Tom Pfeifer t.pfeifer@... writes:
I stumbled over some maxheight=none tags on motorways, that did not even
pass under a bridge. I found that this is the most frequent value of
maxheight (2889 of 41474).
Tom,
thanks for bringing this up. As the author of Maxheight Map ([1], [2]) I'd
like to
Changed the subject since that question forks in another direction.
As with other temporary restrictions (blocked roads, speed limits),
first some discretion should be applied how long the restriction will
last and if it is worthwhile to be mapped (e.g. years yes, days no)
Secondly the start
On 26/10/2014, Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org wrote:
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-26 20:26:
Am 24.10.2014 um 20:53 schrieb Tom Pfeifer:
I would recommend to add maxheight=unsigned to the English and other wiki
pages, and list maxheight=none as incorrect tagging.
unsigned
Thanks mmd for shedding some light on the background of this tagging.
As said before I am not against keeping a record of a bridge being checked,
just the value =none is misleading.
Another problem is that the tag is on the way under the bridge, and
not the bridge way itself. That leads to the
Tom Pfeifer wrote on 27.10.2014 10:20:
As said before I am not against keeping a record of a bridge being checked,
just the value =none is misleading.
Another problem is that the tag is on the way under the bridge, and
not the bridge way itself. That leads to the situation that somebody
On 26/10/2014, Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de wrote:
I don't see what information is missing and cannot be easily determined
automatically with a properly placed node that is contained in an
area - except for the outer edge of course, which is usually
ill-defined though as you said
2014-10-26 17:12 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
Please, try mapping bays as areas - not as nodes.
+1. Please do this also for place=country and other place objects that are
indeed describing polygons and not points.
___
Tagging
2014-10-26 19:00 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de:
Doable for sure but an awfully bad idea, mapping bays as areas would
mean two features for the same object (coastline polygon and bay area).
I don't see one object. There is a coastline (linear division between
land and sea,
2014-10-26 21:38 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de:
Specific arguments aside - i am not sure if you realize the consequences
it would have if subareas of oceans would generally be mapped as
polygons - large bays usually contain smaller bays and are parts of a
sea and there
On 27/10/2014, Holger Jeromin mailgm...@katur.de wrote:
Tom Pfeifer wrote on 27.10.2014 10:20:
As said before I am not against keeping a record of a bridge being
checked,
just the value =none is misleading.
Another problem is that the tag is on the way under the bridge, and
not the bridge
On 27/10/2014, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd even argue that tagging I surveyed this but couldn't see a
limitation is useless: the sign might get added later, some mapper
might be able to measure the maxheight, the value above 4m might be
important for some people, etc. Don't
I had a proposal about mapping peninsulas [1] and it involved adding
peninsula=* tags to coastlines. I think bays should be mapped the same way,
on coastline ways. The question is what tags we should use. Adding new ways
and gluing them to coastlines, when coastlines themselves make a bay is in
my
On 27/10/2014, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-10-27 11:04 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com:
The maxheight=* tag maps the physical limitation, not the sign (which
can be absent or even wrong). Tagging maxheight=none really makes no
sense.
no, the
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Christoph Hormann wrote:
On Sunday 26 October 2014, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Furthermore the outer edge of a bay, i.e. the edge that is not
coastline is usually not well defined and would require an
arbitrary cutoff.
Yes, cutoff is unfortunately quite arbitrary.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
Besides, we really need to deal with object that have fuzzy borders
already, e.g., some of the natural=wetland object come to my mind as an
example. I quickly browsed through the related pages and discussions, for
On Monday 27 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
If you think about it a bit and do not try to place the node where
you would place the label (which depends on the map projection
anyway) properly placing a node for a bay is usually quite simple.
The most difficult are long,
You are quoting me out of context, leaving the impression that I'd propose
to tag the bridge way, this is not the case.
I was just pointing out that tagging the way under the bridge makes
no explicit reference to the bridge itself, and can lose the implicit
proximity reference when the way is
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
On 27/10/2014, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-10-27 11:04 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com:
The maxheight=* tag maps the physical limitation, not the sign (which
can be absent or even wrong). Tagging
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Marc Gemis wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
Besides, we really need to deal with object that have fuzzy
borders
already, e.g., some of the natural=wetland object come to my
mind as an
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:44:01AM +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
On 26/10/2014, Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de wrote:
I don't see what information is missing and cannot be easily determined
automatically with a properly placed node that is contained in an
area - except for the
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:33:48PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Christoph Hormann wrote:
On Sunday 26 October 2014, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Furthermore the outer edge of a bay, i.e. the edge that is not
coastline is usually not well defined and would require an
2014-10-27 12:16 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
Besides, we really need to deal with object that have fuzzy borders
already, e.g., some of the natural=wetland object come to my mind as an
example. I quickly browsed through the related pages and discussions, for
some strange
2014-10-27 0:42 GMT+01:00 Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl:
Currently the tag shop=bag (612) is used in parallel to the less used
tag shop=bags (120). I propose to agree on the de facto standard (the
singular).
In order to accomplish that, I have created two proposal pages:
On 10/27/14 6:45 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
You are quoting me out of context, leaving the impression that I'd
propose
to tag the bridge way, this is not the case.
I was just pointing out that tagging the way under the bridge makes
no explicit reference to the bridge itself, and can lose the
On 10/27/14 6:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-10-27 11:04 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com
mailto:molto...@gmail.com:
The maxheight=* tag maps the physical limitation, not the sign (which
can be absent or even wrong). Tagging maxheight=none really makes no
On 10/27/14 12:02 AM, Peter Miller wrote:
Without a way of tagging the fact that we know that the bridge has
regulation clearance and also knowing who surveyed it and when the
data was added we can't know what we need to do to complete the
mapping to allow the routing of high vehicles.
2014-10-27 13:10 GMT+01:00 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net:
in the US, the default behavior is that the signed max height has a couple
of inches to spare.
if there is no margin then it's considered an actual maxheight which
naturally would map to
maxheight:actual
interesting. At
On Mon Oct 27 2014 12:10:25 GMT+ (GMT), Richard Welty wrote:
i have no idea what usage is in the UK
The UK uses the standard Vienna Convention system of a red triangle being a
warning and a red circle being a prohibition. A height limit in a red circle
means vehicles over the height
On 27 October 2014 11:46, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
it slightly looks as if the singular form is preferred (but there are some
significant exceptions like books, shoes, beverages, toys).
Yes, it is really a mess, and most of it now is very painful or
perhaps impossible
On 27 October 2014 11:46, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Leaving out those not relevant for plural/singular
shoes
Who buys shoes singly? [1]
[1] Apart from amputees...
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
I recently came across a track that was severely destroyed by heavy
foresting machinery.
(KNee-deep mud with tire tracks over a meter deep and wide.)
How to tag this?
It was no longer usable on foot or for any normal sized vehicle except
maybe tanks or said heavy machinery under normal
Could this proposal be useful to you?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle
Regards!
2014-10-27 15:22 GMT+01:00 Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com:
I recently came across a track that was severely destroyed by heavy
foresting machinery.
(KNee-deep mud with tire
On 27/10/2014, Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de wrote:
On Monday 27 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
I'm really curious what your method to figure out the bay area from
the node is, because even as a human I find that most bay nodes can
lead to many different interpretations.
On 27/10/2014, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:44:01AM +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
I'm really curious what your method to figure out the bay area from
the node is, because even as a human I find that most bay nodes can
lead to many different
2014-10-27 15:22 GMT+01:00 Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com:
It may be usable on foot if dried out over a long time or if frozen.
yes, this is a general problem with unpaved ways that usability might
(depending on the actual composition and grain size) heavily depend on the
weather
2014-10-27 14:10 GMT+01:00 Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk:
shoes
Who buys shoes singly? [1]
is it a shoe shop or a shoes shop? Will you buy shoes one by one in a shoe
shop?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Monday 27 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
This extremely simple approach will probably result in reasonable
polygons for label placement in more than half the cases. You can
easily improve the algorithm of course to properly deal with
various special cases, in particular the
2014-10-27 16:24 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de:
No, that is not how OSM works. The mappers can choose a method to map
they deem appropriate - which in this case quite clearly is nodes (less
than 0.5 percent ways and relations according to taginfo).
the same holds true
On 27/10/2014, Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de wrote:
On Monday 27 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
This extremely simple approach will probably result in reasonable
polygons for label placement in more than half the cases. You can
easily improve the algorithm of course to
2014-10-27 16:24 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de:
I can't help but notice that in the whole discussion here no argument
has been put formward indicating a practical advantage of bays mapped
as polygons other than the ease of rendering labels.
Reverse geocoding. A boat comes
moltonel 3x Combo wrote on 27.10.2014 11:04:
* It can lead to mapping errors ... a bridge is
added somewhere else, etc.
The problem of outdated information is completely unrelated to this tag.
--
regards
Holger
___
Tagging mailing list
On Monday 27 October 2014, Janko Mihelić wrote:
I can't help but notice that in the whole discussion here no
argument has been put formward indicating a practical advantage of
bays mapped as polygons other than the ease of rendering labels.
Reverse geocoding. A boat comes to a bay, captain
On 27/10/2014, Holger Jeromin mailgm...@katur.de wrote:
moltonel 3x Combo wrote on 27.10.2014 11:04:
* It can lead to mapping errors ... a bridge is
added somewhere else, etc.
The problem of outdated information is completely unrelated to this tag.
I disagree, an important requirement of
On Monday 27 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
Have you tried it?
On the contrary - due to its simplicity it is a very robust
algorithm, it will hardly ever generate something completely wrong
and fail gracefully in difficult cases. And as said it is strait
away to extend this
On 27/10/2014, Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de wrote:
On Monday 27 October 2014, Janko Mihelić wrote:
Reverse geocoding. A boat comes to a bay, captain looks on a screen,
and it says You are in Guantanamo Bay.
But this is exactly what does not work with a hand mapped polygon either
2014-10-27 17:37 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de:
But this is exactly what does not work with a hand mapped polygon either
since the edge of the bay is not well defined.
it will work in most cases, and only give questionable information when you
are close to the fuzzy end
On 25.10.2014 01:10, Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
Personally, i use maxheight = x + maxheight:physical=x for these, but saying
that signs are the only thing that can be tagged gives bad data.
I did not say that signs are the only thing that can be tagged. I said that
we should map what we see. When
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-10-27 17:37 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de:
But this is exactly what does not work with a hand mapped
polygon either
since the edge of the bay is not well defined.
it will work in most cases,
Am 27.10.2014 um 13:11 schrieb Richard Welty:
On 10/27/14 6:45 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
You are quoting me out of context, leaving the impression that I'd
propose
to tag the bridge way, this is not the case.
I was just pointing out that tagging the way under the bridge makes
no explicit
When working near the coast of Maine in the US, I see lots of bays. In
most cases, the ultimate source data for the bay names seems to be various
government maps and databases: GNIS, ancient nautical charts, or whatever.
There's a high degree of agreement between sources: If an island has 4
On Monday 27 October 2014, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
IMHO, the most controversial thing in this all is that the approach
Christoph is proposing would require us to not map natural=bay but
natural=bay_entry instead, and that is obviously exactly where the
fuzzy part is. That is, a mapper would be
I was tagging tracks in the desert, and ran across some similar issues. Some of
the tracks are abandoned because they were no longer needed/ wanted
(officially) in a wilderness park, or heavily damaged or unmantainable because
of the road's position in a ravine. But people who want to use the
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:46:45 +0100 From: Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related
tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC Bag shop
Message-ID:
cabptjtczkn_qr+jjhpkiku7dy5cnvtmhjypzxq9dt6kkuv1...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type:
On 10/27/14 8:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-10-27 13:10 GMT+01:00 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net
mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net:
in the US, the default behavior is that the signed max height has
a couple of inches to spare.
if there is no margin then it's considered
I would tag for the 'usual condition' of the track. And updating the map
for a tempory situation is not realistic? And as you say the indication
of the track should remain, at least while it is visiable and of use to
navigation.
While the smothenss may not go far enough .. tag it as best you
Dana 27. 10. 2014. 21:30 osoba Eric Kidd emk.li...@randomhacks.net
napisala je:
The rendering onopenstreetmap.orgis pretty good: it just prints the bay
name at the marked point, and shows it across a reasonable range of scales.
There are some weird cases with nested bays, but those are weird on
56 matches
Mail list logo
