Re: [talk-au] Mapping driveways under awnings.
On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 7:27:40 PM AEST Michael Collinson wrote: > Simon, > > Without knowing the nature of the challenge, I assume the apparent > anomaly is a road apparently bulldozing through a building. > Yes the challenge is for road/building intersections. > Me, I'd either leave it as it is or to be squeaky clean (if I know from > on-the-ground) I'd map the two sticky out bits as building=roof. I don't > know if there is any consensus on whether a simple canvas awning counts > as a "roof" or a temporary accoutrement not worthy of mapping at all - > others may comment. > In this case they are just overhangs to keep the sun off while collecting/ waiting for an order. However, across the road, that shop splits its driveway with part under an awning and another which does go right through the building, yet neither are mapped in OSM. Picking up on a recent thread on service roads, I wonder how the specific way tags affect the challenge. I will look to see if they are tagged as road or driveway etc. > This could also be an opportunity to introduce simple 3d buildings. Here > leave the building as is but within it draw 3 building part areas: > building:part=roof, building:part=roof, building:part=yes > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings > > Here is what Swan Hill currently looks like: > https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=-35.3427895=143.5619395=18 > >From this map there are a few other similar instances that stand out. One is a service station awning that shows correctly as an awning and across the road a motel whose driveway stops at their office awning, not continuing through to their carpark. In that same block is another major food outlet with no driveways or parking shown on OSM. Actually, there is a block 2 down from us which has 4 shops with drive-under awnings, yet none are in OSM. More work to do. > Mike > > On 2021-08-11 08:23, Simon Slater wrote: > > G'day all, > > > > From a Maproulette challenge ( https://maproulette.org/browse/ > > > > challenges/19168 ) which had a couple of things in our area marked as VIC > > - > > BuildingRoadIntersectionCheck , one of which is a KFC drive-through with > > awnings, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-35.34316/143.56033 > > > > Is this something to leave as-is, or should a change be made to either the > > way or building or both? If a change is needed, what type? > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- Regards Simon Slater Registered Linux User #463789 @ http://linuxcounter.net ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping driveways under awnings.
Simon, Without knowing the nature of the challenge, I assume the apparent anomaly is a road apparently bulldozing through a building. Me, I'd either leave it as it is or to be squeaky clean (if I know from on-the-ground) I'd map the two sticky out bits as building=roof. I don't know if there is any consensus on whether a simple canvas awning counts as a "roof" or a temporary accoutrement not worthy of mapping at all - others may comment. This could also be an opportunity to introduce simple 3d buildings. Here leave the building as is but within it draw 3 building part areas: building:part=roof, building:part=roof, building:part=yes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings Here is what Swan Hill currently looks like: https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=-35.3427895=143.5619395=18 Mike On 2021-08-11 08:23, Simon Slater wrote: G'day all, From a Maproulette challenge ( https://maproulette.org/browse/ challenges/19168 ) which had a couple of things in our area marked as VIC - BuildingRoadIntersectionCheck , one of which is a KFC drive-through with awnings, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-35.34316/143.56033 Is this something to leave as-is, or should a change be made to either the way or building or both? If a change is needed, what type? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping driveways under awnings.
G'day Simon The way I do them, is to split the drive-through service road & mark the sections that pass under the roof as "covered". You have to make sure that you then move the starting & finishing "covered" nodes to the edge of the shown roof area though eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/664761101 Thanks Graeme On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 16:18, Simon Slater wrote: > G'day all, > From a Maproulette challenge ( > https://maproulette.org/browse/ > challenges/19168 ) which had a couple of things in our area marked as VIC > - > BuildingRoadIntersectionCheck , one of which is a KFC drive-through with > awnings, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-35.34316/143.56033 > > Is this something to leave as-is, or should a change be made to either the > way > or building or both? If a change is needed, what type? > -- > Regards > Simon Slater > > Registered Linux User #463789 @ http://linuxcounter.net > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sidewalks in Australia
Hi Tom I'll also add my voice here, as I've been working on "sidewalks" in my area as well: I agree with your summary. I try to add sidewalks for precise pedestrian routing (with safe crossing) and improved routing for wheelchair users (adding curb tags) and visually impaired users (adding tactile paving tags). I follow pretty much exactly what you listed at the moment, although I realised I can improve my practice by using the more precise sidewalk:xxx=separate on the roads (rather than just sidewalk=separate). You can see my progress in the West End / Kurilpa area: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-27.4810/153.0120=C A good place to test pedestrian or wheelchair routing is OpenRouteService: https://maps.openrouteservice.org Cheers On 11/8/21 2:07 pm, Tom Brennan wrote: Thanks for the feedback. Just to summarise my reading of the replies, it sounds like there is: 1. a preference for separately mapped sidewalks (highway=footway + footway=sidewalk) 2. no harm in also adding tags to the road (sidewalk:both=separate, or sidewalk:left=separate / sidewalk:right=separate) as appropriate I won't necessarily be adding things, but I'll fix up any sidewalk problems with this in mind. > I've probably passed you without realising then. Most likely! I'm out and about almost every day! cheers Tom Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- Stéphane Guillou http://stragu.gitlab.io/ You can encrypt our communications by using OpenPGP. My public key 4E211060 is available on the keys.gnupg.net server. Other ways to interact with me are listed on my contact page: http://stragu.gitlab.io/contact/ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Mapping driveways under awnings.
G'day all, From a Maproulette challenge ( https://maproulette.org/browse/ challenges/19168 ) which had a couple of things in our area marked as VIC - BuildingRoadIntersectionCheck , one of which is a KFC drive-through with awnings, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-35.34316/143.56033 Is this something to leave as-is, or should a change be made to either the way or building or both? If a change is needed, what type? -- Regards Simon Slater Registered Linux User #463789 @ http://linuxcounter.net ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
