[Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

John Packer john.packer7 at gmail.com
Thu Apr 10 12:51:07 UTC 2014


Just a quick comment:
If it's not useful to use it on ways, then I don't think we should
recommend it on nodes *or ways* on the wiki page (as it is currently).
In fact, we should recommend against putting on ways.



2014-04-09 16:16 GMT-03:00 André Pirard <A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com>:

>  On 2014-04-09 10:47, Pieren wrote :
>
>  On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM, André Pirard <A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>    1. noexit cannot be used on ways because that does not show what end
>>    "cannot pass"
>>
>>
>  eeh, what "what end" ? Either the highway line is linked to another
> highway at both ends, then "noexit" is a tagging mistake. Or the highway
> line is not linked to another highway on both ends and then the "noexit"
> can be helpful (confirming tha'ts really an isolated highway and not some
> connection missing)
>
>
> ??? Let's explain in details. We let alone the Xmas trees.
> Assuming real noexit, the typical cases<http://overpass-turbo.eu/map.html?Q=%3C%21--%0AThis%20has%20been%20generated%20by%20the%20overpass-turbo%20wizard.%0AThe%20original%20search%20was%3A%0A%E2%80%9Cnoexit%3Dyes%E2%80%9D%0A--%3E%0A%3Cosm-script%20output%3D%22json%22%20timeout%3D%2225%22%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%3Cquery%20type%3D%22way%22%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%3Chas-kv%20k%3D%22noexit%22%20v%3D%22yes%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%3Cbbox-query%20s%3D%2250.66839555058174%22%20w%3D%225.717890262603759%22%20n%3D%2250.67569820203223%22%20e%3D%225.731172561645508%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%20%20%3C%2Fquery%3E%0A%20%20%3C%21--%20print%20results%20--%3E%0A%20%20%3Cprint%20mode%3D%22body%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%3Crecurse%20type%3D%22down%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%3Cprint%20mode%3D%22skeleton%22%20order%3D%22quadtile%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fosm-script%3E> *look
> like* two normal junctions at each way end but one of them *is in fact *a
> dead end.
> Why would we tag noexit on the way and request the beholder to zoom in
> each end to determine which is dead if we can tag the information clearly
> on the end node?  What about T shaped ways where the top way contains 2
> dead ends? "gotcha, there were 2"?
> Now, instead of a vertical bar,  what about a small (or larger) mesh like *rue
> Grétry*: are we going to tag as dead ends all the segments of the mesh up
> to the normal junction even if they're not directly related with a dead
> end?  And, BTW, are we speaking (in Subject:) of ways or of roads?  Must we
> apply noexit=yes to both ways of the same road when we split one?  How
> would the brave contributor splitting a way cope with that if he hasn't got
> the faintest notion of what noexit is (no blame on him!)?
> These are [probably a part of] the questions that raise and should be
> settled and that no one advocating noexit on ways mentioned.
> Frankly, noexit on nodes (as designed) is much more logical and simple
> (than on ways, of course).
>
> Cheers,
>
>   André.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140410/d370d4c1/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list