[Tagging] works_as_highway=primary
Hi, we have a following issue at mapy.cz (zooms cca <13 are OSM data). We try to render primary road overview in Czech republic, so the drivers could easily see where its possible to drive. But sometimes the primary road ends and continues as a secondary road - it could be in cites, or possibly temporary detour. (see links below) Is there any recommended solution already availible? Otherwise we have two solutions to discuss. 1) technically the small secondary roads part works as primary road network. So we would suggest a tag similar to works_as_highway=primary. Do you think its ok? Any suggestions? 2) less preferable solution would be to add render specific tag. Something like low_zoom_as_higway=primary. Thanks for reply, Pavel Zbytovský [1] http://www.mapy.cz/s/hf6Y http://www.osm.org/way/27074773 [2] http://www.mapy.cz/s/k35L http://www.osm.org/way/49798938 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] works_as_highway=primary
Thanks for updates, yes, we have similar rules as Ireland. Since nobody objected much, i would probably go with works_as_highway=primary - i think it reflects the state of reality, so its useful to be added in OSM dataset. Regards, Pavel út 28. 7. 2015 v 16:33 odesílatel Marc Gemis napsal: > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:14 PM, moltonel 3x Combo > wrote: > >> That ideal doesn't match the practical reality. highway=primary has a >> very different definition between Ethiopia and Germany, by necessity. >> > > While they can be very different, a router should still be able to prefer > a primary road to navigate you from city A to B and avoid secondary or > tertiary roads. Of course in Germany it might be a smooth asphalted road > and in another country a sand road, but that doesn't matter. > > Are the current router properly routing over the Irish roads ? Can they > properly deal with the classification changes ? Or are those changes > ignored because the speed limits are properly tagged. > > regards > > m > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - CoreIndoor
Hello, I have some points about indoor mapping. There is already an established tagging scheme - the Simple Indoor Tagging - but I think it could be refined a little. Especially it doesn't allow for easy corridors placement, and also some definitions could be more rigorous. Last year I finished my thesis on the topic of Indoor mapping and also submited a pull request for iD editor (see zby.cz/thesis), now I created a proposal to move us little bit further: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/CoreIndoor I would be glad for comments, and I hope we could make OSM the best indoor map ever :-) Pavel Zbytovský zby.cz openstreetmap.cz ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - CoreIndoor
Hi Warin, Thanks for feedback, still I dont get the meaing of your first sentence, sorry. ad way too big) could you suggest proper partitioning? Its not about new tags, just through explanation of cases for level=* ad level=-1-8) It means -1 to 8. This is already well established and not matter for discussion. btw, I suggested only modifications to "accepted Simple Indoor Tagging" -- is it ok? Or should I create a complete self-explanatory proposal? Pavel On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:02 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Err 60 seconds and .. > > Way too big ... as in too many things in the one proposal. > I would break it up into the individual keys. > > The layer=-1-8 .. confusing .. is that -1 to -8 or -1 to 8 ? > > On 08-Feb-17 07:09 PM, Pavel Zbytovský wrote: > > Hello, > > I have some points about indoor mapping. There is already an established > tagging scheme - the Simple Indoor Tagging - but I think it could be > refined a little. Especially it doesn't allow for easy corridors placement, > and also some definitions could be more rigorous. Last year I finished my > thesis on the topic of Indoor mapping and also submited a pull request for > iD editor (see zby.cz/thesis), now I created a proposal to move us little > bit further: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/CoreIndoor > > > I would be glad for comments, and I hope we could make OSM the best indoor > map ever :-) > > Pavel Zbytovský > zby.cz > openstreetmap.cz > > > ___ > Tagging mailing > listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - CoreIndoor
Hi Lorenzo, that is exactly right. See Simple Indoor tagging - chapter Multi-level <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging#Multi-level_features_and_repeated_features> : btw, the thesis was very positively accepted in my university :-) *For all, please: * --> I think its mandatory to read Simple Indoor tagging first. It gets you into context, and it would be possible to understand my changes. Pavel On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:30 AM Lorenzo "Beba" Beltrami < lorenzo.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2017-02-08 10:16 GMT+01:00 Pavel Zbytovský : > > Its not about new tags, just through explanation of cases for level=* > ad level=-1-8) It means -1 to 8. This is already well established and not > matter for discussion. > > > Hi Pavel, > so if we have an elevator for the underground levels only (eg. from level > -8 to level -1) it will be level=-8--1? > > Lorenzo > > P.s.: I'm happy to see that someone made a thesis on OSM! :) > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
