Re: [Tagging] Exclusive access rights
2012/10/29 Ole Nielsen : > Here is a simple proposal that avoids confusion with the existing access > restrictions. > > special_use_lanes = no | no | hgv > > (or "special_use:lanes = .." to be consistent with other lanes tags) > > Values can be 'no' (no special limitations apply to this lane), 'hgv', > 'psv', 'hov' etc. > > "special_use_lanes" is just a suggestion, other words not making an > association to "access" could also be used. Other ideas: "special_lanes", > "exclusive_use_lanes" > > Would this be a useful way forward? I thought about that also but I'm not sure if I want to go down that road. Any new key raises the (already present) risk of being inconsistent. Just imagine hgv:lanes=yes|no and special_use:lanes=no|hgv on the same way. I'm not sure if there's a simple solution to this problem. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link
* Andrew Errington [2012-10-24 14:49 +0900]: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM, David ``Smith'' wrote: > > using something like "ref:unsigned=OH 315C" to mean "this road is part of > > Ohio state route 315C but the signs don't say so" sounds perfectly sane to > > me. > > It doesn't sound sane to me. Either the road has the reference, or it > does not. I don't think it's relevant whether it's included on a sign > or not. I think it's incredibly relevant whether it's included on the sign. I suspect that the vast majority of people who use maps with reference numbers on them use those maps for navigation. I think such people would primarily be interested in signed reference numbers, because it's pretty hard to navigate by unsigned ones. Thus, there should be some difference in the tagging of signed and unsigned reference numbers. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. :-) -- Larry Wall ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link
> * Andrew Errington [2012-10-24 14:49 +0900]: > > I think it's incredibly relevant whether it's included on the sign. I > suspect that the vast majority of people who use maps with reference > numbers on them use those maps for navigation. I think such people would > primarily be interested in signed reference numbers, because it's pretty > hard to navigate by unsigned ones. Thus, there should be some difference > in the tagging of signed and unsigned reference numbers. There has to be room for both. Sometimes the signposts "lie" in the interests of clarity for navigation by road users. There is also the "destination" tag set which covers the ref "as signposted", allowing the ref=* to reflect the actual administrative ID. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination Colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Exclusive access rights
I believe there is a solution, which is consistent to current tagging styles and which complies to the Keep It Simple & Smart principle. In the situation of a motorway with three lanes, of which the rightmost lane is forbidden for motorvehicles (and PSV and HGV can use all three lanes) the tagging would be: motor_vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no No other access=*, hgv=* or psv=* tag needed in this situation. Cheers, Johan 2012/10/30 Martin Vonwald > 2012/10/29 Ole Nielsen : > > Here is a simple proposal that avoids confusion with the existing access > > restrictions. > > > > special_use_lanes = no | no | hgv > > > > (or "special_use:lanes = .." to be consistent with other lanes tags) > > > > Values can be 'no' (no special limitations apply to this lane), 'hgv', > > 'psv', 'hov' etc. > > > > "special_use_lanes" is just a suggestion, other words not making an > > association to "access" could also be used. Other ideas: "special_lanes", > > "exclusive_use_lanes" > > > > Would this be a useful way forward? > > I thought about that also but I'm not sure if I want to go down that > road. Any new key raises the (already present) risk of being > inconsistent. Just imagine hgv:lanes=yes|no and > special_use:lanes=no|hgv on the same way. > > I'm not sure if there's a simple solution to this problem. > > Martin > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Exclusive access rights
Am 30.10.2012 21:09, schrieb Johan C: I believe there is a solution, which is consistent to current tagging styles and which complies to the Keep It Simple & Smart principle. In the situation of a motorway with three lanes, of which the rightmost lane is forbidden for motorvehicles (and PSV and HGV can use all three lanes) the tagging would be: motor_vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no No other access=*, hgv=* or psv=* tag needed in this situation. I am sorry to disagree, but if hgv and psv use a kind of motor_vehicle, they are still not allowed on the rightmost lane then ... according to the tagging. Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
