Re: [Tagging] Housenumber interpolation with regularlyskippednumbers
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 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 Sounds good Martin. I have about 3000-5000 houses to tag, I'll tag the beginning and ending house addresses, on each street, if you'll tag the 15-20 individual houses in between. They're in the satellite images, so it shouldn't be a problem. Just kidding, but hopefully you'll get the point that it's a pretty labor intensive job, and interpolation, with an appropriate skip factor would make the job a lot more likely to eventually reach completion. In the area I'm working, most of the lots on these streets have fairly uniform width at the street, so interpolation will rarely be in error by a full physical street address. Some of this has been said before, but unfortunately this subject got hijacked to something about comparing Tiger vs. Karlsruhe schemae and you have to go back a few days to find the discussion that truly relates to the subject of the thread. Based on Richard Bullock's suggestion, I have added the numeric increment to the definition for the tag addr:interpolation=*, and additional information under Using interpolation on the Key:addr wiki page. I'll start tagging street addresses this way as soon as time permits. I noticed that Mapnik already renders the way properly, although there is no way to verify the increment. OSMARender apparently detects an invalid interpolation value and renders the end point nodes, but not the way, at present. -- Randy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Best practice regarding addr:housenumber and POIs
2009/10/15 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: Hi I'm wondering what is best practice regarding tagging addr:housenumber and POIs, e.g. amenity=restaurant. Let's assume that on Mainstreet 10 there's a restaurant named Thai Wok. Should there be one node or two? One single node with the tags addr:street, addr:housenumber, amenity=restaurant and name=Thai Wok or two nodes, one with the addr:* tags and another with the POI tags? Regards Markus One, I guess, it keeps it simple and easy to ensure that the all the data relating to that node are kept together. However, You could put together n nodes, connect a way between them, forming an area, and then tag the way. Allowing us to know how far along the street the restaurant stretches and if it maybe has a back door onto another street etc etc. (This is nice but not really necessary). Peter. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Housenumber interpolation with regularlyskippednumbers
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Randy Thomson rwtnospam-...@yahoo.com wrote: Sounds good Martin. I have about 3000-5000 houses to tag, I'll tag the beginning and ending house addresses, on each street, if you'll tag the 15-20 individual houses in between. They're in the satellite images, so it shouldn't be a problem. I'll give it a try. Send me a list of the ways. I'll set up a script to automatically create the nodes, and I'll just move them into place if they're not lined up over the houses. Or if you want, I'll give you the script. Just kidding, but hopefully you'll get the point that it's a pretty labor intensive job, and interpolation, with an appropriate skip factor would make the job a lot more likely to eventually reach completion. Or even easier and more likely to reach completion without the skip factor. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
2009/10/14 sly (sylvain letuffe) li...@letuffe.org: In the holes continuity, it as been proposed that an area representing something inside another area would still be part of a multipolygon relation but with it's own tags. no, this is not the case. Multipolygon says: the inner part is NOT part of the outer polygon. If it is part just don't put a multipolygon-relation (standard-case). this sounds great, requesting the surface of the big area is strait forward, rendering become easy (no which one is over which one), such a puzzle makes it easy to find problems, etc. no, this is a case to be solved continuously - usually if one polygon is entirely inside another the smaller one should be rendered above: this should be generally solved by the renderers. Also, it can be better in some cases not to use a solid fill but just an outline that is rendered above the fills. But, this becomes harder and harder for the mapper. A big forest containing thousands lakes ? a landuse=residential containing park, cimetary, etc. ? I fear not every one is gone a make the effort. And after all, is it at all needed ? let the mappers decide. In the area inside area case (not the partially overlapping areas case) We can resonably imagine that if a mapper has added such an area inside another, then either : - they can be both (a military area and a forest) - they can't be both (a lake and a forest) well, even in the case lake inside a forest I'm not sure, if the forest stops where there is the lake. Probably you can consider the lake also part of the forest (when it's small), or to give a different example: elementary school inside a residential area. Usually those would be considered to be part of the residential area. Maybe if we just define/explain/(do our best not to create same key incompatibility, juste like this boundary=military propose to replace the ambiguous landuse=military for some cases) Same for natural, then what we've left ? amenity? Finally almost all tags can become areas. A lake inside a forest, is not a forest sure? A cimetary inside a residential is not a residential +1 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: well, even in the case lake inside a forest I'm not sure, if the forest stops where there is the lake. Probably you can consider the lake also part of the forest (when it's small), or to give a different example: elementary school inside a residential area. Usually those would be considered to be part of the residential area. I disagree. A school site with it's buildings, playgrounds, sports fields etc can add up to a big area. Someone may want to do some calculations based on these areas. They should be as accurate as possible. I'm in the process of editing the existing residential areas in my town to go around these. It certainly makes a difference. Maybe if we just define/explain/(do our best not to create same key incompatibility, juste like this boundary=military propose to replace the ambiguous landuse=military for some cases) Same for natural, then what we've left ? amenity? Finally almost all tags can become areas. A lake inside a forest, is not a forest sure? Yes A cimetary inside a residential is not a residential +1 Then how can you include schools? Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On jeudi 15 octobre 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: no, this is not the case. Multipolygon says: the inner part is NOT part of the outer polygon. I didn't say that ;-) I said : an area representing something inside another area would still be part of a multipolygon relation (I assumed people discussing this with me are familiar with the (advanced) multipolygon proposal and have assumed I was talking about an inner role in this case.) let the mappers decide. So we do agree. My point was to stop or not to stop harrassing mappers that do not include inner polygons. and/or not updating the wiki acordingly, giving the choice, mentionning that solution. We could let decide, but give clues about what's for what. -- sly Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On jeudi 15 octobre 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: For the lake in the forest: do you agree that someone would say: the lake (pond) is in the forest? Like a way in the forest, which doesn't have trees growing on it, but still is in the forest. It is not excluded. That's a human language matter. I don't think it's good to stick a data model to verbs and words. Between them, there should be interpretation, understanding, and questions answering. That is to say, programs. The data model should be able to answer maximum human questions (with programs) Case of the lake in the forest, you could imagine multi-question to answer : - what surface is this forest ? Suppose I'm a wood lumber producer, I've got statitics about mean trees per square km. I'll surely want to exclude the lake's surface, as well as any road's surface going thru. - is the lake in a forest ? I suppose here I want to know if I can reach the lake by transporting my boat through grass fields. ... -- sly Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Anthony wrote: What happens when there's a section of forest which people are using as their residence? No matter what the size, I see these as mutually exclusive. In other words they can't both occur in the same place. I fully agree with you - as I said, I think landuse=forest should be reserved for things like tree farms, where the *use* of the land is growing trees. Whether they get mapped like that is up to the mapper depending time/fussiness. If there was an easyway to put holes in areas it would encourage mappers to do it. add a fixme=create_hole tag and a bot could go around fixing them... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
