Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

From: Paul Allen Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2018 05:49 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org> > wrote: None of these three things are a problem now, except

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > None of these three things are a problem now, except that the omission of > bicycle lane tagging orthagonal to other lanes gives off by x problems for > lane guidance, where x is the number of bicycle lanes. > All three of them will become

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 12:50 Paul Allen wrote: > > At which point in that long transition should editors switch? And when > should > renderers switch? And when should routeing algorithms switch? > None of these three things are a problem now, except that the omission of bicycle lane tagging ort

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual > barrier. > > It does not sound that way to me. It sounds to me like there is a very real problem in redefining, in an INCOMPATIBLE way, a tag which has been used 7,97

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

The only way to do it properly is - define a new tag "lanes_for_all_transportation_modes" - deprecate lanes (during this period data-consumers should use "lanes_for_all_transportation_modes" and fallback on "lanes" if the former is not there) - wait until all highways with a lanes tag also have "l

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual barrier. On Fri, May 11, 2018, 11:25 Tod Fitch wrote: > > > On May 11, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > Why the almost religious doctrine level of resistance to change? Even > the Linux kernel rewrites entire

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

I'm not on the DWG. I'm just a mapper who reads this mailing list. On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Thilo Haug wrote: > would you say this picture is "off topic" ? > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag: > aeroway%3Dspaceport&oldid=1519060#Pictures > Yes. WILDLY off topic.

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

> -Original Message- > From: Marc Gemis > Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2018 02:21 > > Is OsmAnd interpreting the lanes tag correctly in the presence of > cycle lanes when it is tagged like you [Paul Johnson] do ? Nope. In fact, no matter if you specify lanes=2 or lanes=4, it will show the cyc

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

The first reference to tagging lanes for cyclist on the lanes page is made here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Alanes&type=revision&diff=648732&oldid=648729 by PeterIto My interpretation is that he writes that cycle lanes should be mapped as cycleway=lane (and thus not be

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

> On May 11, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Why the almost religious doctrine level of resistance to change? Even the > Linux kernel rewrites entire subsystems from time to time when a superior > approach comes around. The difference between having a small group of core developers

[Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

Hi all, would you say this picture is "off topic" ? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:aeroway%3Dspaceport&oldid=1519060#Pictures It seems I misunderstood the field of activity of the DWG https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group Cheers, Thilo Weitergelei

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

Is OsmAnd interpreting the lanes tag correctly in the presence of cycle lanes when it is tagged like you do ? On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2018, 03:27 Marc Gemis wrote: >> >> > The definitions of what a lane is for these two tags are different. >> > That

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Why the almost religious doctrine level of resistance to change? Even the > Linux kernel rewrites entire subsystems from time to time when a superior > approach comes around. typically such a thing is done in 2 phases (e.g. Java language)

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 03:58 wrote: > I've never gotten any validation errors when correctly tagging a road with > cycle lanes (that is, e.g. for a "normal" 2-way road: lanes=2, > cycleway=lane, and :lanes:forward and :lanes:backward tags with 2 values > each). > cycleway=* is not lane tagging, y

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 03:27 Marc Gemis wrote: > > The definitions of what a lane is for these two tags are different. > That's fine. They don't have to be the same. > > it would help though that validators and QA tools would not really > warn about the difference. Now people might start wondering

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 02:56 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 11. May 2018, at 06:44, Marc Gemis wrote: > > > > When the "lanes" tag was introduced the community choose to only count > the "full width segments for motorised traffic". > > > what is the definition for “fu

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 01:56 wrote: > > From: Marc Gemis > > Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 14:44 > > > > When the "lanes" tag was introduced the community choose to only > > count the "full width segments for motorised traffic". Perhaps > > because traffic law in some countries (e.g. Belgium [1]) def

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 11:57 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2018-05-11 11:36 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes : > > > > Roads with a width less than 4.5m do not have lane markings. I live > > in a rural area where there are a lot of such roads and tag these > > using the width tag. I would only use lan

Re: [Tagging] address property vs. housenumber as a feature

2018-05-11 14:04 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > sent from a phone > > > On 11. May 2018, at 14:35, Javier Sánchez Portero > wrote: > > > > similar for the other two streets. With the proposed relation, I would > create a relation with this tags > > > > type=address > > addr:housenumber=1-25 >

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

sent from a phone > On 11. May 2018, at 15:11, Marc Gemis wrote: > > Martin, in case of the absence of lane markings, does one have to use > flashing lights to change "virtual" lanes ? Romans make very sparse use of turn indicators in general, compared to German traffic, you only need them

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

we have some crossings with 4 lanes where the driving direction is south/north/south/north (we drive on the right hand side normally, so it should have been south/south/north/north). They did this so left turning traffic is not blocking the left turning traffic from the other side. This can not be

Re: [Tagging] address property vs. housenumber as a feature

sent from a phone > On 11. May 2018, at 14:35, Javier Sánchez Portero > wrote: > > similar for the other two streets. With the proposed relation, I would create > a relation with this tags > > type=address > addr:housenumber=1-25 > addr:postcode=10018 > addr:street=West 33rd Street I woul

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:25 PM, wrote: The real world is never as nice and tidy as the data models we try to make > of it. > Indeed. Many years ago I encountered two places in the UK (one in Scotland, one in England) where a road which had three lanes across its width had the left lane for nor

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

sent from a phone On 11. May 2018, at 14:25, wrote: >> If 3 vehicles drove side by side (which is the >> typical situation there, not counting the psv lane), which one would be >> "outside" the lanes? > > The middle one clearly, it's half way in each of the official lanes. sounds logica

Re: [Tagging] address property vs. housenumber as a feature

2018-05-11 10:53 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > May be it would be good to have a relation to keep in only one place an >> address and link there the affected elements: entrances, buildings, POI's >> and area for this address. This would be necessary only for some cases like >> a building with

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

> From: Martin Koppenhoefer > Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 21:45 > while I would generally agree with the idea of having officially 3 lanes, > I would have thought that lanes would have to be painted on the road, not > just indicated by signs. Under the strict reading of the definition on the w

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

2018-05-11 13:24 GMT+02:00 : > I would tag that as: > > > > oneway=yes > > lanes=3 > > lanes:psv=1 > > vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no > > psv:lanes=yes|yes|designated > > parking:lane:left=parallel > > parking:condition:left=ticket > > sidewalk=both > > > > This sign clearly defines how many lanes there

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

I would tag that as: oneway=yes lanes=3 lanes:psv=1 vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no psv:lanes=yes|yes|designated parking:lane:left=parallel parking:condition:left=ticket sidewalk=both This sign clearly defines how many lanes there are and that it’s a psv lane (not just a bus lane): ht

Re: [Tagging] complete tagging of all 'right of way'-cases

both a and b are very unlikely imho. c can be solved by any editor (the application not the person) On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > 2018-05-11 10:16 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : >> >> > >> > this tagging only works in the case of one way streets or separate >> > carri

Re: [Tagging] service:vehicle: prefix

Hello all, instead of discussing everything from scratch, let's create a general guideline for shop suffixes. There has already been a former short dicussion with some nice examples, but no productive outcome : General namespace (syntax) for shops : https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/taggi

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

I would also find it misleading to tag situations with lanes=2 where there is a painted bus lane and the rest of the carriageway (wide enough for 2-3 lanes) has no separations, like here: https://www.google.com.au/maps/@41.8987442,12.4647371,3a,75y,156.28h,56.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWEPSOplLQldMLoo

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

2018-05-11 5:18 GMT+02:00 Nick Bolten : > > I would expect a dedicated parking space for disabled drivers to have > room for a ramp. AFAIK it is required by the standard specification (in > Germany, likely in the EU). > > I can guarantee you, that is not universal. > you are right :) I guess if

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

A lot of residential roads here don’t have markings, like here: https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-27.2131302,153.0260346,3a,55y,45.38h,68.9t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sci60ZE7unqEW6wDOP9Gh6Q!2e0 But they are clearly intended to be 2 lane roads. (Which can be seen from the reflectors that are somet

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

2018-05-11 1:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > On 11/05/18 09:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > i.e. it is forbidden to cross the parking by foot if you are not disabled? > > and if an area is tagged amenity=parking, access=customers ... same > problem. > while it is somehow true, i

Re: [Tagging] complete tagging of all 'right of way'-cases

2018-05-11 10:16 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : > > > > this tagging only works in the case of one way streets or separate > carriageways, otherwise it is not clear to which direction the tags apply > (you have to look for the closest intersection and guess, which will often > work but isn’t a real soluti

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

2018-05-11 11:36 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes : > > > Roads with a width less than 4.5m do not have lane markings. I live in a > rural area where there are a lot of such roads and tag these using the > width tag. I would only use lanes if there are painted lanes on the road. i.e. you would remove la

Re: [Tagging] key: starting=yes ??

Thanks @Martin, thanks @Mateusz. I will document this for the dutch hiking project, suggesting the role start. For hiking, stop, stop_start and end are same as start. I think I will use the role for a few trails. I will have to discipline JOSM validator though. It complains about a template that

Re: [Tagging] address property vs. housenumber as a feature

2018-05-11 10:40 GMT+02:00 Javier Sánchez Portero : > In Spain, there isn't a relation one-to-one between entrances and > addresses, but it's pretty common to have a building with more than one > address. They may be a building with access from different streets or a > building (maybe with a house

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On 11 May 2018 08:58:16 BST, Marc Gemis wrote: >If you were not trying to tag this situation, but explain it to your >non-OSM friends, would you say that there are 2 lanes in that picture >? >At least in Belgium a lane is defined by having some white markings on >the ground. If there are no mark

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

2018-05-11 9:58 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : > If you were not trying to tag this situation, but explain it to your > non-OSM friends, would you say that there are 2 lanes in that picture > ? > At least in Belgium a lane is defined by having some white markings on > the ground. If there are no markings,

Re: [Tagging] key: starting=yes ??

2018-05-11 11:22 GMT+02:00 Peter Elderson : > Well, in a roundtrip there are often multiple designated starting points > with a parking lot, information panels, bus stop or railway statin nearby, > toilets. These designated starting points are commonly shown on paper maps > and tourist maps, and p

Re: [Tagging] key: starting=yes ??

Well, in a roundtrip there are often multiple designated starting points with a parking lot, information panels, bus stop or railway statin nearby, toilets. These designated starting points are commonly shown on paper maps and tourist maps, and present themselves as starting points. I do not see h

Re: [Tagging] key: starting=yes ??

11. May 2018 10:52 by pelder...@gmail.com : > if anything, it should be a role in the relation, not a tag on the node. > Right? > but IMHO it is utterly unimportant, it is already recorded by adding ways and obviously, it is property of route, not road/path s

Re: [Tagging] key: starting=yes ??

11. May 2018 11:00 by matkoni...@tutanota.com : > 11. May 2018 10:52 by > pelder...@gmail.com > > : > > >> if anything, it should be a role in the relation, not a tag on the node. >> Right? >> > > > > > but IMHO it is utterly unim

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

I've always been editing using JOSM and using the "lane and road attributes" mapstyle for visualization (which is pretty much the only editor/map style I'm aware of that has support for the large majority of lane related tags, making it pretty much the defacto standard implementation given the t

[Tagging] key: starting=yes ??

Hi In the Netherlands, I find a key starting=yes, to tag one or more nodes in a route relation for a walking roundtrip as a starting point. Seems to me that, if anything, it should be a role in the relation, not a tag on the node. Right? The dutch wiki page about this recommends using a node tagged

Re: [Tagging] address property vs. housenumber as a feature

2018-05-09 22:41 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > Is there a way to indicate a housenumber is a feature, vs. a property? > > In many places, housenumbers refer to buildings or sites, and you might > omit addresses on contained features (because you can hope for inheritance > from the containing a

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

> The definitions of what a lane is for these two tags are different. That's > fine. They don't have to be the same. it would help though that validators and QA tools would not really warn about the difference. Now people might start wondering whose right. m. ___

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

I'm not sure why we are wasting any time on discussing possible changes to the definition of the lanes tag her. The tag goes back to pretty much the start of OSM and is in widespread usage. Any change in definition that fundamentally changes what value goes into the key given a specific situat

Re: [Tagging] complete tagging of all 'right of way'-cases

> > this tagging only works in the case of one way streets or separate > carriageways, otherwise it is not clear to which direction the tags apply > (you have to look for the closest intersection and guess, which will often > work but isn’t a real solution) This is no longer true, OsmAnd now h

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

It will probably depend on traffic code/law in each country. According to wikipedia [1] it's normally between 2.5 and 3.5 m AFAIK when a lane is smaller, and thus not suitable for trucks and cars with caravans, it has to be indicated by a traffic sign. For me full width means that a car (which has

Re: [Tagging] complete tagging of all 'right of way'-cases

sent from a phone > On 11. May 2018, at 04:01, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Your from way would be the way those signs are facing, and the TO ways would > be all the ways you would have to stop at the sign before proceeding to enter > (ie, all of them except the way for the right turn). exactly

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

If you were not trying to tag this situation, but explain it to your non-OSM friends, would you say that there are 2 lanes in that picture ? At least in Belgium a lane is defined by having some white markings on the ground. If there are no markings, there is only 1 lane. I do not know how it is def

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

sent from a phone > On 11. May 2018, at 06:44, Marc Gemis wrote: > > When the "lanes" tag was introduced the community choose to only count the > "full width segments for motorised traffic". what is the definition for “full width”? Is a road with 1,8 width lanes=0? width=2.4? Given that ma

Re: [Tagging] complete tagging of all 'right of way'-cases

10. May 2018 21:03 by ru...@vfn-nrw.de : > What do you think about the relation-approach designed by AMDmi3: > Relations are generally horrible to edit. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.ope

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

sent from a phone > On 11. May 2018, at 05:49, Marc Gemis wrote: > > It's just historically that "lanes" (the tag alone) is only for motorised > traffic. I agree with Paul, it has always bothered me to have this inconsistency in the definitions. What would you say about unsigned lanes? T