2009/11/26 Tobias Knerr
> All of these tags were previously documented to imply oneway=yes. Now
> only the page for highway=motorway_link still contains that implication.
>
> Generally, I don't think it's acceptable to change the definitions of
> tags in this way.
+1
>
> I also wonder how we s
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer >> Generally, I
don't think it's acceptable to change the definitions of
>> tags in this way.
>
> +1
+1 (although my recent edits against noexit=no)
>>
>> I also wonder how we should deal with this specific situation. Can we
>> still assume any
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> no, IMHO we shouldn't generally "imply" but tag explicitly, otherwise
> consistency is at risk.
If the tags implied by another tag were documented in a standard form,
in a central place (so any application, editor, render, etc. could read
it) would that change your min
2009/11/27 Pieren
> > no, IMHO we shouldn't generally "imply" but tag explicitly, otherwise
> > consistency is at risk.
>
> no, if we don't have defaults, we will have to populate 20, 30 or 50
> attributs on each highway in the future.
come on, I wonder where those 50 attributes should come fro
2009/11/27 Jonathan Bennett
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > no, IMHO we shouldn't generally "imply" but tag explicitly, otherwise
> > consistency is at risk.
>
> If the tags implied by another tag were documented in a standard form,
> in a central place (so any application, editor, render, etc.
> The disadvantage of explicit tagging for everything is massive
> duplication of information.
This I agree with.
> It also means that newcomers may not quite
> get the tagging right, because they assume that a road type which is
> inherently one-way doesn't need explicit tagging.
I don't think
Alessandro Rubini wrote:
> I don't think there are road types that are inherently one-way, besides
> roundabouts.
>
> This is a two-way motorway link, for example:
>
> http://maps.google.it/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.249774,9.044243&spn=0.002761,0.004914&t=k&z=18
It is indeed, but my guess is that it's an e
On 11/27/09, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> Alessandro Rubini wrote:
>> This is a two-way motorway link, for example:
>> [...]
> It is indeed, but my guess is that it's an exception, and not the
> normal.
It is not: most motorway links in italy are made of both one-way and
two-way sections, so either
Hi,
> ...
there is an update of this site:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=protected_area
r.t.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Hi,
It will be great to see what you recommend. I haven't made a final decision,
nor really talked to the talk-ca list about what the 'National Protected
Areas' database that is (going to) be ready for import in Canada.
I have a sample
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.5471&lon=-124.3593&zoom=1
How do you set the direction for one-way without explicitly defining it?
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Should an application developer decide to assume oneway=no (which might
> lead to longer-than-optimal routing results) or oneway=yes (which might
> send you the wrong way up a trunk link)?
I would prefer one-way to never be assumed as yes, even on motorways,
for consistency'
Pieren wrote:
>> no, IMHO we shouldn't generally "imply" but tag explicitly, otherwise
>> consistency is at risk.
>>
>
> no, if we don't have defaults, we will have to populate 20, 30 or 50
> attributs on each highway in the future. Don't ask too much from
> volunteers.
I think it's asking more f
Liz wrote:
> and when the comment in the history from 21 June is read it says
> (This won't break any ways, because 1. nobody (approximately) uses this for
> routing yet, 2. assuming they're 2-way in a routing app is potentially
> dangerous anyway.)
2 never applies in practice, especially outsi
Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> It also means that newcomers may not quite
> get the tagging right, because they assume that a road type which is
> inherently one-way doesn't need explicit tagging.
Name one road type which is inherently one-way.
___
Tagging
Dave F. wrote:
> How do you set the direction for one-way without explicitly defining it?
>
> Dave F.
>
>
Ahh! disregard please - I answered it myself.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I should probably point out that not all roundabouts are one-way.
>
I'm waiting an example.
Definition of roundabout:
"A roundabout is one of several types of circular road junctions or
intersections at which traffic is slowed down and enters
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I should probably point out that not all roundabouts are one-way.
That's a traffic circle
I have researched this point..
Liz
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.
18 matches
Mail list logo
