Re: [Tagging] Implied oneway tag for highway=*_link, wiki edits
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Liz wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, Paul Johnson wrote: >> I should probably point out that not all roundabouts are one-way. > That's a traffic circle > > I have researched this point.. > > > Liz Here is the definition of "traffic circle" in wikipedia: "A traffic circle is one of several types of circular intersections. Traffic is normally allowed to go in one direction only around a central island. In the absence of signs or signal control, traffic entering a circle has the right-of-way, although many circles give right-of-way to the primary roads or to circulating traffic. In roundabouts[1] and rotaries[2] entering traffic must yield to traffic already in the circulatory roadway, though this is not always true of traffic circles. While more precise definitions exist for roundabouts and rotaries, the term "traffic circle" is generally used by engineers to describe circular intersections that lack the defining characteristics of roundabouts or rotaries. Therefore, traffic circles generally have one or more of the following features that roundabouts and rotaries would not:[citation needed] * Right-angle intersections between approach roadways and the circulatory roadway, or tangential approaches that allow full-speed entry (no flared entry). * Circulating traffic yields to entering traffic at one or more approach points. * Exits allowed only from the outer lane of the circular roadway. * Lane choice on approach is not necessary, lane changes may be made within circle road. * Pedestrians or other accessible land uses allowed within the center of the circle. " Again, nothing about bidirectional road. But anyway, this is interesting as even if someone finds a single example somewhere in the world of a bidirectional roundabout, it is not a reason the remove the implied oneway=yes for the tag. It was the same discussion about the implied bicycle=no on motorways everywhere excepted in some cases in US. The problem with implied values is when it is not true for a whole country and not only in a small number of exceptions. Then the default is country specific and should be documented separetely in the wiki for each country. Then it will be the job of the routing applications to know on which country they are before they apply some default values (but this is an easy job for such application to know where they are, isn't ?) Pieren http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Country_specific_default_values ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Implied oneway tag for highway=*_link, wiki edits
2009/11/28 Pieren : > excepted in some cases in US. The problem with implied values is when > it is not true for a whole country and not only in a small number of > exceptions. Then the default is country specific and should be > documented separetely in the wiki for each country. Then it will be What an entire city? The running joke about Canberra is it is one big roundabout inside another and it doesn't matter if you miss your turn you just get it next time you go round, traffic goes both ways. :) http://osm.org/go/uNlQyonq- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Implied oneway tag for highway=*_link, wiki edits
Paul Johnson wrote: > Name one road type which is inherently one-way. > Roundabouts, Motorway slip roads in the UK, half of a dual carriageway, bus guideways... My point was about newcomers to the project, who haven't sat in on endless tedious tagging discussions (and may have no wish to do so) assuming that because every instance of a type of road they know is one way that it's an inherent property. Showing their assumption is false doesn't change their behaviour. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
> I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths around my > area, and am having trouble deciding when to use path, when footway, > and when cycleway. I'm particularly troubled by the way Potlatch > describes "path" as "unofficial path" - making it sound like an > unpaved line of footprints carved through the grass. highway=footway -> a path intended for pedestrian use highway=cycleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and cycle use highway=bridleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and horse use[1] Useful tags you can add to modify the above: * "access" tags such as foot or bicycle. (So highway=cycleway, foot=no would cover the rare case of a cycleway from which pedestrians are banned.) * designation=whatever - for the official status of a path. (For example, in the UK, you might have highway=bridleway, designation=restricted_byway.) * surface=tarmac | grass | dirt | gravel | whatever highway=path is an invention of the wikifiddlers and not needed in 99% of cases. The one case that isn't adequately covered by the above is what some people call "pathways of desire" - informal shortcuts that were never really laid out as a footpath. Like you say, an unpaved line of footprints carved through the grass. So: > 1) In the parks near me, there are lots of paths, which I guess were > probably intended for pedestrians, but cyclists use them too. highway=footway. You could add cycle=yes if bikes are permitted to use them; or upgrade to highway=cycleway if they have the width/surface etc. that characterises a cycleway. > 2) Multi-use paths, like in new housing developments. Usually paved, > and connecting streets together. highway=cycleway. > 3) Genuine multi-use paths along the sides of creeks or freeways. > Frequently with a dotted line down the middle. Most people think of > them as bike paths, but plenty of pedestrians use them too. highway=cycleway. If there's a dotted line you could add segregated=yes. > 4) In Albert Park (home of the grand prix) near me, there are lots of > sealed paths that are wide enough for a car. They're normally blocked > off, and used mainly by contractors before and after the grand prix. > The rest of the time, they're used by pedestrians and cyclists. I had > marked them "highway=unclassified" but now I think "highway=track > surface=paved" would be better? Without knowing the exact place, probably something like: highway=service, access=private, bicycle=permissive, foot=permissive > 5) Non-existent paths, but places where access is possible. For > example, a bike path passes close to the end of a cul-de-sac. There's > no actual paved or dirt path, but a cyclist could easily cross a metre > or two of grass (possibly dismounting). It seems crucial for routing > to make connections here. So I've been adding "highway=path". Is there > a better tag? highway=path is well-suited for this. > 6) Places where a bike is probably permissible, but most people > wouldn't ride. (But I would :)) I'm not sure where the division of > responsibility for correctly handling bike routing lies, between the > OSM data, and the routing software. Is there any software smart enough > to give options like "how far are you willing to push the bike" or > "are you willing to cut across grass?" etc. cyclestreets.net is an OSM-based routing site with an option for pushing your bike, so yes, there is. > 7) Big open concrete spaces that are eminently navigable by > pedestrians and cyclists, but aren't exactly pedestrian malls. I have no idea about landuse types so will leave this to others! All IMO, of course. I've cross-posted this to the tagging@ list which is better suited for this kind of discussion. cheers Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Steve Bennett wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst > > wrote: > > highway=footway -> a path intended for pedestrian use > > highway=cycleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and cycle use > > highway=bridleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and horse use[1] > > Boy, I like this way of thinking. Of course, it must be controversial > given the preceding comments, but it does make a lot of sense. And at one time it was that easy in OSM, but the real world really isn't. In some countries it may work fine, but in other countries the distinction between the three has no connection with the actual situation and would introduce a number of ambiguities where you don't really know anymore whether something is allowed or not. Take cycleways for example. Over here mopeds are allowed on paths that are signed as cycleway. Now, on the other hand we also had paths which weren't cycleways but allowed bicycles (but no mopeds) tagged as cycleway. Conflict between the two: would a route planner now allow mopeds on them or not? Sure, one could explicitly tag the moped=yes/no but (a) mappers forget about it, and (b) even if they don't, they often do not know the exact rules. And not forgetting that (c) traffic code isn't some static thing, it changes over time and what has been allowed on a certain path with certain signs, may not be in future. Hence the addition of highway=path was actually a welcome additional tag. Now we can tag the paths that are legal cycleways as highway=cycleway (and likewise for footpaths and bridleways), and other paths with the generic highway=path. The traffic signs on those paths can then be translated to access tags. Greetings Ben ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Implied oneway tag for highway=*_link, wiki edits
2009/11/28 Jonathan Bennett > > My point was about newcomers to the project, who haven't sat in on > endless tedious tagging discussions (and may have no wish to do so) > assuming that because every instance of a type of road they know is one > way that it's an inherent property. Showing their assumption is false > doesn't change their behaviour. > IMHO if the rule is "add the properties that apply" this is the easiest way for everyone. Obviously in a project that deals with mapping the world you better not rely just on your personal experience, but also exchange these experiences with others that map in other parts of the world. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Implied oneway tag for highway=*_link, wiki edits
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > My point was about newcomers to the project, who haven't sat in on > endless tedious tagging discussions (and may have no wish to do so) > assuming that because every instance of a type of road they know is one > way that it's an inherent property. Showing their assumption is false > doesn't change their behaviour. Option 1: If you're unsure of the default, tag it - no harm in that. Option 2: If you're unsure of the default, check the wiki. For the latter option, something more constrained than the wiki would be preferable, though. One problem with the wiki is that it sometimes (often?) contradicts itself. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
