MP wrote:
In practice, almost all mapping seems to use approach (a) - but would
approach (b) be easier for subsequent editing and addition of detail, and
rather clearer as it avoids superimposed ways and potential editing errors?
I think that the correct way is b) - three separate
Mike Harris wrote:
Chris
Despite the well-argued views of a minority, I am persuaded by the equally
well-argued views of the (considerable) majority who favour option (b).
That is not to say that there isn't room for using a bit of common sense! I
wouldn't divide up Delamere Forest into
2009/10/7 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk:
Mike Harris wrote:
Chris
Despite the well-argued views of a minority, I am persuaded by the equally
well-argued views of the (considerable) majority who favour option (b).
That is not to say that there isn't room for using a bit of common sense! I
John Smith wrote:
2009/10/7 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk:
Mike Harris wrote:
Chris
Despite the well-argued views of a minority, I am persuaded by the equally
well-argued views of the (considerable) majority who favour option (b).
That is not to say that there isn't room for using a bit
[mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com]
Sent: 05 October 2009 15:52
To: Marc Schütz
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
2009/10/5 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net:
2009/10/5 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net:
But a) could be used as acceptable temporary
On 05/10/2009, at 8:18 PM, Marc Schütz wrote:
IMO (a) is the correct way to do this.
...
For a road, we can either choose to map it as a linear object (this
is the common case), or we can map its geometry more exactly by
using an area. In both cases, however, the object in our database
2009/10/6 James Livingston doc...@mac.com:
On 05/10/2009, at 8:18 PM, Marc Schütz wrote:
IMO (a) is the correct way to do this.
...
For a road, we can either choose to map it as a linear object (this
is the common case), or we can map its geometry more exactly by
using an area. In both
On 06/10/2009 14:09, John Smith wrote:
Some people are marking the landuse hard up against roads, but this
isn't correct since the property boundary never touches any roads, at
least none that I'm aware of, and foot paths etc use the same land use
area as roads.
I keep adjacent areas
Marc Schütz wrote:
IMO (a) is the correct way to do this.
We are trying to represent reality in our database.
I'm not sure that's true. A map is a representation of reality, not
reality itself. With the tools available to us at the moment attaining
reality is a lot of work For instance the
2009/10/6 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com:
On 06/10/2009 14:09, John Smith wrote:
Some people are marking the landuse hard up against roads, but this
isn't correct since the property boundary never touches any roads, at
least none that I'm aware of, and foot paths etc use the same land
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Marc Schütz wrote:
IMO (a) is the correct way to do this.
We are trying to represent reality in our database.
I'm not sure that's true. A map is a representation of reality, not
reality itself.
True, but the
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
With the tools available to us at the moment attaining
reality is a lot of work For instance the majority of mappers don't draw
an area for, lets say, an
2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Most sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort of meet it
(not at intersections, though).
There is a landuse area around roads that isn't part of surrounding
property boundaries.
___
talk mailing list
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Most sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort of meet it
(not at intersections, though).
There is a landuse area around roads that isn't part of surrounding
October 2009 15:52
To: Marc Schütz
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
2009/10/5 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net:
2009/10/5 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net:
But a) could be used as acceptable temporary solution until
someone with better information
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Marc Schütz wrote:
IMO (a) is the correct way to do this.
We are trying to represent reality in our database.
I'm not sure that's true. A map is a
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org
mailto:o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
With the tools available to us at the moment attaining
reality is
2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Most sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort of meet
it
(not at intersections, though).
There is a landuse area around
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Most sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The only way I can see doing that is when the landuse area is *also* a
highway area.
And then, only if you're sure that's what you want to do. If you have two
pedestrian areas separated by a highway, and you use the highway as a
-
From: Chris Morley [mailto:c.mor...@gaseq.co.uk]
Sent: 06 October 2009 15:46
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
Mike Harris wrote:
Thanks to those who responded to this thread. Advice
gratefully received.
There seems to be a clear
: 06 October 2009 17:30
To: John Smith; c.mor...@gaseq.co.uk
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM, John
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com wrote:
This suggests that the area tag might even be landuse=highway!
Hey, I could go for that. I've already clearly separated the meaning of the
term highway when dealing with OSM from the meaning of the term highway
that I'd
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Mike Harris
mik...@googlemail.com wrote:
This suggests that the area tag might even be landuse=highway!
Hey, I could go for that. I've already clearly separated the
meaning of the term
2009/10/4 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
I'd go for b) for all the reasons mentioned above
+1
another issue is the size. If you try to do statistics based on the
areas of certain landuse, you would want them to be their real size
(as precise as possible) and not size= area size - (roadlength
I see on exeption though: areas that are pedestrian areas
(highway=pedestrian, area=yes). In this case I'd like to connect the
pedestrian area (if there is no other limit like a wall, fence, hedge,
etc.) to the linear highway (for routing and rendering issues),
especially, when the pedestrian area
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I see on exeption though: areas that are pedestrian areas
(highway=pedestrian, area=yes). In this case I'd like to connect the
pedestrian area (if there is no other limit like a wall, fence, hedge,
etc.) to the linear highway (for routing and rendering issues),
I'm seeking advice as to best practice in the following type of situation:
As an increasingly common example, now that people are getting around to
mapping areas such as leisure=, natural= and landuse= ...
Consider the case of landuse=farm on one side of a highway (say a
secondary road)
For a road, we can either choose to map it as a linear object (this is the
common case), or we can map its geometry more exactly by using an area. In
both cases, however, the object in our database represents the entire road
(i.e. not only the middle line). Because in reality, there is no
For a road, we can either choose to map it as a linear object (this is
the common case), or we can map its geometry more exactly by using an area.
In both cases, however, the object in our database represents the entire
road (i.e. not only the middle line). Because in reality, there is no
2009/10/5 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net:
But a) could be used as acceptable temporary solution until someone
with better information (like having aerial photography) remaps it as
b)
Yes, this is basically what I wanted to say. Leave it to the mappers whether
they want to use a way or an area
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:28:54 +0200
Von: Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
An: Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net
CC: MP singular...@gmail.com, talk@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
2009/10/5 Marc
2009/10/5 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net:
2009/10/5 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net:
But a) could be used as acceptable temporary solution until someone
with better information (like having aerial photography) remaps it as
b)
Yes, this is basically what I wanted to say. Leave it to the
In practice, almost all mapping seems to use approach (a) - but would
approach (b) be easier for subsequent editing and addition of detail, and
rather clearer as it avoids superimposed ways and potential editing errors?
I think that the correct way is b) - three separate lines. Since if
the
On 4 Oct 2009, at 12:42 , Mike Harris wrote:
I'm seeking advice as to best practice in the following type of
situation:
As an increasingly common example, now that people are getting
around to mapping areas such as leisure=, natural= and landuse= ...
Consider the case of landuse=farm
Hi,
MP wrote:
b) is easier for editing, more reflecting the reality
I think it is appropriate to choose b) if you indeed have separate
measurements for each of the three lines, for example a GPS track for
the road and a land cover import or something.
If, however, you just drove along the
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
If, however, you just drove along the road and have *one* GPS track and
then say well the road is 10 metres wide so I'll just draw parallel
lines offset by 5 metres left and right from the centreline
By the way, this is
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
MP wrote:
b) is easier for editing, more reflecting the reality
I think it is appropriate to choose b) if you indeed have separate
measurements for each of the three lines, for example a GPS track for
the road
If you don't want to do micro mapping the best approach is to create a
multipolygon relations for the farm and one for the golf course. use
the portion of the highway in the polygon as outer way and delete the
duplicate ways.
While this may look reasonable, this is IMHO a bad idea.
I've
I'd go for b) for all the reasons mentioned above
.
Cheers
Dave F.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 4 Oct 2009, at 13:50 , MP wrote:
If you don't want to do micro mapping the best approach is to
create a
multipolygon relations for the farm and one for the golf course. use
the portion of the highway in the polygon as outer way and delete the
duplicate ways.
While this may look
41 matches
Mail list logo
