Re: [Tagging] temporary restrictions / what does maxheight=none mean?

Changed the subject since that question forks in another direction. As with other temporary restrictions (blocked roads, speed limits), first some discretion should be applied how long the restriction will last and if it is worthwhile to be mapped (e.g. years yes, days no) Secondly the start and

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On 26/10/2014, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-26 20:26: >>> Am 24.10.2014 um 20:53 schrieb Tom Pfeifer: >>> >>> I would recommend to add maxheight=unsigned to the English and other wiki >>> pages, and list maxheight=none as incorrect tagging. >> >> >> unsigned maxheight

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

Thanks mmd for shedding some light on the background of this tagging. As said before I am not against keeping a record of a bridge being checked, just the value =none is misleading. Another problem is that the tag is on the way under the bridge, and not the bridge way itself. That leads to the s

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

Tom Pfeifer wrote on 27.10.2014 10:20: > As said before I am not against keeping a record of a bridge being checked, > just the value =none is misleading. > > Another problem is that the tag is on the way under the bridge, and > not the bridge way itself. That leads to the situation that somebody

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On 26/10/2014, Christoph Hormann wrote: > I don't see what information is missing and cannot be easily determined > automatically with a properly placed node that is contained in an > area - except for the outer edge of course, which is usually > ill-defined though as you said yourself. > > If you

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

2014-10-26 17:12 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > Please, try mapping bays as areas - not as nodes. +1. Please do this also for place=country and other place objects that are indeed describing polygons and not points. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

2014-10-26 19:00 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann : > Doable for sure but an awfully bad idea, mapping bays as areas would > mean two features for the same object (coastline polygon and bay area). > I don't see "one object". There is a coastline (linear division between land and sea, NOT a polygon i

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

2014-10-26 21:38 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann : > Specific arguments aside - i am not sure if you realize the consequences > it would have if subareas of oceans would generally be mapped as > polygons - large bays usually contain smaller bays and are parts of a > sea and there might be a strait bet

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On 27/10/2014, Holger Jeromin wrote: > Tom Pfeifer wrote on 27.10.2014 10:20: > >> As said before I am not against keeping a record of a bridge being >> checked, >> just the value =none is misleading. >> >> Another problem is that the tag is on the way under the bridge, and >> not the bridge way i

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On 27/10/2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > I'd even argue that tagging "I surveyed this but couldn't see a > limitation" is useless: the sign might get added later, some mapper > might be able to measure the maxheight, the value above 4m might be > important for some people, etc. Don't try to silen

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

2014-10-27 10:20 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer : > Another problem is that the tag is on the way under the bridge, and > not the bridge way itself. > this is how it should be, legal restrictions (but also physical ones and all properties in general) get always tagged on the object to which they apply. I

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

2014-10-27 11:04 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo : > The maxheight=* tag maps the physical limitation, not the sign (which > can be absent or even wrong). Tagging maxheight=none really makes no > sense. > no, the maxheight tag maps the legal restriction (typically derived from a sign, in absence of

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

I had a proposal about mapping peninsulas [1] and it involved adding peninsula=* tags to coastlines. I think bays should be mapped the same way, on coastline ways. The question is what tags we should use. Adding new ways and gluing them to coastlines, when coastlines themselves make a bay is in my

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On 27/10/2014, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2014-10-27 11:04 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo : >> The maxheight=* tag maps the physical limitation, not the sign (which >> can be absent or even wrong). Tagging maxheight=none really makes no >> sense. > > no, the maxheight tag maps the legal restriction

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Sunday 26 October 2014, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > Furthermore the outer edge of a bay, i.e. the edge that is not > > > coastline is usually not well defined and would require an > > > arbitrary cutoff. > > > > Yes, cutoff is unfortunately qui

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > Besides, we really need to deal with object that have fuzzy borders > already, e.g., some of the natural=wetland object come to my mind as an > example. I quickly browsed through the related pages and discussions, for > some strange reason

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Monday 27 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > > > > If you think about it a bit and do not try to place the node where > > you would place the label (which depends on the map projection > > anyway) properly placing a node for a bay is usually quite simple. > > The most difficult are long,

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

You are quoting me out of context, leaving the impression that I'd propose to tag the bridge way, this is not the case. I was just pointing out that tagging the way under the bridge makes no explicit reference to the bridge itself, and can lose the implicit proximity reference when the way is spl

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 27/10/2014, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2014-10-27 11:04 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo : > >> The maxheight=* tag maps the physical limitation, not the sign (which > >> can be absent or even wrong). Tagging maxheight=none really makes no > >> se

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Marc Gemis wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Ilpo Järvinen > wrote: > Besides, we really need to deal with object that have fuzzy > borders > already, e.g., some of the natural=wetland object come to my > mind as an > example. I quick

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:44:01AM +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 26/10/2014, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > I don't see what information is missing and cannot be easily determined > > automatically with a properly placed node that is contained in an > > area - except for the outer edge of cou

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:33:48PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > > On Sunday 26 October 2014, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > Furthermore the outer edge of a bay, i.e. the edge that is not > > > > coastline is usually not well defined and would re

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

2014-10-27 12:16 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. : > > Besides, we really need to deal with object that have fuzzy borders > > already, e.g., some of the natural=wetland object come to my mind as an > > example. I quickly browsed through the related pages and discussions, for > > some strange reason the fuzz

Re: [Tagging] RFC Bag shop

2014-10-27 0:42 GMT+01:00 Matthijs Melissen : > Currently the tag shop=bag (612) is used in parallel to the less used > tag shop=bags (120). I propose to agree on the de facto standard (the > singular). > > In order to accomplish that, I have created two proposal pages: > http://wiki.openstreetmap

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On 10/27/14 6:45 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: You are quoting me out of context, leaving the impression that I'd propose to tag the bridge way, this is not the case. I was just pointing out that tagging the way under the bridge makes no explicit reference to the bridge itself, and can lose the implic

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On 10/27/14 6:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014-10-27 11:04 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo >: The maxheight=* tag maps the physical limitation, not the sign (which can be absent or even wrong). Tagging maxheight=none really makes no sense. no, the ma

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On 10/27/14 12:02 AM, Peter Miller wrote: Without a way of tagging the fact that we know that the bridge has regulation clearance and also knowing who surveyed it and when the data was added we can't know what we need to do to complete the mapping to allow the routing of high vehicles. the

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

2014-10-27 13:10 GMT+01:00 Richard Welty : > in the US, the default behavior is that the signed max height has a couple > of inches to spare. > if there is no margin then it's considered an actual maxheight which > naturally would map to > > maxheight:actual > interesting. At which temperature w

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On Mon Oct 27 2014 12:10:25 GMT+ (GMT), Richard Welty wrote: > > > i have no idea what usage is in the UK The UK uses the standard Vienna Convention system of a red triangle being a warning and a red circle being a prohibition. A height limit in a red circle means vehicles over the heig

Re: [Tagging] RFC Bag shop

On 27 October 2014 11:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > it slightly looks as if the singular form is preferred (but there are some > significant exceptions like books, shoes, beverages, toys). Yes, it is really a mess, and most of it now is very painful or perhaps impossible to change. Exactly the

Re: [Tagging] RFC Bag shop

On 27 October 2014 11:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Leaving out those not relevant for plural/singular > shoes Who buys shoes singly? [1] [1] Apart from amputees... -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:28:39PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2014-10-27 12:16 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. : > > > > Besides, we really need to deal with object that have fuzzy borders > > > already, e.g., some of the natural=wetland object come to my mind as an > > > example. I quickly browsed

[Tagging] How to tag severely destroyed forest track?

I recently came across a track that was severely destroyed by heavy foresting machinery. (KNee-deep mud with tire tracks over a meter deep and wide.) How to tag this? It was no longer usable on foot or for any normal sized vehicle except maybe tanks or said heavy machinery under normal conditions

Re: [Tagging] How to tag severely destroyed forest track?

Could this proposal be useful to you? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle Regards! 2014-10-27 15:22 GMT+01:00 Ronnie Soak : > I recently came across a track that was severely destroyed by heavy > foresting machinery. > (KNee-deep mud with tire tracks over a meter deep a

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On 27/10/2014, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Monday 27 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> I'm really curious what your method to figure out the bay area from >> the node is, because even as a human I find that most bay nodes can >> lead to many different interpretations. > > There are a lot

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On 27/10/2014, Richard Z. wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:44:01AM +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> I'm really curious what your method to figure out the bay area from >> the node is, because even as a human I find that most bay nodes can >> lead to many different interpretations. > > you don

Re: [Tagging] How to tag severely destroyed forest track?

2014-10-27 15:22 GMT+01:00 Ronnie Soak : > It may be usable on foot if dried out over a long time or if frozen. > yes, this is a general problem with unpaved ways that usability might (depending on the actual composition and grain size) heavily depend on the weather conditions, especially humidi

Re: [Tagging] RFC Bag shop

2014-10-27 14:10 GMT+01:00 Andy Mabbett : > > shoes > > Who buys shoes singly? [1] > is it a shoe shop or a shoes shop? Will you buy shoes one by one in a shoe shop? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/lis

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Monday 27 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > > > > This extremely simple approach will probably result in reasonable > > polygons for label placement in more than half the cases. You can > > easily improve the algorithm of course to properly deal with > > various special cases, in particu

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

2014-10-27 16:24 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann : > No, that is not how OSM works. The mappers can choose a method to map > they deem appropriate - which in this case quite clearly is nodes (less > than 0.5 percent ways and relations according to taginfo). > the same holds true for countries, ther

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On 27/10/2014, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Monday 27 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> > >> > This extremely simple approach will probably result in reasonable >> > polygons for label placement in more than half the cases. You can >> > easily improve the algorithm of course to properly

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

2014-10-27 16:24 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann : > > I can't help but notice that in the whole discussion here no argument > has been put formward indicating a practical advantage of bays mapped > as polygons other than the ease of rendering labels. > Reverse geocoding. A boat comes to a bay, capta

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

moltonel 3x Combo wrote on 27.10.2014 11:04: > * It can lead to mapping errors ... a bridge is > added somewhere else, etc. The problem of outdated information is completely unrelated to this tag. -- regards Holger ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@o

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Monday 27 October 2014, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > I can't help but notice that in the whole discussion here no > > argument has been put formward indicating a practical advantage of > > bays mapped as polygons other than the ease of rendering labels. > > Reverse geocoding. A boat comes to a bay,

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On 27/10/2014, Holger Jeromin wrote: > moltonel 3x Combo wrote on 27.10.2014 11:04: > >> * It can lead to mapping errors ... a bridge is >> added somewhere else, etc. > > The problem of outdated information is completely unrelated to this tag. I disagree, an important requirement of tagging schem

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Monday 27 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > > > > Have you tried it? > > > > On the contrary - due to its simplicity it is a very robust > > algorithm, it will hardly ever generate something completely wrong > > and fail gracefully in difficult cases. And as said it is strait > > away to

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On 27/10/2014, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Monday 27 October 2014, Janko Mihelić wrote: >> >> Reverse geocoding. A boat comes to a bay, captain looks on a screen, >> and it says "You are in Guantanamo Bay". > > But this is exactly what does not work with a hand mapped polygon either > since the

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

2014-10-27 17:37 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann : > > But this is exactly what does not work with a hand mapped polygon either > since the edge of the bay is not well defined. > it will work in most cases, and only give questionable information when you are close to the fuzzy end towards the open s

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On 25.10.2014 01:10, Kytömaa Lauri wrote: > Personally, i use maxheight = x + maxheight:physical=x for these, but saying > that signs are the only thing that can be tagged gives bad data. I did not say that signs are the only thing that can be tagged. I said that we should map what we see. When

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2014-10-27 17:37 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann : > > But this is exactly what does not work with a hand mapped > polygon either > since the edge of the bay is not well defined. > > > > it will work in most cases, and only giv

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

Am 27.10.2014 um 13:11 schrieb Richard Welty: > On 10/27/14 6:45 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >> You are quoting me out of context, leaving the impression that I'd >> propose >> to tag the bridge way, this is not the case. >> >> I was just pointing out that tagging the way under the bridge makes >> no ex

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

When working near the coast of Maine in the US, I see lots of bays. In most cases, the ultimate source data for the bay names seems to be various government maps and databases: GNIS, ancient nautical charts, or whatever. There's a high degree of agreement between sources: If an island has 4 unname

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Monday 27 October 2014, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > IMHO, the most controversial thing in this all is that the approach > Christoph is proposing would require us to not map natural=bay but > "natural=bay_entry" instead, and that is obviously exactly where the > fuzzy part is. That is, a mapper woul

Re: [Tagging] How to tag severely destroyed forest track?

I was tagging tracks in the desert, and ran across some similar issues. Some of the tracks are abandoned because they were no longer needed/ wanted (officially) in a wilderness park, or heavily damaged or unmantainable because of the road's position in a ravine. But people who want to use the o

Re: [Tagging] RFC Bag shop

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:46:45 +0100 From: Martin Koppenhoefer To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC Bag shop Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 2014-10-27 0:42 GMT+01:00 Matthijs Melissen : Currently the tag shop=bag (612) is used

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On 10/27/14 8:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014-10-27 13:10 GMT+01:00 Richard Welty >: in the US, the default behavior is that the signed max height has a couple of inches to spare. if there is no margin then it's considered an actual maxheight

Re: [Tagging] How to tag severely destroyed forest track?

I would tag for the 'usual condition' of the track. And updating the map for a tempory situation is not realistic? And as you say the indication of the track should remain, at least while it is visiable and of use to navigation. While the smothenss may not go far enough .. tag it as best you c

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

Dana 27. 10. 2014. 21:30 osoba "Eric Kidd" napisala je: > > The rendering onopenstreetmap.orgis pretty good: it just prints the bay name at the marked point, and shows it across a reasonable range of scales. There are some weird cases with nested bays, but those are weird on the nautical charts,