[Tagging] Restrictions based on the weight of a trailer

Hi! I'm looking for a possibility to tag the following traffic sign: http://vonwald.info/osm/images/dscn5532.jpg It forbids from 05:00 to 22:00 overtaking for HGV with a weight of more than 7.5t and also for vehicles with a trailer, when the trailer weights more than 750kg. So far I have: overt

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

Hi! After reading all the responses I have to conclude that we don't really have a perfect solution right now. I guess the best would be a "cleanup" of the relations: on ways where more than one (or two) relations are present, create a new relation only for this part, remove those ways from the ot

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: > Hi! > > After reading all the responses I have to conclude that we don't > really have a perfect solution right now. I guess the best would be a > "cleanup" of the relations: on ways where more than one (or two) Or remove all routes from t

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

Am 04.12.2012 10:09, schrieb Martin Vonwald: Hi! After reading all the responses I have to conclude that we don't really have a perfect solution right now. I guess the best would be a "cleanup" of the relations: on ways where more than one (or two) relations are present, create a new relation on

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

2012/12/4 Henning Scholland : >> After reading all the responses I have to conclude that we don't >> really have a perfect solution right now. I guess the best would be a >> "cleanup" of the relations: on ways where more than one (or two) >> relations are present, create a new relation only for thi

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

2012/12/4 Erik Johansson : > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: >> Hi! >> >> After reading all the responses I have to conclude that we don't >> really have a perfect solution right now. I guess the best would be a >> "cleanup" of the relations: on ways where more than one (or

Re: [Tagging] Status of maxspeed:wet

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Ole Nielsen wrote: > I intentionally chose not to deprecate maxspeed:wet as I had the feeling > that doing so might upset some people and I didn't want such minor issues to > affect the voting process. Of course I will recommend to use the conditional > scheme and h

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

Am 04.12.2012 10:50, schrieb Martin Vonwald: 2012/12/4 Henning Scholland : After reading all the responses I have to conclude that we don't really have a perfect solution right now. I guess the best would be a "cleanup" of the relations: on ways where more than one (or two) relations are present

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

Am 04.12.2012 10:53, schrieb Martin Vonwald: The problem is not really the complexity of those relations, but the fact that they create some kind of extreme long "relation-way". The probability of two (or more) people working at the same time on a 200km "relation-way" is much higher than on a 200

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

2012/12/4 Henning Scholland : > What do you mean with "artifical relation-ways"? The Membership in a > relation is a property of a way. All ways in the relations create some kind of this "artificial relation-way". Because if you split any way contained in this relation - which might be longer tha

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

2012/12/4 Henning Scholland : > Am 04.12.2012 10:53, schrieb Martin Vonwald: > >> The problem is not really the complexity of those relations, but the >> fact that they create some kind of extreme long "relation-way". The >> probability of two (or more) people working at the same time on a >> 200km

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > The only use of separate address nodes by now is that they make Mapnik > display a house number. But speaking of Mapnik... if there are 5 POIs in a > house, and Mapnik has no signature for those POIs, it displays the house > number for e

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

On Tue, 4 Dec 2012, Martin Vonwald wrote: > 2012/12/4 Erik Johansson : > > > But then maybe the "no-right-turn" relation is too complicated as well. > > The problem is not really the complexity of those relations, but the > fact that they create some kind of extreme long "relation-way". The > pr

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

2012/12/4 Martin Vonwald > Hi! > > After reading all the responses I have to conclude that we don't > really have a perfect solution right now. I guess the best would be a > "cleanup" of the relations: on ways where more than one (or two) > relations are present, create a new relation only for th

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

2012/12/4 Ilpo Järvinen : > On Tue, 4 Dec 2012, Martin Vonwald wrote: > >> 2012/12/4 Erik Johansson : >> >> > But then maybe the "no-right-turn" relation is too complicated as well. >> >> The problem is not really the complexity of those relations, but the >> fact that they create some kind of extr

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

2012/12/4 Jo : > That's exactly what I said before the discussion went off on a tangent of > 'route hinting'. > > A proposal for this already exists: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Route_Segments Open the vote and you got at least two approvals (yours and mine). But one

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

2012/12/4 Pieren : > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > >> The only use of separate address nodes by now is that they make Mapnik >> display a house number. But speaking of Mapnik... if there are 5 POIs in a >> house, and Mapnik has no signature for those POIs, it displays

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: >> A proposal for this already exists: >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Route_Segments > > Open the vote and you got at least two approvals (yours and mine). We have the same issue with all big relations like nationa

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

Martin's problem would be solved if the extra-long relation is broken up into segments. Which you are just as free to do as splitting a way in two. Keep the relation tags on each segment, just like you'd do if you split a way. (This is rather different to Jo's proposal, which involves shifting tag

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

2012/12/4 Richard Mann > Martin's problem would be solved if the extra-long relation is broken up > into segments. Which you are just as free to do as splitting a way in two. > Keep the relation tags on each segment, just like you'd do if you split a > way. > > (This is rather different to Jo's p

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

Pieren wrote: One principle I like in OSM is "one feature, one OSM element": http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element An address is not a feature. An address is an attribute of a feature. An address never exists on its own in the real world. There cannot be an addres

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

Am 04/dic/2012 um 11:16 schrieb Pieren : > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > >> The only use of separate address nodes by now is that they make Mapnik >> display a house number. But speaking of Mapnik... if there are 5 POIs in a >> house, and Mapnik has no signature for

Re: [Tagging] Status of maxspeed:wet

> > Of course > It's not the first time I see such process : propose a new tag, do not > say it would deprecate anything until vote is accepted (or - if you > don't like "vote" : consensus is reached, or no more complains), wait > few months, change the wiki from "do not deprecate" to "recommen

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

2012/12/4 Friedrich Volkmann : > Pieren wrote: >> One principle I like in OSM is "one feature, one OSM element": >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element > An address is not a feature. An address is an attribute of a feature. An > address never exists on its own in the re

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

I think Martin is complaining about long-distance coach services. Splitting them into within-urban and extra-urban segments would seem fairly sensible to me. On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Jo wrote: > 2012/12/4 Richard Mann > >> Martin's problem would be solved if the extra-long relation is

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

> 2012/12/4 Jo : >> That's exactly what I said before the discussion went off on a tangent of >> 'route hinting'. >> >> A proposal for this already exists: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Route_Segments This is already done, e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relatio

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

2012/12/4 Jo : > 2012/12/4 Richard Mann >> >> Martin's problem would be solved if the extra-long relation is broken up >> into segments. Which you are just as free to do as splitting a way in two. >> Keep the relation tags on each segment, just like you'd do if you split a >> way. >> >> (This is r

Re: [Tagging] Status of maxspeed:wet

2012/12/4 Ronnie Soak : > Are you against changing things in general or do you like to always > cut off old schemes completely without legacy support? > Because the described way is about the best solution I could come up > with that both allows change and gives the crowd enough time to adapt. > Th

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

2012/12/4 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > if you see the address as "feature" it should be an area and not a > node, but if you add it to a POI I'd see it as an attribute and there > is no problem in adding it multiple times. Putting an address-node on > a building-outline to mark an entrance seems odd,

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

On 4 December 2012 12:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am 04/dic/2012 um 11:16 schrieb Pieren : > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > > > >> The only use of separate address nodes by now is that they make Mapnik > >> display a house number. But speaking of Mapnik... if

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

2012/12/4 Ronnie Soak : > 2012/12/4 Martin Koppenhoefer : > >> >> if you see the address as "feature" it should be an area and not a >> node, but if you add it to a POI I'd see it as an attribute and there >> is no problem in adding it multiple times. Putting an address-node on >> a building-outlin

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

2012/12/4 Markus Lindholm : > In my book addresses are features in their own right and should not be mixed > in the same element as amenities or shops. The first problem would be that > it would make it impossible to render addresses and POIs at the same time. this depends entirely on your render

Re: [Tagging] Status of maxspeed:wet

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Ronnie Soak wrote: > Are you against changing things in general ... ? Not if the intent is clearly to deprecate an existing tag. I'm against liars writing in the wiki that they won't change any existing tags until their proposal is accepted. I agree that changing

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

On 4 December 2012 13:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2012/12/4 Markus Lindholm : > > In my book addresses are features in their own right and should not be > mixed > > in the same element as amenities or shops. The first problem would be > that > > it would make it impossible to render addresses

Re: [Tagging] Status of maxspeed:wet

Before we use some strong words lets take a look at the issue: according to taginfo maxspeed:wet is used 602 times. You may subtract one or two hundred as I added them. So we are talking about a tag that's currently used less than 500 times and without a known (at least I dont know one) application

Re: [Tagging] Status of maxspeed:wet

2012/12/4 Martin Vonwald : > Before we use some strong words lets take a look at the issue: > according to taginfo maxspeed:wet is used 602 times. You may subtract > one or two hundred as I added them. So we are talking about a tag > that's currently used less than 500 times and without a known (at

Re: [Tagging] Status of maxspeed:wet

On 04.12.2012 13:31, Pieren wrote: > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Ronnie Soak > wrote: > >> Are you against changing things in general ... ? > > Not if the intent is clearly to deprecate an existing tag. I'm against > liars writing in the wiki that they won't change any existing tags > until

Re: [Tagging] Status of maxspeed:wet

2012/12/4 Martin Koppenhoefer : > Also please don't forget that maxspeed:wet is up to this >> second completely undocumented. > it is documented, you get lots of hits in the wiki when searching for > it, e.g. here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_conditions_for_acce

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

2012/12/4 Markus Lindholm : >> > it would make it impossible to render addresses and POIs at the same >> > time. >> this depends entirely on your rendering rules. > How would you devise a rendering rule that makes an intelligible map with > two icons mapped on top of each other on the same spot?

Re: [Tagging] Status of maxspeed:wet

Quiet often if such a change is made ("does not deprecate" -> "recommend to stop using") it is by someone other than the original proposal author. Irrespective of this the proposal procedure is a RFC - Request For Change - process. What it does is to say "hey guys, I think we should change this, if

Re: [Tagging] Restrictions based on the weight of a trailer

Hi Martin, Am Dienstag, 4. Dezember 2012, 09:53:03 schrieb Martin Vonwald: > I'm looking for a possibility to tag the following traffic sign: > http://vonwald.info/osm/images/dscn5532.jpg > It forbids from 05:00 to 22:00 overtaking for HGV with a weight of > more than 7.5t and also for vehicles wi

Re: [Tagging] Restrictions based on the weight of a trailer

How about: overtaking:trailer:conditional=no @ (05:00-22:00 AND weight>0.75 ) The "access" wiki page lists "trailer=* (needs to be towed by another vehicle which has its own restrictions)", which suggests that trailer should be seen as a separate identity, thus "weight" applies to the trailer on

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

On 4 December 2012 17:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2012/12/4 Markus Lindholm : > >> > it would make it impossible to render addresses and POIs at the same > >> > time. > >> this depends entirely on your rendering rules. > > How would you devise a rendering rule that makes an intelligible map w

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

Keep in mind the case of multistory buildings. In this case, the polygons on the different levels are overlapping. The indoor mapping proposals have a level relation in which to hold the polygons for the different levels. In an indoor formalism I would label the unit polygon with the unit portion

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

On 04.12.2012 13:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2012/12/4 Markus Lindholm : >> If there really is a need to bind address and POI together then create a >> relation for that. > > -1, this would be breaking a fly on the wheel (or shooting with > cannons on sparrows as we say in Germany). Really no

Re: [Tagging] Catchment Areas

On 12/03/2012 04:32 PM, Christopher Baines wrote: I can see the food issue is becoming a recurring theme, and this is detracting from the main reason I put forward this proposal. I have now removed the food references from the proposal, such that now, the subjects of the relation would be school

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

Am 04.12.2012 22:27, schrieb Markus Lindholm: On 4 December 2012 17:44, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: 2012/12/4 Markus Lindholm mailto:markus.lindh...@gmail.com>>: >> > it would make it impossible to render addresses and POIs at the same >> > time.

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

On 5 December 2012 05:56, Peter Wendorff wrote: > > I don't see why that's more a problem in one node than in different ones - > except that the current rendering rules don't fit here. In that your > argumentation sounds much like a tagging-for-the-renderer-argumentation. > I just pointed out tw