Re: [OSM-talk] Applying different restrictions in different directions on a road
On 20/12/16 11:37, joost schouppe wrote: The bicycle wiki page has examples for many different kinds of situations: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle Basically, you can have restrictions based on mode of transport (eg oneway:bycicle) or if really needed have access tags with a direction (bicycle:forward). Thank you for the pointer. If I read things correctly, it looks like the following tags should achieve what is needed: oneway=yes oneway:bicycle=no oneway:bus=no 2016-12-20 11:34 GMT+01:00 Sebastian Arcus mailto:s.ar...@open-t.co.uk>>: I think I have asked this before a long time ago here - but I can't find the original message, or remember the answer I'm afraid. I am trying to add tags to a road which has permission for all vehicles forward, but only buses and bicycles backward. I can't get my head around how to do this. Should I make it one-way, and somehow add exceptions for buses and bicycles in the opposite direction? I guess I can't use buslane=*, as it's not just a bus lane - or should I? Also, if I add buslane=*, will that translate automatically into prohibition for the rest of the vehicles in one of the directions? Any suggestions much appreciated. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk> -- Joost Schouppe OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Applying different restrictions in different directions on a road
I think I have asked this before a long time ago here - but I can't find the original message, or remember the answer I'm afraid. I am trying to add tags to a road which has permission for all vehicles forward, but only buses and bicycles backward. I can't get my head around how to do this. Should I make it one-way, and somehow add exceptions for buses and bicycles in the opposite direction? I guess I can't use buslane=*, as it's not just a bus lane - or should I? Also, if I add buslane=*, will that translate automatically into prohibition for the rest of the vehicles in one of the directions? Any suggestions much appreciated. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area
On 21/11/16 12:49, Andy Townsend wrote:
On 21/11/2016 11:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Sebastian Arcus wrote:
Well, looking at the map, it looks like each and every parcel of
land and section of field has a locality tag associated with it.
It's very common in the UK, too, for uninhabited sections of woodland and
hillside to have placenames.
... and fields, of course. Where I was brought up the names in use were
mostly just descriptive ("The Twenty Acre Field", "Piggy Thompson's
Fields", etc.), but they were in OSM terms at least "loc_names". Very
few were verifable beyond "find a local old person and ask them" though.
However "names on a map" doesn't always mean "names of places". Ordnance
Survey data in the UK is riddled with them, and some are little more
than historic names. Anything that's taken OS data on board without
local vetting will share that problem. As an example,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_End,_Derbyshire was originally a
"village" in wikipedia; it got changed to the curious "a place noted on
a map" at
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_End,_Derbyshire&diff=next&oldid=302498425
when various people (including me, who has lived down the road for 30
years) said "it's not actually a village!".
Obviously names change over time. In the Common End case I suspect it
was never much more than a farm, like Owlcotes to the north (another
"place" according to OS maps). Another example of that is here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/54.5567/-8.2094
There there's a modern village ("Rossnowlagh") but two townlands
("Rossnowlagh Upper" http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5625290 and
"Rossnowlagh Lower" http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5625293).
Those two were also imported as
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5224127 and
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/52242180. The "Upper" and "Lower"
versions aren't signed on the ground and aren't villages any more
(though likely once had significant populations); the modern village
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2349484921/history I added based on
survey, after checking with #osm-ie what best to do.
it still seems a bit odd - and begs the question if those tags
really need to be there.
Why not? Be conservative in what you change/delete in OSM, be liberal in
what you add.
Indeed - but there's no harm in asking the question, and as Colin Smale
said yesterday, the logical people to ask, if you can't find a local
80-year-old, are the people that added it.
Thank you everybody - this has been an enlightening thread!
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area
On 21/11/16 09:51, Andrew Errington wrote: It could be tagging for the renderer. A 'locality' tag causes a label to appear on the map. That has crossed my mind. Actually, that is how the issue came to my attention - on my GPS navigation software, which uses OSM maps, it appears as if the area is riddled with lots and lots of villages or something, on every field. Maybe I should contact the Navit developers and suggest that "locality" tag is not rendered any more in Navit. Best wishes, Andrew On Nov 21, 2016 6:43 PM, "Sebastian Arcus" mailto:s.ar...@open-t.co.uk>> wrote: On 21/11/16 08:36, Rory McCann wrote: Additionally, there might be nothing there *now*, but there might have been things there in the past, and the name as stuck around, as a locality. Just because a place is unpopulated doesn't mean the place doesn't have a name! Well, looking at the map, it looks like each and every parcel of land and section of field has a locality tag associated with it. Even allowing for places which don't exist any more and other local/cultural differences, it still seems a bit odd - and begs the question if those tags really need to be there. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area
On 21/11/16 08:36, Rory McCann wrote: Additionally, there might be nothing there *now*, but there might have been things there in the past, and the name as stuck around, as a locality. Just because a place is unpopulated doesn't mean the place doesn't have a name! Well, looking at the map, it looks like each and every parcel of land and section of field has a locality tag associated with it. Even allowing for places which don't exist any more and other local/cultural differences, it still seems a bit odd - and begs the question if those tags really need to be there. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area
I'm looking at the following section of OSM: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/42.9959/-8.3908 I see lots and lots of locality names, on what the satellite imagery confirms to be otherwise just empty fields and forests. I'm pretty sure I've seen this elsewhere on OSM, in another part of the world. Does anybody know why are all these place names there - in the middle of nowhere? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Element on OSM which don't exist in real life
On 02/12/13 20:26, Richard Welty wrote: Thank Frederik. I'm actually working in JOSM, and I've spotted those import tags - but as I still feel like a newbie when it comes to all things OSM, I thought I'd check with the community so that I don't do something silly. Welcome to TIGER and GNIS! what Fredrick said is true; i'm going to add some US specific info. there is some bad data in the GNIS import. when i encounter obviously bogus objects from the GNIS import, i just delete them. just the other day i deleted a GNIS object which suggested someone had a heliport in their back yard a little south of Albany NY. i didn't see a heliport. as for non-existent roads in TIGER, it happens. there are various reasons for it, but if you're looking at unreviewed TIGER (look for a tiger:review=no tag) and you can't find the matching real world entities, you are fully justified in deleting them. if you do verify a road exists, then also verify its topology (is it hooked up the way the map shows), its name (from the road signs) and its location (bing imagery is good for this, as are personally collected GPS tracks). if those check out you are justified in removing the tiger:reviewed tag (if you are fastidious, you can change it to yes, but most of us just delete it. fewer mouse clicks that way.) as for the reasons - TIGER data quality varies quite widely, seemingly from county to county. it is getting better - if you compare the 2005 data which is what we imported to 2013 data you can see the improvement. but there are cases where obviously someone sketched out a map then freehanded it into the database, and there are cases where a developer got their roads into the database before they failed to finance the development project. if you look at the image dropdown, you will see a tiger 2012 underlayment. you can use this to compare what's in OSM to the 2012 data set. so don't be afraid to fix it. there is bad data in TIGER. mistakes happen. richard Thanks Richard. Very helpful explanation and pointers. Sebastian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Element on OSM which don't exist in real life
On 02/12/13 19:32, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 02.12.2013 20:12, Sebastian Arcus wrote: First off, I hope this is the right place to ask mapping questions - otherwise could you suggest the best mailing list please. There's also a talk-us list if you have questions specific to the US of A. But talk is just fine. We can use a diversion. I am doing some mapping along the Interstate 5 in California based on my own notes and data collected. What I keep on finding is elements on OSM which don't seem to exist in reality. For example: Your editor might allow you to inspect an object's author(s) and history, or if not, you can go to the web site, zoom in, and activate the data layer. With that I could see that the roads you mention have been imported from the TIGER data set 6 years ago and not touched since. This means that anything you gather from an aerial image or even personal survey surely trumps that data! Had the research turned up that a mapper edited these roads just weeks or months ago, potentially even indicating they did a survey, then it would be in order to contact that person and discuss the issue. But not with a 6 year old data import. Same but different for the "Kettleman Station" node, this has been imported 5 years ago from a GNIS data set and deserves no more respect than the rest - if there's nobody living there then it's likely not a hamlet. Thank Frederik. I'm actually working in JOSM, and I've spotted those import tags - but as I still feel like a newbie when it comes to all things OSM, I thought I'd check with the community so that I don't do something silly. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Element on OSM which don't exist in real life
First off, I hope this is the right place to ask mapping questions - otherwise could you suggest the best mailing list please. I am doing some mapping along the Interstate 5 in California based on my own notes and data collected. What I keep on finding is elements on OSM which don't seem to exist in reality. For example: 1. Kettleman Station: http://osm.org/go/TY2PBnA1M?node=150964893 This appears to be some sort of industrial installation - why would it be marked as a hamlet? Both the Bing satellite imagery and a peak at Google Streeview confirm that there are no residences in the area. 2. All across these fields: http://osm.org/go/TY2PBU33 there are numerous roads - some of them even with names and/or codes. On satellite view they appear to be nothing more than dirt tracks at best - some of them not even that. When I was there a month ago, those were just empty barren hills. I don't quite understand why the maze of highways giving the impression of some densely populated area. Along the I5 there seem to be numerous examples like the above. Is there some element of local knowledge that escapes me - and those features actually exist? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
