Re: [Tagging] How to tag an unsigned bike lane?
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > Since there's been no response, I've begun using cycleway=unmarked_lane. > > > What do you mean by "unmarket" ? if they have spaces striped, is that for cyclists ? you should put some lines on a wiki page or a note directly on the elements explaining what you try to describe. The tag itself is not very explainatory. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag an unsigned bike lane?
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Nathan Edgars II > wrote: >> >> Since there's been no response, I've begun using cycleway=unmarked_lane. > > What do you mean by "unmarket" ? if they have spaces striped, is that for > cyclists ? you should put some lines on a wiki page or a note directly on > the elements explaining what you try to describe. The tag itself is not very > explainatory. I explained it in the original post - it's designed and striped just like a bike lane, but has no signs or markings on the road officially calling it a bike lane. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag an unsigned bike lane?
On 22/08/2010 14:24, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Pieren wrote: On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Since there's been no response, I've begun using cycleway=unmarked_lane. What do you mean by "unmarket" ? if they have spaces striped, is that for cyclists ? you should put some lines on a wiki page or a note directly on the elements explaining what you try to describe. The tag itself is not very explainatory. I explained it in the original post - it's designed and striped just like a bike lane, but has no signs or markings on the road officially calling it a bike lane. What would anyone using the map do different knowing this information? Is there any basis for believing they have a different status? In the UK we have two kinds of cycle lane, "mandatory" and "advisory", where mandatory is marked with a solid line and means motorists must keep out of it, and advisory means nothing legal at all except an indication for motorists to give cyclists room. Is this perhaps the same distinction here? If so is there some mileage in following the same conventions? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag an unsigned bike lane?
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > > I explained it in the original post - it's designed and striped just > like a bike lane, but has no signs or markings on the road officially > calling it a bike lane. > > > Okay, I though that a strip could also be considered as a "mark". Would "unsigned_lane" be less ambiguous ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Reference numbers for UK Public Rights of Way
The official record of UK Public rights of Way (Public Footpaths, Bridleways, Restricted Byways, and Byways Open to all Traffic) in each UK County is maintained by the corresponding County Council. They typically assign a number to each Right of Way (or segment thereof), with the numbers being unique only within each Civil Parish. The complete reference given to a given route by the County Council might look something like this: Bredon FP 17 where the first part is the Parish, the "FP" denotes footpath (Other codes would be BR, RB, BY if I recall correctly) and the number is unique within the parish (ie there's no BR 17 if there's a FP 17 in the same parish, but there will be other 17's in different parishes). To completely specify the path within the UK, you'd also need to include the County name too. Assuming the information on rights of way is available under a suitable license, it would be good to tag the ways with the reference numbers somehow. In particular this would aid checking for completion and errors in other tagging attributes. I've seen a few different ways of tagging this information, including using the name and ref keys, and including more or less of the information from the line above. So do people have any suggestions for a common standard for this tagging? * Should name=* or ref=* be used as the/a key? * Should the whole line be in one tag, or would it be better to split the number and parish apart for processing and searching ease? * Is the "FP" etc code necessary, given that the information will (should) already be in the designation=* tag? * Is the parish necessary, as this could be derived from the location? (Although we don't have parish boundaries in at present.) * Should we include the county? This is necessary for a complete numbering system, but again could be derived (albeit painfully) from the boundary data if required. One option would be to have highway=* designation=public_footpath ref=Bredon FP 17 At the other end of the scale we could have something more like highway=* designation=public_footpath county=Worcestershire parish=Bredon ref=17 There's potentially a problem with using ref=* because of the way it's interpreted by the renderers for road highways. It's quite possible for a public right of way to run along a road, though much less likely for primary, secondary, or tertiary roads. Maybe ukprow:ref=* would be better? (To complicate things slightly, at least one county I know of seems to have recently renumbered their paths using a county-wide scheme, so the Parish no longer plays a part, and each number is unique within the county.) Anyway, your thoughts would be welcome. Thanks, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag an unsigned bike lane?
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:30 AM, David Earl wrote:
> What would anyone using the map do different knowing this information?
>
> Is there any basis for believing they have a different status?
Yes:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.2065.html
"Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal
speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then
existing shall ride in the lane marked for bicycle use..."
cycleway=lane means you have to ride in the lane (except under certain
conditions which police are probably not familiar with). If a way is
tagged cycle_hazard=door_zone (or otherwise has a poorly-designed bike
lane), you might want to avoid the street altogether if it's
cycleway=lane, but if it's cycleway=unmarked_lane you have a better
chance of convincing a random cop that you're legally allowed to avoid
the hazard.
For an example of a map that distinguishes between the two cases, see
http://www.metroplanorlando.com/site/plans/maps.asp ("undesignated
bicycle lane" vs. "designated bicycle lane").
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Pieren wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Nathan Edgars II
> wrote:
>>
>> I explained it in the original post - it's designed and striped just
>> like a bike lane, but has no signs or markings on the road officially
>> calling it a bike lane.
>>
> Okay, I though that a strip could also be considered as a "mark". Would
> "unsigned_lane" be less ambiguous ?
Bike lanes can be marked with either a sign or paint on the roadway;
unsigned can be interpreted to mean that there are no signs but there
may be paint.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Mapnik reender
How should I map a statue (Monument) so the reendering will se it. Specially in mapnik version. Maybe it is not possible ? /LeSve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapnik reender
Am 22.08.2010 16:20, LeSve: How should I map a statue (Monument) so the reendering will se it. Specially in mapnik version. Maybe it is not possible ? /LeSve Depending on the nature of the statue use either historic=memorial or tourism=artwork + artwork_type=sculpture Claudius ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Reference numbers for UK Public Rights of Way
- Original Message - From: "Robert Whittaker (OSM)" To: Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:49 PM Subject: [Tagging] Reference numbers for UK Public Rights of Way The official record of UK Public rights of Way (Public Footpaths, Bridleways, Restricted Byways, and Byways Open to all Traffic) in each UK County is maintained by the corresponding County Council. They typically assign a number to each Right of Way (or segment thereof), with the numbers being unique only within each Civil Parish. The complete reference given to a given route by the County Council might look something like this: Bredon FP 17 where the first part is the Parish, the "FP" denotes footpath (Other codes would be BR, RB, BY if I recall correctly) and the number is unique within the parish (ie there's no BR 17 if there's a FP 17 in the same parish, but there will be other 17's in different parishes). To completely specify the path within the UK, you'd also need to include the County name too. Assuming the information on rights of way is available under a suitable license, it would be good to tag the ways with the reference numbers somehow. In particular this would aid checking for completion and errors in other tagging attributes. I've seen a few different ways of tagging this information, including using the name and ref keys, and including more or less of the information from the line above. So do people have any suggestions for a common standard for this tagging? * Should name=* or ref=* be used as the/a key? * Should the whole line be in one tag, or would it be better to split the number and parish apart for processing and searching ease? * Is the "FP" etc code necessary, given that the information will (should) already be in the designation=* tag? * Is the parish necessary, as this could be derived from the location? (Although we don't have parish boundaries in at present.) * Should we include the county? This is necessary for a complete numbering system, but again could be derived (albeit painfully) from the boundary data if required. One option would be to have highway=* designation=public_footpath ref=Bredon FP 17 At the other end of the scale we could have something more like highway=* designation=public_footpath county=Worcestershire parish=Bredon ref=17 There's potentially a problem with using ref=* because of the way it's interpreted by the renderers for road highways. It's quite possible for a public right of way to run along a road, though much less likely for primary, secondary, or tertiary roads. Maybe ukprow:ref=* would be better? (To complicate things slightly, at least one county I know of seems to have recently renumbered their paths using a county-wide scheme, so the Parish no longer plays a part, and each number is unique within the county.) Anyway, your thoughts would be welcome. On the Isle of Wight Footpaths are referenced by a "parish code" and then a number. [1]. On many of the footpath / bridleway/byway signs these are clearly marked Where these are marked on the signs I've used these as follows highway=* ref = BB9 I've not used name, because some of these paths also have names eg http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/9354973 David Thanks, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker [1] http://www.iwight.com/living_here/environment/rights_of_way/The_Definitive_Map_and_Statement/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] waterway=river_channel
I'd like to create a proposal about mapping whole (intermittent, [1]) river areas rather than just waterbodies. This enables the map user to see which area is affected by regular maximum water level of a river as well as the the area the river potentially moves crossways. a cross section example of a river: ^^^---~~--~~^^^ |...| where: ^natural=* / landuse=* ~waterway=river -natural=gravel|scree|sand etc. |.| waterway=river_channel Please have a look at: http://scrapy.net/osm/river_channel.png [2,3] (not yet perfect, though maybe good to start off) About the proposal: ..never done that. Could somebody tell me which templates how to use etc. or even wants to do that piece of work? I think as a prerequisite it's necessary to know what terms to use as tag names and values. . (main) river|stream channel . river bed . river bank . floodplain . etc, Compare to [4] After that, but not yet of importance, my style suggestion was: contourless area, filled with transparent pattern [5] "Large flood-prone rivers often have extensive braided streams with large extents of river shingle, pebbles and bars above the normal water-level. At the moment there is no means of showing this in OSM. The existing tag natural=scree was used in the Philippines whilst mapping after flooding. This shows a quick hack (based on changes to the landuse=quarry render rules) to mapnik to show this tag." (SK53 [6]) Let me know what you guys think about that! Cheers Klaus Sources and references: [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Intermittent_river [2] http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Cross-section_of_typikal_terrase.png, [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Waimakariri01_gobeirne.jpg) [4] http://www.slideshare.net/maliadamit/river-channel-processes-landforms-1026801 [5] http://scrapy.net/osm/scree.png [6] http://www.flickr.com/photos/43047...@n06/4916724316/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Reference numbers for UK Public Rights of Way
This sounds a lot like what could be translated as "vicinal roads" in Belgium (French: "sentiers/chemins vicinaux", Dutch: "buurtwegen"). It's from an atlas made in the 1840's that summed up all public roads and paths in each municipality, and in it they also gave numbers to all public paths and roads. Unfortunately this atlas wasn't kept up to date (even though it should have, as the atlas and the law that came with it is still valid today, e.g. farmers can be forced to reopen a path on their field if it's in the atlas), so most streets built since then never got a number, and many streets or paths from the atlas have disappeared since. Anyway, since it's still valid today and because you can see traces of these numbers (sometimes the street sign just says "voetweg 35" (footway 35)), and some municipalities even have special signs with these numbers, and because they can be referred to in official decrees, it has some value to be tagged. The tagging scheme I chose was: "vicinal_ref" for the number, and "vicinal_type" for telling whether it is designated as a path or a road. Using "ref" is a bad idea IMHO, because often the roads with road numbers we tag with "ref" also have this vicinal ref. Greetings Ben Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: > The official record of UK Public rights of Way (Public Footpaths, > Bridleways, Restricted Byways, and Byways Open to all Traffic) in each > UK County is maintained by the corresponding County Council. They > typically assign a number to each Right of Way (or segment thereof), > with the numbers being unique only within each Civil Parish. The > complete reference given to a given route by the County Council might > look something like this: > > Bredon FP 17 > > where the first part is the Parish, the "FP" denotes footpath (Other > codes would be BR, RB, BY if I recall correctly) and the number is > unique within the parish (ie there's no BR 17 if there's a FP 17 in > the same parish, but there will be other 17's in different parishes). > To completely specify the path within the UK, you'd also need to > include the County name too. > > Assuming the information on rights of way is available under a > suitable license, it would be good to tag the ways with the reference > numbers somehow. In particular this would aid checking for completion > and errors in other tagging attributes. > > I've seen a few different ways of tagging this information, including > using the name and ref keys, and including more or less of the > information from the line above. So do people have any suggestions for > a common standard for this tagging? > > * Should name=* or ref=* be used as the/a key? > > * Should the whole line be in one tag, or would it be better to split > the number and parish apart for processing and searching ease? > > * Is the "FP" etc code necessary, given that the information will > (should) already be in the designation=* tag? > > * Is the parish necessary, as this could be derived from the location? > (Although we don't have parish boundaries in at present.) > > * Should we include the county? This is necessary for a complete > numbering system, but again could be derived (albeit painfully) from > the boundary data if required. > > One option would be to have > > highway=* > designation=public_footpath > ref=Bredon FP 17 > > At the other end of the scale we could have something more like > > highway=* > designation=public_footpath > county=Worcestershire > parish=Bredon > ref=17 > > There's potentially a problem with using ref=* because of the way it's > interpreted by the renderers for road highways. It's quite possible > for a public right of way to run along a road, though much less likely > for primary, secondary, or tertiary roads. Maybe ukprow:ref=* would be > better? > > (To complicate things slightly, at least one county I know of seems to > have recently renumbered their paths using a county-wide scheme, so > the Parish no longer plays a part, and each number is unique within > the county.) > > Anyway, your thoughts would be welcome. > > Thanks, > > Robert. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] RFC - free flying practive (paragliding/hanggliding)
Hi, if any one is interested commenting on this : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/free_flying -- sly sylvain letuffe ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag an unsigned bike lane?
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> Around here there are a few roads that have spaces striped as if they
> were bike lanes, but they're not actually marked as such, so they
> don't fall under the mandatory bike lane law ("shall ride in the lane
> marked for bicycle use"). But those cyclists who like bike lanes will
> see them as a good thing, and will want them tagged as such. So how
> should they be tagged? (This isn't the same as the shoulder issue,
> where some cyclists like using a lane designed for another use; these
> are clearly designed as bike lanes, just not marked.)
Are they for parking? One council in my area explicitly considers some
on-street parking strips as de facto bike lanes.
I like the idea of tagging them. It would also be worth making an
attempt to fit the different kinds of infrastructure into some sort of
ranking, so that different renderers/routers/whatever can treat them
consistently. eg:
--Best--
highway=cycleway
cycleway=track
cycleway=lane / cycleway=opposite_lane
[shoulder proposal in here?]
cycleway=unsigned_lane
cycleway=shared_lane (or sharrow or whatever gets decided)
none
--worst--
Steve
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag an unsigned bike lane?
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> Around here there are a few roads that have spaces striped as if they
>> were bike lanes, but they're not actually marked as such, so they
>> don't fall under the mandatory bike lane law ("shall ride in the lane
>> marked for bicycle use"). But those cyclists who like bike lanes will
>> see them as a good thing, and will want them tagged as such. So how
>> should they be tagged? (This isn't the same as the shoulder issue,
>> where some cyclists like using a lane designed for another use; these
>> are clearly designed as bike lanes, just not marked.)
>
> Are they for parking? One council in my area explicitly considers some
> on-street parking strips as de facto bike lanes.
Hell no. That would be a parking lane, not suitable for cycling.
Picture a typical bike lane; now remove all signage and markings
calling it a bike lane. Here's an example:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.332798,-81.491435&spn=0.001929,0.00515&t=k&z=19&layer=c&cbll=28.332797,-81.491264&panoid=s34bEpDWqe-ThdTF0X38uQ&cbp=12,103.59,,0,2.84
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Directional Prefix & Suffix Indication
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Directional_Prefix_%26_Suffix_Indication Tags to mark directionals which are more part of an address than the street name. Since this has been discusses extensivly on the talk-us page, I might start the voting process early if I don't get any feedback this week. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is cycleway:right=lane necessary on a one-way street?
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > Oh, bleh. You're talking about a situation where a bike lane on one > side of the road is two-way: > http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/05085/chapt15.cfm#pra > I don't know how I'd tag that, but I'd certainly add a cycle_hazard=* tag. Fwiw, that situation is a two-way road with a two-way bike lane. Btw, I think here's an example of a one-way road with a one-way reverse-direction bike lane: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-37.89614,145.162751&z=21&t=h&nmd=20100711 I came across it a couple of weeks ago. I'm not certain whether the northbound cyclist (going with traffic) is allowed to use the bike lane or not. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is cycleway:right=lane necessary on a one-way street?
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Btw, I think here's an example of a one-way road with a one-way > reverse-direction bike lane: > > http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-37.89614,145.162751&z=21&t=h&nmd=20100711 > > I came across it a couple of weeks ago. I'm not certain whether the > northbound cyclist (going with traffic) is allowed to use the bike > lane or not. Honestly, that just looks like a two-way road that's one-way for cars. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
