Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki

Dave, you can connect with a straight way across the lake with no tag, but part of the relation. Yves On 25 mars 2014 01:39:33 UTC+01:00, Dave Swarthout wrote: >There is a definite need for a way to indicate a route that crosses an >open >body of water like a lake. I came across this issue when

Re: [Tagging] Gritting routes

On 2014-03-23 22:07, Rob Nickerson wrote: Hi All, I have some winter gritting/salting routes that I am trying to work out how best to tag them. I was thinking of creating a route relation, but I may need to add some new roles: * "forward:grit" implies the gritting truck grits this road whilst t

Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki

There is a definite need for a way to indicate a route that crosses an open body of water like a lake. I came across this issue when mapping a "canoe route" in Alaska recently. For such a route there are portions that are footways, places where one carries the canoe from one lake to another, these

Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki

On 24.03.2014 22:11, Janko Mihelić wrote: > 2014-03-24 16:41 GMT+01:00 fly >: > > > I would use a type=waterway relation for the canal. > > > Seems good to me. > > > Yes, it won't but for proper routing you need to know the waterway signs > an

Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki

2014-03-24 22:43 GMT+01:00 Yves : > I discovered recently that route=canoe *is* in the doc, in the type=route > page. > Yves > I guess that's ok. Route=canoe can be considered the same as route=boat, canoe=yes. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@op

Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki

I discovered recently that route=canoe *is* in the doc, in the type=route page. Yves On 24 mars 2014 22:11:43 UTC+01:00, "Janko Mihelić" wrote: >2014-03-24 16:41 GMT+01:00 fly : > > >> I would use a type=waterway relation for the canal. >> > >Seems good to me. > > >> Yes, it won't but for proper

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On 24.03.2014 20:45, Richard Z. wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:02:35AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: As it might be even hard to define the ground level (we just have a discussion on talk-de@ about houses built on slops), I woul

Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki

2014-03-24 16:41 GMT+01:00 fly : > I would use a type=waterway relation for the canal. > Seems good to me. > Yes, it won't but for proper routing you need to know the waterway signs > and buoys. > But even with waterway signs and buoys you need routes. You can't tag maxdrought=* on a buoy.

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:02:35AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > > On 14.03.2014 15:51, Fernando Trebien wrote: > >> This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my > >> understanding, the layer tag has no specific meani

Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki

On 24.03.2014 16:07, Janko Mihelić wrote: > I thought about deleting the route too, but there are some tags that > need the route. For example those on the current route: maxdraught=*, > maxheight:airdraft=*, maxwidth=*, and maybe fee=* which isn't there yet. > > Some of those could be put on ways

Re: [Tagging] Driving side

On 23.03.2014 19:23, Pieren wrote: > I like the idea to use "left/right" on the global definition (on > relation) and "opposite" on exceptions (on ways). It's also easier for > QA tools I guess. I modified the wiki accordingly. Revert if you don't > like it. I don't like it, but before I consider

Re: [Tagging] Driving side

Note that the article states that many countries allow use of both left-hand-drive and right-hand-drive vehicles on their roadways, which contradicts your earlier blanket statement that you have to change vehicles when at a border between a left-hand-traffic country and a right-hand-traffic cou

Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki

I thought about deleting the route too, but there are some tags that need the route. For example those on the current route: maxdraught=*, maxheight:airdraft=*, maxwidth=*, and maybe fee=* which isn't there yet. Some of those could be put on ways, but we don't have good enough data for that. Also

Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki

Hey Janko Why do we need routes for waterways ? Do we tag them anywhere else on water ? Do we tag them on every highway ? Do not mix signed routes for vehicles/foot and the puplic transport routes with this kind of router hint. I would propably use a relation to define the canal and leave the la

[Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki

Wiki page about route relations[1] only has ferries for sea travel. I think we should add route=boat as a route for all kinds of boats in some specific places. One of those places would be canals like the Panama canal. Currently that canal is tagged wrongly IMHO as several ways[2] with waterway=ca

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > On 14.03.2014 15:51, Fernando Trebien wrote: >> This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my >> understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to >> specify a rendering order. > > That is a common miscon

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

> Am 24/mar/2014 um 14:27 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann : > > As opposed to that abstract > layer model, we use a pysical layer model in OSM where layer=0 means > ground-level, layer<0 means underground, and layer>0 means above ground-level. AFAIK it is not defined like this, rather it is meant t

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On 14.03.2014 15:51, Fernando Trebien wrote: > This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my > understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to > specify a rendering order. That is a common misconception by people who worked with graphics editing software such as P