Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
2014-11-04 23:33 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: It does not matter if the name is just unset or if noname=yes is set, as either of these tags deserve verification there is a subtle difference, in that it is very common in OSM to trace from aerial imagery without any survey, and in these cases you obviously won't be able to enter names. Therefor streets without names in OSM but with names in the real world are quite common (at least for the moment). On the other hand an explicit noname=yes is an affirmation that the mapper really couldn't find a name, even by looking hard for it. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 05.11.2014 10:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: there is a subtle difference, in that it is very common in OSM to trace from aerial imagery without any survey, and in these cases you obviously won't be able to enter names. Therefor streets without names in OSM but with names in the real world are quite common (at least for the moment). On the other hand an explicit noname=yes is an affirmation that the mapper really couldn't find a name, even by looking hard for it. You didn't geht my point that such tags are often set by mistake, or just to shut up a validator. If a mapper wishes to tell others that he didn't find a name, he should rather be more verbose, by setting a note=* (or note1=* or note2=* or note:name=* etc.). Only then, others can be assured that he was really looking for a name. However, this still does not imply that the street has no name. Maybe he simply overlooked the sign, or the sign was stolen, or the name is oral tradition only, or to be found in literature. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 29.10.2014 13:08, Pieren wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: (...) But when we see nothing, it's plain wrong to add something to the database. But it's a common practice today in OSM. It seems you missed the long discussions about noname=yes or oneway=no. Such tags don't say here is nothing. It says that someone went on place and checked that the restriction does not apply. Otherwise, we cannot differenciate surveyed locations and missing information in OSM. Experience tells that such tags are often set by mistake, or just to shut up a validator. Many mappers aim to map some place on earth completely, and then mark it done, and it be never ever touched again. That's naive. Data in a real world with real mappers requires continuous verification and actualization. Of course, YOU may be sure that YOU made no mistakes. But the only way for OTHERS to verify that is by revisiting the place and looking all over again. It does not matter if the name is just unset or if noname=yes is set, as either of these tags deserve verification. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
1) In many jurisdictions the ultimate permit and authority come from a state sponsored map of restrictions. For example http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/permits/stars.htm (warning: requires crufty Microsoft software). 2) Consider that many bridges cross at an angle, meaning there's more clearance on one side than the other. A height restriction per lane is sometimes seen. Databases like the STARS database above will code more detail than the simple maxheight sign which typically provides a pessimistic view of the clearance. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:24 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: And both tags are definitive, whereas maxheight:signed=no (or whatever) is just waiting for a better tooled or experienced mapper to do the survey. No. The survey is done : there is no legal height restriction under this bridge. Of course, anyone is free to come back and add more tags like the physical height or the material and 3d shape of the bridge, etc. But the most interesting information for apps checking clearance (e.g. for routing) is there = no legal restriction here. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: (...) But when we see nothing, it's plain wrong to add something to the database. But it's a common practice today in OSM. It seems you missed the long discussions about noname=yes or oneway=no. Such tags don't say here is nothing. It says that someone went on place and checked that the restriction does not apply. Otherwise, we cannot differenciate surveyed locations and missing information in OSM. Btw, I'm also in favour of maxheight=unsigned which is for me less controversial than maxheight=none (even as a non native English speaker). Although maxheight is the legal value (like all tags in the category access), none is suggesting that there is no height limit at all. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
2014-10-29 13:08 GMT+01:00 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: Btw, I'm also in favour of maxheight=unsigned maybe unmarked would be more English than unsigned? Alternatively it could also be default? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
why would we treat maxheight different from maxspeed ? I thought the consensus for maxspeed was to tag the maxspeed explicitly and the reason in source:maxspeed So why can't we fill in the default value for unsigned bridges explicitly , so e.g. maxheight=4 and add source:maxheight=Country:default ? regards m p.s. I'm aware of the history of source:maxspeed and that not everybody is happy with this tag. On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-29 13:08 GMT+01:00 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: Btw, I'm also in favour of maxheight=unsigned maybe unmarked would be more English than unsigned? Alternatively it could also be default? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: So why can't we fill in the default value for unsigned bridges explicitly , so e.g. maxheight=4 and add source:maxheight=Country:default ? I don't know the max height in my country. And probably most of the contributors don't. So the simple maxheight=unsigned or unmarked or whatever is easier for the average contributor. What you suggest is possible and could be automated. But it could be done by the data consumers as well. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
Then it happens that a 3 m bridge that for some reason has no sign gets a 4 m tag. maxheight is different from maxspeed in some aspects. Marc Gemis wrote on 2014-10-29 13:51: why would we treat maxheight different from maxspeed ? I thought the consensus for maxspeed was to tag the maxspeed explicitly and the reason in source:maxspeed So why can't we fill in the default value for unsigned bridges explicitly , so e.g. maxheight=4 and add source:maxheight=Country:default ? regards m p.s. I'm aware of the history of source:maxspeed and that not everybody is happy with this tag. On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-29 13:08 GMT+01:00 Pieren pier...@gmail.com mailto:pier...@gmail.com: Btw, I'm also in favour of maxheight=unsigned maybe unmarked would be more English than unsigned? Alternatively it could also be default? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
2014-10-29 13:51 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com: why would we treat maxheight different from maxspeed ? I thought the consensus for maxspeed was to tag the maxspeed explicitly and the reason in source:maxspeed So why can't we fill in the default value for unsigned bridges explicitly , so e.g. maxheight=4 and add source:maxheight=Country:default ? I think maxspeed and maxheight are different, as maxspeed is defined also when there is no sign (default maxspeed), but maxheight is not defined when there is no sign. There are still considerations to keep in mind (like vehicle classes and their max height) to infer for practical reasons some default maxheight, but that isn't exactly the same as default maxspeeds. Still I agree, we could tag this derived maxheight value and add a maxheight:source to say it is implicit. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
2014-10-29 14:01 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org: Then it happens that a 3 m bridge that for some reason has no sign gets a 4 m tag. examples? What is some reason? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
In Belgium the maximum height for a vehicle is 4m (on all roads, whether there is a bridge or not). So without sign a bridge should allow vehicles under the maximum height to pass. There are exceptions, which requires a special permit (pubic transport). Then the maximum height is 4.4m meters. I assume that for exceptional goods, which also requires special permission, the height can be even higher. This is part of the traffic code, which each citizen with a driving license should know. Will this be so much different in other countries ? Thus the tagging should indicate that without sign, the bridge allows at least vehicles with a height less than the legal maximum for vehicles in that country. regards m On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-29 14:01 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org: Then it happens that a 3 m bridge that for some reason has no sign gets a 4 m tag. examples? What is some reason? cheers, Martin ___ 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] what does maxheight=none mean?
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-29 14:05: 2014-10-29 14:01 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer: Then it happens that a 3 m bridge that for some reason has no sign gets a 4 m tag. examples? What is some reason? - rural track never had sign posted - neglected road, sign fallen off - unsigned road gained hight due to maintenance While maxspeed is a legal limit, maxheight is derived from a physical limitation. Bridges can also be much higher than 4 m, but height not known, so why should I tag it 4 m. I'd prefer to tag what I see, i.e. I see no sign, I tag unsigned/unmarked/un-whatever-we-conclude. Keep it simple. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
An example would be where the sign had fallen off, or been stolen by vandals. On October 29, 2014 8:05:10 AM CDT, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-29 14:01 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org: Then it happens that a 3 m bridge that for some reason has no sign gets a 4 m tag. examples? What is some reason? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 29/10/2014, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: (...) But when we see nothing, it's plain wrong to add something to the database. But it's a common practice today in OSM. It seems you missed the long discussions about noname=yes or oneway=no. Such tags don't say here is nothing. It says that someone went on place and checked that the restriction does not apply. Otherwise, we cannot differenciate surveyed locations and missing information in OSM. The comparision doesn't apply well. no is a valid value for the oneway key. noname uses a different key than the one it relates to (instead of using name=none or name=unsigned). And both tags are definitive, whereas maxheight:signed=no (or whatever) is just waiting for a better tooled or experienced mapper to do the survey. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
2014-10-27 20:21 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: But when we see nothing, it's plain wrong to add something to the database. E.g. when there's no building, you wouldn't draw an area and tag it building=no. For the same reason, you shouldn't make up a maxheight=none (or unsigned) when there's no sign. It's not about seeing nothing, it is about verifying that the default maxheight applies, i.e. there is no specific maxheight sign. This is really different from nothing and might be better than no information at all (which can mean imcomplete mapping or no maxheight sign). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
Tom Pfeifer t.pfeifer@... writes:
I stumbled over some maxheight=none tags on motorways, that did not even
pass under a bridge. I found that this is the most frequent value of
maxheight (2889 of 41474).
Tom,
thanks for bringing this up. As the author of Maxheight Map ([1], [2]) I'd
like to put some of this discussion into perspective. Originally user
Win32netsky started a thread Brückenhöhen eintragen in die OSM Karte [4]
(adding maxheight infos to the OSM map) in the German forum, which attracted
more than 200k views and over 700 replies in the meantime. So this topic
already got quite some attention in the past, at least in Germany. To see
the huge momentum, visit the Wiki page [3] to see maxheight mapping progress
in Hamburg, Germany in the last four years.
We started to create the Maxheight Map arond 2 years back as a way to
support mappers in finding still unmapped bridges. At the same time, we were
looking for some way to express that there's no explicit maxheight
information (vulgo: no maxheight sign). The implicit limit as defined by
legislation would require a sign if the bridge is lower than 4m
in Germany. For this purpose maxheight=none was invented to indicate that
there's no explicit maxheight limit. It was clear that the analogy to
maxspeed=none is somehow broken, but other ideas like maxheight=unspecified
didn't make it. We thought, well maxheight=none is here to stay.
Now enters JOSM: for some reason, they decided to create some rule to flag
maxheight=none as warning, as none is not a valid number. Suddenly mappers
started to remove those tags (JOSM must be right!). I picked this up in [4],
but it was sort of inconclusive. German OSM podcast Radio OSM discussed
this ('maxheight=none is bad'), but nobody really got the underlying idea.
Thanks a lot for Peter Miller's thoughts on this btw., that's exactly our
motivation!
Following the Radio OSM story Martin K. started to invent
maxheight=unsigned and added this to the German wiki page without much
consultation/feedback from the community . I know unsigned integers
(=positive numbers), but unsigned maxheight seems a bit weird to me as a
non-native speaker. Maybe someone can chime in
here if this makes sense at all. Others started to propose
maxheight=default, which looks a bit better to me.
But again, we somehow need to start formalizing this a bit more, so that
- Mappers can be confident again to use the right tagging, that there's a
consensus to tag this stuff
(after all if you look at the situation in taginfo and the actual numbers
for maxheight=none, the idea behind this tagging is really widespread and
commonly used by mappers!)
- JOSM no longer complains about maxheight=(not a number) and people stop
deleting those tags
Thanks for your time
Best
mmd
[1] http://maxheight.bplaced.net
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maxheight_Map
[3]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Maxheight_Map#Beispiel_-_Entwicklung_in_Hamburg_von_2010_bis_2014
[4] http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=14154
[5] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Dieterdreist#maxheight
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 26/10/2014, Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-26 20:26: Am 24.10.2014 um 20:53 schrieb Tom Pfeifer: I would recommend to add maxheight=unsigned to the English and other wiki pages, and list maxheight=none as incorrect tagging. unsigned maxheight is the typical situation in all areas that I've been to. In some (all?) countries there is still a default height, eg implied by vehicle regulations 4m in many countries. Yes I agree, but which is the implication for tagging? For me, maxheight=none makes no sense at all, and I would like to flag that as a tagging mistake in the Wiki, while I have some sympathy for keeping a record of the absence of restrictions. Agreed. Signs are useful for the driver and the mapper, but they don't change the physical reallity of the height restriction. If you don't have a good maxheight value handy (either thanks to a sign or via your own measurement), just tag an approximate one (erring on the low side for safety reasons) and add fixme. Or if you don't trust yourself doing that, don't tag anything. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
Thanks mmd for shedding some light on the background of this tagging.
As said before I am not against keeping a record of a bridge being checked,
just the value =none is misleading.
Another problem is that the tag is on the way under the bridge, and
not the bridge way itself. That leads to the situation that somebody
tags a 15km motorway because one bridge is unsigned. The next mapper
splits the way to tag some turn:lanes, and thus creates segments
of the road where there is no bridge at all.
JOSM should be no problems, since the validator could consider the
exemption once a method has been agreed on.
tom
mmd wrote on 2014-10-27 07:27:
Tom Pfeifer writes:
I stumbled over some maxheight=none tags on motorways, that did not even
pass under a bridge. I found that this is the most frequent value of
maxheight (2889 of 41474).
Tom,
thanks for bringing this up. As the author of Maxheight Map ([1], [2]) I'd
like to put some of this discussion into perspective. Originally user
Win32netsky started a thread Brückenhöhen eintragen in die OSM Karte [4]
(adding maxheight infos to the OSM map) in the German forum, which attracted
more than 200k views and over 700 replies in the meantime. So this topic
already got quite some attention in the past, at least in Germany. To see
the huge momentum, visit the Wiki page [3] to see maxheight mapping progress
in Hamburg, Germany in the last four years.
We started to create the Maxheight Map arond 2 years back as a way to
support mappers in finding still unmapped bridges. At the same time, we were
looking for some way to express that there's no explicit maxheight
information (vulgo: no maxheight sign). The implicit limit as defined by
legislation would require a sign if the bridge is lower than 4m
in Germany. For this purpose maxheight=none was invented to indicate that
there's no explicit maxheight limit. It was clear that the analogy to
maxspeed=none is somehow broken, but other ideas like maxheight=unspecified
didn't make it. We thought, well maxheight=none is here to stay.
Now enters JOSM: for some reason, they decided to create some rule to flag
maxheight=none as warning, as none is not a valid number. Suddenly mappers
started to remove those tags (JOSM must be right!). I picked this up in [4],
but it was sort of inconclusive. German OSM podcast Radio OSM discussed
this ('maxheight=none is bad'), but nobody really got the underlying idea.
Thanks a lot for Peter Miller's thoughts on this btw., that's exactly our
motivation!
Following the Radio OSM story Martin K. started to invent
maxheight=unsigned and added this to the German wiki page without much
consultation/feedback from the community . I know unsigned integers
(=positive numbers), but unsigned maxheight seems a bit weird to me as a
non-native speaker. Maybe someone can chime in
here if this makes sense at all. Others started to propose
maxheight=default, which looks a bit better to me.
But again, we somehow need to start formalizing this a bit more, so that
- Mappers can be confident again to use the right tagging, that there's a
consensus to tag this stuff
(after all if you look at the situation in taginfo and the actual numbers
for maxheight=none, the idea behind this tagging is really widespread and
commonly used by mappers!)
- JOSM no longer complains about maxheight=(not a number) and people stop
deleting those tags
Thanks for your time
Best
mmd
[1] http://maxheight.bplaced.net
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maxheight_Map
[3]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Maxheight_Map#Beispiel_-_Entwicklung_in_Hamburg_von_2010_bis_2014
[4] http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=14154
[5] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Dieterdreist#maxheight
___
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] what does maxheight=none mean?
Tom Pfeifer wrote on 27.10.2014 10:20: As said before I am not against keeping a record of a bridge being checked, just the value =none is misleading. Another problem is that the tag is on the way under the bridge, and not the bridge way itself. That leads to the situation that somebody tags a 15km motorway because one bridge is unsigned. The next mapper splits the way to tag some turn:lanes, and thus creates segments of the road where there is no bridge at all. So what? This tag indicates that the segment of the street is checked and there is no legal limit visible. If this situation comes from a mapped bridge or some other (unmapped?) thing is no difference. It says: As a mapper i do not have to walk there and check the sign, as someone has done it (and found none). QA tools should only check ways under a bridge for this tag, but should not warn if this tag is at an way without a bridge. -- greetings Holger ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 27/10/2014, Holger Jeromin mailgm...@katur.de wrote: Tom Pfeifer wrote on 27.10.2014 10:20: As said before I am not against keeping a record of a bridge being checked, just the value =none is misleading. Another problem is that the tag is on the way under the bridge, and not the bridge way itself. That leads to the situation that somebody tags a 15km motorway because one bridge is unsigned. The next mapper splits the way to tag some turn:lanes, and thus creates segments of the road where there is no bridge at all. So what? This tag indicates that the segment of the street is checked and there is no legal limit visible. If this situation comes from a mapped bridge or some other (unmapped?) thing is no difference. It says: As a mapper i do not have to walk there and check the sign, as someone has done it (and found none). The maxheight=* tag maps the physical limitation, not the sign (which can be absent or even wrong). Tagging maxheight=none really makes no sense. I'd even argue that tagging I surveyed this but couldn't see a limitation is useless: the sign might get added later, some mapper might be able to measure the maxheight, the value above 4m might be important for some people, etc. Don't try to silence the QA tool when there actually is a bridge with a physical maxheigth. QA tools should only check ways under a bridge for this tag, but should not warn if this tag is at an way without a bridge. Tagging maxheight=* on a long way instead of just around the bridge is bad tagging for two reasons, which justifies QA checks : * It can prevent routing to a property near the bridge * It can lead to mapping errors when the way is split, a bridge is added somewhere else, etc. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 27/10/2014, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: I'd even argue that tagging I surveyed this but couldn't see a limitation is useless: the sign might get added later, some mapper might be able to measure the maxheight, the value above 4m might be important for some people, etc. Don't try to silence the QA tool when there actually is a bridge with a physical maxheigth. Sorry, useless is a bit strong here: preventing fruitless legwork by a mapper is usefull. But remember that the other mapper might have a measuring tool, enough experience to assess the height, or that a sign might have been added in the meantime. A note=no maxheight sign tag should be good enough in this case. Anything that makes the warning completely disappear from QA tools is probably a bad idea. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 27/10/2014, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-27 11:04 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: The maxheight=* tag maps the physical limitation, not the sign (which can be absent or even wrong). Tagging maxheight=none really makes no sense. no, the maxheight tag maps the legal restriction (typically derived from a sign, in absence of a sign might be implied by other legal provisions). For physical restrictions use maxheight:physical (in some countries this is even signed). True; I was tempted to amend my sentence to note the physical/legal nuance, but decided against it for the sake of clarity. In most cases, physical and legal maxheight are pretty much the same. My main point was that what is signposted on the bridge is just a nice to have hint from the mapper's point of view. What matters is the actual legal/physical limitation. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
You are quoting me out of context, leaving the impression that I'd propose to tag the bridge way, this is not the case. I was just pointing out that tagging the way under the bridge makes no explicit reference to the bridge itself, and can lose the implicit proximity reference when the way is split. An explicit reference would need a relation. Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-27 11:13: 2014-10-27 10:20 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org mailto:t.pfei...@computer.org: Another problem is that the tag is on the way under the bridge, and not the bridge way itself. this is how it should be, legal restrictions (but also physical ones and all properties in general) get always tagged on the object to which they apply. If you add a maxheight tag to a way over a bridge (i.e. a highway with bridge=yes), it will mean that it applies to this way (e.g. because the bridge structure imposes a height limit on the upper way). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: On 27/10/2014, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-27 11:04 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: The maxheight=* tag maps the physical limitation, not the sign (which can be absent or even wrong). Tagging maxheight=none really makes no sense. no, the maxheight tag maps the legal restriction (typically derived from a sign, in absence of a sign might be implied by other legal provisions). For physical restrictions use maxheight:physical (in some countries this is even signed). True; I was tempted to amend my sentence to note the physical/legal nuance, but decided against it for the sake of clarity. In most cases, physical and legal maxheight are pretty much the same. My main point was that what is signposted on the bridge is just a nice to have hint from the mapper's point of view. What matters is the actual legal/physical limitation. At least here in Finland the maxheight restriction sign [1] is posted occassionally significantly before the bridge without pre-warning distance extra sign [2]. In such a case the maxheight restriction applies from the sign onwards legally, so it really matters here also from the mapper's POV what the sign says. What's even more funny, I even noticed one place where this difference might affect routing (although the effect is quite limited): http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1564470488#map=17/60.24009/24.95182 -- i. [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Finland_road_sign_342.svg [2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Finland_road_sign_815.svg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 10/27/14 6:45 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: You are quoting me out of context, leaving the impression that I'd propose to tag the bridge way, this is not the case. I was just pointing out that tagging the way under the bridge makes no explicit reference to the bridge itself, and can lose the implicit proximity reference when the way is split. An explicit reference would need a relation. since the height restriction only applies to the segment of road directly underneath the structure, i have always been careful to split the way on either side, fairly close to the structure before adding the tag. it seems like the only sensible way to do this. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 10/27/14 6:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014-10-27 11:04 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com mailto:molto...@gmail.com: The maxheight=* tag maps the physical limitation, not the sign (which can be absent or even wrong). Tagging maxheight=none really makes no sense. no, the maxheight tag maps the legal restriction (typically derived from a sign, in absence of a sign might be implied by other legal provisions). For physical restrictions use maxheight:physical (in some countries this is even signed). For the actual clearance height we could still use another tag like height (maybe better not, as this would IMO imply the height of the road, i.e. from the surface downwards) or more explicitly clearance_height. in the US, the default behavior is that the signed max height has a couple of inches to spare. if there is no margin then it's considered an actual maxheight which naturally would map to maxheight:actual i have no idea what usage is in the UK richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 10/27/14 12:02 AM, Peter Miller wrote: Without a way of tagging the fact that we know that the bridge has regulation clearance and also knowing who surveyed it and when the data was added we can't know what we need to do to complete the mapping to allow the routing of high vehicles. there is value to knowing the date of the survey. maxheight changes usually happen when a road is resurfaced; over time maxheight gets lower and lower until they decide to tear the road up completely and redo it from scratch. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
2014-10-27 13:10 GMT+01:00 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net: in the US, the default behavior is that the signed max height has a couple of inches to spare. if there is no margin then it's considered an actual maxheight which naturally would map to maxheight:actual interesting. At which temperature will this be measured? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On Mon Oct 27 2014 12:10:25 GMT+ (GMT), Richard Welty wrote: i have no idea what usage is in the UK The UK uses the standard Vienna Convention system of a red triangle being a warning and a red circle being a prohibition. A height limit in a red circle means vehicles over the height are prohibited. Height is given in metric and imperial in most cases, although imperial only signs do exist. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
moltonel 3x Combo wrote on 27.10.2014 11:04: * It can lead to mapping errors ... a bridge is added somewhere else, etc. The problem of outdated information is completely unrelated to this tag. -- regards Holger ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 27/10/2014, Holger Jeromin mailgm...@katur.de wrote: moltonel 3x Combo wrote on 27.10.2014 11:04: * It can lead to mapping errors ... a bridge is added somewhere else, etc. The problem of outdated information is completely unrelated to this tag. I disagree, an important requirement of tagging schemes and mapping best-practices (it's not just about tags here, but what you apply them to) is that they are easy to maintain. The map *will* get updated, and you have no control over the skill level of the person who comes after you. So you'd better make updating the map easy for that person. That means in this case don't be lazy, split the way so that only the required portion is tagged with maxheight. That same reasoning can help decide between otherwise-equivalent mapping practices, such as when to use overlapping ways vs mutipolygons. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 25.10.2014 01:10, Kytömaa Lauri wrote: Personally, i use maxheight = x + maxheight:physical=x for these, but saying that signs are the only thing that can be tagged gives bad data. I did not say that signs are the only thing that can be tagged. I said that we should map what we see. When we see a sign, we map the contents of the sign. When we see some physical height or distance, we may map it. But when we see nothing, it's plain wrong to add something to the database. E.g. when there's no building, you wouldn't draw an area and tag it building=no. For the same reason, you shouldn't make up a maxheight=none (or unsigned) when there's no sign. However, you may use maxheight:physical=xyz when you surveyed the xyz, as this does conform to the we map what we see rule. maxheight:physical=* does not require maxheight=* to be defined, and vice versa. These two keys are independant of each other. The former is the physical limit, while the latter is the designated limit. If there's no designated limit, omit it and specify the physical limit only. There's absolutely no reason for maxheight=none/unsigned/or/other/bogus. Statements to the effect that any tags can only refer to signposted limits do not represent the original usages of the tag The original usage of the tag is history, and even the original usage did not include values like unsigned. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
Am 27.10.2014 um 13:11 schrieb Richard Welty: On 10/27/14 6:45 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: You are quoting me out of context, leaving the impression that I'd propose to tag the bridge way, this is not the case. I was just pointing out that tagging the way under the bridge makes no explicit reference to the bridge itself, and can lose the implicit proximity reference when the way is split. An explicit reference would need a relation. since the height restriction only applies to the segment of road directly underneath the structure, i have always been careful to split the way on either side, fairly close to the structure before adding the tag. it seems like the only sensible way to do this. If a legal maxheight tag only affects a tiny section underneath a structure, an alternative might be to add a dedicated maxheight node to the road in question like in case of [1]. For the purpose of identifying missing maxheight tags, I will also check for maxheight nodes in close proximity to a bridge (see analysis [2]). If you look at A428 'Crick Road' with its two railway bridges you can spot the difference: the missing maxheight tag is highlighted for the railway bridge without a maxheight node underneath. I implemented this 'node' option after some mappers complained about the overhead of splitting up a road just for the sake of adding a maxheight=default or maxheight=none tag. Of course, the situation is different, if a larger section of a road has an explicit legal maxheight limit. Splitting up the road in that case seems unavoidable. BTW: Please disregard the relation on node 1686139306, I don't use it for my analysis. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1686139306 [2] http://tinyurl.com/mu9oqrg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 10/27/14 8:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014-10-27 13:10 GMT+01:00 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net: in the US, the default behavior is that the signed max height has a couple of inches to spare. if there is no margin then it's considered an actual maxheight which naturally would map to maxheight:actual interesting. At which temperature will this be measured? no idea, didn't realize it might be significant. i do have someone i can ask for more details about how maxheight (official or actual) impacts actual operations of truckers. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
Am 24.10.2014 um 20:53 schrieb Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org: I would recommend to add maxheight=unsigned to the English and other wiki pages, and list maxheight=none as incorrect tagging. unsigned maxheight is the typical situation in all areas that I've been to. In some (all?) countries there is still a default height, eg implied by vehicle regulations 4m in many countries. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-26 20:26: Am 24.10.2014 um 20:53 schrieb Tom Pfeifer: I would recommend to add maxheight=unsigned to the English and other wiki pages, and list maxheight=none as incorrect tagging. unsigned maxheight is the typical situation in all areas that I've been to. In some (all?) countries there is still a default height, eg implied by vehicle regulations 4m in many countries. Yes I agree, but which is the implication for tagging? For me, maxheight=none makes no sense at all, and I would like to flag that as a tagging mistake in the Wiki, while I have some sympathy for keeping a record of the absence of restrictions. A route for a high vehicle is more reliable if there is confirmation that somebody has already checked the absence of restrictions, compared to a situation where a restriction exists that has simply not been tagged yet. Or should we consider height restrictions as rare enough not to encourage tagging the default? Tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
Speaking of permanent structures, is there a recommended way of tagging a maxheight that is temporarily lower, such as when scaffolding is erected under a bridge for painting or repairs? On October 24, 2014 6:10:48 PM CDT, Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi wrote: Personally, i use maxheight = x + maxheight:physical=x for these, but saying that signs are the only thing that can be tagged gives bad data. You may not collide with a bridge, signed or unsigned. Ultrasound range finders can sometimes be purchased for under 10 euros, so without a sign there may still be a real maximum possible height for a vehicle passing under that - bridge or any other - construction. In most countries, no sign should only guarantee that a vehicle under the local legal limit can expect not to hit any permanent structures, unless they have signs. Should, but not necessarily would. Statements to the effect that any tags can only refer to signposted limits do not represent the original usages of the tag - only some access tags referred to legal accessibility. -- alv Lähettäjä: Friedrich Volkmann [b...@volki.at] Lähetetty: 25. lokakuuta 2014 0:29 Vastaanottaja: tagging@openstreetmap.org Aihe: Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean? On 24.10.2014 20:53, Tom Pfeifer wrote: I stumbled over some maxheight=none tags on motorways, that did not even pass under a bridge. I found that this is the most frequent value of maxheight (2889 of 41474). [...] For bridges without sign, there is no recommendation in the English wiki, however the German wiki proposes maxheight=unsigned (290 uses), also used is maxheight=default (303) and =unspecified (2). I would recommend to add maxheight=unsigned to the English and other wiki pages, and list maxheight=none as incorrect tagging. I don't like either of these (maxheight=none/unsigned/default/unspecified), because we should map what we see. If there is no sign, there is nothing to map. Applications can make their assumptions on their own. Please remove the nonsensical and nonstandard maxheight=unsigned from the german wiki instead of polluting other pages with it. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
I don't mind what the text is or what the tag is, but to me there is all the difference in the world between a bridge which might be any height (including being dangerously low) and one which definitively had no warning sign when it was surveyed (and which can therefore be considered to provide enough clearance for vehicles of regulation height). For sure, people can go out with a suitable measuring device and measure the clearance of bridges which are not signed, but this is not necessary for 99% of routing applications and is not practical on fast roads.My interest is to ensure that we have enough information to route tall legal vehicles, including double-decked buses and trucks. Without a way of tagging the fact that we know that the bridge has regulation clearance and also knowing who surveyed it and when the data was added we can't know what we need to do to complete the mapping to allow the routing of high vehicles. Personally I think the same applies to maxweight, maxwidth and a number of other rare but important tags. I do however agree that it would not be sensible to required every oneway tag etc etc to being tagged. Regards, Peter On 27 October 2014 00:55, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Speaking of permanent structures, is there a recommended way of tagging a maxheight that is temporarily lower, such as when scaffolding is erected under a bridge for painting or repairs? On October 24, 2014 6:10:48 PM CDT, Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi wrote: Personally, i use maxheight = x + maxheight:physical=x for these, but saying that signs are the only thing that can be tagged gives bad data. You may not collide with a bridge, signed or unsigned. Ultrasound range finders can sometimes be purchased for under 10 euros, so without a sign there may still be a real maximum possible height for a vehicle passing under that - bridge or any other - construction. In most countries, no sign should only guarantee that a vehicle under the local legal limit can expect not to hit any permanent structures, unless they have signs. Should, but not necessarily would. Statements to the effect that any tags can only refer to signposted limits do not represent the original usages of the tag - only some access tags referred to legal accessibility. -- alv -- Lähettäjä: Friedrich Volkmann [b...@volki.at] Lähetetty: 25. lokakuuta 2014 0:29 Vastaanottaja:tagging@openstreetmap.org Aihe: Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean? On 24.10.2014 20:53, Tom Pfeifer wrote: I stumbled over some maxheight=none tags on motorways, that did not even pass under a bridge. I found that this is the most frequent value of maxheight (2889 of 41474). [...] For bridges without sign, there is no recommendation in the English wiki, however the German wiki proposes maxheight=unsigned (290 uses), also used is maxheight=default (303) and =unspecified (2). I would recommend to add maxheight=unsigned to the English and other wiki pages, and list maxheight=none as incorrect tagging. I don't like either of these (maxheight=none/unsigned/default/unspecified), because we should map what we see. If there is no sign, there is nothing to map. Applications can make their assumptions on their own. Please remove the nonsensical and nonstandard maxheight=unsigned from the german wiki instead of polluting other pages with it. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria -- Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ___ 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] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 24.10.2014 20:53, Tom Pfeifer wrote: I stumbled over some maxheight=none tags on motorways, that did not even pass under a bridge. I found that this is the most frequent value of maxheight (2889 of 41474). [...] For bridges without sign, there is no recommendation in the English wiki, however the German wiki proposes maxheight=unsigned (290 uses), also used is maxheight=default (303) and =unspecified (2). I would recommend to add maxheight=unsigned to the English and other wiki pages, and list maxheight=none as incorrect tagging. I don't like either of these (maxheight=none/unsigned/default/unspecified), because we should map what we see. If there is no sign, there is nothing to map. Applications can make their assumptions on their own. Please remove the nonsensical and nonstandard maxheight=unsigned from the german wiki instead of polluting other pages with it. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
Personally, i use maxheight = x + maxheight:physical=x for these, but saying that signs are the only thing that can be tagged gives bad data. You may not collide with a bridge, signed or unsigned. Ultrasound range finders can sometimes be purchased for under 10 euros, so without a sign there may still be a real maximum possible height for a vehicle passing under that - bridge or any other - construction. In most countries, no sign should only guarantee that a vehicle under the local legal limit can expect not to hit any permanent structures, unless they have signs. Should, but not necessarily would. Statements to the effect that any tags can only refer to signposted limits do not represent the original usages of the tag - only some access tags referred to legal accessibility. -- alv Lähettäjä: Friedrich Volkmann [b...@volki.at] Lähetetty: 25. lokakuuta 2014 0:29 Vastaanottaja: tagging@openstreetmap.org Aihe: Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean? On 24.10.2014 20:53, Tom Pfeifer wrote: I stumbled over some maxheight=none tags on motorways, that did not even pass under a bridge. I found that this is the most frequent value of maxheight (2889 of 41474). [...] For bridges without sign, there is no recommendation in the English wiki, however the German wiki proposes maxheight=unsigned (290 uses), also used is maxheight=default (303) and =unspecified (2). I would recommend to add maxheight=unsigned to the English and other wiki pages, and list maxheight=none as incorrect tagging. I don't like either of these (maxheight=none/unsigned/default/unspecified), because we should map what we see. If there is no sign, there is nothing to map. Applications can make their assumptions on their own. Please remove the nonsensical and nonstandard maxheight=unsigned from the german wiki instead of polluting other pages with it. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
