Try to see it from a data consumer point of view.
Let's say you are a bicycle routing engine and want to know if you are
allowed to drive here.
With the current scheme you see an access = no. so you assume you
don't have access.
Then you look if there are special permissions for bikes (because,
af
2012/10/29 Martin Vonwald :
> I'm looking for a possibility to tag "exclusive" access rights.
> Right now I only know this solution:
> vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no
> psv:lanes=yes|yes|yes
> hgv:lanes=yes|yes|yes
>
> Three tags for such a simple thing. What I'm looking for is something like
> this:
> :
On 10/29/12 7:29 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
basically what would be needed for your prosal to work is changing the
default from access=yes to access=no and all applications additionally
would have to evaluate these multivalue-values (both, those separated
by | and those separated by ; ).
IM
Hi!
what about this:
access:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv
But what if there is no sidewalk at the street? Or if you ride a horse? Is
it explicit forbidden to use the road?
This is the reason because I don't like to use the access=* tag.
Better is this:
vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|psv;hgv
Masi
P.S
People - really! Where did I propose to change any tags at all? I
asked a question!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Masi, thank you for understanding my question.
2012/10/29 Masi Master :
> Hi!
> what about this:
> access:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv
That is exactly what I'm not sure of. Is access=psv valid? I don't
think it is documented in the wiki in this way. And if it is valid,
does it really mean "PSV a
Hi Martin.
Nobody said you did. What has been said is that if you want to have some
kind of "exclusice access" tag that in fact is a change to how the
access tagging currently works.
Access tagging currently is:
-use access=yes|no to set a "default"
-add more details by adding access tags for a
On 29.10.2012 12:51, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Masi, thank you for understanding my question.
>
> 2012/10/29 Masi Master :
>> Hi!
>> what about this:
>> access:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv
>
> That is exactly what I'm not sure of. Is access=psv valid? I don't
> think it is documented in the wiki i
Am 29.10.2012 um 14:27 schrieb Tobias Knerr :
> It is currently not valid - vehicle types can only appear in the key,
> whereas "groups of users" (forestry, customers, delivery, ...) can only
> appear in the value. For the "groups of users", it actually gives
> exclusive access rights to that grou
On 29/10/2012 18:29, Martin Vonwald (imagic) wrote:
Am 29.10.2012 um 14:27 schrieb Tobias Knerr mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de>>:
It is currently not valid - vehicle types can only appear in the key,
whereas "groups of users" (forestry, customers, delivery, ...) can only
appear in the value. For t
2012/10/29 Ole Nielsen :
> Here is a simple proposal that avoids confusion with the existing access
> restrictions.
>
> special_use_lanes = no | no | hgv
>
> (or "special_use:lanes = .." to be consistent with other lanes tags)
>
> Values can be 'no' (no special limitations apply to this lane), 'hgv
I believe there is a solution, which is consistent to current tagging
styles and which complies to the Keep It Simple & Smart principle.
In the situation of a motorway with three lanes, of which the rightmost
lane is forbidden for motorvehicles (and PSV and HGV can use all three
lanes) the tagging
Am 30.10.2012 21:09, schrieb Johan C:
I believe there is a solution, which is consistent to current tagging
styles and which complies to the Keep It Simple & Smart principle.
In the situation of a motorway with three lanes, of which the
rightmost lane is forbidden for motorvehicles (and PSV an
2012/10/31 OSM :
> I am sorry to disagree, but if hgv and psv use a kind of motor_vehicle, they
> are still not allowed on the rightmost lane then ... according to the
> tagging.
>
> Georg
I have to agree with Georg... of course unless the lanes are
exclusively for horse-drawn cabs or carriages ;-
I don't think I understand both responses (Georg/Martin). Why should a hgv
and a psv use 'a kind of' motor_vehicle? According to the map features
motor_vehicle is used for: 'Access permission for motor cars and
motorcycles.'
A bus or a truck is not one of these two types. If I put
'motor_vehicle=n
Hi,
The problem is the hierarchy of the access tags (see Land-based transportation
in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access): the tag vehicle=no implies
motor_vehicle=no and e.g. bicycle=no, the tag motor_vehicle=no implies e.g.
psv=no and goods=no, and goods=no implies hgv=no. At least tha
On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 18:56 +0100, Johan C wrote:
> I don't think I understand both responses (Georg/Martin). Why should a
> hgv and a psv use 'a kind of' motor_vehicle? According to the map
> features motor_vehicle is used for: 'Access permission for motor cars
> and motorcycles.'
>
> A bus or
Ok, so what you guys are saying is that
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Restrictions is wrong on
the description of motor_vehicles. Fine to me, but I would appreciate an
improvement of that page then. How can that be achieved?
2012/10/31 Philip Barnes
> **
> On Wed, 2012-10-31 at
Hi,
Am 31.10.2012 um 23:49 schrieb Johan C :
> Ok, so what you guys are saying is that
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Restrictions is wrong on the
> description of motor_vehicles. Fine to me, but I would appreciate an
> improvement of that page then. How can that be achieved
Am 31.10.2012 23:49, schrieb Johan C:
Ok, so what you guys are saying is that
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Restrictions is wrong
on the description of motor_vehicles. Fine to me, but I would
appreciate an improvement of that page then. How can that be achieved?
I do not s
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
> It is rare to prohibit hgvs as such, the way this is achieved is by weight
> or length. The most common is to prohibit vehicles over 7.5t, the historic
> breakpoint between a vehicle that could be driven on a car license and one
> requiring
2012/11/2 John Sturdy :
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
>> It is rare to prohibit hgvs as such, the way this is achieved is by weight
>> or length. The most common is to prohibit vehicles over 7.5t, the historic
>> breakpoint between a vehicle that could be driven on a ca
22 matches
Mail list logo
