On 4/12/2012 2:33 AM, Philip Barnes wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 19:50 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/11/2012 7:17 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 13:28 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/11/2012 4:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
If sidewalks were tagged without the hig
Am 11.04.2012 15:42, schrieb Simone Saviolo:
2012/4/11 Ross Scanlon:
No. The router should know not to do this. Likewise as below the router
should not make u turns at traffic lights.
Based on what? How does the router know that the two ways are two
carriageways of a single road? Couldn't the
I don't know Brasília, but landuse=residential + name=* makes more sense to
me.
[]s
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Ian Villeda wrote:
> Óla pessoal,
>
> Our team is working hard to get Brasilia well mapped [1]. We've noticed
> that superquadras are tagged with place=suburbs, which makes them
Am 12. April 2012 08:33 schrieb Philip Barnes :
>> What are you asking? A sidewalk is almost always a separate physical way
>> (if not, it's a shoulder, except on minor urban streets with flush
>> sidewalks and no curb).
>
> In the Netherlands I have sometimes seen cycleways paralleling
> motorways
Am 12. April 2012 08:44 schrieb Georg Feddern :
> A router that does not consider sidewalks will use the roads anyway.
No, a router that doesn't consider sidewalks would with the currently
suggested tagging use the sidewalk and think it was a usual footway.
It will not be aware that there is a c
Am 12.04.2012 15:15, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
Am 12. April 2012 08:44 schrieb Georg Feddern:
A router that does not consider sidewalks will use the roads anyway.
No, a router that doesn't consider sidewalks would with the currently
suggested tagging use the sidewalk and think it was a usu
Am 12. April 2012 15:53 schrieb Georg Feddern :
> with the suggested tagging
> footway=sidewalk and sidewalk=yes as differentiation
>
> in mind (writing quite the same time).
yes, my concern was not to tag ordinary sidewalks, which are only
separated by a kerb from the street, with an own "highwa
Am 12. April 2012 14:32 schrieb Arlindo Pereira
:
> I don't know Brasília, but landuse=residential + name=* makes more sense to
> me.
I also don't know Brasília. If the superquadras are sub-part of a
settlement (i.e. they are settlement entities) I suggest you have a
look at
place=neighbourhood
That was my point, any footpath or cycleway following a motorway should be
treated as a separate way.
After more careful thought, the only UK instance of a path following a
motorway, that I am aware of, is the old Severn bridge, and they are on
different decks.
Phil
On 12/04/2012 14:11 Marti
Philip Barnes wrote:
> After more careful thought, the only UK instance of a
> path following a motorway, that I am aware of, is the
> old Severn bridge, and they are on different decks.
There's a similar one on the nearby M5 bridge over the Avon, too.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Stephen Hope wrote:
> In one case there is a road where a two way section comes to a divider and
> becomes two one way sections for a while. The suggested route came along one
> of the one way sections, then turned about 340 degrees to go down the other
> side of t
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Georg Feddern wrote:
> in your example the angle at the considered point is far from dangerous or
> considerable.
> Your angle is in the range up to 45° and doesn't even reach 90° (a typical
> crossing / turn situation).
>
> Points of no u-turn - that have to be co
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
> The term motorway implies a lot of rules,
> No Pedestrians.
> No Cyclists.
> No Learner Drivers.
> No Tracked Vehicles.
> No Agricultural Vehicles.
> No Motorcycles under 50cc.
> Horses
> Mobility Scooters
Not universally true by any stret
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> With trunks and motorways, as with any other way unclassified and
> larger, it's best to explicitly define restrictions rather than expect
> them to be implicit.
So, if horses are allowed in Texas motorways, we should add "horse=no"
in German
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Pieren wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> With trunks and motorways, as with any other way unclassified and
>> larger, it's best to explicitly define restrictions rather than expect
>> them to be implicit.
>
> So, if horses are allow
The problem with this, is many mappers are not even aware of what implicit
assumptions they are making, and hence won't map them. Saying that they
should map them won't help.
Do we need a database* of explicit default settings for different areas,
to be used by renderers, routers and other tools
Yes please!
I was also thinking on the lines of documenting implicit tagging:
*to save mappers time
*to save space in the database
*to avoid confusion
*to allow a single point of maintenance
At a generic "territory" level with some kind of hierarchy please, so
for example cities
-10 for adding defaults as a hint for mappers!!!
Every application using OSM data has to make assumptions about data not
present in the database, sure, but reliable data has to be present in
the database, as a missing tag in general can be both: missing/unknown,
or "default", whatever "default
On 13/04/2012 08:20, Peter Wendorff wrote:
-10 for adding defaults as a hint for mappers!!!
You sure know how to lower the barriers to entry and attract new mappers...
Every application using OSM data has to make assumptions about data
not present in the database, sure, but reliable data has to
19 matches
Mail list logo
