Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

2020-10-28 Thread Supaplex
s well. As I already mentioned in a mail from yesterday, it would probably be better to assign an access value like "motor_vehicle = emergency" to the footways/path instead? Am 28.10.20 um 06:51 schrieb Nüssli Christian (SRZ): > Hello Supaplex > > Thank you very much for your explanati

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

2020-10-28 Thread Supaplex
"parking" should not be used for this, because in many cases these areas have nothing in common with a parking lot. This meadow, for example, is explicitly a rescue area, but definitely not a parking lot: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/503246160 (and I think, by the way, that in case of an

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-27 Thread Supaplex
p.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleway:protection) Am 27.10.20 um 05:09 schrieb Phake Nick: > See "Parking-Protected Bike Lanes | The City of Portland, Oregon": > https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/77882 > > 在 2020年10月27日週二 01:45,Supaplex 寫道: > >> Do you hav

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

2020-10-27 Thread Supaplex
We (or Christian) are talking about areas that must be kept free, especially near buildings, so that fire brigade vehicles can stand and work there in case of an emergency. For example, it is not allowed to park there, no objects may be placed there etc. In German-speaking countries it is very

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-26 Thread Supaplex
k a continuous drive.) A cycleway located behind this parking area is no longer part of the roadway and would therefore not be "lane" but "track". But maybe I misinterpreted the case you meant? Am 26.10.20 um 15:49 schrieb Paul Johnson: > On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 6:40 AM S

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-24 Thread Supaplex
Hey all, I would like to invite you to discuss a proposal for "parking = street_side" for areas suitable or designated for parking, which are directly adjacent to the carriageway of a road and can be reached directly from the roadway without having to use an access way:

Re: [Tagging] How do you map traffic signals where right or left turns are allowed or not allowed on a red light?

2020-10-11 Thread Supaplex
Isn't it sufficient to use this red_turn-tagging at the traffic light (instead of a turn relation), since it restricts to whom the traffic light applies? General turning rules remain unaffected. This tagging obviously comes from the German-speaking area (see also TagInfo map), because there is

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-29 Thread Supaplex
Now I am a little confused. As I understand Pieter, you used "width:carriageway" in Bruges in a way that includes parking:lanes (although you can estimate later how much is effectively not available for flowing traffic if using parking:lanes). My initiative for a clarification of the tagging was

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-21 Thread Supaplex
:Key:width#.22width.22_on_streets.2Fhighway Maybe someone has time and motivation to make a proposal(?) to directly define "width" in these cases. Since there are different opinions on this, I would leave it at a clarifying paragraph for now. - Alex - Am 14.09.20 um 20:34 schrieb

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

2020-09-21 Thread Supaplex
It's centered on motorists‘ point of view as long as cars are granted the central role as user group of streets in the traffic planning discourse - for the time after that we already have highway=living_street, highway=pedestrian and bicycle_road=yes. ;) Am 21.09.20 um 12:42 schrieb Martin

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

2020-09-21 Thread Supaplex
This leads to another topic where there is just as much need for action. You can find the is_sidepath-scheme here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:is_sidepath It looks like a stub (note also the talk page), because the idea is very simple but still solves some big

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Supaplex
I would appreciate using crossing=zebra! (instead of crossing=marked + crossing_ref=zebra, so I have tagged it so far.) But I can't imagine that people use or change "marked" instead of "traffic_signals". Or have you observed this somewhere? For me "marked" would be something like "paved" for

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-16 Thread Supaplex
> I expect the "width" of a way to be the actual width of the object it > represents. It depends on how we define "highway" in the OSM sense. You could also assume that sidewalks etc. are "sticking" on the highway merely for pragmatic reasons. Depending on the point of view, sidewalks and

[Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-14 Thread Supaplex
Hey all, again and again there are discussions about which parts of a street (sidewalks and cycle paths, parking lanes, carriageway) should be considered when determining the width of a street. There does not seem to be a consensus and therefore information on street widths is difficult to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - kerb=regular

2020-08-21 Thread Supaplex
I see that I have probably chosen an unfavorable solution to solve the problem described. Many seem to accept the basic problem: There is only one qualitative category for all kerbs with a height of over ~3 cm, although in reality there is a significant difference. I see two alternatives to the

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - kerb=regular

2020-08-20 Thread Supaplex
Voting is now open for the tag kerb=regular: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/kerb%3Dregular I intend to add the tag /kerb=regular/ to explicitly distinguish kerbs/curbs with "normal" standard height from /kerb=raised/ to solve a lack of clarity in the differentiation

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - kerb=regular

2020-08-01 Thread Supaplex
For the formality and documentation I send this again as an official RFC. I hope for your comments - greets Alex Am 01.08.20 um 15:01 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > sent from a phone > >> On 1. Aug 2020, at 12:36, Supaplex wrote: >> >> I wrote a proposal for it: >&g

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised - Proposal

2020-08-01 Thread Supaplex
8.20 um 09:42 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > sent from a phone > >> On 1. Aug 2020, at 09:39, Supaplex wrote: >> >> I felt that this list more agreed rather than opposed. > > bring it to voting. > > > Cheers Martin > > __

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-08-01 Thread Supaplex
Aug 2020, 08:53 Supaplex, wrote: > >> As an result of this diskussion (no strong opposition, some general >> remarks, some endorsement) I added "kerb=regular" to the tagging example >> list in the wiki and adjusted hight descriptions (with values discussed >

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-08-01 Thread Supaplex
arried out in the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kerb Greets, Alex Am 29.07.20 um 20:56 schrieb Supaplex: > Hey all, > > I started mapping detailed sidewalk information in my area, including > crossing and kerb information. It seems that there is a lack of clarity &g

[Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-07-29 Thread Supaplex
Hey all, I started mapping detailed sidewalk information in my area, including crossing and kerb information. It seems that there is a lack of clarity in the differentiation between raised and regular ("normal", neither lowered nor raised) kerbs. "kerb=regular" is already in use but is