Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 11:43 +1000, John Smith wrote: > I agree with the access suggestion, eg > access:caravan=yes/no/designated/unsuitable > > I now regret using 4wd_only, this should have be an access: tag > instead, eg access:4wd=only/yes/no etc This should be quite easy to script a change for, as I dont think theres too many places where 4wd_only is used for anything other than an access restriction. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
I agree with the access suggestion, eg access:caravan=yes/no/designated/unsuitable I now regret using 4wd_only, this should have be an access: tag instead, eg access:4wd=only/yes/no etc ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 08:02 +0100, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
> Make a new specific tag ("unsuitable_for_caravans=yes;
> source:unsuitable_for_caravans=survey"), and document it on the wiki
> (with a photo of a sign). At least that's explicit and clear.
I see the problem with my HGV proposal. On my cross-country trip, I saw
a lot of areas marked as 'RV friendly'. Maybe we could use
access:caravan=yes/no/designated, with an agreed upon default, ie.
whether untagged roads should be considered caravan friendly or not.
David
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:58 AM, John Smith
> wrote:
> Saw a couple of roads signed "unsuitable for caravans" which
> seems
> like council butt covering but I'm not sure how to tag it
> since it's a
> sign to discourage rather than to disallow.
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:57 PM, John Henderson wrote: > The downside I can see is the difficulty in rendering software being able to > make use of the information given in the exact text. The same information > may be expressed quite differently in different locations. I think there's a kind of continuum of interpretation, starting from the hard, cold fact (the sign) through to what the human being at the other end will eventually do with the information as presented to him. Documenting the hard cold fact is certainly useful, and allows for very precise analysis of the data. But it also makes the data virtually unusable without further work: can you imagine writing code that has to deal with the raw text of signs. So we do some interpretation of the facts to make processing easier: assimilating a range of different signs that might indicate that caravans shouldn't go down a road, and in the process, losing some granularity. (Obviously I'm talking more generally than just caravans...) So...recording both bits of information seems like a good idea: caravan=no signposted:caravan="Road unsuitable for caravans" Or something. Btw, if we're distinguishing between "bad idea" and "prohibited", perhaps the tagging should be "no"/"prohibited" rather than "unsuitable"/"no". It's pretty unusual that you'd want to disregard an "unsuitable", but obey a "prohibited". Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
I've been tagging these with caravan=no where I've found them.
I'd suggest caravan=no if not at all and caravan=unsuitable if it's only
signposted as not suitable.
This is in keeping with the other tags like 4wd_only=yes/no/recommended.
I'd also suggest adding the signposted= or source:signposted= "literal
text from sign" as further reference for future editors.
Cheers
Ross
On 17/02/11 17:57, John Henderson wrote:
On 17/02/11 20:16, {withheld} wrote:
Here is a suggestion:
Whenever a situation like this comes up (i.e. posted signage which does
not fit neatly in a predetermined/official tag case), why not introduce
a new tag:
signposted: "Literal text from sign"
...on the basis such a thing cannot be questioned, because that is what
is there in reality. (Further hint: photograph to prove it?)
The downside I can see is the difficulty in rendering software being
able to make use of the information given in the exact text. The same
information may be expressed quite differently in different locations.
It's potentially useful to caravaners to have a standard tag for roads
best avoided. There's quite a few roads across the country signposted as
unsuitable for caravans, and there may be local variations, such as the
inclusion or absence of the word "Road". Or unsuitable between X and Y.
By all means include a signposted tag for clarity. It's a good idea if
we can standardize on it.
John H
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On 17/02/11 20:16, {withheld} wrote:
Here is a suggestion:
Whenever a situation like this comes up (i.e. posted signage which does
not fit neatly in a predetermined/official tag case), why not introduce
a new tag:
signposted: "Literal text from sign"
...on the basis such a thing cannot be questioned, because that is what
is there in reality. (Further hint: photograph to prove it?)
The downside I can see is the difficulty in rendering software being
able to make use of the information given in the exact text. The same
information may be expressed quite differently in different locations.
It's potentially useful to caravaners to have a standard tag for roads
best avoided. There's quite a few roads across the country signposted
as unsuitable for caravans, and there may be local variations, such as
the inclusion or absence of the word "Road". Or unsuitable between X and Y.
By all means include a signposted tag for clarity. It's a good idea if
we can standardize on it.
John H
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
Here is a suggestion:
Whenever a situation like this comes up (i.e. posted signage which does
not fit neatly in a predetermined/official tag case), why not introduce
a new tag:
signposted: "Literal text from sign"
...on the basis such a thing cannot be questioned, because that is what
is there in reality. (Further hint: photograph to prove it?)
Which reminds me, I need a picture of one of the semi-local "Unlimited:
Drive to Conditions" signs. Second thoughts, scratch that it has already
been done: http://www.gobbie.net/stuff/DriveToSuitConditionsSmall.jpg
On 17/02/11 18:02, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
> Make a new specific tag ("unsuitable_for_caravans=yes;
> source:unsuitable_for_caravans=survey"), and document it on the wiki
> (with a photo of a sign). At least that's explicit and clear.
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:58 AM, John Smith > wrote:
>
> Saw a couple of roads signed "unsuitable for caravans" which seems
> like council butt covering but I'm not sure how to tag it since it's a
> sign to discourage rather than to disallow.
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
