Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

[Andy Townsend]

On 01/06/2019 13:55, Michael Collinson wrote:


... I tried, then going out to "just verify" and found that I was 
hopelessly inaccurate. It defeats the point, to get a highly accurate 
localised network for folks who might depend on it.




I did something similar on the dev server a while back here:

https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/54.0167/-1.0486

(turn the data layer on to see it).  What surprised me was the things 
that I hadn't expected beforehand to be important (angles through gates 
being an obvious one) that actually were.


Best Regards,

Andy




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

[Michael Collinson]

On 2019-06-01 13:26, Andy Townsend wrote:


On 01/06/2019 11:11, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which i'm not overly impressed 
withor am I being a Luddite?



I personally wouldn't map sidewalks in a dense UK city like that 
(though some people do, with the intention of micromapping all the 
dropped kerbs etc.).  It's perhaps worth mentioning that at least some 
of the sidewalk edits there are by someone who has tended to 
contribute well-meaning but not entirely accurate edits from afar - it 
took me lots of additional surveys of Sutton in Ashfield* to verify 
that many of their previous "roads" simply weren't.


At first glance quite a lot of joins seem to be missing, and some 
shops were located between the sidewalk and the road (which you've 
just fixed).  Maybe if you're going to add a certain level of detail, 
you can't just ignore everything else on the map, although it's pretty 
common to do updates in stages - when mapping rural areas I'll often 
do streams first (armchair), then roads and paths (survey) then extra 
detail such as field boundaries, gates, stiles etc. (a mix of both).


Best Regards,

Andy

* you could therefore perhaps describe it as "successful armchair 
mapping" :)


I certainly concur that sidewalk mapping is not for the armchair. I 
tried, then going out to "just verify" and found that I was hopelessly 
inaccurate. It defeats the point, to get a highly accurate localised 
network for folks who might depend on it.


Mike


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] road relations

[Colin Smale]

On 2019-06-01 13:32, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

> You're talking about a different subject, which 'associatedstreets' won't 
> resolve.

Are you sure? Maybe you would restate concisely the problem as you see
it. The relation linked to in Jez' original post was
type=associatedStreet and he actually referred to a broader range of
objects, many of which don't have addresses as such. Why should an
explicit link between a building (or any other object) and the street it
is associated with be a bad thing, if computational geometry may lead to
an incorrect result? I would not like to think that the accuracy of the
location of these objects should be compromised so it yields the
"expected" results for a given set of circumstances. 

C.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] road relations

[Neil Matthews]

Not a fan -- for the more prosaic issue of what happens when you split
the street -- I don't think any of the editors will automatically
reassign the buildings.


Neil


On 01/06/2019 11:24, Andrew Hain wrote:
> It is documented at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet
>  , the
> terracer plugin used to create it a lot but now doesn’t by default.
> The Germans have been stripping it out of the database recently [
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=65510
>  ] and I’d be
> relaxed if we did the same.
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

[Michael Collinson]

I too was very anti at first. Reykavik was the first time I saw it on a 
systematic basis, and I thought it made a map I did aesthetically 
dreadful. But a small tweak, rendering sidewalk-tagged footways as a 
very unobtrusive narrow line fixed that.


I now map them zealously for three reasons:

1) I think it is the only way we can, (and IMHO should), seriously 
support wheelchair routing.


2) It is really useful for creating "safe" routes, especially for 
children. As an example, a normal footway that "ends" at a busy main 
road. Does it really mean that you have to walk along the road itself or 
attempt to cross right there? Or, does it mean that in reality it ends 
at a nice pavement/sidewalk that takes you to a formal crossing further 
down? (And for serious routing it is also worth mapping and tagging 
footway=crossing as well).


3) Well, not so important but it really p***s me off wasting time OSM 
walking to a huge complex road interchange only to find that the only 
way across is on the other side and have back-track to some footbridge 
or other. Here is a work-in-progress example in Melbourne: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.82641/144.94721 There is 
actually only one way to get across safely north-south if on bicycle and 
possibly for foot also. Addition of the "sidewalk" network would be very 
helpful.


Mike

On 2019-06-01 12:27, Dan S wrote:

I noticed a "sidewalk" here too in Brighton:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684610225

I'm ambivalent. Both of these examples are pavements that are fully
adjacent (continguous) to their roads, and by default I'd prefer not
to map them separately. I guess the long one that you refer to does
sometimes rise above the road, and even has steps down at at least one
point, so perhaps worth being a separate feature?

Dan

Op za 1 jun. 2019 om 11:12 schreef Jez Nicholson :

Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which 
i'm not overly impressed withor am I being a Luddite?

Regards,
   Jez
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] road relations

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 01/06/2019 12:00, Colin Smale wrote:

Relations are great to represent real-world relations that cannot be
inferred (reliably) from the other data in OSM. Often a geometrical
relation exists, such as a node inside a polygon, but not always.

OSM loves to allow things to be inferred from the data, but there is
usually a way of entering the attributes/relationships explicitly as
well, for the cases where the heuristics fall down.

The wiki says about relations: "Relations are used to model logical (and
usually local) or geographic relationships between objects. They are not
designed to hold loosely associated but widely spread items. It would be
inappropriate, for instance, to use a relation to group 'All footpaths
in East Anglia'.Why don't PT stop_areas fit with this?


As all items have co-ordinates, OSM is geospatially aware; and of course 
any objects with the same value tags are already 'collected together' & 
searchable.


'stop_areas' - Bins are irrelevant to routing from A to B. Do any 
routers use them?


DaveF

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] road relations

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

You're talking about a different subject, which 'associatedstreets' 
won't resolve.


DaveF

On 01/06/2019 12:06, Colin Smale wrote:

On 2019-06-01 12:34, Gareth L wrote:


I was about to say, relations of this manner seem duplicitous of simply having 
an address.

  Using only the street name to link objects is unreliable. A street can
be divided into multiple segments. Think of a residential side-road with
the same name as the road it branches from. A house on the corner may be
part of (i.e. front gate leads to) the main road, or may be part of the
side road. The location of the front door (entrance=main on building
outline?) is also unreliable. Only the route of the front path would
give you the answer.

C.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

[Andy Townsend]

On 01/06/2019 11:11, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which i'm not overly impressed 
withor am I being a Luddite?



I personally wouldn't map sidewalks in a dense UK city like that (though 
some people do, with the intention of micromapping all the dropped kerbs 
etc.).  It's perhaps worth mentioning that at least some of the sidewalk 
edits there are by someone who has tended to contribute well-meaning but 
not entirely accurate edits from afar - it took me lots of additional 
surveys of Sutton in Ashfield* to verify that many of their previous 
"roads" simply weren't.


At first glance quite a lot of joins seem to be missing, and some shops 
were located between the sidewalk and the road (which you've just 
fixed).  Maybe if you're going to add a certain level of detail, you 
can't just ignore everything else on the map, although it's pretty 
common to do updates in stages - when mapping rural areas I'll often do 
streams first (armchair), then roads and paths (survey) then extra 
detail such as field boundaries, gates, stiles etc. (a mix of both).


Best Regards,

Andy

* you could therefore perhaps describe it as "successful armchair 
mapping" :)



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] road relations

[Colin Smale]

On 2019-06-01 12:34, Gareth L wrote:

> I was about to say, relations of this manner seem duplicitous of simply 
> having an address.

 Using only the street name to link objects is unreliable. A street can
be divided into multiple segments. Think of a residential side-road with
the same name as the road it branches from. A house on the corner may be
part of (i.e. front gate leads to) the main road, or may be part of the
side road. The location of the front door (entrance=main on building
outline?) is also unreliable. Only the route of the front path would
give you the answer. 

C.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] road relations

[Colin Smale]

On 2019-06-01 12:29, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I've yet to hear a valid reasoning for this relation type. It's much more 
> beneficial to add addresses instead.
> 
> There appears an increasing tendency to collect almost anything together into 
> a relation. See public-transport's 'stop_area' as another example This is not 
> why relations were conceived. It just adds duplication, confusion & errors.

Relations are great to represent real-world relations that cannot be
inferred (reliably) from the other data in OSM. Often a geometrical
relation exists, such as a node inside a polygon, but not always. 

OSM loves to allow things to be inferred from the data, but there is
usually a way of entering the attributes/relationships explicitly as
well, for the cases where the heuristics fall down. 

The wiki says about relations: "Relations are used to model logical (and
usually local) or geographic relationships between objects. They are not
designed to hold loosely associated but widely spread items. It would be
inappropriate, for instance, to use a relation to group 'All footpaths
in East Anglia'.Why don't PT stop_areas fit with this? 

C.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

[Gareth L]

A surprising number of the new build housing estates around me have few 
pavements and are not very contiguous. There’s often even a space where they 
could lay the asphalt, but then it’s left as grass – before then getting 
sequestered as cars park over it.
I’d like to see more affirmative mapping of sidewalks. Starting with it being a 
suggested tag in the iD editor, and other editors.
Similar to how you can just toggle an option to add the lit, tunnel, bridge, 
etc. parameters for roads. Manually adding sidewalk:both/left/right=yes/no is 
overlooked.
Maps are so car centric, and walking directions are stuck with disclaimers 
along the lines of  ‘we don’t know how suitable this route is to walk, good 
luck!’.
I hope we can improve upon that.

Gareth

From: Jez Nicholson
Sent: 01 June 2019 11:39
To: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

Agree with both Gareth and Dan. It's all part of the discussion on how detailed 
the map goes, and possibly more relevant in countries with wider roads and 
obviously separate sidewalks. In the UK we always assume that a road has a 
pavement unless stated otherwise. I came slightly unstuck myself when walking 
from a guesthouse to an office in Exeter and having to drag a wheelie case 
along a grass verge :)

Happy for them to be added in special cases like raised pavements, but when 
they are exactly next to the road it doesn't really add much.

Like with the relation I was also whining about, i'm not going to go removing 
anything, but I did comment on the sidewalk changeset to take care.

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM Dan S 
mailto:danstowell%2b...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I noticed a "sidewalk" here too in Brighton:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684610225

I'm ambivalent. Both of these examples are pavements that are fully
adjacent (continguous) to their roads, and by default I'd prefer not
to map them separately. I guess the long one that you refer to does
sometimes rise above the road, and even has steps down at at least one
point, so perhaps worth being a separate feature?

Dan

Op za 1 jun. 2019 om 11:12 schreef Jez Nicholson 
mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>>:
>
> Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn 
> which i'm not overly impressed withor am I being a Luddite?
>
> Regards,
>   Jez
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

[Jez Nicholson]

Agree with both Gareth and Dan. It's all part of the discussion on how
detailed the map goes, and possibly more relevant in countries with wider
roads and obviously separate sidewalks. In the UK we always assume that a
road has a pavement unless stated otherwise. I came slightly unstuck myself
when walking from a guesthouse to an office in Exeter and having to drag a
wheelie case along a grass verge :)

Happy for them to be added in special cases like raised pavements, but when
they are exactly next to the road it doesn't really add much.

Like with the relation I was also whining about, i'm not going to go
removing anything, but I did comment on the sidewalk changeset to take care.

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM Dan S  wrote:

> I noticed a "sidewalk" here too in Brighton:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684610225
>
> I'm ambivalent. Both of these examples are pavements that are fully
> adjacent (continguous) to their roads, and by default I'd prefer not
> to map them separately. I guess the long one that you refer to does
> sometimes rise above the road, and even has steps down at at least one
> point, so perhaps worth being a separate feature?
>
> Dan
>
> Op za 1 jun. 2019 om 11:12 schreef Jez Nicholson  >:
> >
> > Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn
> which i'm not overly impressed withor am I being a Luddite?
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Jez
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] road relations

[Gareth L]

I was about to say, relations of this manner seem duplicitous of simply having 
an address.

Street objects.. like bins and benches might make a bit of sense. I don’t think 
I’ve ever seen a street address on a bench node. But I’m fairly sure a query 
could be crafted to detect the nearest way to get that information, should it 
be required.

Gareth


From: Dave F via Talk-GB 
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2019 11:29:33 AM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] road relations

Hi

I've yet to hear a valid reasoning for this relation type. It's much more 
beneficial to add addresses instead.

There appears an increasing tendency to collect almost anything together into a 
relation. See public-transport's 'stop_area' as another example This is not why 
relations were conceived. It just adds duplication, confusion & errors.

Personally I would delete associatedStreet.

DaveF

On 01/06/2019 11:10, Jez Nicholson wrote:

Has anyone else come across relations grouping road assets? i.e. the road
itself plus shops, buildings, street objects? e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1866997 Has this format become
accepted elsewhere in the world or is it experimental?

Regards,
  Jez





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] road relations

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

I've yet to hear a valid reasoning for this relation type. It's much 
more beneficial to add addresses instead.


There appears an increasing tendency to collect almost anything together 
into a relation. See public-transport's 'stop_area' as another example 
This is not why relations were conceived. It just adds duplication, 
confusion & errors.


Personally I would delete associatedStreet.

DaveF

On 01/06/2019 11:10, Jez Nicholson wrote:

Has anyone else come across relations grouping road assets? i.e. the road
itself plus shops, buildings, street objects? e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1866997 Has this format become
accepted elsewhere in the world or is it experimental?

Regards,
   Jez



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

[Dan S]

I noticed a "sidewalk" here too in Brighton:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684610225

I'm ambivalent. Both of these examples are pavements that are fully
adjacent (continguous) to their roads, and by default I'd prefer not
to map them separately. I guess the long one that you refer to does
sometimes rise above the road, and even has steps down at at least one
point, so perhaps worth being a separate feature?

Dan

Op za 1 jun. 2019 om 11:12 schreef Jez Nicholson :
>
> Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn 
> which i'm not overly impressed withor am I being a Luddite?
>
> Regards,
>   Jez
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] road relations

[Andrew Hain]

It is documented at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet , the terracer 
plugin used to create it a lot but now doesn’t by default. The Germans have 
been stripping it out of the database recently [ 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=65510 ] and I’d be relaxed if 
we did the same.

--
Andrew
associatedStreet-Relationen entfernen? / users: Germany / OpenStreetMap 
Forum
Die Relationen bei mir in der Gegend wurden teilweise seit Jahren nicht mehr 
aktualisiert oder überhaupt verändert. Die meisten Versionsänderungen sind 
vermutlich durch Teilungen der Straßenabschnitte entstanden und zudem auch 
größtenteils unvollständig.
forum.openstreetmap.org

Relation:associatedStreet - OpenStreetMap 
Wiki
Using relations to associate addresses and streets. The addr:street =* tag 
provides a link between streets and belonging addr:housenumber =* based on 
geographic proximity. This link can be made explicit by using a type = 
associatedStreet relation.. Tags
wiki.openstreetmap.org


From: Jez Nicholson 
Sent: 01 June 2019 11:10
To: Talk-GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] road relations

Has anyone else come across relations grouping road assets? i.e. the road 
itself plus shops, buildings, street objects? e.g. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1866997 Has this format become accepted 
elsewhere in the world or is it experimental?

Regards,
  Jez
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

[Gareth L]

Sidewalks (pavements) are difficult in the compressed and crowded layouts of 
our towns and cities. I would love them to be more uniformly mapped though. As 
they rarely are mapped, where they are, they stand out and look a bit out of 
place.

What do you think it lacks? Would it be improved with the pavements on the 
intersecting streets shown also?

Gareth


From: Jez Nicholson 
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2019 11:11:28 AM
To: Talk-GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which 
i'm not overly impressed withor am I being a Luddite?

Regards,
  Jez
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Road junctions

[Gareth L]

Thank you all for your feedback on this. I’ll have a look at the options and 
hopefully get to tidy it up early next week.




From: Brian Prangle 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 1:35:29 PM
To: Rob Nickerson; OSM Group WM
Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Road junctions

Hi Rob

Replied in a similar vein to Gareth with a  reworked JOSM file for him to study 
and/or upload

Regards

Brian

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 1:29 PM Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I would put a lot less feeder roads in. How does it look if you only split the 
road when there is a physical object it needs to go around? For example don't 
split the left/right turn lanes when driving frm Technology Drive to Mill Road 
as there is no physical barrier between these lanes.

If you'd like, I can have a go at mapping it how I would do it so that you can 
compare...let me know?

Rob


On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 23:53, Gareth L 
mailto:o...@live.co.uk>> wrote:
Hello all,

Is there a nice example of mapping road junctions? Particularly ones that are 
spread out?
Basically, I’ve had a punt at mapping the junction between technology drive and 
mill road in Rugby. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.38125/-1.24981 It 
has all the turn restrictions correct, and I’d expect it to route beautifully, 
but... avoiding the mapping for the renderer pitfalls, it looks rather rough.
My objective here was actually to allow myself to map the pedestrian/cycle ways 
more clearly - especially the crossing islands - as the crossing doesn’t clear 
right across the junction, just across the lane. The issue is this large T 
junction is spread over a very large area of asphalt with filter lanes etc.

I guess my gripe is having a bunch of ways representing what is really a field 
of asphalt. I’d welcome some advice on this, even if it’s “oh gads, revert that 
to a simple T junction immediately”, although in that case I’d really like to 
know the right way to do it, if such a thing exists.

There’s substantial mapillary and google streetview imagery available of this 
location if you want some context.

Kind regards
Gareth

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands

[Talk-GB] sidewalks

[Jez Nicholson]

Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which
i'm not overly impressed withor am I being a Luddite?

Regards,
  Jez
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] road relations

[Jez Nicholson]

Has anyone else come across relations grouping road assets? i.e. the road
itself plus shops, buildings, street objects? e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1866997 Has this format become
accepted elsewhere in the world or is it experimental?

Regards,
  Jez
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb