On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 5:10 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Now, my argumentation is in favour of making a distinction between
> unmarked and marked but not explicitly for lanes=0. I wouldn't mind or even
> slightly favor a tag like nolanes=yes or similar - this would be even more
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 5:03 PM Peter Neale via Tagging <
> > I'm just amused that staying in a trailer park is considered a high end
> > tourism/glamping experience in the UK instead of a cheap form of
> > housing. Granted, my exposure to this
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg
> I personally would not tag a >20 foot wide manufactured home as a static
I'm just amused that staying in a trailer park is considered a high end
tourism/glamping experience in the UK instead of a cheap form of permanent
On Mon, May 20, 2019, 21:57 Graeme Fitzpatrick
> On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 11:36, Joseph Eisenberg
>> The current wiki page suggests using "aeroway:area=runway" to map the
>> outline of the runway, and mapping the "aeroway=runway" as a line
>> along the center of the runway.
On Mon, May 20, 2019, 02:53 Martin Koppenhoefer
> Am Mo., 20. Mai 2019 um 07:53 Uhr schrieb Nick Bolten :
>> Hello everyone, this is a late addition to this thread (I'll start a new
>> one soon after I improve the proposal page), but I want to give an example
>> of a crossing that
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 5:13 PM Joseph Eisenberg
> Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 7:.
>> I was wondering about leaving them all under peak?
>> Would that work?
> A peak is well defined as the local high point. A Mesa or butte
Is there a condition value calculator that can help me come up with sane
tagging for this?
This is a chart of advised speeds in MPH for HGVs on a motorway in Oregon
based on weight in pounds. I'm at a complete loss of how to tag for this
It's recommended that bicycle and foot get tagged explicitly where there's
no obvious global default (like footway, path, cycleway and motorway).
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 09:44 Volker Schmidt wrote:
> In the context of cycling-related tagging there is an issue which I would
> like to bring up.
Flightgear uses this for world generation.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:47 Mateusz Konieczny
> "Inclusion of these markings will allow applications to warn the pilot
> prior to entering the
> runway safety area without permission from air traffic control. "
> I am pretty sure that OSM is
A small footprint, full service version of a Fred Meyer or Walmart? Kind
of feel country store isn't sure if it wants to be like Atwoods or the
strangely named Tractor Supply, or if it wants to be like Cracker Barrel or
Boot Barn, or if it's analogous to a feed store.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 08:46
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:12 PM "Christian Müller" wrote:
> Suggesting forward and backward as tag
> values is a rather bad thing, as these
> are values for route relation roles.
I would say that is true for nodes, though this situation is being handled
for nodes that are part of ways better
Or just a map roulette challenge.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 12:46 "Christian Müller" wrote:
> This seems reasonable but probably takes years to implement.
> Considering how tagging changes moved, or rather not moved,
> in the past, the projection into the future is that it will
> at best be yet
And yet, literally *no* applications support lane values without being
included in the lane count.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 4:51 AM Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On 18/3/19 12:38 pm, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > The premise that bike lanes aren't lanes is an inherently flawed o
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 20:12 Mateusz Konieczny
> Mar 18, 2019, 12:48 AM by ba...@ursamundi.org:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:33 PM Mateusz Konieczny
> Note that bicycle only lanes are not included in lanes tag count (only
> full lanes are counted).
> Lets fix
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:33 PM Mateusz Konieczny
> Note that bicycle only lanes are not included in lanes tag count (only
> full lanes are counted).
Lets fix this error by omission already. Not counting all lanes serves
OK, all the tribal boundaries in Oklahoma are updated. This will be handy
depending on how SCOTUS rules later this year on tribal issues as some of
these lines might become state lines.
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 3:32 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
> I'm currently working on conflating the boundar
is tag combination instead of boundary=aboriginal_lands. It appears
> that the tags are pretty much interchangeable. Most of the features in
> Brazil however are tagged incorrectly for the renderer, mixing
> leisure=nature_reserve with protect_class=24, so that the areas show up
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 2:43 AM Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On 17/3/19 4:30 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > Or even
> > & back another 30 m's or so
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 3:24 AM Charles MILLET
> Taginfo shows it is not the preferred method 979<3562
> *=opposite_lane is/was well understood
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:19 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> I've hesitated to ask this question for months now: what's the
> consensus on superroutes?
Coherently and cogently mapping large countries with long routes (such as
the United States) would be essentially impossible without them. I think
There's quite a few bridges that are *definitely* access=no, emergency=no
in my area, but are *not* disused. Might not be physically possible to get
a motor vehicle onto the span and definitely not legal to use the span at
all, but, not all people care about rules.
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 3:43 AM
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 13:57 Mateusz Konieczny
> Feb 27, 2019, 7:31 PM by ba...@ursamundi.org:
> motor_vehicle=no would exclude most emergency vehicles.
> No, it would not. motor_vehicle=no is a legal limitation.
And most emergency vehicles are motor vehicles.
And if anything,
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 13:17 Fernando Trebien
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 12:41 Jarek Piórkowski
> >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:32, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 11:25 F
Honestly wouldn't be a bad idea for highway=road to be the default type for
bulk imports, especially after the TIGER fiasco.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 03:59 Mateusz Konieczny
> Maybe highway=unclassified added in this import should be retagged to
> (the actual "no known
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 12:41 Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:32, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 11:25 Fernando Trebien
> >> I never thought that emergency access would determine highway
> >> classification. It seems l
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 11:25 Fernando Trebien
> I never thought that emergency access would determine highway
> classification. It seems like a secondary use of the way, not its main
motor_vehicle=no would exclude most emergency vehicles.
Most pedestrian ways
That actually looks pretty correct. It's a state highway and emergency
vehicles are allowed to travel on it, so emergency=yes would be appropriate
as well. ref=MI 185 would be better, since US references are XX YYY where
XX is the state postal abbreviation (NOT SH, SR, K, M or whatever), but
Honestly couldn't hurt the cycleways to have a better model than just path
and cycleway, since some networks can get quite complex (consider quietways
and cycle superhighways; or the multitiered systems in The Netherlands, for
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:39 AM Paul Allen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:19 AM Tony Shield
> Quite right. For OSM purposes I suggest depth in metres, if water is
> tidal=yes also tidal_range in metres.
> I can't think of any reason to try to replicate nautical charts and tide
> tables. And when planning navigation I do not consider
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 11:17 JS The legal situation is already represented by the default OSM setting,
> considering all highways as "foot=yes" except some like motorways or those
> explicitly marked as "foot=no".
This seems like a good time to remind folks that in North America, there is
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:02 AM Philip Barnes wrote:
> On 15 January 2019 14:03:38 GMT, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >I think agreeing with the higher level is correct as the link usually
> >inheirets, or at least tolerates, the rules and design standards for
I think agreeing with the higher level is correct as the link usually
inheirets, or at least tolerates, the rules and design standards for the
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 04:51 Saeed Hubaishan About the subject I used to tag the link with the lowest way class but in:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 3:32 PM Xavier wrote:
> By "interstate highway crossovers" I mean small bits of road that
> connect the two carriage ways of a US interstate highway and are signed
> as "Authorized Vehicles Only" (at least in Virginia they are signed
> this way).
> An example is here:
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018, 14:10 Imre Samu > If I live next to a place called 'Hudson Bay' then I put name='Hudson
> Bay' even if some may argue it may not be a Bay.
I'd assume you meant a department store, and if I knew you were near me,
I'd also assume it to be a Saks Fifth Avenue (Hudson Bay's
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:09 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
> Admin_level=3 is incorrect for reservations. in the USA
> They do not have administrative authority that is superior to that of the
> admin_level 4 States or even counties (level 6) in most areas of
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:35 PM Alan McConchie
> Ok, I see. So you propose that these areas should not have any additional
> tags that would identify them as special aboriginal areas, and that the
> admin_level should be chosen on a case-by-case basis depending on the
> circumstances of
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:46 PM Alan McConchie
> I want to take your feedback with the weight and respect it deserves. I
> see you voted against "boundary=aboriginal_lands" on the wiki because you
> prefer "boundary=administrative". Can you clarify more about your proposed
Not to say that tag popularity means it's the best way forward. Consider
that the US is still dealing with an import on low quality TIGER data and
continent-wide smash-tagging by one person affecting how newer people use
highway=motorway and highway=trunk.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 5:09 PM Doug
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:24 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 07:22, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> WaPo has an op-ed
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 5:59 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:55 AM Doug Hembry
>> But seriously, how many aboriginal lands do you think a mapper would
>> have to tag before they remember "protect_class=24"?
> How many mappers handle nothing but aboriginal
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 07:10 Martin Koppenhoefer
> sent from a phone
> > On 27. Nov 2018, at 03:27, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > I'm generally a fan of the admin_level option. protected_area is OKisn,
> but the protect_class=* tag definitely hits me as a
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 2:59 PM Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM Alan McConchie
>> Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these areas?
>> Or should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the proposal) and
>> instead use
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:35 PM Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:48 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here in Indonesia it is very common for neighbors to build sign over
>> the main entrance to their neighborhood, with the name of the
lanes=* should be the total number of lanes... if it's a one-lane road with
two way traffic, I'd go with...
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 4:01 PM Richard wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 12:27:57AM -0600, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Are we talking a 1 lane or a 3
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:06 PM Richard wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 07:59:22PM +0100, yo paseopor wrote:
> > One little point
> > Untill now GPS navigation is orientative, not compulsory, obligatory or
> > have-to-do. So instead your Osmand says you go in opposite direction, you
Are we talking a 1 lane or a 3 lane road? Because that looks like it's
describing a 3 lane road.
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 1:00 PM yo paseopor wrote:
> One little point
> Untill now GPS navigation is orientative, not compulsory, obligatory or
> have-to-do. So instead your Osmand says you go in
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 3:51 PM SelfishSeahorse
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 03:45, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Putting the centerline of the rails somewhere other than the middle of
> the tracks is arguably worse, particularly for use cases that depend on
> this (creat
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 2:07 PM Yves wrote:
> Agreed with Martin here, I would be amazed that the name of a pipeline
> would contradict the name of one of its section being something else than a
I'm not super familiar with them compared to railroads, but similar naming
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:59 AM SelfishSeahorse
> Anyway, i'm wondering why tram tracks that are embedded in a street are
> mapped with separate ways instead of reusing the street way? Separating
> them seems topologically wrong.
Putting the centerline of the rails somewhere other than
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:56 PM Joseph Eisenberg
> This is not my area of expertise. But I’ve noticed that a number of bars
> that are designed for gay men in the USA have a sign on the door with a
> crossed out “W”. It looks like a no smoking sign but with a capital W
> instead of a
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 4:12 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
> I've seen & wondered about the "gay" classification on places before.
> When going on holidays & checking accommodation / travel guides for
> options, you often see a number of hotels / motels which are listed as "gay
This whole "trying to cram everything including direction and how it
relates to everything into a node" idea is fundamentally hosed. Also
literally why relations are a thing that exist.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:26 PM yo paseopor wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:37 PM Tobias Knerr wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018, 16:05 yo paseopor wrote:
> for this reason the solution of tag the traffic signs ON the way it's the
> best way to do it. Traffic signs are relative to their ways (because if the
> way does not exist the existance of traffic sign is non-sense). Ways have
> direction, also
Why not map traffic signs the way enforcement devices are currently mapped
in relations? That's more foolproof than relying on nodes having nonextant
direction, especially when most traffic signs aren't even members of ways.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018, 10:46 yo paseopor wrote:
> I want to start the
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 12:13 PM Mateusz Konieczny
> 1. Oct 2018 10:18 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
> This relation type is a horrible mistake and should not be encouraged by
Care to expand?
> - this data is basically not usable.
Sure it is. Say I want to know
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 4:32 AM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> The idea that turn restrictions are "super critical" but public
> transport relations are not is valid, but subjective; I hope that, as
> the ID editor matures, it will attract a healthy and diverse team of
> main developers so that
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 4:24 PM yo paseopor wrote:
> > ^ This is the problem. The wiki says we are supposed to do something
>> like `traffic_sign:forward=US:R1`, and we can't really do that. A preset
>> needs to be based on a "toplevel" tag like `traffic_sign=*` not
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:41 PM Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 6:58 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
> > I'm still against using forward/backward on nodes, it really feels like
> a hacky way to avoid using a relation (up there with using ref=* on ways to
> describe route
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:23 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 08:58, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> I honestly don't understand why, ten years since it's introduction as
>> OSM's third basic primitive, there's still this weirdly unnatur
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:09 AM Bryan Housel wrote:
> I actually mentioned the issue in Milano.
> Essentially `traffic_sign`, `traffic_sign:forward` and
> `traffic_sign:backward` need to be treated as "object" tags as things are
> Let’s just do `traffic_sign=*` and consider the
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:58 AM Philip Barnes wrote:
> On 28 September 2018 17:31:18 BST, Kevin Kenny
> >On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 5:34 AM Marc Gemis wrote:
> >> I still highway=give_way and highway=stop with
> >> direction=forward/backward (which is used by OsmAnd AFAIK).
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:34 PM Mark Wagner wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:09:12 +0200
> Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:24:00AM -0700, Mark Wagner wrote:
> > > My point is that no such guarantee exists for roads without speed
> > > limit signs. Yes, the numeric limit
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 6:05 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
> sent from a phone
> > On 19. Sep 2018, at 21:16, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> > This is a good argument against tagging an explicit maxspeed=X when
> > there is actually no speed limit sign around (X is what the OSM mapper
> > by
For the ones you have to stop at, try adding highway=traffic_signals or
highway=stop, it's pretty rare to find toll barriers that expect you to
stop to not have one or both. For at speed ones, just don't add the stop
or signals that don't exist.
As for toll gantries not requiring you to slow
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 5:08 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
> Thinking about how this would apply to other waterways I've mapped, I
>> currently map the streams or drains that pass under roads which rainwater
>> passes through like below, these are quite similar but with a completely
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:31 PM Tod Fitch wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 2018, at 6:59 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > An example of an interstate I would call trunk would be I 70 between I
> 68 and I 76, given that those two are the two closest junctions.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 5:15 PM Tobias Zwick wrote:
> a) source:maxspeed is still quite simple to use because a 1:1
> mapping is possible, e.g. source:maxspeed=DE:urban -> maxspeed=50
> In other words, it's a good start for getting away from explicitly
> tagged speed limits and
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 4:51 PM Joseph Eisenberg
> Kevin Kenny:
>> Not all Interstates *ought* to be tagged as motorways. A case in point
>> is Interstate 93 in Franconia Notch, New Hampshire, which *ought*
>> to be a trunk (it's a two-lane road with a centre guard rail that was
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018, 10:22 djakk djakk wrote:
> Yes Paul, I should not forget the beginners ...
> I am not a beginner anymore but I still found “source:maxspeed=“ for roads
> a little confusing, as we should use “source=“ only (?) on the metadata (on
> the changeset).
Specific keys that
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018, 08:27 djakk djakk wrote:
> By the way, we should de-correlate the legal status of an highway from the
> highway tag : with the key highway:legal_type, values : business_area or
> residential_area or an other local legal classification. A highway=tertiary
> could also be
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 7:18 AM Greg Troxel wrote:
> Philip Barnes writes:
> > And if the default actually applies, or has it been overriden by local
> > I am not convinced that a default limit helps, if no speed limit has
> been surveyed I would prefer that box not to be
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 7:09 AM Greg Troxel wrote:
> Tod Fitch writes:
> >> On Sep 18, 2018, at 6:19 PM, Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> So on the boundary=administrative admin_level=6 for Rogers County, we
> could have something like
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:17 PM Tod Fitch wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 2018, at 10:41 AM, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> > There is a misunderstanding.
> > So, there are 597 towns, 77 counties and 2 councils in the state of
> > Oklahoma and I understand that you want to say that all these entities
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:42 PM Tobias Zwick wrote:
> In order to find an optimal and future proof tagging schema for default
> speed limits, I believe that first extensive research have to be done to
> find out what exists in the world, what has to be considered. Also, for
> default speed
a repave since then).
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 14:36 SelfishSeahorse
> I wasn't aware that it is allowed to cross a single solid line in the
> USA. Hence forget the overtaking:lanes:=* tags in
> the example in my last message.
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 20:38, Paul Johnson wrote:
d line or even no line at all. I wouldn't make a
> difference based on markings.
> I also strongly favor the lines solution but wonder if we could not
> stretch the turn key a bit. Something along
> Am 10.09.2018 um 19:
I don't think so. Really the only thing throwing this off seems to be the
same thing throwing off people who think bus and bicycle lanes shouldn't be
counted as lanes: the solid line.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 11:50 Kevin Kenny wrote:
> It seems to me that the key attribute of the 'climbing lane'
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 08:17 Dave Swarthout wrote:
Although these lanes are not physically separated by a barrier other than a
> painted line, I'm going to opt for the service road scenario. It is simple,
> much, much less error prone to map, and IMHO, would do the job better than
> the lanes
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 6:20 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 08:26, Dave Swarthout
>> I'm still looking for a simple solution that allows me to tag
>> slow_vehicle_turnout lanes in such a way that makes them visible to drivers
>> using a GPS as they motor
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 8:15 PM Dave Swarthout
> @Warin, Thanks for clearing up my confusion about passing places. These
> turnouts are definitely not the same. A vehicle should never stop in one.
> They are about 1/4 mile long and some but not all have painted lines to
> separate the
We have the painted on kind in the US as well, bordered by two orange lines
and filled with a slash hatch in it. It's treated the same as a raised
island but doesn't provide any physical barriers.
I usually count this as lanes:both_ways=1, access:lanes:both_ways=no
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 06:28
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018, 06:36 seirra wrote:
> hello, i was wondering what would be the best way to tag a metal
> platform? for example the metal staircases that are at times used for
> apartments/used for access/maintenance
You mean the fire escape?
On Sun, Aug 26, 2018, 12:30 Dave Swarthout wrote:
> I agree that those are two different critters and that using
> the passing _place tag is not the best way to handle this. But, aside from
> splitting the highway into lanes:forward, lanes:backward, etc., how should
> such a turnout be tagged?
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 16:17 Adam Franco wrote:
> Another "risk" case would be an area where a civil war or conflict has
> divided who controls what land. Either side of the line of control may be
> incredibly risky for people affiliated with the other side but not to the
> supporters of those
Then you're just splitting class and race hairs.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 11:20 seirra wrote:
> there can be notable areas though, outside of what may usually be expected
> On 08/17/18 16:03, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 16:35 seirra wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 16:35 seirra wrote:
> hmmm i do see the point there about racial/class bias... i was thinking
> more about areas that were known crime spots/had associated illegal
> activities people may want to avoid(to the point there are regular police
> patrols at night)? also places
Other than dog toilets, this is too subjective to be included in OSM at
all, and tends to stink of class and racial biases.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 14:35 seirra wrote:
> Hello, i was wondering whether there was a way to tag areas that may be
> risky/dangerous to walk in? i can think of a few
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018, 03:32 Martin Koppenhoefer
Generally properties on the main highway are often a more useful
> representation than dedicated ways, but if you go into details it can be
> better to have a dedicated way (or you will have to split the main highway
> into lots of tiny
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 17:47 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently areas used for logging-related purposes are not to be mapped in
> OSM .. there are no tags available for this land use.
> We simply cannot map them.
Well, this complicates things for the US, most national forests are
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Michal Fabík
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Trunk, yes. Primary and lower, if it has exits intersections, are you
> > it's not a trunk?
> I'm not quite sure what you m
Trunk, yes. Primary and lower, if it has exits intersections, are you sure
it's not a trunk?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 01:36 David Marchal wrote:
> Hello, there.
> Is highway=motorway_junction also applicable to non-motorway roads? There
> are primary, secondary… roads where there are exits,
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018, 14:03 Paul Allen, wrote
>> The way to handle navigable channels across lagoons/lakes is covered at
>> (you might have to invent route=boat or route=ship).
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:36 Michael Tsang wrote:
> My problem is "How should we tag a public transport through
> service route?"
What's the use case? Better interchange for OSM to GTFS synchronization?
Tagging mailing list
I wouldn't call it unmarked; uncontrolled would be more like it. The
markings are just a permanent fixture of the surface in this case, kinda
like how some American towns use brickwork instead of paint for crosswalks
Looks like a pretty typical Dutch pedestrian crossing? They're pretty good
about organizing things so as to be unambiguously obvious when you do and
don't have the right of way in regards to nonmotorized traffic.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:28 AM, Peter Elderson wrote:
> The street is
to be exactly one node where
they connect. That is your via node.
*From:* Paul Johnson
*Sent:* Wednesday, 13 June 2018 08:46
*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
*Subject:* Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes
You'd have more than one via way for the transit:lanes relation
You'd have more than one via way for the transit:lanes relation.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, 01:11 Mateusz Konieczny
> 11. Jun 2018 23:02 by ba...@ursamundi.org:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 23:43 Bryan Housel wrote:
>> The only way I’ll be able to support lane transitions would be as a
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 23:43 Bryan Housel wrote:
> The only way I’ll be able to support lane transitions would be as a
> relation that has similar semantics to turn restrictions.. from/via/to.
> Keep it simple (no multi via ways please). This is already an understood
> way of tagging things that
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 03:34 Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Some tags have so much 'use' (I prefer the term 'misuse' in some cases..
> > that
> convincing most that they need to change gets very hard.
> True, but if the change is a change of direction not requiring massive
> changes, 100% backwards
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 04:20 François Lacombe
> Then I don't get why we have access=private or access=designated if
> access=no can cover all situations when at least one mean of access is not
designated is basically more yes than yes, but is specific to mode access
1 - 100 of 877 matches
Mail list logo