Hi (again)!
Thanks for all the answers. I would like to ask three more (the last
one for this week - promised!):
Same image as before:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png
Now consider part 4 to 6. At what point would you split the way coming
from part 4?
a) Before the end
>Only part 5 is relevant.
Having just returned from my (mapping) trip, and having finally
browsed through all these messages on this subjet, I don't think
anybody mentioned it explicitly: You can't consider only part 5.
At part 6, the ways are physically separated, so IMO there
should be two s
Hi!
Obviously we need some kind of tagging for lane dividers. Initially
when writing the :lanes proposal I though about reusing the divider
proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divider
But this has one serious drawback: if you have a road with four lanes
you would tag e.
>> I don't like the "lanes" tag where there are no lines on the street, it
>> misses the point.
>It completely misses the point! The lanes tag should only be used for lanes
>that are somehow marked - usually with lines.
There are an abundance of unpaved, 6 to 8, or even 10 meter wide roads that
You're right. I'll change the proposal in the following way:
a) building=stable, no building:use: looks like a stable, used as a stable
b) building=stable, building:use=: looks like a stable,
but used for something different
c) building=, building:use=stable: looks like ,
but is used as stable
I a
2012/10/17 Martin Vonwald :
> You're right. I'll change the proposal in the following way:
> a) building=stable, no building:use: looks like a stable, used as a stable
> b) building=stable, building:use=: looks like a stable,
> but used for something different
> c) building=, building:use=stable: l
2012/10/17 Kytömaa Lauri
> >Only part 5 is relevant.
> Having just returned from my (mapping) trip, and having finally
> browsed through all these messages on this subjet, I don't think
> anybody mentioned it explicitly: You can't consider only part 5.
I think he means that, for lack of a bette
2012/10/17 Martin Vonwald :
> Same image as before:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png
>
> Now consider part 4 to 6. At what point would you split the way coming
> from part 4?
> a) Before the end of part 4
> b) At the end of part 4/start of part 5
> c) In the middle of p
2012/10/17 Martin Vonwald
> Hi (again)!
>
> Thanks for all the answers. I would like to ask three more (the last
> one for this week - promised!):
>
> Same image as before:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png
>
> Now consider part 4 to 6. At what point would you split th
2012/10/17 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>> Now consider part 4 to 6. At what point would you split the way coming
>> from part 4?
>> a) Before the end of part 4
>> b) At the end of part 4/start of part 5
>> c) In the middle of part 5
>> d) At the end of part 5/start of part 6
>> e) Tell me!
>
>
> d)
> isn
2012/10/17 Martin Koppenhoefer
> 2012/10/17 Martin Vonwald :
> > Same image as before:
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png
> >
> > Now consider part 4 to 6. At what point would you split the way coming
> > from part 4?
> > a) Before the end of part 4
> > b) At the end
On 17.10.2012 09:31, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Obviously we need some kind of tagging for lane dividers. Initially
> when writing the :lanes proposal I though about reusing the divider
> proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divider
>
> But this has one serious drawback: if
>You're right. I'll change the proposal in the following way:
>a) building=stable, no building:use: looks like a stable, used as a stable
>b) building=stable, building:use=: looks like a stable,
>but used for something different
>c) building=, building:use=stable: looks like ,
>but is used as stabl
2012/10/17 Alberto :
>>You're right. I'll change the proposal in the following way:
>>a) building=stable, no building:use: looks like a stable, used as a stable
>>b) building=stable, building:use=: looks like a stable,
>>but used for something different
>>c) building=, building:use=stable: looks li
Since It was your first idea I wanted to tell you my first idea. That
is to let the diveders in the lanes tag represent the lines.
| (solid line)
: (dashed line)
:| (crossable from on side)
turn:lanes=left:through|through|:right (for example)
2 big drawbacks.
1. The :lanes tag is not "one" tag s
2012/10/17 Tobias Knerr :
> This problem does indeed exist, but it only appears with oneway roads
I don't like something that only works in case a but not in b.
>> Now (a time ago) I came up with something different: have a look at
>> part 3 of the first example:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org
2012/10/17 Tobias Johansson :
> Since It was your first idea I wanted to tell you my first idea. That
> is to let the diveders in the lanes tag represent the lines.
> | (solid line)
> : (dashed line)
> :| (crossable from on side)
> turn:lanes=left:through|through|:right (for example)
Seen someth
2012/10/17 Martin Vonwald :
> 2012/10/17 Tobias Johansson :
>> Since It was your first idea I wanted to tell you my first idea. That
>> is to let the diveders in the lanes tag represent the lines.
>> | (solid line)
>> : (dashed line)
>> :| (crossable from on side)
>> turn:lanes=left:through|through
Sorry, I didn't want to be rude.
I only want to show an example why those special characters - that
from time to time are suggested - will not work.
Martin
2012/10/17 Tobias Johansson :
> 2012/10/17 Martin Vonwald :
>> 2012/10/17 Tobias Johansson :
>>> Since It was your first idea I wanted to te
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Hi (again)!
>
> Thanks for all the answers. I would like to ask three more (the last
> one for this week - promised!):
>
> Same image as before:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png
>
> Now consider part 4 to 6. At w
On 17.10.2012 13:19, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> 2012/10/17 Tobias Knerr :
>> This problem does indeed exist, but it only appears with oneway roads
>
> I don't like something that only works in case a but not in b.
This was merely meant as an interesting observation that I wanted to
point out for tho
"Other lanes such as Wikipedia spitsstrooken in the Netherlands or
Wikipedia temporäre Standstreifen in Austria, Germany and Switzerland
which are available to GENERAL traffic (I.E. NOT LIMITED TO A SPECIFIC
KIND OF VEHICLES) at certain restricted times, for example during the
rush hour. "
To pre
Hi!
We have taken a few days of discussion with key *«Obstacle»* (it derives
from «Difficult_Passability»... I have tried to answer all questions and I
have been added the proposals. I apologize if in any case it has not been:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle
Do you
2012/10/17 Konfrare Albert :
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle
> Any suggestions?
looks nice now.
One thing I noticed: you asume that the general "obstacle" applies to
pedestrians, while you propose subkeys for all other means of
transport (obstacle:motorcar, obstac
good thing to have this discussion. Too often I've seen OSM discussions end
up in 'everything is possible' which in the long run will prevent OSM to
ever grow-up and eventually become competitive to the commercial boys and
girls. (why the f... are millions of Android users using G.. maps and not
OS
>Just to be clear: I agree with Martin Koppenhoefer on splitting the ways
only if there is a physical division. However, for the sake of geometry, I
prefer to anticipate the split a bit, >which is why I would put the split in
section 5 or maybe even earlier - the actual position depends on how long
On Oct 17, 2012 5:35 PM, "Johan C" wrote:
>
> good thing to have this discussion. Too often I've seen OSM discussions
end up in 'everything is possible' which in the long run will prevent OSM
to ever grow-up and eventually become competitive to the commercial boys
and girls. (why the f... are mill
27 matches
Mail list logo
