Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)

Am 13.04.2014 22:36, schrieb Mike N: > On 4/13/2014 4:21 PM, Pieren wrote: >> It's just a long and onerous discussion to find dubious arguments >> against this tag on ways. > > It's really an argument against needless clutter in the Wiki. Why not > add noexit to a relation to show some conditio

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)

On 4/13/2014 4:21 PM, Pieren wrote: It's just a long and onerous discussion to find dubious arguments against this tag on ways. It's really an argument against needless clutter in the Wiki. Why not add noexit to a relation to show some condition? To trees to show that once entered, there'

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)

On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 9:45 PM, John Packer wrote: > I think you missed André's point. > If a way has two dead-ends: one of which is an actual dead-end, and another > which is a connectivity error... then the connectivity error is missed > because noexit=yes was used. > Fortunately this doesn't

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)

> > What, in tagging a way, indicates on which end of it is the dead end? >> I asked that already). >> > > The question does not make sense. Of course the end that is not > connected to another highway is the dead-end. If the way should not be > connected to anything on either side it will already

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)

Hi, On 10.04.2014 18:08, André Pirard wrote: > In other words, 40% tags (on ways) can't be wrong. But the problem is > that 99.+% of these correct tags are mistakes and shouldn't even exist > because they do not represent "ways ending near another way", which are > the targets of noexit=yes, but

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)

Am 12.04.2014 20:52, schrieb Nelson A. de Oliveira: > So the wiki will stay allowing and saying to use noexit on ways too, > even if the majority agree that it shouldn't be like this? The german page will exclude ways and all other communities can discuss this issue on continential/national/region

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)

So the wiki will stay allowing and saying to use noexit on ways too, even if the majority agree that it shouldn't be like this? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)

> Am 11/apr/2014 um 17:14 schrieb Dave Swarthout : > > This thread is unbelievable. +1. ;-) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)

This thread is unbelievable. I just goes on and on, endlessly discussing something that was crystal clear from the moment I first saw that tag. It is quite obvious that the people who use the tag for ways either did not read the Wiki or misinterpreted the use of the tag (as we've discussed *ad naus

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 6:08 PM, André Pirard wrote: > What, in tagging a way, indicates on which end of it is the dead end? (I > asked that already). > omg, all "ends" (last node) not connected to another highway are surely dead ends when the tag is present :-)) (and the tag is confirming that

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

Am 10.04.2014 16:01, schrieb Pieren: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:48 PM, John Packer wrote: > >> I also added the following phrase to the "Usage" section: >>> >>> In the past this tag was used on ways very often, but because tagging on >>> ways has several disadvantages, you should rather tag noex

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

Am 10.04.2014 16:59, schrieb Pieren: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Florian Schäfer wrote: True, in the most cases it is not important. But sometimes it is, for example in my T-deadend example, mentioned on this ML. All cases can be covered by the tagging on nodes. The tagging on ways can't

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 2014-04-10 16:59, Pieren wrote : > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Florian Schäfer > wrote: > >> True, in the most cases it is not important. But sometimes it is, for >> example in my T-deadend example, mentioned on this ML. >> All cases can be covered by the tagging on nodes. The tagging on

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

I agree with André Pirard that: 1. If we say it should be tagged on the way, it should be clearer how it should be tagged (what if the cul-de-sac is splitted, etc) 2. "noexit" was a bad choice of name for this key Personally I don't know if using noexit=yes on ways is used by any software nowadays

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 4/10/2014 10:59 AM, Pieren wrote: But we don't have "problems" with the tag on the way ! It's true that the wiki has to document the best practices but it should not fordid practices that are not wrong, harmfull, unclear or ambiguous ! I regret the time when people worked with a more open mind

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 4/10/2014 12:10 PM, Yves wrote: I guess the problem arises from tagging dead-ends in a geo database. QA tools should keep there false positives for themself, not in OSM, don't you think? Except that I don't use QA tools when editing data. But often as I create something that ends suspic

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

I guess the problem arises from tagging dead-ends in a geo database. QA tools should keep there false positives for themself, not in OSM, don't you think? On 10 avril 2014 16:59:44 UTC+02:00, Pieren wrote: >On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Florian Schäfer > wrote: > >> True, in the most cases i

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)

would say, that tagging noexit=yes on ways is not a best practice. In my opinion an acceptable comment in the Wiki about tagging noexit=yes on ways would be "In the past this tag was used on ways very often (~40%). But because this tagging has several disadvantages

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Florian Schäfer wrote: > True, in the most cases it is not important. But sometimes it is, for > example in my T-deadend example, mentioned on this ML. > All cases can be covered by the tagging on nodes. The tagging on ways can't > cover all cases (deadends with m

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

Am 10.04.2014 15:54, schrieb Pieren: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:10 PM, fly wrote: Well, there is one person against wiki fiddling and in favour of using it on ways, who simply does change the just corrected version without further discussion. Well, consider that I'm speaking in the name of th

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

Am 10.04.2014 15:48, schrieb John Packer: I removed the use on ways from the wiki page. The wiki is not for documenting Tagging-trends, but for documenting best practices. I agree 100% with this. I also added the following phrase to the "Usage" section: In the past this tag was u

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:10 PM, fly wrote: > Well, there is one person against wiki fiddling and in favour of using > it on ways, who simply does change the just corrected version without > further discussion. Well, consider that I'm speaking in the name of the contributors who added 118000 'no

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:48 PM, John Packer wrote: > I also added the following phrase to the "Usage" section: >> >> In the past this tag was used on ways very often, but because tagging on >> ways has several disadvantages, you should rather tag noexit=yes on nodes. I cannot agree. What is the

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

I removed the use on ways from the wiki page. The wiki is not for documenting Tagging-trends, but for documenting best > practices. > I agree 100% with this. I also added the following phrase to the "Usage" section: > In the past this tag was used on ways very often, but because tagging on > way

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 10.04.2014 14:51, John Packer wrote: > Just a quick comment: > If it's not useful to use it on ways, then I don't think we should > recommend it on nodes /or ways/ on the wiki page (as it is currently). > In fact, we should recommend against putting on ways. Well, there is one person against wi

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

Yes, I agree. That recommendation was introduced yesterday by Pieren [1]. I strongly oppose that. The wiki is not for documenting Tagging-trends, but for documenting best practices. And I would say, that tagging noexit=yes on ways is not a best practice. In my opinion an acceptable comment in

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

Just a quick comment: If it's not useful to use it on ways, then I don't think we should recommend it on nodes *or ways* on the wiki page (as it is currently). In fact, we should recommend against putting on ways. 2014-04-09 16:16 GMT-03:00 André Pirard : > On 2014-04-09 10:47, Pieren wrote :

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 2014-04-09 10:47, Pieren wrote : > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM, André Pirard > wrote: > > 1. noexit cannot be used on ways because that does not show what > end "cannot pass" > > > eeh, what "what end" ? Either the highway line is linked to anoth

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

Am 09.04.2014 16:04, schrieb Pieren: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Florian Schäfer wrote: An example where the tagging of noexit on ways is not sufficient is a T-shaped deadend, where the crossbar is one OSM-way. At one end pedestrians can pass, at the other end not. Again, the noexit is on

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Florian Schäfer wrote: > An example where the tagging of noexit on ways is not sufficient is a > T-shaped deadend, where the crossbar is one OSM-way. At one end pedestrians > can pass, at the other end not. Again, the noexit is only important when the last node is

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > but when do you remove the no_exit, or do you leave it forever for > the validators? the DB developer in me doesn't like redundant > information, all it does is create confusion if the data is in > conflict. It's only useful for validators (

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 4/9/14 9:13 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > >> what makes no_exit so special that it needs its own key >> for this purpose? > Once more, it's only useful for QA tools checking highway > intersections geometry where one of the highway is nearby but not

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

Am 09.04.2014 14:51, schrieb Ronnie Soak: > There can be a way that IS connected on both ends and still is a dead end. A > road can end in a wall or a fence, where on the other side the road > continues. > There may be other tags there (barrier=*), but still it would be

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > what makes no_exit so special that it needs its own key > for this purpose? Once more, it's only useful for QA tools checking highway intersections geometry where one of the highway is nearby but not connected. The "noexit" tag is disabling

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 9 April 2014 14:05, Richard Welty wrote: > what makes no_exit so special that it needs its own key > for this purpose? > Roads that are close to each other but not connected are a common tagging mistake. The tag no_exit is a default, which we generally don't tag, but I think it makes sense to

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 4/9/14 8:51 AM, Ronnie Soak wrote: > As a means to communicate an intention from one mapper to the next, it > simply is more clear when mapped on the node than on the way. I simply > gave an example where the end of the dead-end way can not simply be > deduced by its geometry. Regards, chaos i h

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

> > There can be a way that IS connected on both ends and still is a dead > end. A > > road can end in a wall or a fence, where on the other side the road > > continues. > > There may be other tags there (barrier=*), but still it would be hard to > > quickly spot the dead end side with noexit=yes t

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 4/9/14 7:19 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Ronnie Soak > wrote: > >> There can be a way that IS connected on both ends and still is a dead end. A >> road can end in a wall or a fence, where on the other side the road >> continues. >> There may be other tags there (barrier=

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Ronnie Soak wrote: > There can be a way that IS connected on both ends and still is a dead end. A > road can end in a wall or a fence, where on the other side the road > continues. > There may be other tags there (barrier=*), but still it would be hard to > quickl

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

2014-04-09 10:47 GMT+02:00 Pieren : > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM, André Pirard wrote: > >> >>1. noexit cannot be used on ways because that does not show what end >>"cannot pass" >> >> > eeh, what "what end" ? Either the highway line is linked to another > highway at both ends, then "no

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM, André Pirard wrote: > >1. noexit cannot be used on ways because that does not show what end >"cannot pass" > > eeh, what "what end" ? Either the highway line is linked to another highway at both ends, then "noexit" is a tagging mistake. Or the highway line i

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

now make sure that all QA-tools and editors/validators follow those rules. I fear that otherwise we will keep seeing noexit tags that are used incorrectly. On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM, André Pirard wrote: > Hi, > > A problem raised in 2013-12 on talk-be regarding the error with sign > F45

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

Hi, A problem raised in 2013-12 on talk-be regarding the error with sign F45 that nobody corrected. I finally did it. I had brought the subject to Tagging and it reached a consensus with Georg's message which I quote below. But nobody

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Apr 8, 2014, at 3:10 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:48 AM, fly wrote: > > Please, return to earth. Tagging traffic signs is just a funny > activity in fully mapped areas. How do you specify a speed limit in > OSM ? with a "traffic_sign" tag on a node or primarily with the > "max

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 2014-04-04 17:35, Pieren wrote : > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Nelson A. de Oliveira > wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly wrote: >>> If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a >>> for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with >

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:57 PM, fly wrote: > The major points in my view are: > * We do not need to tag cul-de-sac as defined by the traffic_sign. This > information is available through geometry and/or access tags. This is not related with tagging on the last node or the way. The tag is only r

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

I tagged noexit=yes on the ways. Why ? If I remember correctly some more experienced mapper told me it was ok to do so. And perhaps I read the wiki page before June 28, 2011, when there was nothing mentioned about way or node. You cannot assume each mapper reads all wiki pages every week or foll

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 08.04.2014 12:10, Pieren wrote: > On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:48 AM, fly wrote: >> noexit=yes has nothing in common with the traffic_sign as: >> >> 1. it only is about motorized traffic where noexit=yes is about every >> travel mode. >> 2. it is used at the beginning of a cul-de-sac and an inform

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:48 AM, fly wrote: > noexit=yes has nothing in common with the traffic_sign as: > > 1. it only is about motorized traffic where noexit=yes is about every > travel mode. > 2. it is used at the beginning of a cul-de-sac and an information for > driver of motorized vehicles w

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 06.04.2014 03:13, John F. Eldredge wrote: > Well, at least on my part, the confusion was because I was thinking in terms > of the no exit sign, which is always posted at the entrance to a cul-de-sac, > not at the end of it. Do we need a link to traffic_sign=* ? noexit=yes has nothing in comm

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

Well, at least on my part, the confusion was because I was thinking in terms of the no exit sign, which is always posted at the entrance to a cul-de-sac, not at the end of it. On April 5, 2014 8:00:27 PM CDT, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I think the Wiki is abundantly clear on the usage of this tag

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

I think the Wiki is abundantly clear on the usage of this tag. I says, among other things, that it is to be used on a node, not on a way, and that "This tag is mainly useful where a road or path ends close to another way but where it isn't possible to get through due to a barrier or other obstruc

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 2014-04-06 00:07, John F. Eldredge wrote : If you don't use noexit=yes on ways, what do you use it on? How do you understand "Use the noexit=yes tag on the node at the end of a highway=* ..."? If you read the wiki page very very carefully, you wi

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

If you don't use noexit=yes on ways, what do you use it on? I don't see that it would be meaningful on nodes, areas, or relations. On April 4, 2014 9:14:24 AM CDT, "Nelson A. de Oliveira" wrote: > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly > wrote: > > On 03.04.2014 21:22, Nelson A. de Oliveira wr

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

I always thought the meaning of noexit=yes was very clear. Obviously there is some confusion I was not aware of. If a highway ends with no way to continue, the final node is tagged with noexit=yes. I only use it if I am sure there is no way forward from the end of the particular way. As someone who

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 2014-04-04 17:35, Pieren wrote : > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Nelson A. de Oliveira > wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly wrote: >>> If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a >>> for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with >

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

I was thinking the same thing, but couldn't put it into words properly. If 40% of noexit tags are on ways, this is meaningful, not some sort of accident. FWIW I also prefer to put the tag on the way, I don't care about the gratification that it gets rendered with a nifty icon in JOSM when put on a

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 04.04.2014 17:35, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Nelson A. de Oliveira > wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly wrote: > >>> If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a >>> for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly wrote: >> If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna ask a >> for validator checks in JOSM, as we have more than 100,000 ways with >> this tag. > Basically I agree with the cu

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

> > I also can't see why, but people also use noexit=no > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/noexit#values > noexit=no is the same as fixme=continue I believe fixme=continue should be favored since it actually appears in QA Tools and in JOSM 2014-04-04 11:56 GMT-03:00 André Pirard : > On 20

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 2014-04-04 16:14, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote : > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly wrote: >> On 03.04.2014 21:22, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM, fly wrote: Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? >>> The way has one side that has/is an exit :-) >>> Tagging the

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, fly wrote: > On 03.04.2014 21:22, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM, fly wrote: >>> Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? >> >> The way has one side that has/is an exit :-) >> Tagging the whole way as "noexit=yes" seems strange. > > If it is

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 03.04.2014 21:22, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM, fly wrote: >> Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? > > The way has one side that has/is an exit :-) > Tagging the whole way as "noexit=yes" seems strange. If it is accepted, I gonna hange the wiki accordingly and gonna

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

Hello, Am 03.04.2014 21:22, schrieb SomeoneElse: fly wrote: Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? Asking a slightly broader question, in what situations is "noexit=yes" useful at all, except as a cue to subsequent mappers in the very rare situation that one way ends very close to another one and

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

> Am 03/apr/2014 um 21:22 schrieb SomeoneElse : > > and there's absolutely nothing (not a wall, footpath, anything) between them? you could still map that as natural=void ;-) Seriously, there will always be something (guard rail, ditch, scrub, grass, fence, gate, ) __

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 03.04.2014 21:30, John Packer wrote: > > in what situations is "noexit=yes" useful at all, except as a cue to > subsequent mappers in the very rare situation that one way ends very > close to another one and there's absolutely nothing (not a wall, > footpath, anything) between t

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

> in what situations is "noexit=yes" useful at all, except as a cue to > subsequent mappers in the very rare situation that one way ends very close > to another one and there's absolutely nothing (not a wall, footpath, > anything) between them? > It might be useful when there is limited visibility

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

fly wrote: Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? Asking a slightly broader question, in what situations is "noexit=yes" useful at all, except as a cue to subsequent mappers in the very rare situation that one way ends very close to another one and there's absolutely nothing (not a wall, footpath,

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM, fly wrote: > Is noexit=yes useful on ways ? The way has one side that has/is an exit :-) Tagging the whole way as "noexit=yes" seems strange. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap

[Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

ATM on the german mailing list noexit=yes is discussed. On user pointed out that on the english wiki page it is defined for nodes and ways where as on the german one it is only valid for nodes. I had a look at the history of the page and found some actions 3 years ago. First it was only defined f

[Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

ATM on the german mailing list noexit=yes is discussed. On user pointed out that on the english wiki page it is defined for nodes and ways where as on the german one it is only valid for nodes. I had a look at the history of the page and found some actions 3 years ago. First it was only defined f