Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

reg. decisions (off topic): I losely follow this list since years without contributing. My understanding of it (the tagging list) so far : It helps to collect different views, that's great, and that's why we need it. It cannot help much finding decisions, as it only represents a few (hopeful

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

On 30/10/2015 6:34 PM, Gerd Petermann wrote: reg. decisions (off topic): I losely follow this list since years without contributing. My understanding of it (the tagging list) so far : It helps to collect different views, that's great, and that's why we need it. It cannot help much findin

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

Colin Smale wrote: > Can you give some examples of the "tagfiddling" you refer to, > that annoys you? How do we fix that? highway=path and the associated access tags are the canonical example. highway=path was created to address perceived problems with highway=cycleway/footway, but in fact has m

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

On 2015-10-30 12:52, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Colin Smale wrote: > >> Can you give some examples of the "tagfiddling" you refer to, >> that annoys you? How do we fix that? > > highway=path and the associated access tags are the canonical example. > highway=path was created to address per

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

Colin Smale wrote: > Is the situation now clear? Is it now (unambiguously) clear to > (all) mappers how to tag paths? No. > So you are saying that any discussions on the mailing lists are > just distractions as the real decisions are taken elsewhere. > Where would that be then? They're not e

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

Richard, you are entirely forgiven. Thanks for your contributions. I had to look up "Golgafrincham B Ark" but unfortunately I can see your point... Have a good weekend Colin On 2015-10-30 14:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Colin Smale wrote: > >> Is the situation now clear? Is it now (

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

How about traffic_sign:transcription=__ For a copy, in the local language, of the text on the sign. This is what a GPS might speak to you (or, if blind people drove cars, what you'd say to them): traffic_sign=no_parking traffic_sign:transcription=No truck parking 8am-9am on scho

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 04:03:15PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-10-29 13:40 GMT+01:00 Richard : > > > On the other end of the complexitiy scale it would be nice to have > > a simple method to map insignificant culverts with a single node. > > > > > IMHO, if you don't consider them si

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

2015-10-30 19:02 GMT+01:00 Richard : > > What is the advantage of a node, one click less? > > did you count the clicks? > node: "n"+ 1 click + 1 tag/value > way: "n"+2x(click+"p") + "s"+ click + 2 tag/values I bet you are joking, are you? Even if it was 10 clicks, how many of them are you addi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Motorway link no default oneway

On 29/10/2015, Joachim wrote: > I invite you to vote on the proposal "Motorway link no default > oneway". The following is proposed: > > Strongly recommend explicit tagging of oneway=* on highway=motorway_link. No need for a proposal and a vote to do that. Just go ahead and recommend it. > Defin

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

I like the description of the tagging list as the Golgafrinch B Ark :-) ... and I did not have to look it up. And I agree that highway=path is not a good tag, even though I use it. I hope the OSMwiki is better than the Golgafrinch B Ark! Hope. As in I'm not certain. Regarding traffic sign ke

Re: [Tagging] More human readable values for traffic signs

André Pirard wrote:I think he is referring to the "do not enter" sign, a red circle with a horizontal white bar. >The rectangular F19 is disputably classified as "information" >The no-U-turn sign C33

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

> On Oct 30, 2015, at 12:03 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > IMHO, if you don't consider them significant enough to be mapped as a way you > should maybe not map them at all. + 1 These are small *culverts* - not bridges or tunnels for a main road - so they are already not a primary fea