Dermot McNally schrieb:
On 3 July 2010 16:43, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Well please describe the objective criteria you use to tag highways then...
Here they are:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Ireland#Highway
Maybe you should mention highway=road and
2010/7/3 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
On 3 July 2010 19:50, Konrad Skeri kon...@skeri.com wrote:
One possibility is to just use highway=link and then let the renderes
sort out the rest. A link is after all just a link no matter what it
It may not be possible for preprocessing or
On 25 June 2010 07:56, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
You could always have highway=link.
But some links ARE motorway rules and some ARE trunk road so just saying
link does not work.
highway=*
link=yes
I
2010/7/3 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com:
Our arbitrary decision is to decide whether a moderately crappy
country lane might just be significant enough to call tertiary
I'd say this is up to the individual mapper / situation. It will never
be possible to satisfyingly resolve this for all
One possibility is to just use highway=link and then let the renderes
sort out the rest. A link is after all just a link no matter what it
connects, so there's really no reason for a *_link except when tagging
for the renderer, which we shouldn't do.
Konrad
2010/6/25 Lester Caine
On 3 July 2010 19:50, Konrad Skeri kon...@skeri.com wrote:
One possibility is to just use highway=link and then let the renderes
sort out the rest. A link is after all just a link no matter what it
It may not be possible for preprocessing or renderers to figure it out.
connects, so there's
On 3 July 2010 11:18, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
As a few people pointed out, we always tag some things for the
renderer, like highway=primary/secondary/etc...
I disagree that this is tagging for the renderer. Rather, it is
rendering for the tags. The highway tag assigns a
On 3 July 2010 20:35, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 July 2010 11:18, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
As a few people pointed out, we always tag some things for the
renderer, like highway=primary/secondary/etc...
I disagree that this is tagging for the renderer.
On 3 July 2010 11:37, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I don't see a point for anything but motorway_link, but
what is the difference between what you said and what others are
suggesting for other *_link roads?
Firstly, I haven't suggested anything for *_link roads, I've
On 3 July 2010 21:14, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
Firstly, I haven't suggested anything for *_link roads, I've simply
disagreed with your assertion that our use of the highway tagging
represents tagging for the renderer. On balance I tend to prefer links
that know what type of road
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 20:37 +1000, John Smith wrote:
On 3 July 2010 20:35, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 July 2010 11:18, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
As a few people pointed out, we always tag some things for the
renderer, like
On 3 July 2010 21:30, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
I think any road can have a link road (trunk, primary, etc), especially
any grade-separated crossings, which dont necessarily have to be
motorway. For large intersections with separate slip-lanes, I often
mark the slip lanes as
On 3 July 2010 12:24, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I fail to see how you have disagreed, you are twisting logic to suit
yourself, on one hand it's ok to arbitrarily tag various highway=*
tags, but on the other hand it's not ok to arbitrarily tag
highway=*_link...
It's not OK
On 3 July 2010 23:09, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not OK to arbitrarily tag highways. But different parts of the
world have established different norms according to which they do so.
By norms you mean making arbitrarily decisions on highways, rather
than any kind of objective
On 3 July 2010 14:14, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 July 2010 23:09, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not OK to arbitrarily tag highways. But different parts of the
world have established different norms according to which they do so.
By norms you mean making
On 4 July 2010 01:34, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 July 2010 14:14, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 July 2010 23:09, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not OK to arbitrarily tag highways. But different parts of the
world have established different
On 3 July 2010 16:43, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Well please describe the objective criteria you use to tag highways then...
Here they are:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Ireland#Highway
We do have a dilemma for how to fit 3 grades of local road into
tertiary
On 3 July 2010 16:54, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
All that has happened is the arbitrary decisions have been deferred to
someone else, in this case some government entity... That doesn't mean
highways are classified by objective criteria :)
I think you need to buy a
On 4 July 2010 01:56, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 July 2010 16:54, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
All that has happened is the arbitrary decisions have been deferred to
someone else, in this case some government entity... That doesn't mean
highways are classified
On 3 July 2010 17:09, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Meaning you are trying to make an arbitrary decision, because someone
else hasn't made it for you.
Our arbitrary decision is to decide whether a moderately crappy
country lane might just be significant enough to call tertiary -
John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com writes:
[proposal for 'virtual tags' generated automatically]
As well as taking care of the different kinds of
link road, these could also provide 'is_in', 'leading_to' and 'dead_end' for
dead_end can't be guessed at, it could be bad mapping, is_in is
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 06:10:18 + (UTC), Ed Avis wrote:
John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com writes:
and uphill/downhill for slopes (based on the layer of the endpoints).
Layer has nothing to do with elevation, it only indicates which road
goes over the other road there may not be
On 25 June 2010 16:10, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
I think you misunderstand my proposal. I agree that is_in is redundant and
should not be added to the map. As you say, it can be derived from admin
boundaries. However, not every programmer might want to have to download all
the admin
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
highway=*
link=yes
actually I like this, but it's not the first time it is proposed here,
and I think you can hardly change tags used as often and for so long
time as this. It would probably end up in a similar mess than path and
footway.
A number of the 'base'
Well that got more of a reaction than floating a discussion on the
tagging list, didn't it? The tagging list was set up so that the main
list wouldn't be bothered with such stuff.
There was no debate on the wiki, except a brief comment that
presumably resulted in the tag-to-higher approach (from
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
Well that got more of a reaction than floating a discussion on the
tagging list, didn't it? The tagging list was set up so that the main
list wouldn't be bothered with such stuff.
The tagging list was
I believe this junction is tagged as per the wiki (which Andy kindly
reverted to it's previous state).
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.73915lon=-1.10389zoom=15layers=B000FTF
Here's the same junction as per the cycle map layer:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
the root of the discussion seems to have no basis in
the tags, and seems entirely to be around rendering artefacts that you
dislike.
What purpose do the _link tags serve other than rendering?
If there's a serious
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
the root of the discussion seems to have no basis in
the tags, and seems entirely to be around rendering artefacts that you
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
What purpose do the _link tags serve other than rendering?
They can be used by routers to give more accurate descriptions...
Andy Allan wrote:
They can be used by routers to give more accurate descriptions - e.g.
since we don't (yet) indicate junction priorities, it can be helpful
if you are on a *_link and going onto a * to announce it as join the
main carriageway. If it was e.g. just highway=trunk for both, the
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:09:11 +0100, Richard Mann wrote:
[..] But tag-for-lower is better.
And I still haven't read why you think this is better, apart from rendering
issues.
As Andy said, the burden of demonstrating the goodness of a change is up to who
wants to make that change.
--
. ''`.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
What purpose do the _link tags serve
On 25 June 2010 00:22, David Paleino da...@debian.org wrote:
And I still haven't read why you think this is better, apart from rendering
issues.
As Andy said, the burden of demonstrating the goodness of a change is up to
who
wants to make that change.
I've been following this thread and
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
You need to explain, without referring to renderering *at any point in
the discussion* why your solution is both conceptually better than
what we have, and why your solution is worth all the hassle and
confusion that
2010/6/24 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com:
views or oppose them, but certainly the main point of this discussion
is that should we want to change it you can't just change the wiki and
declare it done!
I completely agree to this and think it also applies to many other
wiki edits. Sadly, as
On 24 Jun 2010, at 5:24 , Richard Mann wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
the root of the discussion seems to have no basis in
the tags, and seems entirely to be around rendering artefacts that you
dislike.
What purpose do the _link tags
Isn't this tagging redundant? If a link road leads from a primary to a
secondary, or whatever, this can be seen by looking at the tags for the two
roads it connects. In principle there is no need to duplicate the information.
In practice a renderer such as Mapnik may not allow you to write such
Ed Avis wrote:
Isn't this tagging redundant? If a link road leads from a primary to a
secondary, or whatever, this can be seen by looking at the tags for the two
roads it connects. In principle there is no need to duplicate the information.
But how do you know that a way IS a slip from one
On 25 June 2010 02:59, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
download a section of map. As well as taking care of the different kinds of
link road, these could also provide 'is_in', 'leading_to' and 'dead_end' for
dead_end can't be guessed at, it could be bad mapping, is_in is
redundant, you can
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Ed Avis wrote:
Isn't this tagging redundant? If a link road leads from a primary to a
secondary, or whatever, this can be seen by looking at the tags for the
two
roads it connects. In principle there is no need to
Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Ed Avis wrote:
Isn't this tagging redundant? If a link road leads from a
primary to a
secondary, or whatever, this can be seen by looking at the tags
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Anthony wrote:
You could always have highway=link.
But some links ARE motorway rules and some ARE trunk road so just saying
link does not work.
I guess, but now you're using a different definition of *_link. Not
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
You could always have highway=link.
But some links ARE motorway rules and some ARE trunk road so just saying link
does not work.
highway=*
link=yes
?
___
talk mailing list
2010/6/24 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
highway=*
link=yes
actually I like this, but it's not the first time it is proposed here,
and I think you can hardly change tags used as often and for so long
time as this. It would probably end up in a similar mess than path and
footway.
cheers,
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:27:27 -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:08 PM, David Paleino da...@debian.org wrote:
Hello people,
does someone know the reasoning behind:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highwaydiff=490719oldid=485601
?
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:08 PM, David Paleino da...@debian.org wrote:
Hello people,
does someone know the reasoning behind:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highwaydiff=490719oldid=485601
?
It changed the meaning of almost all highway=*_link present
David Paleino wrote:
[...] it seems like that was a unilateral decision made by Richard.
[...] Richard says I think the wiki may be wrong
[...] Richard, please don't take this as a personal attack :)
For the avoidance of doubt I should perhaps point out that this is another
Richard.
cheers
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:56:29 +0100, Andy Allan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:08 PM, David Paleino da...@debian.org wrote:
Hello people,
does someone know the reasoning behind:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highwaydiff=490719oldid=485601
?
Andy Allan gravitystorm at gmail.com writes:
Don't worry, it hasn't actually changed the meaning of anything - it's
just that the wiki is now wrong.
Maybe we need some place to document the meaning of tags other than the
(clearly unreliable) wiki?
Either that or accept that the meaning is not
On 23/06/10 12:14, David Paleino wrote:
I'm not going to start an edit-war, I'd prefer someone with the proper rights
to revert that edit. Then we can start discussing the matter, and file bugs
where needed.
What are these proper rights to which you refer? The page isn't locked
so any wiki
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Andy Allan gravitystorm at gmail.com writes:
Don't worry, it hasn't actually changed the meaning of anything - it's
just that the wiki is now wrong.
Maybe we need some place to document the meaning of tags other than the
On 23 June 2010 21:29, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
I'm not going to start an edit-war, I'd prefer someone with the proper rights
to revert that edit. Then we can start discussing the matter, and file bugs
where needed.
What are these proper rights to which you refer? The page isn't
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:35:46 +1000, John Smith wrote:
On 23 June 2010 21:29, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
I'm not going to start an edit-war, I'd prefer someone with the proper
rights to revert that edit. Then we can start discussing the matter, and
file bugs where needed.
What
Having a wiki is great but the 'anyone can edit' model is not good for pages
that are meant to be authoritative, documenting the meaning of tags in use,
or giving best practice for new editors. Allowing instant changes to
specification documents by any user makes about as much sense as allowing
Ed,
Ed Avis wrote:
Having a wiki is great but the 'anyone can edit' model is not good for pages
that are meant to be authoritative,
Luckily we don't have authoritative pages in OSM.
So maybe the current somewhat chaotic situation is the best we can hope for.
Yes, the solution is encouraging
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Instead of trying to create authoritative wiki pages, we must make it
clear to everyone that these pages are *not* authoritative.
Not more neither less than Potlatch and JOSM presets...
Pieren
Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes:
Instead of trying to create authoritative wiki pages, we must make it
clear to everyone that these pages are *not* authoritative.
Right. This is the alternative I alluded to: accept that the meaning of tags
is not reliably documented anywhere.
To
Having a wiki is great but the 'anyone can edit' model is not good for
pages
that are meant to be authoritative,
Luckily we don't have authoritative pages in OSM.
I don't know about luckily, but yeah. For data to be maximally useful, it
needs to be well-defined.
Instead of trying to
On 23/06/2010, at 8:56 PM, Andy Allan wrote:
Don't worry, it hasn't actually changed the meaning of anything - it's
just that the wiki is now wrong. The easy way to fix the situation is
to correct the wiki - it's as straightforward as that.
You could argue the wiki is now wrong, but you could
IMHO the tag should contain information from what to what the link is
(like between redidential and secondary, fron tertiary to primary, etc
...), so renderers can properly decide how much important the link to
primary is - it is probably more impornant if it connects to another
primary than case
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:16 AM, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.comwrote:
I, and from what I see in use where I live quite a few other too, have
always used xxx_link tags to join a highway=xxx with a higher one, because
we think what was documented on the wiki (xxx_link joins highway=xxx
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:16 PM, James Livingston
li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
You could argue that it's wikifiddling in an attempt to influence how people
map, or that it's documenting how a lot of people already map. It's all a
matter of perspective.
If it was documenting how a lot of
Hello people,
does someone know the reasoning behind:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highwaydiff=490719oldid=485601
?
It changed the meaning of almost all highway=*_link present in our database,
and the comment given doesn't explain the reason. With
Hello people,
does someone know the reasoning behind:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highwaydiff=490719oldid=485601
?
It changed the meaning of almost all highway=*_link present in our database,
and the comment given doesn't explain the reason. With
David Paleino wrote:
Hello people,
does someone know the reasoning behind:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highwaydiff=490719oldid=485601
?
Looking through his recent edits, I see
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:08 PM, David Paleino da...@debian.org wrote:
Hello people,
does someone know the reasoning behind:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highwaydiff=490719oldid=485601
?
67 matches
Mail list logo
