Re: [OSM-talk] opencyclemap and car directions
Tobias Knerr wrote: > Imo, this shouldn't be considered in isolation. There's a whole lot of > situations where the value for a key, such as oneway, maxspeed, > maxweight, access, is different depending on vehicle or other conditions > - a common example is maxspeed:hgv (note that nobody is using > hgv:maxspeed). And it's a bad idea to create a different solution for > each of these. > > There is a concept that covers all of these and uses oneway:bicycle: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_conditions_fo > r_access_tags > > The bicycle:oneway structure, to my knowledge, hasn't been part of a > solution that can be used to express all of these cases yet and is > mostly just there as a solution for this single situation (opposite > traffic on oneway ways). Imo, that's a too limited perspective. So that's completely incorrect, bicycle:oneway=no already appeared on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Access_restrictions a long time before the extended conditions for access tags proposal was created (although, indeed, not a definite proposal for such a syntax -- it still could all change -- but in the mean time it was seeing some usage while testing it out). But that's far from an "isolated situation for oneway only". Yeah, so that proposal of mine hasn't seen much change recently. Basically because I have the impression almost no-one else but me seems interested in creating formal definitions of access tags, and because proposals like yours would come up without really looking at what was written on that page. I was trying to work out a framework to put the existing tags in and work from there to create a simpler syntax (which maybe could have ended up similar to yours) -- one for which it would be sure that not the same mistake as with original access tags is made again. But now with your syntax which is advocated as good syntax to use and superseding other possibilities just because it is a proposal, it makes life harder to create the formal framework because we now have a whole new set of tags that have to be taken into account, and would rule out a lot of possibilities of perhaps a better syntax. Greetings Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] opencyclemap and car directions
Ben Laenen wrote: > Richard Mann wrote: >> If there's no >> lane marked (eg the zillions of oneway exceptions in Belgium that have >> appeared in the last few years) then it probably needs to be tagged >> oneway:bicycle=no, but that won't show up either (AFAIK). > > bicycle:oneway=no is used much more in Belgium (and the whole planet) -- > about > ten times more often. Imo, this shouldn't be considered in isolation. There's a whole lot of situations where the value for a key, such as oneway, maxspeed, maxweight, access, is different depending on vehicle or other conditions - a common example is maxspeed:hgv (note that nobody is using hgv:maxspeed). And it's a bad idea to create a different solution for each of these. There is a concept that covers all of these and uses oneway:bicycle: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_conditions_for_access_tags The bicycle:oneway variant, to my knowledge, hasn't been part of a solution that can be used to express all of these cases yet and is mostly just there as a solution for this single situation (opposite traffic on oneway ways). Imo, that's a too limited perspective. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] opencyclemap and car directions
Le mercredi 02 décembre 2009, à 14:24:19 +, Andy a écrit : > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:07 PM, arno wrote: > > Hi, > > I was told today by a bicycle commuter that openstreemap is "interesting but > > unsuccessful" because "opencyclemap is wrong". > > > > His point was: > > opencyclemap show the directions for cars but not for cyclists: > > in his city, there are a lot of streets where car can only go one way, but > > cyclists can go both. > > These streets are correctly mapped (have the > > cycleway=opposite_lane|opposite_track|opposite) but on cyclemap layer, are > > still represented as oneway on opencyclemap. > > > > So, I explained the difference between data and its representation, and I > > explained that that osm is not unsuccessful. But I also understand my > > interlocutor point of view: opencyclemap is supposed to be a cyclist map, > > but > > it shows directions for cars. > > > > So, I was wondering if you knew why this is the way it is ? > > I've simply not implemented it yet! Someone gave me a new icon (a long > time ago) that shows that it's a oneway road but that you can cycle in > both directions, and I'm sorry to say that despite their efforts I > haven't added the rules yet. > > If you want to keep track of things, then please add a ticket to > http://trac.openstreetmap.org with the opencyclemap component. Thanks for your reply. I've opened bug #2532 for that. arno signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] opencyclemap and car directions
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Ben Laenen wrote: > Richard Mann wrote: >> If there's a lane in the "wrong" direction, that'll be marked (as being on >> both sides). If there's a separate track adjacent to the road, that'll be >> marked. But cycle tracks don't get marked if they are attached to the road >> (so cycleway=track and cycleway=opposite don't get marked). If there's no >> lane marked (eg the zillions of oneway exceptions in Belgium that have >> appeared in the last few years) then it probably needs to be tagged >> oneway:bicycle=no, but that won't show up either (AFAIK). > > bicycle:oneway=no is used much more in Belgium (and the whole planet) -- about > ten times more often. Likewise, also moped_A:oneway=no is used in Belgium > because light mopeds are sometimes allowed to drive in the opposite direction > as well (therefore cycleway=opposite isn't sufficient here), although there's > no advise from the government to the municipalities to allow it if possible. Good to know - I only considered the cycleway=opposite/opposite_lane. I'll add the bicycle:oneway=no at the same time. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] opencyclemap and car directions
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:07 PM, arno wrote: > Hi, > I was told today by a bicycle commuter that openstreemap is "interesting but > unsuccessful" because "opencyclemap is wrong". > > His point was: > opencyclemap show the directions for cars but not for cyclists: > in his city, there are a lot of streets where car can only go one way, but > cyclists can go both. > These streets are correctly mapped (have the > cycleway=opposite_lane|opposite_track|opposite) but on cyclemap layer, are > still represented as oneway on opencyclemap. > > So, I explained the difference between data and its representation, and I > explained that that osm is not unsuccessful. But I also understand my > interlocutor point of view: opencyclemap is supposed to be a cyclist map, but > it shows directions for cars. > > So, I was wondering if you knew why this is the way it is ? I've simply not implemented it yet! Someone gave me a new icon (a long time ago) that shows that it's a oneway road but that you can cycle in both directions, and I'm sorry to say that despite their efforts I haven't added the rules yet. If you want to keep track of things, then please add a ticket to http://trac.openstreetmap.org with the opencyclemap component. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] opencyclemap and car directions
Richard Mann wrote: > If there's a lane in the "wrong" direction, that'll be marked (as being on > both sides). If there's a separate track adjacent to the road, that'll be > marked. But cycle tracks don't get marked if they are attached to the road > (so cycleway=track and cycleway=opposite don't get marked). If there's no > lane marked (eg the zillions of oneway exceptions in Belgium that have > appeared in the last few years) then it probably needs to be tagged > oneway:bicycle=no, but that won't show up either (AFAIK). bicycle:oneway=no is used much more in Belgium (and the whole planet) -- about ten times more often. Likewise, also moped_A:oneway=no is used in Belgium because light mopeds are sometimes allowed to drive in the opposite direction as well (therefore cycleway=opposite isn't sufficient here), although there's no advise from the government to the municipalities to allow it if possible. Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] opencyclemap and car directions
I think the honest answer is that oneways tend to be treated as "interesting information that applies to cars". Ahem. In the UK, we tend to make the oneway stretch very short with a cycle track in the opposite direction, so they show up as two-way on most renderings, but routers can't find a way through for cars. If there's a lane in the "wrong" direction, that'll be marked (as being on both sides). If there's a separate track adjacent to the road, that'll be marked. But cycle tracks don't get marked if they are attached to the road (so cycleway=track and cycleway=opposite don't get marked). If there's no lane marked (eg the zillions of oneway exceptions in Belgium that have appeared in the last few years) then it probably needs to be tagged oneway:bicycle=no, but that won't show up either (AFAIK). This is partly waiting on the development of the ability to put different edge markings (casings) on the two sides of the road (imminent for Mapnik apparently), which will give more scope for subtle information on small roads that isn't obliterated by the street name. Which doesn't mean it will happen - opencyclemap is done by voluntary labour (and by a process that isn't practical to open up to additional input). You may have to render it yourself... Richard On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:07 PM, arno wrote: > Hi, > I was told today by a bicycle commuter that openstreemap is "interesting > but > unsuccessful" because "opencyclemap is wrong". > > His point was: > opencyclemap show the directions for cars but not for cyclists: > in his city, there are a lot of streets where car can only go one way, but > cyclists can go both. > These streets are correctly mapped (have the > cycleway=opposite_lane|opposite_track|opposite) but on cyclemap layer, are > still represented as oneway on opencyclemap. > > So, I explained the difference between data and its representation, and I > explained that that osm is not unsuccessful. But I also understand my > interlocutor point of view: opencyclemap is supposed to be a cyclist map, > but > it shows directions for cars. > > So, I was wondering if you knew why this is the way it is ? > > arno > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAksVaYAACgkQ7Z0ZxRdGQ+c+SQCeLhgtIVEbsZmKgX4LlQKMJmfV > rF8An1BgDDy6jD/tzzx8j013VUL0eWUr > =uXv5 > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
