Re: [OSM-talk] Fw: Re: Wiki Spam

[Erik Johansson]

deleted

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[John Smith]

--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace  wrote:

> Only if the lanes are marked as separate ways, which they
> normally
> wouldn't be for a narrow road.

They should be, anything other than lanes=2 should be tagged properly, lanes=2 
is implied as that is the usual case for most roads.

A single lane piece of way should be tagged lanes=1 and it usually coincides 
with layer=1,bridge=yes.


  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Roy Wallace]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:32 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
> Actually there is still a junction from when it goes from 2 lanes to 1 lane, 
> and the (usually in .au) give way sign is before the junction of the 2 lanes 
> into one.

Only if the lanes are marked as separate ways, which they normally
wouldn't be for a narrow road.

> Neither of these cases need fudging, in the case of railway=level_crossing 
> it's already in wide spread usage, as for 2 lanes to one this can still be 
> done via proximity searches.

Look, if you insist that a "proximity search" is a better way to
relate a way to a node, as opposed to a relation, I respectfully
disagree. I've got nothing more to say :)

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

[OSM-talk] Fw: Re: Wiki Spam

[John Smith]

--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Kirill Bestoujev  wrote:

> From: Kirill Bestoujev 
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki Spam
> To: "John Smith" 
> Date: Wednesday, 26 August, 2009, 3:44 PM
> Hi,
> 
> Absolutely, like a Russian speaking OSMer I can confirm
> that it is spam - some kind of publicity of boots. It would
> be great to remove it.
> 
> Kirill 
> 
> 
> 2009/8/26 John Smith 
> 
> I searched for Australia on the
> wiki and found this page in Russian that when web translated
> looks like spam:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ugg_Australia_Classic_Short
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> talk mailing list
> 
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> 
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 
> 
> 
> 


  

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

[OSM-talk] Wiki Spam

[John Smith]

I searched for Australia on the wiki and found this page in Russian that when 
web translated looks like spam:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ugg_Australia_Classic_Short


  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[John Smith]

--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace  wrote:

> Good point. Also, how about a straight section of road that
> becomes
> narrow (single lane) in one section, and therefore has a
> stop (or give
> way) sign on one side of the narrow section. There's no
> junction at
> all in this case.

Actually there is still a junction from when it goes from 2 lanes to 1 lane, 
and the (usually in .au) give way sign is before the junction of the 2 lanes 
into one.
 
> This is the risk with using a "fudge" solution (i.e.
> implicitly
> referring to another node using "proximity", rather than
> using a
> relation) - there could be other *unforeseen* cases that
> will break
> the fudge in future...

Neither of these cases need fudging, in the case of railway=level_crossing it's 
already in wide spread usage, as for 2 lanes to one this can still be done via 
proximity searches.


  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Roy Wallace]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Stephen Hope  wrote:
>
> What about railway crossings?  I've seen railway crossings with no
> lights, gates or similar, just a stop sign.  Usually way out in the
> middle of nowhere, so there may not be a routable junction for quite
> some distance, and even if there was, the sign doesn't apply to that
> junction anyway. Would a railway/road crossing count as a "nearest
> node junction", or would it try and apply it to something else?

Good point. Also, how about a straight section of road that becomes
narrow (single lane) in one section, and therefore has a stop (or give
way) sign on one side of the narrow section. There's no junction at
all in this case.

This is the risk with using a "fudge" solution (i.e. implicitly
referring to another node using "proximity", rather than using a
relation) - there could be other *unforeseen* cases that will break
the fudge in future...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[John Smith]

--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Stephen Hope  wrote:
> What about railway crossings?  I've seen railway
> crossings with no
> lights, gates or similar, just a stop sign.  Usually
> way out in the
> middle of nowhere, so there may not be a routable junction
> for quite
> some distance, and even if there was, the sign doesn't
> apply to that
> junction anyway. Would a railway/road crossing count as a
> "nearest
> node junction", or would it try and apply it to something
> else?

I agree, we need more tags to describe the railway crossing's feature set, 
boom_gate=no, lights=no etc, however this is a special case for stop signs 
because they will exist either side of the junction and never applies to the 
railway line. Unlike junctions of road traffic which needs to be differentiated 
from the way.


  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Stephen Hope]

2009/8/26 Roy Wallace :
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:29 AM, John Smith wrote:
>> --- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace  wrote:
>>
>> Pre-processor finds a stop sign, looks for the nearest junction node which 
>> it would already know is a junction for routing purposes.
>
> Not too bad when you put it like that. Thanks :) If this is written up
> as a proposal, I would prefer it worded like that (with reference to a
> *requirement to stop* at the *nearest junction node* when *approached
> from the way on which the node is placed*), rather than referring to
> "stop signs".

What about railway crossings?  I've seen railway crossings with no
lights, gates or similar, just a stop sign.  Usually way out in the
middle of nowhere, so there may not be a routable junction for quite
some distance, and even if there was, the sign doesn't apply to that
junction anyway. Would a railway/road crossing count as a "nearest
node junction", or would it try and apply it to something else?

Stephen

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[John Smith]

--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace  wrote:

> I still think it isn't best-practice, for the reasons I've
> already
> described, but I admit it is attractive if you really,
> really don't
> like relations (for some reason...).

It's not that I dislike relations, I think they're absolutely wonderful for 
somethings, like marking out long sections of motorways instead of individual 
ways. That said I just don't think it's the right tool in this case, ever tried 
to hammer in a nail with a screw driver, sure you can do it but it's not the 
best tool for that job.

> I wonder if you preferred a similar solution for turn
> restrictions
> (i.e. add an additional node to implicitly refer to the
> "nearest
> junction"), to avoid relations for those also? If not, why
> not?

Possibly, but I haven't thought about it, nor have I tagged a turning 
restriction to this point in time, I have had to think about how to tag stop 
signs.


  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Roy Wallace]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:29 AM, John Smith wrote:
> --- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace  wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure that "deducing the meaning of a node tagged
>> with stop
>> from the positions of the ways and nodes in the vicinity"
>> is equally
>> clear. I know you disagree.
>
> Pre-processor finds a stop sign, looks for the nearest junction node which it 
> would already know is a junction for routing purposes.

Not too bad when you put it like that. Thanks :) If this is written up
as a proposal, I would prefer it worded like that (with reference to a
*requirement to stop* at the *nearest junction node* when *approached
from the way on which the node is placed*), rather than referring to
"stop signs".

I still think it isn't best-practice, for the reasons I've already
described, but I admit it is attractive if you really, really don't
like relations (for some reason...).

I wonder if you preferred a similar solution for turn restrictions
(i.e. add an additional node to implicitly refer to the "nearest
junction"), to avoid relations for those also? If not, why not?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[John Smith]

--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace  wrote:

> I'm not sure that "deducing the meaning of a node tagged
> with stop
> from the positions of the ways and nodes in the vicinity"
> is equally
> clear. I know you disagree.

Pre-processor finds a stop sign, looks for the nearest junction node which it 
would already know is a junction for routing purposes.


  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] SOTM videos

[Michael Kugelmann]

Erik Johansson wrote:
> BTW. Getting good video & audio is hard, it takes money with lots and
> lots of time. 
As I already wrote, the Chaos Communication Congress
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Communication_Congress
also succeeds in producing appropriate videos.
If the videos at SOTM would be ALL available at one location in the 
Internet at half the quality compared to CCC I would be totally glad. 
But as of today only the Screen Captures from the state room are 
available, the map room is still completeley missing AFAIK... And the 
number of videos from at Vimeo is still very low...
> So dear Mr. Kugelmann 
Dear Mr. Johansson, you simpley can call me Michael...   ;-)
> please volunteer to record the
> German conference, or the next SOTM.
>   
I already joined the organisation comitee for the "German OSM 
conference" next year. So don't worry about my contribution to OSM. But 
wheter I will be active there in the video-area is not defined at all as 
I am not an video expert.


Best regards,
Michael.


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

[OSM-talk] data for gosmore

[Lukasz Stelmach]

Hello.

I am playing with gosmore a bit but it looks like rubbish :-( It draws
only random ways as vertical and horizontal lines and cannot find even
simpliest ~200m routes. I rebuilt gosmore.pak with only a country osm
file, do I have to use the whole planet for it to work?

-- 
Było mi bardzo miło.   Czwarta pospolita klęska, [...]
>Łukasz< Już nie katolicka lecz złodziejska.  (c)PP


--
Wygraj nawigacje GPS! 14 sztuk czeka.
Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f22f3

begin:vcard
fn;quoted-printable:=C5=81ukasz Stelmach
n;quoted-printable:Stelmach;=C5=81ukasz
email;internet:stl...@poczta.fm
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Roy Wallace]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Peter Childs wrote:
>
> The only time I can see a relation actually helping is with stuff that
> is difficult to map like "no left turn"

Do you realise why you need a relation for "no left turn"? It's
because the restriction *intrinsically involves more than one
way/node*.

The alternative would be to *put a single node 3-5m before the
intersection and tag it restriction=no_left_turn*.

Which, of course, isn't the best way to model the restriction.

And it isn't the best way to model a requirement to stop.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Roy Wallace]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:06 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> Have a look at the awful way someone came up with tagging speed cameras, I 
> couldn't figure it out at the time so I ended up tagging speed cameras as a 
> single node with highway=speed_camera. Why would making it harder or less 
> obvious methods in tagging stop signs make people use them?

What was your difficulty? I'd be happy to help if you like.

When choosing how to model something, the primary goal IMO isn't to
"make people use it", it's to choose the best way to model it.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Joseph Booker wrote:
>
> You gain nothing with the proposals raised compared to relations,
> except some avoidance of relations. With relations the tagging is much
> simpler, it makes sense intuitively when you come across it in the
> data...

Exactly. A question for those who do not like the idea of using a
relation for this - have you used relations previously? Have you tried
out http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop
?

Can we stop talking about whether we like using relations and start
talking about whether a relation is the best way to model something
that intrinsically involves a way AND an intersection?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Pieren wrote:
>
> First interaction is the coordinates/positions of these elements. We
> shouldn't create relations if the information can be deduced from the
> positions. We had a similar discussion about identifying all objects
> inside a polygon (tag "is_in" or a special relation).

Hmm. For the is_in case, I can see that "identifying objects inside a
polygon" is clear enough.

I'm not sure that "deducing the meaning of a node tagged with stop
from the positions of the ways and nodes in the vicinity" is equally
clear. I know you disagree.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:06 PM, James Livingston wrote:
>
> Or we could just always use a relation, so that [mappers] and software
> don't have to check for two different things, when editing and
> processing data respectively.

Yup.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
> --- On Tue, 25/8/09, Roy Wallace  wrote:
>
>> This is not about tagging for routing software.
>
> Then what is it?

It's about choosing the most appropriate way to tag something that
*intrinsically* involves both a way AND an intersection.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announcement] Support added for route waypoints in YOURS

[Lambertus]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:00:32 +0200, Patrick Kilian  wrote:
> Very cool feature. But I do have a small nitpick: it looks like you
> can't drop a waypoint...
> 
There's the 'clear' button ;-) 

Without kidding, being able to remove a single waypoint will be added soon.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announcement] Support added for route waypoints in YOURS

[Patrick Kilian]

Hi all,

> Hereby I would like to announce that YOURS now has the capability to use
> the long awaited "via points" (waypoints) in a route. The code for this
> feature has been contributed by Philip Homburg. Web design is still rather
> crude, but that will hopefully improve over time. 
Very cool feature. But I do have a small nitpick: it looks like you
can't drop a waypoint...


Patrick "Petschge" Kilian



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

[OSM-talk] [Announcement] Support added for route waypoints in YOURS

[Lambertus]

Hereby I would like to announce that YOURS now has the capability to use
the long awaited "via points" (waypoints) in a route. The code for this
feature has been contributed by Philip Homburg. Web design is still rather
crude, but that will hopefully improve over time. 

Last week a few other tweaks have also been implemented: the routing API
can return the route in geoJSON format as well as KML, the GPX export is no
longer limited to a few hundred nodes, a JS bug has been fixed for IE 6.0
and multiple API versions can live alongside each other which gives 3rd
party API users plenty of time to migrate between the different versions.

So please try out the use of waypoints on:
. I hope you will enjoy this new function.

The source code of YOURS is available under the BSD license:


The YOURS project page: 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Lester Caine]

Pieren wrote:
> A small pic is better than a long speach. One example with one major
> street and six minor streets all having stops when intersecting with
> the major street:

Or three minor roads all crossing the same major one 

>|
> ---+---
>|
> ---+---
>|
> ---+---
>|
> 3) add 6 nodes on the minor streets themselves and closed to the
> intersections and all tagged with "highway=stop"

Or highway=give_way, and there is no need to split each of the cross
roads at the main road and convert the three cross ways into 6 roads
which then need relations to link each pair back together again?

> All solutions are valid but 3) makes contributor's life easier.

I think the point here is that of being able to see easily what has been
applied to the data. Nodes and ways are easy to see, but this extra data
is probably not so obvious as you would not know that a node ON the way
actually has extra data, or perhaps that some other relation is involved?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[John Smith]

--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Joseph Booker  wrote:
> It's not a normal traffic light. It is legally and
> practically treated
> the same as a stop sign. My state describes it as "This
> sign is used at
> intersections when a stop sign alone is hard to see or
> where additional
> emphasis on the stop sign is needed." I would tag it as a
> stop sign, I
> only mention it as a legitimate case of a stop being in the
> middle of
> the intersection.

The key bit as I see it, "It's used in addition to, not instead of".


  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] duplications in data-layer on openstreetmap.org

[Peter Körner]

Vincent MEURISSE schrieb:
> On Tuesday 25 August 2009 02:48:26 pm Peter Körner wrote:
>> In fact there are 3 ways in the middle of the ocean, but the object-list
>> shows 9 - each of them 3 times:
> What are these way doing there ?
They were added by a new OSMler. He was notified and the ways were 
deleted. Ihis was just the first place I saw this.

>> Can anyone reproduce this problem?
> The problem is not specific to the area. This one give me the same behaviour
> 
> 
> Note that the problem appear only when loading directly the area with the 
> data 
> layer. When opening the area and adding the data layer after, everything is 
> fine.
Yup.

Peter

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Pieren]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Joseph Booker wrote:
> According to
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop ,
> it seems like you would just have 3 relations. The first relation would
> include the node for the top intersection and the two streets with the
> stop signs.
>
Yes, you are right, with the current proposal we needs only 3
relations and no split. The disadvantage is that you have to split if
the stop is only on one side of the intersection. I also see that the
proposal includes the case when all ways have a stop then you have one
relation with the intersection node only.
Why am I so stupid that I tag traffic_lights since years with the
stupid single intersection node and missed a relation for that ;-)
Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Joseph Booker]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:23:46 + (GMT)
John Smith  wrote:
> --- On Tue, 25/8/09, Joseph Booker  wrote:
> 
> > Almost every intersection I've seen has the stop sign *at*
> > the
> > intersection.
> 
> The intersection is the middle of the two or more ways intersecting,
> the stop sign is always before the intersection, not at the
> intersection.

I always assumed the intersection *was* the two or more ways
intersecting, but this is being pedantic.

> > Here, State law holds that you stop directly *at* a stop
> > sign (usually
> 
> How many stop signs are in the middle of intersections?

I gave an example below.

> > Not trying to twist the proposals into something they don't
> > cover, just
> > trying to point out how absurd it is to map the stop signs
> > that define
> > the start of the intersections.
> 
> However in reality they do mark the start of the intersection, not
> the middle nor the end but the start.
> > Furthermore, how would you tag lights like 
> > http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2041/2234314943_bdcd95d800.jpg?v=0
> > ?
> > Flashing red lights are the same (legally and for routers)
> > as stop
> > signs, and I have seen them in the middle of the road (like
> > some traffic
> > signals are).
> 
> The same way traffic lights are tagged already.

It's not a normal traffic light. It is legally and practically treated
the same as a stop sign. My state describes it as "This sign is used at
intersections when a stop sign alone is hard to see or where additional
emphasis on the stop sign is needed." I would tag it as a stop sign, I
only mention it as a legitimate case of a stop being in the middle of
the intersection.

> > intersection. The biggest issue for me is that it is
> > simpler, not only
> > for routers but for editors.
> 
> How can mapping out a node not be simple? It is a lot simpler than
> mapping out a relation or splitting a way etc etc etc and the only
> thing that benefits from stop sign information is routing software,
> editors don't, mappers don't so making it more complicated than it
> needs to be everyone except routing software coders.

True, I agree about the simplicity of just using nodes, that
email was more directed towards
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stop -like proposals with tags
like stop=at_first_and_last_node.

-- 
Joseph Booker


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Peter Childs]

2009/8/25 John Smith :
> How can mapping out a node not be simple? It is a lot simpler than mapping 
> out a relation or splitting a way etc etc etc and the only thing that 
> benefits from stop sign information is routing software, editors don't, 
> mappers don't so making it more complicated than it needs to be everyone 
> except routing software coders.

How do relations make life simple for routing software. Surly its
folly the way, if we meet a stop sign add slight pause and continue. A
realtion is just another thing to look at, and handle.

The only time I can see a relation actually helping is with stuff that
is difficult to map like "no left turn"

Mostly I just see a relation as a thing to use for long distance
stuff. and hence I have never bothered with them yet.

Peter.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Joseph Booker]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:06:19 +0200
Pieren  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Roy Wallace
> wrote:
> > 1) a relation with the node and the way as members, as in,
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop)
> > 2) the way tagged with indirect reference to the node (i.e. start or
> > end node of way) - as in,
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stop 3) an extra node
> > tagged, placed on the way, "near" the intersection (Pieren's email)
> >
> > I prefer 1) for a number of reasons. IMHO, 2) and 3) are more or
> > less attempts to mimic 1) in order to avoid using a relation.
> 
> A small pic is better than a long speach. One example with one major
> street and six minor streets all having stops when intersecting with
> the major street:
> |
> ---+---
> |
> ---+---
> |
> ---+---
> |
> 1) add 6 relations + minor streets split
> 2) add 6 different tags "stop=yes/both/-1" + minor streets split
> 3) add 6 nodes on the minor streets themselves and closed to the
> intersections and all tagged with "highway=stop"
> 
> All solutions are valid but 3) makes contributor's life easier.
> Pieren

According to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop ,
it seems like you would just have 3 relations. The first relation would
include the node for the top intersection and the two streets with the
stop signs.

I didn't consider 3), but it doesn't seem right to have an approach
that requires stop signs to be tagged separately from the intersection
(see my other email).

Somewhat off topic, but what about expanding the stop relation proposal
to handle traffic signals, yield signs, and whatever else is
appropriate? (with highway=stop or highway=traffic_signals allowed for
nodes where all the ways coming in are restricted by the stop or
lights).

-- 
Joseph Booker


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[John Smith]

--- On Tue, 25/8/09, Joseph Booker  wrote:

> Almost every intersection I've seen has the stop sign *at*
> the
> intersection.

The intersection is the middle of the two or more ways intersecting, the stop 
sign is always before the intersection, not at the intersection.

> Here, State law holds that you stop directly *at* a stop
> sign (usually

How many stop signs are in the middle of intersections?

> Not trying to twist the proposals into something they don't
> cover, just
> trying to point out how absurd it is to map the stop signs
> that define
> the start of the intersections.

However in reality they do mark the start of the intersection, not the middle 
nor the end but the start.

> Furthermore, how would you tag lights like 
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2041/2234314943_bdcd95d800.jpg?v=0
> ?
> Flashing red lights are the same (legally and for routers)
> as stop
> signs, and I have seen them in the middle of the road (like
> some traffic
> signals are).

The same way traffic lights are tagged already.

> intersection. The biggest issue for me is that it is
> simpler, not only
> for routers but for editors.

How can mapping out a node not be simple? It is a lot simpler than mapping out 
a relation or splitting a way etc etc etc and the only thing that benefits from 
stop sign information is routing software, editors don't, mappers don't so 
making it more complicated than it needs to be everyone except routing software 
coders.


  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - incline up down

[Mike Harris]

I just tried to apply the 'architects' convention' of steps 'always' being from 
bottom to top. Then for unrelated reasons I reversed the way. Unlike 'oneway' 
this does not reverse the direction of the steps - i.e. the software doesn't 
know about the architects' convention. So I have to conclude that - at present 
at least - the assumption of an implicit sense is risky.

Mike Harris
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: 25 August 2009 12:08
> To: Roy Wallace
> Cc: talk
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 
> incline up down
> 
> 2009/8/23 Roy Wallace :
> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Morten 
> Kjeldgaard wrote:
> >>
> >>> "hard-to-verify data" - I don't see why incline=* is any 
> harder to 
> >>> verify than ele=* - as you said yourself, if you have one you can 
> >>> calculate/verify the other...
> 
> I think that incline up/down is much easier to verify and 
> much more unambigous (e.g. which elevation-model is used to 
> express the elevation?), but also far less usefull.
> 
> Everybody can see on the ground if a street goes up or down.
> 
> > What? The key question is if a tag is verifiable. Incline=* 
> is just as 
> > verifiable as ele=*. It's just in a different form. The "good 
> > argument" for adding incline=* is that it is 1) easy to read off a 
> > sign (say, source:incline=sign),
> 
> I think you're confusing 2 things here: the sign AFAIK 
> doesn't tell the inclination but the maximum inclination that 
> occurs on a certain road.
> 
>  2) provides valuable information in
> > the meantime, while we wait for you to develop and import 
> your ele=* 
> > solution.
> 
> the ele-solution is already established. Please see the wiki.
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> 
> 
> 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[John Smith]

--- On Tue, 25/8/09, James Livingston  wrote:

> Sorry, I had a typo in that sentence - it should read "so
> that mappers  
> and software ...". As well as software, it makes it easier
> for mappers  
> who wouldn't have to check arbitrary nodes around a
> junction.

No, the easiest thing for mappers/contributors is a single node near the 
intersection tagged as highway=stop, going into relations for something as 
trivial as a stop sign isn't in the interest of mappers/contributors, it's in 
the interest of those making routing software.

> but what is  
> wrong with the tagging scheme making it easier to process

What is wrong is it makes things more difficult than it needs to be for mappers.

> if the  
> scheme is otherwise just as good? Of course, whether it is
> just as  
> good is pretty much what this argument is about.

I'm yet to be swayed by the fact anything more than a node is needed to 
indicate a stop sign, the only benefit of which is to routing software, it 
won't effect how things are rendered, not will it benefit the contributors by 
making things more difficult.

Have a look at the awful way someone came up with tagging speed cameras, I 
couldn't figure it out at the time so I ended up tagging speed cameras as a 
single node with highway=speed_camera. Why would making it harder or less 
obvious methods in tagging stop signs make people use them?

Chances are they won't so all this talk about relations and splitting ways will 
be used by a minority, the majority will just keep doing what is easiest, which 
is a single node with a single tag.


  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Joseph Booker]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:34:52 + (GMT)
John Smith  wrote:
> I'll ask again, how many stop signs appear after you go through an
> intersection?

I'm a little tired of reading about this, so I'm going to contribute my
two cents:

Almost every intersection I've seen has the stop sign *at* the
intersection.

Here, State law holds that you stop directly *at* a stop sign (usually
there is a white line from one, but there doesn't have to be). This to
me starts the intersection. If you want to micro-map the intersection,
using a square way for the road and mapping all the stop signs and
traffic signals, fine, but I don't think that kind of micro-mapping is
possible at this time.

Not trying to twist the proposals into something they don't cover, just
trying to point out how absurd it is to map the stop signs that define
the start of the intersections.

Furthermore, how would you tag lights like 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2041/2234314943_bdcd95d800.jpg?v=0 ?
Flashing red lights are the same (legally and for routers) as stop
signs, and I have seen them in the middle of the road (like some traffic
signals are).

Using a relation is flexible enough for this. It is flexible enough to
handle weird cases with multiple modes of transportation. It is
flexible enough to allow one to map the stop sign (with a role=stop or
something), if your locality doesn't have that right at the
intersection. The biggest issue for me is that it is simpler, not only
for routers but for editors.

You gain nothing with the proposals raised compared to relations,
except some avoidance of relations. With relations the tagging is much
simpler, it makes sense intuitively when you come across it in the
data, access and restrictions can be done, it scales much nicer when
you have a large number of roads (okay, don't know how common that is
for stop-sign-controlled intersections), and it is flexible enough to
tag when there isn't a stop sign along the way (like the hanging
flashing red light).


-- 
Joseph Booker


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] duplications in data-layer on openstreetmap.org

[Vincent MEURISSE]

On Tuesday 25 August 2009 02:48:26 pm Peter Körner wrote:
> In fact there are 3 ways in the middle of the ocean, but the object-list
> shows 9 - each of them 3 times:
What are these way doing there ?

> Can anyone reproduce this problem?
The problem is not specific to the area. This one give me the same behaviour


Note that the problem appear only when loading directly the area with the data 
layer. When opening the area and adding the data layer after, everything is 
fine.

-- 
Vincent MEURISSE

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Pieren]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> 1) a relation with the node and the way as members, as in,
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop)
> 2) the way tagged with indirect reference to the node (i.e. start or
> end node of way) - as in, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stop
> 3) an extra node tagged, placed on the way, "near" the intersection
> (Pieren's email)
>
> I prefer 1) for a number of reasons. IMHO, 2) and 3) are more or less
> attempts to mimic 1) in order to avoid using a relation.

A small pic is better than a long speach. One example with one major
street and six minor streets all having stops when intersecting with
the major street:
|
---+---
|
---+---
|
---+---
|
1) add 6 relations + minor streets split
2) add 6 different tags "stop=yes/both/-1" + minor streets split
3) add 6 nodes on the minor streets themselves and closed to the
intersections and all tagged with "highway=stop"

All solutions are valid but 3) makes contributor's life easier.
Pieren

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

[OSM-talk] duplications in data-layer on openstreetmap.org

[Peter Körner]

Hi

take a look at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.18236&lon=-44.91328&zoom=15&layers=B000FTTT

In fact there are 3 ways in the middle of the ocean, but the object-list 
shows 9 - each of them 3 times:

 * Way 35373399
 * Way 35373587
 * Way 35373412
 * Way 35373399
 * Way 35373587
 * Way 35373412
 * Way 35373399
 * Way 35373587
 * Way 35373412

Can anyone reproduce this problem?
Peter

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

Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 60, Issue 157

[James Livingston]

On 25/08/2009, at 9:37 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> What is everyone's preference? I quite like the relation described at:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop
>
> In fact, that relation avoids the need to split the way at the
> junction if the stop sign applies in both directions along the way
> through the junction.

I like the idea of that, but think it might be better if the member  
ways had roles like 'stop' or 'give_way'. I know several intersections  
which have both Stop and Give Way signs, so being able to use a single  
flow-control relation to represent both of them would be nice.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[James Livingston]

On 25/08/2009, at 10:22 PM, John Smith wrote:
> --- On Tue, 25/8/09, James Livingston  wrote:
>> Or we could just always use a relation, so that mapping and
>> software
>> don't have to check for two different things, when editing
>> and
>> processing data respectively.
>
> Or in other words, tagging for the routing software, this  
> information can be dealt with in pre-processing.

Sorry, I had a typo in that sentence - it should read "so that mappers  
and software ...". As well as software, it makes it easier for mappers  
who wouldn't have to check arbitrary nodes around a junction.

I completely agree that tagging for renderers/routers/whatever is a  
bad idea, but I'm not certain this counts. You shouldn't tag things  
incorrectly to make it render properly, or make a tagging scheme worse  
to that some piece of software can avoid doing some work, but what is  
wrong with the tagging scheme making it easier to process if the  
scheme is otherwise just as good? Of course, whether it is just as  
good is pretty much what this argument is about.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[John Smith]

--- On Tue, 25/8/09, James Livingston  wrote:

> Or we could just always use a relation, so that mapping and
> software  
> don't have to check for two different things, when editing
> and  
> processing data respectively.

Or in other words, tagging for the routing software, this information can be 
dealt with in pre-processing.


  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[James Livingston]

On 25/08/2009, at 7:39 PM, Pieren wrote:
> That's exactly what I say. Stick the node where the real life stop
> sign is - nothing arbitrary here

If you're arguing that the tagged node should be where the stop sign  
is and not on the intersection, surely it would be beside the way not  
one of the nodes forming it? Most of the stop signs I've seen aren't  
stuck in the middle of the road.

> then let software calculate the
> distances and find the nearest intersection. If and only if the
> nearest intersection is not easy to find (e.g. because the distance
> from the two intersections is the same or nearly the same), then add
> the relation.

Or we could just always use a relation, so that mapping and software  
don't have to check for two different things, when editing and  
processing data respectively.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Pieren]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> I have a different stance - I am against using anything that isn't a
> relation when a relation is necessary.

no problem with that.

> And a relation is necessary
> when a tag involves an inseparable interaction of ways/nodes, as in
> this case.
>

First interaction is the coordinates/positions of these elements. We
shouldn't create relations if the information can be deduced from the
positions. We had a similar discussion about identifying all objects
inside a polygon (tag "is_in" or a special relation).
Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[John Smith]

--- On Tue, 25/8/09, Roy Wallace  wrote:

> This is not about tagging for routing software.

Then what is it?

I'll ask again, how many stop signs appear after you go through an intersection?

In my experience the answer is none, so it's a simple calculation to establish 
which junction the stop sign is for. Plain and simple no relation needed and 
one simple node with one simple tag.

I keep getting told to stop tagging for rendering software, well stop trying to 
tag for routing software.


  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:31 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
>This whole argument seems to be about tagging for routing software which is as 
>bad as tagging for render.
>
>What's so bad about sticking a stop node 3-5m before the intersection, after 
>all how many junctions have a stop sign after you pass through them?

This is not about tagging for routing software.

To denote a requirement to stop, you need to mark the direction of
approach, and the intersection. This is not a matter of opinion.

You may argue that a "node 3-5m before the intersection" is the best
approach and should be used to mark both of these things
simultaneously, but I respectfully disagree.

Pieren said "I'm not against relations when it is adding information."

I have a different stance - I am against using anything that isn't a
relation when a relation is necessary. And a relation is necessary
when a tag involves an inseparable interaction of ways/nodes, as in
this case.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Changes to Key:access wiki page

[Christiaan Welvaart]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:47:14 +0200 (CEST), Christiaan Welvaart
>  wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>>
 I listed :backward and :forward postfixes for access keys
>>>
>>> What you are doing here seems like picking raisins from conditional
>>> tagging and trying to handle it as a special case. I'm not sure whether
>>> you are aware of my proposal?
>>>
>>>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditions_for_access_tags
>>
>> I didn't really answer this question yet. My idea with :forward and
>> :backward was to group all access restrictions - keys that take
>> yes/no/destination/private/etc. - with the access key. So I also
> sometimes
>> write e.g. access:vehicle:forward=no . But time restrictions should also
>> be included, e.g. as :T-, so one could write (crazy) things
>> like:
>>
>>access:vehicle:forward:Tmo-fr=destination
>>access:vehicle:forward:Tsa-su=yes
>>access:vehicle:backward:Tmo-fr=delivery
>>access:vehicle:backward:Tsa-su=no
>>
>> A problem with oneway= is that it cannot accept the whole range of access
>
>> values - only yes/no. So the above cannot be done with :oneway AFAICT.
>>
>> (max)height/weight/width/speed could maybe also be included with access,
>> but I think it is better to treat them as "access limits" and keep them
>> separate. Then the conditions proposal looks good for these keys.
>>
>>
> When you are getting this complicated on it, maybe it is better to handle
> this in relations? This way each special condition can be handled
> separately without cluttering the map with tags. A road can have a set of
> general access tags, and than use relations for the complicated access
> conditions, such as psv only on school days, goods delivery 10-12 mon-fri +
> 11-12 saturdays in july, destination for taxies exept saturdays after 22,
> and so on. That will allow you to do all these special condition without
> access:vehicle:forward/backward.
>
> I havn't seen that complicated access restrictions in the areas I map, so I
> have no need for it, but I know that reality is a little different in
> Europe.

I guess using relations is an option. But AFAIK the vast majority of roads 
in the world only needs a highway tag for access, and most specific access 
restrictions are simple. My example was not really practical, if such 
complicated restrictions exist they are likely rare. This would mean that 
an access restriction relation needs a completely new specification that 
will not be used much, while the system I described scales from simple 
situations to quite complicated ones. Also, having access restrictions in 
two locations (tags on the way/node and in relations) only complicates 
things.


 Christiaan

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - incline up down

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/8/23 Roy Wallace :
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
>>
>>> "hard-to-verify data" - I don't see why incline=* is any harder to
>>> verify than ele=* - as you said yourself, if you have one you can
>>> calculate/verify the other...

I think that incline up/down is much easier to verify and much more
unambigous (e.g. which elevation-model is used to express the
elevation?), but also far less usefull.

Everybody can see on the ground if a street goes up or down.

> What? The key question is if a tag is verifiable. Incline=* is just as
> verifiable as ele=*. It's just in a different form. The "good
> argument" for adding incline=* is that it is 1) easy to read off a
> sign (say, source:incline=sign),

I think you're confusing 2 things here: the sign AFAIK doesn't tell
the inclination but the maximum inclination that occurs on a certain
road.

 2) provides valuable information in
> the meantime, while we wait for you to develop and import your ele=*
> solution.

the ele-solution is already established. Please see the wiki.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=construction

[John Smith]

--- On Tue, 25/8/09, Liz  wrote:

> advice please?

highway=construction
construction=residential or motorway or whatever


  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] XAPI URL for one way by ID?

[80n]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Gary68  wrote:

> hi!
>
> but XAPI is also intended to take load off the API, right? so it might
> be a good idea to implement these simple query functions.
>

Yes, it does now help to take the load off the main API so there is some
sense in implementing this capability, and since the data is there, it could
also provide most of the other API calls as well.  Obviously not updates and
obviously not history, but all the other calls would probably be easy to
implement.

80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Pieren]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:31 AM, John Smith wrote:
> This whole argument seems to be about tagging for routing software which is 
> as bad as tagging for render.
>
> What's so bad about sticking a stop node 3-5m before the intersection, after 
> all how many junctions have a stop sign after you pass through them?

That's exactly what I say. Stick the node where the real life stop
sign is - nothing arbitrary here - then let software calculate the
distances and find the nearest intersection. If and only if the
nearest intersection is not easy to find (e.g. because the distance
from the two intersections is the same or nearly the same), then add
the relation.
Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[John Smith]

--- On Tue, 25/8/09, Pieren  wrote:

> I'm not againt relations when it is adding information. If
> I have a
> 100 meters way and a single stop sign node 5 meters before
> the
> intersection, It is just waste of time and resource to add
> a relation
> for something obvious. I have better things to do than
> helping lazy
> software developers.

This whole argument seems to be about tagging for routing software which is as 
bad as tagging for render.

What's so bad about sticking a stop node 3-5m before the intersection, after 
all how many junctions have a stop sign after you pass through them?


  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Pieren]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> You say "the node" when you mean "a node somewhere near the node".

"near" means where the sign is.

> I prefer 1) for a number of reasons. IMHO, 2) and 3) are more or less
> attempts to mimic 1) in order to avoid using a relation.

I'm not againt relations when it is adding information. If I have a
100 meters way and a single stop sign node 5 meters before the
intersection, It is just waste of time and resource to add a relation
for something obvious. I have better things to do than helping lazy
software developers.
Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Changes to Key:access wiki page

[Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:47:14 +0200 (CEST), Christiaan Welvaart
 wrote:
> hi,
> 
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> 
>>> I listed :backward and :forward postfixes for access keys
>>
>> What you are doing here seems like picking raisins from conditional
>> tagging and trying to handle it as a special case. I'm not sure whether
>> you are aware of my proposal?
>>
>>
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditions_for_access_tags
> 
> I didn't really answer this question yet. My idea with :forward and 
> :backward was to group all access restrictions - keys that take 
> yes/no/destination/private/etc. - with the access key. So I also
sometimes 
> write e.g. access:vehicle:forward=no . But time restrictions should also 
> be included, e.g. as :T-, so one could write (crazy) things 
> like:
> 
>access:vehicle:forward:Tmo-fr=destination
>access:vehicle:forward:Tsa-su=yes
>access:vehicle:backward:Tmo-fr=delivery
>access:vehicle:backward:Tsa-su=no
> 
> A problem with oneway= is that it cannot accept the whole range of access

> values - only yes/no. So the above cannot be done with :oneway AFAICT.
> 
> (max)height/weight/width/speed could maybe also be included with access, 
> but I think it is better to treat them as "access limits" and keep them 
> separate. Then the conditions proposal looks good for these keys.
> 
> 
When you are getting this complicated on it, maybe it is better to handle
this in relations? This way each special condition can be handled
separately without cluttering the map with tags. A road can have a set of
general access tags, and than use relations for the complicated access
conditions, such as psv only on school days, goods delivery 10-12 mon-fri +
11-12 saturdays in july, destination for taxies exept saturdays after 22,
and so on. That will allow you to do all these special condition without
access:vehicle:forward/backward.

I havn't seen that complicated access restrictions in the areas I map, so I
have no need for it, but I know that reality is a little different in
Europe.

-- 
Brgds
Aun Johnsen
via Webmail

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Changes to Key:access wiki page

[Christiaan Welvaart]

hi,

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Tobias Knerr wrote:

>> I listed :backward and :forward postfixes for access keys
>
> What you are doing here seems like picking raisins from conditional
> tagging and trying to handle it as a special case. I'm not sure whether
> you are aware of my proposal?
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditions_for_access_tags

I didn't really answer this question yet. My idea with :forward and 
:backward was to group all access restrictions - keys that take 
yes/no/destination/private/etc. - with the access key. So I also sometimes 
write e.g. access:vehicle:forward=no . But time restrictions should also 
be included, e.g. as :T-, so one could write (crazy) things 
like:

   access:vehicle:forward:Tmo-fr=destination
   access:vehicle:forward:Tsa-su=yes
   access:vehicle:backward:Tmo-fr=delivery
   access:vehicle:backward:Tsa-su=no

A problem with oneway= is that it cannot accept the whole range of access 
values - only yes/no. So the above cannot be done with :oneway AFAICT.

(max)height/weight/width/speed could maybe also be included with access, 
but I think it is better to treat them as "access limits" and keep them 
separate. Then the conditions proposal looks good for these keys.


 Christiaan

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

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=construction

[Tobias Knerr]

Liz wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=construction
> 
> this page says that you have highway=construction along with any other 
> highway 
> tag eg highway=trunk

No, it doesn't (unless I'm missing something). It says that construction
uses the /value/ of other highway tags:

"Values of construction=* can be all values from highway=*, railway=*,
waterway=* and landuse=*."

So what you do to mark a trunk under construction is to use two tags:
highway=construction
+ construction=trunk

As you use the construction instead of the highway key to store the
highway value "trunk", this is possible even with API 0.6.

Tobias Knerr

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

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=construction

[Dirk-Lüder Kreie]

Liz schrieb:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=construction
> 
> this page says that you have highway=construction along with any other 
> highway 
> tag eg highway=trunk
> 
> this use is now outdated with API=6 as only one highway tag is allowed.
> 
> advice please?

highway=construction
construction=trunk


-- 

Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie
Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] XAPI URL for one way by ID?

[Dirk-Lüder Kreie]

Gary68 schrieb:
> hi!
> 
> but XAPI is also intended to take load off the API, right? so it might
> be a good idea to implement these simple query functions.

actually, no. The XAPI was really written to answer types of queries
where the API would not cope, or the API was not made for (give me every
node tagged as a phone booth on the entire world, for example)

t...@h then started using it as a secondary datasource, because it started
loading the main API too much, only then the role of XAPI became more of
a load-reducing one for the main API.

TRAPI and ROMA were other offloading APIs that were made for uses such
as t...@h, those, too, are limited in what kind of api calls they allow
("map" bboxes only, IIRC)

-- 

Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie
Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Pieren  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> > I see what you mean, but the stop sign does NOT apply to just an
> > intersection - it applies to a way(s) AND an intersection. This is
> > because the applicability of the stop sign at an intersection might
> > depend on your direction of approach.
> >
>
> Yes, and you add the node on the way itself, so you know on which road
> it belongs to.

You say "the node" when you mean "a node somewhere near the node".

I don't like your proposed solution. Nothing personal :) Perhaps
others would like to state their preference from the following so we
can narrow down the options?:

1) a relation with the node and the way as members, as in,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop)
2) the way tagged with indirect reference to the node (i.e. start or
end node of way) - as in, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stop
3) an extra node tagged, placed on the way, "near" the intersection
(Pieren's email)

I prefer 1) for a number of reasons. IMHO, 2) and 3) are more or less
attempts to mimic 1) in order to avoid using a relation.

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

[OSM-talk] highway=construction

[Liz]

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=construction

this page says that you have highway=construction along with any other highway 
tag eg highway=trunk

this use is now outdated with API=6 as only one highway tag is allowed.

advice please?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Pieren]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> I see what you mean, but the stop sign does NOT apply to just an
> intersection - it applies to a way(s) AND an intersection. This is
> because the applicability of the stop sign at an intersection might
> depend on your direction of approach.
>

Yes, and you add the node on the way itself, so you know on which road
it belongs to.

To be more precise, an instersection like this:
+-o--+
where
+ is an intersection
o the node tagged with highway=stop
doesn't require a relation or additional tags because software should
be enough clever to understand that the stop belongs to the right
intersection, not the left.
In such case:
+-o--+
where the intersection on which the stop sign belongs is not obvious,
you add a relation linking the stop node and the intersection node.
For someone interrested by the subject (I mean, someone who really
needs stop signs information), he could setup an application reporting
all stop signs present in the db that couldn't be linked to its
intersection either because the node is not closed to an intersection
or relation is missing.
Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Twitter bots

[Peter Körner]

> What's the URL for the code, again, for those of us running the bot who are
> daft enough to have deleted that original email?

Take a look into the Archives:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-August/040750.html


Peter

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

Re: [OSM-talk] XAPI URL for one way by ID?

[Gary68]

hi!

but XAPI is also intended to take load off the API, right? so it might
be a good idea to implement these simple query functions.

my 2cts

cheers 

gerhard
gary68


On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 07:31 +0100, 80n wrote:
> XAPI is intended to provide capabilities that are not available with
> the standard API.  It is not intended to duplicate the API
> capabilities.  So the quick answer is use the API if you want to get a
> way by id.
> 
> The longer answer is that it could be implemented in XAPI fairly
> trivially, and was probably an oversight rather than a deliberate
> omission.  If it had been implemented then the correct way to query it
> would have been:
> 
> /api/0.6/w...@id=xxx]
> 
> 80n
> 
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:47 AM, Gary68  wrote:
> hi,
> 
> on API i can GET
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/Id
> 
> using the same string on XAPI like
> 
> http://osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.6/way/38427403
> 
> results in "firefox can't find the file..."
> 
> initially I typed
> 
> http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.6/way/23328268 (other
> id, ok...)
> but i was redirected.
> 
> trying ...way[id=xxx] or Id=xxx didn't help either.
> 
> so, question: how do i get exactly one way by id from xapi?
> the wiki
> page doesn't help me...
> 
> thanks
> 
> gerhard
> gary68
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Twitter bots

[Tom Chance]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:56:00 +0200, Alexander Klink  wrote:
> Sorry, didn't think about that. I've changed the bot to use
> osm.org, my bots will use that right away, I hope the other
> bot owners will update as well.

What's the URL for the code, again, for those of us running the bot who are
daft enough to have deleted that original email?

Regards,
Tom

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