Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On 18 February 2011 18:04, waldo000...@gmail.com waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:43 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with the access suggestion, eg access:caravan=yes/no/designated/unsuitable You mean caravan=*, right? This is already listed at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access Nope I meant what I said, access:caravan=* same with access:4wd=* ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Nope I meant what I said, access:caravan=* same with access:4wd=* As I understand it, foot, motorcar, bicycle, hgv etc are all considered subtags of the access tag. So, for consistency, it would be caravan=no, just like it's foot=no, motorcar=no... Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On 18 February 2011 18:56, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Nope I meant what I said, access:caravan=* same with access:4wd=* As I understand it, foot, motorcar, bicycle, hgv etc are all considered subtags of the access tag. So, for consistency, it would be caravan=no, just like it's foot=no, motorcar=no... Steve I dont think basing a decision on those previous tags is a good idea. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I dont think basing a decision on those previous tags is a good idea. It's documented and everything. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access I can't see any basis for doing this one differently. But why don't you discuss it on the taglist if you feel strongly. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On 18 February 2011 19:28, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I dont think basing a decision on those previous tags is a good idea. It's documented and everything. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access I can't see any basis for doing this one differently. But why don't you discuss it on the taglist if you feel strongly. Steve As I said, I have regrets about 4wd_only=* so why would I think any other access restriction shouldn't be subtagged as many other access:*=* tags have been added as restrictions etc. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:56:03 +1100 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Nope I meant what I said, access:caravan=* same with access:4wd=* As I understand it, foot, motorcar, bicycle, hgv etc are all considered subtags of the access tag. So, for consistency, it would be caravan=no, just like it's foot=no, motorcar=no... Steve a complete subtag like caravan=no will cause misunderstandings with those highway tags which mark a cycleway as part of the way sample highway=secondary cycleway=lane caravan=no will the caravan=no belong on the cycleway or will it belong on the main way? however highway=secondary cycleway=lane access:highway:caravan=maybe would be clear. This discussion just informs us that the access tagging system has faults. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: will the caravan=no belong on the cycleway or will it belong on the main way? Heh. Ever heard of a bike path that permitted caravans? This discussion just informs us that the access tagging system has faults. Discuss it on [tagging]. Steve ___ 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 deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com 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 mailto: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 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
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 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 deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com 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
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 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
[talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
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
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:58 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com 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. IMHO, the poor sap who plans his holiday around taking a caravan down a certain road and then gets there and sees the sign isn't going to be too fussed about the distinction. caravan=no Steve ___ 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 12:58, 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. I've got at least one to tag also. Maybe access:caravan=unsuitable John H ___ 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 14:50 +1100, John Henderson wrote: On 17/02/11 12:58, 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. I've got at least one to tag also. Maybe access:caravan=unsuitable Presumably if its unsuitable for caravans, its also unsuitable for HGV? Maybe simply re-use the HGV access tags already in place? David ___ 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 16:12, David Murn wrote: Presumably if its unsuitable for caravans, its also unsuitable for HGV? Maybe simply re-use the HGV access tags already in place? I think they should be kept separate - there'll likely be places where caravans are permitted (encouraged even), but HGVs not permitted. And then there's John Smith's point about the caravan case being advisory only. For HGVs it's a prohibition (a penalty offence). John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
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 deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 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
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On 17 February 2011 15:52, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote: On 17/02/11 16:12, David Murn wrote: Presumably if its unsuitable for caravans, its also unsuitable for HGV? Maybe simply re-use the HGV access tags already in place? I think they should be kept separate - there'll likely be places where caravans are permitted (encouraged even), but HGVs not permitted. And then there's John Smith's point about the caravan case being advisory only. For HGVs it's a prohibition (a penalty offence). +1 Trucks regularly use the road and there is no signs disallowing or discouraging trucks, just caravans. Perhaps the trucks are part of the reason for discouraging caravans. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
