2014-11-04 23:33 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at:
It does not matter if the name is just unset or if noname=yes is set, as
either of these tags deserve verification
there is a subtle difference, in that it is very common in OSM to trace
from aerial imagery without any survey, and
On 05.11.2014 10:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
there is a subtle difference, in that it is very common in OSM to trace from
aerial imagery without any survey, and in these cases you obviously won't be
able to enter names. Therefor streets without names in OSM but with names in
the real world
On 29.10.2014 13:08, Pieren wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
(...) But when we see nothing, it's plain wrong to add something to the
database.
But it's a common practice today in OSM. It seems you missed the long
discussions about noname=yes
1) In many jurisdictions the ultimate permit and authority come from a
state sponsored map of restrictions. For example
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/permits/stars.htm (warning: requires
crufty Microsoft software).
2) Consider that many bridges cross at an angle, meaning there's more
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:24 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote:
And both tags are
definitive, whereas maxheight:signed=no (or whatever) is just
waiting for a better tooled or experienced mapper to do the survey.
No. The survey is done : there is no legal height restriction under
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
(...) But when we see nothing, it's plain wrong to add something to the
database.
But it's a common practice today in OSM. It seems you missed the long
discussions about noname=yes or oneway=no. Such tags don't say
here
2014-10-29 13:08 GMT+01:00 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
Btw, I'm also in favour of maxheight=unsigned
maybe unmarked would be more English than unsigned?
Alternatively it could also be default?
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
why would we treat maxheight different from maxspeed ?
I thought the consensus for maxspeed was to tag the maxspeed explicitly and
the reason in source:maxspeed
So why can't we fill in the default value for unsigned bridges explicitly ,
so e.g. maxheight=4 and add
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
So why can't we fill in the default value for unsigned bridges explicitly ,
so e.g. maxheight=4 and add source:maxheight=Country:default ?
I don't know the max height in my country. And probably most of the
contributors
Then it happens that a 3 m bridge that for some reason has no sign gets a 4 m
tag.
maxheight is different from maxspeed in some aspects.
Marc Gemis wrote on 2014-10-29 13:51:
why would we treat maxheight different from maxspeed ?
I thought the consensus for maxspeed was to tag the maxspeed
2014-10-29 13:51 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com:
why would we treat maxheight different from maxspeed ?
I thought the consensus for maxspeed was to tag the maxspeed explicitly
and the reason in source:maxspeed
So why can't we fill in the default value for unsigned bridges
2014-10-29 14:01 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org:
Then it happens that a 3 m bridge that for some reason has no sign gets a
4 m tag.
examples? What is some reason?
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
In Belgium the maximum height for a vehicle is 4m (on all roads, whether
there is a bridge or not). So without sign a bridge should allow vehicles
under the maximum height to pass.
There are exceptions, which requires a special permit (pubic transport).
Then the maximum height is 4.4m meters.
I
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-29 14:05:
2014-10-29 14:01 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer:
Then it happens that a 3 m bridge that for some reason has no sign gets a 4
m tag.
examples? What is some reason?
- rural track never had sign posted
- neglected road, sign fallen off
- unsigned road
An example would be where the sign had fallen off, or been stolen by vandals.
On October 29, 2014 8:05:10 AM CDT, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-10-29 14:01 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org:
Then it happens that a 3 m bridge that for some reason has no sign
On 29/10/2014, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
(...) But when we see nothing, it's plain wrong to add something to the
database.
But it's a common practice today in OSM. It seems you missed the long
discussions about
2014-10-27 20:21 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at:
But when
we see nothing, it's plain wrong to add something to the database. E.g.
when
there's no building, you wouldn't draw an area and tag it building=no. For
the same reason, you shouldn't make up a maxheight=none (or unsigned)
Tom Pfeifer t.pfeifer@... writes:
I stumbled over some maxheight=none tags on motorways, that did not even
pass under a bridge. I found that this is the most frequent value of
maxheight (2889 of 41474).
Tom,
thanks for bringing this up. As the author of Maxheight Map ([1], [2]) I'd
like to
On 26/10/2014, Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org wrote:
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-26 20:26:
Am 24.10.2014 um 20:53 schrieb Tom Pfeifer:
I would recommend to add maxheight=unsigned to the English and other wiki
pages, and list maxheight=none as incorrect tagging.
unsigned
Thanks mmd for shedding some light on the background of this tagging.
As said before I am not against keeping a record of a bridge being checked,
just the value =none is misleading.
Another problem is that the tag is on the way under the bridge, and
not the bridge way itself. That leads to the
Tom Pfeifer wrote on 27.10.2014 10:20:
As said before I am not against keeping a record of a bridge being checked,
just the value =none is misleading.
Another problem is that the tag is on the way under the bridge, and
not the bridge way itself. That leads to the situation that somebody
On 27/10/2014, Holger Jeromin mailgm...@katur.de wrote:
Tom Pfeifer wrote on 27.10.2014 10:20:
As said before I am not against keeping a record of a bridge being
checked,
just the value =none is misleading.
Another problem is that the tag is on the way under the bridge, and
not the bridge
On 27/10/2014, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd even argue that tagging I surveyed this but couldn't see a
limitation is useless: the sign might get added later, some mapper
might be able to measure the maxheight, the value above 4m might be
important for some people, etc. Don't
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 maxheight=none really makes no
sense.
no, the
You are quoting me out of context, leaving the impression that I'd propose
to tag the bridge way, this is not the case.
I was just pointing out that tagging the way under the bridge makes
no explicit reference to the bridge itself, and can lose the implicit
proximity reference when the way is
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
On 10/27/14 6:45 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
You are quoting me out of context, leaving the impression that I'd
propose
to tag the bridge way, this is not the case.
I was just pointing out that tagging the way under the bridge makes
no explicit reference to the bridge itself, and can lose the
On 10/27/14 6:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-10-27 11:04 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com
mailto:molto...@gmail.com:
The maxheight=* tag maps the physical limitation, not the sign (which
can be absent or even wrong). Tagging maxheight=none really makes no
On 10/27/14 12:02 AM, Peter Miller wrote:
Without a way of tagging the fact that we know that the bridge has
regulation clearance and also knowing who surveyed it and when the
data was added we can't know what we need to do to complete the
mapping to allow the routing of high vehicles.
2014-10-27 13:10 GMT+01:00 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net:
in the US, the default behavior is that the signed max height has a couple
of inches to spare.
if there is no margin then it's considered an actual maxheight which
naturally would map to
maxheight:actual
interesting. At
On Mon Oct 27 2014 12:10:25 GMT+ (GMT), Richard Welty wrote:
i have no idea what usage is in the UK
The UK uses the standard Vienna Convention system of a red triangle being a
warning and a red circle being a prohibition. A height limit in a red circle
means vehicles over the height
moltonel 3x Combo wrote on 27.10.2014 11:04:
* It can lead to mapping errors ... a bridge is
added somewhere else, etc.
The problem of outdated information is completely unrelated to this tag.
--
regards
Holger
___
Tagging mailing list
On 27/10/2014, Holger Jeromin mailgm...@katur.de wrote:
moltonel 3x Combo wrote on 27.10.2014 11:04:
* It can lead to mapping errors ... a bridge is
added somewhere else, etc.
The problem of outdated information is completely unrelated to this tag.
I disagree, an important requirement of
On 25.10.2014 01:10, Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
Personally, i use maxheight = x + maxheight:physical=x for these, but saying
that signs are the only thing that can be tagged gives bad data.
I did not say that signs are the only thing that can be tagged. I said that
we should map what we see. When
Am 27.10.2014 um 13:11 schrieb Richard Welty:
On 10/27/14 6:45 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
You are quoting me out of context, leaving the impression that I'd
propose
to tag the bridge way, this is not the case.
I was just pointing out that tagging the way under the bridge makes
no explicit
On 10/27/14 8:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-10-27 13:10 GMT+01:00 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net
mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net:
in the US, the default behavior is that the signed max height has
a couple of inches to spare.
if there is no margin then it's considered
Am 24.10.2014 um 20:53 schrieb Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org:
I would recommend to add maxheight=unsigned to the English and other wiki
pages, and list maxheight=none as incorrect tagging.
unsigned maxheight is the typical situation in all areas that I've been to. In
some (all?)
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-26 20:26:
Am 24.10.2014 um 20:53 schrieb Tom Pfeifer:
I would recommend to add maxheight=unsigned to the English and other wiki
pages, and list maxheight=none as incorrect tagging.
unsigned maxheight is the typical situation in all areas that I've been
Vastaanottaja: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Aihe: Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 24.10.2014 20:53, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
I stumbled over some maxheight=none tags on motorways, that did not
even
pass under a bridge. I found that this is the most frequent value of
maxheight (2889 of 41474
Volkmann [b...@volki.at]
Lähetetty: 25. lokakuuta 2014 0:29
Vastaanottaja:tagging@openstreetmap.org
Aihe: Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 24.10.2014 20:53, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
I stumbled over some maxheight=none tags on motorways, that did not even
pass under a bridge. I found
On 24.10.2014 20:53, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
I stumbled over some maxheight=none tags on motorways, that did not even
pass under a bridge. I found that this is the most frequent value of
maxheight (2889 of 41474).
[...]
For bridges without sign, there is no recommendation in the English wiki,
]
Lähetetty: 25. lokakuuta 2014 0:29
Vastaanottaja: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Aihe: Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 24.10.2014 20:53, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
I stumbled over some maxheight=none tags on motorways, that did not even
pass under a bridge. I found that this is the most frequent
42 matches
Mail list logo
