>Martin Koppenhoefer:
>Btw.: What about monocycles? Are you alled to carry a monocycle in these
>streets?
What would the traffic ticket claim as the offence?
FWIW, our law has a clause that on a footway a pedestrian may not push a bike,
moped, kicksled, ski or skate or carry a big load if it ca
>Can anyone state that in her/his country this traffic_sign is official
>and not made up by some people ?
Not my country, but in the UK it's listed here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/5/made
Some countries have a blanket allowance for using a text only sign when no
suita
>Using "if an able person can jump it" as the rule has some issues. How far
Not only that, but as it was described years back* ("Maybe you can just jump
over it." from January 2008) did not seem like a hard set rule, but like a soft
description.
*
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?titl
>What's the difference between "road: you may not cycle, cyclepath: you may
>cycle" and "road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath, cyclepath: you may
>cycle"?
Because it's not
"road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath,"
but
""road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath if the cyclepath is
> 2) if the cyclepath is going where you're headed,
> you are obliged to use the cyclepath, to the
> exclusion of all other "carriageways"
> I think number 2) is intended here?
Yes, the original was an unreviewed sentence. In the original the "if" only
applies to "only", not to "may".
Normal
>when access=destination already exists for exactly this situation.
Besides the other arguments about "other users" already mentioned, the value
'destination' would not work in practice either.
For all we know, routing algorithms currently used don't work like a human
brain, but they handle des
> it won't be a clearly defined border where some meters more or less matter or
> are clearly definable
IMO one can always ask the locals/local geologists "is this location/point a
part of the mountain/mountain range". At some point, "everybody" agrees that it
is, and somewhere further down the
>Tracktype= has about 2.5 million grade2 and beyond ways. "Tracktype is a
>measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor road is."
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tracktype
Having now read through the messages, I find that nobody has mentioned a thing
about tracktype, as it was initi
>Anectotal evidence: while driving around Iceland in a Suzuki Jimny
>(technically a 4x4),
>I would never try to tag that half hour of prose into an OSM key.
Would it not benefit the next driver to know "somebody in a (stock) Jimny got
through" - or didn't? Even for those driving something else.
>>I propose to move "psv" (including "taxi" and "bus") from the vehicle classes
>>section to the section "by use", because that's what it is.
>I agree. (Usage, that relies on the current hierarchy should be limited to
>non-existent)
Country differences again. Around here (Finland) all signs(* re
Johan C wrote:
>As often, it depends on the definition :-) : A tunnel is an underground
>passage for a road or similar.
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tunnel
People use the word tunnel (or their equivalent word) in different countries in
various contexts; many times these do include all
Martin Vonwald wrote:
>>3 Cut the way where the sign is into a tiny piece of way. Add a
>>motorcar:backward =no to this tiny piece of way.
>
>That variant has been used in my area. The "tiny piece" is usually the part
>from the junction up to where the sign is located.
This is the oldest commo
Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>does not represent what's on the ground: there won't be a "one way street"
>sign.
Dual carriage roads don't have one way signs, either, but the parts have
oneway=yes. I just noticed that the relatively recently changed description on
the Key:oneway wiki page is even wron
bulwersator wrote:
>In my opinion all relevant access tags should be on way and its nodes,
>otherwise it is unclear whatever road inherits access data from area.
Yes, and it shouldn't be a goal to inherit access tags from surrounding areas.
Even if mappers would consistently set layer=* on the wa
David Bannon wrote:
>"Should I use this road or not ?"
> tracktype= does claim to use that approach
It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at
documenting. The part about "how well maintained"
on the Key:tracktype page was added later after
the values. There is a connection, but trackty
johnw wrote:
>Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>there is a lot of stuff that isn't yet covered by
>>the well introduced landuses, including:
And somebody mentioned landuse=institutional at 68 uses. There's 332 cases of
landuse=civil, which we have used for areas and plots used for state or
municipa
Simon Wüllhorst wrote:
>I was a bit confused about the inconsistent usage of landuse and natural tag.
>Sometimes it’s not clear why there is used the natural or landuse key.
Landuse and natural tags have different keys, so that
you can have both; they describe different properties.
It's just tha
François Lacombe wrote:
>I spent a little more time this week on the power transmission proposal.
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement
> Finally, the two values minor_line and minor_cable, due to the arbitrary
> voltage threshold which may be differ
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.
You may not collide with a bridge, signed or unsigned. Ultrasound range finders
can sometimes be purchased for under 10 euros, so without a sign there ma
Warin wrote:
>highway=track is wider than highway=path,
>tracks being useable for at least one 4WD,
>So their width should be say 2 metres?
The first sentence is a common misstatement. Although track requires enough
width for four wheeled vehicles, this does not mean "path" (or footway, or any
Volker Schmidt wrote:
>I am very cautious about any of this kind of measurement for the following
>reasons:
>1) the results will be very difficult to standardise
>2) the effort is far beyond that what a mapper can reasonably do.
Oh well, I guess I'll have to write a comment here, because I recen
Martin Vonwald wrote:
>My understanding so far:
>* width: this is the actual width of a feature
>* maxwidth: this is a legal limitation; nothing wider than the given value may
>use the feature
>* maxwidth:physical: according to the wiki page: a physical limit
The width of the vehicle that could u
Tobias Knerr wrote:
>The odd one out is clearly that introduction of the Key:maxheight page.
>And that also used to clearly state that the key refers to legal limits,
>until this edit:
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Amaxheight&diff=806806&oldid=762233
The history of the desc
Now that the arguments on both sides have been repeated
a couple of times, I'd like to offer my solution; me and some
nearby have been using this for some years already.
First, I believe, why the points mentioned are incompatible:
There's two ways to look at the keys (not just this key):
1) any
Greg Troxel wrote:
>Bryce Nesbitt writes:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/37.64529/-118.97450
> There's a big difference between "transmission" and "distribution".
> Those may be US terms, but I think the concept is pretty universal:
> there are fairly high-voltage pretty serious lin
Jan van Bekkum wrote:
>There are two fundamental approaches to this and I believe that in this
>discussion the two are mixed:
> 1. The physical status of the road is described
> 2. The tagger determines how hard it will be to use
Over the years, I've seen the different assessment ideas and t
John Willis wrote:
>If it's 42 f, you'd go into hypothermia almost instantly. =}
Not instantly, it's a popular hobby in some countries to swim
in a hole in the ice. Look up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_swimming
>Assuming c unless explicit should be enough for mapping.
Agree.
_
osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
>I guess nobody has bothered tagging storm drains yet?
While deducing other underground pipelines from markers and
manhole/valve lids, I have occasionally added some nodes with
manhole=drain, too. Some could do with a, say, location=kerb
tag if the ker
>lanes like bus-lanes or cycle-lanes should IMHO be tagged with
Bus lanes should be counted in the lanes for global consistency:
some countries have bus lanes that are open to all outside rush
hours, and/or motorists are allowed to use them for turning right
even when they're 24/7.
--
Alv
Toby Murray wrote:
>My take on lanes is that it should be the number of continuous lanes
>along a road. This impacts traffic flow and road capacity which allows
>routers to make more informed decisions. Turning lanes don't increase
>overall road capacity.
The lanes tag is not about the capacity p
>No. What I don't agree with is that lanes=2 is "missing data" or an
>"interim solution". It is simply another way of tagging.
Isn't it generally agreed that different ways of tagging must use
different keys? Using one key in different ways in places where
there can be, or will be a conflict is
(sorry to break the thread one more time, but there's no way to reply in-thread
when you didn't have mail delivery enabled when the previous mails were
sent)
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>+1, maybe we should specify that lanes is about car-lanes (restricted
>lanes like bus-lanes or cycle-lanes shoul
>> one in the UN Vienna Convention on road signs and signals:
>>
>> is divisible, whether or not defined by longitudinal road markings, which
>So, this includes "parking lanes"? Or am I misreading it?
It's international legal text, so you'd need a lawyer, the orignal texts
and the preliminary
>> lanes:bus:times=Mo-Fr 07:00-18:00
>this IMHO is not clear whether in the rest of the time the lane is
>completely closed or open also to other traffic.
Do such lanes exist, which are off limits to all at times and bus/psv
only at others? Iif they do, one could go on and add, OTTOMH,
lanes:bus
>wouldn't it be easier to tag directly how long each turn lane is for
>each approach rather than splitting the way in several places?
Tagging geometry when you can have the geometry as geometric
entities? From a usability perspective that's bad, it's mixing totally
different mental models. And it
The discussion seems to have died for now, but the wiki doesn't
still give any readers concrete advice on what is the best
practice. Before I edit it once again, I'll try to summmarize
the points laid out so far, and (the first) one that didn't get
mentioned, at least this straight:
* All "edit
>How does this sound for a compromise?
>Many ways are not tagged with the total number of lanes at all points,
>but only with the number of through lanes. Therefore, end users should
>treat the lanes tag as a minimum rather than an exact number. Subtags
>(lanes:straight, lanes:right, etc.) or [[Rel
>The tag lanes should be reserved for the straight
>forward lanes.
At a T-junction, the road ending there would then be
lanes=0, given that wording. Nice.
>As a result, we just add a node for a minor information and do not
>damage the existing highways.
There's bound to be, eventually, enormous
>'established' is a big word. I'm surprised by the taginfo stats. I
>never used this tag myself and I don't remember if it was really
>discussed in the international lists. It is in the wiki since July.
Taginfo won't show the combinations at the moment, but location=*
is, afaik, used on ways with
Left out a significant word by mistake:
>is, afaik, *mostly* used on ways with man_made=pipeline and nodes
The fire hydrant page now suggests fire_hydrant:type=underground/wall etc.,
but many old mappers try to avoid type=* as a key - or as a part of a
key.
--
Alv
__
>> What data source are you suggesting that the renderer should use, if not the
>> OSM database?
>The same one that the cycle map layer uses to draw contour lines.
Unfortunately that srtm data ends at 60° N: http://osm.org/go/0TORO--
And it's eventually way too scarse.
__
>Are there any other OSM conventions that indicate a lack of a facility? Maybe:
>toilets=no
Not going into the wiki-approved new schemes, currently many highway=bus_stop
nodes have one or more of:
shelter=no (54800)
bench=no
timetable=no
waste_basket=no
departures_board=no
Each of these
>Are there examples of places where taxis can't use a bus lane?
Like in Germany, also in Finland some bus lanes are just for buses,
whereas on some roads the traffic sign includes the word "taxi"
to allow both.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstree
> 4. building:levels=*Number of stories of the building above ground.
>-> why only above ground? I find this missleading as well. The logical
>meaning of a tag "building:levels" would be "the total amount of
>building levels". If it is for the levels above ground, why not
>building:levels:abov
>This was discussed intensely some time ago for maxheight, I suggest
>you read the archives on this. I agree that a physical restriction is
Originally there was little mention of any of them tags depicting
purely legal restrictions. Even access/*=no was "unsuitable or not
allowed", but later, as
>Am 21.04.2012 um 13:34 schrieb "Ilpo Järvinen" :
>> ...What I don't really care if it is called lanes=1.5 or
>> lanes=1/2+some_other_agreed_tag_which_is_not_an_estimated_width=x, but
>> simply saying that use lanes=1/2 alone instead I oppose.
>
>I would recommend lanes=2 and width=xxx. Maybe give
If one does not consider parked cars _at all_, the first example
of my previous post (at the end) with a 9 meter wide
carriageway and no markings would have to be lanes=3, but
it's not a three lane road. Likewise, this oneway street
(5.9-6.0 meters wide) with cars always on one side would have
>IMHO it would be a good idea to remove fractional lanes amounts and
>forget about them. They are too subjective.
>What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here:
>http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=en&ll=41.899274,12.464333&spn=0.008497,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.899391,12.464289&panoid=
>Before that I added a point in the Open issues section about lanes=1.5
>and modified the note at the end of the section Narrow road. As
So, today I got a chance to revisit an unpaved residential road
I've tagged as lanes=1.5 in the distant past. Here's two
pictures of it (in one)
Above, usual
>Looks as if 2 cars can pass each other without big problems.
Only in the utopia where all drivers can confidently
manouver their cars at speed to gaps only 10-20 cm
wider than their car. Most people don't.
The white car already has it's right hand wheels
outside the normal driving surface. And
>police doesn't enforce the official rules, then there are factually
>more lanes on the ground than painted on the road.
Isn't that equal to cycling on sidewalks: we shouldn't tag
sidewalks with bicycle=yes (in coutries where cyclists may
not use them), even if only a dozen or so get a fine each
>As long as
>(just my favorite example) you have to move ways to move a street
>by a few meters, this will no succeed.
Nobody says that we should not map buildings, bus stops, pubs, benches,
restaurants, post boxes, streams, pubs, trees, advertising columns, etc.
just because one would have t
>Here's one option: http://osm.org/go/euu1t7NMP--
>The dual carriageway (Shenley Road) is brought to a point (node) at
>the intersection.
Even if it's currently "the only way", it should be
noted that it has the unfortunate effect of
mangling the geometry; there's no slight-right turn
followed
Pieren wrote:
>but the wiki doesn't say explicitely that "overtaking=no" means "no
>u-turn" as well. Could we write this assertion ?
Probably not.
Here they leave a small (about 3 meter long) gap
in the solid line whenever there's a tiny one lane
side road (or a driveway) and it's not necessary
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
>2) A relation exists with member ways without ref tag. This means that
>the route is essentially mapped and any further editor is correcting
>errors, that he found. Then someone comes and adds a ref tag to one of
>the ways - why?
He drove by, and saw a different re
>according to the wiki, for "smaller areas of mown and managed grass
>for example in the middle of a roundabout, verges beside a road or in
>So this isn't actually a tag for every spot where you can find grass,
>but it is a tag for "auxiliary" areas dedicated to traffic.
It reads "for example" ab
>the difference between hiking and foot, the
>distance or the backpack ? All long distance
>footpaths are cut into daytrips. So that you
>dont have to take a large pack for just a day.
Not all hiking routes are "split into daytrips", we have
for example this 55 km long marked hiking route; it h
Rob Nickerson wrote:
>Although I don't know the history of the access
>tag, I would expect that "designated" and
>"permissive" might have something to do with
>Public Rights of Way in the UK:
Just a recap on how the values have evolved,
not to open the "path controversy", but just to
give some
>Only part 5 is relevant.
Having just returned from my (mapping) trip, and having finally
browsed through all these messages on this subjet, I don't think
anybody mentioned it explicitly: You can't consider only part 5.
At part 6, the ways are physically separated, so IMO there
should be two s
>> I don't like the "lanes" tag where there are no lines on the street, it
>> misses the point.
>It completely misses the point! The lanes tag should only be used for lanes
>that are somehow marked - usually with lines.
There are an abundance of unpaved, 6 to 8, or even 10 meter wide roads that
>Can we start using relations for this already? Really seems like that
>provides the specifics we want for this.
So far nobody has provided a real world example of a place where the simple
distance-to-next would not be correct. If somebody does that, then a relation
could be made up.
>>>high
>specifically, no U-turn is the common signage in many jurisdictions, and
>that's a
>turn restriction, not an access restriction. in a perfect world, that's how
>we'd have
Mostly "we" are interested in the result, not the signs. It's the traffic
code's
limitation, that their best option is to
>The idea is that with a 30 driving rules list applying to an agglomération
If it's just the traffic rules urban vs. rural, there's the tag (with 37 000+
uses)
zone:traffic=**:rural
zone:traffic=**:urban
where ** is the two letter country code.
Don't count on anything ever deriving the rules (
>Simone Saviolo:
if you "need" to tag the maxspeed anyway, then what's the point of that tag?
It's not about the maxspeed, but the area that supposed to be considered
"urban", and interesting in itself.
The rural/urban distinction affects other rules, even outside of the traffic
code.
Here t
Ronnie Soak wrote:
>Several addresses per building: addr:* tags on entrance nodes along the
>building outline.
Just a reminder that in many countries buildings can have several addresses,
each address on different streets; none of the addresses is a "primary"
address, and all staircases of said
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>* natural - geographical features (e.g. a named forest) abstract
IMO there's no need to limit the key natural to geographical
features only, and never has there been such a distinction.
>The natural=wood / landuse=forest distinction is flawed and creates
>In practise
>By "consumer", we all think about "renderer" (which is in my knowledge
>the only consumer looking for bridges in OSM atm). If you keep the
>"bridge" tag on the multiple highways, it is duplicating the
>information.
I believe there's no obvious reason not to think that bridge=yes
on a highway cou
>there and so on - so: keep them splitted and it's less work with more
>backwards compatibility.
>If they are not, it's up to you as a mapper if you want outdated
>renderers to use the old scheme or not.
Most renderers and conversion tools work internally without
a database (even if they first fe
>buffers), I think a landuse= value is appropriate. It isn't
>residential, industrial, or retail. Probably the same landuse tag is
>appropriate for a big resort as for a regular hotel.
In the beginning it took a while to realize, that the osm tagging
system as-it-was-at-the-start omits some ta
>And usually we
>use the key source for how we collect the data, but not the key
>source:maxspeed
Realistically, to know that there is a speed limit
sign, or that there isn't one (i.e. =sign
vs. =XX:urban), one has had to visit the place,
so source:maxspeed key effectively says the data
is from
>Description:
>type=route - this is a route
>route=road - this is a route for motorcars
>network=e-road - this is a cars' route, which is related
>to E-road network
IMO network=* should be read as "is a route, which is a
part of the E-road network". These connections are not
a real part of the a
Martin Atkins wrote:
>Refine the basic railway=* tagging to have a more specific definition,
>taking inspiration from the tagging conventions around highway=* .
IMO this is flawed in two ways:
- on empty highways, one can drive in circles on the whole road surface (not
that one may or should, bu
>this example, http://osrm.at/36D
>To stay on the A511 no instruction to turn is given,
That just looks like a bug in the osrm.
--
Alv
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>there are weight restrictions
> sometimes given
>as maximum-per-axis-weight, indicated by traffic sign 263
> (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_263.svg ),
> which is
>similar, but not the same.
There's
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxaxleload
--
Alv
> maxweight:type=gross_vehicle, gross_train, laden, empty, etc.
> definitions + _weight can be used
>as properties in conditional
> restriction, eg. maxspeed=80 @
>(empty_weight>5.5).
>Drawback is that only one
> maxweight-restriction per way
> is possible.
Just today I drove past a sign that
(Sorry, the previous message was sent prematurely.)
Different weight restrictions exist together on some roads, they need to be
different keys.
--
alv
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>I take it the gross weight
>item on the driver's license
Just to make sure, not all countries' driving licenses directly refer to
weight; mine only states the allowed vehicle classes, and I can check the
vehicle's papers to see of it's a B or a C. Effectively the difference is still
max gross
>sign does not exclude vehicles
> transporting people
Indeed, yes, I missed the last bit: "ausgenommen Personenkraftwagen und
Kraftomnibuse"
Seems strange to put it that way (everything but not X), when they mean Y.
--
alv
___
Tagging mailing list
Ta
>can you confirm that this is
> indeed maxweight (i.e.
> actual weight
Yes, the sign means actual weight.
--
alv
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>the similarity with the single truck-sign
Even the maxlength traffic sign is more similar with the "single truck" sign.
As to tagging the este vehicle+trailer weight limits, I haven't tagged any such
vehicle combination limits before. Intuitively, though, I'd go with
maxweight=50 (the limit st
> needed e.g. in Finland) or of
>a single vehicle (needed in
>most of the vienna convention
> countries)
By far the most common sign is - even here - of the "vehicle laden weight"
variant. Only the "max gross weight of a vehicle combination" sign does not
(legally) exist - here, that is. Implyi
> In the UK, the most common weight restriction is '7.5t except for
access'.
Which doesn't answer the question, so I had to do some digging: no sources seem
to mention any traffic signs in the UK that would limit the actual laden weight
- only the what's-in-the-papers-maximum is used. Which see
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement
>- Power lines refarming with power=cable deprecation.
"Power lines refarming" does not at all sound like what it is; diluting
power=line from current usage as "a big visibile structure with towers and
cables up
>connecting the driveways to the road, which they don't
The driveways do connect to the road, even up to the center line, just as much
as normal roads connect through each other in every intersection. All roads and
paths are both: a surface, and a connection. It's an inherent consequence of
th
> Lester Caine :
>>This was part of the discussion on tracks and paths at the time.
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>AFAIK that distinction was always made by width
Just to be precise, this "choise between track/path based on width" only works
in one direction: something that is narrower than a two t
>More generally, should we tag things that we don't normally map, that
There's no such existing thing as "we don't normally map". People map what is
of interest to them. Just use a tag that doesn't already mean something
different.
FWIW, I've used aerial_line=telephone for such telephone lines
Pieren wrote:
>was placed on the intersection node itself.
>routine engine where routes with traffic signals
>are penalized.
I won't be saying anything about the discussed
alternatives at this time, but just wish to point
out that "this intersection is controlled by signals"
when used only
87 matches
Mail list logo
