Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)
Am 13.04.2014 22:36, schrieb Mike N: On 4/13/2014 4:21 PM, Pieren wrote: It's just a long and onerous discussion to find dubious arguments against this tag on ways. It's really an argument against needless clutter in the Wiki. Why not add noexit to a relation to show some condition? To trees to show that once entered, there's only one way out? It's not wrong and the tools ignore it so why not? The best documentation is often the most brief - including just what is needed but nothing else to add confusion. Everyone can still tag how she/he likes to despite what is written on the wiki. Anyway, we really want to encourage mappers to map noexit=yes on nodes and not on ways and we need to make aware of the difference between the traffic sign for a dead end road and the meaning of noexit=yes. Noexit=yes tagged on ways might no be wrong but it makes it harder to tell the difference. In certain situations it gets ambiguous and overall makes it more complex. Conclusion, I am still in favour of tagging it only on the end node and to update the wiki accordingly. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)
Am 12.04.2014 20:52, schrieb Nelson A. de Oliveira: So the wiki will stay allowing and saying to use noexit on ways too, even if the majority agree that it shouldn't be like this? The german page will exclude ways and all other communities can discuss this issue on continential/national/regional level. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)
Hi, On 10.04.2014 18:08, André Pirard wrote: In other words, 40% tags (on ways) can't be wrong. But the problem is that 99.+% of these correct tags are mistakes and shouldn't even exist because they do not represent ways ending near another way, which are the targets of noexit=yes, but normal dead ends needing no other tagging. I don't see a problem in tagging a normal dead-end with noexit=yes. It doesn't hurt, and adds information (namely that this isn't just a bit where I had no time to continue tracing, but a proper end). I don't do it myself but I'll certainly not make an effort to flag this as error and get my knickers in a twist about it. What, in tagging a way, indicates on which end of it is the dead end? (I asked that already). The question does not make sense. Of course the end that is not connected to another highway is the dead-end. If the way should not be connected to anything on either side it will already be flagged as a connectivity error. What does happen when the way is split or unsplit? Logically, if you merge a dead-end with a non-dead-end, the result will still be a dead-end. If you split a dead-end then one part won't be a dead-end and the other will - however, having a way tagged noexit=yes which has no dangling ends doesn't seem to be a drastic error to me. In fact, is it the way or is it the highway? Just a segment or more and up to where? I think you should take a deep breath and calm down. The bit that is typical OSM about this is that people can't cope with a bit of fuzziness and then start endless discussions, and in the end claim that OSM is doomed, lacks quality, will never work, is ruled by idiots, whatever. I know who is right: our government who say that OSM is not [necessarily, to remain civil] up to the quality they expect for data. I fear that this does not favor obtaining data from them. Well who knows if we even want your government's data. Maybe it lacks the qualities we are looking for. I was enthusiastic, but I now believe less and less in OSM. Maybe you misunderstood OSM and you are slowly learning what it is, and what it is not. Please let us ask Osmose to mark as an error any nooexit=yes that is either not on a node or not close to another way. We could report that action to that government and others as an example that we at least try to put our data right. I don't think that we have to prove to any government that we are trying to put right something that is hardly a problem. In fact, spending brainpower and time on such a trivial issue would be quite a misallocation of resources. Now what about some more fun? Flood tagging noexit=no in the middle of every street? That wouldn't make 40% but 100% and require a wiki update by those able to understand contributors, wouldn't it? ;-) Vandalise OSM to prove a point and we'll kick you out. Just so that governments around the world can see that we're taking that seriously. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)
What, in tagging a way, indicates on which end of it is the dead end? I asked that already). The question does not make sense. Of course the end that is not connected to another highway is the dead-end. If the way should not be connected to anything on either side it will already be flagged as a connectivity error. I think you missed André's point. If a way has two dead-ends: one of which is an actual dead-end, and another which is a connectivity error... then the connectivity error is missed because noexit=yes was used. Fortunately this doesn't actually happen because *noexit=yes on ways are ignored* on validators like JOSM. I think we all agree that tagging a way with noexit=yes isn't exactly an error, but it has disadvantages (other were cited in this thread) and it shouldn't be recommended on the wiki. 2014-04-13 16:20 GMT-03:00 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Hi, On 10.04.2014 18:08, André Pirard wrote: In other words, 40% tags (on ways) can't be wrong. But the problem is that 99.+% of these correct tags are mistakes and shouldn't even exist because they do not represent ways ending near another way, which are the targets of noexit=yes, but normal dead ends needing no other tagging. I don't see a problem in tagging a normal dead-end with noexit=yes. It doesn't hurt, and adds information (namely that this isn't just a bit where I had no time to continue tracing, but a proper end). I don't do it myself but I'll certainly not make an effort to flag this as error and get my knickers in a twist about it. What, in tagging a way, indicates on which end of it is the dead end? (I asked that already). The question does not make sense. Of course the end that is not connected to another highway is the dead-end. If the way should not be connected to anything on either side it will already be flagged as a connectivity error. What does happen when the way is split or unsplit? Logically, if you merge a dead-end with a non-dead-end, the result will still be a dead-end. If you split a dead-end then one part won't be a dead-end and the other will - however, having a way tagged noexit=yes which has no dangling ends doesn't seem to be a drastic error to me. In fact, is it the way or is it the highway? Just a segment or more and up to where? I think you should take a deep breath and calm down. The bit that is typical OSM about this is that people can't cope with a bit of fuzziness and then start endless discussions, and in the end claim that OSM is doomed, lacks quality, will never work, is ruled by idiots, whatever. I know who is right: our government who say that OSM is not [necessarily, to remain civil] up to the quality they expect for data. I fear that this does not favor obtaining data from them. Well who knows if we even want your government's data. Maybe it lacks the qualities we are looking for. I was enthusiastic, but I now believe less and less in OSM. Maybe you misunderstood OSM and you are slowly learning what it is, and what it is not. Please let us ask Osmose to mark as an error any nooexit=yes that is either not on a node or not close to another way. We could report that action to that government and others as an example that we at least try to put our data right. I don't think that we have to prove to any government that we are trying to put right something that is hardly a problem. In fact, spending brainpower and time on such a trivial issue would be quite a misallocation of resources. Now what about some more fun? Flood tagging noexit=no in the middle of every street? That wouldn't make 40% but 100% and require a wiki update by those able to understand contributors, wouldn't it? ;-) Vandalise OSM to prove a point and we'll kick you out. Just so that governments around the world can see that we're taking that seriously. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)
So the wiki will stay allowing and saying to use noexit on ways too, even if the majority agree that it shouldn't be like this? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 6:08 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.comwrote: What, in tagging a way, indicates on which end of it is the dead end? (I asked that already). omg, all ends (last node) not connected to another highway are surely dead ends when the tag is present :-)) (and the tag is confirming that we are not a mapping to be continued case) What does happen when the way is split or unsplit? Well, if the tag is present when both ends are connected (e.g. after a split), then it's a bit strange but it's not harmful. Routers ignore this tag anyway. And QA tools are only checking the case where the last node is not connected (and nearby another highway). Will a normal contributor understand what he's dealing with if he sees noexit on what he splits? I think most of the contributors should not care about this tag. Only people using QA tools supporting the tag for false positive would really use it (like OSMI, routing view). But if the average contributor use it in their cul-de-sac, why not. He's just informing next contributors that it's not an incompleted highway but really a cul-de-sac. In fact, is it the way or is it the highway? Just a segment or more and up to where? It's all about highway ways. (If it's connected to a building way, you could add a building=entrance on the connection node I guess) Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)
Am 11/apr/2014 um 17:14 schrieb Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com: This thread is unbelievable. +1. ;-) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
Just a quick comment: If it's not useful to use it on ways, then I don't think we should recommend it on nodes *or ways* on the wiki page (as it is currently). In fact, we should recommend against putting on ways. 2014-04-09 16:16 GMT-03:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-04-09 10:47, Pieren wrote : On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.comwrote: 1. noexit cannot be used on ways because that does not show what end cannot pass eeh, what what end ? Either the highway line is linked to another highway at both ends, then noexit is a tagging mistake. Or the highway line is not linked to another highway on both ends and then the noexit can be helpful (confirming tha'ts really an isolated highway and not some connection missing) ??? Let's explain in details. We let alone the Xmas trees. Assuming real noexit, the typical caseshttp://overpass-turbo.eu/map.html?Q=%3C%21--%0AThis%20has%20been%20generated%20by%20the%20overpass-turbo%20wizard.%0AThe%20original%20search%20was%3A%0A%E2%80%9Cnoexit%3Dyes%E2%80%9D%0A--%3E%0A%3Cosm-script%20output%3D%22json%22%20timeout%3D%2225%22%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%3Cquery%20type%3D%22way%22%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%3Chas-kv%20k%3D%22noexit%22%20v%3D%22yes%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%3Cbbox-query%20s%3D%2250.66839555058174%22%20w%3D%225.717890262603759%22%20n%3D%2250.67569820203223%22%20e%3D%225.731172561645508%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%3C%2Fquery%3E%0A%20%20%3C%21--%20print%20results%20--%3E%0A%20%20%3Cprint%20mode%3D%22body%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%3Crecurse%20type%3D%22down%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%3Cprint%20mode%3D%22skeleton%22%20order%3D%22quadtile%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fosm-script%3E *look like* two normal junctions at each way end but one of them *is in fact *a dead end. Why would we tag noexit on the way and request the beholder to zoom in each end to determine which is dead if we can tag the information clearly on the end node? What about T shaped ways where the top way contains 2 dead ends? gotcha, there were 2? Now, instead of a vertical bar, what about a small (or larger) mesh like *rue Grétry*: are we going to tag as dead ends all the segments of the mesh up to the normal junction even if they're not directly related with a dead end? And, BTW, are we speaking (in Subject:) of ways or of roads? Must we apply noexit=yes to both ways of the same road when we split one? How would the brave contributor splitting a way cope with that if he hasn't got the faintest notion of what noexit is (no blame on him!)? These are [probably a part of] the questions that raise and should be settled and that no one advocating noexit on ways mentioned. Frankly, noexit on nodes (as designed) is much more logical and simple (than on ways, of course). Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
Yes, I agree. That recommendation was introduced yesterday by Pieren [1]. I strongly oppose that. The wiki is not for documenting Tagging-trends, but for documenting best practices. And I would say, that tagging noexit=yes on ways is not a best practice. In my opinion an acceptable comment in the Wiki about tagging noexit=yes on ways would be In the past this tag was used on ways very often (~40%). But because this tagging has several disadvantages, you should rather tag noexit=yes on nodes.. Cheers Florian [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Anoexitdiff=1015025oldid=1014495 Am 10.04.2014 14:51, schrieb John Packer: Just a quick comment: If it's not useful to use it on ways, then I don't think we should recommend it on nodes /or ways/ on the wiki page (as it is currently). In fact, we should recommend against putting on ways. 2014-04-09 16:16 GMT-03:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-04-09 10:47, Pieren wrote : On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com wrote: 1. noexit cannot be used on ways because that does not show what end cannot pass eeh, what what end ? Either the highway line is linked to another highway at both ends, then noexit is a tagging mistake. Or the highway line is not linked to another highway on both ends and then the noexit can be helpful (confirming tha'ts really an isolated highway and not some connection missing) ??? Let's explain in details. We let alone the Xmas trees. Assuming real noexit, the typical cases http://overpass-turbo.eu/map.html?Q=%3C%21--%0AThis%20has%20been%20generated%20by%20the%20overpass-turbo%20wizard.%0AThe%20original%20search%20was%3A%0A%E2%80%9Cnoexit%3Dyes%E2%80%9D%0A--%3E%0A%3Cosm-script%20output%3D%22json%22%20timeout%3D%2225%22%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%3Cquery%20type%3D%22way%22%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%3Chas-kv%20k%3D%22noexit%22%20v%3D%22yes%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%3Cbbox-query%20s%3D%2250.66839555058174%22%20w%3D%225.717890262603759%22%20n%3D%2250.67569820203223%22%20e%3D%225.731172561645508%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%3C%2Fquery%3E%0A%20%20%3C%21--%20print%20results%20--%3E%0A%20%20%3Cprint%20mode%3D%22body%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%3Crecurse%20type%3D%22down%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%3Cprint%20mode%3D%22skeleton%22%20order%3D%22quadtile%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fosm-script%3E *look like* two normal junctions at each way end but one of them *is in fact *a dead end. Why would we tag noexit on the way and request the beholder to zoom in each end to determine which is dead if we can tag the information clearly on the end node? What about T shaped ways where the top way contains 2 dead ends? gotcha, there were 2? Now, instead of a vertical bar, what about a small (or larger) mesh like /rue Grétry/: are we going to tag as dead ends all the segments of the mesh up to the normal junction even if they're not directly related with a dead end? And, BTW, are we speaking (in Subject:) of ways or of roads? Must we apply noexit=yes to both ways of the same road when we split one? How would the brave contributor splitting a way cope with that if he hasn't got the faintest notion of what noexit is (no blame on him!)? These are [probably a part of] the questions that raise and should be settled and that no one advocating noexit on ways mentioned. Frankly, noexit on nodes (as designed) is much more logical and simple (than on ways, of course). Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 10.04.2014 14:51, John Packer wrote: Just a quick comment: If it's not useful to use it on ways, then I don't think we should recommend it on nodes /or ways/ on the wiki page (as it is currently). In fact, we should recommend against putting on ways. Well, there is one person against wiki fiddling and in favour of using it on ways, who simply does change the just corrected version without further discussion. As we have many contributers to this discussion which are in favour of using it only on nodes and your are so far the only one completely against it. Not to talk about, that the original created page did only nodes. Would you please revert your changes from yesterday. A link to this thread might be useful. Thanks ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
I removed the use on ways from the wiki page. The wiki is not for documenting Tagging-trends, but for documenting best practices. I agree 100% with this. I also added the following phrase to the Usage section: In the past this tag was used on ways very often, but because tagging on ways has several disadvantages, you should rather tag *noexit*=yeshttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:noexit%3Dyeson nodes. Florian, I think you mentioned some outdoor map renders the noexit tag. Do you know which one? We could add a Rendering section to the wiki page. (JOSM also renders it on the editor) Could someone clarify the Usage section of the wiki page please? Cheers, John 2014-04-10 10:10 GMT-03:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: On 10.04.2014 14:51, John Packer wrote: Just a quick comment: If it's not useful to use it on ways, then I don't think we should recommend it on nodes /or ways/ on the wiki page (as it is currently). In fact, we should recommend against putting on ways. Well, there is one person against wiki fiddling and in favour of using it on ways, who simply does change the just corrected version without further discussion. As we have many contributers to this discussion which are in favour of using it only on nodes and your are so far the only one completely against it. Not to talk about, that the original created page did only nodes. Would you please revert your changes from yesterday. A link to this thread might be useful. Thanks ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:48 PM, John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com wrote: I also added the following phrase to the Usage section: In the past this tag was used on ways very often, but because tagging on ways has several disadvantages, you should rather tag noexit=yes on nodes. I cannot agree. What is the disavandtage on the way when the tag is only used by QA tools and only when the highway is ending nearby another highway ? Even when both highway ends are nearby another highway, the tag is clear. And if one of the ends is connected to another highway, then the tag is also clear (since we only look at ways ending nearby anothe highway). What is unclear here ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:10 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Well, there is one person against wiki fiddling and in favour of using it on ways, who simply does change the just corrected version without further discussion. Well, consider that I'm speaking in the name of the contributors who added 118000 'noexit' on ways. As we have many contributers to this discussion which are in favour of using it only on nodes and your are so far the only one completely against it. Not to talk about, that the original created page did only nodes. Would you please revert your changes from yesterday. The 3 or 4 on this ML are not able to explain or convince why the noexit tag on the way is wrong. Again, if we consider that the tag is only required for QA tools and only required for impasses ending nearby another highway, the presence of the tag on the last node or on the last way is not important. Note that I'm just restoring the original state in the wiki (check the history). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
Am 10.04.2014 15:48, schrieb John Packer: I removed the use on ways from the wiki page. The wiki is not for documenting Tagging-trends, but for documenting best practices. I agree 100% with this. I also added the following phrase to the Usage section: In the past this tag was used on ways very often, but because tagging on ways has several disadvantages, you should rather tag *noexit*=yes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:noexit%3Dyes on nodes. Florian, I think you mentioned some outdoor map renders the noexit tag.Do you know which one? We could add a Rendering section to the wiki page. (JOSM also renders it on the editor) OSM-User Nop mentioned on the german mailinglist [1], that his maps show the noexit-Tags. One of those maps is for example wanderreitkarte.de, see [2] for example. Could someone clarify the Usage section of the wiki page please? Cheers, John [1]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2014-March/107937.html [2]: http://www.wanderreitkarte.de/index.php?lon=8.4136lat=49.0098zoom=18 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
Am 10.04.2014 15:54, schrieb Pieren: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:10 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Well, there is one person against wiki fiddling and in favour of using it on ways, who simply does change the just corrected version without further discussion. Well, consider that I'm speaking in the name of the contributors who added 118000 'noexit' on ways. I don't want to blame any of those mappers. They probably used it on ways, because they saw, that the wiki allows usage on ways and they didn't think about several disadvantages. As we have many contributers to this discussion which are in favour of using it only on nodes and your are so far the only one completely against it. Not to talk about, that the original created page did only nodes. Would you please revert your changes from yesterday. The 3 or 4 on this ML are not able to explain or convince why the noexit tag on the way is wrong. I have made several attempts to explain that, and others have done that too. Could you please explain, why our arguments don't convince you? Again, if we consider that the tag is only required for QA tools and only required for impasses ending nearby another highway, the presence of the tag on the last node or on the last way is not important. True, in the most cases it is not important. But sometimes it is, for example in my T-deadend example, mentioned on this ML. All cases can be covered by the tagging on nodes. The tagging on ways can't cover all cases (deadends with more than one end) and causes problems for example when splitting ways. For more disadvantages read the mails by the 3 or 4 people on this ML. Therefore I'd recommend in the Wiki to use it always on nodes to avoid the problems with way-tagging. Note that I'm just restoring the original state in the wiki (check the history). That is not an argument. The original state of a wikipage is not necessarily the best state. Cheers, Florian ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Florian Schäfer flor...@schaeferban.de wrote: True, in the most cases it is not important. But sometimes it is, for example in my T-deadend example, mentioned on this ML. All cases can be covered by the tagging on nodes. The tagging on ways can't cover all cases (deadends with more than one end) and causes problems for example when splitting ways. I also explained why the mentionned examples are not a problem. I'm ready to change my opinion if I get valid arguments... Therefore I'd recommend in the Wiki to use it always on nodes to avoid the problems with way-tagging. But we don't have problems with the tag on the way ! It's true that the wiki has to document the best practices but it should not fordid practices that are not wrong, harmfull, unclear or ambiguous ! I regret the time when people worked with a more open mind in this project. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)
On 2014-04-10 15:07, Florian Schäfer wrote : Yes, I agree. That recommendation was introduced yesterday by Pieren [1]. I strongly oppose that. The wiki is not for documenting Tagging-trends, but for documenting best practices. And I would say, that tagging noexit=yes on ways is not a best practice. In my opinion an acceptable comment in the Wiki about tagging noexit=yes on ways would be "In the past this tag was used on ways very often (~40%). But because this tagging has several disadvantages, you should rather tag noexit=yes on nodes.". Cheers Florian [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Anoexitdiff=1015025oldid=1014495 The wiki update seems to have been made on this ground: On 2014-04-04 17:35, Pieren wrote : It seems that 40% of the "noexit=yes" tags are on ways and are understandable by their contributors but 100% of the persons writing on this thread do not understand what 40% of the contributors do ... So, instead of trying to change 40% of the contributors with wiki fiddling and josm obscure validations, you should try to open a bit your mind and accept that contributors can supply the same information in different ways (or nodes ;-). Stay open like "Open"StreetMap ;-) Pieren In other words, 40% tags (on ways) can't be wrong. But the problem is that 99.+% of these correct tags are mistakes and shouldn't even exist because they do not represent "ways ending near another way", which are the targets of noexit=yes, but normal dead ends needing no other tagging. Saying that we do not understand what the contributors do is rather peculiar without asking them what they meant with those tags. I made no poll, they would probably not answer, but I listened carefully to those who spoke up here and said why they used ways: "I had not consulted the wiki [since a long time]", "I was recommended ways by a friend", "I thought I was tagging the noexit traffic sign". It seems to me that many people snowball tags in vague similarity with what they see without much study and that it is really catastrophic when it pertains to access rules and routing. Saying "or on the way itself" without saying which way is bizarre and heading for more chaos. What, in tagging a way, indicates on which end of it is the dead end? (I asked that already). What does happen when the way is split or unsplit? Will a normal contributor understand what he's dealing with if he sees noexit on what he splits?. In fact, is it "the way" or is it "the highway"? Just a segment or more and up to where? Or is it a whole neighborhood like in this rue Grétry and will those with the ability to understand what the contributors do conclude that noexit=yes in fact tagging the noexit and further remove that no no remark from the wiki too? The noexit specification was very weak from the start. instead of something like no_topology_error which is the subject matter it used the word noexit which is a misleading, particular consequence of the first instead of saying "on the node which is close to the other way" it said "on the end of the way" and, obviously, not everyone understands that the end of a way is a node and that a node indicates where a dead end is but not a way instead of saying "... that an otherwise suspicious tag or road layout preventing passing further than the end of a road is perfectly intentional" it said "... that there no possibility to travel further" making believe that it is some sort of required traffic restriction to be used foa all dead ends That was enough to create perfect, snowballing, collective chaos and some obviously have fun to add up even more. Welcome to Fuzziland. I know who is right: our government who say that OSM is not [necessarily, to remain civil] up to the quality they expect for data. I fear that this does not favor obtaining data from them. I was enthusiastic, but I now believe less and less in OSM. Please let us ask Osmose to mark as an error any nooexit=yes that is either not on a node or not close to another way. We could report that action to that government and others as an example that we at least try to put our data right. Now what about some more fun? Flood tagging noexit=no in the middle of every street? That wouldn't make 40% but 100% and require a wiki update by those able to understand contributors, wouldn't it? ;-) Cheers, André.
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
I guess the problem arises from tagging dead-ends in a geo database. QA tools should keep there false positives for themself, not in OSM, don't you think? On 10 avril 2014 16:59:44 UTC+02:00, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Florian Schäfer flor...@schaeferban.de wrote: True, in the most cases it is not important. But sometimes it is, for example in my T-deadend example, mentioned on this ML. All cases can be covered by the tagging on nodes. The tagging on ways can't cover all cases (deadends with more than one end) and causes problems for example when splitting ways. I also explained why the mentionned examples are not a problem. I'm ready to change my opinion if I get valid arguments... Therefore I'd recommend in the Wiki to use it always on nodes to avoid the problems with way-tagging. But we don't have problems with the tag on the way ! It's true that the wiki has to document the best practices but it should not fordid practices that are not wrong, harmfull, unclear or ambiguous ! I regret the time when people worked with a more open mind in this project. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 4/10/2014 12:10 PM, Yves wrote: I guess the problem arises from tagging dead-ends in a geo database. QA tools should keep there false positives for themself, not in OSM, don't you think? Except that I don't use QA tools when editing data. But often as I create something that ends suspiciously near another object, I can flag it as correct to the QA tools at creation time. Also there may be multiple QA tools. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 4/10/2014 10:59 AM, Pieren wrote: But we don't have problems with the tag on the way ! It's true that the wiki has to document the best practices but it should not fordid practices that are not wrong, harmfull, unclear or ambiguous ! I regret the time when people worked with a more open mind in this project. I agree that noexit on ways might not be harmful, but for those new mappers who see the Wiki and then think that they have to analyze the connectivity and identify all ways without an exit in order to create a truly useful map. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
I agree with André Pirard that: 1. If we say it should be tagged on the way, it should be clearer how it should be tagged (what if the cul-de-sac is splitted, etc) 2. noexit was a bad choice of name for this key Personally I don't know if using noexit=yes on ways is used by any software nowadays. I wouldn't be surprised if the current legitimate uses of noexit=yes are only on nodes. But yeah, tagging on ways isn't exactly an error. 2014-04-10 13:17 GMT-03:00 Mike N nice...@att.net: On 4/10/2014 12:10 PM, Yves wrote: I guess the problem arises from tagging dead-ends in a geo database. QA tools should keep there false positives for themself, not in OSM, don't you think? Except that I don't use QA tools when editing data. But often as I create something that ends suspiciously near another object, I can flag it as correct to the QA tools at creation time. Also there may be multiple QA tools. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 2014-04-10 16:59, Pieren wrote : On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Florian Schäfer flor...@schaeferban.de wrote: True, in the most cases it is not important. But sometimes it is, for example in my T-deadend example, mentioned on this ML. All cases can be covered by the tagging on nodes. The tagging on ways can't cover all cases (deadends with more than one end) and causes problems for example when splitting ways. I also explained why the mentionned examples are not a problem. I'm ready to change my opinion if I get valid arguments... No problem? ... Therefore I'd recommend in the Wiki to use it always on nodes to avoid the problems with way-tagging. But we don't have problems with the tag on the way ! No problem? Please allow me a little bit of thinking. If you've got a dead end at one end of a way, and, required or not, you tag noexit=yes on the way, then QA agents would not detect a way end close to another way at the other end of the way. This may lead to the funny situation where a way segment has two dead ends, one declared and the other one a totally overlooked way end close to another way real error [e.g. created later]. It's true that the wiki has to document the best practices but it should not fordid practices that are not wrong, harmfull, unclear or ambiguous ! I regret the time when people worked with a more open mind in this project. And if you pardon my thinking again, what I'm saying above is assuming that the QA agents recognize noexit=yes when it's put on a way. Did you check that they do? I've no more time to loose with this and other QAs, but I've made the test with JOSM and it does not. So, the open minded game we're playing is in fact putting noexit=yes where probably no QA agents recognize them. Could you please restore my updates conforming to the consensus of December 2013? André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
Am 10.04.2014 16:59, schrieb Pieren: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Florian Schäfer flor...@schaeferban.de wrote: True, in the most cases it is not important. But sometimes it is, for example in my T-deadend example, mentioned on this ML. All cases can be covered by the tagging on nodes. The tagging on ways can't cover all cases (deadends with more than one end) and causes problems for example when splitting ways. I also explained why the mentionned examples are not a problem. I'm ready to change my opinion if I get valid arguments... As I have already pointed out, you have misunderstood my T-deadend example. Let me explain it again: Let's assume, we have a T-shaped deadend (entrance at the bottom). The crossbar is one single OSM-way, one end of this way is passable for pedestrians, the other is not passable for anyone. In this case the tagging on ways is insufficient, if you don't split the way. Therefore I'd recommend in the Wiki to use it always on nodes to avoid the problems with way-tagging. But we don't have problems with the tag on the way ! I see several problems with the tag on the way: * It's unclear, which OSM-ways of a deadend street should be tagged. With nodes, this question can be clearly answered. * What about splitting? Especially when you say, that only the very last OSM-way should be tagged. And consider that not every mapper is aware of noexit-Tags and how to use them. * If all OSM-ways of a deadend-road should be tagged, what about deadends with multiple endings (some impassable, some not) But these are in my eyes rather minor arguments, because we could solve them by defining rules for special cases and changing editors to deal with it correctly. My main argument is: Nodes are enough to describe _all_ the cases, where noexit=yes makes some sense, because the property you want to describe [1] is punctiform. It is a property of the _end_ of the highway, not the whole highway or the last part of it. A small, but important difference. So let's keep it simple and use only nodes. That is enough for _all_ situations and does not cause any problems as far as I know. It's true that the wiki has to document the best practices but it should not fordid First of all, I don't want to forbid anything. I want to recommend the tagging on nodes to prevent mappers (esp. newbies) from tagging unclear or ambiguous, because they are not aware of special cases, where the tagging on ways is insufficient. So the tagging on nodes is a better practice than tagging on ways. practices that are not wrong, harmfull, unclear or ambiguous ! Surely the tagging on ways is not really wrong nor harmful, but it can lead to unclear or ambiguous tagging. I regret the time when people worked with a more open mind in this project. In my eyes, openmindedness means to listen to the arguments of others without prejudices, trying to understand these arguments. But it does surely not mean to accept any other opinion. I tried hard to understand every argument in this discussion as impartial as possible. I also responded, where I disagreed in some points, because I did not share the opinion. But in the end, I will accept any outcome. I would be happy, when tagging on ways would be recommended in the wiki, but I would be even happier, if it would be deprecated by the wiki. An open project can't accept all opinions, because there are many contrary opinions. So some rules have to be defined. For finding those rules, all involved have to discuss and finally come to a consensus. I give my best to participate in the discussion and work for a consensus regardless what it is. Cheers Florian ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
Am 10.04.2014 16:01, schrieb Pieren: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:48 PM, John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com wrote: I also added the following phrase to the Usage section: In the past this tag was used on ways very often, but because tagging on ways has several disadvantages, you should rather tag noexit=yes on nodes. I cannot agree. What is the disavandtage on the way when the tag is only used by QA tools and only when the highway is ending nearby another highway ? Even when both highway ends are nearby another highway, the tag is clear. I agree that far - but not further: And if one of the ends is connected to another highway, then the tag is also clear (since we only look at ways ending nearby anothe highway). In this case it's only clear if it's currently correct, it's impossible to detect an error now. What is unclear here ? For routing and similar the tag isn't needed at all. Therefore there are two possible usages: 1) In general to note that the way ends there and is not mapped incompletely. 2) To clearly state the fact that two ways near to each other are not connected at all, by tagging this is the end node here, it does not continue. If anything is still correct there's no need in the tag at all - both is purely cosmetics for QA tools. But what if an error occurs? Imagine a cul-de-sac on one end (!) of an osm way. Option 1: no_exit is tagged on the dead end node, but somebody accidentally connected it to the next street. It's easy to see that this is an error, and it's easy to spot the cause as you know from the data you see where the dead end should have been. Option 2: no_exit is not tagged at all: you wouldn't spot the error. Option 3: no_exit is tagged on the way, but somebody accidentally connected the dead-end to the next street. You could see that there's something wrong, but you have to look into the history to see where. It's even more clear if you consider a two streets in a T-shape, mapped as two ways where one has two dead ends. With the no_exit tagged at both end nodes of the upper way it's clear that both are a cul-de-sac. In contrast when it's tagged at the way, you don't know if there's a connection missing on one end (nor on which end) or not. If you consider the case of someone accidentally connecting one end again, the data looks still correct, the error cannot be spotted from the data any more. Remark: Of course you could take the history into account and some if not all of the benefits could be tackled by doing that, but history research in OSM is still hard, and QA tools should run as fast as possible producing as up to date and accurate results as possible. Most QA tools out there does not take into account the history - and that's why my conclusion is clearly towards no_exit on nodes and only nodes. regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.comwrote: 1. noexit cannot be used on ways because that does not show what end cannot pass eeh, what what end ? Either the highway line is linked to another highway at both ends, then noexit is a tagging mistake. Or the highway line is not linked to another highway on both ends and then the noexit can be helpful (confirming tha'ts really an isolated highway and not some connection missing) 1. 2. noexit is unsuitable for full routing because it does not apply to a particular means of transport (unlike a hypothetic bicycle=noexit) True, it's mainly (only?) usefull for QA tools checking if the highway not connected to the next highway is a mapping mistake or not (which is also explained correctly in the first wiki paragraph). 1. a noexit like tag is unnecessary for routing; routing has got all it takes 2. noexit is used to draw the attention of sanity checks on the validity of the tagging 3. it could also highlight the no-passing condition when it's barely visible on the map, but if it were rendered 4. there is no need to tag each and every noexit; we're not dressing a Xmas tree. All correct. But it does not imply that the tag has to be on the last node. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
2014-04-09 10:47 GMT+02:00 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.comwrote: 1. noexit cannot be used on ways because that does not show what end cannot pass eeh, what what end ? Either the highway line is linked to another highway at both ends, then noexit is a tagging mistake. Or the highway line is not linked to another highway on both ends and then the noexit can be helpful (confirming tha'ts really an isolated highway and not some connection missing) There can be a way that IS connected on both ends and still is a dead end. A road can end in a wall or a fence, where on the other side the road continues. There may be other tags there (barrier=*), but still it would be hard to quickly spot the dead end side with noexit=yes tagged only on the way instead of the node. Regards, chaos ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com wrote: There can be a way that IS connected on both ends and still is a dead end. A road can end in a wall or a fence, where on the other side the road continues. There may be other tags there (barrier=*), but still it would be hard to quickly spot the dead end side with noexit=yes tagged only on the way instead of the node. No. In such cases, only the barrier tag is important. No additional tag required. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
There can be a way that IS connected on both ends and still is a dead end. A road can end in a wall or a fence, where on the other side the road continues. There may be other tags there (barrier=*), but still it would be hard to quickly spot the dead end side with noexit=yes tagged only on the way instead of the node. No. In such cases, only the barrier tag is important. No additional tag required. A noexit=yes tag is still a good idea to communicate to the next mapper that there really is no exit for any transportation mode. A second mapper may suspect a wall/fence/exotic barrier type/whatever being still passable by bikes or pedestrians. Also the barrier=* might still be missing, because the first mapper only cared to map highways. same goes for the access:*=* tag. It might still be missing. Mapping doesn't only come in nothing vs. perfect. As a means to communicate an intention from one mapper to the next, it simply is more clear when mapped on the node than on the way. I simply gave an example where the end of the dead-end way can not simply be deduced by its geometry. Regards, chaos ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 4/9/14 8:51 AM, Ronnie Soak wrote: As a means to communicate an intention from one mapper to the next, it simply is more clear when mapped on the node than on the way. I simply gave an example where the end of the dead-end way can not simply be deduced by its geometry. Regards, chaos i honestly don't think we need this kind of redundant tagging when we can simply put notes to the next mapper using a generic key, like, for example, README or fixme or description? what makes no_exit so special that it needs its own key for this purpose? richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 9 April 2014 14:05, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: what makes no_exit so special that it needs its own key for this purpose? Roads that are close to each other but not connected are a common tagging mistake. The tag no_exit is a default, which we generally don't tag, but I think it makes sense to tag defaults explicitly in cases where it can be confused for a tagging mistake. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: what makes no_exit so special that it needs its own key for this purpose? Once more, it's only useful for QA tools checking highway intersections geometry where one of the highway is nearby but not connected. The noexit tag is disabling the warning report when the highway is really not connected. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
Am 09.04.2014 14:51, schrieb Ronnie Soak: There can be a way that IS connected on both ends and still is a dead end. A road can end in a wall or a fence, where on the other side the road continues. There may be other tags there (barrier=*), but still it would be hard to quickly spot the dead end side with noexit=yes tagged only on the way instead of the node. No. In such cases, only the barrier tag is important. No additional tag required. A noexit=yes tag is still a good idea to communicate to the next mapper that there really is no exit for any transportation mode. A second mapper may suspect a wall/fence/exotic barrier type/whatever being still passable by bikes or pedestrians. What about access=no instead of noexit=yes? This would be more accurate and can't be misunderstood so easily. As the discussion showed, some mappers used noexit=yes to tag deadends which allow pedestrians to pass at the end. access=no is clearer in this aspect and can cover several cases (only pedestrians can pass, only bicycles, ...). Also the barrier=* might still be missing, because the first mapper only cared to map highways. same goes for the access:*=* tag. It might still be missing. Mapping doesn't only come in nothing vs. perfect. I don't understand your point. If the right tags (barrier and access) are missing, we should add noexit=yes? What about cleaning up and add the accurate tags (barrier and access)? noexit=yes is for situations where a way ends in the current data to communicate to the other mappers: There is NO way of traveling further. It is _not_ for places, where a highway continues in the data, but where there are access-restrictions! As a means to communicate an intention from one mapper to the next, it simply is more clear when mapped on the node than on the way. I simply gave an example where the end of the dead-end way can not simply be deduced by its geometry. I'm totally with you on the first point. Nodes are much clearer for this tag, because the information, that a street ends for all transportation modes is a feature of an end of a street and _not_ a feature of the whole street (think of streets with multiple ends). But I think in your example noexit=yes should not be used. As stated above, barrier=* and access=* are much clearer and fit the situation better. Additionally, noexit won't be recognized by a router. noexit _only_ makes sense at endnodes of ways. An example where the tagging of noexit on ways is not sufficient is a T-shaped deadend, where the crossbar is one OSM-way. At one end pedestrians can pass, at the other end not. Regards, Florian ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 4/9/14 9:13 AM, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: what makes no_exit so special that it needs its own key for this purpose? Once more, it's only useful for QA tools checking highway intersections geometry where one of the highway is nearby but not connected. The noexit tag is disabling the warning report when the highway is really not connected. i'm hearing two stories here. this story is better than note to the next mapper, as the next mapper may never scroll down and see no_exit but when do you remove the no_exit, or do you leave it forever for the validators? the DB developer in me doesn't like redundant information, all it does is create confusion if the data is in conflict. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: but when do you remove the no_exit, or do you leave it forever for the validators? the DB developer in me doesn't like redundant information, all it does is create confusion if the data is in conflict. It's only useful for validators (and should stay forever only where the geometry of a possible intersection is questionable) but we cannot prevent contributors to use it also for normal cul-de-sacs. It can be ignored. The absence of noexit tag means simply the way ends here. If this definition is objected, it would imply that all impasses require an explicite noexit tag which is not realistic. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Florian Schäfer flor...@schaeferban.de wrote: An example where the tagging of noexit on ways is not sufficient is a T-shaped deadend, where the crossbar is one OSM-way. At one end pedestrians can pass, at the other end not. Again, the noexit is only important when the last node is nearby another highway, not when the last node is already connected to another highway... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
Am 09.04.2014 16:04, schrieb Pieren: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Florian Schäfer flor...@schaeferban.de wrote: An example where the tagging of noexit on ways is not sufficient is a T-shaped deadend, where the crossbar is one OSM-way. At one end pedestrians can pass, at the other end not. Again, the noexit is only important when the last node is nearby another highway, not when the last node is already connected to another highway... Pieren I think you have misunderstood my statement. The example was about noexit on ways vs. on nodes (response to Ronnie Soak's example with the barrier in the middle). It was not on the situations where the tag. Regarding the latter point, I think we share the same opinion, as far as I've read. What I wanted to express: Nodes are better than ways, because nodes are more precise. You could mark the one end with noexit (where noone can pass) and leave the other end as it is. With ways you would have to split the crossbar, to achieve an unambiguous result. Regards, Florian ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 2014-04-09 10:47, Pieren wrote : On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com wrote: 1. noexit cannot be used on ways because that does not show what end cannot pass eeh, what what end ? Either the highway line is linked to another highway at both ends, then noexit is a tagging mistake. Or the highway line is not linked to another highway on both ends and then the noexit can be helpful (confirming tha'ts really an isolated highway and not some connection missing) ??? Let's explain in details. We let alone the Xmas trees. Assuming real noexit, the typical cases http://overpass-turbo.eu/map.html?Q=%3C%21--%0AThis%20has%20been%20generated%20by%20the%20overpass-turbo%20wizard.%0AThe%20original%20search%20was%3A%0A%E2%80%9Cnoexit%3Dyes%E2%80%9D%0A--%3E%0A%3Cosm-script%20output%3D%22json%22%20timeout%3D%2225%22%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%3Cquery%20type%3D%22way%22%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%3Chas-kv%20k%3D%22noexit%22%20v%3D%22yes%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%3Cbbox-query%20s%3D%2250.66839555058174%22%20w%3D%225.717890262603759%22%20n%3D%2250.67569820203223%22%20e%3D%225.731172561645508%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%3C%2Fquery%3E%0A%20%20%3C%21--%20print%20results%20--%3E%0A%20%20%3Cprint%20mode%3D%22body%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%3Crecurse%20type%3D%22down%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%3Cprint%20mode%3D%22skeleton%22%20order%3D%22quadtile%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fosm-script%3E *look like* two normal junctions at each way end but one of them *is in fact *a dead end. Why would we tag noexit on the way and request the beholder to zoom in each end to determine which is dead if we can tag the information clearly on the end node? What about T shaped ways where the top way contains 2 dead ends? gotcha, there were 2? Now, instead of a vertical bar, what about a small (or larger) mesh like /rue Grétry/: are we going to tag as dead ends all the segments of the mesh up to the normal junction even if they're not directly related with a dead end? And, BTW, are we speaking (in Subject:) of ways or of roads? Must we apply noexit=yes to both ways of the same road when we split one? How would the brave contributor splitting a way cope with that if he hasn't got the faintest notion of what noexit is (no blame on him!)? These are [probably a part of] the questions that raise and should be settled and that no one advocating noexit on ways mentioned. Frankly, noexit on nodes (as designed) is much more logical and simple (than on ways, of course). Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:48 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: noexit=yes has nothing in common with the traffic_sign as: 1. it only is about motorized traffic where noexit=yes is about every travel mode. 2. it is used at the beginning of a cul-de-sac and an information for driver of motorized vehicles where noexit=yes is always tagged on the end node of a way without any connection and is a hint for mappers and QA tools. Please, do not mix it up. Please, return to earth. Tagging traffic signs is just a funny activity in fully mapped areas. How do you specify a speed limit in OSM ? with a traffic_sign tag on a node or primarily with the maxspeed on the way ? I could repeat the same question for many other features. I'm still waiting some clear explanation about the difference of a noexit and a cul-de-sac. Once you understand there is no difference, you understand why 40% of the noexit tags are on ways When you have this huge gap between the wiki definition limiting the tag on the last node and the real contributors behaviour, you should ask if the wiki makes sense but not blaim the contributors. Note that for QA tools, the tag on the last node or on the way itself are both technically easy to support. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 08.04.2014 12:10, Pieren wrote: On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:48 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: noexit=yes has nothing in common with the traffic_sign as: 1. it only is about motorized traffic where noexit=yes is about every travel mode. 2. it is used at the beginning of a cul-de-sac and an information for driver of motorized vehicles where noexit=yes is always tagged on the end node of a way without any connection and is a hint for mappers and QA tools. Please, do not mix it up. Please, return to earth. Tagging traffic signs is just a funny activity in fully mapped areas. How do you specify a speed limit in OSM ? with a traffic_sign tag on a node or primarily with the maxspeed on the way ? I could repeat the same question for many other features. Do not know if you speak german, but one person did tell us that she/he is mapping the traffic_signs as addition one the ways on talk-de@osm [1]. I'm still waiting some clear explanation about the difference of a noexit and a cul-de-sac. You find quite some differences, if you read the mails carefully. The major points in my view are: * We do not need to tag cul-de-sac as defined by the traffic_sign. This information is available through geometry and/or access tags. * The traffic_sign is always about motorized vehicles but we map for all traffic modes. noexit=yes is wrong as soon as there is any connected highway. One way to manifest the difference is to only tag it on nodes and not on ways. Once you understand there is no difference, you understand why 40% of the noexit tags are on ways When you have this huge gap between the wiki definition limiting the tag on the last node and the real contributors behaviour, you should ask if the wiki makes sense but not blaim the contributors. No one did blame anyone. I only tried to find the reasons for this misunderstanding and one was definitely the wiki page which is still not perfect but did get some updates the last days. Some other pages where updated, too. Note that for QA tools, the tag on the last node or on the way itself are both technically easy to support. Sure, but overall it makes it more difficult and how should this work with splitting ways ? Could you please point me to one editor which properly works with splitting a way tagged with noexit=yes or don't you think that it is wrong that after the split both parts are tagged with it ? We could simply deprecate noexit=* and replace it with note=noexit but I am not sure if this solves our problem and tools need to support strings and multivalues as noexit might not be the only word of the note=* tag. fly [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2014-April/107967.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
I tagged noexit=yes on the ways. Why ? If I remember correctly some more experienced mapper told me it was ok to do so. And perhaps I read the wiki page before June 28, 2011, when there was nothing mentioned about way or node. You cannot assume each mapper reads all wiki pages every week or follow the tagging mailing list to keep up-to-date with the changing definitions of tags. Another reason is that, as Pieren pointed out, many features are mapped on the way, not on a single point. And yet another reason is that the OSM definition is different from the traffic code definition, where noexit is placed on each street where cars cannot leave the street via another exit. So people might just tag it without reading the wiki at all. The tag info on the wiki page shows enough usages on ways to make it a viable tagging method. Enough reasons why people might tag this incorrectly according to the current wiki definition ? :-) regards m On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:57 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 08.04.2014 12:10, Pieren wrote: On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:48 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: noexit=yes has nothing in common with the traffic_sign as: 1. it only is about motorized traffic where noexit=yes is about every travel mode. 2. it is used at the beginning of a cul-de-sac and an information for driver of motorized vehicles where noexit=yes is always tagged on the end node of a way without any connection and is a hint for mappers and QA tools. Please, do not mix it up. Please, return to earth. Tagging traffic signs is just a funny activity in fully mapped areas. How do you specify a speed limit in OSM ? with a traffic_sign tag on a node or primarily with the maxspeed on the way ? I could repeat the same question for many other features. Do not know if you speak german, but one person did tell us that she/he is mapping the traffic_signs as addition one the ways on talk-de@osm [1]. I'm still waiting some clear explanation about the difference of a noexit and a cul-de-sac. You find quite some differences, if you read the mails carefully. The major points in my view are: * We do not need to tag cul-de-sac as defined by the traffic_sign. This information is available through geometry and/or access tags. * The traffic_sign is always about motorized vehicles but we map for all traffic modes. noexit=yes is wrong as soon as there is any connected highway. One way to manifest the difference is to only tag it on nodes and not on ways. Once you understand there is no difference, you understand why 40% of the noexit tags are on ways When you have this huge gap between the wiki definition limiting the tag on the last node and the real contributors behaviour, you should ask if the wiki makes sense but not blaim the contributors. No one did blame anyone. I only tried to find the reasons for this misunderstanding and one was definitely the wiki page which is still not perfect but did get some updates the last days. Some other pages where updated, too. Note that for QA tools, the tag on the last node or on the way itself are both technically easy to support. Sure, but overall it makes it more difficult and how should this work with splitting ways ? Could you please point me to one editor which properly works with splitting a way tagged with noexit=yes or don't you think that it is wrong that after the split both parts are tagged with it ? We could simply deprecate noexit=* and replace it with note=noexit but I am not sure if this solves our problem and tools need to support strings and multivalues as noexit might not be the only word of the note=* tag. fly [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2014-April/107967.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:57 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: The major points in my view are: * We do not need to tag cul-de-sac as defined by the traffic_sign. This information is available through geometry and/or access tags. This is not related with tagging on the last node or the way. The tag is only really required when the geometry is questionable and optional in all other cases. * The traffic_sign is always about motorized vehicles but we map for all traffic modes. noexit=yes is wrong as soon as there is any connected highway. I'm not saying that noexit=yes on ways is when you have a traffic sign neither it's only for motorized vehicles. Either it's possible to continue with some kind of vehicle (or by foot) and then we map the next highway segment with appropriate access tags; or it's not possible and then the tag noexit makes sense, on the last node or on the last way, with or without traffic sign. One way to manifest the difference is to only tag it on nodes and not on ways. The difference of what ? If you mean the difference between an impasse without traffic sign and an impasse with traffic sign, it is still an impasse No one did blame anyone. I only tried to find the reasons for this misunderstanding and one was definitely the wiki page which is still not perfect but did get some updates the last days. Some other pages where updated, too. Once you admit that the tag on the way is also clear and understandable, why do you want to forbid it ? Sure, but overall it makes it more difficult and how should this work with splitting ways ? Could you please point me to one editor which properly works with splitting a way tagged with noexit=yes or don't you think that it is wrong that after the split both parts are tagged with it ? The noexit tag is only important for QA tools if the way is not extended and near another way (not an intersection). For contributors, I don't think it's really hurting if the noexit is tagged on several segments instead of one. We could simply deprecate noexit=* and replace it with note=noexit but I am not sure if this solves our problem and tools need to support strings and multivalues as noexit might not be the only word of the note=* tag. Renaming the tag doesn't help here. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 2014-04-04 17:35, Pieren wrote : On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Nelson A. de Oliveira nao...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with this tag. Basically I agree with the current text of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit (except that I don't agree to use it on ways). As I understood, the noexit=yes means this way is a cul-de-sac. What is unclear if the tag is on the last node or on the way itself ? It is still a cul-de-sac... It seems that 40% of the noexit=yes tags are on ways and are understandable by their contributors but 100% of the persons writing on this thread do not understand what 40% of the contributors do ... So, instead of trying to change 40% of the contributors with wiki fiddling and josm obscure validations, you should try to open a bit your mind and accept that contributors can supply the same information in different ways (or nodes ;-). Stay open like OpenStreetMap ;-) In the survey I made before, I tried in vain indeed to understand what the contributors mean with most of the noexit=yes tags they add. A dead end is, at either end of a way, a node that is not connected to any other allowed or usable way. It's quite visible on any map and it's what the GPS routers understand the best. What's the use of adding noexit=yes that do not show on the map and that the routers ignore? Here are some noexit=yes on nodes http://overpass-turbo.eu/map.html?Q=%3C%21--%0AThis%20has%20been%20generated%20by%20the%20overpass-turbo%20wizard.%0AThe%20original%20search%20was%3A%0A%E2%80%9Cnoexit%3Dyes%E2%80%9D%0A--%3E%0A%3Cosm-script%20output%3D%22json%22%20timeout%3D%2225%22%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%3Cquery%20type%3D%22node%22%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%3Chas-kv%20k%3D%22noexit%22%20v%3D%22yes%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%3Cbbox-query%20s%3D%2250.618538570096796%22%20w%3D%225.619184970855713%22%20n%3D%2250.62584897418278%22%20e%3D%225.632467269897461%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%3C%2Fquery%3E%0A%20%20%3C%21--%20print%20results%20--%3E%0A%20%20%3Cprint%20mode%3D%22body%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%3Crecurse%20type%3D%22down%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%3Cprint%20mode%3D%22skeleton%22%20order%3D%22quadtile%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fosm-script%3E. Why are a few dead ends tagged and the others generally not? What is its meaning at the steps http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/239040172? That cars cannot use the steps or that it's a dead end for pedestrian too? What does it mean in the middle of rue des Crahlis http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/58297735? That the main street cannot be reached from the end or the opposite? Etc. Here are some noexit=yes tags on ways http://overpass-turbo.eu/map.html?Q=%3C%21--%0AThis%20has%20been%20generated%20by%20the%20overpass-turbo%20wizard.%0AThe%20original%20search%20was%3A%0A%E2%80%9Cnoexit%3Dyes%E2%80%9D%0A--%3E%0A%3Cosm-script%20output%3D%22json%22%20timeout%3D%2225%22%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%3Cquery%20type%3D%22way%22%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%3Chas-kv%20k%3D%22noexit%22%20v%3D%22yes%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%3Cbbox-query%20s%3D%2250.66839555058174%22%20w%3D%225.717890262603759%22%20n%3D%2250.67569820203223%22%20e%3D%225.731172561645508%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%3C%2Fquery%3E%0A%20%20%3C%21--%20print%20results%20--%3E%0A%20%20%3Cprint%20mode%3D%22body%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%3Crecurse%20type%3D%22down%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%3Cprint%20mode%3D%22skeleton%22%20order%3D%22quadtile%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fosm-script%3E. What information do they bring? At which end of the ways is the dead end? And, if the answer id it's obvious why is an obvious thing highlighted? Why is Chienrue and many others not dead ends? Why is this segment http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/91796014 and the others a dead end? Is it impossible to go round the loop? Why is this a dead end http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/92843940 and not the stub on the left? Etc. Those tags are constant riddles. Yes, please help us understand. Now, regarding JOSM and Osmose validations, it's not clear what obscurity you speak about. More usage instructions http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:noexit#More_usage_instructions to which I added a link explains a very clear experiment showing that JOSM and Osmose make a way ending near an other way sanity test and the noexit page is very clear that the purpose of noexit is to mute that test (telling that there is no tagging problem). That's the meaning of noexit, not to tag dead ends generally. Unfortunately, 1) The noexit page used to say Use the noexit at the end of a highway to indicate that there no possibility to travel further ... when the meaning is in reality ... *on the node* at ... to indicate when doubtful *that the impossibility* to travel further ... *is perfectly normal*, 2) contributors used to read only that phrase, not the full explanation below it, and tagged a useless noexit condition instead
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On Apr 8, 2014, at 3:10 AM, Pieren wrote: On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:48 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Please, return to earth. Tagging traffic signs is just a funny activity in fully mapped areas. How do you specify a speed limit in OSM ? with a traffic_sign tag on a node or primarily with the maxspeed on the way ? I could repeat the same question for many other features. I've seen areas where previous mapper(s) have put traffic_sign nodes adjacent to a way with speed limit information and did not put a maxspeed tag on the way itself. I suspect they weren't/aren't programmers. :) For what it is worth, the only time I use noexit=yes is on nodes at the end of a way. And only there if the way ends close enough to another way that JOSM gives me a warning. From a topological point of view it is useless, to quiet nonsense warnings it is useful. -Tod smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
Hi, A problem raised in 2013-12 on talk-be regarding the error with sign F45 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Belgium#F45 that nobody corrected. I finally did it. I had brought the subject to Tagging and it reached a consensus with Georg's message which I quote below. But nobody changed the wiki accordingly, which I just finally did too. 1. noexit cannot be used on ways because that does not show what end cannot pass 2. noexit is unsuitable for full routing because it does not apply to a particular means of transport (unlike a hypothetic bicycle=noexit) 3. a noexit like tag is unnecessary for routing; routing has got all it takes 4. noexit is used to draw the attention of sanity checks on the validity of the tagging 5. it could also highlight the no-passing condition when it's barely visible on the map, but if it were rendered 6. there is no need to tag each and every noexit; we're not dressing a Xmas tree. The wiki should be carefully looked after indeed. Cheers, André. On 2013-12-03 15:41, Georg Feddern wrote : Am 03.12.2013 14:48, schrieb André Pirard: I agree to: This tag is - not necessary for routing - senseless on ways - only useful on nodes (the last one, where no other way is connected) The wiki should be changed, especially the use on ways should be removed. But I do not agree to I doubt very much that this tags helps anybody or any quality-check program to understand anything. A note should suffice, and I think the best option would be to remove that confusing tag. It is useful for quality-check programs to determine This is not a missing connection to nearby ways. (false positives) A note would have to be clear and machine-readable for this case. It might be useful for renderers as on a map it might look as a connection (because of oversize of rendered ways). But this could be determined by preprocessing also. Georg On 2014-04-08 13:33, Marc Gemis wrote : I tagged noexit=yes on the ways. Why ? If I remember correctly some more experienced mapper told me it was ok to do so. And perhaps I read the wiki page before June 28, 2011, when there was nothing mentioned about way or node. You cannot assume each mapper reads all wiki pages every week or follow the tagging mailing list to keep up-to-date with the changing definitions of tags. Another reason is that, as Pieren pointed out, many features are mapped on the way, not on a single point. And yet another reason is that the OSM definition is different from the traffic code definition, where noexit is placed on each street where cars cannot leave the street via another exit. So people might just tag it without reading the wiki at all. The tag info on the wiki page shows enough usages on ways to make it a viable tagging method. Enough reasons why people might tag this incorrectly according to the current wiki definition ? :-) regards m On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:57 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 08.04.2014 12:10, Pieren wrote: On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:48 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: noexit=yes has nothing in common with the traffic_sign as: 1. it only is about motorized traffic where noexit=yes is about every travel mode. 2. it is used at the beginning of a cul-de-sac and an information for driver of motorized vehicles where noexit=yes is always tagged on the end node of a way without any connection and is a hint for mappers and QA tools. Please, do not mix it up. Please, return to earth. Tagging traffic signs is just a funny activity in fully mapped areas. How do you specify a speed limit in OSM ? with a traffic_sign tag on a node or primarily with the maxspeed on the way ? I could repeat the same question for many other features. Do not know if you speak german, but one person did tell us that she/he is mapping the traffic_signs as addition one the ways on talk-de@osm [1]. I'm still waiting some clear explanation about the difference of a noexit and a cul-de-sac. You find quite some differences, if you read the mails carefully. The major points in my view are: * We do not need to tag cul-de-sac as defined by the traffic_sign. This information is available through geometry and/or access tags. * The traffic_sign is always about motorized vehicles but we map for all traffic modes. noexit=yes is wrong as soon as there is any connected highway. One way to manifest the difference is to only tag it on nodes and not on ways. Once you understand there is no difference, you understand why 40% of the noexit tags are on ways When you have this huge gap between the wiki definition limiting the
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
now make sure that all QA-tools and editors/validators follow those rules. I fear that otherwise we will keep seeing noexit tags that are used incorrectly. On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, A problem raised in 2013-12 on talk-be regarding the error with sign F45http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Belgium#F45that nobody corrected. I finally did it. I had brought the subject to Tagging and it reached a consensus with Georg's message which I quote below. But nobody changed the wiki accordingly, which I just finally did too. 1. noexit cannot be used on ways because that does not show what end cannot pass 2. noexit is unsuitable for full routing because it does not apply to a particular means of transport (unlike a hypothetic bicycle=noexit) 3. a noexit like tag is unnecessary for routing; routing has got all it takes 4. noexit is used to draw the attention of sanity checks on the validity of the tagging 5. it could also highlight the no-passing condition when it's barely visible on the map, but if it were rendered 6. there is no need to tag each and every noexit; we're not dressing a Xmas tree. The wiki should be carefully looked after indeed. Cheers, André. On 2013-12-03 15:41, Georg Feddern wrote : Am 03.12.2013 14:48, schrieb André Pirard: I agree to: This tag is - not necessary for routing - senseless on ways - only useful on nodes (the last one, where no other way is connected) The wiki should be changed, especially the use on ways should be removed. But I do not agree to I doubt very much that this tags helps anybody or any quality-check program to understand anything. A note should suffice, and I think the best option would be to remove that confusing tag. It is useful for quality-check programs to determine This is not a missing connection to nearby ways. (false positives) A note would have to be clear and machine-readable for this case. It might be useful for renderers as on a map it might look as a connection (because of oversize of rendered ways). But this could be determined by preprocessing also. Georg On 2014-04-08 13:33, Marc Gemis wrote : I tagged noexit=yes on the ways. Why ? If I remember correctly some more experienced mapper told me it was ok to do so. And perhaps I read the wiki page before June 28, 2011, when there was nothing mentioned about way or node. You cannot assume each mapper reads all wiki pages every week or follow the tagging mailing list to keep up-to-date with the changing definitions of tags. Another reason is that, as Pieren pointed out, many features are mapped on the way, not on a single point. And yet another reason is that the OSM definition is different from the traffic code definition, where noexit is placed on each street where cars cannot leave the street via another exit. So people might just tag it without reading the wiki at all. The tag info on the wiki page shows enough usages on ways to make it a viable tagging method. Enough reasons why people might tag this incorrectly according to the current wiki definition ? :-) regards m On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:57 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 08.04.2014 12:10, Pieren wrote: On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:48 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: noexit=yes has nothing in common with the traffic_sign as: 1. it only is about motorized traffic where noexit=yes is about every travel mode. 2. it is used at the beginning of a cul-de-sac and an information for driver of motorized vehicles where noexit=yes is always tagged on the end node of a way without any connection and is a hint for mappers and QA tools. Please, do not mix it up. Please, return to earth. Tagging traffic signs is just a funny activity in fully mapped areas. How do you specify a speed limit in OSM ? with a traffic_sign tag on a node or primarily with the maxspeed on the way ? I could repeat the same question for many other features. Do not know if you speak german, but one person did tell us that she/he is mapping the traffic_signs as addition one the ways on talk-de@osm [1]. I'm still waiting some clear explanation about the difference of a noexit and a cul-de-sac. You find quite some differences, if you read the mails carefully. The major points in my view are: * We do not need to tag cul-de-sac as defined by the traffic_sign. This information is available through geometry and/or access tags. * The traffic_sign is always about motorized vehicles but we map for all traffic modes. noexit=yes is wrong as soon as there is any connected highway. One way to manifest the difference is to only tag it on nodes and not on ways. Once you understand there is no difference, you understand why 40% of the noexit tags are on ways When you have this huge gap between the wiki
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
If you don't use noexit=yes on ways, what do you use it on? I don't see that it would be meaningful on nodes, areas, or relations. On April 4, 2014 9:14:24 AM CDT, Nelson A. de Oliveira nao...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 03.04.2014 21:22, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? The way has one side that has/is an exit :-) Tagging the whole way as noexit=yes seems strange. If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with this tag. Basically I agree with the current text of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit (except that I don't agree to use it on ways). I also can't see why, but people also use noexit=no http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/noexit#values ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- 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. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 2014-04-06 00:07, John F. Eldredge wrote : If you don't use noexit=yes on ways, what do you use it on? How do you understand "Use the noexit=yes tag on the node at the end of a highway=* ..."? If you read the wiki page very very carefully, you will conclude that it must be used almost on nothing. I mean that it must be very very seldom used and that 99%+ of those 200 000+ tags are errors. I don't see that it would be meaningful on nodes, areas, or relations. What do you think it means? Cheers, André. On April 4, 2014 9:14:24 AM CDT, "Nelson A. de Oliveira" nao...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 03.04.2014 21:22, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? The way has one side that has/is an exit :-) Tagging the whole way as "noexit=yes" seems strange. If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with this tag. Basically I agree with the current text of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit (except that I don't agree to use it on ways). I also can't see why, but people also use noexit=no http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/noexit#values ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
I think the Wiki is abundantly clear on the usage of this tag. I says, among other things, that it is to be used on a node, not on a way, and that This tag is mainly useful where a road or path ends close to another way but where it isn't possible to get through due to a barrier or other obstruction which may otherwise look like a mistake for a connection to the nearby road the photo illustrates such a dead-end perfectly. I cannot understand why people are having such a difficult time with this. It is to be used to tag the end node of a way from which there is no way forward — i.e., if you're traveling along this way, when you come to this point you will have to turn around and go out the way you came in. Dave On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:56 AM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.comwrote: On 2014-04-06 00:07, John F. Eldredge wrote : If you don't use noexit=yes on ways, what do you use it on? How do you understand Use the *noexit*http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Noexit =yes tag on the node at the end of a highwayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway =* ...? If you read the wiki page very very carefully, you will conclude that it must be used almost on nothing. I mean that it must be very very seldom used and that 99%+ of those 200 000+ tags are errors. I don't see that it would be meaningful on nodes, areas, or relations. What do you think it means? Cheers, André. On April 4, 2014 9:14:24 AM CDT, Nelson A. de Oliveira nao...@gmail.com nao...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 03.04.2014 21:22, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? The way has one side that has/is an exit :-) Tagging the whole way as noexit=yes seems strange. If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with this tag. Basically I agree with the current text ofhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit (except that I don't agree to use it on ways). I also can't see why, but people also use noexit=nohttp://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/noexit#values ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
Well, at least on my part, the confusion was because I was thinking in terms of the no exit sign, which is always posted at the entrance to a cul-de-sac, not at the end of it. On April 5, 2014 8:00:27 PM CDT, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: I think the Wiki is abundantly clear on the usage of this tag. I says, among other things, that it is to be used on a node, not on a way, and that This tag is mainly useful where a road or path ends close to another way but where it isn't possible to get through due to a barrier or other obstruction which may otherwise look like a mistake for a connection to the nearby road the photo illustrates such a dead-end perfectly. I cannot understand why people are having such a difficult time with this. It is to be used to tag the end node of a way from which there is no way forward — i.e., if you're traveling along this way, when you come to this point you will have to turn around and go out the way you came in. Dave On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:56 AM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.comwrote: On 2014-04-06 00:07, John F. Eldredge wrote : If you don't use noexit=yes on ways, what do you use it on? How do you understand Use the *noexit*http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Noexit =yes tag on the node at the end of a highwayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway =* ...? If you read the wiki page very very carefully, you will conclude that it must be used almost on nothing. I mean that it must be very very seldom used and that 99%+ of those 200 000+ tags are errors. I don't see that it would be meaningful on nodes, areas, or relations. What do you think it means? Cheers, André. On April 4, 2014 9:14:24 AM CDT, Nelson A. de Oliveira nao...@gmail.com nao...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 03.04.2014 21:22, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? The way has one side that has/is an exit :-) Tagging the whole way as noexit=yes seems strange. If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with this tag. Basically I agree with the current text ofhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit (except that I don't agree to use it on ways). I also can't see why, but people also use noexit=nohttp://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/noexit#values ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- 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. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 06.04.2014 03:13, John F. Eldredge wrote: Well, at least on my part, the confusion was because I was thinking in terms of the no exit sign, which is always posted at the entrance to a cul-de-sac, not at the end of it. Do we need a link to traffic_sign=* ? noexit=yes has nothing in common with the traffic_sign as: 1. it only is about motorized traffic where noexit=yes is about every travel mode. 2. it is used at the beginning of a cul-de-sac and an information for driver of motorized vehicles where noexit=yes is always tagged on the end node of a way without any connection and is a hint for mappers and QA tools. Please, do not mix it up. Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 03.04.2014 21:22, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? The way has one side that has/is an exit :-) Tagging the whole way as noexit=yes seems strange. If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with this tag. Is there any value than yes acceptable ? Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 03.04.2014 21:22, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? The way has one side that has/is an exit :-) Tagging the whole way as noexit=yes seems strange. If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with this tag. Basically I agree with the current text of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit (except that I don't agree to use it on ways). I also can't see why, but people also use noexit=no http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/noexit#values ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 2014-04-04 16:14, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote : On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 03.04.2014 21:22, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? The way has one side that has/is an exit :-) Tagging the whole way as noexit=yes seems strange. If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with this tag. Basically I agree with the current text of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit (except that I don't agree to use it on ways). Yes, except that it's a little bit unclear and hence much misunderstood. I made a revisable update according to what has been said before. I also can't see why, but people also use noexit=no http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/noexit#values In fact, the most misleading point is noexit itself. According to the true meaning, it should be intentional_tag or something that could apply to other seemingly funny tags too. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
I also can't see why, but people also use noexit=no http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/noexit#values noexit=no is the same as fixme=continue I believe fixme=continue should be favored since it actually appears in QA Tools and in JOSM 2014-04-04 11:56 GMT-03:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-04-04 16:14, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote : On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 03.04.2014 21:22, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? The way has one side that has/is an exit :-) Tagging the whole way as noexit=yes seems strange. If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with this tag. Basically I agree with the current text ofhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit (except that I don't agree to use it on ways). Yes, except that it's a little bit unclear and hence much misunderstood. I made a revisable update according to what has been said before. I also can't see why, but people also use noexit=nohttp://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/noexit#values In fact, the most misleading point is noexit itself. According to the true meaning, it should be intentional_tag or something that could apply to other seemingly funny tags too. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Nelson A. de Oliveira nao...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with this tag. Basically I agree with the current text of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit (except that I don't agree to use it on ways). As I understood, the noexit=yes means this way is a cul-de-sac. What is unclear if the tag is on the last node or on the way itself ? It is still a cul-de-sac... It seems that 40% of the noexit=yes tags are on ways and are understandable by their contributors but 100% of the persons writing on this thread do not understand what 40% of the contributors do ... So, instead of trying to change 40% of the contributors with wiki fiddling and josm obscure validations, you should try to open a bit your mind and accept that contributors can supply the same information in different ways (or nodes ;-). Stay open like OpenStreetMap ;-) Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 04.04.2014 17:35, Pieren wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Nelson A. de Oliveira nao...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with this tag. Basically I agree with the current text of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit (except that I don't agree to use it on ways). As I understood, the noexit=yes means this way is a cul-de-sac. What is unclear if the tag is on the last node or on the way itself ? It is still a cul-de-sac... Think this is a misinterpretation. It seems that 40% of the noexit=yes tags are on ways and are understandable by their contributors but 100% of the persons writing on this thread do not understand what 40% of the contributors do ... So, instead of trying to change 40% of the contributors with wiki fiddling and josm obscure validations, you should try to open a bit your mind and accept that contributors can supply the same information in different ways (or nodes ;-). Stay open like OpenStreetMap ;-) We do not need this tag to tag a cul-de-sac. There are other ways as even the geometrie and connected ways give you this information. If you want to tag the sign that is fine, please use traffic_sign=*. I am trying to find reasons why it is used that much on ways and if it is useful but you are the first one in favour of ways. If you have a look at the wiki history you will find wiki fiddling some years ago, later the activism on the page was little. I am still looking for good reasons to use it on ways but I did not find any so far. Please, tell me if you know some. Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
I was thinking the same thing, but couldn't put it into words properly. If 40% of noexit tags are on ways, this is meaningful, not some sort of accident. FWIW I also prefer to put the tag on the way, I don't care about the gratification that it gets rendered with a nifty icon in JOSM when put on a node. Also, the way I understand this tag, it applies to motor vehicles, not to bicycles or pedestrians. If the road continues as a path for cyclists or pedestrians, I'd still give the way a noexit tag, as that is what I see on our Belgian roads. Polyglot 2014-04-04 17:35 GMT+02:00 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Nelson A. de Oliveira nao...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with this tag. Basically I agree with the current text of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit (except that I don't agree to use it on ways). As I understood, the noexit=yes means this way is a cul-de-sac. What is unclear if the tag is on the last node or on the way itself ? It is still a cul-de-sac... It seems that 40% of the noexit=yes tags are on ways and are understandable by their contributors but 100% of the persons writing on this thread do not understand what 40% of the contributors do ... So, instead of trying to change 40% of the contributors with wiki fiddling and josm obscure validations, you should try to open a bit your mind and accept that contributors can supply the same information in different ways (or nodes ;-). Stay open like OpenStreetMap ;-) Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 2014-04-04 17:35, Pieren wrote : On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Nelson A. de Oliveira nao...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with this tag. Basically I agree with the current text of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit (except that I don't agree to use it on ways). As I understood, the noexit=yes means this way is a cul-de-sac. What is unclear if the tag is on the last node or on the way itself ? It is still a cul-de-sac... As it has been said before I think, there is no need for a cul-de-sac tag. A cul-de-sac is obvious either because the end of the way is a cul-de-sac or because other tags make it one. At which end of the way would be a cul-de-sac if some tag were on a way to indicated it? Or, maybe, we're inventing ways with a cul-de-sacs at both ends? It seems that 40% of the noexit=yes tags are on ways and are understandable by their contributors but 100% of the persons writing on this thread do not understand what 40% of the contributors do ... So, instead of trying to change 40% of the contributors with wiki fiddling and josm obscure validations, you should try to open a bit your mind and accept that contributors can supply the same information in different ways (or nodes ;-). Stay open like OpenStreetMap ;-) It's not a question of understanding what contributors do, it's a question of the contributors understanding what the wiki says, clearly: This tag is mainly useful where a road or path ends close to another way but where it isn't possible to get through due to a barrier or other obstruction which may otherwise look like a mistake for a connection to the nearby road. It helps other mappers and quality-check programs to understand the situation correctly. What many contributors do is indicating obvious cul-de-sacs like saying the tip of my finger is the end of it. Or should we complain that all cul-de-sacs are not tagged? There are a great many !!! Others make the mistake tagging a cul-de-sac traffic sign with noexit. On one hand, this is obviously trying to tag the cul-de-sac where it is not. On the other hand, such signs exist because the driver can't see the blocked end of the road. That does not happen when one looks at a map. That's another error that was spotted by a lynx-eyed contributor and that I corrected in another part of the wiki. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
I always thought the meaning of noexit=yes was very clear. Obviously there is some confusion I was not aware of. If a highway ends with no way to continue, the final node is tagged with noexit=yes. I only use it if I am sure there is no way forward from the end of the particular way. As someone who started working with OSM in order to improve my Garmin's GPS maps it adds no special rendering of the node AFAIK. Whether Garmin's autorouting algorithm notices the tag is unknown to me, however, as a mapper working in an area where other mappers are active, I know that when I see that tag there is no need to revisit that highway to see where it goes. I'm just guessing now when trying to understand why someone would tag an entire way with noexit. In the United States there is often a sign at the entrance to a street that has no outlet. It sometimes says NO OUTLET or DEAD END. Maybe these people are tagging the way because they expect someday to see a sign or symbol on their maps at the beginning of the way rather than the end? Regards, Dave On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:51 AM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.comwrote: On 2014-04-04 17:35, Pieren wrote : On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Nelson A. de Oliveira nao...@gmail.com nao...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with this tag. Basically I agree with the current text ofhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit (except that I don't agree to use it on ways). As I understood, the noexit=yes means this way is a cul-de-sac. What is unclear if the tag is on the last node or on the way itself ? It is still a cul-de-sac... As it has been said before I think, there is no need for a cul-de-sac tag. A cul-de-sac is obvious either because the end of the way is a cul-de-sac or because other tags make it one. At which end of the way would be a cul-de-sac if some tag were on a way to indicated it? Or, maybe, we're inventing ways with a cul-de-sacs at both ends? It seems that 40% of the noexit=yes tags are on ways and are understandable by their contributors but 100% of the persons writing on this thread do not understand what 40% of the contributors do ... So, instead of trying to change 40% of the contributors with wiki fiddling and josm obscure validations, you should try to open a bit your mind and accept that contributors can supply the same information in different ways (or nodes ;-). Stay open like OpenStreetMap ;-) It's not a question of understanding what contributors do, it's a question of the contributors understanding what the wiki says, clearly: This tag is mainly useful where a road or path ends close to another way but where it isn't possible to get through due to a barrier or other obstruction which may otherwise look like a mistake for a connection to the nearby road. It helps other mappers and quality-check programs to understand the situation correctly. What many contributors do is indicating obvious cul-de-sacs like saying the tip of my finger is the end of it. Or should we complain that all cul-de-sacs are not tagged? There are a great many !!! Others make the mistake tagging a cul-de-sac traffic sign with noexit. On one hand, this is obviously trying to tag the cul-de-sac where it is not. On the other hand, such signs exist because the driver can't see the blocked end of the road. That does not happen when one looks at a map. That's another error that was spotted by a lynx-eyed contributor and that I corrected in another part of the wiki. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? The way has one side that has/is an exit :-) Tagging the whole way as noexit=yes seems strange. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
fly wrote: Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? Asking a slightly broader question, in what situations is noexit=yes useful at all, except as a cue to subsequent mappers in the very rare situation that one way ends very close to another one and there's absolutely nothing (not a wall, footpath, anything) between them? Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
in what situations is noexit=yes useful at all, except as a cue to subsequent mappers in the very rare situation that one way ends very close to another one and there's absolutely nothing (not a wall, footpath, anything) between them? It might be useful when there is limited visibility of the ways using the satellite imagery (for example, being blocked by clouds or trees), so it becomes a confirmation that the way does indeed end there. It can also may make it easier to visualize the streets if the city has a lot of streets without exit. (JOSM properly renders nodes with noexit=yes) 2014-04-03 16:22 GMT-03:00 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk: fly wrote: Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? Asking a slightly broader question, in what situations is noexit=yes useful at all, except as a cue to subsequent mappers in the very rare situation that one way ends very close to another one and there's absolutely nothing (not a wall, footpath, anything) between them? Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 03.04.2014 21:30, John Packer wrote: in what situations is noexit=yes useful at all, except as a cue to subsequent mappers in the very rare situation that one way ends very close to another one and there's absolutely nothing (not a wall, footpath, anything) between them? It might be useful when there is limited visibility of the ways using the satellite imagery (for example, being blocked by clouds or trees), so it becomes a confirmation that the way does indeed end there. It can also may make it easier to visualize the streets if the city has a lot of streets without exit. (JOSM properly renders nodes with noexit=yes) JOSM Validator uses it to suppress warnings like (high)way ends near other way) It is also useful in the woods to state that the way clearly ends and the next mapper does not have to check again and end up at the dead end instead of taking the next (un-)mapped way. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
Am 03/apr/2014 um 21:22 schrieb SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk: and there's absolutely nothing (not a wall, footpath, anything) between them? you could still map that as natural=void ;-) Seriously, there will always be something (guard rail, ditch, scrub, grass, fence, gate, ) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
Hello, Am 03.04.2014 21:22, schrieb SomeoneElse: fly wrote: Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? Asking a slightly broader question, in what situations is noexit=yes useful at all, except as a cue to subsequent mappers in the very rare situation that one way ends very close to another one and there's absolutely nothing (not a wall, footpath, anything) between them? In the diskussion on the German ML, some users pointed out, that it is rendered on some (esp. outdoor-)maps to indicate, that the way really ends. Because otherwise one could think that the mapper who added this way has just entered the first part of the way and forgot to tag fixme=continue or something similar. And obviously there is the advantage for QA-tools to filter out false-positive unconnected-way-errors. By the way: I am the user who started the discussion on talk-de. And my intention was to define the usage of the tag more precisely and to point out, that there are currently situations, where this tag is used but where it makes no sense. For example it was used at entrances of buildings, because the way ends there of course (I oppose this usage). And the discussion showed, that it makes no sense there, because some people can always enter an entrance, so is not a deadend. Another conclusion from the discussion was, that noexit=yes should only be used where no person can travel further. For a more complete overview over the conclusions, see the german Wiki-page [1] (Google translate: [2]), which I've updated today with the insights from the discussion. Cheers, Florian [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:noexit [2]: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=detl=enjs=yprev=_thl=deie=UTF-8u=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FDE%3AKey%3Anoexitedit-text=act=url ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
