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

For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1. Awkward but correct. But as said before, the lanes tag is pretty useless beside some simple, straightforward street layouts, for even number of total lanes evenly divided in both directions. Lanes=3 is useless, not? So once

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

sent from a phone > On 12. May 2018, at 23:27, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Then, it doesn't matter what other traffic control is present, bicycles > turning right have a yield. a yield is different than a stop though, as a stop requires you stop in any case while a yield

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

sent from a phone > On 12. May 2018, at 22:01, Marc Gemis wrote: > > So far 2 people keep insisting that cycle lanes are counted and a > larger number says no. I don’t know who the other person is, my stance is they would better be counted but I don’t do it currently,

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

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:53 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 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. > Don't blame a primitive designed to model complex

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

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > > Why do you keep taggig roads if you know the wiki tells you not to > count cycle lanes? The wiki doesn't mesh with the real world on this issue. How is this lanes=0 and not lanes=2? https://imgur.com/gallery/3C3lHbj

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

So far 2 people keep insisting that cycle lanes are counted and a larger number says no. AFAIK a non-OSM person will not count cycle lanes when asked to tell how many lanes a road has. I asked around on the Belgian OSM Riot Channel and immediately got 3 responses, to NOT count cycle lanes. So

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

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Steve Doerr wrote: > On 12/05/2018 12:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> Actually, while I know about and abide to the wiki definition, I don't >> think it is intuitive to count some lanes and other not. >> > > We do that because of a UN

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

On 12/05/2018 12:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Actually, while I know about and abide to the wiki definition, I don't think it is intuitive to count some lanes and other not. We do that because of a UN convention: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-September/008578.html

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

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Paul Allen wrote: > Considering that it's already been wrong for nearly 300,000 ways for years >> now, the only thing that could >> > happen on this would be improve. >> > > So, of 7 million lanes tags, 300,000 get it wrong. Which means that

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

2018-05-12 18:56 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen : > So, of 7 million lanes tags, 300,000 get it wrong. Which means that > 6,700,000 get it right. > These numbers are inflated, most highways don't have cycle lanes, so it doesn't matter, they keep their count in both ways of counting.

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

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Paul Allen wrote: > >> >> >> You forgot an important condition. ALL of these changes must take place >> AT THE SAME >> TIME. Not just co-ordination of software, but

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

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Mateusz Konieczny < > matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote: > >> 11. May 2018 19:16 by ba...@ursamundi.org: >> >> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual >>

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

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2018-05-11 21:48 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen : > >> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson >> wrote: >> >>> >>> None of these three things are a problem now, except

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

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 5:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 11. May 2018, at 18:18, Marc Gemis wrote: > > > > We have this problem even at this moment > > (since you apply another definition than many other

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

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Paul Allen wrote: > 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

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted the emails somewhere. On 2018-05-12 16:41, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 12.05.2018 13:53, Colin Smale wrote: > >> As Thilo had pointed out, removing off-topic info from the Wiki is not a >> documented activity of the DWG so I assume everyone was acting

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

Hi, On 12.05.2018 13:53, Colin Smale wrote: > As Thilo had pointed out, removing off-topic info from the Wiki is not a > documented activity of the DWG so I assume everyone was acting in a > purely personal capacity? Nobody from DWG was involved until Thilo asked DWG to get involved, and after

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

sent from a phone > On 12. May 2018, at 15:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > we try to make tag definition pages concise so that they contain only > essential information. While I don’t think the pictures are irritating, I > think they are mostly irrelevant and

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

sent from a phone > On 12. May 2018, at 14:38, Thilo Haug OSM wrote: > > What I dont't understand is how these pictures may be disturbing or > irritating ? we try to make tag definition pages concise so that they contain only essential information. While I don’t think the

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

As a node, the trailhead proposal might fit as well: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trailhead Alberto From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: venerdì 11 maggio 2018 11:33 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

Hi, IMHO the picture helps understand the process of starting and landing, as not everyone heard about the recent development. I thought this would be helpful to get an overview at a glance. (talking about the spacex schematic picture, not the " long exposure" one, which should only show the

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > As Thilo had pointed out, removing off-topic info from the Wiki is not a > documented activity of the DWG > It's not? Hm... https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group says: DWG members perform a

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

As Thilo had pointed out, removing off-topic info from the Wiki is not a documented activity of the DWG so I assume everyone was acting in a purely personal capacity? On 2018-05-12 13:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2018-05-11 18:22 GMT+02:00 Thilo Haug : > >> Hi all, >> >>

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

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 11. May 2018 19:16 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual > barrier. > > > You are free to organize resurvey of over 7 million places where ;anes=*

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

2018-05-11 18:22 GMT+02:00 Thilo Haug : > Hi all, > > would you say this picture is "off topic" ? > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag: > aeroway%3Dspaceport=1519060#Pictures > Yes, this is clearly off topic for the tag definition page. Why would you think it is

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

2018-05-12 13:04 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > Why should I split the highway and add lanes=4 on parts where lanes are > marked and lanes=1 on parts where just the outer limits of the carriageway > are marked, on the very same road with the same width (because of the

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

2018-05-11 21:48 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen : > 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

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

sent from a phone > On 11. May 2018, at 18:18, Marc Gemis wrote: > > We have this problem even at this moment > (since you apply another definition than many other mappers), but we > can refer you, new mappers and data consumers to the wiki page and > say this is how it

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

11. May 2018 18:22 by th...@gmx.de : > > Hi all, > > would you say this picture is "off topic" ? > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:aeroway%3Dspaceport=1519060#Pictures > >

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

11. May 2018 19:16 by ba...@ursamundi.org : > This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual > barrier. You are free to organize resurvey of over 7 million places where ;anes=* is used and coordinate release of new version of any

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

11. May 2018 19:49 by pla16...@gmail.com : > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Paul Johnson <> ba...@ursamundi.org > > > wrote: > >> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual >> barrier. >> > It does not sound