Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
2009/10/13 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2009/10/13 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk: Hello everybody, I propose to add a tag boundary=military : the problem is that, with the existing tags, it's almost impossible to mark correctly lots of data, like (non limitative list) forest, scholl, parking lot, … Rather than multiplying the military=* tag, I suggest to only mark the external limit of the military area. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_base This does not sound completely strange, but still incorporates some problems (all currently tagged landuse=military will get deprecated). I don't see the big problem here, as you can 1. draw a landuse=military around the whole area (and probably military=barracks) 2. draw a landuse=forest around the actual forest 3. draw a landuse=school around the actual school (or building=school for the school-building) 4. draw and tag the parking_lot where it is. IMHO landuse=military is already what you want to express with boundary=military. The boundary-object can be tagged as barrier=fence/wall/whatever with entrances, gates, videosurveillance etc. What about using a relation to add secondary land uses? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Visual map for the blind
2009/10/13 lulu-...@gmx.de: I would love to agree, but the needs of disabled persons are widely spread over our tagging scheme anyway, and awareness of objects that refer to accessibility is nearly zero. There are categories for visual, hearing and walking impariment, colletcted in the category accessibiliy. The :blind in my proposal as a postfix was an idea to approach what you recommend. accessibility:blind=* ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
2009/10/13 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: IMHO landuse=military is already what you want to express with boundary=military. Then all the landuse=military tags can be changed, and landuse=military can be deprecated. On the other hand, ownership=military and/or access=military makes more sense than boundary=military. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Housenumber interpolation with regularlyskippednumbers
TIGER obfuscates the data by declaring the entire numbering range of a zone: for example a 400 block / Even containing houses 404 through 420 would be declared as range Even / 400-498 in TIGER. For navigation purposes, that gets you to within one block of an address. Maybe they do it for obfuscation, but that has the additional advantage of being able to locate an approximate address when house #422 (or #402) gets added to the block. Of course, we don't have to be quite as dumb as Tiger. We could always use three blocks, 400-404/Even, 404-420/Even, and 420-498/Even. Why use 3 blocks?If a cursory survey shows that 404 and 420 are physically the endpoints of a block, why not use a single way? Even if 420 is not the physical endpoint, why not a single way? It's not quite the same idea, though. The Karlsruhe Schema maps actual addresses, at the house location. The Tiger Schema (for lack of a better name) maps potential address ranges, at the street location. They both have their uses: If a house is located far away from the actual street, you would certainly want to use something like the Karlsruhe Schema. If you have no idea where the house is (or is going to be) located other than its relation to a street, you would want to use the Tiger Schema. Arbitrarily sticking a way some distance to the right or left of a highway, in order to coax street-level data into a house-level schema, would be inappropriate. What is a house number after all, if not street-level data? The house number has no meaning to the physical building if not attached to a street. I still perceive the Tiger Schema as a variation on the Karlsruhe Schema - the only difference is the estimated accuracy. And that's just the easy case, when you're not trying to combine data from both schemas on the same block (I'm not sure that any of these have been mapped yet, but imagine a rural area with lots of houses near the road, some houses far off the road in flag lots with long driveways, and some houses both on and off the road in various stages of development and not yet assigned addresses; or try to combine actual addresses and potential addresses on a road in a retail area with lots of strip malls with individually addressed stores; or a road with lots of apartment complexes/condos with individually addressed apartments/condos). I would never use the Karlsruhe Schema ways to determine a house/building location. There can be many good reasons to use address interpolation when the building location is unknown - no aerial photographs, blurred or obstructed aerial photos, new construction, etc. Now imagine if they were asked to check the address relation: Go into edit mode, check the way the arrows point on your street, inspect the left / right roles to be sure that the house numbering is correct. For clarification, the direction for the purposes of right/left would be determined by the start and end node, not the direction of the way. The way could be reversed without breaking anything (and not all the ways have to even go the same direction). Now I'm confused. Unless the street is one-way, the only way to find the start and end node is to go into edit mode. Streets can be oriented in any direction, so left/right is often not useful for physical representation on the map. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Housenumber interpolation with regularlyskippednumbers
actually I think that instead of discussing interpolation with regularlyskipped numbers you could map explicitly the nodes of the real numbers, thus getting a high-precision map instead of this interpolation-crab, that is much less useful then an actual accurate position ;-) just my 2 cents. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [talk-au] How to tag a non-existent road
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:26 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/10/14 Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com: Ok, so my big question is: Why are your property boundaries rendered with solid fill? Its not indicating land use, and should be rendered as a 'dash-dot-dot-dash' line. (at least thats how i remember it from drafting class) So if the property boundaries arnt filled in, then there is room to go around and tag areas of 'landuse=residential; or farmland or protected_area or industrial or what ever. Its after the area has been tagged with an appropriate landuse tag, that it becomes clear where the roads 'should technically' be, and there is also (I think) a tag landuse=civil (to show that the city owns it) Me hopes that makes sence :) It makes sense, but you missed the point entirely. The property boundary landuse is unknown, between the boundaries there are voids, these voids seem to exist where there is road ways and water ways. eye... i, i ie :0) But of course the landuse us 'unknown' by default. .. so what needs to be done is to go around and find out what the actual landuse is. ... of course there are voids there are voids all over the map of black space. :) When these boundaries are filled in, with 'area=yes' ... then yes there appear to be 'voids' But it's just like a power line running through somewhere you cant automatically say that the land under it is a 'no-go' zone. ... you cant put anything there, until eithor A - you get more data available, or B- it is physically survayed. My point is that you dont need to be drawing in ANY roads your just importing boundaries nothing todo with roads. For examaple... I have polygons that are ready to be imported for landuse=residential. For me, since im aware that roads are being imported, It's silly for me to be importing this landuse=residential polygons... 'cause when you see them (with no roads around) you CAN extrapolate and see that the space between them, is wide enough for a road to be. but it could be a landuse=industrial. So the solution (im doing) is that i make these .osm files available on a server, as the conversion part... and just let these files sit there until someone want them. So for Austrailia... my guess is that YES, the road data will 'most likely' become available in the next year. So why be so concerned about these empty spaces? .. why not just focus the efforts on converting all the other different types of data available, and make those available as .osm files.... and keep the discussion going on 'how to appropriately tag the features that are available' rather than how to tag what is NOT available. and again, If was to go out there and survay an area and i see that there is no road. ... what i DO see is that there is a landuse=something (farmland) (desert) ... or but a fence if there is one. .. or natural=grassland. 'cause there ALWAYS something. .. ditch ... whatever.. Once that area is physically surveyed, it's mapped that i's something. ... and there should be no question. .. from what i see on that sourcedata website, you got LOTS of different datasets available to play with.... i think that the BBQ's have been dealt with, whats next? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data.australia.gov.au/World_Heritage_Areas? cheers, (fun taking in circles) ... good times, im learning too. Sam :-) p.s. You guys will probably be done your import before Canada's done :) lol... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
