[Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

I stumbled over some maxheight=none tags on motorways, that did not even pass under a bridge. I found that this is the most frequent value of maxheight (2889 of 41474). On an open highway that tag makes no sense for me at all. No height limit is implicit, though somewhere could be a powerline cro

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

On 24.10.2014 20:53, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > I stumbled over some maxheight=none tags on motorways, that did not even > pass under a bridge. I found that this is the most frequent value of > maxheight (2889 of 41474). [...] > For bridges without sign, there is no recommendation in the English wiki, >

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

.@volki.at] Lähetetty: 25. lokakuuta 2014 0:29 Vastaanottaja: tagging@openstreetmap.org Aihe: Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean? On 24.10.2014 20:53, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > I stumbled over some maxheight=none tags on motorways, that did not even > pass under a bridge. I found that

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

> 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 is the typical situation in all areas that I've been to. In some (all?) countries there is s

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

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 is the typical situation in all areas that I've been to.

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

__ >Lähettäjä: Friedrich Volkmann [b...@volki.at] >Lähetetty: 25. lokakuuta 2014 0:29 >Vastaanottaja: tagging@openstreetmap.org >Aihe: Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean? > >On 24.10.2014 20:53, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >> I stumbled over some maxheight=

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

r to signposted limits >> do not represent the original usages of the tag - only some access tags >> referred to legal accessibility. >> >> -- >> alv >> >> ---------- >> >> Lähettäjä: Friedrich Volkmann [b...@volki.at] >> Lähetetty: 25. lok

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

Tom Pfeifer writes: > > I stumbled over some maxheight=none tags on motorways, that did not even > pass under a bridge. I found that this is the most frequent value of > maxheight (2889 of 41474). Tom, thanks for bringing this up. As the author of Maxheight Map ([1], [2]) I'd like to put some

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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] what does maxheight=none mean?

2014-10-27 20:21 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann : > But when > we see nothing, it's plain wrong to add something to the database. E.g. > when > there's no building, you wouldn't draw an area and tag it building=no. For > the same reason, you shouldn't make up a maxheight=none (or unsigned) when > th

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

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > (...) But when we see nothing, it's plain wrong to add something to the > database. But it's a common practice today in OSM. It seems you missed the long discussions about "noname=yes" or "oneway=no". Such tags don't say "here is noth

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

2014-10-29 13:08 GMT+01:00 Pieren : > Btw, I'm also in favour of "maxheight=unsigned" maybe "unmarked" would be more English than "unsigned"? Alternatively it could also be "default"? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

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

why would we treat maxheight different from maxspeed ? I thought the consensus for maxspeed was to tag the maxspeed explicitly and the "reason" in source:maxspeed So why can't we fill in the default value for unsigned bridges explicitly , so e.g. maxheight=4 and add source:maxheight=:default ?

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

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > So why can't we fill in the default value for unsigned bridges explicitly , > so e.g. maxheight=4 and add source:maxheight=:default ? I don't know the max height in my country. And probably most of the contributors don't. So the simple "maxhei

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

Then it happens that a 3 m bridge that for some reason has no sign gets a 4 m tag. maxheight is different from maxspeed in some aspects. Marc Gemis wrote on 2014-10-29 13:51: why would we treat maxheight different from maxspeed ? I thought the consensus for maxspeed was to tag the maxspeed ex

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

2014-10-29 13:51 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis : > why would we treat maxheight different from maxspeed ? > > I thought the consensus for maxspeed was to tag the maxspeed explicitly > and the "reason" in source:maxspeed > > So why can't we fill in the default value for unsigned bridges explicitly > , so e.

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

2014-10-29 14:01 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer : > Then it happens that a 3 m bridge that for some reason has no sign gets a > 4 m tag. examples? What is "some reason"? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstre

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

In Belgium the maximum height for a vehicle is 4m (on all roads, whether there is a bridge or not). So without sign a bridge should allow vehicles under the maximum height to pass. There are exceptions, which requires a special permit (pubic transport). Then the maximum height is 4.4m meters. I ass

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

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-29 14:05: 2014-10-29 14:01 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer: Then it happens that a 3 m bridge that for some reason has no sign gets a 4 m tag. examples? What is "some reason"? - rural track never had sign posted - neglected road, sign fallen off - unsigned road

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

An example would be where the sign had fallen off, or been stolen by vandals. On October 29, 2014 8:05:10 AM CDT, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >2014-10-29 14:01 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer : > >> Then it happens that a 3 m bridge that for some reason has no sign >gets a >> 4 m tag. > > > > >examples? W

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

On 29/10/2014, Pieren wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > >> (...) But when we see nothing, it's plain wrong to add something to the >> database. > > But it's a common practice today in OSM. It seems you missed the long > discussions about "noname=yes" or "oneway

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

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:24 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > And both tags are > definitive, whereas "maxheight:signed=no" (or whatever) is just > waiting for a better tooled or experienced mapper to do the survey. No. The survey is done : "there is no legal height restriction under this bridge".

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

On 30/10/2014, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:24 PM, moltonel 3x Combo > wrote: > >> And both tags are >> definitive, whereas "maxheight:signed=no" (or whatever) is just >> waiting for a better tooled or experienced mapper to do the survey. > > No. The survey is done : "there is no leg

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

1) In many jurisdictions the ultimate permit and authority come from a state sponsored map of restrictions. For example http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/permits/stars.htm (warning: requires crufty Microsoft software). 2) Consider that many bridges cross at an angle, meaning there's more clearanc

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

On 29.10.2014 13:08, Pieren wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > >> (...) But when we see nothing, it's plain wrong to add something to the >> database. > > But it's a common practice today in OSM. It seems you missed the long > discussions about "noname=yes" or

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

2014-11-04 23:33 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann : > It does not matter if the name is just unset or if noname=yes is set, as > either of these tags deserve verification > there is a subtle difference, in that it is very common in OSM to trace from aerial imagery without any survey, and in these c

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

On 05.11.2014 10:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > there is a subtle difference, in that it is very common in OSM to trace from > aerial imagery without any survey, and in these cases you obviously won't be > able to enter names. Therefor streets without names in OSM but with names in > the real wor