Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

yes, I also saw them in Germany Von: Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Oktober 2015 11:41 An: tagging@openstreetmap.org Betreff: Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs On Sat, 2015-10-31 at 01:31 +0200,

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

On Sat, 2015-10-31 at 01:31 +0200, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: > > Even the no entry (round red sign with a yellow/white horizontal > rectangle) sign _effectively_ makes a short section oneway: every > vehicle has length, so at some point coming from the "oneway" > direction, there's at least a small

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > It is often used to simply prohibit traffic, with exceptions shown on a > plate below. Except buses (and taxis) is often used in the UK, "sauf > riverains" is common in France and both indicate an access restriction,

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

sent from a phone > Am 31.10.2015 um 00:31 schrieb Lauri Kytömaa : > > Even the no entry (round red sign with a yellow/white horizontal > rectangle) sign _effectively_ makes a short section oneway: no, it is an infinitesimal small section aka a point that is effected. In

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

rong tagging, but it seems to show that the cryptic code is not enough. Gerd Von: Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Oktober 2015 11:54 An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Betreff: Re: [Tagging] More human readable values

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

ects which are rare, like my weighbridge question. Von: Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Oktober 2015 01:15 An: tagging@openstreetmap.org Betreff: Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs Ok, I'm impressed... C

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

André Pirard wrote:I think he is referring to the "do not enter" sign, a red circle with a horizontal white bar. >The rectangular F19 is disputably classified as "information" >The no-U-turn sign C33

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

I like the description of the tagging list as the Golgafrinch B Ark :-) ... and I did not have to look it up. And I agree that highway=path is not a good tag, even though I use it. I hope the OSMwiki is better than the Golgafrinch B Ark! Hope. As in I'm not certain. Regarding traffic sign

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

et:* Freitag, 30. Oktober 2015 01:15 *An:* tagging@openstreetmap.org *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs Ok, I'm impressed... Can you give some examples of the "tagfiddling" you refer to, that annoys you? How do we fix that? What tires me, is the l

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

Colin Smale wrote: > Can you give some examples of the "tagfiddling" you refer to, > that annoys you? How do we fix that? highway=path and the associated access tags are the canonical example. highway=path was created to address perceived problems with highway=cycleway/footway, but in fact has

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

Colin Smale wrote: > Is the situation now clear? Is it now (unambiguously) clear to > (all) mappers how to tag paths? No. > So you are saying that any discussions on the mailing lists are > just distractions as the real decisions are taken elsewhere. > Where would that be then? They're not

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

On 2015-10-30 12:52, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Colin Smale wrote: > >> Can you give some examples of the "tagfiddling" you refer to, >> that annoys you? How do we fix that? > > highway=path and the associated access tags are the canonical example. > highway=path was created to address

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

Richard, you are entirely forgiven. Thanks for your contributions. I had to look up "Golgafrincham B Ark" but unfortunately I can see your point... Have a good weekend Colin On 2015-10-30 14:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Colin Smale wrote: > >> Is the situation now clear? Is it now

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

How about traffic_sign:transcription=__ For a copy, in the local language, of the text on the sign. This is what a GPS might speak to you (or, if blind people drove cars, what you'd say to them): traffic_sign=no_parking traffic_sign:transcription=No truck parking 8am-9am on

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

Michael Reichert wrote: > That's why I suggest to use the country prefixes followed by a number > or the name depending if the country numbers its traffic signs (like > Germany) or not (like Austria). There's no need to do that. OSM is a spatial database: you can find out whether a sign is to

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

I think he is referring to the "do not enter" sign, a red circle with a horizontal white bar. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King, Jr. On October

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

On 29/10/2015 20:40, Colin Smale wrote: How can that spatial lookup be made very cheaply? How long will it take to do a point-in-polygon for every road sign in Europe? It's very cheap. I do polyline-in-polygon for every single road and path I render on cycle.travel, because I have different

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

I don't have any examples to counter your statement. But I am assuming you are referring to the use of a spatial database. It is IMHO a high barrier to entry. Are we to expect users to have that kind of infrastructure and skills at their disposal? What about mkgmap and the many other consumers

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

On 29/10/2015 21:52, Colin Smale wrote: I don't have any examples to counter your statement. But I am assuming you are referring to the use of a spatial database. It is IMHO a high barrier to entry. Are we to expect users to have that kind of infrastructure and skills at their disposal? What

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

On 2015-10-29 21:00, John Eldredge wrote : > > I think he is referring to the "do not enter" sign, a red circle with > a horizontal white bar. > Jo sometimes speaks vaguely and publishes search/guessing exercises ;-) . What he means is: > Also keep in mind there are 2 'oneway' signs. A blue one

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

sent from a phone > Am 29.10.2015 um 21:40 schrieb Colin Smale : > > How can that spatial lookup be made very cheaply? I agree. Also, the current scheme uses (where applicable) country code + sign code in that country:

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

Ok, I'm impressed... Can you give some examples of the "tagfiddling" you refer to, that annoys you? How do we fix that? What tires me, is the lack of any decision-making process which is paralysing the whole business, and the lack of any (formal) attention for the data quality. Where is the

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 00:30:58 +0100 Jo wrote: > Also keep in mind there are 2 'oneway' signs. A blue one that can be > round or rectangular and a round red one. Can you specify country that has "round red one" oneway sign? And how it differs from normal oneway sign? Is there

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 22:05:22 + (UTC) Michael Reichert wrote: > Hi Mateusz, > > Am Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:58:08 +0100 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > > I recently started tagging traffic signs and I am surprised by wide > > usage country-specific traffic sign codes. > > > > I

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

Perhaps he (Jo) is referring to the no entrance sign on the other end of the oneway ? regards m On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 00:30:58 +0100 > Jo wrote: > > > Also keep in mind there are 2 'oneway'

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

If we can reach consensus on the use of traffic_sign_code, it would not be hard to perform a mechanical edit to move them over (and populate the traffic_sign) with human readable values. Such a script would not touch 'ambiguous' data, of course and leave that to humans. The tricky part is making

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

2015-10-28 7:12 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > Also, one may use for example traffic_sign_code to tag exact reference > allowing for country specific data processing (for example > [traffic_sign=oneway, traffic_sign_code=PL:D-3]). > one might use this tag

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 09:48:46 +0100 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-10-28 7:12 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > > > Also, one may use for example traffic_sign_code to tag exact > > reference allowing for country specific data processing (for example

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Jo wrote: > The tricky part is making a good proposal. Not overly hard for many of the > traffic signs, Quite a challenge for all the sub signs in the various > languages... which will probably take us back to the heavy discussion on

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

Hi Mateusz, Am Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:58:08 +0100 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > I recently started tagging traffic signs and I am surprised by wide > usage country-specific traffic sign codes. > > I think that at least common signs may be tagged by human-readable > values. Some (see >

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

Also keep in mind there are 2 'oneway' signs. A blue one that can be round or rectangular and a round red one. 2015-10-27 23:05 GMT+01:00 Michael Reichert : > Hi Mateusz, > > Am Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:58:08 +0100 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > > I recently started tagging traffic

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

Only the rectangular blue sign means one way traffic... The round blue one tells you which way to drive at a junction which is subtly different. What is the round red one you have in mind? --colin On 28 October 2015 00:30:58 CET, Jo wrote: >Also keep in mind there are 2

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

Mateusz Konieczny-2 wrote > I propose to add more like > - traffic_sign=oneway > - traffic_sign=no_stopping > - traffic_sign=no_parking I like the last two, I am not happy with traffic_sign=oneway. I fear that this might be used instead of tagging the corresponding way, on the other hand the

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 02:38:37AM -0700, GerdP wrote: > Mateusz Konieczny-2 wrote > > I propose to add more like > > - traffic_sign=oneway > > - traffic_sign=no_stopping > > - traffic_sign=no_parking > > I like the last two, I am not happy with traffic_sign=oneway. > I fear that this might be

[Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

I recently started tagging traffic signs and I am surprised by wide usage country-specific traffic sign codes. I think that at least common signs may be tagged by human-readable values. Some (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_sign#Human-readable_values ) are already used. I