On 08/05/2019 22:48, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
I thought that controlled means that their is signage / indication of
some form that says a driver has to stop to allow pedestrians to cross
I would take it to be more than that: something that controls *when* the
vehicles have priority and when t
I discovered that maritime=yes has been used about 100 to 150 times to
tag areas of river estuaries that should be considered part of the
marine environment.
These parts of rivers are sometimes mapped outside of the coastline,
but in some places the local community feels strongly that the water
bo
On Thursday 09 May 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I discovered that maritime=yes has been used about 100 to 150 times
> to tag areas of river estuaries that should be considered part of the
> marine environment.
>
> [...]
I introduced this tag for this purpose to indicate water polygons where
ma
> I suggest that you read the discussion I started in December
about crossing=zebra because it is the main cause of the current situation.
I read it back in December, but I disagree. The cause of the situation is
the huge problems with the crossing=* values for marked crossings. That
problem also
> I don't know why we need a new tag scheme.
Please check out my proposal, as I've laid out several reasons. As someone
who has personally mapped thousands of crossings, the current schema is
absolute garbage for reliably collecting accurate data that can be reliably
interpreted by data consumers
This subthread is doing a good job of showing why "uncontrolled" is opaque
to users and mappers, as it is primarily an issue of local legal questions
and not physical, on-the-ground features, despite the fact that
"uncontrolled" in OSM is meant to also describe those (like markings).
Because it's a
> Warning - my interpretation!
> SADDLE = low point between two high points (mountains), it does not
> descend near the level of the adjacent valleys.
> PASS =A gap in a range of mountains or hills permitting easier passage
> from one side to the other, it descends near the level of the adjacent
>
> ground marking but not traffic signal
I listed three discrete categories being covered in the current schema:
on-the-ground markings, signals for pedestrians, and signals for
cross-traffic. There is some further confusion regarding the word
"uncontrolled" having to do with right-of-way, but I'll
> and we already have it : crossing_ref
I was only referencing these facts to note a synergy with another proposal.
It won't be productive to hash out the entirety of problems with
crossing=uncontrolled and the proposal to use crossing=marked in this
thread, so I'll ask that we have in-depth discu
> Just because mapping something requires real survey rather than mapping
from aerial imagery is not making it fictional or unofficial.
You are correct. To clarify, my use of quotation marks is meant to
communicate that I'm not literally saying they are a fiction - just similar
to one. There is no
> Uncontrolled crossings are by far the most common. They are wherever
there are drop kerbs, which in my town just about every road junction.
Please join our discussion of crossing=marked!
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:42 AM Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 May 2019, marc marc wrote:
> > Le 08
> Same around here. Most of them have tactile paving too.
Please join our discussion of crossing=marked!
Without wanting to invite discussion in this thread, this is not what
"uncontrolled" means in OpenStreetMap, and it's one of the reasons we
should change it.
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 4:52 AM P
I'm seeing some tracks with multiple tracktype's like this:
Way 364707088 [highway=track, name=FR 514, tracktype=grade2;grade1;grade3]
Is this generally accepted practice?
If so, why?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.o
Le 09.05.19 à 21:37, brad a écrit :
> I'm seeing some tracks with multiple tracktype's like this:
>
> Way 364707088 [highway=track, name=FR 514, tracktype=grade2;grade1;grade3]
>
> Is this generally accepted practice?
> If so, why?
I see 2 "usecases" :
- someone merge several way with different
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 01:37:09PM -0600, brad wrote:
> I'm seeing some tracks with multiple tracktype's like this:
>
> Way 364707088 [highway=track, name=FR 514, tracktype=grade2;grade1;grade3]
>
> Is this generally accepted practice?
> If so, why?
IMHO does not make sense at all. Most likely
I've occasionally seen mappers do this sort of thing intentionally. They
may know (or guess) that a particular way has more than one tracktype so
they simply add other values and separate them with a semicolon.
In such cases, if one cannot determine what the tracktype actually is, it
might be bett
I have checked out your proposal...and I don't know what is the difference
with a crossing=marked (yours) and a crossing=uncontrolled (in OSM)
I don't agree with you. I think you are forgotten all the other items to
tag and the others tagging schemes in OSM. Kerbs are not for cars,
cycleways are no
On 09/05/2019 21:35, marc marc wrote:
tiger:reviewed=no;yes makes me think it's a merge, even though version
Yes - the history of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/10191527/history
suggests that it's a merge. Likely the mapper didn't spot the extra
tags and the editor that they were using (a
sent from a phone
> On 7. May 2019, at 22:57, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> One of the primary confusions is the "uncontrolled" (and "zebra") values,
> which are, in effect, intended to mean that a crossing is "marked"
they are also intended to mean: not controlled by a traffic light (while
„mark
On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 11:46, 石野貴之 wrote:
> This feature has been proposed by our fellow, Yuu Hayashi. You may think
> this hasn't been discussed previously, but it's totally wrong. He has been
> working on Japanese road tagging for more than four years.
>
Thank you, & apologies if it sounded lik
> they are also intended to mean: not controlled by a traffic light (while
„marked“ likely would include traffic light crossings)
Yes, but a traffic light for whom? I've seen mappers who assume it means
"walk"/"do not walk" lights like this:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Do_Not_Walk_sign
> I have checked out your proposal...and I don't know what is the
difference with a crossing=marked (yours) and a crossing=uncontrolled (in
OSM)
crossing=marked indicates that a crossing has markings. That's it: the
"type" of crossing is declared to be whether it has markings on the ground
or not.
> If there is not any control of the crossing...yes otherwise should be
crossing=traffic_signals or supervised=yes as you can read in the wiki.
But the meaning of "control" varies by region and municipality, and does
not imply the presence or absence of ground markings. A controlled crossing
can h
Good Evening,
I am considering submitting a proposal for restrictions or allowances on
carrying firearms in a particular location. I checked through the proposal
pages and the active features pages and did not see anything related to
this. The Proposal Process page suggested emailing this list to
24 matches
Mail list logo
