Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
Hi, On 23 February 2010 05:10, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: To do area mapping without also doing the traditional OSM vector mapping of those roads just seems like low-grade vandalism to me. Why would a mapper choose to say, I'm going to make a really detailed representation of road width and corner radii, that looks great on one renderer at one zoom level, and I just don't care that it breaks routing, breaks street names, and takes my time away from mapping other roads, or addresses, or crosswalks. I don't get it. It seems a very limited view of the map for one specific, perhaps selfish implementation. It may be someone's very limited view, but more likely it is a desire to represent reality more exactly and someone could as well say the centrelines mapping we do now is low-grade vandalism. The centrelines can be derived from the outline of the asphalt surface + the paint on it (deriving them is exactly what we do when we map) and the centreline becomes redundant if you look at it this way. The oneway= attribute is an unideal approximation of the information actually carried by the streetsigns at the entry of the street or other signals that we could map instead and have the tools process this information instead. It would be more heavy computationally but at some point someone will say what we did until now was tagging for the router or renderer or the other tools. I agree with Anthony that the area mapping is part of the future but I don't think it will be called area mapping, it will be called a full 3d model of stuff on earth and the areas will be available by just projecting the model on the surface (the objects that don't move part of the model anyway). Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:33 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 23 February 2010 17:30, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Perhaps they did, but they would be wrong. Because of hindsight? No, because ways aren't powerful enough to build complex data structures. Relations are recursive - they can contain other relations. Ways can only contain nodes. You missed the point, I'm just giving examples to show that people who think everything we need, we already have at our disposal, the suggestions on this I've made in the past require changes to database tables etc to work, rather than trying to shoe horn existing tools to do something they aren't very well suited for. The power of OSM is that we can create new data types without bugging the DBAs and the people with svn access. When we decided we wanted to map barriers we didn't have to add a barrier table - we just took the existing way structure and gave it a barrier tag. However, as I said above, ways cannot contain other ways, they can only contain nodes. So when it came to building a data structure which contained multiple ways (quintessential example being the multipolygon), ways alone were not sufficient - we needed relations. The idea of building multipolygons (aka complex multipolygons in OSM-speak) using relations was really a wonderful idea. Kudos to whoever came up with it. I don't think they were the type of structure that was intended by relations, since relations has that silly term relation instead of a more powerful name like object. But, in any case, the power was discovered - and is being used to great effect right now - without ever having to go through the hassle of creating a new table in the database and new code in the svn. Interestingly, now that we have relations, we don't actually need ways any more - a relation can do everything that a way can do and then some. However, 1) we might as well keep them around for backward compatibility purposes; and 2) they make the job of database optimization a little bit simpler. In any case, my point is that requiring the DBAs and developers to get involved every time you come up with a neat idea for a new data type just doesn't make any sense. You already have the tools to build what you want - show that your design is sound first and then if it catches on you can always convert your relation type to its own table later. If I thought you had a sound design in the first place I would have already shown you how the same thing can be accomplished (just as elegantly) using relations, but so far you haven't convinced me of that. If it turns out there's something in your design which really can't be handled elegantly without adding a new table - fine, but then I'd suggest a more general solution so that we're not once again tied to the developer cycle every time a new idea comes along. In any case, I don't see it happening. Just take the name of the table and put it as the relation type. Then take the fields of the table and make them keys in the relation. Or, if any of those fields are foreign keys into the nodes, ways, or relations table, designate them as members. When you get into the billions of rows and the database starts slowing down, *then* you can talk about splitting those rows out into their own table. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On 24 February 2010 00:33, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: No, because ways aren't powerful enough to build complex data structures. This coming from someone using closed ways to describe what you are saying can't be done... :P If it turns out there's something in your design which really can't be handled elegantly without adding a new table - fine, but then I'd suggest a more general solution so that we're not once again tied to the developer cycle every time a new idea comes along. In any case, I don't see it happening. Just take the name of the table and put it as the relation type. Then take the fields of the table and make them keys in the relation. Or, if any of those fields are foreign keys into the nodes, ways, or relations table, designate them as members. When you get into the billions of rows and the database starts slowing down, *then* you can talk about splitting those rows out into their own table. As I said, if people said this same thing about relations where would we be now? I'm not talking about every little thing, like barriers, needing new changes, however I think we need to think out of the box for somethings and this is one of them, there is a lot of information that needs to be encoded that we can't do presently, not even with areas without a lot of mess, things like individual lane constraints like maxspeed/maxheight etc differing per lane. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:27 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The only harm is if there is no way as well, or if people start joing roads to nature strips and making it a complete PITA to edit them independently of each other in future. I think this is important, and hasn't been addressed yet. Also I'd only tag the way not the area with the name so that people only wanting the way will still get things to render properly. The outstanding question here is whether a relation should be used to relate the way to the corresponding area. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On 24 February 2010 07:54, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: The outstanding question here is whether a relation should be used to relate the way to the corresponding area. This is exactly the kind of thing relations were designed to be, a grouping mechanism of objects that are related. On the other hand I've seen relations overly used when a single way would have been fine. And for a third point of view, riverbank areas aren't grouped into a relation with the centre line. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On 23/02/2010 21:54, Roy Wallace wrote: On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:27 PM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The only harm is if there is no way as well, or if people start joing roads to nature strips and making it a complete PITA to edit them independently of each other in future. I think this is important, and hasn't been addressed yet. Also I'd only tag the way not the area with the name so that people only wanting the way will still get things to render properly. The outstanding question here is whether a relation should be used to relate the way to the corresponding area. If a way connects to an area that represents a connecting road, then there is presumably a simple rule based on the 'rule of the road', i.e., drive on the left (right) according to the rules of the country in which the roads are situated. In other words, if approaching from the left on the following diagram, the only course possible (in the UK) is to branch left at the first node, and proceed in a clockwise direction with respect to the area: oo / \ --oo-- \oo/ I've only considered this simplest of scenarios - doubtless there are more complex situations where this rule might 'break'? -- Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Niklas Cholmkvist towards...@gmail.com wrote: I live in a place where I feel the need to map some streets as areas. If I start a little of such mapping, will routing software get confused? How were you planning to achieve this? There is still no consensus that I'm aware of for how to do this What about http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area ? As I said above, so long as the road doesn't have any street lines within it (as most of the residential roads where I live are), you just draw a border around the area and tag it with highway=residential (or whatever) and area=yes. For example, http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.077444lon=-82.548096zoom=18layers=B000FTF ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
Anthony wrote: What about http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area ? That key doesn't describe the area covered by a road that is linear in character - whenever a road could intuitively described as something that goes from here to there, area=yes likely isn't the right tag to use. Lines/cerbs/etc. are often obvious physical hints for linear character, but they don't need to be present for a road to be linear. highway=* + area=yes is for plazas and the like: Features that don't have a concept of direction. Instead, you can freely move from any point of the area to every other point (and are likely to use that ability to a certain degree). http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.077444lon=-82.548096zoom=18layers=B000FTF To me, these look like perfectly normal roads that should be primarily mapped as ways. If you want practical arguments: Way representation is more useful for - rendering street names (visible in your example) - supporting different zoom levels (also visible in your example) - routing - rendering at non-natural widths: a rendering might choose to determine road widths according to, say, importance, or traffic density, or whatever, which is hard to do if roads aren't represented as ways - rendering with additional features along the road, say, lines for cycle lanes, or dots for street lighting (with areas, along doesn't quite exist) - anything that has directional information, such as oneway roads Of course, road area mapping still serves a purpose (primarily high-detail, low-abstraction rendering). But detailed information like that should be mapped *in addition* to ways, maybe similar to waterway=riverbank. I don't think that there is an established tag, but any tag that /isn't/ highway=* (or anything else already in use) should work. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
Richard Weait typed: snip What is it about these streets that requires areas? Does this extend to your town and state as well? I think it is because I like to map with much detail. I like to map it 'as it really is'. That is not the only reason. Maybe it's how the map looks also in various renderers(mapnik or other renderers), which shows the streets as very big while in reality they are pretty small if seen from a long distance away. I'll give a link. The streets also overshadow some buildings, which I enjoy/like mapping at times. Can you give us a link to this area? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.64822lon=22.94897zoom=17layers=B000FTF Regards, Niklas -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On 23 February 2010 06:41, Niklas Cholmkvist towards...@gmail.com wrote: I think it is because I like to map with much detail. I like to map it 'as it really is'. In reality you are only mapping an approximation, maps aren't supposed to replace aerial imagery they serve different purposes. That is not the only reason. Maybe it's how the map looks also in various renderers(mapnik or other renderers), which shows the streets as very big while in reality they are pretty small if seen from a long You will end up breaking routing etc if you don't also include a way, or have very very strange round about like routing which will depart greatly from your goal of mapping in detail as much as possible. I wasn't going to say anything because this topic has been done to death, but until things are sorted out one way or another tool wise you are going to make things very complicated for other people, and other people won't probably understand or appreciate your efforts and replace them with the more common way of doing things. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
Hi, Am Montag 22. Februar 2010 21:50:36 schrieb John Smith: You will end up breaking routing etc if you don't also include a way, Yes, that's right, have a look at http://osm.org/go/0MBdEXMHO- for example. Greetings, Carsten -- Hier ist mein öffentlicher GPG-Schlüssel: http://daswaldhorn.piranho.de/gpg.php = www.stopptdievorratsdatenspeicherung.de signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:50 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 23 February 2010 06:41, Niklas Cholmkvist towards...@gmail.com wrote: I think it is because I like to map with much detail. I like to map it 'as it really is'. In reality you are only mapping an approximation, maps aren't supposed to replace aerial imagery they serve different purposes. That is not the only reason. Maybe it's how the map looks also in various renderers(mapnik or other renderers), which shows the streets as very big while in reality they are pretty small if seen from a long You will end up breaking routing etc if you don't also include a way, or have very very strange round about like routing which will depart greatly from your goal of mapping in detail as much as possible. With traditional GIS, municipalities will often have both street centerlines and street polygons, with centerlines useful for routing and such purposes while polygons give level of detail desired for planning, engineering purposes, etc. I also see this done with hydrography (streams rivers). If OSM had street polygons in addition to lines, that would be fine, but not instead of lines. If both were mapped, is there a tag to tell Mapnik not to render the centerline? In the future, it would be neat for routing to work with polygons, especially for pedestrian routing (e.g. across plazas and open space). -Katie ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Katie Filbert @filbertkm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: ...Way representation is more useful for ... - anything that has directional information, such as oneway roads Exactly. Mapping a way as an area is fine as long as you also represent *the path of travel*. detailed information like [area] should be mapped *in addition* to ways, maybe similar to waterway=riverbank. Yup. If you're interested in this, start another post on the tagging list! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Carsten Gerlach daswaldh...@gmx.de wrote: Yes, that's right, have a look at http://osm.org/go/0MBdEXMHO- for example. That looks great, and so simple... highway=* for the way, AND highway=* + area=yes for the area. Is this a solved problem, then? Any complaints with this approach (cause it looks damn pretty on mapnik, at least...) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On 23 February 2010 07:53, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Carsten Gerlach daswaldh...@gmx.de wrote: Yes, that's right, have a look at http://osm.org/go/0MBdEXMHO- for example. That looks great, and so simple... highway=* for the way, AND Until you zoom out even one level, then it starts becoming more and more useless for any kind of navigation. Is this a solved problem, then? Any complaints with this approach (cause it looks damn pretty on mapnik, at least...) Try zooming out... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
Roy Wallace wrote: On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Carsten Gerlach daswaldh...@gmx.de wrote: Yes, that's right, have a look at http://osm.org/go/0MBdEXMHO- for example. That looks great, and so simple... highway=* for the way, AND highway=* + area=yes for the area. I already used it a while ago, in a small fraction of my city, just to experiment a bit: http://osm.org/go/xZHrPUmuB-- Is this a solved problem, then? Any complaints with this approach (cause it looks damn pretty on mapnik, at least...) I remember someone complaining with me that routers not supporting highway=* + area=yes in the same relation with a normal highway=*, might get confused -- and that something like landuse=road would be better. I don't know which of the two to choose though. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On 23 February 2010 08:05, David Paleino da...@debian.org wrote: I remember someone complaining with me that routers not supporting highway=* + area=yes in the same relation with a normal highway=*, might get confused -- and that something like landuse=road would be better. Wouldn't landuse=road bleed colour between the way and the area? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On Monday 22 February 2010 23:26:52, John Smith wrote: On 23 February 2010 08:05, David Paleino da...@debian.org wrote: I remember someone complaining with me that routers not supporting highway=* + area=yes in the same relation with a normal highway=*, might get confused -- and that something like landuse=road would be better. Wouldn't landuse=road bleed colour between the way and the area? If you noted the link I included in my mail, I haven't used it. I think landuse=road is semantically more correct than highway=* + area=yes (but this could be debatable too), but the drawback is that renderers have the burden of colouring landuse=road the same way of its way. If both are in a relation, it could probably be done, but I believe it'd take some effort. I personally think highway + area is more straightforward. My 2c, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
2010/2/21 Niklas Cholmkvist towards...@gmail.com: I live in a place where I feel the need to map some streets as areas. If I start a little of such mapping, will routing software get confused? Since I haven't seen it linked here yet, take a look at that area (both ways for routing and areas for the looks and the detail): http://osm.org/go/0MBdE4AA (Rossleben, Germany - not my work I should say.) Cheers Colin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: ...Way representation is more useful for ... - anything that has directional information, such as oneway roads Exactly. Mapping a way as an area is fine as long as you also represent *the path of travel*. What path of travel? There are many paths of travel, and generally none of them are properly represented by a line going through the middle of a roadway. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:30 PM, David Paleino da...@debian.org wrote: On Monday 22 February 2010 23:26:52, John Smith wrote: On 23 February 2010 08:05, David Paleino da...@debian.org wrote: I remember someone complaining with me that routers not supporting highway=* + area=yes in the same relation with a normal highway=*, might get confused -- and that something like landuse=road would be better. Wouldn't landuse=road bleed colour between the way and the area? If you noted the link I included in my mail, I haven't used it. I think landuse=road is semantically more correct than highway=* + area=yes (but this could be debatable too), but the drawback is that renderers have the burden of colouring landuse=road the same way of its way. If both are in a relation, it could probably be done, but I believe it'd take some effort. Why does the landuse have to be the same color as the way? I'm pretty sure I'd prefer it to be a different color by default. As for semantical correctness, I think that depends on the road. For roads without any lines, where people are allowed to drive as they please subject to a standard rule like keep right except to pass, I'd say the area is more semantically correct. In most standard cases, though, where a road is lined, simply mapping it as an area is inadequate. In any case, I'd say landuse=highway would be better than landuse=road, and that should represent the entire right of way. If you want *=road, amenity=road or man_made=road would be more appropriate. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:05 AM, David Paleino da...@debian.org wrote: Is this a solved problem, then? Any complaints with this approach (cause it looks damn pretty on mapnik, at least...) I remember someone complaining with me that routers not supporting highway=* + area=yes in the same relation with a normal highway=*, might get confused -- and that something like landuse=road would be better. I don't know which of the two to choose though. Hmm. I prefer highway=* + area=yes, as IMHO the area is an integral feature of the road itself - not just a feature of the land on which the road sits. You could argue either way, though. As for routers getting confused, there are a couple of options: 1) the router can ignore all highway=* + area=yes areas (this also rules out routing across open areas, but might be suitable for car routers) 2) the router can ignore highway=* + area=yes areas IF there is also a corresponding highway=* WAY. This requires a relation to indicate which area corresponds to which way. I think type=area, role=center/role=area would work [1]. Other tags describing the road could then go on the relation, rather than the way and/or area. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Area ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Exactly. Mapping a way as an area is fine as long as you also represent *the path of travel*. What path of travel? There are many paths of travel, and generally none of them are properly represented by a line going through the middle of a roadway. By path of travel, I mean what is currently represented as a highway=* way in the OSM database. Tobias already gave 6 reasons why this is important. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
I was initially impressed with the German example of area mapping but I have had a change of heart. While an interesting experiment, and relatively well implemented in the small test area, I just don't think area mapping of ordinary roads makes sense. To do area mapping without also doing the traditional OSM vector mapping of those roads just seems like low-grade vandalism to me. Why would a mapper choose to say, I'm going to make a really detailed representation of road width and corner radii, that looks great on one renderer at one zoom level, and I just don't care that it breaks routing, breaks street names, and takes my time away from mapping other roads, or addresses, or crosswalks. I don't get it. It seems a very limited view of the map for one specific, perhaps selfish implementation. I expect to find wide variation in what individual mappers find worthy of their mapping time. When you consider that we have a map that we can improve with roads, intersection, interchanges, rivers and other waterways, cycle and multi-use paths, snowmobile trails, kayak routes, canoe portages, trees, steps, power pylons and lines, turn restrictions, businesses, buildings, zoos with penguin enclosures, street lighting, fire hydrants, and so many other things *deep breath*. Some will map half of these things, and many will map a much smaller subset. I understand why some mappers do cycle trails and others do coffee shops and bowling alleys. How much does the width of one road, plus the radius of the curb at the junction really add to the map? And this is all while ignoring so many other features. And as far as I can tell, these appeals to show reality more accurately extend only as far as the paved driving surface. Even the curbs are ignored. No curb:height or curb:width? Not even any indication of curb ramps, crosswalks, or audible crossing assistance? The focus is just on this idea that the curb has a radius. Students at the University of Maryland have even built a pedestrian routing system that allows choosing sloped curbs, and avoids steep inclines. http://seamster.cs.umd.edu:8090/map/index.html# Check the data, they don't bother with area-mapped roads. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.987313lon=-76.941263zoom=18layers=B000FTTT Having said all of this, and this email is too long to read, corners with curb radii can look nice. Why not put energy into allowing a renderer to draw the radius for you? Surely this can be abstracted in a way that creates a sensible corner for a large class of general intersections? Why tag and draw every blade of grass, when we can create a polygon of natural=grass? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On 23 February 2010 14:10, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: I was initially impressed with the German example of area mapping but I have had a change of heart. While an interesting experiment, and relatively well implemented in the small test area, I just don't think area mapping of ordinary roads makes sense. The question I've come to conclude is this: What harm does it do to the integrity of the map data? The only harm is if there is no way as well, or if people start joing roads to nature strips and making it a complete PITA to edit them independently of each other in future. At z18 the correct shape of the area will show if it's wider than the way, and at other zoom levels the normal way will take precedent as things get scaled etc. As Roy said before routing software shouldn't try to route along areas, at the same time the area should be rendered in such a way that doesn't bleed colour. This could be done simply by tagging the area the same as the way, or the more complicated method pre-processing method David mentioned. Also what ever is used should be tagged in such a way that people that don't want areas showing can disable them from rendering, this way everyone will be happy. Also I'd only tag the way not the area with the name so that people only wanting the way will still get things to render properly. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Exactly. Mapping a way as an area is fine as long as you also represent *the path of travel*. What path of travel? There are many paths of travel, and generally none of them are properly represented by a line going through the middle of a roadway. By path of travel, I mean what is currently represented as a highway=* way in the OSM database. Tobias already gave 6 reasons why this is important. I only found one (the one about directional information, in the case of a one-way road) to be correct. The other 5 were complaints about how the current renderers work. Anyway, I do think there is one major problem with mapping highways as areas right now. It's too time consuming. Other than that, I think it's the way of the future - I'm just not sure how long it's going to be for that future to arrive. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
Colin Marquardt wrote: 2010/2/21 Niklas Cholmkvisttowards...@gmail.com: I live in a place where I feel the need to map some streets as areas. If I start a little of such mapping, will routing software get confused? Since I haven't seen it linked here yet, take a look at that area (both ways for routing and areas for the looks and the detail): http://osm.org/go/0MBdE4AA (Rossleben, Germany - not my work I should say.) It has been said many times now. We need to be ABLE to map both levels of details. The current consensus does seem to support adding the fine area detail to a nominal routing way, but there are still many holes where intersections between foot, bike and vehicle traffic needs a more complex 'tree' of ways, which some people still think are best 'mapped' by more complex tagging on a single way. There is currently no consensus on some of the break points between single complexly tagged way, and set of linked ways with much simpler generic tags. Personally I feel ALL should coexist, with some logic being able to be applied to low level fine detail, which is simply complemented by alternate tags on a core way at lower zoom levels. When zooming in, a '4 lane road' should become 4 individual ways before coming an area with fine detail of lane markings, hard shoulder, and central reservation. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On 23 February 2010 16:22, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I only found one (the one about directional information, in the case of a one-way road) to be correct. The other 5 were complaints about how the current renderers work. Anyway, I do think there is one major problem with mapping highways as areas right now. It's too time consuming. Other than that, I think it's the way of the future - I'm just not sure how long it's going to be for that future to arrive. Both these points are in common, ideally it would be nice to be able to micro mapping lanes, not just areas a road way covers yet we still lack tools to do this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:30 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 23 February 2010 16:22, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I only found one (the one about directional information, in the case of a one-way road) to be correct. The other 5 were complaints about how the current renderers work. Anyway, I do think there is one major problem with mapping highways as areas right now. It's too time consuming. Other than that, I think it's the way of the future - I'm just not sure how long it's going to be for that future to arrive. Both these points are in common, ideally it would be nice to be able to micro mapping lanes, not just areas a road way covers yet we still lack tools to do this. We've got all the tools we need - nodes and relations. With them we can build anything else we want. I think an acceptable method of micro mapping lanes will come as soon as someone makes a renderer that renders one of the myriad of possible solutions. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On 23 February 2010 16:43, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: We've got all the tools we need - nodes and relations. With them we can build anything else we want. I'm sure people said the same thing about ways and nodes, why did we need relations? It has the potential to reduce redundent information and make life easier for mapping tool creators and mapping route software. I think an acceptable method of micro mapping lanes will come as soon as someone makes a renderer that renders one of the myriad of possible solutions. Micro mapping isn't just for rendering, in fact it has far bigger applications in the routing side of things, eg In 500m merge into the right lane etc, a lot of this is just meta information and doesn't need to be mapped visually to the nth degree. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:49 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 23 February 2010 16:43, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: We've got all the tools we need - nodes and relations. With them we can build anything else we want. I'm sure people said the same thing about ways and nodes, Perhaps they did, but they would be wrong. why did we need relations? Relations are recursive - they can contain other relations. Ways can only contain nodes. I think an acceptable method of micro mapping lanes will come as soon as someone makes a renderer that renders one of the myriad of possible solutions. Micro mapping isn't just for rendering, in fact it has far bigger applications in the routing side of things, eg In 500m merge into the right lane etc, a lot of this is just meta information and doesn't need to be mapped visually to the nth degree. True, but I don't think people will accept a micro-mapping solution until they can see it. It's too abstract for most people to picture in their minds. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On 23 February 2010 17:30, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Perhaps they did, but they would be wrong. Because of hindsight? Relations are recursive - they can contain other relations. Ways can only contain nodes. You missed the point, I'm just giving examples to show that people who think everything we need, we already have at our disposal, the suggestions on this I've made in the past require changes to database tables etc to work, rather than trying to shoe horn existing tools to do something they aren't very well suited for. True, but I don't think people will accept a micro-mapping solution until they can see it. It's too abstract for most people to picture in their minds. And that's my exact point, people pushing areas don't seem to be able to look beyond the tools currently available. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Niklas Cholmkvist towards...@gmail.com wrote: I live in a place where I feel the need to map some streets as areas. If I start a little of such mapping, will routing software get confused? Perhaps. That may vary by router? What is it about these streets that requires areas? Does this extend to your town and state as well? Can you give us a link to this area? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
How much traffic do you have and will you get a fine or ticket for choosing the best racing line ? I would like to do something about the related problem of routing through parking areas. But non-convex objects are quite hard to detect and process considering how much data we have. Furthermore, I believe academics have not yet found an efficient (n^2 or n^3) algorithm for routing through areas and the best we have is something like exp(n). On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Niklas Cholmkvist towards...@gmail.com wrote: I live in a place where I feel the need to map some streets as areas. If I start a little of such mapping, will routing software get confused? Regards, Niklas -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Niklas Cholmkvist towards...@gmail.comwrote: I live in a place where I feel the need to map some streets as areas. If I start a little of such mapping, will routing software get confused? If it's not a one-way road, routing software should be pretty much fine, even if it ignores the area tag and treats the road as a loop. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Niklas Cholmkvist towards...@gmail.com wrote: I live in a place where I feel the need to map some streets as areas. If I start a little of such mapping, will routing software get confused? How were you planning to achieve this? Mapping streets (and other linear features) as areas has been discussed many times on the tagging list. See e.g. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-February/001389.html There is still no consensus that I'm aware of for how to do this (though I personally think a possible solution is to represent a road as an area (for e.g. rendering) AND a way (for e.g. routing), and relate them with a relation). I would suggest bringing this up again (if you like) on tagg...@openstreetmap.org, rather than talk@openstreetmap.org :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
