Re: [Tagging] SF Muni tram lines are layer=1?
On Monday 17 December 2012 18:13:37 Clay Smalley wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.comwrote: I noticed the majority of the trackage of the San Francisco Muni lines are tagged as layer=1, while the streets along which they run have no layer tag (an implied layer=0). If the Muni lines are layer=1, it is my understanding that the Muni lines should be physically above the street. Since this is not the case and the lines run at street level, should I remove the layer tag on these specific tracks (to imply layer=0)? Soo, it's okay for me to remove the layer tag on _these_ bits of track? Yes it is. Ben ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] agglomération
On Wednesday 21 November 2012 20:52:50 sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote: That's the current state of recommendation, but maybe we could start discussing it to see if that's a good idea to apply speed limits on roads inside a bounding polygon Polygons are a bad idea to map built-up areas. It's not uncommon that there's a bridge where the road on top belongs to the built-up area, but the road below does not. Or tunnels going under a built-up area, with the tunnel itself not part of it. Ben ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Variable max speed corridors
On Friday 30 December 2011 06:32:43 Martijn van Exel wrote: On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 22:12 -0600, Martijn van Exel wrote: Variable max speed corridors are nothing new for Europe, but they apparently are a novelty for the US. Is there an established tagging convention for this? http://www.katu.com/news/local/Variable-speed-limit-signs-are-coming-to- Portland-136326623.html For this area, the maxspeed will never be over 50 mph, so I don't see a reason to change the existing maxspeed. I don't either. An additional tag may be appropriate though. maxspeed=signals is mentioned on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Maxspeed#discussed_ future_extensions but that would override any fixed maxspeed. Maybe maxspeed:variable=yes. I'm using these tags: maxspeed=variable and to specify somewhat to give you a range on what to expect: maxspeed:variable:max=50 maxspeed:variable:min=30 It's mostly being used here for zone 30's near schools where the signs are turned on when children are going to or coming from school, and also for highways with digital speed signals. Greetings Ben ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] convention for multiple maxspeed values
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/4/25 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au: The signs I saw applied to trucks and buses though, more than just hgv/goods. As Tobias said, your suggestion is suitable, Id add the suggestion of maxspeed:bus also. bus in OSM is defined as a bus performing public transport service [1]. I recently added tourist_bus as this was required for local jurisdiction (I found an explicit sign: tourist buses [2]). There is also another issue with busses: the wiki definition (in [1]) defines busses as vehicles with more than 12 seating positions, which surely is some national legislation, but in other countries this number might vary (e.g. in Germany it is 8) It's probably more than 8 passengers + 1 driver in Germany as well, so a bus has at least 10 seats (including driver). so I suggest to adjust this text to a generic term. Even better would be to just not define these vehicles internationally at all and let each jurisdiction decide on which vehicle tags to use for what. Making international definitions only confuse new people when they later see other rules for their country and drive them towards tagging wrong things. And it has been shown often enough: you can't mold the entire world into one tag set. Greetings Ben ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] difference between cycletrack and cycleway
Sander Deryckere wrote: This mail is about the different (and incompatible) usages of the tag highway=cycleway [...] So the sollution create a new tag comes to the mind. I believe this is the preferred sollution, but* I ask your input about what the tag would be*. We could - create one new tag and leave highway=cycleway for the solitaire cycleway (which is the most used type). - or create two new tags for the different ways. This makes it easy to deprecate the old highway=cycleway tag and replace them by new. I look forward to all reactions. We've already solved this in Belgium (and talk-be@ is the better place to discuss this since this rule is different in every country): highway=cycleway is to be used when it is signed with the round blue sign of a cycleway, regardless of its location. Most of these will indeed be cycleways belonging to a road, but there are a few cycleways on itself in the country (even though it's IMHO not the best option according to the traffic code) for other paths that don't belong to a road where cars can go, use highway=path -- and add access tags if there are other traffic signs, like vehicle=no + bicycle=yes A router should detect the highway=cycleway parallel to the road and make use of it (probably easier said than done). Greetings Ben ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] difference between cycletrack and cycleway
Sander Deryckere wrote: Sorry to post this in the wrong mailing list then. So almost all cycleways going through the country should be tagged as paths (since they rarely have such a sign). Well, then there is a lot of work to do. I believe this discussion can be closed. This page may be helpful to know what tags to use: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths Greetings Ben ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Wow. The OSM wiki never ceases to disappoint with its limitless provision of confusing, badly written, half thought-out crap. So we have a page that says implies access=no and then happily contradicts itself by saying an entrance that can be opened or closed to get through the barrier. That's can be opened (access=yes), not can't be opened (access=no). It's probably just as well the wiki documents, not defines. And given the vast preponderance of highway=gate nodes within (say) highway=footway ways, the wiki docs look pretty unambiguously wrong. Anyway, follow-ups to tagg...@. The problem with it as I see it is that it makes use of access tags to define what can pass. I'm pretty sure that right now a lot of barriers are only tagged with bicycle=yes while at the same time there's nothing at those barriers that prevent access to mopeds or even motorcycles, or horses. So for barriers we want something that describes the physical state of the barrier (and specifically how big the openings are). And this should be something general like pedestrians only (and this would exclude e.g. pushchairs), small traffic (pedestrians, bicycles, mopeds, etc), and wide traffic (cars and everything else), and an extra limitation on horse drivers and some other ones (needs to be thought out first obviously). After all, if you get off your bicycle, you become a pedestrian, but some of these barriers don't allow you to get a bicycle to the other side even with a lot of acrobatics, something your bicycle router might be interested in if you tell it to allow small parts to be walked next to your bicycle. And if there are explicit signs limiting the traffic to specific vehicle classes, *then* you should use access tags. Furthermore, in many cases, extra tags aren't really needed anyway on the barrier nodes, the tags on the paths or roads behind the barrier usually have all the needed tags. If a gate is always closed then a road behind it may often be access=private already. So my idea: define sensible physical defaults for each barrier type (barrier=bollard blocks wide traffic for example). And if it's not really possible to make a good default (like barrier=gate) then by default allow everything that's allowed on the highways at both sides of that gate. Greetings Ben ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Zone 30 (maxspeed)
Sebastian Klein wrote: usages tag -- --- 944zone:maxspeed=DE:30 631zone:traffic=DE:30 516source:maxspeed=traffic_zone 433source:maxspeed=DE:zone30 152zone:speed=30 140maxspeed:zone=yes 40source:maxspeed=zone30 Also add maxspeed:zone=school for a zone 30 which has the status of a school zone in Belgium (has the same zone 30 signs but with an extra traffic sign on top and has a special definition in our traffic code). There's also a vacation zone, but I don't think anyone has been tagging those in a special way. btw, I created the maxspeed:zone= tag because it (a) allows extension to a few other zonal restrictions (no parking zone etc), and (b) allows extra values like school. Greetings Ben ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposing bazaars
Please make a proposal page first before making the new Tag:highway=bazaar page. This looks like a tag which needs quite some discussion first. Greetings Ben pavithran wrote: First of all I am using a non native english name called 'bazaar' which most of you might have heard from 'cathedral and bazaar' . What is bazaar ? Shopping streets in developing countries tend to be very narrow and are buzzing with activity . They are heavily crowded with less chance of trucks,cars,auto rikshaws,motorcycles and bicylces passing through them . But nevertheless they do pass through them somehow or the other . The traffic is haphazard . How to map bazaar ? Mapping shops in bazaars is completely impossible(atleast to show) with current zoom level . Its also hard to accurately get a point with just a tracker . Being physically present with a specially designed POI collector could help map the bazaars which are closely connected . How to tag ? Well I started a wiki page which could be further expanded . http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbazaar Regards, Pavithran ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What's a power=station?
Steve Bennett wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: d) I don't think it's a good idea to change a tag description two years after it was documented, because the wording is slightly wrong for some parts of the english speaking world. The wording is *completely* wrong for the *entire* english speaking world. Definition of power=generator: power station Definition of power=station: substation Definition of power=sub_station: transformer I don't think you can get much wronger than that. And it doesn't appear to be a US english vs other english problem. Although power station (to mean power=generator) is more common outside the US, I don't think they use the term there to mean power=sub_station (as implied). Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. foot=no would also literally mean that people would be allowed if they had no feet. Maybe the English speaking world should start joining the rest of the world which have to learn definitions of each tag anyway. So OSM may have awkward tags for English speaking persons, but if we really have to try to resolve all tags that would look strange in some language (e.g. amenity=cafe is not what we call a café in Dutch) then the only option would be to use index numbers (amenity=135...) (*). This is really a non-issue. Just learn the definition as it has been written on the wiki for years instead of blindly following your definition of a certain word, like the rest of the world. Now you're telling that the entire world has to learn new definitions because your definition of the word isn't the same as the defintion of the tag. Greetings, Ben (*) Oh, right, actually we do use index numbers, except that we use power=station instead of power=4569. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
James Livingston wrote: On 05/12/2009, at 4:14 AM, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote: I guess it is implied that when you are not allowed to carry a bike you are not allowed to ride it neither. True, but when I tag bicycle=no, I don't intend to imply anything about whether or not you are allowed to carry a bike. It may be allowed. It may not be allowed. I'd hope that bicycle=no would have the same implications for having a bicycle without riding it as other *=no tags would for their transports. For example I would guess that where horse=no is used, you often can't walk your horse as well as not riding it. So maybe having a separate tag for things which are not allowed (e.g. prohibited=bicycle;horse;explosives) could be the way to go. Don't know how it's in other countries, but if you walk next to your horse over here, you're still its driver, so you have to obey all the traffic rules like if you were riding it (you're not walking it as a pedestrian on the pavement I presume). If a traffic signs doesn't allow horses, you can't take the bicycle loophole where you're not considered driving it when you're walking not it. Same for motorcycles for example: if you're walking next to a motorcycle with the engine turned off, you're still driving that motorcycle. You'd even be allowed to enter roads that don't allow pedestrians. Since access rules apply to drivers of those vehicles, it's not really an issue here. Greetings Ben ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Steve Bennett wrote: On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: highway=footway - a path intended for pedestrian use highway=cycleway - a path intended for pedestrian and cycle use highway=bridleway - a path intended for pedestrian and horse use[1] Boy, I like this way of thinking. Of course, it must be controversial given the preceding comments, but it does make a lot of sense. And at one time it was that easy in OSM, but the real world really isn't. In some countries it may work fine, but in other countries the distinction between the three has no connection with the actual situation and would introduce a number of ambiguities where you don't really know anymore whether something is allowed or not. Take cycleways for example. Over here mopeds are allowed on paths that are signed as cycleway. Now, on the other hand we also had paths which weren't cycleways but allowed bicycles (but no mopeds) tagged as cycleway. Conflict between the two: would a route planner now allow mopeds on them or not? Sure, one could explicitly tag the moped=yes/no but (a) mappers forget about it, and (b) even if they don't, they often do not know the exact rules. And not forgetting that (c) traffic code isn't some static thing, it changes over time and what has been allowed on a certain path with certain signs, may not be in future. Hence the addition of highway=path was actually a welcome additional tag. Now we can tag the paths that are legal cycleways as highway=cycleway (and likewise for footpaths and bridleways), and other paths with the generic highway=path. The traffic signs on those paths can then be translated to access tags. Greetings Ben ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
