Olá Gabriel - Imarui, estou entrando em contato sobre a marcação de acesso restritivo que você adicionou recentemente a estradas aparentemente navegáveis por carros, como way/467601459, osm.org/ way/361208700, way/360731876. Seu comentário afirma que “Vias não passam caminhão/Roads do not pass truck”. No entanto, ao adicionar access=no e motor_vehicle=no às estradas principais que passam por cidades como 'Estrada do Rio Escuro’ (way/361208700) em Rio Escuro (node/8604397531), você efetivamente impediu que qualquer motorista de carro acessasse esta comunidade.

access=no: "indica que a [estrada] não deve ser usada pelo público em geral"
motor_vehicle=no: "indica que o acesso é proibido para veículos automotores"

Você pretendia restringir apenas o uso de caminhões grandes nessas estradas? Nesse caso, existem etiquetas específicas que você pode usar para restringir apenas caminhões maiores, como a etiqueta de veículos pesados de mercadorias (hav). hgv=* afirma que esta etiqueta é específica para "Restrição de acesso legal para veículos pesados de mercadorias" (osm.wiki/Heavy_goods_vehicles).

Como há carros vistos em imagens aéreas passando por cidades nessas rotas e elas são as rotas principais para essas cidades, sugiro adicionar hgv=no para restringir esses tipos específicos de veículos e restaurar o acesso de veículos motorizados e de pedestres. Curioso para saber se você concorda com isso? Obrigado e feliz mapeamento.

Hello Yunan973, MascarinPeak is no longer on the team, so I will be handling this on their behalf. Thank you for making updates to this area. I made alignment updates to this way/1152348862 highway and this way/35657835 highway. Have a nice day.

Resource correction: Maxar SecureWatch Imagery 2023-07-06

Hola Estxl6666, me pongo en contacto con usted sobre un modelo de ferry en el país de COL. Noté que algunas de las rutas de ferry como el ferry Vía fluvial del Río Magdalena (way/1182595305) terminan en medio del río sin conectarse a una función para subir/bajar. La ruta de ferry de la Vía fluvial del Río Magdalena (way/1172841020) cruza hasta una isla fluvial. ¿Es este el punto de terminación previsto? Parece no ser destino de ningún tipo.
El wiki de OSM para el modelado de transbordadores establece que una ruta de transbordador debe conectarse a una característica de carretera que a menudo se conecta en un muelle hecho por el hombre: "el muelle se modela como una vía lineal, agregue una etiqueta de carretera = * al muelle, y si el muelle es modelado como un área, cree una función highway=* independiente que conecte la terminal del ferry con la red de carreteras más grande” & "La ruta del ferry no debe bifurcarse en el agua, por lo que la ruta siempre debe dibujarse en el muelle del ferry. Esto es importante para que el enrutamiento funcione correctamente”. (ruta=ferry). El wiki también establece que "el ferry debe comenzar y terminar en amenity= ferry_terminal" (amenity=ferry_terminal). ¿Hay algún plan para conectarlos a las terminales de ferry? Gracias por tu tiempo.

Hello Estxl6666, I am contacting you about some ferry modeling in the country of COL. I noticed that some of the ferry routes like the Vía fluvial del Río Magdalena ferry (way/1182595305) terminate in the middle of river without connecting to a feature for on/off boarding. The Vía fluvial del Rio Magdalena ferry route (way/1172841020) crosses through to a river island. Is this the intended termination point? It seems to not be destination of any kind.
The OSM wiki for ferry modeling states that a ferry route should connect to a highway feature often times connecting at a man_made=pier: "pier is modeled as a linear way, add a highway=* tag to the pier, and if the pier is modeled as an area, create a separate highway=* feature that connects the ferry terminal to the greater road network” & "The ferry route must not branch in the water, so the route must always be drawn to the ferry dock. This is important for routing to work correctly.” (route=ferry). The wiki also states that "the ferry should begin and end at an amenity= ferry_terminal" (amenity=ferry_terminal). Is there any plan to connect these to ferry terminals? Thank you for your time.

Hello Oscar Molinas. I noticed some validation errors in your recent changesets and wanted to provide some OSM wiki resources that will help avoid these in the future.

First, there are several invalid classification 'key:value' issues in changeset/137578814 such as way/167181553. The value of the highway tag must be prescriptive to the established values on the OSM wiki page for it (highway=*#Roads). These must all be both spelled correctly and also be in lower case type or they will not be recognized by JOSM paint styles and OSM routers. Thus ‘ways' tagged 'highway=secundary' will become a problem for both those systems. You can see that the roads with the ’secundary’ value do not show up in OSMcarto layer (osm.org/#map=20/-25.768654822444386/-57.24366552998672).

Some of the same ‘way' features in the more recent changes in changeset/137578814 have also left the intersections between two highways disconnected. You can see that the intersection between 'Mayor Sinforiano Rodríguez' (way/167181553 & way/1183769203) and 'Capitán Rogelio Santacruz' (way/167181551) has three disconnected nodes (node/10992816378 ; node/1785864983 ; node/10992816375) all stacked in the same location instead of just one main intersection. Disconnected roads will not interact with one another from a network perspective.

The above issues are in Carapeguá. One other important issue is in nearby Paraguari on not specifying bridge sections when adding the bridge=yes tag on way/814014053. This ‘way' feature is over 900 meters long and aerial imagery does not show the location of it, so it appears to be misplaced on that feature. Bridge features need a layer tag to accompany it (bridge=*#Layers) as well as not being intersected with the roads that pass under or over at different levels (see bridge=*#How_to_map).

The roundabout modeled in changeset/137380009 has the features with the junction tag (way/1163506300) overflow out of the junction and some of the interior feature elements are left without the junction tag (way/1182292710). (See junction=roundabout#Connecting_ways) Roundabouts commonly have one single classification as well (junction=roundabout#Selection_of_the_right_highway_tag).

These issues can be spotted with the validator function available in JOSM (osm.wiki/JOSM/Validator ; https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Dialog/Validator). This is a great way to identify if your tag key:value combinations are valid, if the there are geometry issues, and other common errors that cause issues within the Map. The osm.wiki/JOSM/Guide also has a lot of great resources there that can aid in learning.

Hope this helps and happy mapping!

— traducción automática —

Hola Óscar Molinas. Noté algunos errores de validación en sus conjuntos de cambios recientes y quería proporcionar algunos recursos wiki de OSM que ayudarán a evitarlos en el futuro.

Primero, hay varios problemas de 'key:value' de clasificación no válida en changeset/137578814 como way/167181553. El valor de la etiqueta de carretera debe ser prescriptivo a los valores establecidos en la página wiki de OSM para ella (highway=*#Roads). Todos estos deben estar escritos correctamente y también en minúsculas o no serán reconocidos por los estilos de pintura JOSM y los enrutadores OSM. Por lo tanto, las 'ways' etiquetadas como 'highway= secundary' se convertirán en un problema para ambos sistemas. Puede ver que las carreteras con el valor 'secundary' no aparecen en la capa OSMcarto (osm.org/#map=20/-25.768654822444386/-57.24366552998672).

Algunas de las mismas características de 'way' en los cambios más recientes en changeset/137578814 también han dejado las intersecciones entre dos carreteras desconectadas. Puede ver que la intersección entre 'Mayor Sinforiano Rodríguez' (way/167181553 & way/1183769203) y 'Capitán Rogelio Santacruz' (https: //www.openstreetmap.org/way/167181551) tiene tres nodos desconectados (node/10992816378 ; node/1785864983 ; node/10992816375) todos apilados en la misma ubicación en lugar de una sola intersección principal. Las carreteras desconectadas no interactuarán entre sí desde la perspectiva de la red.

Los temas anteriores están en Carapeguá. Otro problema importante es que en la cercana Paraguari no se especifican las secciones del puente al agregar la etiqueta bridge=yes en way/814014053. Esta característica de 'way' tiene más de 900 metros de largo y las imágenes aéreas no muestran su ubicación, por lo que parece estar fuera de lugar en esa característica. Las características del puente necesitan una etiqueta de capa que lo acompañe (bridge=*#Layers), además de no intersecarse con las carreteras que pasan por debajo o por encima en diferentes niveles (ver bridge=*#How_to_map).

La rotonda modelada en changeset/137380009 tiene las entidades con la etiqueta de cruce (way/1163506300 ) que se desbordan del cruce y algunas de las características interiores los elementos se dejan sin la etiqueta de cruce (way/1182292710). (Consulte junction=roundabout#Connecting_ways) Las rotondas suelen tener también una sola clasificación (junction=roundabout#Selection_of_the_right_highway_tag).

Estos problemas se pueden detectar con la función de validación disponible en JOSM (osm.wiki/JOSM/Validator ; https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Dialog/Validator). Esta es una excelente manera de identificar si las combinaciones key:valuede su etiqueta son válidas, si hay problemas de geometría y otros errores comunes que causan problemas en el mapa. La osm.wiki/JOSM/Guide también tiene muchos recursos excelentes que pueden ayudar en el aprendizaje.

¡Espero que esto ayude y feliz mapeo!

O Fim, thank you for taking the time to clarify. Have a good day.

O Fim, obrigado por dedicar seu tempo para esclarecer. Tenha um bom dia.

Hello, O Fim. I noticed that on some of the destination signs you have been adding the tags with a “Via” before the cited destination such as in way/214910977 ; way/230622301 ; & way/942244334 .
However, there is no ‘Via’ in recent corresponding street level images of these signs ( https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=529249162532668 ; https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=521191756628916 ; & https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=116404733448098 ).
The OSMwiki explains “The value of the destination tag should be the contents of the sign, as it would be read from beginning to end.” ( destination=* ). From my reading of the OSMwiki policy on the value portion of the destination tag, these ‘Via’ mentions should not be included. I am curious if you agree with this? Thank you for your consideration.

Thanks for the review. Have a good day.

Hello cserpell. I provided a response on another changeset (changeset/134195811) similar to this one. Best

Hello cserpell. I originally noticed that there was a missing oneway around the way feature (way/862983432/history) but after further reading into the OSMwiki I saw that the feature on the ground met the criteria for a highway=turning_loop which has “a non-traversable traffic island in the middle,” (highway=turning_loop), which I placed on the end node here, as I thought a simpler modeling seemed best. A turning_loop meets that description more than junction=circular since there is not multiple road intersections there (junction=circular). I agree however that it doesn’t meet the criteria of turning circle which has “either there is no central island or the island is traversable” (highway=turning_circle). Just for clarity’s sake, I wanted to point out that I did not tag this feature as a turning circle. Is that how you understand the OSMwiki Policy as well?
Curious about your thoughts on this. Thanks for your feedback.

The information on this ferry (and similar ones) is very helpful! Thanks for that and Happy Mapping.

Hello JJIglesias. Thank you for reaching out. I see that you added the ferry=yes and public_transport=station tags to the node in a later version than this one. Curious if you have any local knowledge of this crossing? To me it looks like there may be a small boat ferrying people over the river or possibly a self-operated ferry at this location. This is why I added the amenity=ferry_terminal tag to the node based on the OSM wiki page (amenity=ferry_terminal) which did not mention the needed characteristics of a terminal to get that tagging. If you are aware of any other way that it could be modeled differently (other than a ferry route) please let me know... I’ll defer to your suggestion.
Thanks for your time and have a great day.

Hello Benni14. I am glad that you agree about expanding the abbreviations. I would also suggest using TitleCase (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_case) for destination and street tag values. Thank you for the suggestion about reporting issues, I will pass that along to my colleagues. It is good to hear that you are enjoying the Apple Maps experience in France! Thanks.

Good morning Benni14. I came across some features where you have updated destination tags in São Paulo like way/185797043. I see this matches signboards in Mapillary (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-23.513922999972&lng=-46.670917899972&z=17&pKey=370191571061919&focus=photo). However, on the destination=*#Value page, the larger community does not prefer abbreviations in the values found in signboards. What do you think about updating the destinations values to use full names rather than abbreviations?

Additionally, the destination:street tag on these roads already provides the local streets that the exits connect too, which makes it redundant to add this information to the destination values. Based on this, do you agree that the destination values should be reserved for general locations or places of interest? Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing back.

Source: Maxar Secure Watch

Здравствуйте Zhoogle,

Я обращаюсь к вам по поводу обновления Ильинского шоссе в Москве. Внесенные вами изменения заключались в перемещении А-109 в тег ‘old_ref’ и перемещении 46К-9673 из тега ‘reg_ref’ в тег ‘ref’.
Я просмотрел эти ресурсы для 46К-9673 osm.wiki/w/images/9/99/46._Перечень_автодорог.pdf и А-109 osm.wiki/RU:Россия/Автодороги и на их основании видно, что обе ссылки действительны. Есть ли другие обновленные ресурсы, о которых мне следует знать, чтобы подтвердить эти ссылки? Если оба по-прежнему действительны, было бы целесообразно изменить теги так, чтобы они были 'ref=А-109;46К-9673’, ‘reg_ref=46К-9673’, ’nat_ref=А-109’?

Спасибо
suchAnight

Citation: DigitalGlobe 2020-09-27