Re: [OSM-talk] Access restrictions (was: Feature Proposal - RFC - (PSV_directions))
2008/6/30 Cartinus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Monday 30 June 2008 11:22:44 Charlie Echo wrote: > > - most Ways are Oneways. If comparing length, it's probably not the case, > > but by number of ways, it IS probably the case. > > Not according to tagwatch: > > * If I compare the total number of oneway=true/yes/1 tags tot the total > number > of highway tags used on ways in the Netherlands I get a number of 1.25% > > * If I look at the number of residential and unclassified roads (the most > numerous roads in any fully mapped area) in France that also have a oneway > tag, then I see something around 10%. > Motorway at least has an implied oneway=true as default doesn't it? Most ways that you can't cross for turning left/right, performing uturns, etc, even if they don't have a phyical barrier in the middle should also consist of multiple oneway ways shouldn't they? As far as number of ways though I would guess that the massive number of small residential roads that aren't in any way one way would definitely outnumber those larger trunks in count if not length... d ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Access restrictions (was: Feature Proposal - RFC - (PSV_directions))
On Monday 30 June 2008 11:22:44 Charlie Echo wrote: > - most Ways are Oneways. If comparing length, it's probably not the case, > but by number of ways, it IS probably the case. Not according to tagwatch: * If I compare the total number of oneway=true/yes/1 tags tot the total number of highway tags used on ways in the Netherlands I get a number of 1.25% * If I look at the number of residential and unclassified roads (the most numerous roads in any fully mapped area) in France that also have a oneway tag, then I see something around 10%. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Access restrictions (was: Feature Proposal - RFC - (PSV_directions))
From what I understand: - each country has its own rules for vehicle definitions and access definition: roads accessible for Cars, Taxis, PSV, Bus, Goods, Bicycles, ... - in each country, there is a limited number of "common rules": in France, Bus lanes can be used by Taxis an Bicycles. - most Ways are Oneways. If comparing length, it's probably not the case, but by number of ways, it IS probably the case. It will be very had to set-up a tagging scheme for all cases. But in each country, it could be possible to set-up basic rules, with basic names that would then be applied to all Roads. To put it another way: as long as we don't have a common Driving Licence, we won't easily have common Rules. So I suggest that the Access tag would be defined on a Country basis. 1. define the types of vehicles Car = 4 wheel vehicle below 2 tons (?) Bicycle = ... Bus = ... 2. Define the type of Access Bus lane = Bus + Bicyle + Taxi ... 3. Define the Acces on Ways. direct_way:all/car/bus/bicycle/... (the values being the ones defined in 2.) opposite_way:SAME/all/car/bus/... (same values, with additional SAME) With this kind of definitions, someone would know directly if he is sitting in a Car, a Bus or a PSV; and a driving software would automatically be able to define the accesible ways. - Mail Original - De: "Ben Laenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> À: talk@openstreetmap.org Envoyé: Jeudi 26 Juin 2008 18:17:07 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Berne / Rome / Stockholm / Vienne Objet: [OSM-talk] Access restrictions (was: Feature Proposal - RFC - (PSV_directions)) Hi all, With the psv_directions discussion, I've started http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Access_restrictions to completely rethink the idea of access restrictions once. There's no proposed tagging scheme yet (so technically this is not a RFC yet). For now I want to see a page filled with ideas, suggestions, current problems, issues to keep in mind and more I may forget about. So, I'd like to see the page grow a bit with your contributions. Ever ran into a problem you weren't able to tag? Then list it on the page. The access restrictions are very important tags so I want to see a lot of input to finally get a tagging scheme that's good for all :-) Greetings Ben On Thursday 26 June 2008, Charlie Echo wrote: > On the one side, I agree that tagging should be more ellaborate. > On the other side, I just imagine few exceptions, and few categories > of vehicles. For instance, in France, when I write "psv", I mean > "buses, cabs, bicycles", because they are all allowed on the same > way, and everyone knows it. In fact, for the vast majority of ways, > everyone is allowed. So we may tolerate tricky tagging for tricky > events. > > >So we might start thinking about this once before quickly patching > >current problems with tags like psv_directions :-) > > I suppose when we have defined a new tagging reference, a small > script will be run on the database to modify automatically all ways, > and to raise flags if there is a need of manual intervention, which > should be rare. (such a script should be run to replace the value "1" > or "true" by "yes" when relevant, and so on...) > > My point is to add information in the system in a structured way, > even if too complex. As the need of taging this "opposite bus lane" > is quite frequent where I live (Paris, France), I MUST find a > solution quickly. My current best approach is to create two ways, one > for cars one-way, and the other two-way for buses. It's stupid, and > splitting one way in two is a nonsense that will be hard to modify > back, so I really want to have it fixed! > > Cheers, > > - Mail Original - > De: "Ben Laenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > À: talk@openstreetmap.org > Cc: "Charlie Echo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Envoyé: Jeudi 26 Juin 2008 16:08:36 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / > Berne / Rome / Stockholm / Vienne Objet: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] > Feature Proposal - RFC - (PSV_directions) > > On Thursday 26 June 2008, Charlie Echo wrote: > > The proposal you mention is a radical change in the way we would > > tag. We would move from tag=value to tag:subtag:subtag=value. > > Sure, it's very different to current tagging, but we need to think > about more complex access restrictions. > > The proposal isn't perfect either, one can't for example say that > goods vehicles over 3.5 tons are not allowed except for loading and > unloading (a restriction that appears a lot over here). The problem > in that restriction being that it depends on more than one property: > goods vehicles (buses are always allowed for example), maximum we
[OSM-talk] Access restrictions (was: Feature Proposal - RFC - (PSV_directions))
Hi all, With the psv_directions discussion, I've started http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Access_restrictions to completely rethink the idea of access restrictions once. There's no proposed tagging scheme yet (so technically this is not a RFC yet). For now I want to see a page filled with ideas, suggestions, current problems, issues to keep in mind and more I may forget about. So, I'd like to see the page grow a bit with your contributions. Ever ran into a problem you weren't able to tag? Then list it on the page. The access restrictions are very important tags so I want to see a lot of input to finally get a tagging scheme that's good for all :-) Greetings Ben On Thursday 26 June 2008, Charlie Echo wrote: > On the one side, I agree that tagging should be more ellaborate. > On the other side, I just imagine few exceptions, and few categories > of vehicles. For instance, in France, when I write "psv", I mean > "buses, cabs, bicycles", because they are all allowed on the same > way, and everyone knows it. In fact, for the vast majority of ways, > everyone is allowed. So we may tolerate tricky tagging for tricky > events. > > >So we might start thinking about this once before quickly patching > >current problems with tags like psv_directions :-) > > I suppose when we have defined a new tagging reference, a small > script will be run on the database to modify automatically all ways, > and to raise flags if there is a need of manual intervention, which > should be rare. (such a script should be run to replace the value "1" > or "true" by "yes" when relevant, and so on...) > > My point is to add information in the system in a structured way, > even if too complex. As the need of taging this "opposite bus lane" > is quite frequent where I live (Paris, France), I MUST find a > solution quickly. My current best approach is to create two ways, one > for cars one-way, and the other two-way for buses. It's stupid, and > splitting one way in two is a nonsense that will be hard to modify > back, so I really want to have it fixed! > > Cheers, > > - Mail Original - > De: "Ben Laenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > À: talk@openstreetmap.org > Cc: "Charlie Echo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Envoyé: Jeudi 26 Juin 2008 16:08:36 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / > Berne / Rome / Stockholm / Vienne Objet: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] > Feature Proposal - RFC - (PSV_directions) > > On Thursday 26 June 2008, Charlie Echo wrote: > > The proposal you mention is a radical change in the way we would > > tag. We would move from tag=value to tag:subtag:subtag=value. > > Sure, it's very different to current tagging, but we need to think > about more complex access restrictions. > > The proposal isn't perfect either, one can't for example say that > goods vehicles over 3.5 tons are not allowed except for loading and > unloading (a restriction that appears a lot over here). The problem > in that restriction being that it depends on more than one property: > goods vehicles (buses are always allowed for example), maximum weight > 3.5 tons, and an exception for loading and unloading its goods in the > area where the restriction applies. > > Or what about restrictions applying one direction only, or > restrictions applying to only one lane in a three lane road? > > The ordering problems you mention is another thing. I also can see > lots of ambiguity issues coming up. > > Nevertheless, instead of adding new tags like psv_directions, and > after that probably moped_directions, bus_directions, > tram_directions, motorcycle_directions etc, we should think about a > much better tagging scheme for this. The proposal I mentioned is a > step towards something more powerful, but not quite there yet. > > So we might start thinking about this once before quickly patching > current problems with tags like psv_directions :-) > > Greetings > Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
