On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 7:06 AM, LeTopographeFou
wrote:
> Hi
>
> According to the waterway=stream wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream):
>
> *If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be downstream (i.e. the
> way direction follows the flow)*
>
> As of toda
In the rare cases of waterways flow in both directions due to tidal forces or
other phenomenon, it is highly unlikely these are one way, and if so, most
likely conditional.
Besides conditional regulations of navigation is often (though not always)
regulated by a signal station or a traffic cont
.
From: letopographe...@gmail.com
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 14:06:23 +0200
Subject: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways
Hi
According to the waterway=stream wiki page
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream
On 18/09/2016 15:35, Malcolm Herring wrote:
This is a dangerous dependency - if the way is reversed by another
mapper, the all "oneway" tags become invalid.
All tags depend on other tags. If any tag is changed from being correct,
data will become "invalid"
Dave F.
___
On 18/09/2016 15:35, Malcolm Herring wrote:
On 18/09/2016 11:14, Colin Smale wrote:
the values for "oneway" and all the "forward" and "backward" subkey
business are geometric directions related to the order of the nodes in
the OSM way,
This is a dangerous dependency - if the way is reversed by
Maybe, but it's a dependency that has existed for years. It is understood by
"most mappers" (I know this is a generalisation) and is supported to some
extent by many editing and other tools.
//colin
On 18 September 2016 16:35:44 CEST, Malcolm Herring
wrote:
>On 18/09/2016 11:14, Colin Smale w
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 18 set 2016, alle ore 16:35, Malcolm Herring
> ha scritto:
>
> This is a dangerous dependency - if the way is reversed by another mapper,
> the all "oneway" tags become invalid.
common osm editing software is caring for these dependencies and suggesting to
r
On 18/09/2016 11:14, Colin Smale wrote:
the values for "oneway" and all the "forward" and "backward" subkey
business are geometric directions related to the order of the nodes in
the OSM way,
This is a dangerous dependency - if the way is reversed by another
mapper, the all "oneway" tags becom
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 18 set 2016, alle ore 12:00, Malcolm Herring
> ha scritto:
>
> Values such as "yes", "forward", "reverse", "-1", etc are all meaningless to
> those who actually navigate the waterways. As Aun said, the commonly
> understood terms are "upstream" & "downstream".
> On Sep 18, 2016, at 10:50, Aun Johnsen wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 18, 2016, at 09:00, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
>>
>> How could the concept of upstream and downstream be applied to canals
>> and lakes?
>
> Open, and non-flowing waterways have a direction of buoyage, that can be
>
> On Sep 18, 2016, at 09:00, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
>
> How could the concept of upstream and downstream be applied to canals
> and lakes?
Open, and non-flowing waterways have a direction of buoyage, that can be
interpreted as direction of flow. This system is defined per cou
Malcom, the values for "oneway" and all the "forward" and "backward"
subkey business are geometric directions related to the order of the
nodes in the OSM way, and not (always) linked to geographical concepts.
Nobody navigates based on raw OSM data, on the roads or on the water.
The values have to
On 17/09/2016 23:08, Colin Smale wrote:
Martin, are you suggesting to drop the convention for the way direction
that it goes with the flow? Or are you OK with oneway=reverse?
Values such as "yes", "forward", "reverse", "-1", etc are all
meaningless to those who actually navigate the waterways.
Sorry if I misinterpreted you. I understand all about route relations,
but the fact remains they are not in place everywhere. They are not
essential for navigation, but oneway restrictions are.
If you are so disappointed that I am unaware of the so many reasons why
route relations are preferable
On 17/09/2016 16:05, Colin Smale wrote:
So saying you can only map these short restrictions by creating a
route relation for the whole length sounds a bit excessive to me.
I never said any such thing.
Router relations are preferable so many reasons. Disappointing you're
unaware of that.
Da
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 18 set 2016, alle ore 00:08, Colin Smale ha
> scritto:
>
> Martin, are you suggesting to drop the convention for the way direction that
> it goes with the flow? Or are you OK with oneway=reverse?
the latter, or oneway=-1
FWIW, the is also a tag flow_direction
Martin, are you suggesting to drop the convention for the way direction
that it goes with the flow? Or are you OK with oneway=reverse?
//colin
On 2016-09-17 23:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
>
> Il giorno 17 set 2016, alle ore 14:20, Andy Townsend ha
> scritto:
>
>> I'v
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 17 set 2016, alle ore 14:20, Andy Townsend ha
> scritto:
>
> I've certainly used "oneway=yes" on inland waterways to document signed
> traffic flow control, so a blanket removal would make no sense.
+1, this is the meaning of the oneway tag on waterways, don't
On 2016-09-17 16:36, Dave F wrote:
> Clarification: I'm meant a route relation for the whole canal, not just to
> define travel direction.
That's exactly my point... The whole canal may be hundreds of km long,
and the section where oneway vs. flow direction is actually an issue
might be as short
te water flow direction, but you'd need to ask
whoever the previous mapper was in each case (or use a bit of common
sense).
Cheers,
Andy
*From: *LeTopographeFou
*Sent: *Saturday, 17 September 2016 13:17
*To: *tagging@openstreetmap.org
*Reply To: *Tag discussion, strategy and related to
For waterways I find upstream/downstream more suitable to indicate direction of
navigational channel. These terms are also represented in maritime maps and
publications. counter_flaw, reversed, and backwards all seems odd for marine
people.
A typical description in a Pilots Guide (traffic descr
er the previous mapper was in each case (or use a bit of common
sense).
Cheers,
Andy
*From: *LeTopographeFou
*Sent: *Saturday, 17 September 2016 13:17
*To: *tagging@openstreetmap.org
*Reply To: *Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
*Subject: *[Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways
Hi
r was in each case (or use a bit of common sense).
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> FROM: LeTopographeFou
> SENT: Saturday, 17 September 2016 13:17
> TO: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> REPLY TO: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> SUBJECT: [Tagging] Use of oneway
n, but you'd need to ask whoever
the previous mapper was in each case (or use a bit of common sense).
Cheers,
Andy
*From: *LeTopographeFou
*Sent: *Saturday, 17 September 2016 13:17
*To: *tagging@openstreetmap.org
*Reply To: *Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
*Subject: *[Tagg
I've certainly used "_oneway_=yes" on inland waterways to document signed traffic flow control, so a blanket removal would make no sense.There may be places where a previous mapper has tried to use it in error to
Hi
According to the waterway=stream wiki page
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream):
/If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be downstream (i.e.
the way direction follows the flow)/
As of today there is a very small percentage of streams (17593 ways
accord
26 matches
Mail list logo
