I recently found that a way I'd marked as a minor power line (from
Bing) is actually a telephone line (from survey), which we seem to
have a convention of not mapping. Should I just delete it, or tag it
just so that no-one else seeing it on Bing will map it as a power line
in the future?
More
Hi all,
If you did not notice, the OSM routing fans [1] are just pushing the
sub-tag traffic_signals:direction in the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Traffic_signals
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals:direction
This is trying to fix one old issue in OSM. The tag
More generally, should we tag things that we don't normally map, that
There's no such existing thing as we don't normally map. People map what is
of interest to them. Just use a tag that doesn't already mean something
different.
FWIW, I've used aerial_line=telephone for such telephone lines on
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi wrote:
People map what is of interest to them. Just use a tag that doesn't already
mean something different.
Threre is also people who doesn't want mapbesity or overload of
details when they want to edit the map like
Thanks for this report, Pieren.
This should go into a proposal first.
Forward/Backward do not work on nodes !
You need a relation or use ways.
Stop using forward/backward on nodes but use an relation similar to
turn-restrictions for traffic_signals and enforcement.
cu
fly
On 27.08.2013 16:02,
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:31 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote:
This should go into a proposal first.
I'll waste my time on a wiki proposal if I see major concerns here. In
the other case, the wiki will follow.
Forward/Backward do not work on nodes !
Of course it works and applies in
Seems like this would be better done as a relation. Also, still seems this
has yet to be resolved for anything other than a 4-way stop, and to a
lesser extent (due to the nature of being usually placed on ramps, or in
neighborhoods as an all-way control) give_way (though still unresolved for
On 27.08.2013 16:19, Pieren wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi wrote:
People map what is of interest to them. Just use a tag that doesn't already
mean something different.
Threre is also people who doesn't want mapbesity or overload of
details
On 27.08.2013 16:40, Pieren wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:31 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote:
This should go into a proposal first.
I'll waste my time on a wiki proposal if I see major concerns here. In
the other case, the wiki will follow.
Forward/Backward do not work on
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi wrote:
People map what is of interest to them. Just use a tag that doesn't already
mean something different.
Threre is also people who doesn't want
2013/8/27 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com
We have already trouble with the power line system which gets
reconstructed at the moment but a similar system for telephone can work.
Please try to avoid mistakes like tagging the poles not man_made=pole
but under the telephone namespace.
cu
For
It's more reliable to guess the direction by
nearest-distance-to-next-intersection than to rely on any mappers to
keep that up to date, especially with iD making it extremly easy (which
is good) to change a ways direction.
nodes should NOT depend on the direction of any way they belong to.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Peter Wendorff
wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote:
It's more reliable to guess the direction by
nearest-distance-to-next-intersection than to rely on any mappers to
keep that up to date, especially with iD making it extremly easy (which
is good) to change a ways
Greetings,
I've proposed on the OpenStreetMap wiki the creation of a new tag called
landuse=events, as you can see here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Devents, and
I am requesting for comments on it. Its value denotes a place (land) used
for temporary events, e.g.
I am particularly interested in tagging cycling routes, including the
national long-distance cycling network Bicitalia in Italy.
In Italy cycle paths are frequently de facto blocked by chicane-type
bicycle barriers.
So my tagging is typically a node with
barrier=cycle_barrier
foot=yes
maxlength and maxwidth for what will fit through the chicane.
On Aug 27, 2013 1:38 PM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:
I am particularly interested in tagging cycling routes, including the
national long-distance cycling network Bicitalia in Italy.
In Italy cycle paths are frequently
Il giorno 27/ago/2013, alle ore 20:36, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com ha
scritto:
Should I simply systematically use bicycle:trailer=no and hope that others
follow? Or formulate a proposal and ask for votes? Any other ideas?
I'd do both, but more for documentation, you don't have to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It's hard to set a value for them because they are depending on each
other. ;)
Henning
Am 27.08.2013 21:52, schrieb Paul Johnson:
maxlength and maxwidth for what will fit through the chicane.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20
Hi,
Le 27/08/2013 16:31, fly a écrit :
Stop using forward/backward on nodes but use an relation similar to
turn-restrictions for traffic_signals and enforcement.
I agree, turn-restriction scheme is quite similar and could be a good
start at least for single traffic light mapping.
From, via
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Vincent de Château-Thierry
v...@laposte.net wrote:
This only deals with single traffic light mapping and will not solve the low
scale rendering issues (how to put a single icon for multiple traffic
lights) and the routing through multiple synchronised traffic
Hi,
I'm still puzzled about the right value to introduce (or to use as it
exists)...
Additionnaly to power=tower/pole, 2 main solutions sound good to me :
1 - Introduce brand new values man_made=power_tower/power_pole and start
using them without any tower:type=* subcategories.
+ New tags, not
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:
Taginfo shows 8 uses of bicycle:trailer - this is certainly not a
widespread use.
Should I simply systematically use bicycle:trailer=no and hope that others
follow? Or formulate a proposal and ask for votes? Any other
It's hard to set a value for them because they are depending on each
other. ;)
I mean tag the facility geometry, not the size of trailer that is judged to fit.
bicycle:trailer=no might lead to bicycle:tandem=no, and a lot of
really fuzzy tags of limited predictive value.
You can also tag some
On 27.08.2013 16:02, Pieren wrote:
My proposal:
- when micro-mapping the traffic lights, use a different tag than
highway=traffic_signals which should be reserved for the simple,
old fashion way of mapping the intersection itself.
- create a new tag for the micro-mapping of each individual
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 23:35:45 +0200
From: pier...@gmail.com
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Micro mapping traffic signals
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Vincent de Château-Thierry
v...@laposte.net wrote:
This only deals with single traffic light mapping and
But what if the pole has both telephone and power on it? ;) That's what's
common here in my neighborhood. I can look out my front door and see a pole
with both of them using it.
-James
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:05:38 +0200
From: francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu
To:
Yes, I'm specifically avoiding suggesting that we routinely map
telephone lines (they are very common in some places, and probably
rather hard to map consistently from aerials, compared with power
lines).
In this area it would be far easier to tag the three or four roads
that don't have power
One can tag the maximum width that can fit through, given zero length, and can
tag the maximum length that can fit through, given zero width, but a trailer
that has BOTH the maximum length and maximum width will not fit through. You
can't readily predict in advance whether a real-life trailer
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 5:35 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.comwrote:
But what if the pole has both telephone and power on it? ;) That's what's
common here in my neighborhood. I can look out my front door and see a
pole with both of them using it.
And of course cable tv and fiber are
29 matches
Mail list logo
