2009/8/7 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Richard
Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
I've added my thoughts to the
I haven't been participating for awhile, but wasn't some committee going to
come up
with a solution?
Ideally there would be separate tagging systems for all the different
classes of information, e.g.
surface type, width, number of lanes; route numbers and codes, government
classification,
2009/8/8 Jeffrey Martin dogs...@gmail.com:
Ideally there would be separate tagging systems for all the different
classes of information, e.g.
surface type, width, number of lanes; route numbers and codes, government
classification,
popularity, etc.; and then the renderer would figure out how
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
This is not how it is generally used over here (Germany) where the
majority of people use unclassified for a road roughly equal to
residential but without people living there.
And suddenly changing the meaning of a widely used tag is a really,
really bad idea.
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Ulf Möller use...@ulfm.de wrote:
And suddenly changing the meaning of a widely used tag is a
really,
really bad idea.
Well I was right, it is too ambiguous :)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote:
And suddenly changing the meaning of a widely used tag is a
really,
really bad idea.
Well I was right, it is too ambiguous :)
and then we find out that whatever track translates to in German is not the
same as what track means in Au.
so again we have
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
and then we find out that whatever track translates to in
German is not the
same as what track means in Au.
so again we have widely used tags who are about to change
their meaning
It means about the same from what I've seen, a forestry type
John Smith wrote:
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Where we fail is that we don't have anything less significant than
unclassified for non-residential areas. In particular, country roads
that
aren't particularly routable, but still have a passable
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
That's proposing highway=rural as something less
significant than tertiary
(bad, we already have unclassified for that), not something
less significant
than unclassified (good, we don't have anything like that
in rural
I'm coming to sympathise with the rendering gods, this really is going round
in circles isn't it!
The advantage of a new highway tag is a nice clear match between tag and
reality, leading to better performance by taggers, renderers and routers.
The disadvantage is confusion in the transitionary
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm concluding that - while you wouldn't start
from here - the existing tagging can be made to work, though
the documentation should be improved. We don't really
need another level in the countryside, and there
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:51 AM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
The problem with this is it requires urban areas to be in existence for the
routing to work, so this is a bad idea as well.
Routers can look for an abutters tag just as easily as using an urban area
polygon.
Richard
John Smith wrote:
The distinction is that highway=rural isn't as well maintained, or
has as much traffic as highway=residential, so if residential is
lower than unclassified, then rural is lower than residential, but
higher than track
Rural is lower than residential doesn't arise,
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
Routers can look for an abutters tag just as easily as
using an urban area polygon.
They don't always exist either. That's the problem, lots of Australia is just
blank or very near to it.
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
The problem with this is it requires urban areas to be in existence for
the routing to work, so this is a bad idea as well.
Routers can look for an abutters tag just as easily as using an urban area
polygon.
Richard
abutters has not been used in our
On 6 Aug 2009, at 12:06, John Smith wrote:
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Routers can look for an abutters tag just as easily as
using an urban area polygon.
The abutters tag is dwindling in use as landuse polygons should be
used
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
That is a lack of data problem, there is nothing that you
can do about it other than go out and do some mapping!
I penned this email about a week ago.
I was watching the State of the Map Canadian talk and they point out how
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.ukwrote:
The abutters tag is dwindling in use as landuse polygons should be used
instead as the new way of doing things.
Agree, but you wouldn't test against a landuse polygon anyway, you'd test
against an urban area
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Rural is lower than residential doesn't arise, because by
definition residential means a built-up area, so it ain't
rural.
Exactly.
I would humbly suggest highway=minor is a better tag
because
Someone already did and it
2009/8/6 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote:
And suddenly changing the meaning of a widely used tag is a
really,
really bad idea.
Well I was right, it is too ambiguous :)
and then we find out that whatever track translates to in German is not the
same as what
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
actually track implies even within Germany different things (legally,
due to the federal organisation), as in Baden-Württemberg it is
generally forbidden to use them even without special signs, where in
the rest
As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
Comments in the usual place (or have your own go at hacking it)
Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
2009/8/6 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com:
As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
Comments in the usual place (or have your own go at hacking it)
actually there are 3 things in the
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Richard
Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
Comments in the usual place (or have your own go at hacking it)
I've
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's
meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic than
residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary.
Then I propose to
On 5 Aug 2009, at 06:40, John Smith wrote:
Currently highway=unclassified is too ambiguous, and while there was
a proposal to replace this with highway=minor this seems to have
gone no where yet the same problem still exists.
I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non-urban*
areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than
residential, generally unsealed but some of them are sealed and they
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
You can determine whether an unclassified road is rural by
whether there are other things around in the area. That's
the whole point of Geo extensions in databases. you can also
do some preprocessing if you need to.
That
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but
to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is it has
higher volumes of traffic than residential, but not enough
to be considered tertiary.
Someone already tried that. It
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Elena of Valhalla elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote:
where would this differ from an highway=track?
A track is lower grade, at least here.
rural road: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/330763485_4f976dba02.jpg
track:
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's
meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic
than residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary.
This is not how it is generally used over here (Germany) where the
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
This is not how it is generally used over here (Germany)
where the majority of people use unclassified for a road
roughly equal to residential but without people living
there.
I don't know about the talk-de list, just what I've
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:49 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I would not hesitate to use highway=residential or
highway=unclassified for these (or even tertiary and up if
they are important to traffic). In fact, nobody
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm... Frederik has a point. John you seem to be mashing
together 1)
the importance and 2) the quality (good vs bad).
Quality doesn't have as much to do with things as the importance, as a result
of the importance and the number
Proposal: +1. Thanks
The question whether urban unclassifieds are at the same level of urban
residentials can be left to the router/renderer - best not to mention it.
The tagger just needs to be able to describe what is there simply and
clearly. A new tag for rural unclassifieds would clarify
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
The tagger just needs to be able to describe what is
there simply and clearly. A new tag for rural
unclassifieds would clarify matters, and
highway=rural is as good a suggestion as any. It would be
better for us
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:30 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
but the emails in the last day or 2 have gone no where in addressing the
issue,
Seriously, there's a lot of people subscribed to this list, and very
few joining the conversation. Maybe everyone is watching 5 or 6 people
John Smith wrote:
That isn't the point, the same key/value pair is being used for 2
completely different purposes
No, it isn't. highway=unclassified has, and always has had, a consistent
meaning.
If you are using highway=unclassified in a residential area to mean less
significant than
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
I'd define a rural as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public
body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is made
for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass (be that lower-grade
shoulders, Australian-style or
On 5 Aug 2009, at 20:59, Christiaan Welvaart wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
I'd define a rural as a road which is (usually) maintained by a
public
body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision
is made
for vehicles travelling in opposite directions
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote:
On 5 Aug 2009, at 20:59, Christiaan Welvaart wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
I'd define a rural as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public
body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is made
for
2009/8/5 Elena of Valhalla elena.valha...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non-urban*
areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than
residential,
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
If you are using highway=unclassified in a residential area
to mean less
significant than highway=residential, you're doing it
completely contrary
to standard practice. Therefore you are by definition
wrong.
I didn't say I
2009/8/5 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
You can determine whether an unclassified road is rural by
whether there are other things around in the area. That's
the whole point of Geo extensions in databases. you can also
Currently highway=unclassified is too ambiguous, and while there was a proposal
to replace this with highway=minor this seems to have gone no where yet the
same problem still exists.
I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's meaning
to be one thing, that is it has
45 matches
Mail list logo
