Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Hello Mateusz, You can not render correctly with a bad tagging, and that is the case here : in France, a trunk road have 2 lanes and oneway=yes by default, not in UK. I understand your criticism about the values I’ve used, it is not definitive :). Except maybe the values for road_level : they sh

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

"I would have expected the first road be rendered not like the 3 last roads, those last 3 roads should have been rendered the same as they look the same" Is it tagging or rendering discussion? Because as far as as rendering is concerned you can already do that, just use surface/lanes/oneway tags

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Hello ! I’ve updated https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Djakk/new_tagging_scheme_for_roads To answer the original question of this thread, I wish you can use importance_local=5 or 6 with abutters=rural or residential ;) Julien “djakk” Le dim. 3 mars 2019 à 01:01, Sergio Manzi a écrit

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-03-03 00:49, Mark Wagner wrote: > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 02:05:46 +0100 > Sergio Manzi wrote: > >> On 2019-03-02 01:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>> sent from a phone >>> On 1. Mar 2019, at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: I would tag max weight, I would not tag emerge

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 02:05:46 +0100 Sergio Manzi wrote: > On 2019-03-02 01:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > sent from a phone > > > >> On 1. Mar 2019, at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny > >> wrote: > >> > >> I would tag max weight, I would not tag emergency=no. > > > > +1, it will not exclude a

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-03-02 14:15, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 05:34, Sergio Manzi wrote: >> BTW, do we have a specific tag for "emergency traffic light" that are put >> near emergency vehicles exits to stop normal traffic when emergency vehicles >> are about to exit? > Funnily enough, pe

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 00:49, Sergio Manzi wrote: What your street code says about the behaviour drivers at a crossing (with > lights) must have when there is an incoming emergency vehicle? > It says they have to pull out of the way but they must still obey all traffic regulations. People have b

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 9:22 PM Sergio Manzi wrote: > > On 2019-03-02 00:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Being picky, but (at least out here) they're not exempt, they're just allowed > to break them :-) eg in an emergency, an ambulance can go through a red > light, but if they cause an accident

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 05:34, Sergio Manzi wrote: > BTW, do we have a specific tag for "emergency traffic light" that are put > near emergency vehicles exits to stop normal traffic when emergency vehicles > are about to exit? Funnily enough, per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_si

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-03-02 11:20, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> Though in all cases when I used it I should be using emergency=designated >> (road was signed as firefighter access road or main ambulance access at >> the hospital). > > ... and that's a different story, because this is valuable infor

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Mar 2, 2019, 11:07 AM by s...@smz.it: > On 2019-03-02 09:49, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> >> Mar 2, 2019, 2:05 AM by >> s...@smz.it >> : >> >>> Ireally-really-really like to know of a place where emergency >>> vehicles are >>> legally >>> not allowed to g

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-03-02 09:07, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> On 2. Mar 2019, at 02:18, Sergio Manzi wrote: >> >> Should I tag every street wide enough for a chair to pass with >> "emergency=yes"? > no because emergency is an access key (legal access), so „wide enough“ is not > a criterion > > Cheers, Mar

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-03-02 09:49, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Mar 2, 2019, 2:05 AM by s...@smz.it: > > I really-really-really like to know of a place where emergency vehicles > are *legally *not allowed to go... > > And if there isn't such a place, why do we need ""? > > And if we don't have such

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Boys, this will vary by legal jurisdiction. These comments are valueless unless placed in context. Here in NL and as far as I know also in the UK, blue lights and sirens in your mirror are also no excuse for your own driving by the way, so you must not break any rules or otherwise drive dangero

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Mar 2, 2019, 2:05 AM by s...@smz.it: > On 2019-03-02 01:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > >> sent from a phone >> >>> On 1. Mar 2019, at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny >>> >>> >> not tag emergency=no. >>> >> +1, it will

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 02/03/19 11:21, Sergio Manzi wrote: On 2019-03-02 00:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Being picky, but (at least out here) they're not exempt, they're just allowed to break them :-) eg in an emergency, an ambulance can go through a red light, but if they cause an accident by doing so, the driv

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

sent from a phone > On 2. Mar 2019, at 02:18, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > Should I tag every street wide enough for a chair to pass with > "emergency=yes"? no because emergency is an access key (legal access), so „wide enough“ is not a criterion Cheers, Martin _

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

sent from a phone > On 2. Mar 2019, at 02:05, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > And if we don't have such a need, why do we need "emergency=yes"? I agree we probably never needed emergency=yes/no but it may appear on supplemental signs eg in Germany („Einsatzfahrzeuge frei“) or there may be dedicate

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Mateusz Konieczny writes: > Mar 1, 2019, 8:48 PM by ba...@ursamundi.org: > >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 13:57 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com >> > > wrote: >> >>> Feb 27, 2019, 7:31 PM by >> ba...@ursamundi.org >>> >> : >>> >>

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

BTW, here in Venice patients are almost always transported by emergency personnel on "a chair with handles" (/a chair-stretcher... I don't know if there is an English name for that.../). The reason is that normal stretchers would not pass through most buildings narrow and steep stairs. Should

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-03-02 01:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > sent from a phone > >> On 1. Mar 2019, at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> >> I would tag max weight, I would not tag emergency=no. > > +1, it will not exclude all kinds of emergency services anyway, only those in > vehicles that are too heavy

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-03-02 01:35, Paul Allen wrote: > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 00:22, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> > wrote: > > On 2019-03-02 00:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >> Being picky, but (at least out here) they're not exempt, they're just >> allowed to break them :-) eg in an emergency, an

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 00:22, Sergio Manzi wrote: > On 2019-03-02 00:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Being picky, but (at least out here) they're not exempt, they're just > allowed to break them :-) eg in an emergency, an ambulance can go through a > red light, but if they cause an accident by d

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

sent from a phone > On 1. Mar 2019, at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I would tag max weight, I would not tag emergency=no. +1, it will not exclude all kinds of emergency services anyway, only those in vehicles that are too heavy, for example there could be police on bicycles who coul

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-03-02 00:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Being picky, but (at least out here) they're not exempt, they're just allowed > to break them :-) eg in an emergency, an ambulance can go through a red > light, but if they cause an accident by doing so, the driver will be charged > (& they have b

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 07:02, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > And emergency vehicle are exempt from traffic laws. > > Being picky, but (at least out here) they're not exempt, they're just allowed to break them :-) eg in an emergency, an ambulance can go through a red light, but if they cause an acciden

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 6:02 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Adding emergency=yes is useful only where it adds information to mapper or > data consumers. > I am not going to start spamming it everywhere. You can set a country-wide default [1]. Otherwise, you only need to add emergency=yes when any

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Mar 1, 2019, 8:48 PM by ba...@ursamundi.org: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 13:57 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: > >> Feb 27, 2019, 7:31 PM by >> ba...@ursamundi.org >> >> : >> >>> motor_vehicle=no would exclude mos

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 15:25, Paul Johnson wrote: >> To exclude emergency vehicles one should tag physical, not legal >> barriers. > > To include motorized emergency vehicles where access=no or motor_vehicle=no, > you need to add emergency=yes. Because if we don't, the fire truck stops, the firef

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 13:57 Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 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, prese

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 13:17 Fernando Trebien wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > 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 < > fernando.treb...@gm

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Mar 1, 2019, 3:23 PM by ja...@piorkowski.ca: > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 09:10, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access >> >> and >> >> https://w

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 09:10, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access and > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency > were just modifed > > Review of > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aemergency&type=revision&diff=1812453&oldid=1606

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Mar 1, 2019, 1:03 PM by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > That's not > written anywhere in the main articles on the topic [1][2]. If that's > the general interpretation, then emergency=* should not be nested > under acccess=*. > > [1] > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access >

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Mar 1, 2019, 1:37 PM by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 12:14, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: > >> >> Can you give an example of place where emergency vehicles are >> legally forbidden from entering? >> > > Can I point you

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 12:14, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Can you give an example of place where emergency vehicles are > legally forbidden from entering? > Can I point you to an actual, real-world, example? No. Can I give you a scenario? Yes. A bridge wide enough for motor vehicles but a ve

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Feb 28, 2019, 1:24 PM by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:58 PM Mateusz Konieczny > <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > wrote: > >> >> Feb 27, 2019, 7:31 PM by >> ba...@ursamundi.org >> >> : >> >> motor_vehicle=no wo

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:56 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Do., 28. Feb. 2019 um 13:26 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien > : >> Currently, it actually would because emergency=* is nested under >> motor_vehicle=* in the access tags hierarchy. [1] So to express that >> motor vehicles (cars, trucks,

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Feb 28, 2019, 1:54 PM by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Do., 28. Feb. 2019 um 13:26 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien <> > fernando.treb...@gmail.com > >: > >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:58 PM Mateusz Konieczny >> <>> matkoni...@tutanota.com

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Agreed. In Nederland, I think most mappers will agree. It's just that a gazillion roads and streets have been tagged as unclassified based on an import assumption that unclassified means no known classification. Seems like a candidate for automated correction but... another gazillion roads actuall

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Am Do., 28. Feb. 2019 um 13:26 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien < fernando.treb...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:58 PM Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> Feb 27, 2019, 7:31 PM by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > > motor_vehicle=no would exclude most emergency vehicles. > > No, it would not. motor_vehi

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 6:15 AM Volker Schmidt wrote: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 20:09, Fernando Trebien > wrote: >> I think Lone Pine [2] would be interesting to discuss because it >> doesn't have any major routes linking larger places passing through >> it. The highways leading to it are curren

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:58 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 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. Currently, it actually would because emergency=* is nested under mot

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

> emergency=yes is the most common value, it's a modal/class exception. did you check whether that is on highways or on amenity=hospital ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 20:17, Fernando Trebien wrote: Actually access=* gets overridden by any other more specific access > tag in the access hierarchy [1]. So access=no+foot=permissive means no > access to everyone except pedestrians, which are explicitly > authorized. > > [1] > https://wiki.ope

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 20:09, Fernando Trebien wrote: > I think Lone Pine [2] would be interesting to discuss because it > doesn't have any major routes linking larger places passing through > it. The highways leading to it are currently highway=residential and > should probably be highway=uncla

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Am Mi., 27. Feb. 2019 um 20:07 Uhr schrieb Mark Wagner < mark+...@carnildo.com>: > > in Europe hamlets will typically not have their own cemetery, here it > > is a characteristic of a village (traditionally it will be > > churchyards, i.e. a burial place within the sacred area of a church, > > ham

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

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 if anything, presence of legal motor_vehicle=no may hint that motor vehicles would be able to pass it, so it was made illegal.

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > 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 >> > wrote: >> >> I never thought that emergency access would determine highway >> >>

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:58 AM Mark Wagner wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:52:19 -0300 > Fernando Trebien wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 3:46 AM Mark Wagner > > wrote: > > > When you did your query for hamlets, I'm afraid you ran headlong > > > into a quirk of American political geograp

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:52, Paul Johnson wrote: > 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 >> > wrote: >> >> I never thought that emergency access would determine highway >> >> c

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 09:23:52 +0100 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > > > On 27. Feb 2019, at 08:56, Mark Wagner > > wrote: > > > > The best way I've found to identify "real" hamlets is the presence > > of a cemetery. > > > in Europe hamlets will typically not have their ow

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

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 > wrote: > >> I never thought that emergency access would determine highway > >> classification. It seems like a secondary use of the way, not

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:32, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 11:25 Fernando Trebien > wrote: >> I never thought that emergency access would determine highway >> classification. It seems like a secondary use of the way, not its main >> use/purpose. > > motor_vehicle=no would exclude

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 11:25 Fernando Trebien wrote: > I never thought that emergency access would determine highway > classification. It seems like a secondary use of the way, not its main > use/purpose. > motor_vehicle=no would exclude most emergency vehicles. Most pedestrian ways (highway=ped

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 1:45 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > > 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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

sent from a phone > On 27. Feb 2019, at 08:56, Mark Wagner wrote: > > The best way I've found to identify "real" hamlets is the presence of a > cemetery. in Europe hamlets will typically not have their own cemetery, here it is a characteristic of a village (traditionally it will be church

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:52:19 -0300 Fernando Trebien wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 3:46 AM Mark Wagner > wrote: > > When you did your query for hamlets, I'm afraid you ran headlong > > into a quirk of American political geography. Historically, the > > postal service would only deliver mail t

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

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 sour

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 19:09 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi : > Venice situation is unusual but not unique and in other contexts different > tagging schemes have been used, not limited by the footway/pedestrian > alternative. > > As an example see how this road in Mackinac Island (*no motor vehicles >

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 3:09 PM Sergio Manzi wrote: > > Venice situation is unusual but not unique and in other contexts different > tagging schemes have been used, not limited by the footway/pedestrian > alternative. > > As an example see how this road in Mackinac Island (no motor vehicles > t

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

P.S. a note to Andy Townsend: We are not at "/the price of fish/" yet, but we're rapidly closing in...    :-) On 2019-02-26 19:19, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > Exactly! And in Venice there is an official designation of roads accordingly > to their availability in case of exceptional high tides ("/Acq

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Exactly! And in Venice there is an official designation of roads accordingly to their availability in case of exceptional high tides ("/Acqua alta/") of different heights, but AFAIK this essential information is not registered anywhere in OSM... Are you a Venetian too, Fernando? Cheers, Sergi

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Venice situation is unusual but not unique and in other contexts different tagging schemes have been used, not limited by the footway/pedestrian alternative. As an example see how this road in Mackinac Island (/no motor vehicles there.../) is tagged: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17874338

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-02-26 15:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 13:52 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien > mailto:fernando.treb...@gmail.com>>: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:00 PM Sergio Manzi > wrote: > I think the official categories in Codice della Strada s

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:20 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 13:52 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien > : >> >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:00 PM Sergio Manzi wrote: >> I think the official categories in Codice della Strada should probably >> be assigned to OSM's classes by c

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

I believe you, I've spent a week there one year ago. As a map user I would prefer to have the safe passages during acqua alta [1] somehow highlighted, or at least the main pedestrian routes between the main plazas, and I think many of the narrower alleys (some are narrower than the width of a car)

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 14:40 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi : > ... and not only cycleways: have a look here, where I live: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.4364/12.3334 > > All are "highway=pedestrian", at the same level, but believe me: they are > not! Venice is a globally unique (or m

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 13:52 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien < fernando.treb...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:00 PM Sergio Manzi wrote: > I think the official categories in Codice della Strada should probably > be assigned to OSM's classes by closely matching the descriptions in > the wi

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 13:40 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 12:17, Fernando Trebien > wrote: > >> >> I don't think a uniform, worldwide highway class standardisation based >> on road attributes is possible and satisfactory. But I think a >> functional one would be, at least a

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Only as a philosophical detour: sounds like the sort of difference between highway=footway and highway=pedestrian. It deserves its own topic I think. On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:32 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > > Honestly couldn't hurt the cycleways to have a better model than just path > and cycleway

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

... and not only cycleways: have a look here, where I live: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.4364/12.3334 All are "highway=pedestrian", at the same level, but believe me: they are not! Sergio On 2019-02-26 14:30, Paul Johnson wrote: > Honestly couldn't hurt the cycleways to have a bett

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:01 AM Dave Swarthout wrote: > > Whoa, > > What happened to the original topic of this thread? We were trying to come up > with a system of determining whether a highway is classified or residential. > Now we're talking about traffic density and traffic speed, and some s

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

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 example). On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:39 AM Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue,

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-02-26 14:13, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 26/02/2019 09:58, Dave Swarthout wrote: >> Whoa, >> >> What happened to the original topic of this thread? We were trying to come >> up with a system of determining whether a highway is classified or >> residential. Now we're talking about traffic de

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 26/02/2019 09:58, Dave Swarthout wrote: Whoa, What happened to the original topic of this thread? We were trying to come up with a system of determining whether a highway is classified or residential. Now we're talking about traffic density and traffic speed, and some sort of numerical cla

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 9:40 AM Paul Allen wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 12:17, Fernando Trebien > wrote: >> >> >> I don't think a uniform, worldwide highway class standardisation based >> on road attributes is possible and satisfactory. But I think a >> functional one would be, at least as

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:00 PM Sergio Manzi wrote: > > +1 here too, and a little bit of the same concerns expressed by Andy > (https://xkcd.com/927/) > > BTW, in the Italian mailing list there is currently a thread discussing if > and how we should tag highways according to what are the officia

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 12:17, Fernando Trebien wrote: > > I don't think a uniform, worldwide highway class standardisation based > on road attributes is possible and satisfactory. But I think a > functional one would be, at least as a guiding principle. > What we currently have doesn't reflect r

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 6:11 PM Andy Townsend wrote: > It's a noble aim, but unfortunately the first thing that springs to mind > is https://xkcd.com/927/ :) Funny old one, though a bit sarcastic. Many standards we have today have emerged from competing standards, and that's true from data protoc

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 05:28, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is ther a UK page that has these official classifications? They maybe of > use to fit others classifications to. > There is such a page. It probably won't help. It confuses me and I live here. :) https://assets.publishing.ser

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Whoa, What happened to the original topic of this thread? We were trying to come up with a system of determining whether a highway is classified or residential. Now we're talking about traffic density and traffic speed, and some sort of numerical classification scheme for motorways, etc. What's g

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 26/02/19 10:59, Sergio Manzi wrote: +1 here too, and a little bit of the same concerns expressed by Andy (https://xkcd.com/927/) BTW, in the Italian mailing list there is currently a thread discussing if and how we should tag highways according to what are the official categories in the

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

+1 here too, and a little bit of the same concerns expressed by Andy (https://xkcd.com/927/) BTW, in the Italian mailing list there is currently a thread discussing if and how we should tag highways according to what are the official categories in the Italian Traffic Code (/Codice della Strada/

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 24/02/2019 14:25, djakk djakk wrote: I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least 5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics.

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

sent from a phone > On 25. Feb 2019, at 10:52, Erkin Alp Güney wrote: > > road_level tag also solves non-primary motorway tagging (motorroad, > autovia, non-expressway freeway, Polish S-road, Russian limited access > A-road etc.). You would tag a non-primary motorway as highway=motorway > road

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 11:27 AM djakk djakk wrote: > I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its administrative > class, its importance in the road network (at least 5 levels), its physical > characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its > traffi

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Hello ! So I have written something on the wiki : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Djakk/new_tagging_scheme_for_roads It is not definitive, feel free to add new ideas or to criticize ;) Julien “djakk” Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 11:36, djakk djakk a écrit : > I meant “road for hgv” not “r

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

I meant “road for hgv” not “road for hybrid” ^^ Julien “djakk” Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 11:35, djakk djakk a écrit : > I forgot to mention that there are several kind of road to class : > footway, cycleway, road for cars, road for hybrid, road for psv ;) > > Julien “djakk” > > > Le lun. 25 févr

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

I forgot to mention that there are several kind of road to class : footway, cycleway, road for cars, road for hybrid, road for psv ;) Julien “djakk” Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 10:55, Erkin Alp Güney a écrit : > Service roads would be highway=service as it is now. > > road_level tag also solves no

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Service roads would be highway=service as it is now. road_level tag also solves non-primary motorway tagging (motorroad, autovia, non-expressway freeway, Polish S-road, Russian limited access A-road etc.). You would tag a non-primary motorway as highway=motorway road_level=. 25.02.2019 00:20 tari

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Yes it must be additional tags, so that existing tools that use openstreetmap do not get lost :) I’ll try to write this on my wiki’s page in the next days ... Julien “djakk” Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 00:30, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > > > sent from a phone > > > On 24. Feb 2019, at 22:20,

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

sent from a phone > On 24. Feb 2019, at 22:20, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Replace the existing highway= types (=motorway; =primary etc) with highway=1 > to =5?, with 1 being the existing =motorway, down to 5 being all the minor > streets in a town. rather than replacing the highway tags

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 00:27, djakk djakk wrote: > Hello ! > > I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its > administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least 5 > levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes, > link=yes ...), possibly its

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Okay I found it ! May 2018 ;) Julien “djakk” Le dim. 24 févr. 2019 à 19:11, djakk djakk a écrit : > Erkin, when did you make this proposal ? > > Julien > > > Le dim. 24 févr. 2019 à 18:31, Erkin Alp Güney a > écrit : > >> It reminds me my road_level proposal for some reason. >> >> 24.02.2019

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Erkin, when did you make this proposal ? Julien Le dim. 24 févr. 2019 à 18:31, Erkin Alp Güney a écrit : > It reminds me my road_level proposal for some reason. > > 24.02.2019 17:48 tarihinde djakk djakk yazdı: > > ... furthermore, highway_level can be used to classify footway or > > cycleway

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

It reminds me my road_level proposal for some reason. 24.02.2019 17:48 tarihinde djakk djakk yazdı: > ... furthermore, highway_level can be used to classify footway or > cycleway :) > > For example, in a park, some footway are “unclassified” (or > highway_level=5) and some are “primary” (or highwa

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

... furthermore, highway_level can be used to classify footway or cycleway :) For example, in a park, some footway are “unclassified” (or highway_level=5) and some are “primary” (or highway_level=1). Very useful to render long-range trail. djakk Le dim. 24 févr. 2019 à 15:44, djakk djakk a écr

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

... for the unclassified / residential issue : highway_level=5 or 6 and highway_physics=countryside or town djakk Le dim. 24 févr. 2019 à 15:25, djakk djakk a écrit : > Hello ! > > I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its > administrative class, its importance in the road

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Hello ! I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least 5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics. So we can tag a secondary motorway

  1   2   >