Re: [Tagging] Border crossing with restrictions

[Janko Mihelić]

2012/11/22 Paul Johnson 

>
>
> On Thursday, November 22, 2012, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
>> Any suggestions or precedents on how to map such restrictions.
>> This argument is obviously also important for routing.
>>
>
For a start, I suggest access=no. People who can cross the border usualy
know it, but other people are more likely to depend on the map.

I think we are far from a router that will route only locals through that
border :) Such a router would have to ask you much more than "car, bike or
pedestrian". That's why I think a fixme=* or note=* is enough for now.

Janko Mihelić
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clean-up the seamark landmark tags on the wiki (and perhaps later in the db)

[Malcolm Herring]

Any tag whose key is in the form "seamark:" is from the OpenSeaMap 
tagging scheme. Landmarks that bear these tags are features that can be 
seen from the sea or river and can be usefully used for navigational 
purposes. This is additional information, not duplicate information, so 
they may well co-exist with the conventional OSM tags for whatever type 
of map feature the object is.


It is true that our tagging scheme is not well documented. This is being 
addressed, but as always, this task gets a low priority. In the case of 
landmarks, there is some documentation: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/Landmarks


Note that there are some tags with the key "seamark". These are not 
OpenSeaMap tags, but belong to another tagging scheme that was proposed 
about 3 years ago, but the proposal was abandoned before any voting took 
place.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clean-up the seamark landmark tags on the wiki (and perhaps later in the db)

[Pieren]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Malcolm Herring
 wrote:

> This is additional information, not duplicate information, so they may well
> co-exist with the conventional OSM tags for whatever type of map feature the
> object is.

If you call:
"landuse=cemetery" + "landmark=cemetery" + "seamark=landmark" +
"seamark:type=landmark" + "seamark:landmark:category = cemetery"

not duplicates, I don't know what you need more for duplicates ;-)

As I said, a simple landmark tag is enough. It does not need to
specifiy again it is a cemetery when we can combine it with already
existing OSM tags (like the "landuse=cemetery"). The tag can be
"seamark = landmark" or "seamark:type=landmark", I don't care. But
only one single key/value pair providing this information is enough.
If nobody is interested by the subject, I will decide myself to
deprecate one of them in the wiki, e.g. the "seamark:type=landmark".
Although it is the most widely used, it sounds over complicated when
we have a simpler version like "seamark=landmark". (and of course,
deprecate all "semark:landmark:category=*").

Pieren

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clean-up the seamark landmark tags on the wiki (and perhaps later in the db)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Pieren wrote:
> If nobody is interested by the subject

I'm interested and I agree that the "OpenSeaMap tagging scheme" needs to be
brought more in line with standard OSM practice.

Marine features don't begin at the coast; many harbour/port areas are used
by both sea-going and inland boats. Therefore any tagging needs to be
consistent with the "standard" tags used on the inland waterways.

On a more general level, unnecessarily complex tagging is a barrier to entry
for newcomers.

cheers
Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Clean-up-the-seamark-landmark-tags-on-the-wiki-and-perhaps-later-in-the-db-tp5736980p5737145.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clean-up the seamark landmark tags on the wiki (and perhaps later in the db)

[Malcolm Herring]

On 23/11/2012 10:24, Pieren wrote:

"landuse=cemetery" + "landmark=cemetery" + "seamark=landmark" +
"seamark:type=landmark" + "seamark:landmark:category = cemetery"


As I said, those latter two tags would only appear on cemeteries that 
can be seen from the water and can be used as navigational markers. We 
need these differentiated tags for the various marine navigation 
specific renderers & other applications.


It is the second two tags that should be considered for deprecation, as 
they belong an abandoned tagging proposal.


We do not ask that our tags be applied by the wider mapping community, 
only that where they are found, not to delete them!



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clean-up the seamark landmark tags on the wiki (and perhaps later in the db)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 11/23/2012 11:24 AM, Pieren wrote:

As I said, a simple landmark tag is enough. It does not need to
specifiy again it is a cemetery when we can combine it with already
existing OSM tags (like the "landuse=cemetery"). The tag can be
"seamark = landmark" or "seamark:type=landmark", I don't care. But
only one single key/value pair providing this information is enough.


True - a cemetery is a cemetery and whether or not cemeteries are used 
as landmarks by seamen doesn't change that.


It is inconceivable to have something tagged "landuse=cemetery" and 
"seamark:landmark:category=ferris_wheel".


Furthermore, is "landmark" really something that can be sensibly limited 
to the scope of naval tagging? Can there be something that is a landmark 
for navigation on water but not a landmark for other purposes, and vice 
versa?


Will OpenSeaMap soon start adding "seamark:type=shop", 
"seamark:shop=convenience" to existing "shop=convenience" objects if 
these shops can be used by sailors?


I have a suspicion that this duplication of tags is largely the result 
of OpenSeaMap trying to opt out of the rest of the community - "if we 
use our own namespace then we don't have to discuss with those 
landlubbers". We have bothered much about that as long as OpenSeaMap 
tagged offshore stuff but I think we cannot tolerate this on the 30% of 
the world surface that have 99.9% of the data ;)


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clean-up the seamark landmark tags on the wiki (and perhaps later in the db)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 11/23/2012 11:48 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

We have bothered much about that as long as OpenSeaMap
tagged offshore


haven't

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Border crossing with restrictions

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/11/23 Janko Mihelić :
> 2012/11/22 Paul Johnson 
>> On Thursday, November 22, 2012, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>> Any suggestions or precedents on how to map such restrictions.
>>> This argument is obviously also important for routing.
>
>
> For a start, I suggest access=no. People who can cross the border usualy
> know it, but other people are more likely to depend on the map.


I'd prefer access=private as "no" doesn't apply (some people can cross
so "no" would be plain wrong). Maybe access=residents? We might also
use this for some Italian roads where destination is not the right
restriction (as you need also a written permit which residents get, on
the other hand maybe those cases could also be "private"? What are
your comments about access=residents?).


> I think we are far from a router that will route only locals through that
> border :) Such a router would have to ask you much more than "car, bike or
> pedestrian". That's why I think a fixme=* or note=* is enough for now.


at least we shouldn't put wrong restrictions on purpose, because this
will prevent any software or human from understanding the situation. A
fixme is there to sign an error, it is not something I'd want to have
peramently on the map, and a note is OK for human trying to understand
the situation but we shouldn't rely on this when tagging a situation.

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clean-up the seamark landmark tags on the wiki (and perhaps later in the db)

[Janko Mihelić]

Does something qualify as a seamark if it is visible from the sea? Maybe a
"visible_from_sea=yes" is enough?

Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clean-up the seamark landmark tags on the wiki (and perhaps later in the db)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I have a suspicion that this duplication of tags is largely the 
> result of OpenSeaMap trying to opt out of the rest of the 
> community - "if we use our own namespace then we don't 
> have to discuss with those landlubbers". We have not 
> bothered much about that as long as OpenSeaMap tagged 
> offshore stuff

But we should.

OSM is not a hosting platform for a thousand-and-one discreet mapping
projects. It is one big database that anyone can consult.

You can't just say "we're building Bill'sMarineMap, so I'm going to stuff
the database with Bill's custom tags which Bill'sMarineMap will use". How
OSM works is that you use universal tags that any client can parse. We
survey for OSM, not for Bill'sMarineMap; because Fred or Brian or Jill or
Winston might want to make a sea map, too.

I'm making waterway maps from OSM data. If I want to make a map of the River
Trent Navigation from source to sea, including the canals that branch off
it, I shouldn't have to parse four distinct tagging schemes devised for
individual projects: "OpenSeaMap tagging scheme", the "OpenCanalMap tagging
scheme", the "OpenRiverMap tagging scheme", and the "standard OSM tagging
scheme". I should just have to parse OSM tags.

cheers
Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Clean-up-the-seamark-landmark-tags-on-the-wiki-and-perhaps-later-in-the-db-tp5736980p5737154.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Border crossing with restrictions

[Janko Mihelić]

2012/11/23 Martin Koppenhoefer 

>
> Maybe access=residents?
>

Access=residents is a bit too general, but that's exactly how signs in
Croatia look: "No access except residents". (Then I say, "well I'm a
resident" and laugh to myself).

at least we shouldn't put wrong restrictions on purpose, because this
> will prevent any software or human from understanding the situation. A
> fixme is there to sign an error, it is not something I'd want to have
> peramently on the map, and a note is OK for human trying to understand
> the situation but we shouldn't rely on this when tagging a situation.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>

I had an idea to take this further. For example, you have to map a case
where residents of an address number can access a road. You make a relation
with members that are exactly like a turn restriction that forbids turning
into that road. Than you add new members to that relation, like
housenumbers, private parking places, or maybe a village. Their roles could
be something like "except".
That way, if somebody asks a router to go to that address, router can
automaticaly pass him through. Or if the router can route through a border
that only residents of a certain village can go through, the router could
ask "are you from this village".

Janko Mihelić
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Escape_lane - Approved

[José Juan Sánchez del Arco]

Okay, as the proposed feature highway=escape has been approved, now it is time 
for clean_up. I have completely no idea how to do it, so... can anyone do that 
for me??
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/escape_lane

Thank you very much :)
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] Zones 30 in Belgium (from )

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/11/22 A.Pirard.Papou 

>  On the other hand it would be possible to join them to the ways, since
> the ways need to be split anyway as the maxspeed changes there.
>
> Ouch. They are POIs, so, often near the middle of the way, probably at a
> school door.
> The best you could do is extend them by 100 m both side.
> That would mean that the POIs' data wouldn't be flashing, that nobody
> would care to check and that real bogus data would have been introduced
>

like written before: either they are features (i.e. traffic signs) and then
worth putting them into OSM or they are POI points somewhere in the middle
of a way that has a certain maxspeed restriction, than they are pretty
useless IMHO (they don't tell you neither the direction of the speed limit,
nor the start or end), and I'd not import them. You could put them in OSB
to encourage people to do a survey for speed limits there (but even that
has limited usefulness).

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] R: agglom?ration

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/11/21 Alberto :
>>How do we tag agglom?rations?
>
> What's about the proposal for urban settlements?
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Urban_settlements


I'd got for place. Place IS the tag for human settlements and also for
parts of them (e.g. suburb, neighbourhood)

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Escape_lane - Approved

[sly (sylvain letuffe)]

On vendredi 23 novembre 2012, José Juan Sánchez del Arco wrote:
> 
> Okay, as the proposed feature highway=escape has been approved, now it is
> time for clean_up. I have completely no idea how to do it, so... can anyone
> do that for me??  
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/escape_lane
> 
> Thank you very much :)

Here we go :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Descape 
  

Basically, it's a copy/pasted version of the proposal page, using the template 
for tags. 


-- 
sly
qui suis-je : http://sly.letuffe.org
email perso : sylvain chez letuffe un point org

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] fire district boundaries

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/11/22 Colin Smale :
> I wouldn't use boundary=admin with admin_level unless there is actually a
> hierarchical relationship with the levels above/below. Otherwise they
> should really be in their own hierarchy, using something like
> boundary=fire_service.


+1

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] agglomération

[A.Pirard.Papou]

On 2012-11-22 16:57, Simone Saviolo wrote :
2012/11/21 A.Pirard.Papou >


Hi,

I wanted to map the agglomeration of my village and I am wondering
again. [...]

How do we tag agglomérations?


Currently, with place=* and their relative info on a closed way. I 
have written a proposal which aims to change this tagging scheme: [1]


However, on a second thought, what you talk about is probably a 
different concept. An agglomération has precise entry and exit points, 
marked by the city limit sign - in Italy it's the same. I know that 
many mappers don't want to have this defined by a polygon, arguing 
that this would force consumers to do a spatial query to understand 
what the speed limit is; however, the legal constraint also involves 
other restrictions (e.g., no honking), and a dedicated tag would work 
better in this sense.

Hello everybody,

According to my explanation (well, my government's definition), an 
agglomération is just a set of roads and hence not an area nor a 
multipolygon (there's no speed limit or parking restrictions in the 
meadows ;-)) but, as I stated it, a plain relation. Yet, for larger 
cities (without meadows ;-)) a multipolygon could be used to gather 
already made subareas the day OSM will go recursing (nesting), but 
what's outside the roads is undecided.
The idea is that with a 30 driving rules list applying to an 
agglomération (some 10 practically), you'd better have a global idea of 
where it spans (e.g. highlight all its roads), entry/exit you speak of, 
rather than ask yourself and OSM the question for every new street you 
traverse.
As well as for exceeding the speed limit, you can be booked in 
agglomérations for parking partly on the roadside, or on the wrong 
alternated side, not letting a bus leave its stop point, etc...
Should there be a country-dependent agglomération tag, should the 
driving rules  be tagged one by one and should they be tagged on every 
road or on a relation?
Finally, should we try to tag everything or rather go and swim or play 
tennis?


Cheers,

André.



[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Urban_settlements



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Stop sign?

[John F. Eldredge]

Jo  wrote:

> I (would) do this mostly for consistency. I have to admit I never HAD
> to do
> it, most stop signs in Belgium are used for their intended purpose:
> give
> priority to the main road, not inhibit all traffic arriving at an
> intersection.
> 
> A node on the way approaching a main road is unambiguous enough. One
> one
> the intersection itself is harder to 'interpret'.
> 
> Concerning traffic lights it would depend on the size of the
> intersection.
> Traffic lights tend to have an influence on all ways arriving at the
> intersection, whereas stop signs make traffic on some ways 'inferior'
> to
> the ways of the main road. So it's not the same situation.
> 
> It also depends on the quality of the Bing imagery. It has now become
> possible to indicate where highway=give_way applies for many places in
> Europe.
> 
> Polyglot
> 
> 
> 2012/11/21 Pieren 
> 
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Jo  wrote:
> >
> > > What I never do anymore is to tag the node of the crossing with
> it. So
> > even
> > > if all 4 roads have a stop sign, I'd create for nodes for them on
> all
> > > approaches.
> >
> > Are you doing the same for traffic_signals ? if not, why simply not
> > accept that such signals on the cross node implies that all
> > intersecting ways are concerned ?
> >
> > Pieren
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

In the USA, all-way stop signs are used at intersections where all of the roads 
in question have equal priority, and the expected traffic volume is small 
enough that you won't have a large backlog of traffic waiting to go through.  
From what you are saying, would Belgium always give one of the roads the 
right-of-way, so that its traffic does not have to stop, or would it always 
have an electric traffic signal at such an intersection, regardless of how 
small the expected traffic volume is?

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Stop sign?

[Jo]

In Belgium on such intersections it's always the traffic coming from the
right that has right of way. There is almost never an obligation to make a
full stop at such intersections.

The stop sign is used on intersections where visibility is limited and one
(pair of) road(s) is considered less important than the other.

Jo


2012/11/23 John F. Eldredge 

> Jo  wrote:
>>
>> I (would) do this mostly for consistency. I have to admit I never HAD to
>> do it, most stop signs in Belgium are used for their intended purpose: give
>> priority to the main road, not inhibit all traffic arriving at an
>> intersection.
>>
>> A node on the way approaching a main road is unambiguous enough. One one
>> the intersection itself is harder to 'interpret'.
>>
>> Concerning traffic lights it would depend on the size of the
>> intersection. Traffic lights tend to have an influence on all ways arriving
>> at the intersection, whereas stop signs make traffic on some ways
>> 'inferior' to the ways of the main road. So it's not the same situation.
>>
>> It also depends on the quality of the Bing imagery. It has now become
>> possible to indicate where highway=give_way applies for many places in
>> Europe.
>>
>> Polyglot
>>
>>
>> 2012/11/21 Pieren 
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Jo  wrote:
>>>
>>> > What I never do anymore is to tag the node of the crossing with it. So
>>> even
>>> > if all 4 roads have a stop sign, I'd create for nodes for them on all
>>> > approaches.
>>>
>>> Are you doing the same for traffic_signals ? if not, why simply not
>>> accept that such signals on the cross node implies that all
>>> intersecting ways are concerned ?
>>>
>>> Pieren
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
> In the USA, all-way stop signs are used at intersections where all of the
> roads in question have equal priority, and the expected traffic volume is
> small enough that you won't have a large backlog of traffic waiting to go
> through. From what you are saying, would Belgium always give one of the
> roads the right-of-way, so that its traffic does not have to stop, or would
> it always have an electric traffic signal at such an intersection,
> regardless of how small the expected traffic volume is?
>
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not
> to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
>
> ___
> 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] Zones 30 in Belgium (from [OSM-talk-be] )

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/11/21 A.Pirard.Papou 

>  Is the error having no speed limit or having a dummy node showing there
> should be a limit?
>
>

For maxspeed you could either
a) tag a sign position (on a node) to show: here starts (or continues) the
speed limit.
b) and (more important) you should tag the speed limit to the part of the
highway it applies to.

In your case you can't do a) (because the positions you have are not sign
positions) and you can't do b) (because you have just node positions and
don't know where the limit starts or ends).

As this data is not helpful, you shouldn't import it at all.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] agglomération

[Jo]

What I'm doing right now is tag the roads inside this zone with

maxspeed=50 and
source:maxspeed=city_limit.

This doesn't fit entirely, as it doesn't only influence maxspeed. Maybe
adding a tag city_limit=yes would be more appropriate?

Besides there is a conflict when inside those city limits there is a
zone30. I'm tagging those with

maxspeed=30 and
source:maxspeed=zone30.

The zone30 also has some extra consequences, besides maxspeed though. Would
it be more correct to use zone30=yes? We also have zone50 and zone70.

I have been tagging the location of city_limit signs for several years now,
but since we didn't have a tag for it, I simply used note=city limit or
bebouwde kom (nl). I hope a proper way of tagging them will come from this
discussion.

Polyglot



2012/11/23 A.Pirard.Papou 

>  On 2012-11-22 16:57, Simone Saviolo wrote :
>
> 2012/11/21 A.Pirard.Papou 
>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> I wanted to map the agglomeration of my village and I am wondering again.
>> [...]
>>
>
>>
>  How do we tag agglomérations?
>>
>
>  Currently, with place=* and their relative info on a closed way. I have
> written a proposal which aims to change this tagging scheme: [1]
>
>  However, on a second thought, what you talk about is probably a
> different concept. An agglomération has precise entry and exit points,
> marked by the city limit sign - in Italy it's the same. I know that many
> mappers don't want to have this defined by a polygon, arguing that this
> would force consumers to do a spatial query to understand what the speed
> limit is; however, the legal constraint also involves other restrictions
> (e.g., no honking), and a dedicated tag would work better in this sense.
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> According to my explanation (well, my government's definition), an
> agglomération is just a set of roads and hence not an area nor a
> multipolygon (there's no speed limit or parking restrictions in the meadows
> ;-)) but, as I stated it, a plain relation. Yet, for larger cities (without
> meadows ;-)) a multipolygon could be used to gather already made subareas
> the day OSM will go recursing (nesting), but what's outside the roads is
> undecided.
> The idea is that with a 30 driving rules list applying to an agglomération
> (some 10 practically), you'd better have a global idea of where it spans
> (e.g. highlight all its roads), entry/exit you speak of, rather than ask
> yourself and OSM the question for every new street you traverse.
> As well as for exceeding the speed limit, you can be booked in
> agglomérations for parking partly on the roadside, or on the wrong
> alternated side, not letting a bus leave its stop point, etc...
> Should there be a country-dependent agglomération tag, should the driving
> rules  be tagged one by one and should they be tagged on every road or on a
> relation?
> Finally, should we try to tag everything or rather go and swim or play
> tennis?
>
> Cheers,
>
>   André.
>
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Urban_settlements
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Stop sign?

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2012-11-23 at 12:14 -0600, John F. Eldredge wrote:

> In the USA, all-way stop signs are used at intersections where all of
> the roads in question have equal priority, and the expected traffic
> volume is small enough that you won't have a large backlog of traffic
> waiting to go through. From what you are saying, would Belgium always
> give one of the roads the right-of-way, so that its traffic does not
> have to stop, or would it always have an electric traffic signal at
> such an intersection, regardless of how small the expected traffic
> volume is?
> 
The 'all way stop' is I think unique to North America, it does not exist
in the UK and as far as I know does not exist in Europe. From my
experience of driving in North  America, the 'all way stop' is used in
place where in Europe, and particularly the UK a mini-roundabout would
be used in most of these cases. Otherwise a road would be assigned right
of way. 

Again in most of Western Europe, not the UK, a system giving priority to
traffic from the right exists so many minor junctions have no road
markings but the priority to the right rule exists. My experience is, I
have no problem giving way but taking it took some time to master.

In Europe when a stop sign is used, there is always a main road which
has priority. 

Stop signs are much less common in the UK than North America, in most
cases the minor road just has to give way sign, or in the UK just road
markings on minor roads. 

Stop signs are relatively rare in the UK, they are generally only used
where visibility is difficult. In other countries I find myself
thinking, 'why the stop sign, I can see'.

Hope this kind of bridges the understanding issues with this thread.

Phil


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Stop sign?

[Paul Johnson]

On Nov 23, 2012 1:04 PM, "Philip Barnes"  wrote:

> The 'all way stop' is I think unique to North America, it does not exist
> in the UK and as far as I know does not exist in Europe. From my
> experience of driving in North  America, the 'all way stop' is used in
> place where in Europe, and particularly the UK a mini-roundabout would
> be used in most of these cases. Otherwise a road would be assigned right
> of way
> Stop signs are much less common in the UK than North America, in most
> cases the minor road just has to give way sign, or in the UK just road
> markings on minor roads.
>
> Stop signs are relatively rare in the UK, they are generally only used
> where visibility is difficult. In other countries I find myself
> thinking, 'why the stop sign, I can see'.

North America is starting to see this more, too.  There's noticeably
greater number of roundabouts and posted all-way yields in recent years.
Mini roundabouts are so rare they're not mentioned in the laws anywhere
stateside from what I can tell
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Stop sign?

[Richard Welty]

On 11/23/12 3:13 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
North America is starting to see this more, too. There's noticeably 
greater number of roundabouts and posted all-way yields in recent 
years. Mini roundabouts are so rare they're not mentioned in the laws 
anywhere stateside from what I can tell


there's been a pretty significant move to roundabouts in NY in recent 
years; many
difficult intersections (mostly ones with traffic lights and rush hour 
congestion problems)

have been converted to roundabouts.

stop signs still remain prevalent at low traffic rural intersections and 
in residential

neighborhoods, though. i don't think that will change.

richard


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] agglomération

[Kytömaa Lauri]

>The idea is that with a 30 driving rules list applying to an agglomération

If it's just the traffic rules urban vs. rural, there's the tag (with 37 000+ 
uses)

zone:traffic=**:rural
zone:traffic=**:urban

where ** is the two letter country code.

Don't count on anything ever deriving the rules (like maxspeed) from that tag, 
so tag the maxspeed anyway.

If, on the other hand, it's about the area that is considered "agglomerated", 
irrespective of the (not) implied traffic rules, there are probably/apparently 
different rules in every country for calculating the area, for example by 
buffering all residential buildings and combining the area formed by that 
operation.

-- 
Alv


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Zones 30 in Belgium (from [OSM-talk-be] )

[A.Pirard.Papou]

On 2012-11-23 19:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote :
2012/11/21 A.Pirard.Papou >


Is the error having no speed limit or having a dummy node showing
there should be a limit?


For maxspeed you could either
a) tag a sign position (on a node) to show: here starts (or continues) 
the speed limit.
b) and (more important) you should tag the speed limit to the part of 
the highway it applies to.


In your case you can't do a) (because the positions you have are not 
sign positions) and you can't do b) (because you have just node 
positions and don't know where the limit starts or ends).


As this data is not helpful, you shouldn't import it at all.



That has been said 10 times and I (I suppose, why me?) was accused not 
to reply.

So I do:  I  think we can stop.  PLEASE!

1) someone now uploaded the POI data to OSB
2) I said several times that, by uploading it to OSM, the helpfulness 
would *NOT* be to have meaningful data in OSM but to have innocuous 
markers producing OSMOSE and OSMI errors. They would have been spotted 
by mappers only and removed once the corresponding Zone30 limit was 
mapped or when believed that keeping the markers is vain.  It's written 
in the tags. Too difficult to understand.


André.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] piste:type=nordic but without underlying track

[Michael S]

> sounds like they would tag the whole meadow area. 

I think tagging areas with piste:type is more for downhill piste.

Michael

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] agglomération

[Jo]

I'm a bit unhappy with the term urban instead of built-up or
city_limit/city_limits. But it's better than source:maxspeed=city_limits,
so I'll start using it.

Hopefully it gets out of the proposed state one day, it was proposed in
2009

Jo


2012/11/23 Kytömaa Lauri 

> >The idea is that with a 30 driving rules list applying to an agglomération
>
> If it's just the traffic rules urban vs. rural, there's the tag (with 37
> 000+ uses)
>
> zone:traffic=**:rural
> zone:traffic=**:urban
>
> where ** is the two letter country code.
>
> Don't count on anything ever deriving the rules (like maxspeed) from that
> tag, so tag the maxspeed anyway.
>
> If, on the other hand, it's about the area that is considered
> "agglomerated", irrespective of the (not) implied traffic rules, there are
> probably/apparently different rules in every country for calculating the
> area, for example by buffering all residential buildings and combining the
> area formed by that operation.
>
> --
> Alv
>
>
> ___
> 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] agglomération

[A.Pirard.Papou]

On 2012-11-23 22:58, Lauri wrote :
The idea is that with a 30 driving rules list applying to an 
agglomération 
If it's just the traffic rules urban vs. rural, there's the tag (with 
37 000+ uses) zone:traffic=**:rural zone:traffic=**:urban where ** is 
the two letter country code.

Regarding the tags, that's a discovery!  Kiitos!
Don't count on anything ever deriving the rules (like maxspeed) from 
that tag, so tag the maxspeed anyway. 

For the rest, Nul n'est censé ignorer la loi, they say.
Kaikki pitäisi tietää lain.
If, on the other hand, it's about the area that is considered 
"agglomerated", irrespective of the (not) implied traffic rules, there 
are probably/apparently different rules in every country for 
calculating the area, for example by buffering all residential 
buildings and combining the area formed by that operation. 

Isn't the area delimited by signals everywhere in every country?
Where to place the signals is a pormestari concern ;-)
In this village, the agglomération ends after 300m of unbuilt zone, 
after which a housed zone starts.
And they flash a warning speed-o-meter if you exceed 50 km/h inside the 
300m (on the way in).


Dura lex sed lex.

Cheers,

André.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Stop sign?

[A.Pirard.Papou]

On 2012-11-23 20:03, Philip Barnes wrote :
Again in most of Western Europe, not the UK, a system giving priority 
to traffic from the right exists so many minor junctions have no road 
markings but the priority to the right rule exists. My experience is, 
I have no problem giving way but taking it took some time to master. 
In Europe when a stop sign is used, there is always a main road which 
has priority.

The priority to the right is quite a story in Belgium.
One day, lawyers correctly noticed that some minor crossings had no 
priority signals or that rust or a crash can have them fall down. So, 
mainly for a matter of law, so that a culprit would exist instead of the 
administration, right of way to the right by default was decided.
But then, bourgmestres/burgemeesters (mayors) decided to /*remove*/ some 
existing priority signs, mostly in towns, alleging that this would slow 
down the traffic and increase security.  And the more they did the more 
the next towns would do too.
This resulted in anti-natural priority and in drivers from minor road 
not daring to use their priority right and stopping anyway. Fortunately, 
there was a rule stating that someone who stops looses his priority and 
people knew how to behave in that case.
But now, that rule has been abolished, so that if someone gently waves 
at you to go first, your answer must be a no no.

The four cars at a crossing situation has never been solved.
I remember having discussed that with an Englishman. He couldn't 
understand much of what I was saying.  To him, priority was always 
natural.  Indeed, most of the crossings in that (new)town were T 
crossings, or otherwise clearly prioritized, one could not miss the 
Major Road Ahead and, on the main roads, the roundabouts were plenty and 
wide, where you can revolve until you're sure of your direction.
Some Belgian roundabouts I call "a stone in the middle of the road 
around which those who U-turn have priority over those driving straight 
ahead" (indeed they're sometimes so small that you almost cross them in 
a straight line and the center is almost flat so that the line can be 
perfectly straight for the lorries).
Stop signs are much less common in the UK than North America, in most 
cases the minor road just has to give way sign, or in the UK just road 
markings on minor roads. Stop signs are relatively rare in the UK, 
they are generally only used where visibility is difficult. In other 
countries I find myself thinking, 'why the stop sign, I can see'. 
Stop signs are rare in Belgium.  Their reason for being is to to stop 
even if no traffic is coming on the major road.  I think they were 
decided where accidents occurred.  They fit my definition of the ideal 
road sign: warning from whose who know the place to those who don't.


Each country his story.  I wonder about Roman ways ;-)  (don't you ever 
mock  OSM 
.)



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Stop sign?

[John F. Eldredge]

"A.Pirard.Papou"  wrote:

> On 2012-11-23 20:03, Philip Barnes wrote :
> > Again in most of Western Europe, not the UK, a system giving
> priority 
> > to traffic from the right exists so many minor junctions have no
> road 
> > markings but the priority to the right rule exists. My experience
> is, 
> > I have no problem giving way but taking it took some time to master.
> 
> > In Europe when a stop sign is used, there is always a main road
> which 
> > has priority.
> The priority to the right is quite a story in Belgium.
> One day, lawyers correctly noticed that some minor crossings had no 
> priority signals or that rust or a crash can have them fall down. So, 
> mainly for a matter of law, so that a culprit would exist instead of
> the 
> administration, right of way to the right by default was decided.
> But then, bourgmestres/burgemeesters (mayors) decided to /*remove*/
> some 
> existing priority signs, mostly in towns, alleging that this would
> slow 
> down the traffic and increase security.  And the more they did the
> more 
> the next towns would do too.
> This resulted in anti-natural priority and in drivers from minor road 
> not daring to use their priority right and stopping anyway.
> Fortunately, 
> there was a rule stating that someone who stops looses his priority
> and 
> people knew how to behave in that case.
> But now, that rule has been abolished, so that if someone gently waves
> 
> at you to go first, your answer must be a no no.
> The four cars at a crossing situation has never been solved.
> I remember having discussed that with an Englishman. He couldn't 
> understand much of what I was saying.  To him, priority was always 
> natural.  Indeed, most of the crossings in that (new)town were T 
> crossings, or otherwise clearly prioritized, one could not miss the 
> Major Road Ahead and, on the main roads, the roundabouts were plenty
> and 
> wide, where you can revolve until you're sure of your direction.
> Some Belgian roundabouts I call "a stone in the middle of the road 
> around which those who U-turn have priority over those driving
> straight 
> ahead" (indeed they're sometimes so small that you almost cross them
> in 
> a straight line and the center is almost flat so that the line can be 
> perfectly straight for the lorries).
> > Stop signs are much less common in the UK than North America, in
> most 
> > cases the minor road just has to give way sign, or in the UK just
> road 
> > markings on minor roads. Stop signs are relatively rare in the UK, 
> > they are generally only used where visibility is difficult. In other
> 
> > countries I find myself thinking, 'why the stop sign, I can see'. 
> Stop signs are rare in Belgium.  Their reason for being is to to stop 
> even if no traffic is coming on the major road.  I think they were 
> decided where accidents occurred.  They fit my definition of the ideal
> 
> road sign: warning from whose who know the place to those who don't.
> 
> Each country his story.  I wonder about Roman ways ;-)  (don't you
> ever 
> mock  OSM 
> .)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

I suspect the Roman rules of the road were based more on rank than anything 
else.  Anyone who failed to yield the right of way to the emperor was likely to 
end up as lion chow in the Coliseum.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] piste:type=nordic but without underlying track

[Steve Bennett]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Michael S  wrote:
> I think tagging areas with piste:type is more for downhill piste.

Interesting - according to the wiki (key:piste:type):

piste:type=nordic (way only, not area)
A nordic/cross country ski trail (also see #Style or kind of
grooming). The direction of the way should be the preferred/compulsory
skiing direction (see piste:oneway below). Nordic pistes are circular
ways if the first and the last point are the same and cannot be
rendered as areas. Currently implemented in this way by Osmarender.

piste:type=skitour (way or area)
A recommended ski tour way or area that is generally used by many
skiers during a season for the purpose of a nordic ascent and a
downhill descent in the backcountry. Generally the descent is
recommended near the ascent route for safety and terrain judgement and
the descent is not mapped. To map an alternate descent, use
piste:type=downhill with piste:grooming=backcountry. Implies
piste:grooming=backcountry. Also defined in the wikipedia Ski touring.
Rendered as area if first and last point are the same. If a circular
way is needed, do not close the way (first and last point is not
exactly the same).

It's a pity they didn't just follow the "area=yes/no" convention. "Do
not close the way" makes it sound like you should leave the end
hanging free - but they probably mean to make it connect to a
different way.

Steve

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Stop sign?

[L. David Baron]

On Wednesday 2012-11-21 08:50 +, Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
> >Can we start using relations for this already?  Really seems like that 
> >provides the specifics we want for this.
> 
> So far nobody has provided a real world example of a place where the simple 
> distance-to-next would not be correct. If somebody does that, then a relation 
> could be made up.

An example in my neighborhood of San Francisco is the stop signs on
21st Street where it crosses the J-Church MUNI tram line (where the
J-Church is deviating from Church Street to go around a steep hill):
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.7566&lon=-122.4269&zoom=18&layers=M

There are stop signs on both sides of the tram line (which I tagged
as nodes with highway=stop).  These are visible in the Bing imagery:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=37.7565&lon=-122.4269&zoom=21
since many urban areas in California have the habit of painting
their stop signs as markings in the road (the word STOP and then a
thick white line, representing the stop line) in addition to using
signs.

The stop sign on the east side of the tram line, however, is (I
think) closer to Chattanooga Street than it is to the tram line.
(Traffic turning left from Chattanooga Street northbound onto 21st
Street westbound must, in theory, stop *twice*, the first time due
to the implicit stop sign from California's rule for unmarked
T-intersections, and then again just after turning for the stop
sign.)

Even worse, there isn't actually an intersection node between 21st
Street and the J-Church tram line.  So I fully admit this is a
particularly hard case [1]; even using
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop
would require adding an extra node.

-David

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla   http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging