Re: [Tagging] Emergency lane used by PSV at rush time

2012/10/17 Martin Vonwald (imagic) : > Am 16.10.2012 um 21:30 schrieb Eric SIBERT : > >> Sorry for late answer. There is so much traffic related to lanes on this >> mailing list. >> >>> I suggest the following rewording which should reflect the initial >>> intention: >>> "Other lanes such as Wiki

Re: [Tagging] Emergency lane used by PSV at rush time

Am 16.10.2012 um 21:30 schrieb Eric SIBERT : > Sorry for late answer. There is so much traffic related to lanes on this > mailing list. > >> I suggest the following rewording which should reflect the initial intention: >> "Other lanes such as Wikipedia spitsstrooken in the Netherlands or >> Wiki

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:28 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > The emergency vehicles in the USA are also allowed to disobey traffic laws > in an emergency. They have to have the flashing lights and siren on, and > take precautions to watch out for regular traffic. For example, a police > car, fire

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

"Eckhart Wörner" wrote: > Hi Svavar, > > Am Montag, 15. Oktober 2012, 18:26:02 schrieb Svavar Kjarrval: > > I think most laws require that even emergency vehicles observe > > restrictions like oneway streets. If there are any restrictions > which > > can be broken in case of emergency vehicles,

Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?

Hi Tobias, Am Mittwoch, 17. Oktober 2012, 01:56:05 schrieb Tobias Knerr: > As for examples, I hope the following two will help: > > Example 1: > > type = restriction > restriction:conditional = no_right_turn @ 08:00-18:00 That sounds like the following might be correct as well (k!): type =

Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?

On 17.10.2012 01:43, Eckhart Wörner wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 17. Oktober 2012, 01:31:00 schrieb Tobias Knerr: >> This trap would not exist with restriction:hgv=*, >> restriction:conditional=* and so on, because there you would not rely on >> an implicit default. > > I agree, this might be a trap, how

Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?

Hi Tobias, Am Mittwoch, 17. Oktober 2012, 01:31:00 schrieb Tobias Knerr: > This trap would not exist with restriction:hgv=*, > restriction:conditional=* and so on, because there you would not rely on > an implicit default. I agree, this might be a trap, however, this can be easily caught by edito

Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?

On 17.10.2012 00:38, Eckhart Wörner wrote: > >> restriction = no_u_turn >> applies = no (to switch it off for all transportation modes) >> applies:hgv = yes (to switch it back on for HGVs) > > yeah, that's the idea. The implied default would be something like > "applies=yes, applies:foot=no" so t

Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?

On 16 October 2012 23:38, Eckhart Wörner wrote: > Hi Rob, > > (Putting tagging ML back in To since this might be of interest to other > people as well, I hope you don't mind.) > > > On topic: In your suggestion you proposed "applies = *". What would you > do > > with the following: > > > > * day_

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

Am 17.10.2012 00:18, schrieb Anthony: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote: >> On 16.10.2012 01:07, Anthony wrote: >>> As long as you have width information on the ways, I don't see the >>> problem. The amount of physical separation, whether it be an inch >>> between two lines, o

Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?

Hi Rob, (Putting tagging ML back in To since this might be of interest to other people as well, I hope you don't mind.) > On topic: In your suggesttion you proposed "applies = *". What would you do > with the following: > > * day_on, etc... > * restriction:hgv, etc > * except > > Would you sug

Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?

Hi Rob, Am Dienstag, 16. Oktober 2012, 21:42:56 schrieb Rob Nickerson: > 1. Although it is difficult to calculate how many turn restrictions have > some form of "condition", the numbers can't be that many in comparison to > normal restrictions that apply at all times. Adding the condition data to

Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?

I'm still not convinced that you need to introduce a new tag (be that "applies" or "condition"). 1. Although it is difficult to calculate how many turn restrictions have some form of "condition", the numbers can't be that many in comparison to normal restrictions that apply at all times. Adding th

Re: [Tagging] Emergency lane used by PSV at rush time

Sorry for late answer. There is so much traffic related to lanes on this mailing list. I suggest the following rewording which should reflect the initial intention: "Other lanes such as Wikipedia spitsstrooken in the Netherlands or Wikipedia temporäre Standstreifen in Austria, Germany and Switz

Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted – turn restrictions ahead?

I don't think we need to make it complicated. The Conditional Restrictions syntax is a bit overkill here. The restriction type is already known (type=restriction), so is the value (restriction=no_left_turn). What is left is just the condition (plus eventually a transport mode). I already ment

Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted - turn restrictions ahead?

> To draw the comparison with "Conditional Restrictions" the above tags > cover of , and the tag value. > There is no need to specify as this is already captured in > the relation (from, via, to). I am not sure you can say this. It should work where the junction angles are close to 90 degrees, bu

Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted – turn restrictions ahead?

On 16/10/2012 17:45, Rob Nickerson wrote: Hi Eckhart, Your right, voting has come to an end for the Conditional Restrictions proposal, which was approved. A statement was not made on this list as Ole and I are working on how best to write the feature page so that some of the concerns raised (

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/16 Chris Hill : > Perhaps in your part of the world, but not everywhere. Crossing solid lines, > as centrelines or lane separators have exceptions for ordinary vehicles (not > just emergency vehicles) here. Yet another example of how local influences > must be applied to documentation. The

[Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted – turn restrictions ahead?

Hi Eckhart, Your right, voting has come to an end for the Conditional Restrictions proposal, which was approved. A statement was not made on this list as Ole and I are working on how best to write the feature page so that some of the concerns raised (about complexity / difficulty to understand) ar

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

On 16.10.2012 01:07, Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: >> realistic rendering, particularly 3D "virtual reality". >> Physical separation and road markings look quite different from each >> other and should therefore also look different in that kind of rendering

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2012/10/16 Janko Mihelić : >> You have to divide the road each time there is not a full line on the road, >> ad you should put a restriction where those roads meet that restricts >> U-turns. What is the answer to that? > > > I find it

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Chris Hill wrote: > Maybe we should try to map the physical characteristics and leave > the legal interpretation to the drivers who are required to interpret what > they see on the ground before them and cannot rely on any map or database > for legal guidance. It'

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

On 16/10/12 11:48, Simone Saviolo wrote: 2012/10/16 Colin Smale > There's maybe a difference between the case of two lanes in the same direction, and two lanes in opposite directions. There's none. If a solid line is painted between lanes going in opposite

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/16 Colin Smale > Are you seriously suggesting that emergency services will trust a satnav > in preference to their own eyes and brains? > I hope not, and I hope this is true for everyone and not only for emergency vehicle drivers. However, not all places are within eye distance. An ambu

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/16 Colin Smale > There's maybe a difference between the case of two lanes in the same > direction, and two lanes in opposite directions. > There's none. If a solid line is painted between lanes going in opposite directions, it's legally impossible to cross the line. If a solid line is p

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/16 Janko Mihelić : > I posted this picture the last time this came up. It shows that dividing > roads is silly in some situations, for example countryside roads: > > http://i.imgur.com/p5Oto.png > > You have to divide the road each time there is not a full line on the road, > ad you should

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

There's maybe a difference between the case of two lanes in the same direction, and two lanes in opposite directions. On 16/10/2012 11:44, Janko Mihelic' wrote: I posted this picture the last time this came up. It shows that dividing roads is silly in some situations, for example countryside ro

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

Are you seriously suggesting that emergency services will trust a satnav in preference to their own eyes and brains? Especially a satnav driven by data with no proactive quality control and no-one you can sue/complain to? And seriously incomplete data? I think you are looking at a multi-year pr

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

I posted this picture the last time this came up. It shows that dividing roads is silly in some situations, for example countryside roads: http://i.imgur.com/p5Oto.png You have to divide the road each time there is not a full line on the road, ad you should put a restriction where those roads mee

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/16 Martin Koppenhöfer > > > Am 16/ott/2012 um 11:28 schrieb Markus Lindholm >: > > > To be able to do proper routing for emergency vehicles perhaps it > > would be a good idea to introduce something like landuse=highway that > > would denote an area suitable for motor vehicles and that i

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

Am 16/ott/2012 um 11:28 schrieb Markus Lindholm : > To be able to do proper routing for emergency vehicles perhaps it > would be a good idea to introduce something like landuse=highway that > would denote an area suitable for motor vehicles and that is free of > physical obstacles. There is a

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

On 15 October 2012 20:08, Colin Smale wrote: > I don't understand why emergency vehicles are so important in this > discussion. In the first place they have wide-ranging exemptions from > traffic rules, which (let's be honest) we are never going to tag in OSM. > Secondly they are never going to be

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/15 Philip Barnes > The law varies from country to country. In the UK, it is legal to cross > a solid white line to turn into a side road, or driveway. You can also > cross one to overtake a slow moving vehicle, such as a cyclist or > tractor. > > In France, where it is illegal to cross a

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/15 Colin Smale > I don't understand why emergency vehicles are so important in this > discussion. Because OSM publicly advertises the fact that its maps are being used in the Gaza's strip by emergency vehicles that would otherwise have no map? Just to name one. Also because emergency ve

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/16 Paul Johnson > I'd go with option b. Despite being a single way, you're committed to > taking the ramp by that point (due to the double-white solid lines), making > it functionally an extension of the ramp. The OP explicitly asks you to focus on section 5 alone, NOT on section 5 as

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/15 Johan C > I think there's some confusion here. Imagic's question was on a motorway > example. Where did you get this from? Sure, he referred to a picture with the model of a motorway, but he esplicitly said "consider only section 5". We're not talking about that section 5 *on a motor