for a renderer to differentiate a linear
feature from an area without a distinct tag? I don't think it could be.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http:/
nce the first No vote is registered!
Wow, somebody's reading the voting description completely wrong.
6 unanimous "yes" approve is an approval.
Otherwise, once 15 votes are reached, the majority rules.
This proposal still has only 14 votes, so voting should still be open.
d "...it requires 14 Yes votes to get something through,
but only 1 No vote to can it. "
This is completely incorrect.
And it needs only one vote, which can be yes or no.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
tes (or I guess 8 votes for XOR against, since that would
be a majority of 15)
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
The map features page lists both leisure=golf_course and sport=golf.
Can we please pick one of these and remove the other?
Thanks
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstr
Please read and comment on the "driveway" proposal, at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Driveway
Thanks
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
ta
Please read and comment on the proposal at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Highway_administrative_and_physical_descriptions
Thank you.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
I've added a decision tree to the physical section of the page, as well
as removed the "boulevard" designation (since it didn't really add much)
I'd like to have some more comments from the UK and german end, as to
whether or not A and B roads (and others?) fit into the highway:admin
scheme.
A
Lester Caine wrote:
> Alex Mauer wrote:
>> I've added a decision tree to the physical section of the page, as well
>> as removed the "boulevard" designation (since it didn't really add much)
>>
>> I'd like to have some more comments from the
s found to be necessary somewhere (China?),
that can easily be added.
>
> I don't think it applies so much elsewhere - but UK motorways have no
> pedestrian access - does the same apply on any American routes?
>
Yep, same thing for interstates in the US. I'm not sure wh
Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> It's a whole lot easier to add additional tags that are logical and describe
> the physical properties of the highway specifically. For the physical you
I disagree that it's a whole lot easier. As you mention below, "who
wants to spend hours adding 20 tags to
Voting is now open for
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Path
Please vote on the proposal as it stands.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailma
he updated proposal. (Don't wait for
voting to make your comments!)
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
DavidD wrote:
> According to map features the value for the lanes key should be.
>
> "Number of travel lanes in each (or only permitted) direction"
>
> I've been tagging to this definition.
>
> "Number of travel lanes on the way"
>
> This makes more sense to me because you can tag two way singl
way
> single lane highway is lanes=1
>
I've updated the wording to hopefully be more clear.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Please read and comment upon the following proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/barriers
It has been updated to remove a non-applicable barrier, and add one or
two mentioned in discussion.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
__
Voting is now open on tagging for the sport of shooting.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Shooting
Please record your vote.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetm
Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Alex Mauer schrieb:
>> Voting is now open on tagging for the sport of shooting.
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Shooting
>>
>> Please record your vote.
>>
> Page says: voting is not open yet, proposed
should consider that.
I am a native speaker, and this entire post reflects my opinion as well.
I am particularly confused about the strong negative reaction to
"deprecated". A lot of people seem to take it as "forbidden to use
ever" or something like that, which seems weird t
amples. I believe that in OSM
tradition, "user defined" is also an option for the 'type' tag. Though
I guess that's not mentioned explicitly on the page.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
I've been looking at some of the recent changes to rendering of [EMAIL
PROTECTED], and
have some comments.
Looking at the US at zoom 4 shows 3 distinctly rendered zones:
East, Southwest, and Northwest. Looking a bit closer, it seems like the
east is further subdivided into northeast and south
80n wrote:
> Agree, although someone commented recently that many secondary roads
> imported by TIGER should more realistically be tagged as tertiary.
That was my initial thought as well, except that the middle-aged regions
(southeast and northwest) look about right to me in that regard.
hways are larger than some state highways, so
it's kind of a toss-up.
I think my proposal,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Highway_administrative_and_physical_descriptions
attempts to address this kind of problem
the saturation.
Railway lines are a big improvement, but should probably be a touch
darker yet.. (IMO their visibility should be just below that of primary
roads; they're currently just below secondary in visibility.)
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
_
80n wrote:
> I'm not sure about the secondary roads. At zoom 8, the previous render
> looks good, but it gets overwhelming once zoomed out a bit. (starting
> around zoom 6 I guess?) Maybe just the narrowing, without touching the
> color would be better? Or maybe less reduction of th
expandable if you want to put more properties on
> them (paved e.g.)
It also has the problem that ways can easily get reversed, and then the
left/right meanings are backwards.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
ne railway" seems to me to cover both systems, as well as some
others, adequately (hence my suggestion of such for the TIGER migration,
as there was and still is no "official" way to tag such railways.)
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> I clearly got it wrong, apologies for that. So the question is whether to
> group them under a single definition or to split between funicular an
> rack/cog.
I'd be all for splitting them under a separate key
(railway:incline:type=funicular/cable/rack? I know
y" seems to me to cover both systems, as well as some
>> others, adequately (hence my suggestion of such for the TIGER
>> migration, as there was and still is no "official" way to tag such
>> railways.)
> Does the Tiger data make a distinction?
No.
-Alex Maue
Sven Geggus wrote:
> Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I've written up a proposal here:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Incline_railway
>
> I don't like this! It is often impossible to differeciate between
> inclin
cable- and rack-driven in the same section
* railways which are cable-driven for only a section
* funiculars connected to a main rail system
I've updated my proposal at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Incline_railway
to reflect this.
-Alex M
Sven Geggus wrote:
>
> To be serious, I don't like this pseudo object-oriented
> railway:incline:traction= stuff at all.
Huh? object oriented? It's like that in order to prevent potential
conflicts, not anything to do with object orientation.
> As far as rendering is concerned, your proposol
n because it is on
> a railway=something object.
Clearly, there's no way that a traction key could ever be applied to
something that shares a way with a railway. That's not a real problem,
just something imaginary.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
__
kely, that we might want to apply it to
something other than railway, which can share a way with a railway. The
simple/plain traction= would preclude this.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Gervase Markham wrote:
> Alex Mauer wrote:
>> I think it is possible, even likely, that we might want to apply it to
>> something other than railway, which can share a way with a railway. The
>> simple/plain traction= would preclude this.
>
> Can you give an example
gives a method for specifying a time interval:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Time_intervals
Discussion of a method for specifying day and month only here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Omegatron/Date_formatting#Day-month
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
e whole planet file and searching it?
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tagwatch
>
Is there any tagwatch covering the whole planet?
The links on that page only seem to cover very limited subsets.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
_
to make up for the hassle?
You might want to look at my proposal at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Highway_administrative_and_physical_descriptions
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.
ussion and made a proposal.
*Once the proposal got to voting, the creators of the One True Way
started bitching about how "this tag is already in 'widespread' use" (at
least in their corner of the UK), and suddenly got round to documenting
their usage of the tag.
-Alex
Andy Allan wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hmm, I see it differently. As I recall:
>> *Some people said "this is the way it will be". Since they have dev
>> access, they also added their method to th
another 60 beyond what I found in tagwatch. Who wants to bet they're
all in the UK, and those 60 were added since tagwatch was updated on 12
April?
Even with the additional 60, it's not "widespread" even within the UK.
(478 crossings out of
Robin Paulson wrote:
> of the two no votes, i suspect one (Hawke/Alex Mauer) is an objection
> based on 'namespacing'. as this still has not been widely accepted,
> would you consider changing your vote to a yes, alex?
Namespacing aside, I still think 'service='
the proposal. I just
have a problem with the way it was created.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
, ski areas) can be built, presumably
using categories.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
osm/) might need to have
the differentiation between a mountain bike cycleway and a
general-purpose/road bike cycleway.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
thing. If 50%
are tagging "leisure=foo" and the other 50% are using "sport=foo",
tagwatch can't provide any indication of that.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> Alex Mauer schrieb:
>
> I do not know what you actually want to do, but this sounds kind
> of dangerous. By all means, do not misuse keywords introduced
> and well established for different purposes. Always try to tag
> in a backwards compatible
ave a national cycle network. Just because a route is not
suitable for all bicycles doesn't mean it's not a designated cycle route.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
of the
surface of the route (possibly intentional in the case of a mountain
biking route) cannot take away its designation as a route for bicycles.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
#x27;s not as if defining an
access tag for a new vehicle requires that it be explicitly applied to
every entity in the database...
For what it's worth, while I agree completely with Steve Hill, I'd be
fine with including the "shortcuts" just to make Andy happy. It's not
way=unknown would make sense to me.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Dave Stubbs wrote:
> You just said that to the one guy who's actually writing rendering
> rules which use this tag. Well done there.
Yeah, he's free to make use of his shortcuts on his own rendering
system. That doesn't make those shortcuts globally useful
classification, marking it as a road rather
than a complete unknown isn't really going to be helpful to anyone.
I don't think it's a good idea for the highway tag to be used for so
many non-road things -- but that's probabl
Steve Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008, Alex Mauer wrote:
>
>> IMO if it's sufficiently unknown that it will have to be revisited
>> anyway for more accurate classification, marking it as a road rather
>> than a complete unknown isn't really going to be help
ditch" depending on their intended
purpose. "ditch" is IMO a reasonable combination of the two (since the
intended purpose is generally not immediately obvious)
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
the page.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
for historical reasons then?
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
other hand, it might be better to just not tag it as a canal
(just giving it the relevant name of "Croyden canal" instead) so that
someone expecting a navigable waterway isn't disappointed.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
_
Gervase Markham wrote:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>> As requested:
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Bridge
>
> This has now been approved, with > 15 votes.
As noted on the talk page, the vote is still open since it has not been
open for the requisite 2 weeks. Voting
iki)?
I think it would. I suggest access=highway
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> It would have to be contained within the foot, horse, bicycle, and
> motorcar tags though, so that the "official" rights of *each* mode of
> transport can be described.
I think it's been implied for a long time that all the values for the
access key apply to all of the mo
footway/cycleway/bridleway have been applied
to routes which do not follow the UK definition. (In other words, there
is already no right-of-way data to lose).
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
The key "service" applying to railways has been approved.
15 votes total, 14 approving and 1 opposing.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Beau Gunderson wrote:
>
>
> What do you all think?
I agree with everything you said. I think that losing the "wings" would
be a big improvement in osmarender even for more basic bridges.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
_
what to name the
levels. In that it has been quite successful. I think that discussion
would still be underway and no one would be happy, if we'd tried to use
names for the values instead.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
ot to the stations and nodes
themselves. Those areas are logical, not physical.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
way, and cycleway in favor of the path
tag has been rejected. However, those tags can be interpreted as
"shortcuts" for the path tag with appropriate access implications.
Voting was 6 in favor, 26 against, and 2 abstentions.
Relevant changes have been incorporated into
;). But I think it's fair to say that in
all jurisdictions, highway=cycleway will imply bicycle=designated.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> Alex Mauer schrieb:
>
>> The access restrictions on the road ("no bicycles if there is an
>> accompanying cycle route") don't affect the access on the cycle route
>> itself. Obviously legality of use by other modes of transportatio
record at the
highest resolution possible, map at the lowest resolution needed to look
good" is how I do it.
Hope this helps.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
can see that might not be optimal.
> Maybe name:__none__. Or something.
Sounds overcomplicated to me. If you know something to be correct, just
ignore the warnings.
- -Alex Mauer "hawke"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Usin
e name was changed. I
caught it because I happened to drive past that way, not because I'm
going around repeatedly checking the same routes "just in case".
Treat an unnamed road as the simple notification that it is, not as a
problem to b
things "as they are on
the ground". As such, I would say that those two situations are the
same. The latter situation might warrant a "note=Officially called Foo
Road" tag or some such.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
t; Not everyone is the same type of mapper as you, and it doesn't help
> to assume that they are. OSM is and should remain a broad church.
Agreed. My opinion is not the only one, nor is it the canonically
correct one for everyone and in every situation
Good! Karl suggested using the "reviewed" tag, and I agree with that.
Mark all unnamed roads in the area you're mapping with "reviewed=no",
and then once you've reviewed them, delete the tag. I just don't see a
need to mark out that the name specifically has bee
SteveC wrote:
> Why do you think Richard 'has' to revisit it?
He personally doesn't, but if a road has a name, and that name is to be
in the database, someone has to go there and find out what it is.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
signature.asc
Descriptio
imately many mappers make all completeness issues shallow anyway. ;)
Absolutely, and fortunately for us.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
bunch more unnamed roads later on.
*You're not going to go out of your way into this area again any time
soon to check on the very few unnamed roads that are still there. This
is fairly likely, since the area in question hasn't been mapped by hand
yet (i.e. there is no mapper loca
big deal.
I could be mistaken there. If all the roads in that link are truly
unnamed, then I could see where the validator could mislead someone by
suggesting that there's a need to actually go there to fix up the
largish cluster of missing road names in the area. And if so, there's
y, in my
experience. At least roads larger than "service" -- unnamed service
roads are very common. So much so that they shouldn't be in warnings at
all.
Do you have an example of a place with many unnamed roads?
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
sig
ich I tended to use before somebody
> told me that tracktype=grade1 is track with paved surface.
I would expect them to be highway=service. Do you have a picture of one?
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_
that's necessarily true, and has no bearing on whether
it's marked as service. A service road is a service road, regardless of
whether it's public or private. From the wiki, Key:highway page: "It is
a very general and sometimes vague description of the physical structure
of th
in the road
in some cases. It helps to know approximately where the county border
is beforehand, of course. Counties generally have straight borders too,
except when they follow some natural feature such as a river (which is
pretty easy to see).
-Alex Mauer "
an tell oneway and access are
> completely unrelated tags.
They are described on the same page, so there's at least some
relationship. See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:access#Routing_restrictions
-- I totally agree wi
easier to make assumptions about routing, than to
require that all cycleways be tagged with an additional foot=* tag.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
er than requiring 100% of users to add
an extra tag 100% of the time.
I like the idea of having country-specific implications/assumptions, but
I don't really see a good way to document that. Any suggestions?
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk
101 - 186 of 186 matches
Mail list logo
