Hi André,
Am 28.08.2014 um 01:41 schrieb André Pirard:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your time, Peter, and for a message which I feel like the first to
> want to cooperate.
> However, I don't feel well how your variants fit with the scenario I am
> dealing
> with, namely:
>
> * a mapper has a feature
And as far as I can see, the wiki translation is
_mainly_ done for the sake of people that can't read english, so an
entry in english doesn't really help.#
People who speak english can translate it when they see something new
was added to a table. The German Versions often even have a nice line
I removed it on several Wiki pages, including the Map Features template.
I still have the impression that it's something a very few mappers use.
The usage numbers might look big, but if you take a closer look
especially at Poland it's done by 1 mapper.
And I don't get the impression that he i
> Il giorno 28/ago/2014, alle ore 12:46, Andreas Goss ha
> scritto:
>
> I still have the impression that it's something a very few mappers use. The
> usage numbers might look big, but if you take a closer look especially at
> Poland it's done by 1 mapper.
+1, religious is no "use" and of n
Andreas Goss wrote, on 2014-08-28 12:46:
I removed it on several Wiki pages, including the Map Features template.
I still have the impression that it's something a very few mappers use.
> The usage numbers might look big, but if you take a closer look especially at
Poland it's done by 1 mapp
Hi,
The default value for "oneway" is "no" for most types of roads. That
is, if the attribute has no value set, "no" is assumed. Which is the
rationale for that default?
In the European cities and towns I know the majority of streets are
one-way. For example Barcelona, or Madrid, or Paris. In suc
That seems likely.
On August 27, 2014 2:23:33 PM CDT, Andy Mabbett
wrote:
> On 26 August 2014 18:44, Andreas Neumann wrote:
>
> > there exists a tagging for webcams in the
> > contact-namespace (contact:webcam=*)
>
> Is this a mis-named operator:contact= ?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonth
I see heavy use in Ireland, UK, and Japan, and there was a fellow from
Japan
I count a dozen uses in Japan.
UK it's more common, but if you look closer it's again a handfull few
mappers. And Polarbear a German mapper who also pushes this tag in the
Wiki is for example remapping churchyards in
Hi Xavier,
"no" is the "default" value of the oneway tag as it's the most correct
assumption.
First as in general most roads are not oneway roads (considering any
road inside and outside of cities), and second as the other case around
would be even worse:
If "yes, this is a oneway street" would be
Xavier Noria writes:
In the European cities and towns I know the majority of streets are
one-way.
In not a single EU city I know of there is something close to "a majority
of streets" being one-way. Even more. In most of the villages the roads are
not one-way. Based on this it's a good rat
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote, on 2014-08-28 13:16:
+1, religious is no "use"
why not, why is it not a "use" such as residential, commercial or retail use?
and of no use (it doesn't express anything that religion=* won't express and
> introduces an incompatibility for mapping the actual usage o
I wish people in OSM would stop making things up, believing it makes
their point of view stronger.
On 28/08/2014 13:20, Xavier Noria wrote:
In the European cities and towns I know the majority of streets are
one-way.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus p
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Dave F. wrote:
> I wish people in OSM would stop making things up, believing it makes their
> point of view stronger.
What?
I am not assuming one-way would be a better default. Nor I am assuming
anything about the world at large. What are you talking about?
I o
Xavier Noria wrote, on 2014-08-28 15:45:
2) In cities and towns where two-way streets are exceptional like
Barcelona or Madrid, are people expected to tag them "no"? The
motivation for this question is that there seems to be the convention
not to tag them, and therefore you cannot tell the conf
2014-08-28 14:45 GMT+01:00 Xavier Noria :
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Dave F. wrote:
>
>> I wish people in OSM would stop making things up, believing it makes their
>> point of view stronger.
>
> What?
>
> I am not assuming one-way would be a better default. Nor I am assuming
> anything abo
On 2014-08-28 15:53, Dan S wrote:
As Peter said, the default for services using OSM is always to assume
a way is _not_ oneway unless tagged otherwise.
Unless it is tagged as junction=roundabout
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
ht
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Dan S wrote:
>> 2) In cities and towns where two-way streets are exceptional like
>> Barcelona or Madrid, are people expected to tag them "no"? The
>> motivation for this question is that there seems to be the convention
>> not to tag them, and therefore you canno
For the sake of discussion, I believe the interface for setting this
attribute could be different (I am a software developer).
For example, in graphical interfaces like iD you could have "no"
preselected as convenience. But if you send "no", you are saying "no".
Otherwise, you could opt-out and le
Right now, the oneway checkbox in iD cycles through “Yes” “No” and “Assumed to
be No” (blank).
There are a handful of situations that will switch this checkbox to say “Yes”
“No” and “Assumed to be Yes” (blank).
(for example, a `junction=roundabout` or `highway=motorway` tag)
It sounds to me lik
I believe that you haven't explicitly said so, but probably essentially
want to be able to find streets that haven't been surveyed and
potentially need a oneway tag and avoid false positives (aka such that
are actually bi-directional).
I don't believe you'll get any further with the oneway tag, bu
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Bryan Housel wrote:
> Right now, the oneway checkbox in iD cycles through “Yes” “No” and “Assumed
> to be No” (blank).
>
> There are a handful of situations that will switch this checkbox to say “Yes”
> “No” and “Assumed to be Yes” (blank).
> (for example, a `ju
I find a bit harsh that leisure=common has been completely withdrawn
from the wiki "map features" in the middle of the summer. If it's a UK
specific tag, then move it to a special UK map features page/table, no
?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:leisure
http://wiki.openstre
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
> I believe that you haven't explicitly said so, but probably essentially
> want to be able to find streets that haven't been surveyed and
> potentially need a oneway tag and avoid false positives (aka such that
> are actually bi-directional).
I believe it was withdrawn as it vague. You logic is stated on one of
the pages you posted.
Dave F.
On 28/08/2014 16:01, Pieren wrote:
I find a bit harsh that leisure=common has been completely withdrawn
from the wiki "map features" in the middle of the summer. If it's a UK
specific tag, then
Am 28.08.2014 17:07, schrieb Xavier Noria:
...
>
> That makes me also wonder as a side-effect about the implication of
> the current contract and the usage patterns it promotes. Implications
> in particular for turn-by-turn indications, but that was secondary, my
> main motivation is the one abo
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Dave F. wrote:
> I believe it was withdrawn as it vague. You logic is stated on one of the
> pages you posted.
It was in the "map features" page for years : "An area where the
public can walk anywhere (UK) "
I guess it is also used in US. I found some examples :
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
> In any case there are roughly 45 million highway segments on which a
> oneway tag could make sense, vs. roughly 6 million oneway=yes and 1.5
> million oneway=no. I suspect that it is really -far- too late to change
> the semantics of this spec
So is leisure=common supposed to be distinct from landuse=village_green?
Your search makes it seem like you're talking about the same thing.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Pieren wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Dave F. wrote:
> > I believe it was withdrawn as it vague. You logic i
I've just looked up common on taginfo & I'm very surprised to see
virtually all are tagged with leisure= (39348). If I ever used it (& I'm
unsure I have) I would have used landuse= (123). I genuinely believe
this is an example of where it being the majority doesn't make it correct.
In Britain
On 28/08/2014 16:49, Dave F. wrote:
It needs a separate tag to able to map the leisure activities with
the area.
Scrub that bit. Separate tags aren't needed of course. My mistake.
Dave F.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
ht
>
> For a street, there is no practical difference nowadays between "no"
> and "unset", which is a smell for me. Either way means no.
>
For the software? No, there isn't a difference.
For the mapper? Yes, there is a difference.
Since nowadays NULL for a street means oneway=no a change in the
> se
On 2014-08-28 16:01, Pieren wrote:
I find a bit harsh that leisure=common has been completely withdrawn
from the wiki "map features" in the middle of the summer. If it's a UK
specific tag, then move it to a special UK map features page/table, no
?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:52 PM, John Packer wrote:
>> For a street, there is no practical difference nowadays between "no"
>> and "unset", which is a smell for me. Either way means no.
>
> For the software? No, there isn't a difference.
> For the mapper? Yes, there is a difference.
The mapper
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 13:52 -0300, John Packer wrote:
> For a street, there is no practical difference nowadays
> between "no"
> and "unset", which is a smell for me. Either way means no.
> For the software? No, there isn't a difference.
> For the mapper? Yes, there is a di
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
> +1
>
> To use add oneway=no in selected areas to confirm the road has been
> surveyed is fine, but not everywhere as that causes tag clutter and
> makes it difficult for a mapper to see the important tags.
Which tools does a hard-core mappe
Am 28.08.2014 19:10, schrieb Xavier Noria:
...
> But for example, every single client software of OSM that is out of
> control of OSM is assuming that contract. That's what I believe makes
> a reset (no NULLs in the database) plus semantic change for NULLs
> would not be possible. No way to syn
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 19:16 +0200, Xavier Noria wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > To use add oneway=no in selected areas to confirm the road has been
> > surveyed is fine, but not everywhere as that causes tag clutter and
> > makes it difficult for a
Since I see the characteristics of Barcelona (and other cities/towns I
know) are exceptional for most of you guys, let me share a couple of
maps to explain where I am coming from.
This is a typical sector of Barcelona:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k7o32zbneoi8y6q/barcelona_sample.png?dl=0
As y
2014-08-28 22:31 GMT+02:00 Xavier Noria :
> that area in the center with many blue lines... almost all of them are
> wrong. You cannot rely on that default in Barcelona at all.
>
And in this really rare situation it is reasonable to use oneway=no.
___
T
Am 28.08.2014 um 19:10 schrieb Xavier Noria:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:52 PM, John Packer wrote:
>
>>> For a street, there is no practical difference nowadays between "no"
>>> and "unset", which is a smell for me. Either way means no.
>>
>> For the software? No, there isn't a difference.
>> For
Am 28.08.2014 um 22:35 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
> 2014-08-28 22:31 GMT+02:00 Xavier Noria :
>
>> that area in the center with many blue lines... almost all of them are
>> wrong. You cannot rely on that default in Barcelona at all.
>>
>
> And in this really rare situation it is reasonable to use
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
> Am 28.08.2014 um 22:35 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
>> 2014-08-28 22:31 GMT+02:00 Xavier Noria :
>>
>>> that area in the center with many blue lines... almost all of them are
>>> wrong. You cannot rely on that default in Barcelona at all.
>>
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
> No, it isn't.
> The interpretation of the database, and the meaning, restricted to the
> fact of the streets oneway-ness is the same, but no value at all does
> not say "this is no oneway street", it says nothing more than "we don't
> know
43 matches
Mail list logo
