On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 21:22, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> or in other words if highway=primary always means a=x and b=y then all you
> would have to add to the scheme is c=z/w as a qualifier for
> highway=primary, no need for a completely new system
>
That's true. But I was simplifying.
sent from a phone
> On 10. Aug 2019, at 19:34, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> So
> you might say that highway=primary automatically becomes a=x + b=y + c=z
> but that implies that a highway=primary might actually be a=x + b=y + c=w.
> So it is necessary to remap.everything in order to check whether
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 17:27, Julien djakk
wrote:
>
> The "old" highway tag can give default values to the 5 new tags, so it
> is not necessary to re-map everything :)
>
If it is a guaranteed 1:1 relationship then there is no point doing it.
Maybe if the
semantics became clearer (like migrating
Hello Paul !
The "old" highway tag can give default values to the 5 new tags, so it
is not necessary to re-map everything :)
Yes you are absolutely right : I need my own renderer to populate the
new tags. I was thinking about putting anything (roads, summits,
footways, towns, trees …) with
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 11:42, Julien djakk
wrote:
>
> Classifying roads should be the same all over the world ! :O
>
In an ideal OSM, tagging ANYTHING should be the same all over the world.
Sadly, people
sometimes insist on fitting square pegs into round holes instead of coming
up with a new
Hello !
I've been thinking about road hierarchy in OSM for a long time.
Classifying roads should be the same all over the world ! :O
The highway tag shuffles administration grade (in England for example
or for motorways), physical characteristics / abutters (example :
residential, motorway),
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:12 AM Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> We're on the same page. The pavement and separations argument just
> illustrates how local authorities may make the same distinction, and try to
> regulate traffic and safety informally. So here, I can use this for the
> classification,
We're on the same page. The pavement and separations argument just
illustrates how local authorities may make the same distinction, and try to
regulate traffic and safety informally. So here, I can use this for the
classification, but in the next town it would probably not work.
Vr gr Peter
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 14:51, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> +1, historically (say pre-1960ies, I’m not old enough to tell from own
> experience and may be wrong) you wouldn’t have found pavements in German
> hamlets and villages (or likely anywhere in the countryside), and although
> most will
sent from a phone
> On 8. Aug 2019, at 13:41, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Except I wouldn't let the pavements, greenery, trees, etc. influence
> me. If the main function is getting through the village then it's a through
> road even though
> it has houses that are barely separated from the road
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 12:18, Peter Elderson wrote:
> To be practical, I think I will retag the clearly residential roads now
> tagged as 'unclassified' in my town, to 'residential'. Some roads are now
> tagged as residential, but the main function is getting through the
> village. These tend to
To be practical, I think I will retag the clearly residential roads now
tagged as 'unclassified' in my town, to 'residential'. Some roads are now
tagged as residential, but the main function is getting through the
village. These tend to give access to housing as well, but houses are
separated from
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 03:18, Michael Tsang wrote:
If the "primary purpose" of the road is through traffic, and the "driving
> experience" is like on a major road (e.g. straight, fast, no obstruction,
> no
> give way, etc.), that part of the road is still red / pink.
>
> However, if that road is
On Wednesday, 07 August 2019 19:26:57 HKT Paul Allen wrote:
> Standard carto gives secondary, and higher, roads their own colours and
> renders
> tertiary roads wider than residential roads. This allows people to use
> that most
> primitive of routeing algorithms called "looking at the map."
*Also the presence of shops and pubs may in some context indicate the
principal road. *
Depend of contexte because if this is a living_street I not sure that is a
good idea to set this as principal road for vehicule... This is why there
is a global contexte and others distinctives properties
sent from a phone
> On 7. Aug 2019, at 13:26, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> As always, there are compromises to be made. But in much of the UK (and
> probably
> much of elsewhere) mapping a road that is both a tertiary (or higher) route
> and which
> also has houses along it as residential is not
On Sunday, 04 August 2019 23:06:47 HKT Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 15:51, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > Where do you take this assumption from? I have never heard before that
> > residential may not be used for through traffic?
>
> Many residential roads are cul-de-sacs. Dead ends.
On Sunday, 04 August 2019 16:46:26 HKT Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 2019-08-04, sk, 11:32 Florian Lohoff rašė:
> > For me unclassified is the same as residential. <...>
>
> Ok, so unclassified vs residential is regionally defined, as I wrote.
>
> But what about service/track?
>
They are not
On Sunday, 04 August 2019 15:41:09 HKT Tomas Straupis wrote:
> > Personally, I'd have put residential / living together above unclassified
>
> Interesting. Unclassified was always (more than 10 years) defined
> for "through traffic" which puts it a higher in a hierarchy. From what
> I
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 15:16, Philip Barnes wrote:
[Back alleys]
> They have these where I used to visit my grandmother in South Wales,
All over the UK, I suspect. If you're old enough to remember the early
days (late 60s/
early 70s) of "Coronation Street" the houses on the street had a back
On Tuesday, 6 August 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 13:31, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
> I may have been misguided here, but to me any narrower pathway in a
> > settlement would be suitable for the alley tag. Like those in the pictures
> > here:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 13:31, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
I may have been misguided here, but to me any narrower pathway in a
> settlement would be suitable for the alley tag. Like those in the pictures
> here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alley
>
I agree. But they may not have names. The
sent from a phone
> On 6. Aug 2019, at 11:15, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Typically? In some parts of the world, maybe. In others, not so much. Of
> the three I
> can think of in my town, none have names.
>
> Side-note. Those three alleys give access to the rear gardens of the houses
>
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 08:49, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> > On 5. Aug 2019, at 07:06, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> >
> > Which of those do carry names typically? I cant see any?
>
> alleys
>
Typically? In some parts of the world, maybe. In others, not so much. Of
the three I
can think of in my
sent from a phone
> On 5. Aug 2019, at 07:06, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
> Which of those do carry names typically? I cant see any?
alleys
Cheers Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
I agree, but it also says don't expect it to be rendered or routed, it's a
fixme error. Mappers have used and will use 'unclassified' because they
want rendering and routing without bothering about the classification.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op ma 5 aug. 2019 om 09:56 schreef Warin
R - unclassified
A - unclassified
B - track
C - residential
On 8/4/19 3:46 AM, Tomas Straupis wrote:
All right, let's make it more detailed and more extended.
R
R
RAAA
R A
R
R
R
R
Now A and C are ways leading into the inner territory of residential
building(s). But A has
>Different places, different practices. In the rural areas near here, a
great many private service ways have names, so that the houses on them will
have street >addresses for emergency services to find. Often the name is
something like 'Smith Road' because it goes into the Smith family farm.
It's
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:07 AM Florian Lohoff wrote:
> Correct - But from my experience its either a service or it has
> a name. At least in the part of Germany where i map.
>
> There are of course the 1% of exceptions where Bayer or BASF names roads
> on their facility property. But the typical
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 06:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 12:30:48AM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> > I just reverted it. And added some clarification (some may disagree and
> > think I've murkified it)
> > based on why I think those words were removed back in February. Feel
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 05:53:10PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> On 05/08/19 16:32, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > At the moment, 'unclassified' has so many different opinions that it
> > means nothing at all. Could we at least agree on the basics:
> >
> > A. "unclassified" means you don't know the class;
>
I would recommend that the wiki reference the UK road classification scheme so
those who want to can delve into the classification scheme OSM uses.
Example:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315783/road-classification-guidance.pdf
On 05/08/19 16:32, Peter Elderson wrote:
At the moment, 'unclassified' has so many different opinions that it
means nothing at all. Could we at least agree on the basics:
A. "unclassified" means you don't know the class;
No. The tag highway=road says that the class is unknown.
At the moment, 'unclassified' has so many different opinions that it means
nothing at all. Could we at least agree on the basics:
A. "unclassified" means you don't know the class;
or
B. "unclassified" is a class in itself.
If A the UK needs an alternative for roads officially classified as
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 12:30:48AM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 00:12, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
> I just reverted it. And added some clarification (some may disagree and
> think I've murkified it)
> based on why I think those words were removed back in February. Feel
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 07:55:16PM +0100, ael wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 04:23:03PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > sent from a phone
> > > On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > > A residential is also an unclassified road.
> >
> > IMHO it is not, as an unclassified
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 04:21:14PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I don’t think this is a valid conclusion:
>
> - we are not restricting our tagging to official denominations but
> give precedence to on the ground usage
Correct - But from my experience its either a service or it has
a name.
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 00:12, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
this should be reverted, and I would be glad if someone did it now, because
> I cannot do it myself at the moment. Thank you.
>
I just reverted it. And added some clarification (some may disagree and
think I've murkified it)
based on why
sent from a phone
On 4. Aug 2019, at 16:50, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>> Residential roads are the roads inside the residential area, which are
>> not used by through traffic
>
> Where do you take this assumption from? I have never heard before that
> residential may not be used for through
It's supposed to be modeled after the british road system. If the class
exists only in the UK and you're a strictie, then you should not use it
outside the UK.
If you are a non-strictie then you can use the classification únclassified'
for comparable roads, i.e. a class of connecting road in the
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 09:35:41 +0300
Tomas Straupis wrote:
> Hello
>
> Road hierarchy is needed for a number of things:
> * deciding which classes of roads to display on different scales in
> a map
> * performing road network validation
> * other tasks (f.e. typification of buildings -
Peter wrote:
My research tells me ‘unclassified’ means classified as ‘unclassified‘,
which is a class of road in the public road system.
I respectfully disagree.
That is only the case where a country has a class of roads they label or
call "Unclassified". In Alaska and Thailand, where I do the
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 04:23:03PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> >
> > A residential is also an unclassified road.
>
>
> IMHO it is not, as an unclassified road is part of the interconnection grid,
> while
My research tells me ‘unclassified’ means classified as ‘unclassified‘, which
is a class of road in the public road system. Other roads cannot be classified
as ‘unclassified’, but should get another classification. Roads without
classification need a fixme, not a classification as
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 15:51, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
> Where do you take this assumption from? I have never heard before that
> residential may not be used for through traffic?
>
Many residential roads are cul-de-sacs. Dead ends. Not classed as through
roads because
they don't lead anywhere
Well, I would be reluctant to tag the ways leading to this remote
house as unclassified or residential:
https://openmap.lt/#h/17.01/54.19809/24.27953/0/0/
These are public ways/roads, anybody can use them - they are not
private. Yet they are not in the database of Lithuanian road agency,
so they
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
> > On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> >
> > Their difference is usage. In case of residential its usage is
> > predominantly access to an residential area, whereas the unclassified is
> > for
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
> Their difference is usage. In case of residential its usage is
> predominantly access to an residential area, whereas the unclassified is
> for interconnecting residential areas (be it villages).
for me the access to a
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
> A residential is also an unclassified road.
IMHO it is not, as an unclassified road is part of the interconnection grid,
while a residential road is not
Cheers Martin
___
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
> - A service road may not carry a name (Because in Germany only public
> roads get denominated a name).
I don’t think this is a valid conclusion:
- we are not restricting our tagging to official denominations but give
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2019, at 11:06, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
> For me a public road
> can not be a service. unclassified is defined as the lowest
> class of public roads.
it is not, it is “at the lowest level of the interconnecting grid network.”,
which means service roads are not
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2019, at 10:46, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>
> But what about service/track?
both are lowest classes for motorized vehicles, with a functional difference:
tracks are for agricultural traffic (or analogously forestry or fishing), while
service roads are access
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 11:20:49AM +0100, ael wrote:
> > For me unclassified is the same as residential. The difference is that
> > unclassified is for interconnecting residential areas, and residential
> > has residential traffic. So for me there cant be an unclassified within
> > city
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 01:18:13PM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 2019-08-04, sk, 12:59 Florian Lohoff rašė:
> > If B is a public road A cant be private property and thus not be
> > a service. If B is a track A can be a service because both
> > of them share the concept of not beeing for the
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 12:25:49PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2019-08-04 11:57, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
> > This is why i get to the point "is it a public road" and "a public
> > road cant be service". If we agree on this you can as some zoom scale
> > drop service and track.
>
> What
On 2019-08-04 11:57, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> This is why i get to the point "is it a public road" and "a public
> road cant be service". If we agree on this you can as some zoom scale
> drop service and track.
What definition of "public" and "private" are you using here? This is
another can of
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 10:30:49AM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 09:35:41AM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > Road hierarchy is needed for a number of things:
> > * deciding which classes of roads to display on different scales in a map
> > * performing
2019-08-04, sk, 12:59 Florian Lohoff rašė:
> If B is a public road A cant be private property and thus not be
> a service. If B is a track A can be a service because both
> of them share the concept of not beeing for the general public.
>
> Or vice versa. If you make A a service B cant be a public
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 12:46:05PM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> Now I would like to skip road C at small scale, but leave A, because I
> want to leave B.
>
> Can we agree on some scheme to tag this (do data augmentation), so
> that less people doing cartography stuff have to resort to heavy
>
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 12:19:52PM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> Let's say we have a residential road R. Going out of this residential road
> there is a way A into the neighbouring residential area (say 50m length).
> Out of that way A there is anower way B leading into the fields/forest
> which
All right, let's make it more detailed and more extended.
R
R
RAAA
R A
R
R
R
R
Now A and C are ways leading into the inner territory of residential
building(s). But A has another important road B getting out of it, and
C does not. Which means A has through traffic while C does
Let's say we have a residential road R. Going out of this residential road
there is a way A into the neighbouring residential area (say 50m length).
Out of that way A there is anower way B leading into the fields/forest
which lies outside of the residential area. B way is long enough and
On 04/08/19 19:08, Tomas Straupis wrote:
2019-08-04, sk, 11:56 Erkin Alp Güney rašė:
Paved: service unpaved:track
service could always be paved and unpaved.
track used to be always unpaved, but somewhere somehow tracktype1
became paved :-)
I have a number of tracks around me. Some
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 11:55:08AM +0300, Erkin Alp Güney wrote:
> Paved: service unpaved:track
So half of the highways in African countries are tracks?
IIRC osm does tag highway class by usage not by construction or
physical attributes.
So there is a perfect possibility that large stretches of
2019-08-04, sk, 11:56 Erkin Alp Güney rašė:
> Paved: service unpaved:track
service could always be paved and unpaved.
track used to be always unpaved, but somewhere somehow tracktype1
became paved :-)
___
Tagging mailing list
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 11:46:26AM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 2019-08-04, sk, 11:32 Florian Lohoff rašė:
> > For me unclassified is the same as residential. <...>
>
> Ok, so unclassified vs residential is regionally defined, as I wrote.
>
> But what about service/track?
Same
Paved: service unpaved:track
4 Ağu 2019 Paz 11:47 tarihinde Tomas Straupis
şunu yazdı:
> 2019-08-04, sk, 11:32 Florian Lohoff rašė:
>
> Ok, so unclassified vs residential is regionally defined, as I wrote.
>
> But what about service/track?
>
> ___
2019-08-04, sk, 11:32 Florian Lohoff rašė:
> For me unclassified is the same as residential. <...>
Ok, so unclassified vs residential is regionally defined, as I wrote.
But what about service/track?
___
Tagging mailing list
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 09:35:41AM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> Hello
>
> Road hierarchy is needed for a number of things:
> * deciding which classes of roads to display on different scales in a map
> * performing road network validation
> * other tasks (f.e. typification of buildings -
> Personally, I'd have put residential / living together above unclassified
Interesting. Unclassified was always (more than 10 years) defined
for "through traffic" which puts it a higher in a hierarchy. From what
I understand it was always in the group of primary/secondary/tertiary
just the one
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 16:37, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>
> There is non written (or I could not find in wiki) or "de facto"
> hierarchy:
> * motorway
> * trunk
> * primary
> * secondary
> * tertiary
> * unclassified
> * residential
> * living_street
> In some regions unclassified
71 matches
Mail list logo
