Steve Hill:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>> Well, there was a note on Map Features saying not to do it, but until
>> recently it didn't say what you _should_ do.
>
> Until recently there was no approved tag to do it. A lot of people
> promoted the idea of just never adding ro
Steve Hill wrote:
> If you don't go by the definitions in Map Features, what definitions do
> you go by? As far as you are concerned, what is the difference between an
> unclassified and a tertiary? If we don't have some agreed definition, the
> tags become meaningless since the meaning will var
My two cents, or Kurush here in Northern Cyprus.
The road tag is a good thing, as it lets one and all know that further work
needs to be done surveying etc.
The question for me is; what counts as an unclassified road?
Here, *most* roads are 1.5 cars wide, no markings whatsoever.
But, the vast
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> And that's fine: you seem to place more of an emphasis on the Gospel
> According To Map Features than I do
If you don't go by the definitions in Map Features, what definitions do
you go by? As far as you are concerned, what is the difference betwe
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Well, there was a note on Map Features saying not to do it, but until
> recently it didn't say what you _should_ do.
Until recently there was no approved tag to do it. A lot of people
promoted the idea of just never adding roads without knowing thei
Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>>> Inside housing estates sounds like
>>> living_street me. Maybe the word 'estate' means something else in the
>>> UK than I think.
>> Th
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Have they really? I don't recall ever seeing this, and I do quite a
> lot of rural mapping.
Well, there was a note on Map Features saying not to do it, but until
recently it didn't say what you _should_ do.
Gerv
___
talk ma
Alex Wilson wrote:
> Perhaps a compromise would be to add a new tag: something like
> 'needs_review=true'. After a revisit of the road, the tag can be
> removed and the road classification left as is or modified as appropriate.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alex
>
Wouldn't it be better to have a last_reviewed
Steve Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
>> Er, I've driven past that one a handful of times (some friends
>> used to
>> live in Pontardawe) and if it's the road I'm thinking of - down
>> towards the KFC - it _is_ unclassified. Well, either that or
>> tertiary;
>
> I
age-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:talk-
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Hill
>Sent: 11 July 2008 2:57 PM
>To: Richard Fairhurst
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
>
>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Er, I've driven past that one a handful of times (some friends used to
> live in Pontardawe) and if it's the road I'm thinking of - down
> towards the KFC - it _is_ unclassified. Well, either that or tertiary;
It can't possibly be unclassified - an
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote:
> At least the rules governing 20mph areas (not specifically Home Zones) have
> been relaxed a bit to make them easier to implement (though Cambridgeshire is
> till very reluctant, places like Hull and Portsmouth have been really
> progressive on this).
T
On 11/07/2008 10:26, Steve Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote:
>
>> The equivalent here, to which the tag would be applied, is known as
>> "Home Zone", and it has a specific sign:
>> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/general/coll_newroadsignsandmarkingsleaf/dft_roads_022863-16.
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote:
> I don't see the problem in that example:
>
> highway=residential
> maxspeed=50
Yes, in that case. Although I think tagging roads lined with houses as
"highway=tertiary, abutters=residential" is better - really the only
difference between a tertiary road
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote:
> The equivalent here, to which the tag would be applied, is known as
> "Home Zone", and it has a specific sign:
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/general/coll_newroadsignsandmarkingsleaf/dft_roads_022863-16.jpg
> (which is taken from this page
> http://
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> But from the your description here, what do you tag
> roads that are 30mph and don't have a centre line? i.e. the single
> most common type here.
That's a bit of a judgement call depending on the situation I think. Most
of the streets on hous
On 11/07/2008 09:43, Steve Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>
>> I don't want to be annoying, but what about the ordinary roads, which
>> don't fit in the above classification. With houses on both side but
>> limited to 50km/h for example.
>
> Well, this is why I d
On 11/07/2008 09:43, Steve Hill wrote:
> The definition of living_street is a bit vague in the wiki. A relevant
> bit seems to be:
> "Simply tagging them with something like highway=residential, max_speed=7,
> motorcar=yes, motorcycle=yes, bicycle=yes"
>
> Which implies to me that the living_st
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>
>> I don't want to be annoying, but what about the ordinary roads, which
>> don't fit in the above classification. With houses on both side but
>> limited to 50km/h for exa
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> I don't want to be annoying, but what about the ordinary roads, which
> don't fit in the above classification. With houses on both side but
> limited to 50km/h for example.
Well, this is why I don't like the highway=residential tag.
> Inside h
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unclassified:
> Narrower than a tertiary, usually without a dotted line along the middle
> and usually with a relatively high speed limit (although you might not want
> to drive anywhere near that speed :)
>
> Residential:
>
is information that I had
> carefully collected.
>
> I accept that there are a large number of incorrectly tagged roads
> out there, but correct them, don't delete info on the offchance.
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
> > Message: 2
&g
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
> If you know they are truly residential roads, then why not retag them as
> such?
Because they are part of a large number of roads that I know are not
unclassified, but were tagged as such. So I have retagged them to
highlight the f
Steve Hill wrote:
> A dual carriageway that was tagged as highway=unclassified:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.67075&lon=-3.91377&zoom=16&layers=B00FTF
Er, I've driven past that one a handful of times (some friends used to
live in Pontardawe) and if it's the road I'm thinking of - down
Steve Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Sent: 10 July 2008 11:59 AM
>To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
>
>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
>
>> You keep saying t
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
> You keep saying that but you haven't given a good example. Can you?
A dual carriageway that was tagged as highway=unclassified:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.67075&lon=-3.91377&zoom=16&layers=B00FTF
A bunch of residential ro
Steve Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Sent: 10 July 2008 11:46 AM
>To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
>
>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
>
>> But any autom
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
> But any automatic retagging would change those roads which are truly
> unclassified (and maybe have been surveyed by others) to highway=road.
Yes, and they would have to be resurveyed because at the moment it is
impossible to tell wh
Steve Hill wrote:
>Sent: 10 July 2008 10:20 AM
>To: elvin ibbotson
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
>
>I know that they are not unclassified, but couldn't tell you what they
>really are without actually going and surveying them.
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, elvin ibbotson wrote:
If you believe they are wrongly tagged (I would avoid the word "misclassified"
when referring to an unclassified road ;-) presumably you have a good idea
what classification they are, so why not just re-tag them as primary, tertiary
or whatever?
I kno
Steve Hill wrote:
> You misunderstand the problem - the problem isn't that the classification
> on OSM doesn't match the official classification. The problem is that
> until highway=road was approved, there was no classification for "it's a
> road but I can't remember what type", so people have u
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote:
> We've gone round and round the issue of what road classification means many
> times before. With a few dissenters, the consensus has generally been that
> you tag what you find on the ground. This sometimes contradicts the
> "official" classification. Som
From: Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 9 July 2008 15:36:03 BDT
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
Following the approval of the highway=road tag, I've set about
aggressively changing a lot of the highway=unclassified roads
around Swansea, tha
this information that I had carefully
> collected.
>
> I accept that there are a large number of incorrectly tagged roads out
> there, but correct them, don't delete info on the offchance.
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 1
er of incorrectly tagged roads out there,
but correct them, don't delete info on the offchance.
Regards,
David
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:36:03 +0100 (BST)
> From: Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
> To: talk@openstre
On 09/07/2008 16:03, Steve Hill wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Chris Hill wrote:
>
>> I would be strongly against a global change of highway=unclassified - all of
>> the roads I have tagged as unclassified deserve to be so. I have been
>> working partly on a very rural area, where many of the roa
At 05:03 PM 9/07/2008, Steve Hill wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Chris Hill wrote:
>
>> I would be strongly against a global change of highway=unclassified - all of
>> the roads I have tagged as unclassified deserve to be so. I have been
>> working partly on a very rural area, where many of the roa
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Chris Hill wrote:
> I would be strongly against a global change of highway=unclassified - all of
> the roads I have tagged as unclassified deserve to be so. I have been
> working partly on a very rural area, where many of the roads are unclassified
> (country lanes). To ha
Steve Hill wrote:
> However, after starting to do this, I've realised just how many of the
> roads are misclassified - I'd estimate that well over 80% of the roads
> tagged as highway=unclassified are, infact, not unclassified roads.
That 80% figure surprises me, a lot.
Most roads _should_ be ei
Steve Hill wrote:
> Following the approval of the highway=road tag, I've set about
> aggressively changing a lot of the highway=unclassified roads around
> Swansea, that I believe are misclassified, to highway=road, with the
> intention that they can then be surveyed and reclassified correctly.
Following the approval of the highway=road tag, I've set about
aggressively changing a lot of the highway=unclassified roads around
Swansea, that I believe are misclassified, to highway=road, with the
intention that they can then be surveyed and reclassified correctly.
However, after starting
41 matches
Mail list logo
