Yes please!
I was also thinking on the lines of documenting implicit tagging:
*to save mappers time
*to save space in the database
*to avoid confusion
*to allow a single point of maintenance
At a generic territory level with some kind of hierarchy please, so
for example cities
On 13/04/2012 08:20, Peter Wendorff wrote:
-10 for adding defaults as a hint for mappers!!!
You sure know how to lower the barriers to entry and attract new mappers...
Every application using OSM data has to make assumptions about data
not present in the database, sure, but reliable data has
I think Frederik describes the problem very well here:
http://osm.gryph.de/2012/02/freedom-to-tag and I really like the Tag
Central idea, but as usual it requires that somebody with the right skills
and available time falls in love with the idea. It is probably too late
now, but it might have been
Am 13.04.2012 08:20, schrieb Peter Wendorff:
If we would define a set of defaults and mappers follow that set, nobody
will add default values again, and it's not possible to distinguish
between default and unknown any more.
You have identified a real problem: The distinction between default
On 13/04/2012 08:20, Peter Wendorff wrote:
-10 for adding defaults as a hint for mappers!!!
What would you do with this page? Enhance/complete it, or delete it?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
Just noticed that links to a proposal for defaults -
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Just noticed that links to a proposal for defaults -
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Defaults
An example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/934933
Data consumers should check if the
Am 13.04.2012 08:55, schrieb Colin Smale:
On 13/04/2012 08:20, Peter Wendorff wrote:
-10 for adding defaults as a hint for mappers!!!
You sure know how to lower the barriers to entry and attract new
mappers...
Not exactly, but a big catalogue of explicit defaults IMHO does not make
anything
Am 13.04.2012 09:31, schrieb Colin Smale:
On 13/04/2012 08:20, Peter Wendorff wrote:
-10 for adding defaults as a hint for mappers!!!
What would you do with this page? Enhance/complete it, or delete it?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
Just
Am 11.04.2012 11:35, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
in the case of parallel ways it is impossible to tell whether you can
filter them out or not (there could be a separation or they could be
on different height levels), especially if people are mapping
sidewalks the same as separated footways.
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 19:50 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/11/2012 7:17 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 13:28 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/11/2012 4:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
If sidewalks were tagged without the highway tag, routing would
continue to
Am 11.04.2012 12:47, schrieb p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
I am wondering what happens where there are no crossings, or outside of built
up areas where there are no sidewalks.
That's quite easy:
Where there are no crossings - no crossings can be used, any routing
will use the nearest point approach
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.ukwrote:
The term motorway implies a lot of rules,
No Pedestrians.
No Cyclists.
Not necessarily. In some US states you can legally bike on the freeway.
Wyoming is one of them: 'Although bicyclists are discouraged from riding
On 4/12/2012 2:33 AM, Philip Barnes wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 19:50 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/11/2012 7:17 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 13:28 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/11/2012 4:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
If sidewalks were tagged without the
Am 12. April 2012 08:33 schrieb Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
What are you asking? A sidewalk is almost always a separate physical way
(if not, it's a shoulder, except on minor urban streets with flush
sidewalks and no curb).
In the Netherlands I have sometimes seen cycleways
Am 12. April 2012 08:44 schrieb Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de:
A router that does not consider sidewalks will use the roads anyway.
No, a router that doesn't consider sidewalks would with the currently
suggested tagging use the sidewalk and think it was a usual footway.
It will not be
Am 12.04.2012 15:15, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
Am 12. April 2012 08:44 schrieb Georg Fedderno...@bavarianmallet.de:
A router that does not consider sidewalks will use the roads anyway.
No, a router that doesn't consider sidewalks would with the currently
suggested tagging use the sidewalk
That was my point, any footpath or cycleway following a motorway should be
treated as a separate way.
After more careful thought, the only UK instance of a path following a
motorway, that I am aware of, is the old Severn bridge, and they are on
different decks.
Phil
On 12/04/2012 14:11
in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/sidewalks-and-tagging-for-the-renderer-tp5630482p5635950.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
The term motorway implies a lot of rules,
No Pedestrians.
No Cyclists.
No Learner Drivers.
No Tracked Vehicles.
No Agricultural Vehicles.
No Motorcycles under 50cc.
Horses
Mobility Scooters
Not universally true
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
With trunks and motorways, as with any other way unclassified and
larger, it's best to explicitly define restrictions rather than expect
them to be implicit.
So, if horses are allowed in Texas motorways, we should add
The problem with this, is many mappers are not even aware of what implicit
assumptions they are making, and hence won't map them. Saying that they
should map them won't help.
Do we need a database* of explicit default settings for different areas,
to be used by renderers, routers and other tools
Am 10. April 2012 22:01 schrieb Komяpa m...@komzpa.net:
In Minsk, we've come to agreement that highway=* are just routing
lines, with highway=footway as a part of routing graph for
pedestrians, and highway=cycleway - for cyclists.
It's possible to have pedestrian routing without separate ways
2012/4/11 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
Am 10. April 2012 22:01 schrieb Komяpa m...@komzpa.net:
In Minsk, we've come to agreement that highway=* are just routing
lines, with highway=footway as a part of routing graph for
pedestrians, and highway=cycleway - for cyclists.
It's
Am 11. April 2012 10:49 schrieb Komяpa m...@komzpa.net:
First, there are road behaviour rules, that basically disallow that.
You MUST go to crossing to cross a road here.
you can't asume this to be a global law. In other countries (e.g.
Germany or Italy) you must use a pedestrian crossing if
Am 11. April 2012 11:35 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
Another similar issue is that with these sidewalks people often don't
connect crossing footways to the street, they only connect them to the
sidewalk. There are examples for this also in your area, so
unfortunately
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 10. April 2012 22:01 schrieb Komяpa m...@komzpa.net:
It's possible to have pedestrian routing without separate ways for
sidewalks, but it's nicer when it shows you where you can actually
cross the road.
The
I am wondering what happens where there are no crossings, or outside of built
up areas where there are no sidewalks.
Phil
On 11/04/2012 11:32 John Sturdy wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 10. April 2012 22:01 schrieb Komяpa
Da: Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org
Inviato: Mercoledì 11 Aprile 2012 11:35
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
Am 11. April 2012 10:49 schrieb
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 11. April 2012 10:49 schrieb Komяpa m...@komzpa.net:
First, there are road behaviour rules, that basically disallow that.
You MUST go to crossing to cross a road here.
you can't asume this to be a global
On 11.04.2012 02:04, Martijn van Exel wrote:
On 4/10/2012 4:38 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
A sidewalk=left/right/both fails when you want to define the relative
ordering, and separate footway=cycleway fail in practice because no
renderer is actually able to puzzle the highway back together from
On 4/11/2012 4:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
If sidewalks were tagged without the highway tag, routing would
continue to work like it does for everybody
Except when a motorway has a sidewalk.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 13:28 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/11/2012 4:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
If sidewalks were tagged without the highway tag, routing would
continue to work like it does for everybody
Except when a motorway has a sidewalk.
Do motorways ever have a sidewalk?
On 4/11/2012 7:17 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 13:28 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/11/2012 4:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
If sidewalks were tagged without the highway tag, routing would
continue to work like it does for everybody
Except when a motorway has a
in OSM, I fail to understand why this should be
tagged highway=*. Usually a distinct highway should be drawn only in
the case of a separated carriageway.
The suggested tagging is IMHO tagging for the renderer. For tagging
sidewalks it would be sufficent to tag them with footway=sidewalk
without
2012/4/10 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
I am coming back to a topic we had some time ago: sidewalks.
According to this page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk
sidewalks should be tagged with
highway=footway
footway=sidewalk
While I agree that for
On 4/10/2012 12:38 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
The suggested tagging is IMHO tagging for the renderer. For tagging
sidewalks it would be sufficent to tag them with footway=sidewalk
without the highway-tag. In analogy to this tagging we would
optionally be mapping an ordinary street as dual
.
The suggested tagging is IMHO tagging for the renderer. For tagging
sidewalks it would be sufficent to tag them with footway=sidewalk
without the highway-tag. In analogy to this tagging we would
optionally be mapping an ordinary street as dual carriageway and tag
each with highway=residential, oneway=yes
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/2012 12:38 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
The suggested tagging is IMHO tagging for the renderer. For tagging
sidewalks it would be sufficent to tag them with footway=sidewalk
without the highway-tag
On 4/10/2012 2:26 PM, Pieren wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/2012 12:38 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
The suggested tagging is IMHO tagging for the renderer. For tagging
sidewalks it would be sufficent to tag them with footway
On 4/10/2012 12:42 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Nobody said you have to draw sidewalks.
I'm going a little off-topic here, but I just wanted to throw in my
argument for mapping sidewalks separately, because I know there are a
lot of opponents to this practice. Consider this situation: a road
Well. We have a similar situation with highway=cycleway or
cycleway=track. Not everybody is ready to trace multiple parallel
ways just for micromapping.
If someone isn't ready - fine, just wait for active mapper to come.
In Minsk, we've come to agreement that highway=* are just routing
lines,
Martijn van Exel wrote:
Consider this situation: a road on an
incline, the sidewalk follows the road but has steps in some places. You
would want to capture the steps for accessibility reasons, and you can't
by just adding a sidewalk tag to the main way feature.
Except if you use one of the
On 4/10/2012 2:15 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
Martijn van Exel wrote:
Consider this situation: a road on an
incline, the sidewalk follows the road but has steps in some places. You
would want to capture the steps for accessibility reasons, and you can't
by just adding a sidewalk tag to the main way
Martijn van Exel wrote:
A sidewalk is not a lane and it should not be tagged as such. Doing so
would be utterly confusing. Does the lanes proposal (which I think is
horribly overwrought to begin with) not exclude sidewalks?
Not explicitly. And while it is true that the examples don't include
On 4/10/2012 6:38 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
Not explicitly. And while it is true that the examples don't include
sidewalks, they do include cycleways, where we have basically the same
debate whether or not they should be separate ways.
Are you talking about bike lanes or sidepaths? The latter is
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/10/2012 6:38 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
Not explicitly. And while it is true that the examples don't include
sidewalks, they do include cycleways, where we have basically the same
debate whether or not they should be separate ways.
Are you talking about bike lanes
On 4/10/2012 4:38 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
Martijn van Exel wrote:
A sidewalk is not a lane and it should not be tagged as such. Doing so
would be utterly confusing. Does the lanes proposal (which I think is
horribly overwrought to begin with) not exclude sidewalks?
Not explicitly. And while
47 matches
Mail list logo
