area:highway and use in Russia

Зачем опять в highway пихать? Есть же road_marking, его и использовать, если так уж хочется разметку наносить.

It is a very important remark, despite many different keys for highway nodes (crossing, traffic_lights, etc.), linear highways should be considered as a routing lines. Linear stop lines is unambiguous part of the road marking.

Exactly.
For case 1. use: highway=stop_line + stop_line=traffic_signals
For case 2. only: highway=stop_line

Stop Line should is a tagging of a node.

My vote for
road_marking=stop_line
stop_line=*

We already have enough highway=something_that_is_not_a_highway features.

And while you mark points with highway=stop_line it’s a small problem, but if it’s combined with polygonal highways and you mark a line with these tags, it will interfere with highways.


This work is under CC0

В свое время порисовал в округе area:*, да, похоже, GaM все поудалял :frowning:

Sounds good for me. Please feel free to put this suggestion in the proposal page, including your sketch. Is it ok for you?

Best regards,
Marek

Но ведь это повод для обращения в DWG.

GaM давал поводы для обращение в DWG уже столько раз… только все почему-то стесняются писать туда.

Marek yep.

dkiselev
I found some bugs, please compare the latest english version.
See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:MarekStreetsasfacesWithPointsLegend.jpg
and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:StreetsasfacesconnectionModified.jpg

Also some changes in the description.

French mappers have also visualization of streets as area:
http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/de/map/areahighway-karte_21256#19/48.20084/11.58573

I can’t find where they have got polygons, so I made a small sketch in overpass-turbo

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/atv

In my opinion, we shouldn’t use area:highway=yes or crossing, it is equivalent to mark street areas just as surface=paved. When only area:highway=yes was used, you can not distinguish pedestrian and motorist areas or drop minor streets (e.g. residential, service) in render. So I speaking for the area:highway=[highway tag on linear road] only.

Sounds good for me. Write it in the discussion subpage.

Mappers from Holland render this tag as well:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Street_area#Rendering_on_mkgmap_generated_.28Garmin.29_maps

Your rendering looks in my opinion better.

Dear friends, I said already, Russia is leading with such mapping.
I realize, some parts of german community see in such mapping only a kind of experiment.
Some people argue, we should define “the best width” for one street cathegory and the problem is solved.

I was supervisor of already 2 diploma thesis in this area: 2006 aond 2013. Both from navigation companies, with other words not free. What I learned is: about 80% of streets works with this approach, ca. 20% not. What are the reasons:

  1. Changing of number of lanes e.g. from 2 to 3 is an very idividual distance. It is impossible to find good assuption for every situations.
  2. When we have compex crossings this aproach work mostly not.

Please help with more rea:highway mapping of urban centres in Russia. We need examples of wide areas.

Best regards,
Marek

На всех примерах отсутствует обочина.

Следующее поколение карт ОСМ (в далеком будущем) будет полностью состоять из полигонов, т.к. пустого места (не отмеченного места) быть просто не может. Полигон дороги должен граничить с полигоном поребрика, который граничит с полигоном газона, который в свою очередь граничит с полигоном дома (для загородных дорог - полигон дороги, обочина, кювет (возможно из трех частей - склоны и дно отдельно), трава/газон, поле или лес). Т.е. желательно общие правила для любых полигонов создавать, а не только для дороги. В частности предусмотреть возможность указывать направление склона (например, для насыпей и выемок), для лестниц - направление ступенек и каждую ступеньку отдельно (актуально для лестниц где ступени не прямолинейные).

Kastellano,
make proposal with ideas how to do it!

With regards,
Marek

To answer question at proposal page:

Since we are using completely new approach to roads (area-roads) we shouldn’t be limited by old tagging highway=primary/secondary/etc. I suggest to use base tag for road and declare individual properties per transportation mode. E.g.:

This way we can map road infrastructure without strict requirements for pedestrian or car routing. In other words, road infrastructure can be mapped without knowledge if car/pedestrian/bicycle routing is possible here (highway=road).

Back you your question about secondary and residential: we should tag “crossing area” from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:MarekStreetsasfacesWithPointsLegend.jpg like this:

Routers and renders have to look for adjacent neighbours before they render "crossing area"s.

Bigger question is if 5 roads crosses in some area and only 2 of them residential and only 2 of them secondary - there no way for you to tag/render/calculate routing of “crossing area” without using relations or ids-in-tags. You have to use relations or look for adjacent areas and their properties AFAIK.

PS. We can use highway=yes+area=yes or highway:area=yes or area:highway=yes - it doesn’t really matter for me which tag(s) we pick.
PS2. It is also requested multiple times within Russian community that we should have explicit way to tag practicability per transport mode
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Passability
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Tags/practicability
and not legal access tags like
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:4wd_only%3Dyes