Re: [Tagging] Block names (vs street names) in Brasilia
On 2012-04-24 at 21:46:35 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/24/2012 2:13 PM, Alex Barth wrote: Pieren - thanks for pointing out that area=yes is highway only. How could the documentation for it be clearer [1]? It's not highway only. For example, it can be used on railway=platform: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/94063273 or man_made=pier: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/71124853 but in both cases the meaning is contrary to the default for the main tag, this feature has not been described by tracing its center line, but its perimeter -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] area=yes on polygones (was Block names)
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: It's not highway only. For example, it can be used on railway=platform: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/94063273 or man_made=pier: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/71124853 Thanks for pointing that out. I see that silently, the meaning of the tag area has been modified by certain people on the wiki. I modified the wiki about platform: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dplatform We cannot accept that the tag area=yes is required for all polygons. This has never been the case. It was introduced only when the main tag about a closed loop was non-deterministic (tracing a centre line or a perimeter). We don't do that for car parks, buildings, etc. I don't see why we should create an exception for railway platforms. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] area=yes on polygones (was Block names)
The german article still has the recommendation of adding area=yes. One of the biggest problems in the wiki is the fact, that very often articles in different languages are not really translations, but different articles. As the tag railway=platform is applicable to areas as well, according to articles in all languages, and therefore area=yes shouldn't be necessary on closed ways, I will update this note in the german article in accordance with the updated english article. Martin 2012/4/25 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: It's not highway only. For example, it can be used on railway=platform: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/94063273 or man_made=pier: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/71124853 Thanks for pointing that out. I see that silently, the meaning of the tag area has been modified by certain people on the wiki. I modified the wiki about platform: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dplatform We cannot accept that the tag area=yes is required for all polygons. This has never been the case. It was introduced only when the main tag about a closed loop was non-deterministic (tracing a centre line or a perimeter). We don't do that for car parks, buildings, etc. I don't see why we should create an exception for railway platforms. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] OSMI layers in JOSM
Hi all! I'm trying to view the OSMI layers in JOSM. The all-knowing, all-seeing trash heap pointed me to this (german) article: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=9315 There it is recommended to use the following link in JOSM: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/view/routing/wxs?REQUEST=GetMapSERVICE=wmsVERSION=1.1.1FORMAT=image/pngSRS=EPSG:4326STYLES=LAYERS=unconnected_minor1,unconnected_minor2,unconnected_minor5,unconnected_major1,unconnected_major2,unconnected_major5; This works like a charm, but with the limitations, that one has to adjust the resolution manually. Also I seem to be unable to get this layer transparent. In the article one wrote to add TRANSPARENT=TRUE to the link, but I can't get this working. Has anyone a hint for me how to get this layer transparent? Is there any possibility to autoadjust the resolution? Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] area=yes on polygones (was Block names)
On 4/25/2012 3:39 AM, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: It's not highway only. For example, it can be used on railway=platform: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/94063273 or man_made=pier: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/71124853 Thanks for pointing that out. I see that silently, the meaning of the tag area has been modified by certain people on the wiki. I modified the wiki about platform: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dplatform We cannot accept that the tag area=yes is required for all polygons. This has never been the case. It was introduced only when the main tag about a closed loop was non-deterministic (tracing a centre line or a perimeter). We don't do that for car parks, buildings, etc. I don't see why we should create an exception for railway platforms. Because a railway platform is usually drawn as a single line (as is a pier). Omitting area=yes gives a hole in the middle. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] area=yes on polygones (was Block names)
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Because a railway platform is usually drawn as a single line (as is a pier). Omitting area=yes gives a hole in the middle. Sounds tagging for the renderer... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] area=yes on polygones (was Block names)
miau. OSM does not have area object, thus it needs something to mark object as polygon. There are some tags that insist that a line/relation is filled inside. These are area=yes and type=multipolygon. All the other tags may mean either line or a polygon depending on context. Sometimes context isn't clear. (Is a circular highway a roundabout or a filled square?..) It is rather distinct that highway=*, railway=* are linear usually, and that landuse=*, amenity=*, shop=*, natural=*, area:highway=* are polygonal. However, there are some cases when it's not true, like the platform. We either need a complete machine-readable list of tags that are polygons or lines, or need to tag each object separately. For now I see just the second approach being used; telling that is't invalid without providing any reasonable fallback is a bad idea. Currently used list can be found at http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/utils/export/osm2pgsql/default.style -- Darafei Komяpa Praliaskouski OSM BY Team - http://openstreetmap.by/ xmpp:m...@komzpa.net mailto:m...@komzpa.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] area=yes on polygones (was Block names)
On 4/25/2012 4:53 AM, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: Because a railway platform is usually drawn as a single line (as is a pier). Omitting area=yes gives a hole in the middle. Sounds tagging for the renderer... Where did I mention a renderer? If you draw a closed polygon with railway=platform, that's a continuous platform with a hole in the middle. There may be a few cases of such in real life at a complicated junction. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] area=yes on polygones (was Block names)
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Komяpa m...@komzpa.net wrote: OSM does not have area object, not yet (maybe in API0.7) thus it needs something to mark object as polygon. No. Most of the polygons do not require a tag area (amenity, building, landuse, leisure, landuse). There are some tags that insist that a line/relation is filled inside. These are area=yes and type=multipolygon. Sorry, I don't understand what you try to say here. type=multipolygon is about relations or I miss something ? Sometimes context isn't clear. (Is a circular highway a roundabout or a filled square?..) Agree. This case is why the tag area has been created. It is rather distinct that highway=*, railway=* are linear usually, Hmm... railway yes, platform not sure. As many other features, platform can be represented by a node, a line or a polygon. This just depends on the contributor and his mapping level (and source accuracy and/or motivation). Same issue with people symbolizing rivers with a line and others with a polygon (and a centre line). We either need a complete machine-readable list of tags that are polygons or lines, or need to tag each object separately. For now I see just the second approach being used; telling that is't invalid without providing any reasonable fallback is a bad idea. Currently used list can be found at http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/utils/export/osm2pgsql/default.style A closed loop tagged highway requires an additional information. Until a new element type polygon is created in the futur, the area=yes makes sens here. But a closed loop for railway=platform does not require any thing more than the geometry (a closed way tagged railway=platform is always a polygon. Are you asking contributors to specially tag an object just to avoid some work in osm2pgsql (detect if the way tagged railway=platform is closed or not) ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Block names (vs street names) in Brasilia
Am 25.04.2012 08:58, schrieb Elena ``of Valhalla'': On 2012-04-24 at 21:46:35 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/24/2012 2:13 PM, Alex Barth wrote: Pieren - thanks for pointing out that area=yes is highway only. How could the documentation for it be clearer [1]? It's not highway only. For example, it can be used on railway=platform: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/94063273 or man_made=pier: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/71124853 but in both cases the meaning is contrary to the default for the main tag, this feature has not been described by tracing its center line, but its perimeter as far as I know and always have considered, that is the meaning in _all_ cases - because area was invented to differentiate between the linear and area meaning of a tag, if it is ambiguous. And it is documented - at least actually - for the use in both directions, so even to distinguish a linear feature from a default area feature (area=no). But back to the block name question, I do not think area=yes is in anyway necessary there: If you consider block as an address feature, addr:block should be used at the address itself, not at the block area in total. If you consider to describe just the block area - just the perimeter - to name it, I think place=locality on a closed polygon would be sufficient. Only if you need to describe the block as an entity - as an 'administrative object' or something like that - you need a special place= block value. Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Block names (vs street names) in Brasilia
Am 25. April 2012 12:25 schrieb Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de: as far as I know and always have considered, that is the meaning in _all_ cases - because area was invented to differentiate between the linear and area meaning of a tag, if it is ambiguous. And it is documented - at least actually - for the use in both directions, so even to distinguish a linear feature from a default area feature (area=no). +1 If you consider block as an address feature, addr:block should be used at the address itself, not at the block area in total. If you consider to describe just the block area - just the perimeter - to name it, I think place=locality on a closed polygon would be sufficient. Only if you need to describe the block as an entity - as an 'administrative object' or something like that - you need a special place= block value. -1, place=locality shouldn't be used here, because according to the wiki it is not to be used for settlements or parts of them. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Block names (vs street names) in Brasilia
Am 25.04.2012 12:29, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: -1, place=locality shouldn't be used here, because according to the wiki it is not to be used for settlements or parts of them Objection granted! I abandon this question, Your Honour! ;-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] area=yes on polygones (was Block names)
On Apr 25, 2012 1:54 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Because a railway platform is usually drawn as a single line (as is a pier). Omitting area=yes gives a hole in the middle. Sounds tagging for the renderer... If it's not incorrect, and is more specific than omission would be, is that a bad thing? In this instance specifically, I'm inclined to say no. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] OSMI layers in JOSM
To make it transparent, you can use one of the buttons under the JOSM layer pane. The pane, by default in the upper right corner, where you can move layers up and down etc. I don't have a clue about the resolution. Op 25 april 2012 10:28 schreef Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com het volgende: Hi all! I'm trying to view the OSMI layers in JOSM. The all-knowing, all-seeing trash heap pointed me to this (german) article: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=9315 There it is recommended to use the following link in JOSM: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/view/routing/wxs?REQUEST=GetMapSERVICE=wmsVERSION=1.1.1FORMAT=image/pngSRS=EPSG:4326STYLES=LAYERS=unconnected_minor1,unconnected_minor2,unconnected_minor5,unconnected_major1,unconnected_major2,unconnected_major5; This works like a charm, but with the limitations, that one has to adjust the resolution manually. Also I seem to be unable to get this layer transparent. In the article one wrote to add TRANSPARENT=TRUE to the link, but I can't get this working. Has anyone a hint for me how to get this layer transparent? Is there any possibility to autoadjust the resolution? Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
