2009/8/8 Jeffrey Martin :
> Ideally there would be separate tagging systems for all the different
> classes of information, e.g.
> surface type, width, number of lanes; route numbers and codes, government
> classification,
> popularity, etc.; and then the renderer would figure out how to display th
I haven't been participating for awhile, but wasn't some committee going to
come up
with a solution?
Ideally there would be separate tagging systems for all the different
classes of information, e.g.
surface type, width, number of lanes; route numbers and codes, government
classification,
populari
2009/8/7 Roy Wallace :
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Richard
> Mann wrote:
>> As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
> I've added my thoughts to the discussion page. Replicated below:
>
> Presently IMH
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Richard
Mann wrote:
> As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
>
> Comments in the usual place (or have your own go at hacking it)
I've added my thoughts to the discussion pa
2009/8/6 Richard Mann :
> As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
>
> Comments in the usual place (or have your own go at hacking it)
>
actually there are 3 things in the main definition (1st phrase) I
don
As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
Comments in the usual place (or have your own go at hacking it)
Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http:/
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> actually track implies even within Germany different things (legally,
> due to the federal organisation), as in "Baden-Württemberg" it is
> generally forbidden to use them even without special signs, where in
> the rest of Germany you ca
2009/8/6 Liz :
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote:
>> > And suddenly changing the meaning of a widely used tag is a
>> > really,
>> > really bad idea.
>>
>> Well I was right, it is too ambiguous :)
>
> and then we find out that whatever "track" translates to in German is not the
> same as what
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> "Rural is lower than residential" doesn't arise, because by
> definition "residential" means a built-up area, so it ain't
> rural.
Exactly.
> I would humbly suggest highway=minor is a better tag
> because
Someone already did and it went no wher
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Shaun McDonald wrote:
> The abutters tag is dwindling in use as landuse polygons should be used
> instead as the new way of doing things.
Agree, but you wouldn't test against a landuse polygon anyway, you'd test
against an urban area polygon. Abutters is just a rea
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Shaun McDonald wrote:
> That is a lack of data problem, there is nothing that you
> can do about it other than go out and do some mapping!
I penned this email about a week ago.
> I was watching the State of the Map Canadian talk and they point out how low
> the population
On 6 Aug 2009, at 12:06, John Smith wrote:
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Mann > wrote:
Routers can look for an abutters tag just as easily as
using an urban area polygon.
The abutters tag is dwindling in use as landuse polygons should be
used instead as the new way of doing things.
Th
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
> > The problem with this is it requires urban areas to be in existence for
> > the routing to work, so this is a bad idea as well.
>
> Routers can look for an abutters tag just as easily as using an urban area
> polygon.
>
> Richard
abutters has not been use
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Mann wrote:
> Routers can look for an abutters tag just as easily as
> using an urban area polygon.
They don't always exist either. That's the problem, lots of Australia is just
blank or very near to it.
___
talk
John Smith wrote:
> The distinction is that highway=rural isn't as well maintained, or
> has as much traffic as highway=residential, so if residential is
> lower than unclassified, then rural is lower than residential, but
> higher than track
"Rural is lower than residential" doesn't ari
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:51 AM, John Smith wrote:
> The problem with this is it requires urban areas to be in existence for the
> routing to work, so this is a bad idea as well.
Routers can look for an abutters tag just as easily as using an urban area
polygon.
Richard
___
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Mann wrote:
> I'm concluding that - while you wouldn't start
> from here - the existing tagging can be made to work, though
> the documentation should be improved. We don't really
> need another level in the countryside, and there are other
> ways of coping with the f
I'm coming to sympathise with the rendering gods, this really is going round
in circles isn't it!
The advantage of a new highway tag is a nice clear match between tag and
reality, leading to better performance by taggers, renderers and routers.
The disadvantage is confusion in the transitionary pe
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> That's proposing highway=rural as something less
> significant than tertiary
> (bad, we already have unclassified for that), not something
> less significant
> than unclassified (good, we don't have anything like that
> in rural areas).
The distinc
John Smith wrote:
> --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > Where we fail is that we don't have anything less significant than
> > unclassified for non-residential areas. In particular, country roads
> that
> > aren't particularly routable, but still have a passable
> > standard of upkee
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Liz wrote:
> and then we find out that whatever "track" translates to in
> German is not the
> same as what "track" means in Au.
> so again we have widely used tags who are about to change
> their meaning
It means about the same from what I've seen, a forestry type track, w
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote:
> > And suddenly changing the meaning of a widely used tag is a
> > really,
> > really bad idea.
>
> Well I was right, it is too ambiguous :)
and then we find out that whatever "track" translates to in German is not the
same as what "track" means in Au.
so ag
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Ulf Möller wrote:
> And suddenly changing the meaning of a widely used tag is a
> really,
> really bad idea.
Well I was right, it is too ambiguous :)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreet
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> This is not how it is generally used over here (Germany) where the
> majority of people use unclassified for a road roughly equal to
> residential but without people living there.
And suddenly changing the meaning of a widely used tag is a really,
really bad idea.
__
2009/8/5 John Smith :
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Shaun McDonald wrote:
>
>> You can determine whether an unclassified road is rural by
>> whether there are other things around in the area. That's
>> the whole point of Geo extensions in databases. you can also
>> do some preprocessing if you need
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> If you are using highway=unclassified in a residential area
> to mean "less
> significant than highway=residential", you're doing it
> completely contrary
> to standard practice. Therefore you are by definition
> wrong.
I didn't say I was doing tha
2009/8/5 Elena of Valhalla :
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smith wrote:
>> I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non-urban*
>> areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than
>> residential, generally unsealed but some of them are sealed a
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote:
>
> On 5 Aug 2009, at 20:59, Christiaan Welvaart wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
>>
>> > I'd define a "rural" as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public
>> > body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is
On 5 Aug 2009, at 20:59, Christiaan Welvaart wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
>
>> I'd define a "rural" as a road which is (usually) maintained by a
>> public
>> body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision
>> is made
>> for vehicles travelling in opposite
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
> I'd define a "rural" as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public
> body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is made
> for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass (be that lower-grade
> shoulders, Australian-style
John Smith wrote:
> That isn't the point, the same key/value pair is being used for 2
> completely different purposes
No, it isn't. highway=unclassified has, and always has had, a consistent
meaning.
If you are using highway=unclassified in a residential area to mean "less
significant than high
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:30 AM, John Smith wrote:
> but the emails in the last day or 2 have gone no where in addressing the
> issue,
Seriously, there's a lot of people subscribed to this list, and very
few joining the conversation. Maybe everyone is watching 5 or 6 people
getting themselves into
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Richard Mann wrote:
> The tagger just needs to be able to describe what is
> there simply and clearly. A new tag for rural
> "unclassifieds" would clarify matters, and
> highway=rural is as good a suggestion as any. It would be
> better for us to have something we can agree o
Proposal: +1. Thanks
The question whether urban "unclassifieds" are at the same level of urban
"residentials" can be left to the router/renderer - best not to mention it.
The tagger just needs to be able to describe what is there simply and
clearly. A new tag for rural "unclassifieds" would clari
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Roy Wallace wrote:
> Hmm... Frederik has a point. John you seem to be mashing
> together 1)
> the importance and 2) the quality ("good" vs "bad").
Quality doesn't have as much to do with things as the importance, as a result
of the importance and the number of complaints
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:49 PM, John Smith wrote:
> --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> I would not hesitate to use highway=residential or
>> highway=unclassified for these (or even tertiary and up if
>> they are important to traffic). In fact, nobody says that a
>> secondary road must be
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> This is not how it is generally used over here (Germany)
> where the majority of people use unclassified for a road
> roughly equal to residential but without people living
> there.
I don't know about the talk-de list, just what I've seen on this lis
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
> I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's
> meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic
> than residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary.
This is not how it is generally used over here (Germany) where the
major
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Elena of Valhalla wrote:
> where would this differ from an highway=track?
A track is lower grade, at least here.
rural road: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/330763485_4f976dba02.jpg
track:
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/200281101-001.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=BEE8F6
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Gustav Foseid wrote:
> I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but
> to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is it has
> higher volumes of traffic than residential, but not enough
> to be considered tertiary.
Someone already tried that. It didn't even progr
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Shaun McDonald wrote:
> You can determine whether an unclassified road is rural by
> whether there are other things around in the area. That's
> the whole point of Geo extensions in databases. you can also
> do some preprocessing if you need to.
That isn't the point, the s
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smith wrote:
> I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non-urban*
> areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than
> residential, generally unsealed but some of them are sealed and they
> generally only have a s
On 5 Aug 2009, at 06:40, John Smith wrote:
>
> Currently highway=unclassified is too ambiguous, and while there was
> a proposal to replace this with highway=minor this seems to have
> gone no where yet the same problem still exists.
>
> I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but t
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smith wrote:
> I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's
> meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic than
> residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary.
Then I propose to clarify it's meaning to b
Currently highway=unclassified is too ambiguous, and while there was a proposal
to replace this with highway=minor this seems to have gone no where yet the
same problem still exists.
I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's meaning
to be one thing, that is it has h
45 matches
Mail list logo
