On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 18:32, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 13:29, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > Why are "stopping=yes|no" and "parking=yes|no" (and variants of these) not
> > in use in OSM?
> > But the much more complex "parking:lane:both=no_stopping" and
> > "parking:lane:bot
On 11/02/2020 1:40 am, Marc Gemis wrote:
Curious to understand why this is a cycleway and not an asphalted path.
When I look at it what I'm hearing is whoosh:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@o
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 13:29, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Why are "stopping=yes|no" and "parking=yes|no" (and variants of these) not in
> use in OSM?
> But the much more complex "parking:lane:both=no_stopping" and
> "parking:lane:both=no_parking" are in use with the same meaning.
Because parking:la
On 11/2/20 7:09 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
It cannot distinguish from this tagging between
there is a lane along the road, but I am not allowed to
park/stop on it (i.e. it's an emergency lane)
Do you mean a lane that is reserved for emergency vehicles or a lane
that can be used by vehi
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 10 feb 2020, alle ore 21:57, Volker Schmidt ha
> scritto:
>
> This is a pity as the no-parking and in particular the no-stopping
> information is important to understand the traffic flow in a street.
yes, 60% of all parking_lane:both values are either no_parki
I am starting to tag parking:lane:*=* on a cycle route in London for
which I have just uploaded Mapillary images. The potential risk of
"dooring" and the hope that routing engines may in future be able to
make use of this information.
--
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)
On 10/02/2020 20:56, Volker Sc
This is a pity as the no-parking and in particular the no-stopping
information is important to understand the traffic flow in a street.
I have come across this problem as I am working on instructions how to tag
streets form a cyclist point of view. One of the things is to understand if
there are ca
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 10 feb 2020, alle ore 20:43, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> ha scritto:
>
> Note also that "stopping=yes|no" is unclear and
> "parking:lane:both=no_stopping" is
> clear.
yes, clear madness ;-)
Why would we describe a place beneath or on the road where you ca
(I am looking at these tags for the first time, so please forgive me if I
am asking newbie questions)
Apart form being somewhat contradictory to have a parking lane on which you
cannot park, this tagging scheme seems to have a basic flaw:
It cannot distinguish from this tagging between
ther
Have you considered how other, more complex, situations would be tagged?
Would it be possible to tag this in consistent way?
Note also that "stopping=yes|no" is unclear and "parking:lane:both=no_stopping"
is
clear.
(note I have not checked whatever this tags are used as you say)
Feb 10, 2020, 1
Why are "stopping=yes|no" and "parking=yes|no" (and variants of these) not
in use in OSM?
But the much more complex "parking:lane:both=no_stopping" and
"parking:lane:both=no_parking" are in use with the same meaning.
Volker
___
Tagging mailing list
Taggi
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:41 AM Marc Gemis wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:36 AM Florimond Berthoux <
> florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, AndreasTUHU a
> écrit :
> >>>
> >>> I agree that '
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:36 AM Florimond Berthoux
> wrote:
>>
>> Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, AndreasTUHU a écrit :
>>>
>>> I agree that 'surface' tag should be mandatory but in Hungary 54 percent of
>>> the mixed foot-cycle-ways misse
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:36 AM Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, AndreasTUHU a écrit :
>
>> I agree that 'surface' tag should be mandatory but in Hungary 54 percent
>> of the mixed foot-cycle-ways misses this tag.
>> Additionally, the 20 p
+1 landcover
+1 on a hierarchy index and a well and a thoughtful methodology.
landuse, should describe more the use of the land.
For example:
A road, this include the footway, cycleway, the verge, the barriers,
traffic_islands, the trees.
The verge, that is a part of the use, landuse=highway, t
Hi,
« Implied tag is the root of all evil »
as a wise man once said.
I begin to think that implied tag is bad, let the data consumer do that.
As long as the data is not set I consider the data imprecise.
For instance in France I will assume by default that every road is paved,
but it doesn’t mean
Andras,
as far as I can see this field is a bit of a mess, and the data consumers
will have to live with that.
I did not want to imply that "my" approach is better or worse.
In my view there is no way to "convert" existing tagging.
Volker
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 09:49, AndreasTUHU wrote:
> I agr
I agree that 'surface' tag should be mandatory but in Hungary 54 percent of
the mixed foot-cycle-ways misses this tag.
Additionally, the 20 percent of foot-cycle-ways has no 'segregated' tag.
Not ideal conditions for converting mixed cycleways to path :)
So in Hungary we will contiune to use the "c
18 matches
Mail list logo
