[OSM-talk] Highway tags and other junk
Ben Robbins
ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com
Thu Dec 14 19:23:41 GMT 2006
>But if you draw a distribution graph, you'll see (for a completely
>fictitious road) a clump of tracks averaging 3mph; these are the walkers.
>Then there'll be another clump at 10mph-15mph; these are the cyclists.
>Then there'll be a more general distribution from 40mph to 70mph.
Thats still taking the mean, but just catagorising the results in to groups
and taking the mean of each. I'm sceptical though, as a road with many
many tracks along it would have speeds ranging all the way from top to
bottom. Walkers cover 2 to 4 miph, joggers from 4 to 15?, cyclists from 10
to 25, jammed up trafic from 0+ and moving traffic has a range of speeds
that different drivers would go at, of about 30mph range i suspect.
The more easiely catagorisable these lumps of data then the less the
variation in traffic flow speeds, and therefore the less need to additonally
tag a way stating a different speed to the max speed of the highway tag that
is used.
Anyway, this is moving very much off the point, wich hasnt really been
resolved.
Ben
From: talk-request at openstreetmap.org
Reply-To: talk at openstreetmap.org
To: talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: talk Digest, Vol 28, Issue 31
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:17:49 +0000
Send talk mailing list submissions to
talk at openstreetmap.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-request at openstreetmap.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-owner at openstreetmap.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of talk digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Yahoo! (Tom Chance)
2. Highway tags and other junk (Ben Robbins)
3. Re: Highway tags and other junk (bvh)
4. Re: Highway tags and other junk (Andy Allan)
5. Re: Highway tags and other junk
(matthew-osm at newtoncomputing.co.uk)
6. Re: Highway tags and other junk
(Joerg Ostertag (OSM Munich/Germany))
7. Re: Highway tags and other junk (Richard Fairhurst)
8. Highway tags and other junk (Ben Robbins)
9. Highway tags and other junk (Ben Robbins)
10. Re: Highway tags and other junk
(matthew-osm at newtoncomputing.co.uk)
11. Highway tags and other junk (Ben Robbins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:18:35 +0000
From: Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Yahoo!
To: Nick Black <nickblack1 at gmail.com>
Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
Message-ID: <cec20e1f568f9995922e063afaef04a8 at acrewoods.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Ahoy,
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:33:52 +0000, "Nick Black" <nickblack1 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 12/13/06, Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net> wrote:
>> This is great! It would be even more useful if I could use the tiles in
>> JOSM, or if the editing applet could render areas, paths, streams and
> other
>> features as significantly thinner lines.
>
> -+ will adjust the thickness of all of the lines displayed by the applet.
> Do you think it would be useful to display different thicknesses for
> different features? I've thought about this before, but have felt it
> would
> clutter the limit screen space?
Aha, that's perfect. If the lines were thinner at the high zoom levels that
would help, they're currently too thick for me at 16. Thinner lines for
footpaths would also be handy, and better yet some subtle colours. The final
irritation I suffered whilst playing with it today was that landuse areas,
which currently need to come very close to roads, make editing a real pain.
With JOSM I can quickly zoom in and out so it's not too bad, but it's a bit
cumbersome in the applet.
Otherwise very useful.
Regards,
Tom
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:39:27 +0000
From: "Ben Robbins" <ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com>
Subject: [OSM-talk] Highway tags and other junk
To: tom at acrewoods.net, dom at earth.li, thy at 42.dk, talk at openstreetmap.org
Message-ID: <BAY101-F1466EE2B768A442BEBDC6ECFD50 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>>Before you say these don’t need to be labeled separately please note
that
>>the average speed on the 1st type would be about 55mph, while on the 4th
>>it
>>would be about 15mph. A route planner must sort these apart.
>That can be covered with the speed limit tag.
It can't as the speed limit is 60mph for all of them. I was stating the
speed wich you would expect to travel at rather than the legal maximum
speed.
>Another reason why we sorely need a distinction between highway
>classification and surface type is a road in St Albans that has houses
down
>it, but is basically a dirt track. At the moment I tagged it as
>highway=track but that's far from ideal.
The tracktype tag covers the surfaces information sufficiently. If a track
is covered in hardcore, then I think its suffieicnt information just to say
that its a tracktype=grade2, rather than state the materials as
limestone=yes, stonesize=moderate, mud=no etcetc. Although if a person
wanted to they could add these, I think usually its unnessesery.
>I think the best way to go would be to clearly separate the official
>classification (probably unclassified in these cases) from the physical
>features (width, surface condition, etc.) and features relevant for
>particular contexts (speed limit, safety for cyclists, pavement, etc.)
Tracktype does this. HIGHWAY states the political TRACKTYPE states the
phisical. Your responce ties in with the 1st tag bascially, and an
additional value would need to cover the phiisical attributes of the
highway. Tracktype could still do that if there were more tags under it,
but it wouldnt seem the correct word to use.
>Either you or I am mistaken. I don't believe that the highway tag
>implies (or should imply) any rights of way.
The only ones on there that dont state political information are
highway=track highway=steps and highway=tertiary, of wich I use neither as
they dont appear to currently fit in. Please explain why its wrong, but I
would still say that the highway tag should, and is mostly is, used for
stating the rights of way.
>in Denmark a track can be public, private or restricted
Thats my point. The track in itself doesnt hold any particualar access
right. Im not being UK-centric in any way. Hence the over all proposal is
to move to phisical attributes! sigh.
Ben
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free!
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:51:14 +0100
From: bvh <bvh-osm at irule.be>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Highway tags and other junk
To: talk at openstreetmap.org
Message-ID: <20061214155114.GA5230 at jafshome.irule.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 03:39:27PM +0000, Ben Robbins wrote:
> >That can be covered with the speed limit tag.
> It can't as the speed limit is 60mph for all of them. I was stating the
> speed wich you would expect to travel at rather than the legal maximum
> speed.
Surely that would be a candidate for an additional tag expectedspeed=15.
Seems even handy from some chronically overloaded motorways...
cu bart
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:15:55 +0000
From: "Andy Allan" <gravitystorm at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Highway tags and other junk
To: "Ben Robbins" <ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com>
Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
Message-ID:
<c4193f8c0612140815n49bffd04yc43ae2fee4f47e47 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 12/14/06, Ben Robbins <ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com> wrote:
> so it will
> take a LOT of my time to change them, when if this was resolved quickly
it
> wouldn't have taken much time at all.
Don't worry, we have spellchecking scripts to change tags in bulk, if
needs be. Generally, if you are worried about it, make sure you use
the most detailed of your ideas, since we can combine tags if
necessary when a standard is decided on.
> it still
> should not be under highway= as a track is not a public right of way in
any
> form (like all the other highway tags),
I disagree with your logic. There's nothing about highway = motorway
that implies a right of way - think about toll roads. I see no reason
against using highway=, since everything from motorway to dirt track
is just a sliding scale with arbitrary distinctions (both physical and
especially political) - they are still the same thing if you look at
the bigger picture.
It seems to me that you want to be far more detailed in your
classification of roads/tracks than most people, which isn't
necessarily a bad thing. If I had to make a decision, I would have
highway=track for all track-like things, and your more detailed
suggestions as additional tags.
(While we're on the issue, I would strongly discourage people from
making very specialist single tags simply because adding multiple tags
is tedious. The tediousness is just a user interface issue, and as
things progress I would hope that the specifics of xml tags is buried
behind the UIs. For example, highway=residential surface=gravel
width=10m whitelines=downthemiddle verges=grass ditches=no or similar
is better than e.g highway=arbitrary16, and is probably much easier to
get agreement across different countries.)
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:19:17 +0000
From: matthew-osm at newtoncomputing.co.uk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Highway tags and other junk
To: Ben Robbins <ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com>
Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
Message-ID: <20061214161917.GA14184 at newtoncomputing.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 03:39:27PM +0000, Ben Robbins wrote:
> >Either you or I am mistaken. I don't believe that the highway tag
> >implies (or should imply) any rights of way.
>
> The only ones on there that dont state political information are
> highway=track highway=steps and highway=tertiary, of wich I use neither
as
> they dont appear to currently fit in. Please explain why its wrong, but
I
> would still say that the highway tag should, and is mostly is, used for
> stating the rights of way.
highway = tertiary is political information in the UK, and is equivalent to
a
C-class road.
highway = residential, unclassified, tertiary, secondary, ...and bigger are
rights of way in the UK unless otherwise stated - this should be obvious
highway = footway, service, cycleway, track, whatever are not UK public
rights of way, unless indicated (most footways in town are not rights of way
as
such, but a footpath in the country, indicated by foot={yes,public} is).
If you really think it needs clarifying, then add an access= tag to
everything.
--
Matthew
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:22:21 +0100
From: "Joerg Ostertag (OSM Munich/Germany)"
<openstreetmap at ostertag.name>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Highway tags and other junk
To: talk at openstreetmap.org
Message-ID: <200612141722.21327.openstreetmap at ostertag.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Thursday 14 December 2006 16:51, bvh wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 03:39:27PM +0000, Ben Robbins wrote:
> > >That can be covered with the speed limit tag.
> >
> > It can't as the speed limit is 60mph for all of them. I was stating
the
> > speed wich you would expect to travel at rather than the legal maximum
> > speed.
>
> Surely that would be a candidate for an additional tag expectedspeed=15.
> Seems even handy from some chronically overloaded motorways...
But these tags would mostly need time specifications too:
expected_speed_00:00-09:00 = 120 Km/h
expected_speed_09:00-11:00 = 30 Km/h
expected_speed_11:00-16:00 = 120 Km/h
expected_speed_16:00-22:00 = 30 Km/h
expected_speed_22:00-24:00 = 30 Km/h
expected_speed_holiday = 0 Km/h
--
J?rg (Germany, Munich)
http://www.ostertag.name/
TeamSpeak2: ts2.ostertag.name, user: tweety, Channel: "GPS Drive"
irc://irc.oftc.net/#osm
Tel.: +49 89 420950304
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:30:52 +0000
From: Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemeD.net>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Highway tags and other junk
To: talk at openstreetmap.org
Message-ID: <20061214163052.2ettgex4go4808g8 at webmail.systemed.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
format="flowed"
Joerg wrote:
> But these tags would mostly need time specifications too:
> expected_speed_00:00-09:00 = 120 Km/h
> expected_speed_09:00-11:00 = 30 Km/h
> expected_speed_11:00-16:00 = 120 Km/h
> expected_speed_16:00-22:00 = 30 Km/h
> expected_speed_22:00-24:00 = 30 Km/h
> expected_speed_holiday = 0 Km/h
Slightly off the point, but once we have a critical mass of GPS data,
we can start to derive this automatically...
cheers
Richard
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:01:32 +0000
From: "Ben Robbins" <ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com>
Subject: [OSM-talk] Highway tags and other junk
To: talk at openstreetmap.org, bvh-osm at irule.be, gravitystorm at gmail.com,
dave at earth.li, matthew-osm at newtoncomputing.co.uk,
openstreetmap at ostertag.name
Message-ID: <BAY101-F17E6F572E4B54CFD047785CFD50 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
David: In milton keynes the biggest consern for the reduction of your
average speed is the traffic lights in the center. They are green about 24%
of the time, so a big hold up. Being super specific to these speeds is a
bit of a escalating debate, as this could get more and more specific until
people tag the speed they take each corner at. I', just suggesting
generally dividing the 4 types of small road, and giving them a set average
speed unless its stated otherwise.
Bart: the expected speed is very very variable on smaller roads. In the
middle of the night you may be able to progress 4 times faster down one.
Although I think your point about being able to somehow state wich motorways
are commonly overloaded, I think this is a different topic really.
Andy Allan: Thats good to know it can be changed in bulk if nessesery.
Thanks for pointing that out.
The highway=motorway tag does inply rights of way, Although the definitions
maybe varie in countries. But if i looked at a map and saw a motorway, I
would know that riding my push bike onto incomming traffic on one would be
illegal. Therefore the tag has told me some legal information about the
way. If it wasnt anything to do with rights of way then the tag would just
be surface=cement, lanes=3 oneway=yes
I do indeed want to be detailed, but I don't think anymore than most. While
most seem to want very speciic tags for abbutters, landuse, amenties etc in
towns, these have little value to me. Vice versa I would like to be
specific to laybelling the features that are in the area I am mapping,
although these may be of little use to people mapping urban areas.
I don't wish to make generalize tags just to avoid typing many tags about a
ways phisicial properties particaully. But if the road is just a string of
bits of data then at some point prier to the data being rendered someone of
somecode would need to decided what the over all value of the tags is, and
how the road should be displayed. E.g if i list all the properties of the
track, then it just displays it as a grade2 track, then I might as well have
added that tag.
Matthew: Im awair what a tertiary road is, and the tag has its uses in
other countries, but there is no such thing as a C road anymore in the UK.
The only differences between unclassified and tertiary's therefore are
phisical, and I still think do not belong in the highway group. If it does,
then so do all the other types of minor roads.
Your second point is true, and that point can be used against having tracks
there. They are not rights of way unless stated otherwise.
Footways as I use them are rights of way. Cycleways also. In towns it is
different but thats a different debate. The additional permiisive tag is
the current solution.
Jörg: Good point
Ben
_________________________________________________________________
It's Hotmail's 10th Birthday! Come and play Pass the Parcel
http://www.msnpasstheparcel.com
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:05:06 +0000
From: "Ben Robbins" <ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com>
Subject: [OSM-talk] Highway tags and other junk
To: talk at openstreetmap.org, richard at systemeD.net
Message-ID: <BAY101-F64EE56893034422673AABCFD50 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>>But these tags would mostly need time specifications too:
>> expected_speed_00:00-09:00 = 120 Km/h
>> expected_speed_09:00-11:00 = 30 Km/h
>> expected_speed_11:00-16:00 = 120 Km/h
>> expected_speed_16:00-22:00 = 30 Km/h
>> expected_speed_22:00-24:00 = 30 Km/h
>> expected_speed_holiday = 0 Km/h
>Slightly off the point, but once we have a critical mass of GPS data, we
>can start to derive this automatically...
How would this work, as If i walk along the side of a dual carrageway the
data would say average speed 3.5mph. In contrast a car may say 70mph,
therefore the average speed of the road is about 37mph so incorrect, as on
foot I could have gone faster, but was limited by my own phisical abilities
rather than the road and its features.
Ben
_________________________________________________________________
It's Hotmail's 10th Birthday! Come and play Pass the Parcel
http://www.msnpasstheparcel.com
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:09:52 +0000
From: matthew-osm at newtoncomputing.co.uk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Highway tags and other junk
To: Ben Robbins <ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com>
Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
Message-ID: <20061214170952.GB14184 at newtoncomputing.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:01:32PM +0000, Ben Robbins wrote:
> Matthew: Im awair what a tertiary road is, and the tag has its uses in
> other countries, but there is no such thing as a C road anymore in the
UK.
Yes, there is.[1]
You just won't see many (if any) actual signs labelling them, so they all
look
as if they are unclassified.
> The only differences between unclassified and tertiary's therefore are
> phisical, and I still think do not belong in the highway group. If it
There is often no physical difference between an unclassified road and a
tertiary road, but that doesn't matter; highway is a political definition.
--
Matthew
[1] See, e.g. https://www.csduk.com/CSD/RoadworksBulletinBoard.htm, as a
list of
works for Suffolk County Council.
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:17:38 +0000
From: "Ben Robbins" <ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com>
Subject: [OSM-talk] Highway tags and other junk
To: matthew-osm at newtoncomputing.co.uk, talk at openstreetmap.org
Message-ID: <BAY101-F1913B56E65CEAFCE94DBCCCFD50 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>[1] See, e.g. https://www.csduk.com/CSD/RoadworksBulletinBoard.htm, as a
>list of works for Suffolk County Council.
Well I stand corrected that some do excists.
These must be super rare because I have never seen a streetsign for one, or
any on any maps that we are able to copy. I would be interested to know if
C123 is the name of the ref of the road.
The exsistence and need for the highway=tertiary tag in a few cases in the
UK may be suitable, but not for the mass of the first type of unclassified
that I discribed. Theses still are unclassified, but need seperating. Im
shore there are other countires out there that wont have a C type of road
also, that wouldnt be able to use this tag.
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free!
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
End of talk Digest, Vol 28, Issue 31
************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free!
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb
More information about the talk
mailing list