On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Rafael Avila Coya
wrote:
> Hi:
>
> What happens when a traffic calming is a crossing for pedestrians at the
> same time? I have some examples in this avenue of my home town where I
> live: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1080908514
Traffic calming goes in th
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Dave Swarthout
wrote:
> But they are definitely not crossings. I've seen a few traffic_calming
> "humps" (a longer bump) that have a crossing on them in Eugene, Oregon, but
> they are unusual, not the normal case.
I haven't seen humps that have crossings on the
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Philip Barnes
wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 11:22 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:
> > A raised area several feet across with a marked crosswalk on top is
> > not uncommon in Silicon Valley and more of them seem to appearing in
> > residential areas. I suspect that it is
Chris Hill-6 wrote
> On 20/11/15 16:47, Gerd Petermann wrote:
>>
>> So you think that every node tagged traffic_calming=* should
>>
>> additionally be tagged with highway=traffic_calming?
>>
>> That would mean we have >99% traffic_calming nodes with
>>
>> incorrect tagging.
>>
>>
>>
> I think you
>I haven't seen humps that have crossings on them, but I have seen tables
Yes, that is what I was referring to. I called them 'humps" in my hurry to
get my reply off but they are more properly called "tables" and Eugene is
the only place I've seen them. I don't think I've ever tagged any, so far,
Paul Johnson-3 wrote
>> >
>> Most traffic calming features are not pedestrian crossings.
>>
>> Where traffic_calming is not a pedestrian crossing then
>> highway=traffic_calming is the prefered way of tagging.
>>
>
> Where are you getting this impression from? None of the JOSM presets, the
> wiki
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Gerd Petermann <
gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well, of course diversity in tagging is a problem. For each data consumer
> and
> for each new mapper who tries to find out how to map something so that
> their
> preferred OSM-data-consuming-program is und
Dave Swarthout wrote
> Sorry all. I'm on Thailand time and had to sleep.
>
> The highway=traffic_calming key is found on the top level highway page
> here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway. On that page a link
> to the types of traffic_calming device appears:
> http://wiki.openstreet
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Gerd Petermann <
gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well, of course diversity in tagging is a problem. For each data consumer
> and
> for each new mapper who tries to find out how to map something so that
> their
> preferred OSM-data-consuming-program is und
+1 to that.
On 2015-11-21 10:15, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Gerd Petermann
> wrote:
>
>> Well, of course diversity in tagging is a problem. For each data consumer
>> and
>> for each new mapper who tries to find out how to map something so that their
>> prefer
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Dave Swarthout
wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Gerd Petermann <
> gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, of course diversity in tagging is a problem. For each data consumer
>> and
>> for each new mapper who tries to find out how to map someth
*If we move traffic_calming to the "Other highway features"category we will
probably see more ways segmented into highway=residentialand
highway=traffic_calming bits, and I think that would be a step back.My
conclusion so far: the wiki is missleading and most mappers have learnedto
use traffic_calm
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Dave Swarthout
wrote:
>
> I reckon I wouldn't have a problem with doing that. I have always used
> only a node for the traffic_calming devices I've encountered but I can see
> how splitting a way to make it a table or chicane might be problematical.
> But then how
Dave Swarthout wrote
> *If we move traffic_calming to the "Other highway features"category we
> will
> probably see more ways segmented into highway=residentialand
> highway=traffic_calming bits, and I think that would be a step back.My
> conclusion so far: the wiki is missleading and most mappers
> On Nov 22, 2015, at 12:16 AM, Gerd Petermann
> wrote:
>
> highway=traffic_calming for the small way segments when we tell them
> to use it for nodes. My understanding is that this is not wanted.
I have a question about this.
If I am mapping from the newest ~5cm imagery in Tokyo, I can dra
John Willis wrote
>> On Nov 22, 2015, at 12:16 AM, Gerd Petermann <
> gpetermann_muenchen@
> > wrote:
>>
>> highway=traffic_calming for the small way segments when we tell them
>> to use it for nodes. My understanding is that this is not wanted.
>
> I have a question about this.
>
> If I am m
sent from a phone
> Am 21.11.2015 um 17:07 schrieb Gerd Petermann
> :
>
> Some mappers see way segmentation as a problem, esp. when it comes to
> waterways.
> As I said, I have no problem with them.
with the current model, way fragmentation is unavoidable when people add a lot
of details to
sent from a phone
> Am 21.11.2015 um 17:07 schrieb Gerd Petermann
> :
>
> As I said, I have no problem with them. The important part is
> that you don't cut e.g. a highway=secondary into small fragments with
> alternating highway=traffic_calming,highway=secondary,
> highway=traffic_calming,
>
Besides the way segmentation, which I don't care about at all (because it more
accurately reflects the realities of the road) - does tagging a way segment
with traffic_calming=* present a problem? I realize then I can't use
highway=traffic_calming on the way (because it is already highway=second
Javbw
> On Nov 22, 2015, at 9:35 AM, John Willis wrote:
>
> large sections of them on rural roads before dangerous curves
These are heavily signed as being dangerous to fast moving motorcycles in the
curves, so they are a good thing to map. They have them there to make the
motorcyclists slo
I think what Gerd is saying is that if we deprecate the use of
highway=traffic_calming and instead tag each way segment with just
traffic_calming=* (or simply use a node in those case where the structure
of the device is short), we would eliminate the issue where, for example, a
secondary highway c
If you have signals facing each of the directions at an intersection, will
all of the signals at that intersection share the same name, or are they
named separately, so that an intersection where two roads cross would have
four different signal names?
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
> On Nov 22, 2015, at 11:18 AM, John Eldredge wrote:
>
> If you have signals facing each of the directions at an intersection, will
> all of the signals at that intersection share the same name, or are they
> named separately, so that an intersection where two roads cross would have
> four di
23 matches
Mail list logo
