Hi,
I am proposing a new key:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trafficability
Cheers
BGNO
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
2014/1/3 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net:
On 1/2/14 8:31 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
I think of the word flat as being distinctly British. I have only
rarely heard the word flat used to describe and apartment in the
U.S. When I first glanced at the beginning of this thread I thought
the OP
Dear Dave, Steve, Philip
Thank you very much for your replies.
If I understand correctly, you all advocate to use apartment instead of
flat.
As being non-native English, I can not really judge on this (I just learned
flat in school, so ... at may age :-) ), so no problem for me to change.
On
This could be a very useful tag - I'm particularly interested in
unsealed and 4x4 roads/tracks, sure you have seen the recent discussion.
We have been trying to massage existing tags for the purpose.
The problem as I see it is that with a wealth of tags everyone chooses
to use different ones. And
Whilst the idea is sound, I am not sure about the name. Is it even a
word? As a native English speaker its not a word that would spring to
mind when I am looking for a tag.
Phil (trigpoint)
On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 09:27 +0100, BGNO BGNO wrote:
Hi,
I am proposing a new
key:
2014/1/3 BGNO BGNO bgno2...@gmail.com
I am proposing a new key:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trafficability
I removed your Key:trafficability page in the wiki. You shall keep the
proposal form some time, at least until you get some kind of consensus or
positive
Hi,
It reminds me quite a lot of opening_hours
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours
Would that be appropriate?
Dan
2014/1/3 BGNO BGNO bgno2...@gmail.com
Hi,
I am proposing a new key:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trafficability
Cheers
BGNO
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Martijn van Exel
mart...@openstreetmap.us wrote:
I would look at how these places are already tagged in, say,
Amsterdam. I know, I should know, having lived there for 20 years, but
I don't :p
Colorado will be full of coffee shops.
- Serge
I agree with Philip. Trafficability is not a good choice of terms. The root
word, traffic, is more a descriptor of the types and/or density of vehicles
using a way rather than something to rank its usability under certain
conditions.
Perhaps usability or passable or ??? Both passable (21) and
And it's about time. LOL
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Martijn van Exel
mart...@openstreetmap.us wrote:
I would look at how these places are already tagged in, say,
Amsterdam. I know, I should know, having lived
2014/1/3 Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com
That said, I agree that too much fussiness in assigning surface conditions
is overall probably less helpful than just knowing if a road is paved or
unpaved. I have driven on classified highways here in Thailand that are
tracks in all but name.
Yes, I'm saying that British people booking holiday accommodation will
mostly talk about 'apartments', not 'flats' - perhaps partly because
that's what they will see in the brochures. I'm saying that the famous
US/UK split between 'apartment' and 'flat' is largely confined to
residential
On 3 January 2014 04:35, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that road is certainly not a good example of what we have in Alaska.
Our unpaved roads are all-weather roads and can tolerate a lot of rain.
The great majority would not degrade to that condition. They are a mixture
On 1/3/14 6:23 AM, Dan S wrote:
Hi,
It reminds me quite a lot of opening_hours
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours
Would that be appropriate?
there are different types of trafficability issues.
here in upstate NY, we have two types of seasonal
road. most are simply unpaved
Well, let's just inventory Walmart's selection while we're at it.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Adam Schreiber adam.schreiber+...@gmail.com
wrote:
Perhaps shop=marijuana, marijuana:recreational=yes/no,
marijuana:medicinal=yes/no, marijuana:paraphernalia=yes/no,
marijuana:edibles=yes/no?
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Martijn van Exel
mart...@openstreetmap.us wrote:
I would look at how these places are already tagged in, say,
Amsterdam. I know, I should know, having lived there for 20 years, but
I
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Adam Schreiber adam.schreiber+...@gmail.com
wrote:
The last two may be crack, but the first two come from my, perhaps
mistaken, understanding that not every medicinal dispensary was able to
secure a recreational use license. Someone more knowledgeable pleas
Am Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:57:35 +
schrieb Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl:
One thing I can think of is to introduce a new tag paved=yes
I disagree.
This is redundancy.
I would recommend a list where values of surface= would be collected and
either be classified as unpaved or paved if
Am Thu, 02 Jan 2014 19:36:13 +0100
schrieb Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de:
I know (without being able to show you photos or something like that)
ways that are paved with paving stones (and thus clearly counted as
paved), but due to tree roots below the way and so on are
Am Thu, 2 Jan 2014 08:15:14 -0800 (PST)
schrieb gweber gwebe...@gmail.com:
I would strongly favour a simple dashed border style whenever the
surface tag falls into the unpaved categories. It is as simple as
that. From my experience in driving on rural roads in Brazil, nothing
else is
-Original Message-
From: mve...@gmail.com [mailto:mve...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Martijn van Exel
I would look at how these places are already tagged in, say,
Amsterdam. I know, I should know, having lived there for 20 years, but
I don't :p
I was hoping you might have some insight
I first reacted in the same way (is it an English word at all?). But then
I looked it up on Wikipedia. There it is, since 2006(!), with correct
Google translations in several other languages.
On 3 January 2014 12:57, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Philip.
So these two roads you'd consider the same?:
http://www.malenki.ch/Touren/11/Galerie/Tag_20/slide_19.html
Based on the agreed practice in Brazil, I would tag this one either as
highway=unclassified or highway=track, depending on how much this is in use
and what it connects (I cannot determine
Me either, but there it is. I wouldn't give it much chance of gathering
world wide approval as a classification term but maybe I'm wrong.
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote:
I didn't think it was a word and my old American dictionary does not have
it. But my
Am Fri, 3 Jan 2014 14:09:59 -0200
schrieb Gerald Weber gwebe...@gmail.com:
malenki wrote
Gerald Weber wrote
So these two roads you'd consider the same?:
http://www.malenki.ch/Touren/11/Galerie/Tag_20/slide_19.html
(btw: sorry for me having been a little polemic)
Based on the agreed
Hi,
this is the first time I am answering to a mailing list. I checked
digest and now I am not sure how to give individual answers, so I am
going to answer to various questions of you within a single mail.
Sorry. (I already unchecked digest, so hopefully things will become
easier next time.)
I decided to extend my comparison between tracktype and surface, now
including smoothness. I think we may need a new tag to integrate all
surface quality classification systems (it can well be a simple
numeric tag). See this: http://i.imgur.com/yEJ52eE.png
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:49 PM, malenki
On 3 January 2014 15:19, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.comwrote:
I decided to extend my comparison between tracktype and surface, now
including smoothness. I think we may need a new tag to integrate all
surface quality classification systems (it can well be a simple
numeric tag).
Well, Peter, I feel that we cannot reach an agreement on which
tagging recommendation is best (in a way that is both semantically
meaningful and also useful for rendering of unpaved/unsealed ways)
because we all have one preferred tag and we are not willing to let
go of that. A new tag covering
Well, when proposing this, I'm trying to avoid these problems:
- the set of paved and the set of unpaved surfaces is not closed, and
so it would require us to continuously update Carto with new surface
types
- people don't seem to agree on which tag to recommend overall to
describe surface
I'm trying to account for driveability, cyclability, walkability, and
wheelchair-ability. Grade values 6-8 here are those that the Australian
community advocates:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo#Draft_4x4_road_proposal
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
On 03/01/14 19:56, Fernando Trebien wrote:
Well, when proposing this, I'm trying to avoid these problems:
- the set of paved and the set of unpaved surfaces is not closed, and
so it would require us to continuously update Carto with new surface
types
I'm a bit confused by what you mean by
For the average mapper, I think the best solution is to have a picture of
most surfaces and their corresponding smoothnesses. So a picture of
excellent asphalt, a picture of good asphalt,... a picture of intermediate
ground,... and a picture of horrible sand. And everything in between.
Does it look bad can have many different answers for the same way,
depending on whether you're on a bike, a car or on foot, right? How is
horrible different from bad and in which situations? Honestly,
there's no way you can tell everyone that they can skip the
documentation and hope the result
My bad, I thought Carto was the name of the main Mapnik style. So
I'm referring to openstreetmap-carto.
Well, I was trying to expose my idea that the multiple current
classifications of trafficability may not be necessary at all.
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Andy Townsend
So, the idea of unifying the classification systems is not popular.
I'll leave you with one last thought, and then I won't insist anymore.
To challenge that idea, I decided to plot my own subjective
trafficability values (what I think each of these tags mean for
choosing a way based on the
Hi,
I've been observing for a while but I want to chime in on the discussion.
Let's not forget that mapping for OSM is not about the rendering, it's
about mapping what is actually on the ground. Therefore we are actually
discussing two different but related issues.
The first is how to
Hi,
I want to add the following on-street parking data in Newton, Massachusetts:
Acacia Avenue - Prohibited, west side, Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m.
I am confused about how to apply a parking tag for the west side.
Although there are tags called parking:lane:right and
If we follow the idea of mapping what's on the ground, then it seems
reasonable to say that none of the tags we have discussed so far
represents the ground more objectively than the surface tag. All
other tags attempt to describe how the ground behaves in different
situations (when used for
On 1/3/14 7:58 PM, One Hwang wrote:
I am confused about how to apply a parking tag for the west side.
Although there are tags called parking:lane:right and
parking:lane:left, I am not sure whether west should be considered
left or right.
I plan to work with a number of citizens from Newton
Suppose I wanted to tag to show that parking is prohibited on north side of
Street X. Should I use parking:lane:right or parking:lane:left?
Thanks.
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote:
On 1/3/14 7:58 PM, One Hwang wrote:
I am confused about how to
I like what Dominic is saying quite a bit. The more complicated we make the
assignment of values to describe usability or trafficability the more
people will simply opt for the lowest common denominator, the easiest
choice. I can guarantee that I will not be going out and measuring the
frequency
On 1/3/14 8:10 PM, One Hwang wrote:
Suppose I wanted to tag to show that parking is prohibited on north
side of Street X. Should I use parking:lane:right or parking:lane:left?
that depends on what the direction of the way representing Street X is
within OSM. which means that you can't make that
Fernando Trebien wrote on Fri, 3 Jan 2014 17:56:15 -0200:
- people don't seem to agree on which tag to recommend overall to
describe surface conditions: tracktype, or smoothness, or simply
surface
OSMers seem to agree that they need all of them.
* Tracktype at least for more or less
Now that is a bad road, even though it's paved. Before reading anything in
this thread I would have applied the tags surface=asphalt,
surface_condition=rough_less_than_40 kph (used 1232 times).
Now, I'm not sure what I'd do ;-)
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 8:19 AM, malenki o...@malenki.ch wrote:
On 1/3/14 8:19 PM, malenki wrote:
How else would you describe an asphalted road like this?:
http://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/lidar1.jpg
surface=car_breaker
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging
This is why I said that a full description that is useful to everyone
would require many more tags than we currently have (about 6 or 7 as
far as I can imagine). Note that the way in this picture would be
classified quite differently for each vehicle type (pedestrians, and
maybe bikes to some
I mean, maybe the renderer can follow this logic: all untagged ways
are paved (good) by default, and they're represented as bad if
they include any of the following tags with different values than
those shown:
- tracktype=grade1
- smoothness=excellent/good/intermediate
Thus, it would ignore the
Dave Swarthout wrote on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 08:26:53 +0700:
Now that is a bad road, even though it's paved. Before reading
anything in this thread I would have applied the tags surface=asphalt,
surface_condition=rough_less_than_40 kph (used 1232 times).
Nice talking but unsemantic tag
Now, I'm
Hm there are a few types of vehicle ways
(highway=residential/living_street/pedestrian/service/cycleway) which
present high usage by non-vehicles, so I think it would also make
sense if the renderer also checked for these values:
- mtb:scale=0
- sac_scale=T1
- wheelchair=yes/limited
Which, of
Oh, that makes so much more sense now! The left/right tags have always
confused me, but thanks for clarifying to someone who has been a mapper for
nearly 3 years.
-Compdude
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote:
On 1/3/14 7:58 PM, One Hwang wrote:
I am
51 matches
Mail list logo
