Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal "covered=yes"
Ed Hillsman wrote: >I would welcome any suggestions you have on how to deal with the open- >building situations, the student center, or shade. Yes, in a way, these >are minor, even trivial situations, but they contribute to the quality of >the local environment, and it would be good to be able to record that in >OSM. > >Ed Ed - Regarding your 2nd, 3rd paragraphs, and last part of your 4th paragraph, yes, that's exactly what I'm dealing with. In my current case it is auto ways, but I was also thinking toward your situation. For me, at least, tunnel, whether footpath, road or waterway implies no side access, unless you map entry ports along the tunnel. A "covered" way, on the other hand, implies (or would imply) that there may be ad hoc or unmapped access to it, such from parking, or from most points to a sidewalk, even when the sign says "Keep off the grass". Of course, others may see it differently. For example, if I mapped a covered street and a covered sidewalk in parallel, I would assume I could get in or out of a car from the sidewalk, if it were tagged "covered" but that I could not do that if each was a tunnel, unless I mapped a connecting tunnel. It seems that most of your other issues have more to do with shade covering rather than weather elements. Things such a "portico" can better be described as building attributes rather than shelter or shading attributes on the way. The only (unlikely) exception would be if their is a meaningful height restriction, which should be tagged on the way as "maxheight=*". This by the way, is a precedence of for tagging the way rather than what is above it with the information. We don't tag a bridge with its height, we tag the underpassing way with maxheight. Depending on how sophisticated you want to get, shade can be a very complex issue, as I'm sure you recognize. If the trees are deciduous then shaded may need a seasonal qualification. (or, it may not be important during those months when the trees are bare) If a path is next to a building, possibly a seasonal (as in your example), or maybe an hourly restriction, depending on the side of the building. Do you want to route based on morning vs. afternoon classes? An hourly restriction can even apply to a building overhang or an awning, depending on how far out it extends. I think that "shaded" would be a valid attribute for ways, and you may have to come up with your own qualifiers to associate with the shaded attribute, such as "seasonal=[months] and time=[daylight hours] that will work for your specific purpose, but will be ignored by more general renderers and routers. "covered" would imply total shade, unless the way was also tagged with "shaded". In the case of the path next to the building, you have a situation where the building attributes might be important. Depending on how sophisticated you want to make it, the routing software could be made smart enough to determine how close, and in what direction a building is, from the sidewalk, so it could estimate shade as a function of time and/or month. The building can be tagged with a physical attribute, height, which could aid in determining when a pedestrian way is shaded by the building. There is a whole page on proposed building attribute tags, including building:height=*. There are those who would argue that there is a node/way/area tag for tree(s) that can be used to map the areas of a path that are shaded by trees, and that this is the preferred method of mapping trees. I personally believe that you have to look at the purpose of the mapping. If it is just to show that there are some trees around an area then that is adequate. If you are mapping for a different purpose that is more related to using a way, then, in my opinion, a method, that while on the surface is redundant, is more functional to your purpose, is not only valid, but preferred. As you see, my tendency at times is to ramble. -- Randy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] NY Bicycle Routes
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 10/30/09 6:59 PM, Sam Vekemans wrote: > >> Hi, >> how are you tagging state-wide cycle routes? >> >> I know we haven >> lcn= for local cycle routes (named& not named) >> rcn=for regional cycle routes (ie metro area) >> >> then there's >> ncn=for nation wide >> but there's no >> scn (state cycle network) or pcn (province cycle network) >> >> > i'm using rcn, it seemed the closest. maybe scn should be created? > > richard > > lcn = is light blue... local cycle routes rcn = dark blue regional cycle routes ncn = red ... national cycle routes ... and ya, i think maybe a pink or a green for a scn. .. i would also recommend that pcn be used in the same way (as come contries uses province') So, if both tags do the same thing, that would be a good solution. In switzerland, the lcn is shown as regional cycle route... town to town, where the dark blue is shown locally. (so if the the dark blue and light blue were swiched) So if switzerland was used as the basis... we have. rcn = dark blue (local cycle routes) lcn = light blue (reginal cycle routes) or state cycle routes or region of greater London area) ncn = red national cycle route (that cross state/regional/province lines) And where the local cycle routes are not listed... simply becacuase bicycles can go everywhere that a car can go. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/26242773 indicated that the way is part of the national cycle network and on the other side of the river http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/32391713 is indicated as part of the rcn .. in light blue... Where the dark blue appears to be only in the big cities.. such as Basel, where this dark blue is what connects the communities that are IN basel. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.5615&lon=7.6077&zoom=12&layers=00B0FTFT So in other words... i think its a social thing. We (in north America) think Bicycling as a 'recreation', where it's a week-end thing, and just for the ''cycling people". As the Automobile, is considered 1st when cities are planned out. They are simply designed with the expectation that cars are to be driven everywhere. So, on the otherhand, in Switzerland (when the city planners design communities), they right away look at 3 things. How pedestrians will use the community, how cyclest will use the community, and lastly, how cars will manuver through the city to get to the next city. Where as, in North America, it's only pedestrians that get consideration, so 'sidewalks' are planed on every street, ... and it's only in the last 20 years that 'curbs' so wheel chairs can access them. (in MANY areas) we still dont have accessable curbs. So i propose that we start making the cyclemap, with the 'expectation' that cyclists are allowed FULL use of roads.. (accept of course free-ways), and bi-ways, cyclists are expected to use the shoulder where available. And it doesn't need to be marked. So this might require some effort on our part, and perhaps we need to have a new tag for "ccr" city cycle route ... and this might eleviate the problem. As in the case of our example, the cyclemap for Solothurn, it doesnt indicate which roads are 'cycle friendly' that's probably becuase they ALL are. :-) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.20696&lon=7.54861&zoom=15&layers=00B0FTF Cheers, Sam Vekemans Across Canada Trails ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal "covered=yes"
I've come to this discussion late, because the tagging listserv is relatively new, and I haven't been monitoring it regularly. I don't have anything like a definitive suggestion to Randy's original problem or the variants added to it in the subsequent discussion, but I'd like to add something else for consideration. I'm tagging sidewalks on the University of South Florida in Tampa, and we have a number of situations where a sidewalk goes through a building. In effect, much of the ground level of the building is open to the elements, and the sidewalk goes under the second floor. Doors to offices and other rooms open onto the sidewalk. This seems to have been a style here in the 1970s. There are two variations of this. In one, the sidewalk runs between two parts of the ground floor of the building (like a tunnel). Doors (and elevators and stairways) may front onto the sidewalk as it passes through. I have been tagging portion of these sidewalk that goes through these buildings as highway=footway, tunnel=yes, because from the perspective of the sidewalk, it is a tunnel. But I've not been entirely comfortable with it. This is, I think, the situation that Randy identified, but for sidewalks. In the other, the sidewalk runs along the side of the ground floor of the building, with grass on one side, the building (often with doors opening onto the sidewalk) on the other, and the second floor of the building overhead. These have been problematic. They function as sidewalks but are not quite normal sidewalks, and they definitely are not tunnels One of the reasons I'm doing this mapping is because we want to develop a walking-route finder for students using wheelchairs. As part of this, I've been considering proposing a tag shade=*, intended to apply to a sidewalk or street (mostly sidewalks, though), with the following values based on midday shading: =trees, if the way is heavily shaded by trees (not intended for areas on a way shaded a single tree, but for a length of way with shade covering a substantial part of the length) =pergola, if the way is covered by a pergola or similar trellis with plantings dense enough to provide shade =roof if the way is covered by an awning or similar roof impervious to rain. Intended for a free-standing structure built for the purpose of covering the sidewalk =building if the way hugs the north side of a building and is shaded by it (this would apply in latitudes farther north than here--in midsummer the sun is too high) =portico if the way runs beneath a canopy, colonnade, or similar projection of the building that provides shade and shelter but, depending on the orientation of the way, might provide shade at noon and in the morning, but not in the afternoon (or vice versa). This is the value that I have been considering for the second case above (building on one side, grass on the other, second level overhead. Older parts of some European cities are full of these. Better-designed commercial developments also have extended awnings/canopies attached to the front of the buildings, shading the sidewalk that runs along the front of the shops. =none would be the implied value if shade=* is not coded, although I would understand if a mapper coded it to make a point during a hot shadeless afternoon walk. Maybe other values, but these are the ones I've encountered here, or thought about. shade=trees could apply to older streets as well as sidewalks, but I doubt the other values would apply to streets very often. Shade=trees would also apply to stretches of hiking paths (below treeline, obviously) and cycle paths, distinguishing them from stretches through meadow, rockfields, talus, etc. Useful for planning a hike. Knowing about shade would allow the eventual routing application to trade off using a slightly longer shady route vs a shorter one without shade. Because of trees, we can't just tag shade in association with a building or architectural element There are other situations, such as some of the early grand commercial arcades, that are structurally similar to the example that Anthony provided at http://images.loopnet.com/xnet/mainsite/attachments/viewImage.aspx?FileGuid=C138EA3D-33CE-4695-AA32-11C4C9C097EA&Extension=jpg&Width=631&Height=421 (by the way, Anthony, I like your work in detailing the commercial complex that I'd merely traced the outline for). If there were a tag for "arcade" or something like that, I would use it, not for shade, but because it describes the overall situation, and shade would be implied. Because of its size, location and other functions, and the orientation of the doors, the multistory lobby of new student center on the campus now functions as a sidewalk. Students routinely cut through the building on their way from places to the north, to places to the south, or vice versa. So it is a bit like an old arcade as well,
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal "covered=yes"
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >2009/10/30 Pieren > >>On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Randy >> >>wrote: >>>Possibly just "building=roof" >>>would work (not my idea, someone else suggested it). >> >>I have a much bigger preference to "building=roof" or "building=cover" >>on the element on the top instead of some attribute on some >>hypothetical element below . >>Adding the attribute "covered=yes" is not always possible, e.g. a >>large balcony covering only partially a river or a simple roof in >>farms (a open air shelter for animals or warehouse). >>If it is to help the renderers only, then it sounds as a synonym of >>"tunnel=yes". >> >> >+1, I agree that it would be better to map the covering object in an >appropriate way, and not to indirectly map it through attributes on the >covered object, e.g. in cases that a building covers a street beeing itself >a bridge (those cases currently are not displayed correctly in mapnik due >to >a "bug by design", that is even with the building beeing on level 1 and >tagged as bridge=yes the street is displayed like it was on top of it). >On the other hand for galleries (covering structures like in alpine areas >to >protect the street, but unlike a tunnel open to one or both sides) and >arcades (and colonades) I would prefer to have the attribute on the road. >Tunnel should be used for real tunnels and not for all kind of structures >where a street is covered. > >Then there is a third kind of way: those that are completely inside >buildings (shopping malls, generally corridors and hallways, all kind of >indoor-ways). I'd like to see a Key indoor for those to stop the abusement >of the tunnel-key. > >cheers, >Martin a) I didn't suggest using "covered=yes" for areas, for the reason Pieren gave, i.e. partial coverage. However, there are limited situations when I think tagging areas as covered may be appropriate, so I wouldn't want to restrict it. b) Yes, I agree that when one can clearly differentiate levels for the components involved the current layering method should be used. I also agree that abusing the use of tunnel is inappropriate. When there is "unmappable" access to a tunnel, such as an open side, then it is not a tunnel. c) However, as Martin agreed, there are cases where it is a misrepresentation, at the least, to map a way and a building in different layers. Take for an example a four story department floor where the first floor is undercut to allow an exterior sheltered pedestrian way. d) Is it better to proliferate tags, i.e., have separate tags for interior ways and exterior covered ways, or to have a single tag that applies to both? I can see arguments both ways, but tend to lean toward simplification. -- Randy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] NY Bicycle Routes
Hi, how are you tagging state-wide cycle routes? I know we have lcn= for local cycle routes (named & not named) rcn=for regional cycle routes (ie metro area) then there's ncn=for nation wide but there's no scn (state cycle network) or pcn (province cycle network) in Quebec we have a state-wide network, but listed as ncn. (route de verte) (the Trans Canada Trail isnt a 'cycle route' per say, but elements of it allows cycling on different surfaces). Do we make a new render for a 'recreational trail'? Is there an established practice? Thanks, Sam Vekemans Across Canada Trails On 10/30/09, Richard Welty wrote: > i have added a page for NY state bike routes here: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/New_York/Bike_Routes > > and added my just created relation (not quite complete) for the Mohawk > Hudson Bikeway from Rotterdam Junction to Albany. > > lots of bike routes in NY need to be documented: http://www.ptny.org/ > > richard > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > talk...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blog: http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org @Acrosscanadatrails ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal "covered=yes"
2009/10/30 Pieren > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Randy > wrote: > > Possibly just "building=roof" > > would work (not my idea, someone else suggested it). > > I have a much bigger preference to "building=roof" or "building=cover" > on the element on the top instead of some attribute on some > hypothetical element below . > Adding the attribute "covered=yes" is not always possible, e.g. a > large balcony covering only partially a river or a simple roof in > farms (a open air shelter for animals or warehouse). > If it is to help the renderers only, then it sounds as a synonym of > "tunnel=yes". > > +1, I agree that it would be better to map the covering object in an appropriate way, and not to indirectly map it through attributes on the covered object, e.g. in cases that a building covers a street beeing itself a bridge (those cases currently are not displayed correctly in mapnik due to a "bug by design", that is even with the building beeing on level 1 and tagged as bridge=yes the street is displayed like it was on top of it). On the other hand for galleries (covering structures like in alpine areas to protect the street, but unlike a tunnel open to one or both sides) and arcades (and colonades) I would prefer to have the attribute on the road. Tunnel should be used for real tunnels and not for all kind of structures where a street is covered. Then there is a third kind of way: those that are completely inside buildings (shopping malls, generally corridors and hallways, all kind of indoor-ways). I'd like to see a Key indoor for those to stop the abusement of the tunnel-key. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal "covered=yes"
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Anthony wrote: > Splitting the building into two parts, one at layer=0, touching the > parking area, and one at layer=1, encompassing both the area next to > and under the parking area, is another solution. It's similar to what > we'd do with a highway when we want it to exist at multiple layers. > But it's probably unprecedented for buildings. > Actually, that wouldn't work if the ground level itself differs from one part of the building to the other, which is something I've seen before in malls (the second floor on one side is the first floor on the other). I can't think of a proper way to map this without changing everything... I don't know. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal "covered=yes"
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Randy wrote: >> Possibly just "building=roof" >> would work (not my idea, someone else suggested it). > > I have a much bigger preference to "building=roof" or "building=cover" > on the element on the top instead of some attribute on some > hypothetical element below . Or man_made=canopy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canopy_(building) I think I'm going with man_made=canopy. But that doesn't work for "a building with a contiguous floor over a parking area", unless you "split the building", in order to use multiple layer tags. The building exists at both layer=0 and layer=1. Honestly, I don't like covered=yes here. It's a hack, but unless and until there is support for true three dimensional mapping, any solution is going to be a hack. Splitting the building into two parts, one at layer=0, touching the parking area, and one at layer=1, encompassing both the area next to and under the parking area, is another solution. It's similar to what we'd do with a highway when we want it to exist at multiple layers. But it's probably unprecedented for buildings. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal "covered=yes"
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Randy wrote: > Possibly just "building=roof" > would work (not my idea, someone else suggested it). I have a much bigger preference to "building=roof" or "building=cover" on the element on the top instead of some attribute on some hypothetical element below . Adding the attribute "covered=yes" is not always possible, e.g. a large balcony covering only partially a river or a simple roof in farms (a open air shelter for animals or warehouse). If it is to help the renderers only, then it sounds as a synonym of "tunnel=yes". Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
