Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

In my opinion, lanes=1.5 is a very bad choice. We have a tag for this > situation: width . According to taginfo, lanes=1.5 is used, but not too > often. What should we do? I would recommend not to use it and advise to > specify a width (which is also objective rather than subjective as 1.5 is). >

Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

Anecdotal backstory: I've been passed by busses in very narrow, walled streets in Cornwall at full speed, where I thought even careful passing would not be physically possible. (For the record: The bus drove full speed, I cowardly stopped with my side-mirror touching the wall) So this was clearly

Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 10:19 +0200, Ronnie Soak wrote: > I would only use a lanes value other than 2 if there are clear road > markings, signs or it is otherwise very clear that two cars are > supposed to go in one direction at a time (>=3) I am not aware of any special signage on 3 lane roads in

Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012, Ronnie Soak wrote: > In my opinion, lanes=1.5 is a very bad choice. We have a tag for > this situation: width . According to taginfo, lanes=1.5 is used, > but not too often. What should we do? I would recommend not to > use it and advise to specify a wi

Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

Am 21.04.2012 um 13:34 schrieb "Ilpo Järvinen" : > ...What I don't really care if it is called lanes=1.5 or > lanes=1/2+some_other_agreed_tag_which_is_not_an_estimated_width=x, but > simply saying that use lanes=1/2 alone instead I oppose. I would recommend lanes=2 and width=xxx. Maybe give som

Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012, Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: > Am 21.04.2012 um 13:34 schrieb "Ilpo Järvinen" : > > > ...What I don't really care if it is called lanes=1.5 or > > lanes=1/2+some_other_agreed_tag_which_is_not_an_estimated_width=x, but > > simply saying that use lanes=1/2 alone instead I oppo

Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

Am 21 Apr 2012 um 13:23 schrieb Philip Barnes : > However OSM does not allow anything other than tagging as 3 >lanes, so the above is probably irrelevant to OSM You can Tag lanes:forward= and lanes:backward= Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

Am 21.04.2012 um 14:23 schrieb "Ilpo Järvinen" : >> I would recommend lanes=2 and width=xxx. Maybe give some examples for >> the widths of some common, "narrow" roads? Can someone provide photos >> and widths? > > !?! ...No! Unfortunately this was exactly what I oppose! Sorry, I misunderstood

Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 15:31 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > Am 21 Apr 2012 um 13:23 schrieb Philip Barnes : > > > However OSM does not allow anything other than tagging as 3 > >lanes, so the above is probably irrelevant to OSM > > > You can Tag lanes:forward= and lanes:ba

Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 14:08 +0200, Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: > Am 21.04.2012 um 13:34 schrieb "Ilpo Järvinen" : > > > ...What I don't really care if it is called lanes=1.5 or > > lanes=1/2+some_other_agreed_tag_which_is_not_an_estimated_width=x, but > > simply saying that use lanes=1/2 alon

Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

Am 21.04.2012 um 19:11 schrieb Philip Barnes : > The distinction used by OS is width is more than 4m or less than 4m. And what happens if width IS 4m? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 20:02 +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote: > Am 21.04.2012 um 19:11 schrieb Philip Barnes : > > > The distinction used by OS is width is more than 4m or less than 4m. > > And what happens if width IS 4m? The words the use are 'generally more than 4m wide' and 'generally less than 4m

Re: [Tagging] highway=services/rest_area

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > What's the correct tag for something like this, on a surface road and > operated by a private company (chain)? > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/99634310 I don't think there's a single tag that covers a truck stop, though I wouldn

Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

If it's <4m, you will be able to see continuous wear on the verge where people drive off the edge of the tarmac. At >4m there will only be wear for occasional large vehicles (tractor tracks, typically). At 6m there's usually a centre line. I'd quite like some tags for these subtleties, but I would

Re: [Tagging] How to tag disputed names in the same language?

In my opinion, nobody is in actual control of the atoll, though both China and the Philippines both claim that it controls it. On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Who is in actual control of the atoll? Are there people living there? > > cheers, > Martin >

Re: [Tagging] How to tag disputed names in the same language?

On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Apr 20, 2012 9:04 AM, "Alan Mintz" wrote: > >> I would go with name:en-PH=* or name:en:PH=* to mimic the standard IETF >> language tag format. > > en-PH feels more correct, since it's specifying dialect in a standard > format. This seem

[Tagging] School tag

Right now we have amenity=school, amenity=college and amenity=university. Then we have isced:xxx=value

Re: [Tagging] School tag

> This could also be used with: > > driving schools (amenity=school + school=driving instead of > amenity=driving_school) > foreign language schools (amenity=school + school=language + > language=en;fr;de) > pottery workshops (amenity=school + school=pottery) > karate schools (amenity=school + scho

Re: [Tagging] How to tag disputed names in the same language?

On Apr 21, 2012 2:29 PM, "Eugene Alvin Villar" wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > On Apr 20, 2012 9:04 AM, "Alan Mintz" wrote: > > > >> I would go with name:en-PH=* or name:en:PH=* to mimic the standard IETF > >> language tag format. > > > > en-PH feels more

Re: [Tagging] School tag

Am 22 Apr 2012 um 06:17 schrieb Владимир Поквалитов : >> This could also be used with: >> >> driving schools (amenity=school + school=driving instead of >> amenity=driving_school) >> foreign language schools (amenity=school + school=language + >> language=en;fr;de) >> pottery workshops (ameni