Re: [Tagging] new access value

> On Oct 11, 2015, at 12:35 AM, Éric Gillet wrote: > > Hello, > I know this is not a vote or anything close, but wanted to say I don't think > a ban, especially a month-long ban, was warranted by Frederik's two last > messages. I disagree with Frederik's position

Re: [Tagging] new access value

> On Oct 11, 2015, at 12:35 AM, Éric Gillet wrote: > > Hello, > I know this is not a vote or anything close, but wanted to say I don't think > a ban, especially a month-long ban, was warranted by Frederik's two last > messages. Oops - forgot to add: +1 Javbw

Re: [Tagging] new access value

It was my impression that the discussed had cooled down before the moderator brought the particular mail back up after 1 of 2 days. Although there was a particular moment that I thought, "guys, please relax, take a deep breath", but I thought that moment was behind us. But still I'm not in favour

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Hello, I know this is not a vote or anything close, but wanted to say I don't think a ban, especially a month-long ban, was warranted by Frederik's two last messages. Maybe the problematic idiom was a bit harsh, but most of the posts contributed to the ongoing discussion. 2015-10-10 10:49

Re: [Tagging] new access value

I have suspended Friedrich Volkmann from this list for one month for incivility. Please be tolerant and considerate in your postings, and avoid insults. If you do not understand a particular idiom, please don't use it. Richard tagging@ list admin

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Hi, On 10/10/2015 12:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > can you please explain, where? Is it because he didn't "retract" the > "get a life"? Or because he was complaining that he got rebuked and > Florian wasn't? I think that mailing lists work like football games in that respect. In a football

Re: [Tagging] new access value

dieterdreist wrote: > Is it because he didn't "retract" the "get a life"? Yes. The mailing lists are generally better than the nadir of a couple of years ago and it's incumbent on us all to make sure they don't descend to that state again. It is absolutely not ok to respond to someone who is

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 09.10.2015 23:44, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Friedrich Volkmann wrote: >> Contribute something useful, or get a life. > > Please retract that insult, and agree not to post such comments in the > future, or you will be removed from this list. What insult? Do you mean me or him? He offended me

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 09.10.2015 23:42, ajt1...@gmail.com wrote: >>> localised meaning does not always have to be parsed into universal >>> tags. >>> >>> Here in the UK we have very specific access legislation for paths. On a >>> bridleway, for example, cycling is permitted, but cycle racing is forbidden, >>> and

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > Contribute something useful, or get a life. Please retract that insult, and agree not to post such comments in the future, or you will be removed from this list. Thank you. Richard tagging@ list admin -- View this message in context:

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 08.10.2015 12:16, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: (...a lot. I try to narrow it down to the critical passages.) > sometimes the signs restrict the > traffic by "who", not by destination. I.e. in the Anreinerverkehr case, > [...] it's no longer about the destination, but which > group of people you, or

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > I don't care how many countries are affected. It's a distinctive meaning, > so it deserves a distinctive tag. I get really angry whenever people > write "I oppose that tag because I don't need it in my country." Indeed. However, localised meaning does not always

Re: [Tagging] new access value

2015-10-08 4:21 GMT+02:00 John Willis : > > The police have no power because the road is public and built, so people > are legally allowed to drive on it. that's also the reason why those "Anlieger frei" situations should be reduced to a minimum, we're all public and these roads

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Friedrich Volkmann wrote on 2015-10-08 08:09: Built-in car navigation is dumb by now. Most OSM tags are ignored, such as all of the tags documented on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions. No, OsmAnd supports conditional times for maxspeed, though currently time only.

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 05:33:12PM +1100, Warin wrote: > > I'd think here 'we' try to tag the ground truth. How it gets used should be > a small influence, but the primary concern should be making good tags. tagging the ground truth is good. The ground truth is "sign " at positition

Re: [Tagging] new access value

sent from a phone > Am 08.10.2015 um 12:07 schrieb Colin Smale : > > Don't forget that even simple things like "what is a bicycle" vary from > country to country. Is a tricycle a bike? Is an electric bike still a bike? > Is a bike pulling a 3-metre trailer still a

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:52:08PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > On 08.10.2015 14:59, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > You dont get it dont you? > > This quarrel is pointless. Contribute something useful, or get a life. > Shortening a response to not contain the content and then complaining about

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 08:41:35PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > > > If you include them? What would be the legal sign? I know > > of none. You can put up signs which say - "Redheads only on > > mondays" but thats nothing OSM could or should follow. > > There are no redheads signs, because

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: > motor_vehicle=destination > + destination:limited=Anreinerverkehr > (latter would apply to whatever mode has =destination) > + destination:limited:something=Johannesbach fishing resort > when not obvious and when

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 08.10.2015 16:05, Marc Gemis wrote: > Just as your new value. That is not documented neither. A new value or a new > key, both have to be documented and implemented. A new tag value fits more into an existing tagging scheme than a new key. Some applications (such as even the standard

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 08.10.2015 04:21, John Willis wrote: > How do they enforce it in Europe? Stickers on cars? Stop and ask? In cities, there are lots of 30 km/h speed limits, oneways and traffic_calming=* to deter cutters. Parking requires a sticker on the car. Residents need to pay for it (around 150 €/year in

Re: [Tagging] new access value

> On Oct 8, 2015, at 2:43 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > > http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/12/no_through_traffic_signs_in_ne.html. > This case would be unthinkable here in Central Europe. The police have no power because the road is public and built, so people are legally

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > On 06.10.2015 21:41, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > Sorry - no - All of them are *=destination. > > Don't be sorry. Think forward. Help find a name for the missing tag. > While this missing tag might be theoretically useful,

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 23:11, John Willis wrote: > > >> On Oct 6, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: >> >> So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you >> use when you need to include them? > > Yes/permissive under general. > > If I am free to come

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 21:41, Florian Lohoff wrote: > Sorry - no - All of them are *=destination. Don't be sorry. Think forward. Help find a name for the missing tag. > If you include them? What would be the legal sign? I know > of none. You can put up signs which say - "Redheads only on > mondays" but

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 19:31, Florian Lohoff wrote: >> So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you >> use when you need to include them? > > Whats the possible signage which can induce that? "no through traffic" "no thru traffic" "local traffic only" In Austria: Fahrverbot

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 07:15, Marc Gemis wrote: > And (Flemish) Dutch "aangelanden (verkeer)". > > We also have the difference between > "uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer" = "except destination" > "uitgezonderd aangelanden" = "except 'visitor'" > > and I even saw > > "uitgezonderd bewoners" = "except

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Exactly my point - the actual definition of what is allowed and what is forbidden is a whole lot more complex than a single word on a sign. Let's not forget that OSM is only a model of reality, which means it will contain approximations of the truth. IMHO "access=destination" is probably

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Instead of trying to translate the words on the signs, why look at what the relevant laws say. There is only room on the sign for one or two words, but in the laws which define the signing there will/may be more detailed definitions of what is meant; these definitions will of course be

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 02:08, Georg Feddern wrote: > Am 05.10.2015 um 12:01 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann: >> Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but that's >> just wrong, because "destination" would mean that you are allowed to drive >> in to take a walk or shoot photos. > >

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 08:54:09PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > On 06.10.2015 19:31, Florian Lohoff wrote: > >> So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you > >> use when you need to include them? > > > > Whats the possible signage which can induce that? > >

Re: [Tagging] new access value

> On Oct 6, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > > So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you > use when you need to include them? Yes/permissive under general. If I am free to come up park my car for any reason and wander about, that

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 08:47, Colin Smale wrote: > Instead of trying to translate the words on the signs, why look at what the > relevant laws say. There is only room on the sign for one or two words, but > in the laws which define the signing there will/may be more detailed > definitions of what is meant;

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 09:04, Marc Gemis wrote: > And the Dutch/Flemish "plaatselijk verkeer" is better translated as > "local traffic"; now what the hell is the (legal) definition of that? > > Same as the Dutch bestemmingsverkeer I assume. I wouldn't assume that. > inhabitants, visitors,

Re: [Tagging] new access value

2015-10-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale : > Instead of trying to translate the words on the signs, why look at what > the relevant laws say. There is only room on the sign for one or two words, > but in the laws which define the signing there will/may be more detailed >

Re: [Tagging] new access value

People, sometimes creatively, put lots of stuff on signs that don't necessarily correspond to the set of values that is actually supported by law*. It frankly doesn't make sense to try and capture each fine semantic difference (wit visitor vs. destination), particularly as it may simply be

Re: [Tagging] new access value

2015-10-06 9:57 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann : > Sadly enough, most people who participate in discussions do not even know > (or at least not fully understand) the laws in the own country, > +1, the access=destination is likely an example, because it seems the definition in the

Re: [Tagging] new access value

So to summarise, you are proposing a new value for access=*, which has some overlap with "destination", "delivery" and "private" (and others), whereby the distinction with the existing values can only be made clear by refererring to legal texts? Whatever the conclusion, the new value has to

Re: [Tagging] new access value

2015-10-05 12:01 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann : > The meaning is a superset of > access=private/customers/delivery/agricultural/forestry. Everyone is > permitted to use the feature (road) if - and only if - he is either a > resident or owner of adjacent property or if he is aiming

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 10:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > would you be permitted if you wanted to ask for hotel pricing? Or room > availability? Yes. Asking means contact, and that's what it is about. > Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but > that's > just wrong,

Re: [Tagging] new access value

2015-10-06 11:06 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann : > > IMHO we should change the wiki to make this more explicit, because the > > German situation is similar, it isn't sufficient to want to go there > (like > > the wiki currently states), but you have to want to come in contact with >

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 10:45, Simon Poole wrote: > Your Anrainer vs. Anrainerverkehr example for AT doesn't seem to be any > different than the Anwohner/Anlieger difference in DE, which > semantically for routing purposes boils down to private/destination > (which I suspect most routers wouldn't actually

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Am 06.10.2015 um 11:29 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann: > ... > It's *not* destination, see my other posts. > To put it more clearly: > "destination" targets a location, while Anrainerverkehr targets people. > You can also see it like this: > "destination" is about where you go, while Anrainerverkehr

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Am 06.10.2015 um 12:02 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > > Yes, I didn't imply this. There's another possibility: split it into > several tags, that can be combined to describe the actual situation > (e.g. 2 or 3 rather than one tag). Each of these could have specific > (global) meaning, and

Re: [Tagging] new access value

2015-10-06 10:45 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole : > People, sometimes creatively, put lots of stuff on signs that don't > necessarily correspond to the set of values that is actually supported > by law*. It frankly doesn't make sense to try and capture each fine > semantic difference (wit

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Am 06.10.2015 um 11:15 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > ... > whether the routers do evaluate these rules specifically should not > matter to us. We should try to capture the reality, also in subtle > details, so that someone _could_ interpret the data precisely if he > wanted to. > ... The proper

Re: [Tagging] new access value

2015-10-06 11:31 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole : > Doing the above allows us to limit the possible values to a manageable > set and allows our mappers to tag things without in-depth knowledge of > the the actual detailed regulations. Creating a new value for each > national variant is

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 12:01:57PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > I intend to write a proposal for a new access=* value, but I don't know a > reasonable tag name. So I'm asking you for suggestions. > > We need the tag for Austrian road signs labelled "ausgenommen > Anrainerverkehr" or

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 6/10/2015 7:32 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: On 06.10.2015 09:04, Marc Gemis wrote: And the Dutch/Flemish "plaatselijk verkeer" is better translated as "local traffic"; now what the hell is the (legal) definition of that? Same as the Dutch bestemmingsverkeer I assume. I wouldn't

Re: [Tagging] new access value

sent from a phone > Am 06.10.2015 um 12:10 schrieb Simon Poole : > > Anrainer seems to be clearly covered by private "private" is "Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis" this is kind of vague, but from what it says literally it clearly doesn't apply

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 11:09, Colin Smale wrote: > So to summarise, you are proposing a new value for access=*, which has some > overlap with "destination", "delivery" and "private" (and others), There is no overlap with "destination", although many mappers mix it up. Of course there is overlap with

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 11:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I wouldn't do that, but I'd rather make it the opposite way (state that > destination does require contact). That would change the meaning of the tag, and how would you tag "Zufahrt gestattet" (or "Durchfahrt verboten" or "ausgenommen Ziele in

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 11:58, Simon Poole wrote: > Am 06.10.2015 um 11:29 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann: >> ... >> It's *not* destination, see my other posts. >> To put it more clearly: >> "destination" targets a location, while Anrainerverkehr targets people. >> You can also see it like this: >>

Re: [Tagging] new access value

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > > Maybe *=visitors? > or *=guests (but this could make believe that deliverers are excluded) > or *=contact (puzzling?) > or *=contact_with_residents (too bulky?) > or *=contact_with_abutters (same) > or *=in_touch... ?

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 12:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am 06.10.2015 um 12:10 schrieb Simon Poole >> Anrainer seems to be clearly covered by private Correct. > "private" is "Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis" > this is kind of vague, but from what it says literally it clearly

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 13:06, johnw wrote: > Destination is very good, because it implies people who are going to a > destination on that street/area. not free to roam around, not free to park > and wander off. > > =Destination is for people *visiting* the destination the road services. it > doesn’t

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:48:27PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > On 06.10.2015 13:06, johnw wrote: > > Destination is very good, because it implies people who are going to a > > destination on that street/area. not free to roam around, not free to park > > and wander off. > > > >

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Georg Feddern wrote: > As in > - german Anliegerverkehr > - swiss Zubringerverkehr > - austrian Anrainerverkehr > And (Flemish) Dutch "aangelanden (verkeer)". We also have the difference between "uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer" =

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Am 05.10.2015 um 12:01 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann: > ... > Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but that's > just wrong, because "destination" would mean that you are allowed to drive > in to take a walk or shoot photos. In exchange, "destination" would prohibt >

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Reading your post, I would think that vehicle=destination is exactly what you are looking for. If the restriction applies only to motor vehicles, than use motor_vehicle=destination. The wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access explicitly mentions the German "Anlieger frei" and to the

[Tagging] new access value

I intend to write a proposal for a new access=* value, but I don't know a reasonable tag name. So I'm asking you for suggestions. We need the tag for Austrian road signs labelled "ausgenommen Anrainerverkehr" or "ausgenommen Anliegerverkehr", where "ausgenommen" means "excepted" and

Re: [Tagging] new access value

.org> Subject: [Tagging] new access value I intend to write a proposal for a new access=* value, but I don't know a reasonable tag name. So I'm asking you for suggestions. We need the tag for Austrian road signs labelled "ausgenommen Anrainerverkehr" or "ausgenommen Anliegerverk

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Am 05.10.2015 um 14:56 schrieb Volker Schmidt: > .. > The wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access explicitly > mentions the German "Anlieger frei" and to the best of my knowledge > that is equivalent to the Austrian German "Anrainer" And to the Swiss Zubringerdienst ...

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Am 05.10.2015 um 16:36 schrieb Richard: > ... just trying to imagine the poor router trying to decide how to > route such an area. While some of the OSM specific routers haven't implemented it at this point in time, in general routers have no issue at all with it. The rough US-equivalent from a

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 12:01:57PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > I intend to write a proposal for a new access=* value, but I don't know a > reasonable tag name. So I'm asking you for suggestions. > > We need the tag for Austrian road signs labelled "ausgenommen > Anrainerverkehr" or

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 05.10.2015 14:19, Simon Poole wrote: > IMHO you are translating far far too literally and trying to infer a legal > meaning from that translation creating an unnecessary and likely > make-believe edge case. I don't know what translation you are talking about, but this has been exhaustingly