Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

Hi, On 04/06/2018 05:26 AM, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: > Putting information about the legal default into OSM is not the problem. > It’s just that nobody has developed a schema for it yet. The French have invented something: Check the "Part of..." listing here https://www.openstree

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:50 PM, wrote: >> I find it's less than productive for finding solutions to problems the >> wiki is currently advising to leave unresolved (such as this), or >> ambiguous (like primary vs trunk vs motorway in the US). > > It doesn't tell you to leave the problem unsolved.

Re: [Tagging] recent change to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dtower

The change didn’t just delete the information, it specifically listed it all under: Possible tagging error * tower:type= suspensio

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

Putting information about the legal default into OSM is not the problem. It’s just that nobody has developed a schema for it yet. And to repeat myself for the Xth time, I fully agree that it is a good idea to work out such a schema. Interpreting the law and putting the result of that interpre

Re: [Tagging] recent change to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dtower

It looks like they removed the details on the different types and structures, in order to move that information onto a separate page. This separate page looks to be currently undeveloped though. I'm not sure if it should be on the same page or on multiple pages but it looks like that was the intent

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:50 PM, wrote: > > I find it's less than productive for finding solutions to problems the > > wiki is currently advising to leave unresolved (such as this), or > > ambiguous (like primary vs trunk vs motorway in the US). > > It doesn't tell you to leave the problem unsolve

Re: [Tagging] Tagging turn restriction defaults

On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 12:26:39 +0200 André Pirard wrote: > OSM does not encode defaults in its database. Well, that is why Paul Johnson started this thread - he wants to change it... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openst

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

> I find it's less than productive for finding solutions to problems the > wiki is currently advising to leave unresolved (such as this), or > ambiguous (like primary vs trunk vs motorway in the US). It doesn't tell you to leave the problem unsolved. It only tells you that tagging the legal def

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:45 PM, wrote: > I never said anything about _*not*_ having some way to encode such > default rules. In fact, if you look at my recent posts here, you will see > that I specifically pointed out the current lack of such a schema as an > issue that needs to be solved. I also

[Tagging] recent change to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dtower

I'm asking on behalf of Gazer75 (he isn't subscribed to the mailing list). He pointed out that there was a recent massive deletion of 9/10th of the page in the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:power%3Dtower

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

I never said anything about _not_ having some way to encode such default rules. In fact, if you look at my recent posts here, you will see that I specifically pointed out the current lack of such a schema as an issue that needs to be solved. I also pointed out that the lack of “permission” relat

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:06 PM, wrote: > I tought it was obvious, but let me spell it out: such restrictions > represent a default which we should be recorded somewhere (not necessary > inside OSM) once and observed by data consumers, not by creating > potentially 10’s of relations to again a

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:06 PM, wrote: > I tought it was obvious, but let me spell it out: such restrictions > represent a default which we should be recorded somewhere (not necessary > inside OSM) once and observed by data consumers, not by creating potentially > 10’s of relations to again a

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

I tought it was obvious, but let me spell it out: such restrictions represent a default which we should be recorded somewhere (not necessary inside OSM) once and observed by data consumers, not by creating potentially 10’s of relations to again and again encode the default behaviour. Thi

[Tagging] Suggestion for allowing traffic_sign member on restriction relation and specifically documenting possible source values.

Hi, I would like to suggest that we allow (and document) an additional member here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Members The role would be "traffic_sign" and it would be a single node that marks the physical location (so not a node on a highway, but beside it at

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

Rather than mindlessly barfing back "But the wiki says…", how about a critical argument? Best practices aren't set in stone and necessarily should evolve as better approaches become apparent. In many jurisdictions (esp in North America), such rules are quite readily available and under governmen

Re: [Tagging] Coastal beach definition for mapping.

I think it best to change the wiki beach front page. At the moment only one method is mentioned ... and that is from the hi tide and away from the water. I think the other method - from the low tide and away from the water should be stated too.  - On 04/04/18 20:58, Dave Swarthout wrote: This

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_your_local_legislation.2C_if_not_bound_to_objects_in_reality From: Paul Johnson Sent: Thursday, 5 April 2018 23:38 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit i

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

No. And that’s exactly my point. There are restrictions being added for which I don’t see any basis except “it’s physically a bad idea”. There is no explicit no u-turn sign, and you can see the road markings in bing imagery here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=21/-27.21439/153.02286

[Tagging] Subject: "Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=cannabis"

Greetings tagging interested OSM community, Before I forget about this proposal again; let's vote on shop=cannabis https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Dcannabis I believe we have addressed all comments and the proposal as now written is well defined yet does not get

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

2018-04-05 12:40 GMT+02:00 : > Yes, but all the cases I pointed out either have no road markings at all, > or a dashed line once the two lanes come together. (I happen to live 300m > from these.) > > > if there are neither road markings nor signs, why are there restrictions? Is this a default re

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

I don't think that's particularly harmful. I'm not against extending the criteria to published laws, particularly when those laws are documented in an official source. On Wed, Apr 4, 2018, 23:10 wrote: > Actually, it’s not just relatively harmless “noise”. Because such > no_u_turn restrictions

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

Yes, but all the cases I pointed out either have no road markings at all, or a dashed line once the two lanes come together. (I happen to live 300m from these.) From: Martin Koppenhoefer Sent: Thursday, 5 April 2018 20:27 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

2018-04-05 6:09 GMT+02:00 : > Actually, it’s not just relatively harmless “noise”. Because such > no_u_turn restrictions are indistinguishable from e.g. this one: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8182004 (which I just created), > that actually has a sign “on the ground” > there are also

Re: [Tagging] Tagging turn restriction defaults

On 2018-04-05 05:16, Paul Johnson wrote: > What would be the best way to handle setting unusual defaults on a > regional basis? For example, all of the City of Tulsa and State of > Oregon prohibit U-turns at traffic lights. How would one tag for > this, and the inverse, tagging where such a turn

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

2018-04-05 1:36 GMT+02:00 : > > > So, what is the general opinion about this here? Should these turn > restrictions be created or not? > > I think with the current system the relations are needed, maybe it could be sufficient to have an attribute on the way which says no u-turn (in many jurisdict