Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Crossroad names

On 2 avr. 2013, at 18:54, Satoshi IIDA wrote: > > Why don't use our old "relation = tarffic_lights"? (or junction?) > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Traffic_Lights > (yes, it need more advanced!) Yes, this is also my favorite solution to the problem. It only need some c

Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution

Hi! In my opinion this looks pretty nice. You still need to update the two examples Fukushima and Thémis - they are referring to relations and also to roles which are nowhere defined (perimeter was dropped, plant is not documented as role). 2013/4/8 François Lacombe > Hi, > > I finally agree wi

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Crossroad names

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Vladimir Vyskocil < vladimir.vysko...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Relation feature essentially means, "group up some objects to represent as > a feature". > So I think it could suite for our traffic_signal & junction naming, > routing. > (relation could express "label" me

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Crossroad names

Le mar. 09 avril 2013 à 10:56 +0200, Pieren a écrit : > Note that we have intersections with names and intersections with traffic > signals. It does not have to be on the same relation types because it is > imho two different features. +1; with the increasing complexity in traffic signals to come

Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements

2013/4/9 Martin Atkins > > Right. It seems like the schematic vs. detail tagging situation is pretty > good for streets if you accept the area:highway proposal: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Proposed_features/area:**highway

Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution

Hi Martin! 2013/4/9 Martin Vonwald > In my opinion this looks pretty nice. You still need to update the two > examples Fukushima and Thémis - they are referring to relations and also to > roles which are nowhere defined (perimeter was dropped, plant is not > documented as role). > You're right.

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

How to tag a bicycle-only crossing. We have here occasionally road crossings that are separate for pedestrians and for bicycles. They can be even 20meters apart. Is it highway=crossing bicycle=yes foot=no ? Volker, Padova, Italy ___ Tagging mailing list T

Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution

Hi again :-) 2013/4/9 François Lacombe > This is where I still don't understand you: why do I need to specify that >> a feature XXX has the role XXX? Why do I need to specify, that a generator >> is a generator? A substation a substation? A dam a dam? A valve a valve? A >> weir a weir? And so on

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

Hi! 2013/4/9 Volker Schmidt > How to tag a bicycle-only crossing. > We have here occasionally road crossings that are separate for pedestrians > and for bicycles. They can be even 20meters apart. > Is it > highway=crossing > bicycle=yes > foot=no > > Sounds reasonable. Although if it is really b

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

On 4/9/13 8:35 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: Hi! 2013/4/9 Volker Schmidt How to tag a bicycle-only crossing. We have here occasionally road crossings that are separate for pedestrians and for bicycles. They can be even 20meters apart. Is it highway=crossing bicycle=yes foot=no Sounds reasonabl

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

Hi! 2013/4/9 Richard Welty > but what is it crossing? if you put access=no on a node that is shared by a > cycleway and a public highway, you'll deny access to cars. > A node with highway=crossing (or level_crossing for railways) only refers to the crossing of the highway, i.e. its access tags

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: > A node with highway=crossing (or level_crossing for railways) only > refers to the crossing of the highway, i.e. its access tags do not > refer to the highway itself. Genuine question - if you have a highway=cycleway crossing a highway=unclassified at a shared cr

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Genuine question - if you have a highway=cycleway crossing a > highway=unclassified at a shared crossing node, how do you know which one > is > "the highway itself"? > > And even more genuine : why do you have to tag the shared crossing no

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

Good question. But in this context it would by obvious in my opinion - the cycleway. 2013/4/9 Richard Fairhurst > Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: > > A node with highway=crossing (or level_crossing for railways) only > > refers to the crossing of the highway, i.e. its access tags do not > > refer

Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution

Could there not be something else than a generator=* in a role of a generator? LM_1 2013/4/9 Martin Vonwald > Hi again :-) > > 2013/4/9 François Lacombe > >> This is where I still don't understand you: why do I need to specify that >>> a feature XXX has the role XXX? Why do I need to specify,

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

2013/4/9 Richard Fairhurst > Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: > > A node with highway=crossing (or level_crossing for railways) only > > refers to the crossing of the highway, i.e. its access tags do not > > refer to the highway itself. > > Genuine question - if you have a highway=cycleway crossing

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

On 4/9/13 9:32 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: Good question. But in this context it would by obvious in my opinion - the cycleway. i would recommend against the approach of tagging the single node. better, i think, to break the cycleway on either side of the shared node and tag the way. this elimina

Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution

No LM_1, nothing else than a power=generator could ever produce the right sort of power (accordingly to what was defined at the plant scale with plant:output=*) and be considered as this. In my mind, define a role in a relation is mandatory but you say it's definitely not right. I agree to say ge

Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution

Hi! Am 09.04.2013 um 17:22 schrieb François Lacombe : > In my mind, define a role in a relation is mandatory but you say it's > definitely not right. Roles can make sense. For example ways in a route relation may have the role forward or backward, if this specific way is only used in one dire

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Crossroad names

>I think we need some clean-up in the traffic signals tags/relations anyway. +1 for single traffic signals tags and for a relations to manage them. Who wants to make a proposal? Viking81 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.o

Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution

Hi. 2013/4/9 Martin Vonwald (imagic) > A generator is different. It simply is a generator and its role within the > plant is to be a generator. So there is no need to explicitly specify it. > Furthermore think of the consumers. Example: the process one feature of > the plant. If the plant is de

Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution

> This is where I still don't understand you: why do I need to specify > that >> a feature XXX has the role XXX? Why do I need to specify, that a >> generator is a generator? A substation a substation? A dam a dam? A >> valve a valve? A weir a weir? And so on. >> > > This is just because a role

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

I've tagged some cycle crossing drawn as a single node with highway=crossing, foot=no and bicycle=yes. I would not use access=no because it can be misunderstood and routing software could prevent access to the main street. The best solution is to tag intersection node with highway=crossing and draw

Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements

Hi Martin, Am Sonntag, 7. April 2013, 13:35:23 schrieb Martin Atkins: > I wonder if the root problem is that we've conflated the idea of the > physical construct of a street with its parallel in the routing network. IMHO the underlying main problem is that OSM is steadily moving towards some ki

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

Am 09/apr/2013 um 20:39 schrieb "Alberto" : > I've tagged some cycle crossing drawn as a single node with > highway=crossing, foot=no and bicycle=yes. I would not use access=no because > it can be misunderstood and routing software could prevent access to the > main street. >From your descri

[Tagging] Intermodal transport

Hello, I would like to start a discussion related to intermodal transport and its facilities, and I drafted a page[0] with some links in it. A tagging system should be proposed also considering the maritime tagging (OpenSeaMap), or extending it to deal with inland facilities. As an example, I saw