I encounter a similar situation all the time - usually in the context of
public footpaths with short foot plank or sleeper bridges over ditches or
very small streams in the countryside.
My practice - which is open to change if there is a better solution that is
widely accepted - is:
1. Split
+1
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 December 2009 03:36
To: Steve Bennett
Cc: openstreetmap
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Anthony o
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett [mailto:stevag...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 December 2009 03:38
To: John Smith
Cc: openstreetmap
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:36 PM, John Smith
deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I tend to mark
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett [mailto:stevag...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 December 2009 02:43
To: Anthony
Cc: openstreetmap
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
In a park is a ditch. There is a very
layer=-1.
Richard
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com wrote:
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett [mailto:stevag...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 December 2009 02:43
To: Anthony
Cc: openstreetmap
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches
On Tue
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com wrote:
Layers are only there to explain the relative heights of
things when they meet. No harm will result from marking the
ditch as layer -1.
See my separate reply - I disagree - what happens when the level=-1 ditch
runs
It feels sometimes ridiculous to add layer tag to ditches and roads because
everybody knows that in majority of cases when road and ditch are crossing, the
road is above. A very typical example is in picture:
http://www.coquillewatershed.org/Project%20photos/pages/lampa-199-culvert-03.htm
There
[mailto:stevag...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 December 2009 11:18
To: Mike Harris
Cc: openstreetmap
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Mike Harris
mik...@googlemail.com wrote:
Layers are only there to explain the relative heights of
things when
they meet. No harm
2009/12/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
So I've used barrier=entrance for the node where the way and the ditch
cross.
More specifically, barrier=entrance and bridge=yes.
No, there's no junction node as the bridge goes over it, so
Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com writes:
Anyway, I'm pretty sure it's already ok to have drain and road cross
(without junction) at layer=0 - they'll be rendered right by any
reasonable renderer. It should be obvious that water is the bottom
layer, and power lines are the top layer,
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, I'm pretty sure it's already ok to have drain and road cross
(without junction) at layer=0 - they'll be rendered right by any
reasonable renderer.
No ! That's not ok to rely on any reasonable renderers.
This is
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
Asbolutely nothing. You're wy overthinking this, both of you.
Layers are just a hack to make stuff render. It's not like
It's not a hack, it's an easy way to order some elements when
rendering so things look right. A hack would be using the
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:16 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a hack, it's an easy way to order some elements when
rendering so things look right. A hack would be using the layer tag to
alter the rendering order to make things look better if the rendering
config is
Pieren pieren3 at gmail.com writes:
Always add the layer tag. And don't add a node at the intersection if
they are not at the same layer. Otherwise how any software can guess
if it's an intersection or not ? By going through thousands different
combinations of highways/waterways/railways/etc
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
IMHO, tagging layer=1 bridge=yes for a road going over water is an
example of a hack, and tagging for the renderer. The information
bridge=1 is more than enough to render with, so layer=1 can *only*
be interpreted as giving a renderer a crutch.
2009/12/15 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
IMHO, tagging layer=1 bridge=yes for a road going over water is an
example of a hack, and tagging for the renderer. The information
bridge=1 is more than enough to render with, so layer=1 can *only*
bridge=yes is so that people can render nice parapets
I'd agree that layer tags should not be required for water/highway
crossings. Keepright should keepquiet!
Richard
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Jukka Rahkonen
jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fiwrote:
Pieren pieren3 at gmail.com writes:
I guess we have to decide whether culverts or fords are the more common (and
explicitly tag the less-common). I'd plump for culverts being significantly
more common myself, but that might not be true on a whole-world basis.
Richard
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org
2009/12/15 Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org:
If you have a bridge or a tunnel you don't need a layer tag a bridge
infers it goes over a tunnel that it goes over
Let's start with the basics, we're talking about a water way and a
road way, what if neither is tagged with layer or tunnel or bridge
-
From: Jukka Rahkonen [mailto:jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi]
Sent: 15 December 2009 11:20
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches
It feels sometimes ridiculous to add layer tag to ditches and
roads because everybody knows that in majority of cases when
road and ditch
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
bridge=yes is so that people can render nice parapets
I'd agree that layer tags should not be required for water/highway
crossings. Keepright should keepquiet!
Although nothing is required in OSM,
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:36 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Without layer information you'd be guessing if the road goes over the
water or the water goes over the road, or the water and road are at
the same level.
You could come up with sane defaults,
That's the right thing
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Jukka Rahkonen
jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi wrote:
Of course I do not place nodes at the road-ditch intersections. But we have
this
kind of intersections where a ditch is goind under a road through a concrete
or
plastic pipe approximately every fine hundred
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Although nothing is required in OSM, the layer tag always helps on a
bridge because you could have multiple bridges passing each other (as in a
highway interchange). In that case, the layer tag specifies at what layer
in the
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
That's the right thing to do.
Right is a preconceived notion, in this case it's the lazy thing to
do, not nessicarily the right thing to do.
Not if you document them. I agree that you can't leave everything up
This is where explicit tagging can
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
Um, the layer tag helps specifically *only* in cases with bridges over
bridges...which are exceedingly rare. So I would dispute your premise
that the layer tag always helps on a bridge.
And tunnels over tunnels, possibly multi-story underground car
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:25 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
You could come up with sane defaults,
That's the right thing to do.
Right is a preconceived notion, in this case it's the lazy thing to
do, not nessicarily the right
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:25 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
Um, the layer tag helps specifically *only* in cases with bridges over
bridges...which are exceedingly rare. So I would dispute your premise
that the layer tag always
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
Carefully talking out what these sane defaults are, documenting, and
using them is not the lazy thing to do.
You are assuming people are going to go to lengths to read such doco
and more to the point understand the implications and as a result
alter
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
My argument stands. There is no need to tag layers *except* in those
situations. And in those situations, layers are absolutely required.
(Well, except that underground car parks are/will be tagged as
underground...and again, a convention should be
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:54 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
Carefully talking out what these sane defaults are, documenting, and
using them is not the lazy thing to do.
You are assuming people are going to go to lengths to read
Alight, I've had enough of this. Let's try and resolve the should
layer tags be required at the right place:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:layer#Is_layer_required_for_bridges.2C_tunnels.2C_and_waterways.3F
Steve
___
talk mailing list
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
No, there's no junction node as the bridge goes over it, so
barrier=entrance is not right here.
Thanks everyone, especially Mike Harris and Martin Koppenhoefer. I'm
convinced that barrier=entrance is wrong in
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
barrier=drainpipe (as an access node), access=yes?
I guess barrier=culvert would be the more general and international term?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
barrier=drainpipe (as an access node), access=yes?
I guess barrier=culvert would be the more general and international term?
Um, a culvert isn't a barrier, by
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
which I don't see as a bridge. I could go with tunnel=yes on the ditch,
but it's really not a ditch at all at the point it passes under the road.
Before the road:
waterway=drain, barrier=ditch
Under the road:
waterway=drain,
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
barrier=drainpipe (as an access node), access=yes?
I guess barrier=culvert would be
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, I've finally understood..oops. You want to map this as a node, not
a way.
Well, my only other alternatives are to screw up the geometry (there's no
gap between the edge of the road and the edge of the tunnel) or to
Steve Bennett wrote:
Alight, I've had enough of this.
You've had enough of it!!! After nearly fifty emails about how to tag a
ditch with a bridge over it in a few hours I think everyone in OSM has
had enough of it. I've rarely seen so much crap in such a small space.
Haven't any of you
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Well, my only other alternatives are to screw up the geometry (there's no
gap between the edge of the road and the edge of the tunnel) or to map the
road as an area.
Not seeing the problem.
--):=|==:(---
-
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Alight, I've had enough of this.
You've had enough of it!!! After nearly fifty emails about how to tag a
ditch with a bridge over it in a few hours I think everyone in OSM has
had enough of it.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Alight, I've had enough of this.
You've had enough of it!!! After nearly fifty emails about how to tag a
ditch with a bridge over it in a few hours I think everyone in OSM has
had enough of it. I've
2009/12/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Alight, I've had enough of this.
You've had enough of it!!! After nearly fifty emails about how to tag a
ditch with a bridge over it in a few hours I think
Hi,
Chris Hill wrote:
You've had enough of it!!! After nearly fifty emails about how to tag a
ditch with a bridge over it in a few hours I think everyone in OSM has
had enough of it.
Yes, I thought so too. Maybe we could ditch this discussion?
Bye
Frederik
2009/12/15 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
Hi,
Chris Hill wrote:
You've had enough of it!!! After nearly fifty emails about how to tag a
ditch with a bridge over it in a few hours I think everyone in OSM has
had enough of it.
Yes, I thought so too. Maybe we could ditch this
Shalabh wrote:
1. A group of really useless people with nothing better to discuss or
2. A group of really diligent people making the world's map better
and being assinine about it.
3. A group of no doubt lovely people who have temporarily forgotten about
the existence of the tagging list
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Shalabh wrote:
1. A group of really useless people with nothing better to discuss or
2. A group of really diligent people making the world's map better
and being assinine about it.
3. A group of no doubt
. -- Hypatia of Alexandria
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:15:48
To: Jukka Rahkonenjukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Jukka Rahkonen
jukka.rahko
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
In a park is a ditch. There is a very small bridge going over the ditch.
I've tagged the ditch with barrier=ditch. Should the ditch be layer=-1?
Even though the park is layer=0?
Layers are only there to explain the relative
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
In a park is a ditch. There is a very small bridge going over the ditch.
I've tagged the ditch with barrier=ditch. Should the ditch be layer=-1?
Even though the park is layer=0?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:36 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I tend to mark bridges as layer=1 and anything at ground level I don't
set a layer tag, which seems the most logical to me since ditches
aren't under the ground etc.
The one benefit of marking waterways layer=-1
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:36 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I tend to mark bridges as layer=1 and anything at ground level I don't
set a layer tag, which seems the most logical to me since ditches
aren't under the ground etc.
The
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:36 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
In a park is a ditch. There is a very small bridge going over the
ditch.
I've tagged the ditch with
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:47 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:36 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
I tend to mark bridges as layer=1 and anything at ground level I don't
set a layer tag,
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
So I've used barrier=entrance for the node where the way and the ditch
cross.
More specifically, barrier=entrance and bridge=yes.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
2009/12/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Okay, but here's the thing. We don't put a fence at layer=1, even though
it's on top of the ground. Because then it wouldn't be a barrier to travel
along the ground.
It's attached to the ground... bridges are usually above at least some
ground level
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I tend to agree with you, but:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:IMG_6783.JPG
Are both of those bridges layer=1? At least the road one, and arguably
both, are effectively at ground level.
Right now I have the ditch with
57 matches
Mail list logo
