Re: [Tagging] Narrow Bridge (was: Reconstructing «Dificult passability» proposal to «Obstacle»)

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 22:19 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> 
> The standard English term for a bridge that is only wide enough for one 
> vehicle to pass through at a time is a "one-lane bridge".  In the same way, a 
> roadway only wide enough for one vehicle at a time is a "one-lane road".  The 
> bridge or road is visibly only one lane wide; painting lane markings on it to 
> point out its narrowness would be redundant.
> 
Another one where American English is different, in the UK the term used
is 'Single Track Road'. 

You will sometimes see signs saying "Single Track Road with Passing
Places", a useful page with sign examples is here
http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Single_track_road

Phil


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Obstacle

[John F. Eldredge]

Would the same landslide tag be used both where part of the hill above the road 
had slid into the road, and where part of the road had slid downhill, leaving a 
hole?

Also, how would you tag a point where cracks had started to appear, but the 
full-scale landslide hadn't happened yet?
-- 
John F. Eldredge --  j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Narrow Bridge (was: Reconstructing «Dificult passability» proposal to «Obstacle»)

[John F. Eldredge]

"Janko Mihelić"  wrote:

> Well, "car" as a unit of road width can be used with the "lanes" tag.
> If it
> catches on it can be put as a proposal.
> 
> I don't like the "lanes" tag where there are no lines on the street,
> it
> misses the point.
> 
> Janko
> 
> 2012/10/13 Stephen Hope 
> 
> > Eric,
> >
> > The English version did say that at one point, as well, before it
> was
> > changed back to the current definition.  Maybe the French one was
> copied
> > from it during that period.
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> > On 13 October 2012 04:49, Eric SIBERT 
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> Indeed, as pointed out by Martin, I have to use lanes=1. I had a
> >> misunderstanding with the lanes=* key. I thought lanes=* indicated
> the
> >> number of lanes in each direction, not the total number in both
> directions.
> >> The French wiki lanes=* page need a strong update, compared to the
> English
> >> one (todo list...).
> >>
> >> So, I will go on with lanes=1.
> >>
> >> Éric
> >>
> >> __**_
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

The standard English term for a bridge that is only wide enough for one vehicle 
to pass through at a time is a "one-lane bridge".  In the same way, a roadway 
only wide enough for one vehicle at a time is a "one-lane road".  The bridge or 
road is visibly only one lane wide; painting lane markings on it to point out 
its narrowness would be redundant.

-- 
John F. Eldredge --  j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Narrow Bridge (was: Reconstructing «Dificult passability» proposal to «Obstacle»)

[David ``Smith'']

On Oct 13, 2012 5:45 PM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
wrote:
>
> 2012/10/13 Martin Vonwald (imagic) :
> > Am 13.10.2012 um 14:48 schrieb Janko Mihelić :
> >
> >> 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.
>
>
> living in an area with a scarce tendency to mark lanes I disagree.
> Lanes is a useful information also when there are no marked lanes, or
> only partially marked lanes.

Even on 2-lane roads with painted lane markings, a narrow bridge might lack
such markings, even edge lines, indicating one lane which is the full width
of the bridge.  Warning signs in advance of the bridge may or may not use
the phrase "one-lane bridge", but effectively it is nonetheless.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Narrow Bridge (was: Reconstructing «Dificult passability» proposal to «Obstacle»)

[Philip Barnes]

I can see nothing wrong with tagging a single track road as lanes =1. 
Single track roads are rarely the same width along their entire length, and the 
term will be understood by UK drivers. Usual width is, I would guess, between 
2.5 and 3 metres, but this varies. Sometimes, but not often there are signed 
passing places.
Adding width tags to every single track road will be a lit of work, whereas 
selecting and tagging lanes=1 is easy.

The more difficult ones, which are wide enough for 2 cars to pass, these are 
the ones not wife enough for a centre line. These do need a width tag.
On many roads the centre line is intermittent as the road width varies.
These need the way to be split.

 Phil
--

Sent from my Nokia N9



On 13/10/2012 20:12 Martin Vonwald (imagic) wrote:

Am 13.10.2012 um 14:48 schrieb Janko Mihelić :


> 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.


A narrow bridge is a narrow bridge: a bridge with a small width. Therefore 
simply use the width key.


Martin

___

Tagging mailing list

jan...@gmail.com
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Narrow Bridge (was: Reconstructing «Dificult passability» proposal to «Obstacle»)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/10/13 Martin Vonwald (imagic) :
> Am 13.10.2012 um 14:48 schrieb Janko Mihelić :
>
>> 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.


living in an area with a scarce tendency to mark lanes I disagree.
Lanes is a useful information also when there are no marked lanes, or
only partially marked lanes.

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Narrow Bridge (was: Reconstructing «Dificult passability» proposal to «Obstacle»)

[Martin Vonwald (imagic)]

Am 13.10.2012 um 14:48 schrieb Janko Mihelić :

> 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.

A narrow bridge is a narrow bridge: a bridge with a small width. Therefore 
simply use the width key.

Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What is and what isn't a valid type=multipolygon relation for osm ?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/10/13 David ``Smith'' :
> I think the mappers who might break a multipolygon's validity probably don't
> have the patience to read through several rules written in math-speak.


from my experience many are not even aware that there was a
multipolygon involved in their edit when they break them.
I think there are already a lot of pictures on these pages, and some
of the "rules" added are recommendations or already inherent in other
rules.

E.g.

* "Member ways MUST have two or more nodes" --- all ways must have 2
or more nodes


* "Exactly two unclosed ways belonging to a role, and no more should
share an endpoint (eg. the most extreme nodes of a way represented by
the black dot in the images). If an endpoint is shared by less than
two unclosed ways, the polygon can't be closed and is ill formed.
invalid example 1
If an endpoint is shared by more than two unclosed ways, it's ill
formed and a closed polygon can't be reconstructed unambiguously.
invalid example 2"

this is saying that you can't have 2 touching inner rings with a
shared inner way, but you can according to previous docs.

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What is and what isn't a valid type=multipolygon relation for osm ?

[David ``Smith'']

On Oct 13, 2012 11:12 AM, "sly (sylvain letuffe)"  wrote:
> In response to this change on the wiki :
>
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relation%3Amultipolygon&action=historysubmit&diff=820392&oldid=797879

I mostly agree with the added text, with the following criticism: it's a
very mathematical way of saying what shouldn't need to be said in the first
place.  It should be obvious that a valid multipolygon relation
unambiguously defines a polygonal region, and I wasn't aware it was
necessary to explicitly declare all the subconditions required to achieve
that result.

I think the mappers who might break a multipolygon's validity probably
don't have the patience to read through several rules written in
math-speak.  Perhaps it would be better to show counterexamples to each
"rule", and how to remedy each one (assuming the mapper actually knows what
region the multipolygon should cover -- because if the relation is broken,
software can't know).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] What is and what isn't a valid type=multipolygon relation for osm ?

[sly (sylvain letuffe)]

Hi,

In response to this change on the wiki :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relation%3Amultipolygon&action=historysubmit&diff=820392&oldid=797879
(which I do not completely agree with to say the least)

I think it should be discussed and agreed on. Perhaps with more examples of 
what is valid and what isn't.

Reading this :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:multipolygon#Multipolygon_should_consist_of_polygons_rather_than_ways

we can guess that it is hot topic, but allowing the wiki to change what is 
accepted or not every now and then isn't really something usefull I guess.

What about splitting in two maybe :
- what is considered valid/accepted from an OSM point of view

- what is considered good practice/avoid if possible from a mapper/consumers 
point of view 

-- 
sly (sylvain letuffe)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Alexander]

I think that contact info of an amenity (allow me to group shops,
restaurants, bars, and companies under that umbrella just for a 
minute)

should be considered all of equal importance.


They are amenities that stay for long time like post offices. And
amenities that are changing very fast like shops and restaurants. I
think OSM should concentrate on the first. OSM is not a google-like
bot scanning the web to build automatically a yellow-page db.
Surveying things like commercial streets are inevitably outdated
quickly. I would say that "amenities" that cannot be found in
wikipedia should be considered as commercial advertising.


i just wanted to note that at least facebook and foursquare links 
wouldn't only apply to shops, restaurants and companies (stuff with a 
commercial value), but also sights and landmarks, cities, parks, 
playgrounds, train stations. everything that has a location


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Obstacle

[Konfrare Albert]

Thanks Andrew,

I understand your position, but I want to note that my proposal focuses in
pedestrians.
No value is really a danger to pedestrians, but is an impediment.
In the same way, the values given should not be a danger to cyclists,
horse riders or drivers ... only depends on the ability that everyone has to
overcome the obstacle.

Regards

ALBERT


2012/10/13 Andrew Errington 

> I second the name "hazard".  This covers obstacles and dangerous areas.
>
> Any hazard can be shown as a simple icon by any software.  Specific hazards
> can be parsed from the values and shown with a specific icon if necessary.
>
> If a landslide blocks the road, then just break the way.  Routing software
> will then avoid that route.  If the landslide blocks part of the road then
> modify the way to lanes=1, maxspeed=20 for example.  This should cause
> routers to avoid the route except for access.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Andrew
>
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 23:07:49 Konfrare Albert wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I added the value obstacle=heap (the opposite of hole), that could be
> > formed by fallen rocks, debris, etc... -->
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle#Tagging(the
> > last value for the key in the table)
> >
> > Also I added a mention to landslides -->
> >
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle#Other_obstacl
> >es
> >
> > Thanks for suggestions and comments.
> > Regards
> >
> > ALBERT
> >
> > 2012/10/13 Graham Jones 
> >
> > > Hazard =   for things like broken barriers?   Actually hazard could
> > > work for things like landslides and fallen trees too?
> > >
> > > Graham
> > >
> > > from my phone.
> > > On 13 Oct 2012 11:27, "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >> 2012/10/13 Peter Wendorff :
> > >> > Am 13.10.2012 11:28, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> > >> >> I'd suggest some additional values:
> > >> >> * rockfall = some rocks have fallen onto the road
> > >> >> * guardrail_broken = there is a hole in the guard rail or in a
> > >> >> retaining wall alongside the road (i.e. you might fall)
> > >> >
> > >> > -1 for guardrail_broken as part of obstacle. It isn't.
> > >> > Do we have anything for "danger sources" where it could fit?
> > >>
> > >> I agree, what might be an interesting value to add to obstacle is
> > >> "landslide" (part of the road slipped away, mostly occuring in hilly /
> > >> mountainous terrain)
> > >>
> > >> cheers,
> > >> Martin
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> Tagging mailing list
> > >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Tagging mailing list
> > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
*KONFRARE ALBERT*
La Konfraria de la Vila del Pingüí de La Palma
WEB:http://www.konfraria.org
TWITTER: http://twitter.com/La_Konfraria
FACEBOOK:
http://ca-es.facebook.com/people/Konfraria-Vila-Del-Pingui/11918952076
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Obstacle

[Andrew Errington]

I second the name "hazard".  This covers obstacles and dangerous areas.

Any hazard can be shown as a simple icon by any software.  Specific hazards 
can be parsed from the values and shown with a specific icon if necessary.

If a landslide blocks the road, then just break the way.  Routing software 
will then avoid that route.  If the landslide blocks part of the road then 
modify the way to lanes=1, maxspeed=20 for example.  This should cause 
routers to avoid the route except for access.

Best wishes,

Andrew

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 23:07:49 Konfrare Albert wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I added the value obstacle=heap (the opposite of hole), that could be
> formed by fallen rocks, debris, etc... -->
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle#Tagging (the
> last value for the key in the table)
>
> Also I added a mention to landslides -->
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle#Other_obstacl
>es
>
> Thanks for suggestions and comments.
> Regards
>
> ALBERT
>
> 2012/10/13 Graham Jones 
>
> > Hazard =   for things like broken barriers?   Actually hazard could
> > work for things like landslides and fallen trees too?
> >
> > Graham
> >
> > from my phone.
> > On 13 Oct 2012 11:27, "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
> >
> > wrote:
> >> 2012/10/13 Peter Wendorff :
> >> > Am 13.10.2012 11:28, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> >> >> I'd suggest some additional values:
> >> >> * rockfall = some rocks have fallen onto the road
> >> >> * guardrail_broken = there is a hole in the guard rail or in a
> >> >> retaining wall alongside the road (i.e. you might fall)
> >> >
> >> > -1 for guardrail_broken as part of obstacle. It isn't.
> >> > Do we have anything for "danger sources" where it could fit?
> >>
> >> I agree, what might be an interesting value to add to obstacle is
> >> "landslide" (part of the road slipped away, mostly occuring in hilly /
> >> mountainous terrain)
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Obstacle

[Konfrare Albert]

Hi!

I added the value obstacle=heap (the opposite of hole), that could be
formed by fallen rocks, debris, etc... -->
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle#Tagging (the
last value for the key in the table)

Also I added a mention to landslides -->
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle#Other_obstacles

Thanks for suggestions and comments.
Regards

ALBERT

2012/10/13 Graham Jones 

> Hazard =   for things like broken barriers?   Actually hazard could
> work for things like landslides and fallen trees too?
>
> Graham
>
> from my phone.
> On 13 Oct 2012 11:27, "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
> wrote:
>
>> 2012/10/13 Peter Wendorff :
>> > Am 13.10.2012 11:28, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>> >
>> >> I'd suggest some additional values:
>> >> * rockfall = some rocks have fallen onto the road
>> >> * guardrail_broken = there is a hole in the guard rail or in a
>> >> retaining wall alongside the road (i.e. you might fall)
>>
>> > -1 for guardrail_broken as part of obstacle. It isn't.
>> > Do we have anything for "danger sources" where it could fit?
>>
>>
>> I agree, what might be an interesting value to add to obstacle is
>> "landslide" (part of the road slipped away, mostly occuring in hilly /
>> mountainous terrain)
>>
>> cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
*KONFRARE ALBERT*
La Konfraria de la Vila del Pingüí de La Palma
WEB:http://www.konfraria.org
TWITTER: http://twitter.com/La_Konfraria
FACEBOOK:
http://ca-es.facebook.com/people/Konfraria-Vila-Del-Pingui/11918952076
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] How to tag railroad named control points?

[David ``Smith'']

My employer is a contractor for a few railroads, and through that
experience I have gained personal knowlege of several named "control
points" for one railroad in particular.  A control point typically consists
of signals facing both ways, switch tracks to transfer between multiple
mainline tracks if applicable, and often signs displaying the name of the
control point.  While the extents of a control point are not sharply
defined (as far as I know) they can be roughly described as a few hundred
feet long and as wide as the railroad right-of-way in most cases.

How should such a feature appear in OSM?  A single node? An area-way around
the associated physical features? A relation with several nodes as
members?  And what tags are appropriate?  Does this count as a new feature
I should propose?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Narrow Bridge (was: Reconstructing «Dificult passability» proposal to «Obstacle»)

[Janko Mihelić]

Well, "car" as a unit of road width can be used with the "lanes" tag. If it
catches on it can be put as a proposal.

I don't like the "lanes" tag where there are no lines on the street, it
misses the point.

Janko

2012/10/13 Stephen Hope 

> Eric,
>
> The English version did say that at one point, as well, before it was
> changed back to the current definition.  Maybe the French one was copied
> from it during that period.
>
> Stephen
>
>
> On 13 October 2012 04:49, Eric SIBERT  wrote:
>
>>
>>> Indeed, as pointed out by Martin, I have to use lanes=1. I had a
>> misunderstanding with the lanes=* key. I thought lanes=* indicated the
>> number of lanes in each direction, not the total number in both directions.
>> The French wiki lanes=* page need a strong update, compared to the English
>> one (todo list...).
>>
>> So, I will go on with lanes=1.
>>
>> Éric
>>
>> __**_
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Obstacle

[Graham Jones]

Hazard =   for things like broken barriers?   Actually hazard could
work for things like landslides and fallen trees too?

Graham

from my phone.
On 13 Oct 2012 11:27, "Martin Koppenhoefer"  wrote:

> 2012/10/13 Peter Wendorff :
> > Am 13.10.2012 11:28, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> >
> >> I'd suggest some additional values:
> >> * rockfall = some rocks have fallen onto the road
> >> * guardrail_broken = there is a hole in the guard rail or in a
> >> retaining wall alongside the road (i.e. you might fall)
>
> > -1 for guardrail_broken as part of obstacle. It isn't.
> > Do we have anything for "danger sources" where it could fit?
>
>
> I agree, what might be an interesting value to add to obstacle is
> "landslide" (part of the road slipped away, mostly occuring in hilly /
> mountainous terrain)
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Obstacle

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/10/13 Peter Wendorff :
> Am 13.10.2012 11:28, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
>> I'd suggest some additional values:
>> * rockfall = some rocks have fallen onto the road
>> * guardrail_broken = there is a hole in the guard rail or in a
>> retaining wall alongside the road (i.e. you might fall)

> -1 for guardrail_broken as part of obstacle. It isn't.
> Do we have anything for "danger sources" where it could fit?


I agree, what might be an interesting value to add to obstacle is
"landslide" (part of the road slipped away, mostly occuring in hilly /
mountainous terrain)

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Obstacle

[Peter Wendorff]

Am 13.10.2012 11:28, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:

I'd suggest some additional values:
* rockfall = some rocks have fallen onto the road
* guardrail_broken = there is a hole in the guard rail or in a
retaining wall alongside the road (i.e. you might fall)

Not sure if the latter is really an obstacle, it is a danger element
but as it is on the side of the road it will usually not obstruct the
road itself.

-1 for guardrail_broken as part of obstacle. It isn't.
Do we have anything for "danger sources" where it could fit?

regards
Peter

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Obstacle

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I'd suggest some additional values:
* rockfall = some rocks have fallen onto the road
* guardrail_broken = there is a hole in the guard rail or in a
retaining wall alongside the road (i.e. you might fall)

Not sure if the latter is really an obstacle, it is a danger element
but as it is on the side of the road it will usually not obstruct the
road itself.

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Obstacle

[Konfrare Albert]

Hi!

I worked hard for reconstruct quickly the recent proposed *
«Difficult_Passability»*
(page)
to the feature proposed *«Obstacle»*.
I'm happy with the new resulting proposal that includes reviews and
suggestions of the community:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle (discussion
page )

Hope you like it. I wait for comments, suggestions and criticisms for make
the proposal better.

Thanks a lot!
Regards
-- 
*KONFRARE ALBERT*
La Konfraria de la Vila del Pingüí de La Palma
WEB:http://www.konfraria.org
TWITTER: http://twitter.com/La_Konfraria
FACEBOOK:
http://ca-es.facebook.com/people/Konfraria-Vila-Del-Pingui/11918952076
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging