-roundabouts)
* turning circles, no matter what shape
* turning circles with a non-traversable island in the middle
* anything that
I guess(!) the discussion is so complicated, because some people
misinterpreted for whatever reason a mini-roundabout with a small
roundabout, tagged it as mini and now don't want to fix all their
existing tags.
I can understand (but not support) the latter, but I don't understand
why we
2012/5/9 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
I am not aware of a plugin, but you can draw a way with 2 nodes
(diameter) and hit SHIFT+O, this will create a circle (you can set
the default node amount for the circle in advanced preferences). You'd
then tag this correctly, ensure that it
2012/5/9 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
It's also what the wiki tells us to do (in some places): Small
roundabouts are just represented as a node which is tagged
highway=mini_roundabout.
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout)
Hm.. ok, this is just plain wrong. And what I
2012/5/9 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
There is a coming enhancement for Potlatch 2 that does something like
this. It's still waiting to be reviewed. It's actually a bit more
streamlined: you select the intersection node, move the mouse to where
the roundabout should be, press 'A', and
Hi!
Is there any (planned) project out there, where one can upload
geotagged photos, maybe view them on a map and use them directly in
JOSM? I was thinking about the same way as GPS traces are now uploaded
to OSM and JOSM can download and display them.
I know openstreetview but is seems not that
2012/5/10 Ferenc Veres l...@netngine.hu:
OpenStreetView is for presenting nice photos if nice places, isn't it?
It looks so. Not for boring photos of opening hours tables and such
SURVEY INFO. :-) What's your aim?
That's exactly my aim: survey info.
I would also like to know if there is
As expected the user NE2 tries to rewrite the wiki so that it fits his
personal view of the world:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundaboutaction=history
He constantly ignores the fact, that a small roundabout is not a
mini-roundabout as different rules apply
As there seems to be a consensus approaching on the horizon, I'll
continue to work on some examples (positive and negative) to prevent
misinterpretation in the future. I already got some nice photos (but
could also need some more) so I guess I can finish it quite soon. As
usually I'll post a link
Hi!
As promised I created a few (positive/negative) examples of
roundabouts, mini-roundabouts and turning circles to prevent
misinterpretations in the future. I respected the current tagging
scheme as described in the wiki, but also used once the suggested
junction=roundabout on a node, which was
2012/5/14 Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us:
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What is the difference between traffic_calming=chicane and a small
roundabout? Is it based on who has the right of way?
Here is an example in Seattle. http://g.co/maps/nvhfh We
2012/5/14 Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com:
That's not what I would call a chicane. For me, they generally involve
obstructions protruding from the sides of a road. There's a picture on
Wikipedia here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/One-lane_chicane_1.jpg.
According to
2012/5/14 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
I consider neither that example nor the ones on your roundabout example
page a chicane. Instead, I'd specifically expect _alternating_
obstructions on the left and right side of the road.
Your example is more like an island.
What is your
2012/5/14 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
2012/5/14 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
I consider neither that example nor the ones on your roundabout example
page a chicane. Instead, I'd specifically expect _alternating_
obstructions on the left and right side of the road.
Your example
Hi!
The reworked article about junction=roundabout is now more or less
finished, so please comment on the whole article:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt
Still open, so please provide feedback:
* Decision if traffic_calming=chicane or traffic_calming=island should
be used
2012/5/14 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de:
If anyone of you is going to edit that page anyway, please add the
combination suggestions with highway=crossing; crossing=island;
I would say, not all islands are island-crossings, but (nearly all)
crossings with an islands calm down
It looks good to me, except for the last example of a turning loop
as I've been calling it. We're going to have the same problem with
this one, because they are abundant and very small, thus people will
likely mis-tag it rather than drawing a tiny loop. When I fixed up
some of westendguy's
2012/5/15 Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com:
The longer I think about it, the more I'm asking myself: do we really
need a tag for this? If someone doesn't want to map it as loop, why
not simply end the road without any additional tag? What information
are we missing then, that we are not missing if we
2012/5/15 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2012/5/15 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
Imho, if you want to indicate a turning-circle island, it's
micro-mapping : you should better draw the loop geometry instead of
creating a tag for the geometry (in the same way we don't tag
roundabout
2012/5/15 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
Btw, current wiki description is funny : place to turn around .. but
it is not a turning circle.
Well, that's why it is in the Danger of confusion section ;-)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
2012/5/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Also, is it acceptable to simply map the feature as a circular way,
rather than use traffic_calming=island?
I don't think so. Because the street is not a circular way, but
instead there is an island in the middle of the street. At least this
is my
/5/15 Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com:
* Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com [2012-05-15 14:11 +0200]:
Now the only issue remaining is: how? Right now I see two solutions:
1) highway=turning_circle and turning_circle=island or traffic_calming=island
2) new tag like e.g. highway=turning_loop
[snip
2012/5/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
However, in OSM terminology, there is no distinction between
roundabouts and traffic circles, right?
Yes and no ;-)
... in a roundabout
entering traffic must always yield to traffic already in the circle
That's junction=roundabout or highway=mini_roundabout
First of all many thanks for your detailed and constructive feedback.
2012/5/15 Andrew Chadwick (lists) a.t.chadwick+li...@gmail.com:
Still open, so please provide feedback:
* Decision if traffic_calming=chicane or traffic_calming=island should
be used in two of the examples
Chicanes look
2012/5/16 Andrew Chadwick (lists) a.t.chadwick+li...@gmail.com:
According to Wikipedia at least, the ones without priority for
circulating traffic are called traffic circles in the US, and they use
the BE roundabout as we do in GB:
In the U.S., traffic engineers use the term roundabout for
2012/5/16 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com:
In the JOSM section a link to the JOSM-wiki describtions of the tools [1][2]
is
useful.
[1] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Action/AlignInCircle
[2] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Action/CreateCircle
Links added - thanks.
Hi!
I updated now the english article:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout
Translations will follow in the next days.
Many thanks to everyone who took part in the discussion and provided
valuable feedback.
Stay tuned - I'll come back to you for the next article soon ;-)
:
On the page you referensed to. in the table with pictures it says A
round place with a traversable island in the middle, but this is
neither a mini-roundabout nor a roundabout, but instead a turning
circle, which allows large vehicles to turn around.
2012/5/17 Martin Vonwald (Imagic) imagic
2012/5/18 Tobias Johansson t...@mensa.se:
You understand me correctly. Or maybe a text something similar to this:
This picture shows a round place with a traversable island in the
middle, but this is
neither a mini-roundabout nor a roundabout, but instead a turning
circle, which allows large
What I am arriving at is that we need a new node “roundabout” with a
mandatory size parameter of some kind. The distinction between the present
“mini_roundabout” and a small roundabout would no longer be relevant.
Actually it would become very relevant: a router for large veicles
would know
2012/5/18 Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com:
I've created a wiki page for highway=turning_loop:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dturning_loop
Thanks for that. Do you think it would be a good idea to put the
section Possible misinterpretations also into this article? If so, I
would move
Ahm - you completely screwed the article :-S
2012/5/18 Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com:
On 18/05/2012 13:45, Volker Schmidt wrote:
We should replace island with island or obstacle or something to that
effect.
I've changed it to 'an island or a void'.
2012/5/18 Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com:
Thanks. I guess I edited an old version or something? Sorry about that.
Intentions were good. Mistakes happens. No problem :-)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
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 Roundabout.
Practical and useful tagging of such creations is some kind of art, IMO.
Martin
Am
Am 18.05.2012 um 16:11 schrieb Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com:
While the Possible misinterpretations section is great, I think most
people will find it to be too long and won't read it. I think it might
belong on a separate page rather than on one tag page or on all (via a
template).
I would
2012/5/22 Andrew Chadwick (lists) a.t.chadwick+li...@gmail.com:
Oneways are easy. Two-way situations like
http://binged.it/Kj5IFM
= http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1239065241
are awkward to interpret. It's intended for westbound traffic turning
onto the major road, not eastbound
2012/5/22 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com:
2012/5/22 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
-1, this has been discussed ad infinitum on the German list.
I'm sure this was already suggested, but I would like to know: what if the
sidewalk had the same name as the street, would that be enough?
2012/5/22 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
-1, this has been discussed ad infinitum on the German list. Tagging
the road with bicycle=no would be plain wrong, because it is not
forbidden to use the road, you have the obligation to use the
cycleway, which is quite different.
This is
2012/5/22 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
See the area-relation-proposal if you are interested.
Know it. Hate it. WAY to complex.
IMO mapping parallel features would need some heavy support on the
editors side. It could be done with the current data model, but I'm
not sure if this
2012/5/22 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2012/5/22 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
What is needed (IMO!) is some
kind of way (lets call it xway), that may consist of parts. Those
parts run by default parallel and may only be moved nearer to/farther
away from the center
2012/5/23 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2012/5/23 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
Let's have a look at a street around here: it has two general lanes,
one cycle lane and two side walks. I should map this with:
* one way is main way
* two ways for the lanes
* one way
2012/5/23 Andrew Chadwick (lists) a.t.chadwick+li...@gmail.com:
On 23/05/12 10:52, Gregory Williams wrote:
There's also http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=advanced_stop_line
which uses a relation containing the way approaching the ASL and the node of
the junction of the ASL. With this
Hi!
Don't hit me - I'll stop to annoy you with this roundabout issue after
this! Promised.
I'll just want to let you know, that I reworked the article about
mini-roundabouts and want to update it within the next days. You can
find it here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt
2012/5/23 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2012/5/23 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
So I end up with 4 ways (highway, 2 sidewalks, cyclelane), one
relation (area) and some nodes (lowered kerbs). Of course this is more
complex, but you also get a whole lot more of detail,
I
2012/5/24 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com:
the Irish road sign
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Diamond_road_sign_roundabout.svg,
which you show in your sample list of road signs for mini-roundabouts, is
for a normal roundabout.
You also show the correct Irish mini-roundabout sign
Looks good to me. Thanks for your work on this, it's not easy walking
through a minefield. :)
What min.
:-D
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Thank you - I'll add that to the examples!
Am 24.05.2012 um 23:19 schrieb William Rieck bi...@thinkers.org:
Here is a picture of a mini-roundabout in Kitchener (Waterloo) Ontario,
Canada. Just in case you could use an image from Canada.
Am 25.05.2012 um 01:44 schrieb Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com:
I'd register my disapproval, but it would simply be ignored, so I'll just
ignore the new guidelines and continue tagging as I have been.
I'm curious: what exactly do you disapprove, why, and what are your suggestions
to
2012/5/25 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com:
Would be even nicer if we can get photos with the traffic_signs.
Yes, that's why I only used photos where traffic signs are visible.
Sometimes only the backside - true.
In this way please change the 4th picture (2.row, 1.) with the one of the
(same)
2012/5/25 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com:
Actually, I just changed the only mini I know in my town from a mapped circle
with junction=roundabout to a node with highway=mini_roundabout and will try
to
get there these day to take some photo.
Thanks in advance. Depending on your available time
2012/5/25 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com:
What exactly have you in mind? The tagging is identical, it should
look identical on the map. What additional information could we
provide here?
You get an nice option to look at the data (editors) and information about the
position (lon/lat) to have
2012/5/31 Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com:
Hi all,
This light-rail station is above ground near an airport in South Korea.
http://osm.org/go/546KGWeqC--?m
I originally mapped the light rail (two tracks) and added a node at
each station point (so, two nodes per station, one in each
Hi!
2012/5/31 Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com:
Maybe I wasn't very clear in my first email (not helped by poor formatting),
but I'm not looking to add a suggested route. I am trying to indicate
cases that have legal binding (or very strong advice from government). For
example:
1. A
2012/5/31 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2012/5/31 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
2. A cycle track in UK that is marked as cycle only does not legally prevent
pedestrian use but official guidance states:
the route is not intended for pedestrians, there should
2012/5/31 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17530125
(lorry stuck on very tight corner)
This is tagged hgv=unsuitable in OSM
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/69590803
In my opinion this doesn't need a special tag. Because the
2012/5/31 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2012/5/31 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
So we are down to one question: does designated mean that other
vehicle types are discouraged?
This might depend on the country and on the type of designation (which
means of transport/type
2012/5/31 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 14:41 +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote:
2012/5/31 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17530125
(lorry stuck on very tight corner)
This is tagged hgv=unsuitable in OSM
1 - 100 of 404 matches
Mail list logo
