Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On 4 Aug 2009, at 23:37, Frankie Roberto wrote: Hi all, I'm still keen to try and nail this public transport service vs infrastructure issue. I have create a new wiki-page 'Public transport schema 2' based on Oxomoa's proposal on the main wiki based on the last edit made before the big revert. I have added a bit of information about the relation you refer to in the 'infrastructure' section , but more is needed:- http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport_schema_2 This is very much a proposal to discuss and develop which I see it as being the top-level transit description which links out to more detailed articles (some of which already exist) to create a coherent whole. Regards, Peter I think this mainly applies to railways, however, as I've mentioned before, I'm trying out a few of the ideas on the UK's much smaller list of tram networks. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams details where I've got to so far. The Tramlink in Croydon (London) is a good example of where the the infrastructure (the track network) is clearly different from the tram service patterns (routes 1 to 3). The routes are currently mapped with a relation tagged as type=route, route=tram. I've just created a relation for the network as a whole (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/189917) . For the type being, it's tagged as type=network, network=tram as well as public_transport=network from Sebastians proposal. Are there any other views on how this should be tagged? Perhaps the network shouldn't be tagged at all, under the relations aren't for categories principle? I'm also of the opinion that we should stick to using type=route, route=tram/railway for the train/tram service patterns, rather than the infrastructure. However, this appears to be the opposite of what's written in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema Thoughts? Frankie On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Frankie Roberto fran...@frankieroberto.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: The first question is what does route=railway denote, the infrastructure or the service pattern? This has been solved in Sebastians proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema#Differentiation_between_railway_lines_and_railway_routes Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this. I agree with Peter that we need to bring these various proposals together, form some kind of consensus, and document it fully on the main wiki pages (eg http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Routes) Interestingly, if I understand it correctly, the division between route and line in Sebastian's proposal is exactly opposite to what I'd intuitively have guessed at from the words. eg, we have the West Coast Main Line (the infrastructure or rail corridor) and the route of the Flying Scotsman (the schedule service route). So if it was me, I think I'd name them the opposite way round. However, so long as we document them clearly (with examples), I guess it doesn't matter too much which words we use. As a first step, I think it'd be useful to look at some concrete examples, see how they're currently tagged in OSM, and suggest ways in which the various schemes would be applied. I've started doing this a bit with the UK's tram networks (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams ), which so far use route=tram to tag the service patterns of the trams (which seem to sometimes be called lines, and sometimes routes). -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
Couldn't you just use the network tag on the 3 tram route relations and merge the results to get this relations? It requires a bit more preprocessing to get the information that you are looking for, whilst making it easier for mappers and reducing the data size. Shaun On 4 Aug 2009, at 23:37, Frankie Roberto wrote: Hi all, I'm still keen to try and nail this public transport service vs infrastructure issue. I think this mainly applies to railways, however, as I've mentioned before, I'm trying out a few of the ideas on the UK's much smaller list of tram networks. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams details where I've got to so far. The Tramlink in Croydon (London) is a good example of where the the infrastructure (the track network) is clearly different from the tram service patterns (routes 1 to 3). The routes are currently mapped with a relation tagged as type=route, route=tram. I've just created a relation for the network as a whole (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/189917) . For the type being, it's tagged as type=network, network=tram as well as public_transport=network from Sebastians proposal. Are there any other views on how this should be tagged? Perhaps the network shouldn't be tagged at all, under the relations aren't for categories principle? I'm also of the opinion that we should stick to using type=route, route=tram/railway for the train/tram service patterns, rather than the infrastructure. However, this appears to be the opposite of what's written in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema Thoughts? Frankie On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Frankie Roberto fran...@frankieroberto.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: The first question is what does route=railway denote, the infrastructure or the service pattern? This has been solved in Sebastians proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema#Differentiation_between_railway_lines_and_railway_routes Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this. I agree with Peter that we need to bring these various proposals together, form some kind of consensus, and document it fully on the main wiki pages (eg http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Routes) Interestingly, if I understand it correctly, the division between route and line in Sebastian's proposal is exactly opposite to what I'd intuitively have guessed at from the words. eg, we have the West Coast Main Line (the infrastructure or rail corridor) and the route of the Flying Scotsman (the schedule service route). So if it was me, I think I'd name them the opposite way round. However, so long as we document them clearly (with examples), I guess it doesn't matter too much which words we use. As a first step, I think it'd be useful to look at some concrete examples, see how they're currently tagged in OSM, and suggest ways in which the various schemes would be applied. I've started doing this a bit with the UK's tram networks (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams ), which so far use route=tram to tag the service patterns of the trams (which seem to sometimes be called lines, and sometimes routes). -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
[Talk-transit] Route relations types
Do we want to add route=coach to differentiate long distance routes operated in the UK mainly by National Express and which mainly travel city to city with very limited stops, from the typical bus services which operate within cities or short distance between adjacent or closely related towns and villages stopping frequently and which are tagged route=bus? Regards Brian ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Route relations types
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Roger Slevin ro...@slevin.plus.com wrote: Before anyone answers your question, please bear in mind that there is no clear definition of a “coach” ... and I have dealt with a feedback to traveline on this very point only this morning. A limited stop service between Cambridge and Oxford operated by vehicles which have “coach-style” seats and which the operator refers to as “coaches” runs a limited stop service between the two cities (the X5) – so we call this a coach. The complaint came from someone who had been unable to find this service as a “bus” because he saw a “coach” as being something which you had to prebook, and which expected a significant number of passengers to have luggage which went into luggage lockers under (or at the back of) the vehicle. Whilst I agree that there's no hard-and-fast distinction between buses and coaches, I think that using route=bus-coach is just going to confuse people! I'd suggest using either route=bus or route=coach, and simply going with whichever feels most correct (based upon what the route calls itself or how people generally refer to it). This doesn't resolve the potential ambiguities, but renderers and routing software would be advised to use a bit leeway when doing searches. Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: IMHO the solution is simple. Name it after what you are mapping. For vehicles: The route the cyclist follows is route=bicycle. The route bus 5 follows is route=bus. The route tram 13 follows is route=tram. The route the Eurostar follows is route=train. For infrastructure: The route of the M1 is route=road The route that is made up of the rail tracks of the East Coast Mainline is route=rail. Deprecating route= and replacing it with line= for most things where we currently use route= is a lot of work for no real gain. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit +1 Though I'd go for route=railway for infrastructure, since route=rail is currently being used by a lot of relations for which route=train would be better. Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Route relations types
On 5 Aug 2009, at 13:05, Frankie Roberto wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Roger Slevin ro...@slevin.plus.com wrote: Before anyone answers your question, please bear in mind that there is no clear definition of a “coach” ... and I have dealt with a feedback to traveline on this very point only this morning. A limited stop service between Cambridge and Oxford operated by vehicles which have “coach-style” seats and which the operator refers to as “coaches” runs a limited stop service between the two cities (the X5) – so we call this a coach. The complaint came from someone who had been unable to find this service as a “bus” because he saw a “coach” as being something which you had to prebook, and which expected a significant number of passengers to have luggage which went into luggage lockers under (or at the back of) the vehicle. Whilst I agree that there's no hard-and-fast distinction between buses and coaches, I think that using route=bus-coach is just going to confuse people! I'd suggest using either route=bus or route=coach, and simply going with whichever feels most correct (based upon what the route calls itself or how people generally refer to it). This doesn't resolve the potential ambiguities, but renderers and routing software would be advised to use a bit leeway when doing searches. I understood that one difference in the UK is if it was under 50km the operator could reclaim tax on their fuel. There is also evidently a 50 km rule about tachographs, where drivers operating longer routes need tachos, but ones on shorter routes (urban buses) don't. I think it is also useful to distinguish the sort of seating. I was on a coach last week, big leather seats and air-conditioning - very comfortable and reasonably quick. No toilet which surprised me, but it was only a 1 hour journey so I guess that is fair-enough. The experience of using a normal urban bus would have been very poor in comparison and I wouldn't have taken it. Personally I would vote for the distinction to be retained on the basis of the distance and type of vehicle. Regards, peter Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
Some information lies better on the infrastructure, so for some purposes you want both. I've concluded that infrastructure relations are probably the best way to mark whether route sections are predominantly 1-track, 2-track, 4-track etc. I don't think we've identified much of a need for infrastructure relations on self-contained railways, though I don't think they hurt. Richard On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.ukwrote: Couldn't you just use the network tag on the 3 tram route relations and merge the results to get this relations? It requires a bit more preprocessing to get the information that you are looking for, whilst making it easier for mappers and reducing the data size. Shaun ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Route relations types
There's a clear definition - a coach has it's wheels attached to an underframe distinct from the bodywork. That's why they're higher and have a more-comfortable ride. However there's an overlap caused by the 50km rule. I would surmise that the same threshold is used to require free access by freedom pass holders (over-65s). So I'd be inclined to call both route=bus, and use other tags (service=inter-urban/long-distance? vehicle=coach?) to distinguish them. Richard On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote: On 5 Aug 2009, at 13:05, Frankie Roberto wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Roger Slevin ro...@slevin.plus.comwrote: Before anyone answers your question, please bear in mind that there is no clear definition of a “coach” ... and I have dealt with a feedback to traveline on this very point only this morning. A limited stop service between Cambridge and Oxford operated by vehicles which have “coach-style” seats and which the operator refers to as “coaches” runs a limited stop service between the two cities (the X5) – so we call this a coach. The complaint came from someone who had been unable to find this service as a “bus” because he saw a “coach” as being something which you had to prebook, and which expected a significant number of passengers to have luggage which went into luggage lockers under (or at the back of) the vehicle. Whilst I agree that there's no hard-and-fast distinction between buses and coaches, I think that using route=bus-coach is just going to confuse people! I'd suggest using either route=bus or route=coach, and simply going with whichever feels most correct (based upon what the route calls itself or how people generally refer to it). This doesn't resolve the potential ambiguities, but renderers and routing software would be advised to use a bit leeway when doing searches. I understood that one difference in the UK is if it was under 50km the operator could reclaim tax on their fuel. There is also evidently a 50 km rule about tachographs, where drivers operating longer routes need tachos, but ones on shorter routes (urban buses) don't. I think it is also useful to distinguish the sort of seating. I was on a coach last week, big leather seats and air-conditioning - very comfortable and reasonably quick. No toilet which surprised me, but it was only a 1 hour journey so I guess that is fair-enough. The experience of using a normal urban bus would have been very poor in comparison and I wouldn't have taken it. Personally I would vote for the distinction to be retained on the basis of the distance and type of vehicle. Regards, peter Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: Deprecating route= and replacing it with line= for most things where we currently use route= is a lot of work for no real gain. Though I'd go for route=railway for infrastructure, since route=rail is currently being used by a lot of relations for which route=train would be better. +1 route=railway and route=train works for me. For trams, would this be route=tramway and route=tram? Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On 5 Aug 2009, at 13:13, Richard Mann wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: IMHO the solution is simple. Name it after what you are mapping. For vehicles: The route the cyclist follows is route=bicycle. The route bus 5 follows is route=bus. The route tram 13 follows is route=tram. The route the Eurostar follows is route=train. For infrastructure: The route of the M1 is route=road The route that is made up of the rail tracks of the East Coast Mainline is route=rail. Deprecating route= and replacing it with line= for most things where we currently use route= is a lot of work for no real gain. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit +1 Though I'd go for route=railway for infrastructure, since route=rail is currently being used by a lot of relations for which route=train would be better. Do check out this new wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport_schema_2 I have done some work on the top level modelling for transit information based on Oxoma's work. I am proposing that we use Lines, Line Variants and Routes for the actual services in a similar way to the original proposal. Lines are pretty much unchanged. Line Variants used to hold a stop list and also the route through the infrastructure. I have split this into Line Variants for the list of stops, and Routes for the path through the network (this approach saves work as it allows Routes to be reused on more than one Line Variant). It is also the modelling used by Transmodel which will be helpful when we start getting more EU schedule data. Routes are pretty much the same as cycle routes, ie a single path through the transport network. I have added a basic infrastructure route proposal, but have no strong feelings about what tags we use. With regard to updating what is already in OSM then I suggest we use write some tools to do the job. Frederik has already offered to some support for this (and he recently did some automatic cleanup on tiger data in the USA) using a similar rule-bases approach. Regards, Peter Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
Yes Frederik could tidy things up, but it's best not to change things arbitrarily (ie substituting line for route), because it just makes it harder to remember what is correct. The lack of presets for relations in Potlatch makes it doubly useful to minimise the complexity. Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On 5 Aug 2009, at 14:41, Richard Mann wrote: Yes Frederik could tidy things up, but it's best not to change things arbitrarily (ie substituting line for route), because it just makes it harder to remember what is correct. The lack of presets for relations in Potlatch makes it doubly useful to minimise the complexity. I totally agree, however we are just setting out on a long journey to capture all the transit data for the world, so lets get the modelling clear now and not be held back by some tag-updating! As we are aware the various transit strands and proposals were initially created bottom-up in a rather random way (which is the nature of these projects). Oxomoa then did a good review of the tagging and identified a number of gaps and inconsistencies with the German community which started to bring it all together. We have also had some useful input from the professional transit community. I suggest that we put significant effort into the wiki and modelling at this point to get all the transit related pages to fit together in a consistent way to our liking and that this will pay big dividends in the future. Regards, Peter Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
[Talk-transit] NAPTAN Import: Plus-bus Zones
I've had a quick look at a couple of the PlusBusZones (once inadvertently, as the name is rendering inappropriately on the Mapnik map): Nottingham and Maidenhead. In both cases boundaries are only approximate, and appear to be delimited by bus stops rather than routes (e.g., service 6 in Maidenhead travels along A308, and through the Pinkneys Green area, but AFAIK does not stop). The Nottingham one is of particular interest to me as the available literature shows an extremely fuzzy map with no indications of the precise limits of the zone. On the routes where I know the limit of the city-wide tickets (CityRider, Kangaroo) the edges of the zone are from 100-200 metres out. I wonder how we can improve this mapping in OSM. For instance I could ensure that the PlusBus zone polygon shared nodes with the bus stops at the Blue Bell, Attenborough, and the Sherwin Arms, Bramcote. There is one other issue: the Nottingham Tram (NET) extends to Hucknall, and I think the relevant tram stops are included in the PlusBus scheme, but buses are not. The Kangaroo includes the tram and also train services between Hucknall, Attenborough, Carlton and Nottingham. Jerry SK53 PS. First posting to list, so formatting might be an issue. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Route relations types
I would favor a similar solution to the network=lcn/ncn etc for route=bicycle. For example network=local/regional/national. Than you can handle the distinction between long distance and regioal trains also with it. regards, melchior 2009/8/5 Brian Prangle bpran...@googlemail.com Do we want to add route=coach to differentiate long distance routes operated in the UK mainly by National Express and which mainly travel city to city with very limited stops, from the typical bus services which operate within cities or short distance between adjacent or closely related towns and villages stopping frequently and which are tagged route=bus? Regards Brian ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [talk-ph] Fwd: [OSM-talk] Nationnal websites
I guys Andre and Ahmed can and should take of this? On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:26 AM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, Don't know how to respond here: On Monday 03 August 2009 20:09:23 SLXViper wrote: www.openstreetmap.is and osm.is weren't mentioned as far as I could see. Both redirect to the normal openstreetmap.org domain. I added them to the list I also created a wiki page as mentioned before: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Domain_names If there is some Filipino on the list. openstreetmap.org.ph seams to be your main domain name. www.openstreetmap.com.ph is a redirection to it, but openstreetmap.com.phis a parking page. On a related note, do we need to pimp this site a bit? -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Brussel - Bruxelles
you can add the other language names with for instance name:fr tag or so. If there are - or will be - different language versions of the osm rendering, dunno if there are, they would be marked with the name of the language specific name, if there is one. see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Places and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name you shouldnt add the other language to the 'default' name however. Luc / Speedy On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:53 AM, s...@daxu.be wrote: So the naming of Brussel - Brussels was correct since the Brussel region doesn't have language facilities for german speaking people. Otherwise you should even adjust the names of Kortrijk (Courtrai), Brugge (Bruges), Gent (Ghent), Namur (Namen), ... Chris Browet wrote: Interesting one... I would have indeed intuitively thought the language usage would be defined by region. But as there is no german region (only community), where is german an official language (and how is it geographically defined)? It's in the first lines of Belgian Constitution (article 4): translated a bit: Belgium is divided into four language areas: the Dutch language area, the French language are, the bilingual area Brussels-Capital and the German language area. Each municipality belongs to exactly one of these language areas. The boundaries of the four language areas can't be changed or corrected other than by a law, passed by majority of votes in each language group of each Room, on the condition that a majority of the members of each language group is present, and that the total of yes votes in both language groups reach two thirds of all votes. So there you have it: four language areas, and they're geographically defined by the borders of the municipalities in each language area. Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
While this isn't my proposal, I have an interest in getting 4wd_only tracks to render properly. I've slightly modified this page to conform to what people suggested on the talk-au list. This tag is already in use in the Australian area, judging by the talk pages possibly other countries too. I would like to move things forward and have this render properly, roads that are 4wd only are everywhere in Australia and they need to clearly state it. Simply marking things as tracks isn't enough as cars are able to drive along some tracks, but for clearence reasons they won't be able to drive down a 4wd_only track. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/4WD_Only Australian Tagging Guidelines, based on talk-au threads. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#4WD_only_track ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
John Smith wrote: --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: 'Urban' areas should on the whole be covered by 'residential' or 'service' in between the 4 main vehicle route tags. Although personally I'd prefer that motorway service roads were not grouped with 'industrial'. 'shopping' may have a place for filling in the gaps in these cases, but I do not see any reason that 'unclassified' would be used within an urban area? The problem is the definition on the wiki is ambiguous enough that people took it to mean that it interconnects with residential streets, and at the same time they took residential streets to imply access=destination so they needed some what to distinguish and that's when the problem started. If they had marked the residential streets as access=destination instead, and used residential without the access restriction there wouldn't be the conversation we're having now. No you have totally lost me there ... I've not had time to read ALL the messages in this string, but routing software should address the time aspect of a route, and anything below 'secondary' should be treated as a slow route. As you say - stopping routing through an area has nothing to do with the highway tag ... This leaves tertiary and unclassified for those roads outside urban areas and on the whole tertiary probably applies better leaving unclassified for roads such as farm tracks or routes where the vehicular usage may be questionable. Certainly an 'unclassified' highway should not be capable of handling a large lorry so routes for access to farms should be tagged 'service' perhaps where such access is practical, and 'track' needs to be tidied in the same context? Unfortunately that's not how everyone sees it, it really depends on what you're used to as to how you take the meaning of the current wiki definition. But that is the reason for discussing tidying up the definition. I think I could well make a case for a 'way' having a 'highway', 'cycleway' and 'footway' tag if appropriate, so American motorways that have cycle access would simply add a 'cycleway' tag with separate linking ways if appropriate? If a bike can legally go somewhere it should be tagged as such for the bike routing software to figure it all out :) That is what I said Tag a cycleway as a cycleway ;) Rather than having to check for 'bike=no' tags. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [RFC] restriction=school_zone (second email)
Since proposing this tag combination I've tagged about a dozen schools and at first glance I can't see any problems. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:restriction%3Dschool_zone ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic than residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary. Then I propose to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is a road equal to a residential road, but outside residential areas. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
John Smith wrote: While this isn't my proposal, I have an interest in getting 4wd_only tracks to render properly. I've slightly modified this page to conform to what people suggested on the talk-au list. This tag is already in use in the Australian area, judging by the talk pages possibly other countries too. I would like to move things forward and have this render properly, roads that are 4wd only are everywhere in Australia and they need to clearly state it. Simply marking things as tracks isn't enough as cars are able to drive along some tracks, but for clearence reasons they won't be able to drive down a 4wd_only track. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/4WD_Only Australian Tagging Guidelines, based on talk-au threads. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#4WD_only_track High ground clearance required? More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not always clear what they are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep fords, mud or poor traction conditions ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On 5 Aug 2009, at 06:40, John Smith wrote: Currently highway=unclassified is too ambiguous, and while there was a proposal to replace this with highway=minor this seems to have gone no where yet the same problem still exists. I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic than residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary. I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non- urban* areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than residential, generally unsealed but some of them are sealed and they generally only have a single lane depending how zealous the grader driver was feeling. Please comment and so forth on the talk page and hopefully this can be sorted out once and for all. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway:rural You can determine whether an unclassified road is rural by whether there are other things around in the area. That's the whole point of Geo extensions in databases. you can also do some preprocessing if you need to. Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non-urban* areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than residential, generally unsealed but some of them are sealed and they generally only have a single lane depending how zealous the grader driver was feeling. where would this differ from an highway=track? -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' homepage: http://www.trueelena.org email: elena.valha...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: High ground clearance required? More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not always clear what they are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep fords, mud or poor traction conditions ... http://www.exploroz.com/Uploads/Members/88187.875/Forum/Pic_1__TN800.jpg This sign makes no such distinction, it's not the only sign that just states 4WD Only although the only ones I've seen are in national parks around here. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote: You can determine whether an unclassified road is rural by whether there are other things around in the area. That's the whole point of Geo extensions in databases. you can also do some preprocessing if you need to. That isn't the point, the same key/value pair is being used for 2 completely different purposes and that could mean they need to be rendered differently. Also not all towns are mapped out any where near usable levels in Australia so this wouldn't really be appropriate until such times as they are mapped out. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com wrote: I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic than residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary. Someone already tried that. It didn't even progress to voting. Then I propose to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is a road equal to a residential road, but outside residential areas. By all means, but the current situation is this, Germans and others are using it in one respect and Australians in a completely different respect. The whole point in my attempt at trying to do something was to stop all the pointless emails saying the same thing in 10 different ways. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Elena of Valhalla elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote: where would this differ from an highway=track? A track is lower grade, at least here. rural road: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/330763485_4f976dba02.jpg track: http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/200281101-001.jpg?v=1c=NewsMakerk=2d=BEE8F6E6581A110684979C26C9F730851F6F6178A68B340C There may be no similarity in Europe, I have no idea never been, but there is a distinct difference between a track and a rural road. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
Hi, John Smith wrote: I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic than residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary. This is not how it is generally used over here (Germany) where the majority of people use unclassified for a road roughly equal to residential but without people living there. Mind you, only recently someone has suggested on talk-de to do the same as you say, namely define unclassified as something bigger than residential but smaller than tertiary. I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non-urban* areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than residential, generally unsealed but some of them are sealed and they generally only have a single lane depending how zealous the grader driver was feeling. I would not hesitate to use highway=residential or highway=unclassified for these (or even tertiary and up if they are important to traffic). In fact, nobody says that a secondary road must be sealed! You can always add a surface tag to describe details. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
4x4 are for the crap drivers, 2wd is the best. In the UK there are several reliabilty trials that use these so called 4x4 tracks for competitions. I think we need a tag that suggests the highway is either rough terrain or hard going and a decent off road vehicle is strongly advised. 4x4 only does not suggest that to me, my van is a 4x4 but its soo low it would break doing proper off-roading. Jack On Aug 5, 2009 8:25 AM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: High ground clearance required? ... http://www.exploroz.com/Uploads/Members/88187.875/Forum/Pic_1__TN800.jpg This sign makes no such distinction, it's not the only sign that just states 4WD Only although the only ones I've seen are in national parks around here. ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: This is not how it is generally used over here (Germany) where the majority of people use unclassified for a road roughly equal to residential but without people living there. I don't know about the talk-de list, just what I've seen on this list, if it mostly isn't used that way unclassified should be defined better. I would not hesitate to use highway=residential or highway=unclassified for these (or even tertiary and up if they are important to traffic). In fact, nobody says that a secondary road must be sealed! You can always add a surface tag to describe details. I've marked at least one unsealed road as tertiary and there is roads less maintained/used that intersect and it makes no sense to mark most roads as tertiary or higher they just aren't that important. Also it doesn't make sense to make them as residential, as the road is usually isn't as good as residential roads, but not as bad as tracks. http://osm.org/go/uZ4m4qa6- Both roads on that map link are unsealed, however one is less used/less traffic/less maintained than the tertiary road. The tertiary road is used a lot as it can save 50km from going via a sealed road so it is of some importance. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jack Stringer jack.ix...@googlemail.com wrote: 4x4 are for the crap drivers, 2wd is the best. In the UK there are several reliabilty trials that use these so called 4x4 tracks for competitions. I think we need a tag that suggests the highway is either rough terrain or hard going and a decent off road vehicle is strongly advised. 4x4 only does not suggest that to me, my van is a 4x4 but its soo low it would break doing proper off-roading. People in Australia are used to signs that say 4wd only and it's meaning is clear, there is no tag combination at present that says it succinctly, the point of getting this officially recognised is so that rendered maps will show 4wd only after the name and those that have suitable vehicles can if they wish take those routes and those that don't won't. There is usually a few tourists every year that end up stuck somewhere and dead and marking 4wd tracks may reduce the stupidity of people taking short cuts when they really don't know what to expect. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: High ground clearance required? ...So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep fords, mud or poor traction conditions ... The sign says 4WD ONLY - I therefore suggest that 4wd_only is indeed the correct terminology, at least in regions (e.g. Australia) where the sign appears as such and the phrase is in common use. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:49 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I would not hesitate to use highway=residential or highway=unclassified for these (or even tertiary and up if they are important to traffic). In fact, nobody says that a secondary road must be sealed! You can always add a surface tag to describe details. I've marked at least one unsealed road as tertiary and there is roads less maintained/used that intersect and it makes no sense to mark most roads as tertiary or higher they just aren't that important. Also it doesn't make sense to make them as residential, as the road is usually isn't as good as residential roads, but not as bad as tracks. Hmm... Frederik has a point. John you seem to be mashing together 1) the importance and 2) the quality (good vs bad). Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But the alternative (which Frederik seems to be suggesting) would be to use primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential solely to address 1) the importance, and use surface + width + lanes + 4wd_only, etc, for 2) the quality. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
Hi, Roy Wallace wrote: The sign says 4WD ONLY - I therefore suggest that 4wd_only is indeed the correct terminology, at least in regions (e.g. Australia) where the sign appears as such and the phrase is in common use. What is the legal status of these signs? Are you liable to a fine if you proceed with a 2WD car, or is it just that the insurance won't pay if you do and get stuck? Or are they just meant as an advice to drivers? What about motorcycles? Maybe it makes sense to use a variation of the motorcar tag which is already widely used to model car access (e.g. highway=tertiary, motorcar=4wdonly - or even highway=tertiary, motorcar=no, motorcar:4wd=yes or something)? Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: High ground clearance required? More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not always clear what they are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep fords, mud or poor traction conditions ... good point, that the sign-makers might not have thought of. So they're advising Bugatti Veyron (4x4 transmission but no ground-clearance) drivers that these roads are especially designed for their use? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm... Frederik has a point. John you seem to be mashing together 1) the importance and 2) the quality (good vs bad). Quality doesn't have as much to do with things as the importance, as a result of the importance and the number of complaints to the council that a road needs to be graded. But the alternative (which Frederik seems to be suggesting) would be to use primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential solely to address 1) the importance, and use surface + width + lanes + 4wd_only, etc, for 2) the quality. I don't care how things are dealt with but the emails in the last day or 2 have gone no where in addressing the issue, just trying to get each other to understand how someone came to that point and their view of unclassified is the only one that matters. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
On 05/08/2009, at 10.09, Frederik Ramm wrote: Maybe it makes sense to use a variation of the motorcar tag which is already widely used to model car access (e.g. highway=tertiary, motorcar=4wdonly - or even highway=tertiary, motorcar=no, motorcar:4wd=yes or something)? This is going in the wrong direction IMHO. There is no limit to the number of vehicles that could be defined in this way. What about armored_tanks=yes ? :-) I think it's a mistake to use tags that depend on anything but the terrain. For example, terrain=*. That would tell people what they want to know from a map, namely what the terrain is like, not what kind of vehicle someone thinks can go there. My 2 cents. Cheers, Morten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: What is the legal status of these signs? Are you liable to a fine if you proceed with a 2WD car, or is it just that the insurance won't pay if you do and get stuck? Or are they just meant as an advice to drivers? Primarily they are advice which reflects the state the road is usually in. At the very least you look stupid to who ever comes along to pull you out :) I don't think insurance would be too much of a problem, getting a ticket by a cop disobeying a sign or similar might happen but I've never heard of anyone getting one. What about motorcycles? BMW road/off road bikes work well, road bikes don't work very well on anything but sealed roads, and then you have trail/ag/4 wheel bikes all would go on these roads no problem. The question is, what sort of motorcycle are you asking about? Maybe it makes sense to use a variation of the motorcar tag which is already widely used to model car access (e.g. highway=tertiary, motorcar=4wdonly - or even highway=tertiary, motorcar=no, motorcar:4wd=yes or something)? I'm not sure which is better from a consistency point of view, however 4wd_only=yes/recommended/no is already in use. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
Morten Kjeldgaard schrieb: On 05/08/2009, at 10.09, Frederik Ramm wrote: Maybe it makes sense to use a variation of the motorcar tag which is already widely used to model car access (e.g. highway=tertiary, motorcar=4wdonly - or even highway=tertiary, motorcar=no, motorcar:4wd=yes or something)? This is going in the wrong direction IMHO. There is no limit to the number of vehicles that could be defined in this way. What about armored_tanks=yes ? :-) I think it's a mistake to use tags that depend on anything but the terrain. For example, terrain=*. That would tell people what they want to know from a map, namely what the terrain is like, not what kind of vehicle someone thinks can go there. Resp. for a way there is surface=* But never the less I think if 4wd-only is common in that region, why not tag it? The more data, the better. But I'm unsure if the renderer should implement it, as it could just be used in this area, whereas surface=* can be applied to every way. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
On 05/08/2009, at 5:54 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: The sign says 4WD ONLY - I therefore suggest that 4wd_only is indeed the correct terminology, at least in regions (e.g. Australia) where the sign appears as such and the phrase is in common use. While true, it would also be useful to know whether you can't drive an average sedan up the road, or if you need to bring your recovery equipment (after checking it still works). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: that's IMHO why I started this discussion: it surely isn't just physical. well perhaps that was why the Australian Guidelines, written before I joined OSM, tagged highways both with their physical condition and an administrative condition, double using the highway ref tag to do. where ref=NH1, is Highway 1, national highway adminstratively and ref=NR1 is still Highway 1, but not a national highway. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Lester Caine wrote: Certainly an 'unclassified' highway should not be capable of handling a large lorry so routes for access to farms should be tagged 'service' perhaps where such access is practical, It must be capable of taking the fire truck. Often they can also take very large vehicles B-doubles and similar vehicles. Service to me means the little parallel side road which keeps the stopping traffic away from the moving traffic, or a laneway.. It could still take a big truck. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:18 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: Change highway=unclassified definition to be more explicit, for example: Are you just speaking about Australia wiki pages or in general ? No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form the interconnecting grid network of residential and other Urban road ways. Here in France, we reuse the highway=tertiary for such things since tertiary doesn't really exists as administrative level. And a new highway classification highway=rural which would be: No administrative classification. Rural roads typically form the lowest form of the non-Urban interconnecting grid network. Rural roads also connect more than one farm to urban areas even if they are no through roads. Hopefully the refinement of unclassified and the addition of a new highway type seen mostly in rural areas of Australia and I'm guessing other countries with large areas of sparsely populated areas. We also have some sparsely populated areas and we were able the handle them with the existing classification tertiary/unclassified/residential/track. Didn't had to create another one which would just add confusion. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Lester Caine wrote: High ground clearance required? More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not always clear what they are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep fords, mud or poor traction conditions ... it's a legal distinction here and it could be any of those problems. and mud, poor traction ground clearance and a ford still might not make a 4wd only track. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote: But never the less I think if 4wd-only is common in that region, why not tag it? The more data, the better. But I'm unsure if the renderer should implement it, as it could just be used in this area, whereas surface=* can be applied to every way. If it's signed as 4WD only, shouldn't that info be rendered to show people that it might not be the best road to travel along? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
Roy Wallace wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: High ground clearance required? ...So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep fords, mud or poor traction conditions ... The sign says 4WD ONLY - I therefore suggest that 4wd_only is indeed the correct terminology, at least in regions (e.g. Australia) where the sign appears as such and the phrase is in common use. WHS -- it meets the guidelines of being verifiable, by being what's on the ground. If it were based on one mapper's judgement, that would be different, but this is unambiguous. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: and mud, poor traction ground clearance and a ford still might not make a 4wd only track. Having grown up in such areas I'm well schooled in traveling along tracks that aren't 4wd only and ways to unstick yourself, usually jacking up the car and sticking whatever is near under wheels by to get yourself out. However there are just some places that I wouldn't go in anything less than a proper 4wd, for those in the UK think landrover, that's what they mean here by 4wd only. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote: What is the legal status of these signs? Are you liable to a fine if you proceed with a 2WD car, or is it just that the insurance won't pay if you do and get stuck? Or are they just meant as an advice to drivers? Ah, the legal status is very interesting. Currently if you have an AWD or an 4WD you can drive in the snow without having chains fitted. That is State Law NSW then in the NSW National Parks there are regulations (lesser laws) which say where you can and can't go, with a bike, with a horse, with a car, and if a 4WD is required. These people very aggressively police these rules, such that sticking to them is important eg this one http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/NationalParks/parkCamping.aspx?id=N0004 Burralow Creek camping ground (35 sites) Getting there: From Kurrajong Heights, take the fire trail off Burralow Road (4WD only). From Bilpin, take the Patterson Range Fire Trail (also strictly 4WD only). Please drive carefully on the winding fire trails leading to the camping area. or Murphys Glen campground Unsealed road/trail - 2WD vehicles. 4WD required in wet weather. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: WHS -- it meets the guidelines of being verifiable, by being what's on the ground. If it were based on one mapper's judgement, that would be different, but this is unambiguous. Australia isn't the only country that does 4WD Only signs... http://vgwww.vegagerdin.is/sthbthjon.nsf/2d1e761d5db9cd840025702a00731850/4f712550323daa0900257241003846d7?OpenDocument So the only thing that is left is describe the information in OSM's DB. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: It's up to the AU community what to do about this, but be aware that in the European Axis there's a very strong feeling that for a road to be tagged residential, there needs to be houses (or other dwellings) on it, and for it not to be designed for through traffic. I've had no objections for highway=rural on the talk-au list, but these roads are distinct from tracks and the volume of traffic that goes along them. I feel there is a very real need to describe something that is between residential and track and up until this point in time unclassified has been used. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Jonathan Bennett wrote: be aware that in the European Axis there's a very strong feeling we are very aware of the European Axis there are many terms in English which can be used Eurocentric Cultural Imperialism etc Please guys, your corner of the world is small You don't even have big populations like India and China Would you consider being more open to dialogue rather than diatribe and consider that what you think is normal isn't normal for others. We accept that things are different, we actually like being different, and it is a cultural norm DownUnder. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Redefine the highway-key from scratch
As we probably never can agree on the semantics discussion we should redefine the syntax of the highway-tag from scratch. This will never happen since it's a pita-job to edit the existing data, but here we go: 1. Remove all highway=motorway, trunk, primary, etc. 2. Use highway=road. It's a road! If we can't agree on what is a road we're in trouble. 3. Use additional tags like motorway=yes, living_street=yes for roads with special status. Perhaps also trunk=yes (this is alreasy used in Sweden as stamväg=yes). 4. Use admin_level=1...10 or 1...20. (or whatever key name is best suited) You can argue until hell has experienced 666 freeze-thaw cycles wheater unclassified is higher, lower or equal than residential, but 4 is a higher classification than 5. Period. spinal tapBut remember: 11 is always more than 10, right... ;) /spinal tap Use the whole scale and omit levels so that countries with intermediate classifications will have a free number to use. One way of doing this it so use 1...100 and have 1, 10, 20, 30...100 as standards. If a country then has a road that lies between 40 and 50 then use 45. If if your area has two roads between 60 and 70 then use 63 and 66. (The freeways of US goes here (though in the 1...9 span) - from the little I've read there are users who wants to splice it up depending of different factors.) Large scale renderers (mapnik, osmarender, cycle map) can easily have the same rendering for 1...9, 10...19, 20...21 etc and local renderers can create special rules that suites their purpose. This key could also encompass the track_grade system, but admin_level might be a bad name for that. 5. A residential road would be a highway=road, abutters=residental or a highway=road passing through landuse=residential area. This allows for different grade residential roads. Eg. http://osm.org/go/0ex4n1HM?layers=B000TTF - Östra Kyrkogatan is a residential road (apartments with doors directly facing the street), but at the same time it's the main drive-through road of the area. 6. Make good use of availible road standard tags such as, but not limited to, lanes=*, maxspeed=*, surface=*, lit=* etc. And yes I know, highway=road is already in use. So add admin_level=unknown to them first then. (See the solutions - not the problems) Now, you are on the way of getting administrative grading (admin_level), quality grading (lanes, maxspeed, surface) and lovely beautiful maps without having to argue the purpose and size of a unclassified road. As always: grade what is - not as you wish it to render. Are you using highway=unclassified since it renders properly compared to residential, or because it fits the description of the highway-type. And finally - this is not a super-serious proposal. Just giving you something to think about. /Konrad ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
John Smith schrieb: --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote: But never the less I think if 4wd-only is common in that region, why not tag it? The more data, the better. But I'm unsure if the renderer should implement it, as it could just be used in this area, whereas surface=* can be applied to every way. If it's signed as 4WD only, shouldn't that info be rendered to show people that it might not be the best road to travel along? Yes it should, but as stated above 4WD to *me* it's not telling sth. about the quality of the road. To you of course it dose, becouse you know this term. 4WD has a special meaning in your area, while on the other hand, surface=* is unambiguous to anyone and in any place around the world. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
Hi, Peter Körner wrote: 4WD has a special meaning in your area I don't know what 4WD means in other places but if I saw a map with certain roads marked 4 WD only I would know exactly what that means, and I doubt that anyone wouldn't! Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Peter Körner wrote: surface=* is unambiguous to anyone and in any place around the world. it doesn't tell me whether i drive my FWD car along there or if i should stay away and it doesn't matter how you define surface, it isn't going to explain what 4wd only means. it's a legally enforceable definition and does not mean AWD like the Subaru and here they are taxed differently on the initial purchase price too 4WDS (Australian Transport Safety Bureau) are vehicles not based on a car design, including long and short base four wheel drive passenger vehicles and utilities ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
John Smith wrote: I feel there is a very real need to describe something that is between residential and track and up until this point in time unclassified has been used. If there are types of roads in Australia that you feel the existing tags don't adequately describe, feel free to start using a new one -- you can use Any Tags You Like. Bear in mind that the highway tags aren't meant to be a sliding scale of importance, or follow a strict hierarchy. You just have to describe a particular type of road as best you can, without necessarily needing a reference to any other type of road. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing Imagery
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:36 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: I know google forbids it, but I haven't heard about MS/Bing... Have they disallowed use of their sat imagery or is it explicitly forbidden in their TCs? It doesn't need to be explicitly forbidden for it to still be forbidden. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing Imagery
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't need to be explicitly forbidden for it to still be forbidden. Is it forbidden, explicitly or otherwise? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: If there are types of roads in Australia that you feel the existing tags don't adequately describe, feel free to start using a new one -- you can use Any Tags You Like. Bear in mind that the highway tags aren't meant to be a sliding scale of importance, or follow a strict hierarchy. You just have to describe a particular type of road as best you can, without necessarily needing a reference to any other type of road. I want some sort of consensus otherwise there will be a LOT of work, and possibly twice after something else is thought of, and that's what I'm trying to avoid by trying to get something on the map features page. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I'd agree that it should be importance for trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. The stuff about not using trunk for single-track roads just doesn't match what people are actually doing (judging by some of the roads in the Western Highlands). The physical tends to align to the importance, but what we actually tend to tag is the importance (usually based on the type of signs). However, motorway is physical, and many of the other highway tags are defined in physical terms, or in terms of access rights. So the initial sentence needs to allow for more variety than just importance. +1 In the Philippines, we tend to tag the highways via importance and highway=motorway as a physical variant of highway=trunk. Relying on administrative classifications (National, provincial, municipal roads) will not work at all. On the residential/unclassified question, I do tend to use highway=unclassified for non-residential urban roads. I'm not entirely comfortable using the same tag for industrial estate roads and narrow country lanes (and it probably makes matters harder for renderers than necessary). Perhaps the solution lies in qualifying unclassified roads with an abutters tag when it's used in towns. We generally use highway=unclassified for all other non-track roads that are not residential. So residential and unclassified are generally equal but residential are for strictly residential areas so highway=residential roads would have lesser importance with regard to routing. This still conforms to the use of highway=* as an importance indicator. Eugene ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing Imagery
John Smith wrote: --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't need to be explicitly forbidden for it to still be forbidden. Is it forbidden, explicitly or otherwise? These are from Multimap, and if you click the TCs on the bing mapping page it takes you to Multimap's TC's: http://www.multimap.com/about/legal_and_copyright/ and the imagery (Birds Eye View) is explicitly marked as copyright below the image. Seems pretty explicit to me. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing Imagery
John Smith wrote: Is it forbidden, explicitly or otherwise? Yes. Unless it's explicitly permitted, it's forbidden. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing Imagery
2009/8/5 maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com: I hope they do, they have several areas with high-res that are not covered in yahoo! in the Philippines While Ms's and Multimap's reputation is that they would not allow that if they have this option (Microsoft is a coin operated machine), let's ask them, maybe we're lucky. We would need to ask them anyway even if TC implied that the imagery can be used. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] French/Dutch caribbean island Saint Martin (Sint Maarten) not correctly positionned
Hi, I'm currently implementing the cadastre support in JOSM for the french part of the island Saint-Martin shared with our Dutch friends (it is a special projection). The island is quite well mapped today, mostly from the hi-res Yahoo imagery I guess: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=18.069lon=-63.0746zoom=13layers=B000FTF The problem is that the data, although they match the Yahoo imagery, seem to be shifted from about 800 meters in north. The French national geographic institut provides files about geodesic reference points and one is marked on the main fortress here: http://geodesie.ign.fr/fiche_geodesie_OM.asp?num_site=9712701X=491000Y=1998000 Here the details of one mark on the ground: http://geodesie.ign.fr/fiche_point_OM.asp?num_site=9712701no_ptg=01 So, the fortress should be at 18.0707416944 lat and -63.0851921944 lon but in OSM it is at (approx.) 18.0705758642 lat and -63.0845414733 lon My guess is that the Yahoo imagery is not correctly georeferenced. I can fix this issue for the French part of the island using the cadastre. But what about the Dutch part of the island ? It is probably the same issue for the neighbourhood, e.g. Scrub Island, Dog Island and Saint Barthelemy. Also how can we inform other mappers that the Yahoo imagery is not correct in this area ? Can someone from the Netherlands contact me and check with me what could be done to fix this issue ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Redefine the highway-key from scratch
Konrad Skeri konrad at skeri.com writes: [tagging 'admin_level' of roads instad of residential, unclassified, etc] Use the whole scale and omit levels so that countries with intermediate classifications will have a free number to use. One way of doing this it so use 1...100 and have 1, 10, 20, 30...100 as standards. If a country then has a road that lies between 40 and 50 then use 45. If if your area has two roads between 60 and 70 then use 63 and 66. I hardly think this will make it easier for newcomers (or indeed old-timers) to edit OSM. Nobody will remember the exact number to use - is a residential road in Belgium 42 or 57? - and every map editor will need to have a lookup table that turns numbers into strings like 'residential', 'secondary' and so on to present to the user. In which case you have the same mess again, but multiplied by the number of OSM editors available. Is residential higher or lower than unclassified? This argument would not go away under your proposal. Instead we would have long discussions about whether it is appropriate to tag residential streets with admin_level=30 and commercial ones with admin_level=25, or whether they should both have the same magic number, and so on and so on. If there were any disagreement then it would be scattered across the map, with some areas using 25 and others using 30, and since these are just numbers with no other meaning it wouldn't be possible to do a cleanup to recover the information of what street type is what. It's not like the 'layer' tag which is arbitrary, as long as one layer is higher than another. Road classifications do have meaning, and the fact that classifying the meaning is difficult does not suggest we should just give up and resort to essentially meaningless and unverifiable numbers. (The fact that a road is 'residential' or 'unclassified' is perhaps a little fuzzy round the edges, but it is verifiable, whereas admin_level=45 is not verifiable by any reference to the real world, unless by comparing to all the other streets in the map which have the same admin_level.) 5. A residential road would be a highway=road, abutters=residental or a highway=road passing through landuse=residential area. This allows for different grade residential roads. Eg. http://osm.org/go/0ex4n1HM?layers=B000TTF - Östra Kyrkogatan is a residential road (apartments with doors directly facing the street), but at the same time it's the main drive-through road of the area. This makes some sense. And finally - this is not a super-serious proposal. Just giving you something to think about. Ah, ok. I hope I've explained why using numbers is not really the way to go, unless those numbers can be verified in the real world. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] French/Dutch caribbean island Saint Martin (Sint Maarten) not correctly positionned
2009/8/5 Pieren pier...@gmail.com Can someone from the Netherlands contact me and check with me what could be done to fix this issue ? It is not someone from the Netherlands you should have contact with but with someone from the Netherlands Antilles of which Saint Martin is part of. The government if I remember correctly is based in Curacao. Emilie Laffray ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Jonathan Bennett wrote: In addition the Australian Tagging Guidelines (which Liz mentioned were written a year before the residential page) explicitly disagree with the residential page. I've done some investigation on this specific point, and found the following: The edit which added the current definition of residential roads to that page was made on 2nd January 2008 (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_Guideline sdiff=67689oldid=66241) by Lakeyboy in an edit with no summary. I can find no discussion of this change on the wiki talk page or Talk-AU beforehand. I have not heard back from lakeyboy yet to answer the implicit question, whose answer I believe will either be convention already adopted in AU or decided by meeting of mappers in Melbourne however, at that point, Jan 08, the concept was written. The Tag:highway=residential page was started on 4 April 08 - unclassified - a wider road used by through traffic - residential - a narrower road generally used only by people that live on that road or roads that branch off it. and was last edited 4 August 09 * '''unclassified''' - a road used by through traffic '''residential''' - a road generally used only by people that live on that road or roads that branch off it. to remove narrower and wider ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
Proposal: +1. Thanks The question whether urban unclassifieds are at the same level of urban residentials can be left to the router/renderer - best not to mention it. The tagger just needs to be able to describe what is there simply and clearly. A new tag for rural unclassifieds would clarify matters, and highway=rural is as good a suggestion as any. It would be better for us to have something we can agree on, rather than having some people use unclassified, some people seeking to redefine unclassified, and others using highway=track+tracktype=grade1. I'd define a rural as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is made for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass (be that lower-grade shoulders, Australian-style or occasional formal or informal widenings, UK-style). Richard On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:40 AM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: Currently highway=unclassified is too ambiguous, and while there was a proposal to replace this with highway=minor this seems to have gone no where yet the same problem still exists. I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic than residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary. I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non-urban* areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than residential, generally unsealed but some of them are sealed and they generally only have a single lane depending how zealous the grader driver was feeling. Please comment and so forth on the talk page and hopefully this can be sorted out once and for all. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway:rural ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: The tagger just needs to be able to describe what is there simply and clearly. A new tag for rural unclassifieds would clarify matters, and highway=rural is as good a suggestion as any. It would be better for us to have something we can agree on, rather than having some people use unclassified, some people seeking to redefine unclassified, and others using highway=track+tracktype=grade1. Well as I posted earlier, to me there is a clear distinction from track and rural road. I'd define a rural as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is made for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass (be that lower-grade shoulders, Australian-style or occasional formal or informal widenings, UK-style). The width of rural roads varies depending on the type of traffic using it, like 5 trailer road trains to lesser roads. http://outbacktowing.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/tanker2.jpg Try and get one of those things down a dirt track :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:30 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: but the emails in the last day or 2 have gone no where in addressing the issue, Seriously, there's a lot of people subscribed to this list, and very few joining the conversation. Maybe everyone is watching 5 or 6 people getting themselves into gordian knots and thinking to themselves that they'd rather spend the time mapping than discussing what is, after all, almost completely irrelevant to anyone who doesn't have OCD. It's like listening to a conversation about sorting dingbats alphabetically. Maybe when we have all the roads in the world entered, named and with the right geometry we'll have nothing better to do than decide the difference between tertiary, minor, unclassified and whatnot. Until then, there are simply more important things to do. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
But never the less I think if 4wd-only is common in that region, why not tag it? The more data, the better. But I'm unsure if the The BETTER data, the better. There, I fixed that for you :-) Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, and the software can't be expected to deal with a gazillion different situations. It's better to keep the data general. So using the surface=* tag is a better approach IMHO to warn that a road is in a bad shape for ordinary traffic. Since that tag could also be used for a hiking trail in the mountains, it is a more general approach that the rendering engines could more easily deal with. If 4wd_only is already widely implemented, so be it, but I think the point above is worth remembering. Cheers, Morten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.au.dk wrote: Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, and the software can't be expected to deal with a gazillion different situations. It's better to keep the data general. So using the surface=* tag is a better approach IMHO to warn that a road is in a bad shape for ordinary traffic. Since that tag could also be used for a hiking trail in the mountains, it is a more general approach that the rendering engines could more easily deal with. Signs specifically have 4WD Only on them, this isn't something we're mapping subjectively. This is something a government body has put upand their signs don't indicate anything else beyond that so this is no different then recording what is on a maxheight sign, we aren't measuring it we're recording information as we see it on signs. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
After reading the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines page, it strikes me that you are already redefining most of the values for the highway key. So why would you continue to refer to the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features page. I guess that is because it is available in English. As Pieren already mentioned, in France we also use some values for slightly different things that the ones defined in the MapFeatures. We had to because after translation we don't always come up with something that we can relate to. Different cultures result in different features in cities or even in the countryside (think cattle grids in Scotland for example). So we had to really consider highway tag values to reflect how important a road is. For the motorway value, well we have the same type of roads but for most of the others, we had to slightly change the definition to fit our road network. There has been a lot of discussion on the talk-fr list but once we came to a consensus, it was easy to put in place because we have our own MapFeatures page. Probably you should have one also... On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO the highway-class is not about lines on the street, not even about width, these are all relative and dependant on local habits. It's about structuring your road-grid into different levels. From the top-level to the smallest footpath. I think Martin really has a point here. If you tag the most important type of road in your country with highway=motorway and that I do the same in mine, at the end of the day even if physically the roads aren't the same they are still the most important in both countries. And I beleive that's what the highway tag is about. The are other tags to describe the physical attributes of a road or the administrative classification. Anyway the MapFeatures are probably still too UK centric, even though some effort as been made to make it more general. And I can how it's confusing people in countries where English is spoken but the road network is radically different from the UK. Renaud. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, Remember that rendering a map isn't the only use for geodata. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing Imagery
David Earl david at frankieandshadow.com writes: These are from Multimap, and if you click the TCs on the bing mapping page it takes you to Multimap's TC's: http://www.multimap.com/about/legal_and_copyright/ and the imagery (Birds Eye View) is explicitly marked as copyright below the image. Seems pretty explicit to me. Sure, if the aim is to copy the images. It is not so clear if the aim is to interpret the imagery and make a map from the visible facts. See http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Custom OpenStreetMaps ?
Scott Bronson schrieb: Apparently you need to host the map yourself. 1) Click Download Map 2) Upload map.html it to your web host or save it to a directory on your local machine 3) Put map.css and util.js into the same directory as map.html (urls below) 4) Open map.html in Firefox. Everything should just work. (I discovered this through experimentation... It appears to work but I don't know if it's what the original author intended.) It was, it's also written on the Help-page, but maybe not prominent enough. To get map.css and util.js, you can run these commands from the same directory as the one that contains map.html, or just right-click on the links in Firefox and hit save as): wget http://osmtools.de/easymap/temp/map.css wget http://osmtools.de/easymap/temp/util.js The necessary files are also linked on the page. OSM Slippy Map generator is a cool little utility! I'm glad to find out about it. Hope development continues. I'm glad you like it. Sebastian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Custom OpenStreetMaps ?
Sebastian, Sebastian Hohmann wrote: To get map.css and util.js, you can run these commands from the same directory as the one that contains map.html, or just right-click on the links in Firefox and hit save as): wget http://osmtools.de/easymap/temp/map.css wget http://osmtools.de/easymap/temp/util.js The necessary files are also linked on the page. Since the slippy map generator targets the less technical type of user, maybe it would be a good idea to remove the dependency on these files by either (a) including them directly in the generated HTML or (b) generating a .zip file for the user that contains all three! Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 09:45, Morten Kjeldgaardm...@bioxray.au.dk wrote: So using the surface=* tag is a better approach IMHO to warn that a road is in a bad shape for ordinary traffic. Surface alone doesn't tell you enough. A standard car can handle just about any surface except mud, as long as it's relatively smooth and flat. I drive a 2WD car that is about as far from the ground as my cat, but about once a month, I travel along a 3km-long driveway that's a mixture of rocky soil, loose gravel/pebbles, and bedrock. There unsealed roads in the area with what most people would call a better surface that I've had difficulty with when dry and wouldn't dare try in the rain. -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
John Smith wrote: That isn't the point, the same key/value pair is being used for 2 completely different purposes No, it isn't. highway=unclassified has, and always has had, a consistent meaning. If you are using highway=unclassified in a residential area to mean less significant than highway=residential, you're doing it completely contrary to standard practice. Therefore you are by definition wrong. Where we fail is that we don't have anything less significant than unclassified for non-residential areas. In particular, country roads that aren't particularly routable, but still have a passable standard of upkeep (i.e. a road, not a track). highway=minor would work, or even your suggested highway=rural - but _not_ as a replacement for unclassified in rural areas, but rather, an addition. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-RFC--highway%3Dunclassified-currently-is-too-ambiguous%2C-so-here%27s-my-proposal-to-fix-it.-tp24821055p24832503.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Custom OpenStreetMaps ?
Frederik Ramm schrieb: Sebastian, Sebastian Hohmann wrote: To get map.css and util.js, you can run these commands from the same directory as the one that contains map.html, or just right-click on the links in Firefox and hit save as): wget http://osmtools.de/easymap/temp/map.css wget http://osmtools.de/easymap/temp/util.js The necessary files are also linked on the page. Since the slippy map generator targets the less technical type of user, maybe it would be a good idea to remove the dependency on these files by either (a) including them directly in the generated HTML or (b) generating a .zip file for the user that contains all three! Not exclusively less technical, it's also an easier process, if you just want a simple map. I'm also unsure if its easier to unzip the files than to just download them. Its not like its dozens of files. Anway, I already tried to ZIP it some time ago, but it didn't work for some reason and I didn't pursue it any further. Sebastian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Custom OpenStreetMaps ?
Not exclusively less technical, it's also an easier process, if you just want a simple map. I'm also unsure if its easier to unzip the files than to just download them. Its not like its dozens of files. Don't modern browsers provide a way to include all html/image/include files in one chunk (I think this is 'save as complete' in firefox). The ability to have a single file to download and place in email/web/etc could be quite nice. Something like: https://www.registeredworks.com/tutorials/mht.htm Simon. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote: I'd define a rural as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is made for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass (be that lower-grade shoulders, Australian-style or occasional formal or informal widenings, UK-style). That's still too much of a physical definition (: How about: highway=rural: a road not in a built-up area that provides direct access to buildings (e.g. farms), similar in function to a residential road in built-up areas. Such roads often have a smaller width than connecting roads like unclassified and tertiary ways, and are not supposed to be used for passing through the rural area. A possible additional characteristic: no bicycle facilities are present on such roads. Just like residential roads they are not very suitable for cyclists passing through: for residential roads, many cyclists passing them could cause the people living there to complain, while cycling on rural roads is relatively unsafe/uncomfortable because of the road width and large vehicles using the road (combined with the lack of bicycle lanes or ways). A problem could be that rural areas may have a whole network of roads that all look the same. I suppose they can all be tagged highway=rural in such a case(?), but does that match the above description? Christiaan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] French/Dutch caribbean island Saint Martin (Sint Maarten) not correctly positionned
2009/8/5 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: I'm currently implementing the cadastre support in JOSM for the french part of the island Saint-Martin shared with our Dutch friends (it is a special projection). The island is quite well mapped today, mostly from the hi-res Yahoo imagery I guess: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=18.069lon=-63.0746zoom=13layers=B000FTF The problem is that the data, although they match the Yahoo imagery, seem to be shifted from about 800 meters in north. The French national geographic institut provides files about geodesic reference points and one is marked on the main fortress here: http://geodesie.ign.fr/fiche_geodesie_OM.asp?num_site=9712701X=491000Y=1998000 Here the details of one mark on the ground: http://geodesie.ign.fr/fiche_point_OM.asp?num_site=9712701no_ptg=01 So, the fortress should be at 18.0707416944 lat and -63.0851921944 lon but in OSM it is at (approx.) 18.0705758642 lat and -63.0845414733 lon My guess is that the Yahoo imagery is not correctly georeferenced. I can fix this issue for the French part of the island using the cadastre. But what about the Dutch part of the island ? It is probably the same issue for the neighbourhood, e.g. Scrub Island, Dog Island and Saint Barthelemy. Also how can we inform other mappers that the Yahoo imagery is not correct in this area ? I was thinking before about the miscalibrated imagery such as Yahoo! that became rather popular in osm, and I think josm developers wouldn't mind applying a patch that either hardcodes offsets for the known miscalibrated areas on yahoo! or pulls them from some kind of wiki live. It might be even doable as part of the javascript in the html wms plugin uses to download Yahoo! imagery and should also be possible for potlatch (but this I wouldn't know how to approach). Does that make sense? If the offset is not constant across the whole available area in Yahoo then it's a little more complex but stil doable in JOSM. It would be good to shift all of the island's nodes about the same time such a patch would be applied. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] landuse for hotels
What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be commercial or retail. I'm going to go with commercial, they as retail suggests that they sell a physical product. Ciarán ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] landuse for hotels
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Ciarán Mooneygeneral.moo...@googlemail.com wrote: What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be commercial or retail. I'm going to go with commercial, they as retail suggests that they sell a physical product. commercial suggests office buildings, which are deserted at night. doesn't retail imply 'open to passersby' rather than 'physical products sold'? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] French/Dutch caribbean island Saint Martin (Sint Maarten) not correctly positionned
Pieren wrote: I'm currently implementing the cadastre support in JOSM for the french part of the island Saint-Martin shared with our Dutch friends (it is a special projection). The island is quite well mapped today, mostly from the hi-res Yahoo imagery I guess: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=18.069lon=-63.0746zoom=13layers=B000FTF The problem is that the data, although they match the Yahoo imagery, seem to be shifted from about 800 meters in north. The French national geographic institut provides files about geodesic reference points and one is marked on the main fortress here: http://geodesie.ign.fr/fiche_geodesie_OM.asp?num_site=9712701X=491000Y=1998000 Here the details of one mark on the ground: http://geodesie.ign.fr/fiche_point_OM.asp?num_site=9712701no_ptg=01 So, the fortress should be at 18.0707416944 lat and -63.0851921944 lon but in OSM it is at (approx.) 18.0705758642 lat and -63.0845414733 lon I'm not quite clear how you come to that conclusion. While JOSM only displays 4 digits after the comma (ooh, can we change that to 7 someday?), both coordinates lie in a wooded area which may very well be the fortress. And the difference between these two points is 71 metres in total, just 18 metres N-S difference, not 800. The Google images are a lot better than the Yahoo ones, and where Google says the fort is, is close to the first set of coordinates, and that lines up with Yahoo. But in OSM, there is no point to identify the fortress. Furthermore: I downloaded the GPS data for Sint-Maarten and that lines up very nice with the roads of OSM (both in the French as the Dutch part), and the roads line up with the Yahoo imagery. So I don't really see this mismatch you are seeing. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] landuse for hotels
On 5 Aug 2009, at 21:31, OJ W wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Ciarán Mooneygeneral.moo...@googlemail.com wrote: What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be commercial or retail. I'm going to go with commercial, they as retail suggests that they sell a physical product. commercial suggests office buildings, which are deserted at night. doesn't retail imply 'open to passersby' rather than 'physical products sold'? I'd almost suggest residential, it's where people are residing, even if not permanently. John ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Redefine the highway-key from scratch
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Konrad Skerikon...@skeri.com wrote: 1. Remove all highway=motorway, trunk, primary, etc. 2. Use highway=road. It's a road! Q) how will we classify each road? A) they will all be named Beverly ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On 5 Aug 2009, at 20:59, Christiaan Welvaart wrote: On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote: I'd define a rural as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is made for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass (be that lower-grade shoulders, Australian-style or occasional formal or informal widenings, UK-style). That's still too much of a physical definition (: How about: highway=rural: a road not in a built-up area that provides direct access to buildings (e.g. farms), similar in function to a residential road in built-up areas. Such roads often have a smaller width than connecting roads like unclassified and tertiary ways, and are not supposed to be used for passing through the rural area. A possible additional characteristic: no bicycle facilities are present on such roads. Just like residential roads they are not very suitable for cyclists passing through: for residential roads, many cyclists passing them could cause the people living there to complain, while cycling on rural roads is relatively unsafe/uncomfortable because of the road width and large vehicles using the road (combined with the lack of bicycle lanes or ways). Am I right in seeing that you think that residential streets are not for cycling along? Then explain why the majority of the London Cycle Network is along residential streets. Many of the rural roads I've been on are quiet country lanes with little traffic, some of which are part of the National Cycle Network. The way that you disambiguate the different types of unclassified road is by adding other properties to the road like the max speed, the width, number of lanes and the surface. Then whatever is using the osm data can use the specific data in whatever way they think is most appropriate. Please stop trying to come up with more and more highway values. Shaun A problem could be that rural areas may have a whole network of roads that all look the same. I suppose they can all be tagged highway=rural in such a case(?), but does that match the above description? Christiaan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] landuse for hotels
Could even be farmland or nature reserve e.g. Singita Lodge. On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:04 PM, John McKerrell j...@mckerrell.net wrote: On 5 Aug 2009, at 21:31, OJ W wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Ciarán Mooneygeneral.moo...@googlemail.com wrote: What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be commercial or retail. I'm going to go with commercial, they as retail suggests that they sell a physical product. commercial suggests office buildings, which are deserted at night. doesn't retail imply 'open to passersby' rather than 'physical products sold'? I'd almost suggest residential, it's where people are residing, even if not permanently. John ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
David Lynch schrieb: On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 09:45, Morten Kjeldgaardm...@bioxray.au.dk wrote: So using the surface=* tag is a better approach IMHO to warn that a road is in a bad shape for ordinary traffic. Surface alone doesn't tell you enough. A standard car can handle just about any surface except mud, as long as it's relatively smooth and flat. I drive a 2WD car that is about as far from the ground as my cat, but about once a month, I travel along a 3km-long driveway that's a mixture of rocky soil, loose gravel/pebbles, and bedrock. There unsealed roads in the area with what most people would call a better surface that I've had difficulty with when dry and wouldn't dare try in the rain. Then IMO we need better values for surface, so that you're able to put this into this tag. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
Jonathan Bennett schrieb: Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, Remember that rendering a map isn't the only use for geodata. And also remember that the Main-OSM-Mapnik renderer isn't the only one out there. If someone wants to render a map with this tag included, he's free to do so. That's why I'd put all information into OSM that's available. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
John Smith schrieb: --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.au.dk wrote: Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, and the software can't be expected to deal with a gazillion different situations. It's better to keep the data general. So using the surface=* tag is a better approach IMHO to warn that a road is in a bad shape for ordinary traffic. Since that tag could also be used for a hiking trail in the mountains, it is a more general approach that the rendering engines could more easily deal with. Signs specifically have 4WD Only on them, this isn't something we're mapping subjectively. This is something a government body has put upand their signs don't indicate anything else beyond that so this is no different then recording what is on a maxheight sign, we aren't measuring it we're recording information as we see it on signs. Okay, i got the point. I agree that this should be put into a tag/value pair but with the clarification that 4wd_only=yes (or whatever the tag will be) does *not* necessarily mean that all 4wd vehicles could pass this road at any time, instead it's a given restriction, similar to maxspeed. Then this indeed should be supported by the rederers. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote: On 5 Aug 2009, at 20:59, Christiaan Welvaart wrote: On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote: I'd define a rural as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is made for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass (be that lower-grade shoulders, Australian-style or occasional formal or informal widenings, UK-style). That's still too much of a physical definition (: How about: highway=rural: a road not in a built-up area that provides direct access to buildings (e.g. farms), similar in function to a residential road in built-up areas. Such roads often have a smaller width than connecting roads like unclassified and tertiary ways, and are not supposed to be used for passing through the rural area. A possible additional characteristic: no bicycle facilities are present on such roads. Just like residential roads they are not very suitable for cyclists passing through: for residential roads, many cyclists passing them could cause the people living there to complain, while cycling on rural roads is relatively unsafe/uncomfortable because of the road width and large vehicles using the road (combined with the lack of bicycle lanes or ways). Am I right in seeing that you think that residential streets are not for cycling along? Then explain why the majority of the London Cycle Network is along residential streets. Many of the rural roads I've been on are quiet country lanes with little traffic, some of which are part of the National Cycle Network. So what I wrote about bicycles is not valid - thanks for clearing that up. Christiaan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing Imagery
2009/8/5 Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi: and the imagery (Birds Eye View) is explicitly marked as copyright below the image. Seems pretty explicit to me. Sure, if the aim is to copy the images. It is not so clear if the aim is to interpret the imagery and make a map from the visible facts. See http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100 well, as long as it is not explicitly permitted it's the same situation with Google as with MS, and they put the right warning on top, so believe them: (from their site): Big Important Warning. This post argues that it is legal to trace from Google-provided satellite imagery and upload the results to OpenStreetMap. Do not do this. “Legal” is one thing; “accepted by the OSM community” another; and “liable to expose a not-for-profit Foundation to a lawsuit from one of the world’s biggest companies” something else entirely. Seriously, don’t. This post is here for interest and to start a discussion. Besides that: the copyright holder is not MS but different companies that licensed their pics to MS, so not MS can give you permission, but you'll have to ask e.g. for the UK aerials http://www1.getmapping.com/ (you can usually find the copyright holder of the imagery in the lower right corner) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote: Okay, i got the point. I agree that this should be put into a tag/value pair but with the clarification that 4wd_only=yes (or whatever the tag will be) does *not* necessarily mean that all 4wd vehicles could pass this road at any time, instead it's a given restriction, similar to maxspeed. The only thing left to be agreed upon is what the tag should be named, however 4wd_only is in use already and it reflects what's on the sign. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
2009/8/5 Elena of Valhalla elena.valha...@gmail.com: On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non-urban* areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than residential, generally unsealed but some of them are sealed and they generally only have a single lane depending how zealous the grader driver was feeling. where would this differ from an highway=track? well, it's to substitute unclassified, a track is not a street but a way for agricultural and forestal traffic. The difference is the function. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: If you are using highway=unclassified in a residential area to mean less significant than highway=residential, you're doing it completely contrary to standard practice. Therefore you are by definition wrong. I didn't say I was doing that at any point in time, I have tried to compare rural roads to residential meaning lesser than residential. Where we fail is that we don't have anything less significant than unclassified for non-residential areas. In particular, country roads that aren't particularly routable, but still have a passable standard of upkeep (i.e. a road, not a track). This is what I was trying to explain. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
2009/8/5 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote: You can determine whether an unclassified road is rural by whether there are other things around in the area. That's the whole point of Geo extensions in databases. you can also do some preprocessing if you need to. That isn't the point, the same key/value pair is being used for 2 completely different purposes and that could mean they need to be rendered differently. no, I don't see it like this. Unclassified is the lowest street/road in the interconnecting grid, be it in urban or rural areas. The physical state might be different, but hey, who uses physical state for main classification? ;-) Also not all towns are mapped out any where near usable levels in Australia so this wouldn't really be appropriate until such times as they are mapped out. that's true. Routing should work before all landuses are mapped. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] restriction=school_zone (second email)
2009/8/5 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: but on second glance there are, and they are documented in the discussion-section: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Tag:restriction%3Dschool_zone The problem with those suggestions is they don't take into account multiple rules so everything would be lumped into a simple set in the end there will be only one maxspeed at the same time. # restriction=school_zone # school_zone_on=08:30-09:30;14:30-15:30 # school_zone_maxspeed=40 this doesn't look very familiar to me. Do you know the following? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditions_for_access_tags http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_conditions_for_access_tags there could be maxspeed[08:30-09:30]=40 maxspeed[14:30-15:30]=40 maxspeed[08:30-09:30]:reason=school_zone maxspeed[14:30-15:30]:reason=school_zone cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
