Re: [Talk-GB] Advice needed for maxweight turning restriction
On 12 October 2013 21:00, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I came across an odd situation where a road is on way, except for cycles and vehicles over 13'3 high. Its a residential area of Shrewsbury which would be a useful rat run, hence the oneway. But to make it complicated, there is are industrial units, and a low bridge. Not sure of a better way, but have added a note. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39348226 The note is great for humans, but won't be able to be interpreted by routing algorithms. Using the Conditional Restrictions from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions , I'd suggest adding using the following tags: oneway = yes oneway:bicycle = no oneway:conditional = no @ height13'13 The makes the road one-way, unless you're riding a bike or higher than 13'13. I'd leave the note=* bit in to clarify the unusual situation in human-readable language for other mappers. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice needed for maxweight turning restriction
On 12/10/2013 21:00, Philip Barnes wrote: I came across an odd situation where a road is on way, except for cycles and vehicles over 13'3 high. Its a residential area of Shrewsbury which would be a useful rat run, hence the oneway. But to make it complicated, there is are industrial units, and a low bridge. Not sure of a better way, but have added a note. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39348226 Phil (trigpoint) Another similar one: http://bit.ly/GNGlOb where the exception is length (presumably because the one way in involves two right angle turns in narrow streets, though why vehicles over 25' are allowed at all in those circumstances seems odd). But I obviously misinterpreted the sign originally, as I put maxlength=25ft, which is wrong, and someone else has removed the oneway since. Perhaps the way to tag this is not as one-way, but as two way with a minlength of 25ft in one direction. Though that will not be rendered helpfully. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice needed for maxweight turning restriction
On 14 October 2013 13:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: The note is great for humans, but won't be able to be interpreted by routing algorithms. Using the Conditional Restrictions from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions , I'd suggest adding using the following tags: oneway = yes oneway:bicycle = no oneway:conditional = no @ height13'13 The makes the road one-way, unless you're riding a bike or higher than 13'13. I'd leave the note=* bit in to clarify the unusual situation in human-readable language for other mappers. Similar case: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/22974367 (streetview: http://goo.gl/maps/JjNKR and http://goo.gl/maps/x8Z0S) One-way for vehicles with MGW3t, two-way for bicycles, no access for other vehicles. That uses bicycle:backward=yes, rather than oneway:bicycle=no Oliver ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice needed for maxweight turning restriction
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 04:23:56PM +0100, Brian Prangle wrote: why not just tag a node on the road where the sign is as maxweight? It's much simpler and reflects what's on the ground Apologies: I rejected your suggestion too quickly. If instead of maxweight, I use maxweight:forward = 7.5 on a node, that is much simpler and thus vastly superior. I hope that I have the syntax correct. Thanks for all the various suggestions. I would not have found all those corners of the wiki without this help. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice needed for maxweight turning restriction
why not just tag a node on the road where the sign is as maxweight? It's much simpler and reflects what's on the ground Regards Brian On 13 October 2013 12:28, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 09:00:38PM +0100, Philip Barnes wrote: I came across an odd situation where a road is on way, except for cycles and vehicles over 13'3 high. Its a residential area of Shrewsbury which would be a useful rat run, hence the oneway. But to make it complicated, there is are industrial units, and a low bridge. Not sure of a better way, but have added a note. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39348226 Phil (trigpoint) Well, I suppose it could be a relation - with one member in this case - with role = target/member?? and type = restriction: minheight minheight = 13'3 exception = bicycle restriction = oneway ??? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice needed for maxweight turning restriction
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 04:23:56PM +0100, Brian Prangle wrote: why not just tag a node on the road where the sign is as maxweight? It's much simpler and reflects what's on the ground Because the signs can only be seen from one direction. A single node maxweight would suggest that overweight vehicles can not pass in either direction which does not match the signage. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice needed for maxweight turning restriction
The oneway except cyclists bit is a well defined thing, whereby you can use the tag cycleway=opposite. You can be more specific by saying opposite_lane, or opposite_track as appropriate. (There are other way to tag the same thing which may be appropriate). Shaun On 12 Oct 2013, at 21:00, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I came across an odd situation where a road is on way, except for cycles and vehicles over 13'3 high. Its a residential area of Shrewsbury which would be a useful rat run, hence the oneway. But to make it complicated, there is are industrial units, and a low bridge. Not sure of a better way, but have added a note. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39348226 Phil (trigpoint) On Sat, 2013-10-12 at 20:11 +0100, Ed Loach wrote: ael wrote: I have a road with a maxweight (7.5t) sign at one end but none at the other end. So I take it that this means that vehicles over this weight may not enter from that end. I have used relation tagged with type=restriction:maxweight maxweight = 7.5 restriction = no_entry including the relevant ways with from and to roles. This was my best guess from what I could find on the wiki. Is this the right way (in the UK)? Or will it be interpreted as no-entry for all vehicles by routers? I mapped a road which had different maxweight restrictions depending on which way you entered it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/55165330 I used maxweight:forward and maxweight:backward based if I remember correctly on IRC discussion and this wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forward_%26_backward,_left_%26_ri ght No relations needed. In your case you would only need to tag either forward or backward depending on the way direction. Whether routers spot these tags currently or not I don't know; I personally doubt it. But they may in the future if they don't already. I hope this helps, Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Advice needed for maxweight turning restriction
Maybe this should be a question for the tagging list, but I am not quite sure how to map a maxweight turning restriction. I have a road with a maxweight (7.5t) sign at one end but none at the other end. So I take it that this means that vehicles over this weight may not enter from that end. I have used relation tagged with type=restriction:maxweight maxweight = 7.5 restriction = no_entry including the relevant ways with from and to roles. This was my best guess from what I could find on the wiki. Is this the right way (in the UK)? Or will it be interpreted as no-entry for all vehicles by routers? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice needed for maxweight turning restriction
ael wrote: I have a road with a maxweight (7.5t) sign at one end but none at the other end. So I take it that this means that vehicles over this weight may not enter from that end. I have used relation tagged with type=restriction:maxweight maxweight = 7.5 restriction = no_entry including the relevant ways with from and to roles. This was my best guess from what I could find on the wiki. Is this the right way (in the UK)? Or will it be interpreted as no-entry for all vehicles by routers? I mapped a road which had different maxweight restrictions depending on which way you entered it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/55165330 I used maxweight:forward and maxweight:backward based if I remember correctly on IRC discussion and this wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forward_%26_backward,_left_%26_ri ght No relations needed. In your case you would only need to tag either forward or backward depending on the way direction. Whether routers spot these tags currently or not I don't know; I personally doubt it. But they may in the future if they don't already. I hope this helps, Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice needed for maxweight turning restriction
I came across an odd situation where a road is on way, except for cycles and vehicles over 13'3 high. Its a residential area of Shrewsbury which would be a useful rat run, hence the oneway. But to make it complicated, there is are industrial units, and a low bridge. Not sure of a better way, but have added a note. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39348226 Phil (trigpoint) On Sat, 2013-10-12 at 20:11 +0100, Ed Loach wrote: ael wrote: I have a road with a maxweight (7.5t) sign at one end but none at the other end. So I take it that this means that vehicles over this weight may not enter from that end. I have used relation tagged with type=restriction:maxweight maxweight = 7.5 restriction = no_entry including the relevant ways with from and to roles. This was my best guess from what I could find on the wiki. Is this the right way (in the UK)? Or will it be interpreted as no-entry for all vehicles by routers? I mapped a road which had different maxweight restrictions depending on which way you entered it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/55165330 I used maxweight:forward and maxweight:backward based if I remember correctly on IRC discussion and this wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forward_%26_backward,_left_%26_ri ght No relations needed. In your case you would only need to tag either forward or backward depending on the way direction. Whether routers spot these tags currently or not I don't know; I personally doubt it. But they may in the future if they don't already. I hope this helps, Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
