On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Peter Körnerosm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
I think name should be what the shop is called like (e.g. what stands on
a sign on top / in front of it).
+1
If a shop is a member of a larger group of shops belonging to a single
chain, the suburb or branch name should
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Richard
Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
My inclination would be to put widths on nodes, since they are measured at
points, but that might not be too helpful for renderers. But I don't think I
really want to break a way every time I do a
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:19 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
If a shop is a member of a larger group of shops belonging
to a single
chain, the suburb or branch name should be added in a
separate tag
(not sure what).
addr:city ?
No, that is The name of the city as given in
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:53 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Anyone have any objection to highway=rural?
Depends how you define it. If it's verifiable and exists only to
describe the way, there's no objection from me.
___
Talk-au mailing
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
[ highway=rural means ] No administrative classification. Rural roads
typically form the lowest form of the non-Urban interconnecting grid network.
Anything non-connecting would be almost a service road?
Sounds ok. But
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:25 PM, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote:
I guess this comes down to tagging what exists vs tagging intended use. For
instance there are parts of the Pacific Highway which are 2 lanes but are
tagged as trunk because they're the Pacific Highway and are therefore the
most
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:48 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Although the intended use is the first, urban=town/city, I very much doubt
that there would be enough roads in anything smaller than a town to need a
higher capacity version of a residential road.
Ok with me.
Someone
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Tag the width of the surface on which users of the way are expected to
travel.
I agree and would like to add: and that is not constricted in the
full usable height
I think the maxheight tag should be
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 7:06 AM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
What I'm proposing is to add additional quality assurance tags. Absence of
such tags would mean that there is no way to know how accurate data is. But
presence of such tags would give reasonable assurance on data
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Blaž Lorgerblaz.lor...@triera.net wrote:
On Monday 03 August 2009 12:18:14 Emilie Laffray wrote:
Yes, 1 meter is 1 meter. That's why using an approximation is actually
worse than using a relative factor. Using a precise number is going to
introduce errors that
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
yes, you're right, 4,40 m was indeed wrong. In the EU it is 4,50 m.
That's the general maxheight (the clearance streets must have),
resulting from 4,00 maxheight for the vehicle plus 50 cm clearance.
This might
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Ian Sergeantiserg...@hih.com.au wrote:
Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote on 03/08/2009 03:06:38 PM:
Calling a bush walking track a designated footpath doesn't sound
exactly right, nor does calling a bushwalker a pedestrian.
Thoughts?
We should focus
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote:
Check the dates on the Wiki pages. The whole highway=path thing is
relatively recent - it may well be that the Australian Wiki advice was
written before it existed.
Maybe. But the question remains.
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote:
Check the dates on the Wiki pages. The whole highway=path thing is
relatively recent - it may well be that the Australian
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
lots of things sound bad, but we need more than feel good answers to make
good maps.
So the question is:
is there anything about a road inside an industrial or commercial area which
would be important inside a renderer or a routing
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Blaž Lorgerblaz.lor...@triera.net wrote:
To my knowledge there is no such thing as usual highway width. There are
certain standards for width of newly built roads, but those usually increase
over time, which means you will be forced to periodically reevaluate
And by the way, the Key:width wiki page is horrible and could do with
a rework after this discussion.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Pierenpier...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that the width of what we consider unclassified roads
will double in the next century.
Nevertheless, anything referring to what we consider is more
variable across time and people than the length of a metre.
I never
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Tag the width of the surface on which users of the way are expected to
travel.
I agree and would like to add: and that is not constricted in the
full usable height
I think the maxheight tag should be used here.
The Australian Tagging Guidelines currently say that for bush walking
tracks: Tag these highway=footway. and for track sections along fire
trails, highway=track is appropriate.
Shouldn't these be highway=path; foot=yes, rather than
highway=footway? The wiki page of the former says It is also used
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Harald Kleinere9625...@gmx.at wrote:
Do you think, this tunnel is OK the way it is or should someone add a
small piece of way on layer 0 at the eastern end next to the T-junction
to avoid a T-junction of different layers?
What is the situation at that
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:06 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Currently thinking of doing up a simple flier and/or text based email to send
out to clubs/user groups in and around the sunshine coast to promote the
mapping party to those that may not be aware of OSM, or may have
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
The maxheight for a feature such as a bridge is the maximum height of an
object of the standard type that will fit under it.
No, the maxheight for a way refers to the maximum height *above* it
(not under it).
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:41 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Either way, expanding the existing tag makes more sense than creating 2
differently named tags which will cause even more confusion and duplication.
I agree. So, how about maxheight:physical, maxheight:legal, and leave
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Aun Johnsen (via
Webmail)skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
I agree. So, how about maxheight:physical, maxheight:legal, and leave
room for others if there is a demonstrable need in future?
...
If this is your suggestion to solve this, than I suggest you do
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:24 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Is there really such an overwhelming need to mark the physical difference to
the legal difference?
Whether there is an overwhelming need is not the question. The
question is whether allowing for the annotation of two
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:04 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
How much does the physical height exceed the legal height in most cases?
This is difficult to answer. For a way passing under a bridge, I would
argue the limitation is (semantically) a physical one and not a legal
one.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/31 Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl:
When using maxheight / maxheight:physical / maxheight:legal the words
themself
already tell most of the definition.
maxheight - for places where the difference is
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Cartinuscarti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
For three reasons:
1) In the part of my e-mail you did not quote I just pointed out lots of
people don't read those definitions. The difference between the words
maxheight and maxheight:physical is not explicit enough.
2)
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Mark Williams
mark@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Therefore maxheight is a property of the way going under the bridge,
possibly 1 way if the road is fragmented in OSM, and ought to be on the
whole road from where the sign is until after the bridge.
Yup, that
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 29/7/09, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
the other examples are very questionable :
traffic_sign=maxspeed:30
That does look questionable if for no other reason that maxspeed should be
used
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:05 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Have things reached the level that people have nothing but street signs to
map as POIs?
Hehe. I don't see why we should discourage a high level of detail.
Users can decide for themselves what they want to contribute, as
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:00 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 29/7/09, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org
wrote:
I have made a proposal for a tag
I think this will only serve to confuse, no where on the maxheight wiki link
you provided does it
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Mark Williams
mark@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Therefore maxheight is a property of the way going under the bridge,
possibly 1 way if the road is fragmented in OSM, and ought to be on the
whole road from where the sign is until after the bridge.
Yup, that
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Having a node shared between a bridge and the way
underneath may solve one problem but introduces another (having to make a
relation to indicate this physical route is not present).
Agreed.
maxheight needs to be applied to
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:58 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
The solution depends on what problem you are trying to solve, if you are
trying to find attributes of a bridge or restrictions of a way, my suggestion
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
IMHO it is not that important if the way with the limit is only just beneath
the bridge, or is somewhat longer or is applied to nodes on either side of a
bridge.
I recently came across this example where the way with the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:58 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
The solution depends on what problem you are trying to solve, if you are
trying to find attributes of a bridge or restrictions of a way, my suggestion
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
IMHO it is not that important if the way with the limit is only just beneath
the bridge, or is somewhat longer or is applied to nodes on either side of a
bridge.
I recently came across this example where the way with the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:05 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm starting to like this idea. But the problem with this
is how to
define that section of way, so as not to introduce a
maintenance
You really don't want
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the bridge should be tagged.
There was an overwhelming response on the main talk list that this be tagged
as maxheight on the way that has
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you're wrong here. Maxheight is an element of the way that goes
under the bridge. It is caused by the bridge, but it is not part of
the bridge.
You're saying that the clearance under a bridge is not an attribute of
the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:15 AM,
Cameronosm-mailing-li...@justcameron.com wrote:
I think tag the part of the way that is signed. Generally before bridges
there is a sign informing road users of the bridge's restrictions. Sometimes
they will offer an alternate route for larger vehicles. So tag
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Ross Scanloni...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Does this mean the bridge has a clearance of 2.8 or the road under the bridge
has a clearance of 2.8. To me this would suggest the bridge has a limit of
2.8 ie vehicles travelling over the bridge can not be above 2.8
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Apollinaris Schoellascho...@gmail.com wrote:
one bridge can cross multiple roads with different maxheight limtations.
This is a good argument in favour of tagging the ways that pass under
a bridge instead of the bridge. But I think it should be weighed
against
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
When I travel over the bridge I am not interested in the maximum height of the
way which travels under the bridge.
When I travel under the bridge I am interested in the height limitation.
Ah, perhaps our difference in opinion stems
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think everyone is thinking of this in one of 2 ways, it's either an
attribute of the bridge, or a restriction of the way under the bridge.
Agreed. And it's clear that both ways of thinking are probably valid.
As
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
As of time of writing maxheight is the only valid one and I don't think we
need or should have 2 tags to indicate the
same thing in 2 different ways.
I meant there's two ways of conceptualising the distance below a
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:30 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I would at least suggest that - if maxheight is applied to a node, as
you suggest - the node should be *shared* by the bridge (way) and the
way passing under
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is
indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?).
Logically you can as they are on different layers.
Yes
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:57 PM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've noticed some people have tagged bridges with height=*, rather than
tagging the road way under the bridge as maxheight=* and I'm kind of unsure
which is better.
I think the bridge should be tagged.
Firstly,
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the bridge should be tagged.
There was an overwhelming response on the main talk list that this be tagged
as maxheight on the way that has
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you're wrong here. Maxheight is an element of the way that goes
under the bridge. It is caused by the bridge, but it is not part of
the bridge.
You're saying that the clearance under a bridge is not an attribute of
the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:15 AM,
Cameronosm-mailing-li...@justcameron.com wrote:
I think tag the part of the way that is signed. Generally before bridges
there is a sign informing road users of the bridge's restrictions. Sometimes
they will offer an alternate route for larger vehicles. So tag
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Ross Scanloni...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Does this mean the bridge has a clearance of 2.8 or the road under the bridge
has a clearance of 2.8. To me this would suggest the bridge has a limit of
2.8 ie vehicles travelling over the bridge can not be above 2.8
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Apollinaris Schoellascho...@gmail.com wrote:
one bridge can cross multiple roads with different maxheight limtations.
This is a good argument in favour of tagging the ways that pass under
a bridge instead of the bridge. But I think it should be weighed
against
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
When I travel over the bridge I am not interested in the maximum height of the
way which travels under the bridge.
When I travel under the bridge I am interested in the height limitation.
Ah, perhaps our difference in opinion stems
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think everyone is thinking of this in one of 2 ways, it's either an
attribute of the bridge, or a restriction of the way under the bridge.
Agreed. And it's clear that both ways of thinking are probably valid.
As
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
As of time of writing maxheight is the only valid one and I don't think we
need or should have 2 tags to indicate the
same thing in 2 different ways.
I meant there's two ways of conceptualising the distance below a
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is
indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?).
Logically you can as they are on different layers.
Yes
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:30 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I would at least suggest that - if maxheight is applied to a node, as
you suggest - the node should be *shared* by the bridge (way) and the
way passing under
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Ross Scanloni...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I would suggest splitting the way under the bridge and tagging that section
of way with the max_height tag. This is consistent as it is a restriction
for that section of way
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Having a node shared between a bridge and the way
underneath may solve one problem but introduces another (having to make a
relation to indicate this physical route is not present).
Agreed.
maxheight needs to be applied to
Hi all,
I'm after some advice on a potential data source.
I've got a contact in Logan City Council (LCC) who seems open to the idea of
making data available for import into OpenStreetMap. At the moment, the data
in question regards bikeways, in the form of standard MapInfo databases
based on
Hi all,
Has anyone used JOSM for audio mapping? I've tried and failed to get it
working.
I want to use several separate wav file recordings, and use the modified
times of the wav files to associate them with the correct places in the gpx
track. Following is my attempt, which doesn't work. Please
401 - 465 di 465 matches
Mail list logo
