Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Rails with trails
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Masi Master masi-mas...@gmx.de wrote: Hi, Some month ago I tried to start a proposal for rail-trails: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/rail_trail I startet it with 'rail_trail=yes', but on talk-page some are against this, because highway=cycleway/footway + railway=abandoned are enough. Now it propose only the possible rendering. Yeah, I think the way you express it now is appropriate: just highway=cycleway, and railway=abandoned. (I don't necessarily agree with your description that rail trail = autobahn for bicycles. Often, around here at least, they're unpaved, and usually intended for tourism and recreation rather than commuting, for instance.) For the original question of how to tag a rail with trail (I've also heard the term railside trail), is it not sufficient to simply map the two ways separately? Example here: http://osm.org/go/uG4lkKxG?layers=C Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
Hi all, Someone on the help site is questioning about a missing u-turn restriction on a roundabout junction with splitter islands ([1] in French). The problem is when you take one roundabout exit and want to come back to the roundabout, a router like OSRM is telling you to immediatly turn left after the divider although it is not allowed on the ground. He is pointing one example on OSRM : http://map.project-osrm.org/?hl=frloc=47.291040,-2.356550loc=47.291970,-2.356720z=18center=47.291347,-2.357208df=0 With the aearial imagery (can be enabled on OSRM), we can see that the u-turn is forbiden on about 10..15 meters after the splitter island with a painted continuous line on the ground. I don't think a no-turn-left-restriction relation is the best solution here since we just indicate the restriction at the splitter island node but we don't say at which point it will be possible to u-turn. I think the best solution is to represent the continuous painted line on the 15 meters road segment. The best tag I've found so far is the divider proposal on the wiki ([2]) but is not very popular ([3]). Any thought ? Pieren [1] http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/13939/interdiction-de-tourner-sur-entreesortie-de-rond-point [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divided_road [3] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/divider ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
I think no_left_turn is the best solution. The line on the middle of the street is not a u-turn indicator, it is an overtake indicator which can be tagged with overtaking=no and overtaking=both. Are you sure that the dotted overtake line allows you to make a u-turn? Janko 2012/7/3 Pieren pier...@gmail.com Hi all, Someone on the help site is questioning about a missing u-turn restriction on a roundabout junction with splitter islands ([1] in French). The problem is when you take one roundabout exit and want to come back to the roundabout, a router like OSRM is telling you to immediatly turn left after the divider although it is not allowed on the ground. He is pointing one example on OSRM : http://map.project-osrm.org/?hl=frloc=47.291040,-2.356550loc=47.291970,-2.356720z=18center=47.291347,-2.357208df=0 With the aearial imagery (can be enabled on OSRM), we can see that the u-turn is forbiden on about 10..15 meters after the splitter island with a painted continuous line on the ground. I don't think a no-turn-left-restriction relation is the best solution here since we just indicate the restriction at the splitter island node but we don't say at which point it will be possible to u-turn. I think the best solution is to represent the continuous painted line on the 15 meters road segment. The best tag I've found so far is the divider proposal on the wiki ([2]) but is not very popular ([3]). Any thought ? Pieren [1] http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/13939/interdiction-de-tourner-sur-entreesortie-de-rond-point [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divided_road [3] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/divider ___ 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] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com I think no_left_turn is the best solution. Actually, no_u_turn would be better. It's the same for the router, but not the same for the user interface. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On 03/07/2012 13:29, Janko Mihelić wrote: I think no_left_turn is the best solution. The line on the middle of the street is not a u-turn indicator, it is an overtake indicator which can be tagged with overtaking=no and overtaking=both. Are you sure that the dotted overtake line allows you to make a u-turn? Not sure about other countries, but in UK and NL a solid line means (formally) no crossing and not no overtaking. For larger vehicles it might be effectively the same thing, but for motorcycles (for example) it's not as they can overtake another motorcycle without crossing the line. So if it's a solid line, that also means no U-turns, and also no left turn (driving on right). Colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Rails with trails
* Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com [2012-07-03 17:22 +1000]: For the original question of how to tag a rail with trail (I've also heard the term railside trail), is it not sufficient to simply map the two ways separately? Example here: http://osm.org/go/uG4lkKxG?layers=C As I understand it, NE2 was looking for a tagging scheme that would allow for searches to find trails on a railway grade. Searching for rail trails is obviously easy; just look for railway=abandoned with a relevant highway= tag. But as things stand now, searching for railside trails is hard; you have to find a pair of ways, one tagged highway= and the other tagged railway=, that are roughly parallel to each other. That's a very complicated search to make, even working from a geodatabase. Adding another tag to the trails would make such searches much more feasible. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl Not sure about other countries, but in UK and NL a solid line means (formally) no crossing and not no overtaking. For larger vehicles it might be effectively the same thing, but for motorcycles (for example) it's not as they can overtake another motorcycle without crossing the line. So if it's a solid line, that also means no U-turns, and also no left turn (driving on right). It's probably the same here, I just didn't know. Well, the router could take the overtake tag into consideration, and make you turn around there. They don't do this yet, but probably will. You still have to put a restriction relation on the node where the roads meet. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: Are you sure that the dotted overtake line allows you to make a u-turn? Well, usually, a no-u-turn restriction is indicated at intersections. The relation restriction in OSM is also desgined for intersection nodes. Here we have a road segment with a solid line which forbids overtaking, u-turning or any kind of crossing the line for all vehicles for the last 10..15 meters before the roundabout. Sometimes it is symbolized with zebras instead of solid lines (a mean to widen the line to an area). The restriction applies on a road segment, not only at the intersection node before the splitter island. That's why I think the relation is not appropriate here. We have to indicate to routers where the u-turn is forbiden on way itself but also on start/end nodes of those ways (like here for the splitter island intersection node). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk The router does need fixing however as U-turns around a roundabout divider island are rarely sensible and should not be treated as a junction. Phil I think this is the wrong way to look at this. If you rely on routers to make this kinds of decisions, you are going to have a lot of problems. What if there was a roundabout island where you were allowed to u-turn? You should put in a allow_roundabout_u_turn or something. Also, some routers are not going to have the same logic. Anyway, if you don't put a no_u_turn restriction in this case, routers are rarely going to route through that, so I think we are safe either way :) Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: Well, the router could take the overtake tag into consideration, and make you turn around there. They don't do this yet, but probably will. I discover the overtake tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking but the wiki doesn't say explicitely that overtaking=no means no u-turn as well. Could we write this assertion ? You still have to put a restriction relation on the node where the roads meet. Hmmm. You mean that all divider island needs a no-u-turn restriction relation ? That will be a huge amount of new relations to create ... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, if you don't put a no_u_turn restriction in this case, routers are rarely going to route through that, so I think we are safe either way :) I think the case can appear very often. Imagine a router based on OSM data and you take the wrong roundabout exit. The router will re-route you and most probably with a u-turn, back to the roundabout (but you are right, because of the delays and distance, most probably after the divider intersection node). But anyway, representing the no-crossing is important for routing and we should consolidate the wiki between the overtaking and divider tags. Could we consider that overtaking=no applies to the end nodes as well, like we do for the oneway restriction ? Pieren Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
Hi Janko, Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 14:12:16 schrieb Janko Mihelić: I think this is the wrong way to look at this. If you rely on routers to make this kinds of decisions, you are going to have a lot of problems. What if there was a roundabout island where you were allowed to u-turn? You should put in a allow_roundabout_u_turn or something. Also, some routers are not going to have the same logic. Anyway, if you don't put a no_u_turn restriction in this case, routers are rarely going to route through that, so I think we are safe either way :) They will happily use that turn for re-routing. *Always* tag such restrictions. This is not limited to roundabouts, it is scary how many turn restrictions are missing in general because people think they are obvious. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
Hi Pieren, Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 14:21:18 schrieb Pieren: I think the case can appear very often. Imagine a router based on OSM data and you take the wrong roundabout exit. The router will re-route you and most probably with a u-turn, back to the roundabout (but you are right, because of the delays and distance, most probably after the divider intersection node). But anyway, representing the no-crossing is important for routing and we should consolidate the wiki between the overtaking and divider tags. Indeed. Could we consider that overtaking=no applies to the end nodes as well, like we do for the oneway restriction ? In what way does oneway=yes apply to end nodes? Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Pieren pier...@gmail.com On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: But anyway, representing the no-crossing is important for routing and we should consolidate the wiki between the overtaking and divider tags. I agree, we could put something like routers should offer 180° only when you have overtake=both Could we consider that overtaking=no applies to the end nodes as well, like we do for the oneway restriction ? Maybe for cases when two out of three roads are oneway, and the third has overtake=no.. But even in that case, I think a strong rule like no_left_turn restriction is the best solution. Everything else makes things complicated.. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Rails with trails
Phil! Gold wrote: As I understand it, NE2 was looking for a tagging scheme that would allow for searches to find trails on a railway grade. That might not have the desired effect in all cases: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.068937lon=-4.077433zoom=18layers=C :-) Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Eckhart Wörner ewoer...@kde.org wrote: In what way does oneway=yes apply to end nodes? I mean : you don't add a no-turn-left or no-turn-right restriction relation at intersections where one of the streets is oneway. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: In France, a solid line means do not cross. It is more than do not overtake. +1, I guess it's the same everywhere. AFAIK there is no difference between a double solid line and a single one. You are not allowed to cross them (but you could if you didn't care about traffic rules, and you can if you are walking). This implies generally a legal restriction against overtaking, turning left and u-turns. The router does need fixing however as U-turns around a roundabout divider island are rarely sensible and should not be treated as a junction. well, whether something is sensible or not depends on a lot of parameters (e.g. the amount of other traffic). We have to tell the router that there is a solid line in the first place, something we currently mostly don't do (see taginfo, http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/divider has only 192 occurencies on ways). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: Well, the router could take the overtake tag into consideration, and make you turn around there. They don't do this yet, but probably will. I discover the overtake tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking but the wiki doesn't say explicitely that overtaking=no means no u-turn as well. Could we write this assertion ? -1 overtaking isn't used very much either (less than 2000 times), and as written above: a solid line is not only about overtaking and u-turns: you are never allowed to cross it in any case (besides you are an emergency vehicle in case of an emergency or similar, e.g. you are also not allowed to turn left). I think that the divider-proposal has a much better semantics compared to overtaking. Lets tag directly what we mean, not overtaking=no if we want to say no u-turn. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On 3 July 2012 15:03, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/3 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: Well, the router could take the overtake tag into consideration, and make you turn around there. They don't do this yet, but probably will. I discover the overtake tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking but the wiki doesn't say explicitely that overtaking=no means no u-turn as well. Could we write this assertion ? -1 overtaking isn't used very much either (less than 2000 times), and as written above: a solid line is not only about overtaking and u-turns: you are never allowed to cross it in any case (besides you are an emergency vehicle in case of an emergency or similar, e.g. you are also not allowed to turn left). I think that the divider-proposal has a much better semantics compared to overtaking. Lets tag directly what we mean, not overtaking=no if we want to say no u-turn. In my opinion the most straight forward is to treat legal separation (i.e. solid line) the same way as physical separation, that is to have two ways, one in each direction. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: In my opinion the most straight forward is to treat legal separation (i.e. solid line) the same way as physical separation, that is to have two ways, one in each direction. if you make no distinction at all this has the problem that you will get worse results for other use cases (pedestrians, emergency vehicles, bankrobbers, ...). IMHO it is important to be able to differentiate between not possible (physically) and not legal. You could associate the two ways with a relation (i.e. lane-mapping, e.g. area relation), but I feel that is would somehow be overkill. Why not a simple tag that says: there is a solid line between the two opposing lanes (- divider). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On 3 July 2012 15:20, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: In my opinion the most straight forward is to treat legal separation (i.e. solid line) the same way as physical separation, that is to have two ways, one in each direction. if you make no distinction at all this has the problem that you will get worse results for other use cases (pedestrians, emergency vehicles, bankrobbers, ...). IMHO it is important to be able to differentiate between not possible (physically) and not legal. You could associate the two ways with a relation (i.e. lane-mapping, e.g. area relation), but I feel that is would somehow be overkill. Why not a simple tag that says: there is a solid line between the two opposing lanes (- divider). Physical separation doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to cross, it might be no more than a 20cm high curb that an emergency vehicle or a SUV easily could cross. I still think it's more straight forward to map as two separate ways than to add tags to provide a logically consistent view about how to drive from A to B in a legal way. Bank robbers and emergency vehicle drivers make anyway their own decision on the spot. And about pedestrians, I add sidewalks around such street and tag the street with foot=no. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Rails with trails
* SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk [2012-07-03 13:37 +0100]: Phil! Gold wrote: As I understand it, NE2 was looking for a tagging scheme that would allow for searches to find trails on a railway grade. That might not have the desired effect in all cases: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.068937lon=-4.077433zoom=18layers=C I would submit that an explicit tagging scheme such as the one NE2 suggests would handle that case quite well, because most people would not tag the Llanberis Path as a rail trail. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
Hi Martin, Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 14:56:21 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: +1, I guess it's the same everywhere. AFAIK there is no difference between a double solid line and a single one. You are not allowed to cross them (but you could if you didn't care about traffic rules, and you can if you are walking). This implies generally a legal restriction against overtaking, turning left and u-turns. No, it doesn't. * A divider does not imply overtaking restrictions, as has been argued before. In most (all?) countries, you are still allowed to overtake as long as you don't cross the divider. * A divider does not prevent left-turns or u-turns. Reason: a divider is a linear feature, it is applied to ways, and implications on nodes (especially end nodes) are completely undefined. A closer look reveals that dividers at nodes are way more complicated, and we already have an answer to that: turn restrictions. well, whether something is sensible or not depends on a lot of parameters (e.g. the amount of other traffic). We have to tell the router that there is a solid line in the first place, something we currently mostly don't do (see taginfo, http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/divider has only 192 occurencies on ways). No surprise since divider seems to be an abandonded feature. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
Hi Markus, Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 15:38:57 schrieb Markus Lindholm: Physical separation doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to cross, it might be no more than a 20cm high curb that an emergency vehicle or a SUV easily could cross. I still think it's more straight forward to map as two separate ways than to add tags to provide a logically consistent view about how to drive from A to B in a legal way. Bank robbers and emergency vehicle drivers make anyway their own decision on the spot. And about pedestrians, I add sidewalks around such street and tag the street with foot=no. There is a reason why this is a bad idea: routing along linear features has to work under the assumption that routes are just paths in the data. By splitting ways, you're removing quite a lot of possible routes; e.g. try pedestrian routing to the house opposite to yours. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com I still think it's more straight forward to map as two separate ways than to add tags to provide a logically consistent view about how to drive from A to B in a legal way. Bank robbers and emergency vehicle drivers make anyway their own decision on the spot. And about pedestrians, I add sidewalks around such street and tag the street with foot=no. Does this mean you separate the road when overtaking is not allowed, and put them together when it's allowed? How can this be better than tagging with overtake=no or divider=legal? Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Eckhart Wörner ewoer...@kde.org wrote: No, it doesn't. * A divider does not imply overtaking restrictions, as has been argued before. In most (all?) countries, you are still allowed to overtake as long as you don't cross the divider. True for overtaking. But it' correct for turning left/right and u-turn restrictions. * A divider does not prevent left-turns or u-turns. Reason: a divider is a linear feature, it is applied to ways, and implications on nodes (especially end nodes) are completely undefined. Hmm, look at the wiki first: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divided_road and consider this assumption: By default, when a divided way has a junction with a non-divided way, the division is unbroken. But I agree that such assumptions are very hard to keep in OSM (where usually a tag shall be self-explanatory). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Jul 3, 2012 8:07 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm, look at the wiki first: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divided_road and consider this assumption: By default, when a divided way has a junction with a non-divided way, the division is unbroken. This is something that southern California really needs some serious help with. There's quite a few dual carriageway roads with braids at intersections introduced after the TIGER cleanup. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
The key isn´t perfect as previous years discussion have showed, it would be better if there where a recognized key for landcover. The key natural suggests that it is a topographic feature, and in some places it could be so. The key landcover isn´t the best name for a key either as this tag suggests an area without any cover, that is the bare rock. The value bare_rock used to tag areas of uncovered badrock does have some competition. The obvious one being the shorter rock, that word do have too many similar uses for tagging: a single large boulder, a underwater hazard, a small skerrie in the sea, a larger steep-faced isle or even similar steepfaced hills on land. all of these being typical easily identified geogrphic objects usually tagged using the key natural. Another good alternative would be the value bedrock, as it makes clear that it is a solid surface of rock, in fact the bedrock, showing up. My initial trouble with this was that it might ruin future attempts to mmake geological tags for the bedrock, even when the bedrock isn´t visible. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-proposal-RFC-natural-bare-rock-tp5714783p5714940.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Blue flags (Foundation for Environmental Education's Blue flag criteria for beaches and marinas)
I wrote a proposal page in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Blue_flag -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Tagging-Blue-flags-Foundation-for-Environmental-Education-s-Blue-flag-criteria-for-beaches-and-marin-tp5714218p5714943.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On 3 July 2012 16:47, Eckhart Wörner ewoer...@kde.org wrote: Hi Markus, Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 15:38:57 schrieb Markus Lindholm: Physical separation doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to cross, it might be no more than a 20cm high curb that an emergency vehicle or a SUV easily could cross. I still think it's more straight forward to map as two separate ways than to add tags to provide a logically consistent view about how to drive from A to B in a legal way. Bank robbers and emergency vehicle drivers make anyway their own decision on the spot. And about pedestrians, I add sidewalks around such street and tag the street with foot=no. There is a reason why this is a bad idea: routing along linear features has to work under the assumption that routes are just paths in the data. By splitting ways, you're removing quite a lot of possible routes; e.g. try pedestrian routing to the house opposite to yours. Well, my house is by a residential street and there's no solid line in the middle :) Usually the solid line is there for an reason, like that there's lot of traffic. I wouldn't like it if a pedestrian routing engine asked me to cross a six lane heavily trafficked street just because there's no physical separation. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On 3 July 2012 17:02, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com I still think it's more straight forward to map as two separate ways than to add tags to provide a logically consistent view about how to drive from A to B in a legal way. Bank robbers and emergency vehicle drivers make anyway their own decision on the spot. And about pedestrians, I add sidewalks around such street and tag the street with foot=no. Does this mean you separate the road when overtaking is not allowed, and put them together when it's allowed? How can this be better than tagging with overtake=no or divider=legal? I've mostly mapped in cities, where the issue of overtaking isn't that relevant, roads don't change from solid line to broken line just to allow overtaking /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Jul 3, 2012 8:57 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/3 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: In France, a solid line means do not cross. It is more than do not overtake. +1, I guess it's the same everywhere. In Florida, and probably all of the USA, double solid yellow means do not cross TO PASS. You are allowed to cross to turn, such as to make a uturn. To indicate do no cross you need a yellow median island. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 15:40 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Jul 3, 2012 8:57 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/3 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: In France, a solid line means do not cross. It is more than do not overtake. +1, I guess it's the same everywhere. In Florida, and probably all of the USA, double solid yellow means do not cross TO PASS. You are allowed to cross to turn, such as to make a uturn. To indicate do no cross you need a yellow median island. Not in France, there a solid line means do no cross, hence there is a broken line on Autoroutes between the carriageway and hard shoulder. If the line was solid it would prohibit anyone going onto the hard shoulder. In the UK this line is solid. However my point about U-turns around such islands is that there usually just isn't the road width to do a U-turn, It is no more a sensible maneuver than doing a U-turn where a dual carriageway becomes a 2 lane road, such as this http://map.project-osrm.org/NX and the streetview version http://goo.gl/maps/7c48 Whilst not prohibited, an accident whilst doing this is likely to get you the standard catch all of driving without due care and attention and no doubt generate more 'Satnav causes accident' type headlines. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Jul 3, 2012 8:57 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/3 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: In France, a solid line means do not cross. It is more than do not overtake. +1, I guess it's the same everywhere. In Florida, and probably all of the USA, double solid yellow means do not cross TO PASS. You are allowed to cross to turn, such as to make a uturn. To indicate do no cross you need a yellow median island. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging However, whether or not U-turns are allowed at all varies from place to place. Some towns categorically forbid U-turns; some allow them only where signs state they are allowed; some allow them except where signs forbid them; and some towns allow them in general as long as you aren't doing them in a reckless manner. -- 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] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: Physical separation doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to cross, it might be no more than a 20cm high curb that an emergency vehicle or a SUV easily could cross. yes, if you really want to go that deep into detail I suggest you use the area relation or something similar, which allows for exactly this: store detail information about the kind of barrier, including heights and so on. I still think it's more straight forward to map as two separate ways than to add tags to provide a logically consistent view about how to drive from A to B in a legal way. and if there are interruptions in the solid line you will get really ugly separations and reconjuctions every few meters at some places? And about pedestrians, I add sidewalks around such street and tag the street with foot=no. to me this seems wrong. The presence of a sidewalk doesn't automatically imply a foot=no on the street, at least in some jurisdictions. E.g. in Germany as a pedestrian you have to use the street when carrying big loads or in other cases when the sidewalk is not appropriate. It also requires really a lot of connections between the two, which in the real (OSM) world seems to be a problem: the routing in all the places I saw so far got worse with explict sidewalks mapped as footways because of these missing links. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging