Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm : > Physical separation doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to > cross, it might be no more than a 20cm high curb that an emergency > vehicle or a SUV easily could cross. yes, if you really want to go that deep into detail I suggest you use the area relation or

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread John F. Eldredge
Anthony wrote: > On Jul 3, 2012 8:57 AM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" > wrote: > > > > 2012/7/3 Philip Barnes : > > > In France, a solid line means do not cross. It is more than do not > overtake. > > > > > > +1, I guess it's the same everywhere. > > In Florida, and probably all of the USA, double sol

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Philip Barnes
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 15:40 -0400, Anthony wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2012 8:57 AM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" > wrote: > > > > 2012/7/3 Philip Barnes : > > > In France, a solid line means do not cross. It is more than do not > overtake. > > > > > > +1, I guess it's the same everywhere. > > In Florida, and

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Anthony
On Jul 3, 2012 8:57 AM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" wrote: > > 2012/7/3 Philip Barnes : > > In France, a solid line means do not cross. It is more than do not overtake. > > > +1, I guess it's the same everywhere. In Florida, and probably all of the USA, double solid yellow means do not cross TO PASS. Y

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Markus Lindholm
On 3 July 2012 17:02, Janko Mihelić wrote: > 2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm >> >> >> I still think it's more straight forward to map as two separate ways >> than to add tags to provide a logically consistent view about how to >> drive from A to B in a legal way. Bank robbers and emergency vehicle >> dr

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Markus Lindholm
On 3 July 2012 16:47, Eckhart Wörner wrote: > Hi Markus, > > Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 15:38:57 schrieb Markus Lindholm: >> Physical separation doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to >> cross, it might be no more than a 20cm high curb that an emergency >> vehicle or a SUV easily could c

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Blue flags (Foundation for Environmental Education's Blue flag criteria for beaches and marinas)

2012-07-03 Thread Glom
I wrote a proposal page in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Blue_flag -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Tagging-Blue-flags-Foundation-for-Environmental-Education-s-Blue-flag-criteria-for-beaches-and-marin-tp5714218p5714943.html Sent from

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

2012-07-03 Thread Glom
The key isn´t perfect as previous years discussion have showed, it would be better if there where a recognized key for landcover. The key "natural" suggests that it is a topographic feature, and in some places it could be so. The key "landcover" isn´t the best name for a key either as this tag sug

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Paul Johnson
On Jul 3, 2012 8:07 AM, "Pieren" wrote: > Hmm, look at the wiki first: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divided_road > > and consider this assumption: > "By default, when a divided way has a junction with a non-divided way, > the division is unbroken." This is something tha

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Pieren
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Eckhart Wörner wrote: > No, it doesn't. > * A divider does not imply overtaking restrictions, as has been argued > before. In most (all?) countries, you are still allowed to overtake as long > as you don't cross the divider. True for overtaking. But it' correct

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Janko Mihelić
2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm > > I still think it's more straight forward to map as two separate ways > than to add tags to provide a logically consistent view about how to > drive from A to B in a legal way. Bank robbers and emergency vehicle > drivers make anyway their own decision on the spot. > >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Eckhart Wörner
Hi Markus, Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 15:38:57 schrieb Markus Lindholm: > Physical separation doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to > cross, it might be no more than a 20cm high curb that an emergency > vehicle or a SUV easily could cross. > > I still think it's more straight forward t

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Eckhart Wörner
Hi Martin, Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 14:56:21 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > +1, I guess it's the same everywhere. AFAIK there is no difference > between a double solid line and a single one. You are not allowed to > cross them (but you could if you didn't care about traffic rules, and > you can

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Rails with trails

2012-07-03 Thread Phil! Gold
* SomeoneElse [2012-07-03 13:37 +0100]: > Phil! Gold wrote: > >As I understand it, NE2 was looking for a tagging scheme that > >would allow for searches to find trails on a railway grade. > > That might not have the desired effect in all cases: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.068937&lon=-4

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Markus Lindholm
On 3 July 2012 15:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm : >> In my opinion the most straight forward is to treat legal separation >> (i.e. solid line) the same way as physical separation, that is to have >> two ways, one in each direction. > > > if you make no distinction at al

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm : > In my opinion the most straight forward is to treat legal separation > (i.e. solid line) the same way as physical separation, that is to have > two ways, one in each direction. if you make no distinction at all this has the problem that you will get worse results for

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Markus Lindholm
On 3 July 2012 15:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2012/7/3 Pieren : >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: >>> Well, the router could take the overtake tag into consideration, and make >>> you turn around there. They don't do this yet, but probably will. >> >> I discover the ove

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2012/7/3 Pieren : > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: >> Well, the router could take the overtake tag into consideration, and make >> you turn around there. They don't do this yet, but probably will. > > I discover the overtake tag: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overt

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2012/7/3 Philip Barnes : > In France, a solid line means do not cross. It is more than do not overtake. +1, I guess it's the same everywhere. AFAIK there is no difference between a double solid line and a single one. You are not allowed to cross them (but you could if you didn't care about traffi

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Pieren
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Eckhart Wörner wrote: > In what way does oneway=yes apply to end nodes? I mean : you don't add a "no-turn-left" or "no-turn-right" restriction relation at intersections where one of the streets is oneway. Pieren ___ Ta

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Rails with trails

2012-07-03 Thread SomeoneElse
Phil! Gold wrote: As I understand it, NE2 was looking for a tagging scheme that would allow for searches to find trails on a railway grade. That might not have the desired effect in all cases: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.068937&lon=-4.077433&zoom=18&layers=C :-) Cheers, Andy _

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Janko Mihelić
2012/7/3 Pieren > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > But anyway, representing the "no-crossing" > is important for routing and we should consolidate the wiki between > the "overtaking" and "divider" tags. > I agree, we could put something like "routers should offer 180° o

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Eckhart Wörner
Hi Pieren, Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 14:21:18 schrieb Pieren: > I think the case can appear very often. Imagine a router based on OSM > data and you take the wrong roundabout exit. The router will re-route > you and most probably with a u-turn, back to the roundabout (but you > are right, because

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Eckhart Wörner
Hi Janko, Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 14:12:16 schrieb Janko Mihelić: > I think this is the wrong way to look at this. If you rely on routers to > make this kinds of decisions, you are going to have a lot of problems. What > if there was a roundabout island where you were allowed to u-turn? You > s

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Pieren
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > Anyway, if you don't put a "no_u_turn" restriction in this case, routers are > rarely going to route through that, so I think we are safe either way :) I think the case can appear very often. Imagine a router based on OSM data and you take t

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Pieren
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > Well, the router could take the overtake tag into consideration, and make > you turn around there. They don't do this yet, but probably will. I discover the overtake tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking but the wiki doesn'

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Janko Mihelić
2012/7/3 Philip Barnes > > The router does need fixing however as U-turns around a roundabout divider > island are rarely sensible and should not be treated as a junction. > > > Phil > I think this is the wrong way to look at this. If you rely on routers to make this kinds of decisions, you are

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Pieren
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > Are you sure that the dotted overtake line allows you to make a u-turn? Well, usually, a "no-u-turn" restriction is indicated at intersections. The relation "restriction" in OSM is also desgined for intersection nodes. Here we have a road se

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Philip Barnes
In France, a solid line means do not cross. It is more than do not overtake. On French motorways, the line between the main carriageway and the hard shoulder is broken for this reason. In this case it does mean no U-turns, and a left turn restriction will fix the problem. The router does need

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Janko Mihelić
2012/7/3 Colin Smale > Not sure about other countries, but in UK and NL a solid line means > (formally) "no crossing" and not "no overtaking". For larger vehicles it > might be effectively the same thing, but for motorcycles (for example) it's > not as they can overtake another motorcycle withou

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Rails with trails

2012-07-03 Thread Phil! Gold
* Steve Bennett [2012-07-03 17:22 +1000]: > For the original question of how to tag a "rail with trail" (I've also > heard the term "railside trail"), is it not sufficient to simply map > the two ways separately? Example here: > http://osm.org/go/uG4lkKxG?layers=C As I understand it, NE2 was look

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Colin Smale
On 03/07/2012 13:29, Janko Mihelić wrote: I think "no_left_turn" is the best solution. The line on the middle of the street is not a u-turn indicator, it is an overtake indicator which can be tagged with overtaking=no and overtaking=both. Are you sure that the dotted overtake line allows you t

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Janko Mihelić
2012/7/3 Janko Mihelić > I think "no_left_turn" is the best solution. > Actually, "no_u_turn" would be better. It's the same for the router, but not the same for the user interface. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Janko Mihelić
I think "no_left_turn" is the best solution. The line on the middle of the street is not a u-turn indicator, it is an overtake indicator which can be tagged with overtaking=no and overtaking=both. Are you sure that the dotted overtake line allows you to make a u-turn? Janko 2012/7/3 Pieren > H

[Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

2012-07-03 Thread Pieren
Hi all, Someone on the help site is questioning about a missing u-turn restriction on a roundabout junction with splitter islands ([1] in French). The problem is when you take one roundabout exit and want to come back to the roundabout, a router like OSRM is telling you to immediatly turn left aft

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Rails with trails

2012-07-03 Thread Steve Bennett
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Masi Master wrote: > Hi, > Some month ago I tried to start a proposal for rail-trails: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/rail_trail > I startet it with 'rail_trail=yes', but on talk-page some are against this, > because highway=cycleway/footway