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%3Anoexit&diff=1015025&oldid=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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
On 2014-04-09 10:47, Pieren wrote :
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM, André Pirard
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
