Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

Just a minor correction. On Thu, 3 Sep 2015, Paul Johnson wrote: > Bonus round from yet further up: > > highway=tertiary > bicycle=designated > cycleway=lane > parking:lanes:right=parallel   (after the parking restriction sign at least; > before that it's fire_lane) >

Re: [Tagging] Proposed mechanical edit: surface=soil to surface=dirt

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:55:27 +0200 > moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > > > On 31/08/2015, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > Is there some method to automate finding who introduced tags? Doing > > > it manually

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015, Richard wrote: On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:09:44AM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: On Sat, 29 Aug 2015, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Warin wrote: On 28/08/2015 9:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: My suggestion is to not assume any access

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, geow wrote: Ilpo Järvinen wrote On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Warin wrote: For those who would want to have a separate tag for 'trails', it's exclusive but obviously those who would want to tag everything with highway=path+subtags will disagree :-). I see

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Warin wrote: On 28/08/2015 9:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: My suggestion is to not assume any access defaults but rather explicitly tag everything, and surface as well. Everything you assume will be questioned

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, John Willis wrote: Footway is a constructed or engineered way, dedicated and built to a grade where foot traffic should expect an easy walk. This might make other traffic passage easier as well ( bikes), but engineered with pedestrians in mind. Path is a cleared

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Greg Troxel wrote: Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi writes: It's not just about paved/unpaved. What I mean that there are two kinds of not paved trails through forest. Those which come with man applied surface, even if we tag them as surface=unpaved

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, geow wrote: quote author=quot;johnwquot; The difference between a cycleway, a footway, and a trail can be access rules, but mostly its *the built condition of the way* and that *will* vary from a 1st world to 3rd would country - and from continent to continent.lt;/quote

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 07.08.2015 um 01:15 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi: unpaved paths is actually built-up recretional route whereas the others are just tiny, some even faintly visible, forest trails. there are the tags width, trail

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Greg Troxel wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes: Then what is the point of having path and all these other tags that overlap? because path and bicycle=designated is the same as highway =cycleway path with horse=designated is the same as

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Greg Troxel wrote: Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi writes: You seem to admit that there's need for some hierarchy, however, on the same time you seem to oppose the idea that such hierarcy would exists based on physical properties (man-made vs informal). I

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015, geow wrote: Richard Z. wrote ... I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a variant of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles unless otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways.

Re: [Tagging] Node objects in tunnels or on bridges?

On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Dominik George wrote: quite often there are node-type objects on bridges or in tunnels. What to do with them? Tunnel or bridge tags are dfined only for ways. please be a bit more specific on what you mean. Do you mean… a) … a node on a way that is tagged as

Re: [Tagging] Node objects in tunnels or on bridges?

On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Richard wrote: On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 01:57:52PM +0200, Dominik George wrote: In that case, I believe the layer=* tag should be used instead, giving the object the same layer as the tunnel or bridge. not such a good solution. For real-world-node-objects where

Re: [Tagging] [Bug] calculated shortest route wrong (was: often longer than fastest route)

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Paul Johnson wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:58 PM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: The difficulty is in many cities traffic lights are synchronised in such a way that cars may have to stop at the first but there after if they are travelling at

Re: [Tagging] New values for entrance=

not sure how it would be used when rendering entrances yet.  On Apr 9, 2015, at 1:45 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi wrote: I added entrance=staircase and entrance=home to many

Re: [Tagging] New values for entrance=

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, fly wrote: entrance=staircase http://taginfo.openstreetmap.com/tags/entrance=staircase Nice one with completely empty own wiki page in two languages [1]. Wonder which import or editor did promote this tag ? No import for sure and probably editor also not in the

Re: [Tagging] New values for entrance=

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, fly wrote: Am 06.04.2015 um 23:45 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen: On Mon, 6 Apr 2015, fly wrote: Even entrance=staircase seems to be problematic as it overlaps with entrance=main and entrance=service. No it doesn't. The entrance is either entrance=staircase

Re: [Tagging] Which entities use area=yes

highway=track too. -- i. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New values for entrance=

On Mon, 6 Apr 2015, fly wrote: Even entrance=staircase seems to be problematic as it overlaps with entrance=main and entrance=service. No it doesn't. The entrance is either entrance=staircase or entrance=service so I see entrance=staircase as a sort of subclass of entrance=main. And BTW, the

Re: [Tagging] Mapping private home toilets

On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Here's a draft of a wiki tag for this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Mapping_Private_Property I'm not sure this fully captures the complexity though.  We want building outlines and perhaps private swimming pools as landuse indicators.

Re: [Tagging] building=yes on nodes?

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015, Tom Pfeifer wrote: I see nothing wrong with building=* on a node, used 772612 times. Typical cases are: - somebody collects house numbers along a road, but has no access to the geometry. Thus she can use plain addr: tags on unbuilt properties, and add

[Tagging] Spatial triggers/conditions changing/affecting tags elsewhere

Hi, We've have *:conditional=* which is useful to describe complex tagging cases, however, it is not able to cover one particular case with spatially distinct trigger. Lets look to this issue through two examples: A) There's Vantaanjoki river that goes under a motorway. Alongside the river

Re: [Tagging] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015, Никита wrote: Valid point, but also should suggest good practices for people who would like to benefit from default indexes: API performance API doesn't care. Or which API call you're refering to? overpass performance Overpass could handle semicolons, if it wanted to.

Re: [Tagging] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015, Никита wrote:  You know that it's always a trade-off, right? Exactly. Regex advocates are ponies in DB design.  disk usage/IO  Index lookup for color:green:lightgreen=yes is fast. So is the index lookup for color=...;lightgreen;... ! network traffic could increase.

Re: [Tagging] hrmpf.

On Thu, 1 Jan 2015, Rainer Fügenstein wrote: can you please check the comments on this changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27805365 short summary: manually editing 13 nodes is a mechanical edit that needs to be discussed in advance, this list here is unimportant, nobody reads

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014, Никита wrote:  leisure=playground playground:supervised=yes/no playground:outdoor=yes/no playground:indoor=yes/no kids_area=* is not about these 4 tags. kids_area=* is disjoint to leisure=playgrounds. Please read proposal.

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

Let me highlight something that was said by you(!) in the email I answered to: Do you have tags forplayground=pony? playground=pencils? playground=books?  playground=table?  playground=horses? If not, there no reason to talk about it in kids_area proposal ...and then you proceed to talk

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014, Marc Gemis wrote: Could we try an example to see whether mappers agree on bay areas ? could you draw the Gulf of Biscay on a map ? This guy did it:  http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-9_Y031ZiZQ/THowBMn81dI/Ci8/inSvDDa1DC4 /s1600/Golf+van+Biskaje.jpg  I might have

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Tuesday 28 October 2014, Janko Mihelić wrote: If you want to formulate a formal mathematical rule for where the node for a bay is best placed: Place it so the variance of the distance of the node to the bay's shores is minimized. Most

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Sunday 26 October 2014, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Furthermore the outer edge of a bay, i.e. the edge that is not coastline is usually not well defined and would require an arbitrary cutoff. Yes, cutoff is unfortunately quite arbitrary.

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: On 27/10/2014, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-27 11:04 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: The maxheight=* tag maps the physical limitation, not the sign (which can be absent or even wrong). Tagging

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Marc Gemis wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi wrote: Besides, we really need to deal with object that have fuzzy borders already, e.g., some of the natural=wetland object come to my mind

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014-10-27 17:37 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de: But this is exactly what does not work with a hand mapped polygon either since the edge of the bay is not well defined. it will work in most cases,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Martin Vonwald wrote: 2014-10-14 23:31 GMT+02:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: I think that who is in which tomb is information that does belong in OSM. Finding the tomb you want in a cemetery is *hard* and I'd love to be able

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi wrote: Not that it would interest me personally to find some distant relative's grave, but I've been on multiple occassions on with somebody who has been looking for a grave

Re: [Tagging] usage of maxspeed:practical is described as recommended on wiki

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Il giorno 23/ago/2014, alle ore 21:08, Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi ha scritto: How much of such ways that would be a candidate for maxspeed:practical IMHO this is a highly subjective tag that depends heavily on your

Re: [Tagging] usage of maxspeed:practical is described as recommended on wiki

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 2014-08-23 10:48 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 09:08:08AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:surface#maxspeed:practical for

Re: [Tagging] interpolated housenumbers on single objects

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014, Will Phillips wrote: On 20/08/2014 00:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Il giorno 19/ago/2014, alle ore 23:45, Will Phillips wp4...@gmail.com ha scritto: I find that by far the most time consuming part of surveying house numbers is actually adding the data

Re: [Tagging] interpolated housenumbers on single objects

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014, Simon Poole wrote: Am 20.08.2014 12:11, schrieb Ilpo Järvinen: ... lots of stuff from past experiences ... There is no reason not to immediately enter the address data, preferably as entrance nodes if the building outlines exist, if they don't, placing an address node

Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I use them like this amenity=cafe cuisine=ice_cream there is a waiter / service amenity=ice_cream they sell take away ice cream, but also have at least some tables to sit down (no service) shop=ice_cream you can only buy ice cream (no

Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 31/lug/2014 um 10:38 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi: shop:seats=yes/no shop:waiter/service=yes/no ...Or something along those lines rather than the black magic you outlined above ;-). If I understand you

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Richard Z. wrote: Layer tag is a *hint* to the renderer, nothing more. the wiki page says The layer=* tag is one of several methods used to describe vertical relationships between crossing or overlapping features. Not a single word of a hint to the renderer

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Richard Z. wrote: On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:54:37PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Richard Z. wrote: Now what is that key:layer anyway? Given that nobody knows or cares how it works does it do more good than harm? Do we need it at all

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, 5 Apr 2014, Richard Z. wrote: On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:41:56PM +0200, André Pirard wrote: In addition, key:layer *is not* rendering layer/order. One example, a road is going through a forest, both should have implicit key:layer ==0. Obviously they still have a defined

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014-04-02 13:51 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: It is not wrong by itself but there are many circumstances where it is plain wrong +1, it is not wrong as long as there aren't any crossing / overlapping objects

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Dave Swarthout wrote: C'mon guys. Tagging an entire river at layer=-1 is simply not the way to do things, unless it is a covered river or one that runs underground. What other possible justification is there other than not wanting to do the work of tagging bridges with a

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi wrote: C'mon guys. It should be done with sensible defaults rather than forcing mappers to tell such plain obvious things. Rivers tend to pretty universally go below

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Richard Z. wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 03:53:25PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Dave Swarthout wrote: C'mon guys. Tagging an entire river at layer=-1 is simply not the way to do things, unless it is a covered river or one that runs

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote: There has been a proposal long ago for bridges to have implicit an layer and it was not accepted. Was that for bridges

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote: There has

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:30:30AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier

On Sat, 1 Feb 2014, Masi Master wrote: Am 01.02.2014, 10:05 Uhr, schrieb Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com: 1 Cut the way where the sign is and use a relation type : restrictionhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction. 2 Add a node on the way where the sign is and add a

Re: [Tagging] emergency=yes

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, Richard Welty wrote: On 1/23/14 1:13 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: What might people using the tag 'emergency=yes' have meant it to mean? And is it a good use? It's the #2 tag in a space that has some gems (emergency=aed and emergency=phone for example). But I'm

Re: [Tagging] emergency=yes

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, Paul Johnson wrote: On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi wrote: Besides that, here in Finland some of the service ways to residential buildings are designated as rescue road (pelastustie in Finnish

Re: [Tagging] End voting bicycle=use_cycleway

On Fri, 13 Dec 2013, Pee Wee wrote: Today the voting of the bicycle=use_cycleway ended.  Voting results:   Yes:  10 (not counting the 2 that made the proposal)  No:  11  Abstain:  3   This is reason enough for us to work on a better proposal so we reject the current one. We want

Re: [Tagging] give way and stop tag for ways

On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, Balázs Barcsik wrote: Think about oneway tag.http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing That is a property of a way. So as a routing app I just would like to examine this tag, and forget the relations restrictions:

Re: [Tagging] give way and stop tag for ways

On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, Balázs Barcsik wrote: Do you think that routing/navigation apps are using turn restrictions tags instead of oneway tag to create the route?I dont think so... It's still wrong even if everyone would be doing it. :-) And btw, I was only saying that in order to get it right,

Re: [Tagging] foot=yes or bicycle=yes on track without other limitations?

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: It is better to tag signs: bicycle=yes only if there is a bicycle free sign. Same with other signs. So if we see the tags, we know which sign is there, and backwards. I don't see a benefit of mapping the traffic signs themselves, though.

Re: [Tagging] fire_hydrant extensions proposal

On Sat, 9 Mar 2013, Richard Welty wrote: for the US, water mains are specified in inches. i presume that centimeter is the correct unit elsewhere. correct? In Finland, mm is used in all signs. I've not seen other classifications here besides the diameter. Then we only have only O marking in

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

On Tue, 4 Dec 2012, Martin Vonwald wrote: 2012/12/4 Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com: But then maybe the no-right-turn relation is too complicated as well. The problem is not really the complexity of those relations, but the fact that they create some kind of extreme long relation-way.

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

On Sun, 2 Dec 2012, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2012/12/2 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: Just a reminder that in many countries buildings can have several addresses, each address on different streets; none of the addresses is a primary address, and all staircases of said building are

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2012/11/30 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: In the example you are pointing, 6 of the 9 relations are for the Bus 311. I never map public transport relations but I've seen its modeling expanding very far in complexity in recent time (fault is also

Re: [Tagging] Announcement: Voting ongoing for proposed access tagging Conditional restrictions

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Eckhart Wörner wrote: Am Dienstag, 18. September 2012, 23:15:57 schrieb Rob Nickerson: Variable parts in keys will also lead to an undesired proliferation of unique keys. This is the only argument that is not completely broken, and it has two sides: the Extended

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

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Pieren wrote: Personally I find the suggestion of total_tracks reasonably appealing initially, however it would have to be repeated across all the tracks which seems ugly and still doesn't say with confidence which tracks are connected. The relation approach is clearer

Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Martin Vonwald wrote: IMO tagging a mini - no matter how large it is - as a way would be inconsistent with our way we map (most?) features. When mapping a street, we draw the way where one can drive/go. On a normal roundabout you can not drive in the middle, that's why we

Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Martin Vonwald wrote: So I'm still not sure, that it is a good idea to use anything than a node for mini-roundabout. Why isn't it sufficient to use a node and simply add a tag (if really necessary) to specify the dimension? For small ones, node seems just fine. However,

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Cycle lanes cycle tracks - my findings and a proposal

On Wed, 23 May 2012, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2012/5/23 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: If I want to move the street I have to move seven ways. why would you want to move a street that you have surveyed up to this level of detail? I think this is hypothetical (and btw: it is 6

Re: [Tagging] Tagging: minimum required tags

On Fri, 18 May 2012, Tobias Johansson wrote: I see your point concerning you don't have to do it that way. But I don't really se any reason for not doing it that way? And if it makes it simpler? But I have no big objection for what you say. I myself have mapped a lot of houses the way you

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

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Pieren wrote: On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Martin Vonwald Anyone else has a problem with the suggested solution to the lanes=1.5 problem? I think we should simply recommend to not use fractions since they can be misinterpreted by any one (not only

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

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Pieren wrote: On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Martin Vonwald Anyone else has a problem with the suggested solution to the lanes=1.5 problem? I think we should simply recommend to not use fractions since they can

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

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Georg Feddern wrote: Am 27.04.2012 09:23, schrieb Ilpo Järvinen: On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here: Not sure, how many lanes these are, could be 5 or even 5.5? Depends on the car widths

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

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Martin Vonwald wrote: Maybe we could put an end to this discussion by enumerating the pro and cons for both approaches? What exactly is the problem with lanes=integer+width, that is solved with lanes=1.5 ? Please pick the integer first so we can discuss more. ...Although

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

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, martinq wrote: I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's ordnance survey was mentioned, and a lot of older uk advice appears based around a now historic view that 'cars = saloon cars' and were 1.8m or less. If cars were assumed to be 1.8m wide then implied OS figure

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

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012, Ronnie Soak wrote: In my opinion, lanes=1.5 is a very bad choice. We have a tag for this situation: width . According to taginfo, lanes=1.5 is used, but not too often. What should we do? I would recommend not to use it and advise to specify a width

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

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012, Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: Am 21.04.2012 um 13:34 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi: ...What I don't really care if it is called lanes=1.5 or lanes=1/2+some_other_agreed_tag_which_is_not_an_estimated_width=x, but simply saying that use lanes=1/2

Re: [Tagging] demolished buildings, temporal component of data

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: In some regions of the world OSM is already in a state where many of the map modifications are not due to missing or wrong data, but result from actual changes in the real world, e.g. a building gets demolished. Given that we store not only

Re: [Tagging] RFC: highway=tidal_road

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 11/23/2011 5:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Yes, this would fit the proposed tag. As you can see from your picture not beeing aware about the tide situation can cost your life. IMHO this kind of road merits its own main highway tag, it

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 10/12/2011 6:52 PM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: Please let me know when did my private renderer for those building=entrances cease being something that renders (besides the times when my VM is down of course :-))? ...Honestly, I think you just

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Turn Lanes

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Pieren wrote: On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Ilya Zverev zve...@textual.ru wrote: The big problem is that mappers think splitting ways is damaging them. Why? It's just painful to work with many small segments (to add or rename tags or use route relations). People

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Turn Lanes

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Kytömaa Lauri wrote: The tag lanes should be reserved for the straight forward lanes. At a T-junction, the road ending there would then be lanes=0, given that wording. Nice. ...And it gets even funnier if you have an intersection where all those straight forward lanes

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Turn Lanes

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Pieren wrote: On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi wrote: however, it should not be solved using some data klugde but making the tasks you mention easy to do in editors even if the ways would contain only two nodes each. Making