Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On 14.03.2014 15:51, Fernando Trebien wrote: This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to specify a rendering order. That is a common misconception by people who worked with graphics editing software such as Photoshop and Corel Draw. In these applications, layers are only used for ordering and grouping of objects. As opposed to that abstract layer model, we use a pysical layer model in OSM where layer=0 means ground-level, layer0 means underground, and layer0 means above ground-level. Renderers typically use a different rendering style for underground features, e.g. dashed or greyed-out lines, or these features may even be omitted. The only way how renderers can determine whether a feature is underground is by looking at the layer tag. tunnel=* and bridge=* do not necessarily mean that a feature is underground / above ground. There was even a negative voting on this (a proposal for implying layer=-1 or 1 respectively). And the other way round, not all underground objects are tunnels or culverts. A tunnel is a way with an entrance on each end. It is not a tunnel if it has a dead end. And what about POIs and areas? It would be stupid to tag them as tunnels. The tunnel=* and bridge=* tags do help the renderers when it comes to the curved bridge and tunnel signatures, but the dashing can only depend on the layer tag. The wiki, however, states that it is wrong to tag a whole river with layer=-1. The reason for that, as far as I could figure, is because current validators (such as JOSM's or KeepRight's) will not issue a warning on a waterway x highway crossing when their layers are different, leading some users into tagging the river with layer=-1 in order to get rid of warnings about missing bridges and tunnels. The warning is ok, but the big problem with validators is that mappers mess around with the data without local knowledge, just to shut up the validator. They connect ways which are not really connected, they insert bridges and culverts that do not really exist, and so on. Among these so-called fixes, the layer=-1 on waterways are relatively harmless, because it is so obvious that they are wrong. A culvert that has been made up by a sofa mapper is much more difficult to correct, because you only know when you go there. Do you agree that the river can be tagged with layer=-1 as long as this value is correct in relation to the layer of other nearby/crossing ways? No, except for underground rivers. They do exist in karst regions... -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
Am 24/mar/2014 um 14:27 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: As opposed to that abstract layer model, we use a pysical layer model in OSM where layer=0 means ground-level, layer0 means underground, and layer0 means above ground-level. AFAIK it is not defined like this, rather it is meant to describe real world stacking (as opposed to rendering order) at a local point: when 2 objects cross the one with the higher layer is above, if both layers are equal they are on the same level cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: On 14.03.2014 15:51, Fernando Trebien wrote: This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to specify a rendering order. That is a common misconception by people who worked with graphics editing software such as Photoshop and Corel Draw. In these applications, layers are only used for ordering and grouping of objects. As opposed to that abstract layer model, we use a pysical layer model in OSM where layer=0 means ground-level, layer0 means underground, and layer0 means above ground-level. This is not written anywhere in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer Renderers typically use a different rendering style for underground features, e.g. dashed or greyed-out lines, or these features may even be omitted. The only way how renderers can determine whether a feature is underground is by looking at the layer tag. tunnel=* and bridge=* do not necessarily mean that a feature is underground / above ground. There was even a negative voting on this (a proposal for implying layer=-1 or 1 respectively). And the other way round, not all underground objects are tunnels or culverts. A tunnel is a way with an entrance on each end. It is not a tunnel if it has a dead end. And what about POIs and areas? It would be stupid to tag them as tunnels. The tunnel=* and bridge=* tags do help the renderers when it comes to the curved bridge and tunnel signatures, but the dashing can only depend on the layer tag. The concept of underground seems more closely related to the tags level and location: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:level http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location Again, no mention in the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer) to negative layer values being used to represent the idea of underground. The wiki, however, states that it is wrong to tag a whole river with layer=-1. The reason for that, as far as I could figure, is because current validators (such as JOSM's or KeepRight's) will not issue a warning on a waterway x highway crossing when their layers are different, leading some users into tagging the river with layer=-1 in order to get rid of warnings about missing bridges and tunnels. The warning is ok, but the big problem with validators is that mappers mess around with the data without local knowledge, just to shut up the validator. They connect ways which are not really connected, they insert bridges and culverts that do not really exist, and so on. Among these so-called fixes, the layer=-1 on waterways are relatively harmless, because it is so obvious that they are wrong. A culvert that has been made up by a sofa mapper is much more difficult to correct, because you only know when you go there. I understand this issue, but don't you think validators could be a little bit more clever, so that users couldn't trick them? In some previous message I described some very simple logic that would make these tricks (in this situation) impossible to work around, and this would discourage people from using layer=-1 on the rivers. Do you agree that the river can be tagged with layer=-1 as long as this value is correct in relation to the layer of other nearby/crossing ways? No, except for underground rivers. They do exist in karst regions... -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law) The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki
Wiki page about route relations[1] only has ferries for sea travel. I think we should add route=boat as a route for all kinds of boats in some specific places. One of those places would be canals like the Panama canal. Currently that canal is tagged wrongly IMHO as several ways[2] with waterway=canal. That is already wrong because some ways with waterway=canal cross the Gatun Lake. A route through a lake isn't a canal. It's a route. Those ways are in a route relation[3] with type=waterway + waterway=canal. I think those relations should be type=route, route=boat. Do we agree with this? If we do I'll add the boat route in the wiki, and change the relations and ways in the Panama canal. [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Route [2]https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/179053888 [3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2389520 Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki
I thought about deleting the route too, but there are some tags that need the route. For example those on the current route: maxdraught=*, maxheight:airdraft=*, maxwidth=*, and maybe fee=* which isn't there yet. Some of those could be put on ways, but we don't have good enough data for that. Also, the wikipedian article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal is actually about the route, not the individual canal way (not that we should map according to wikipedia). I think the route=boat relation wouldn't hurt. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Driving side
Note that the article states that many countries allow use of both left-hand-drive and right-hand-drive vehicles on their roadways, which contradicts your earlier blanket statement that you have to change vehicles when at a border between a left-hand-traffic country and a right-hand-traffic country. On March 21, 2014 4:09:59 PM CDT, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote: Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic#Driver_seating_position http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic#Restrictions_on_wrong-hand_drive_vehicles On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote: A change of driver side requires either a change of vehicle or some special vehicle that can drive on both sides. In the case of your city, driving side changes, but driver side doesn't. You could include that in the description of opposite. I wish this urban legend would die already, because I know of no place on the planet this is actually true. If this were actually true, the US Postal Service would have all of 3 vehicles in their multimillion-vehicle fleet with the steering wheel on the legal side, and an ever growing population of kei cars imported from Japan registered in Oklahoma would be banned (they are in most states because Japan's domestic vehicles don't meet crash standards in most states, whereas Oklahoma places a stronger emphasis on driver ability than vehicle crash-worthiness than most states). The seating position of the driver is merely a feature of convenience and largely up to driver preference. Most drivers prefer left hand drive in keep-right countries, and right hand drive in keep-left countries because it greatly increases visibility when overtaking. Having driven RHS vehicles in North America, I can safely say it's not impossible, but you have to really increase your run-up length to pass safely just because of the sightline when looking to overtake. Drivers who have to reach for curbside objects a lot tend to prefer RHS vehicles because they don't have to step in traffic or reach across the vehicle to, say, collect garbage, deliver mail, restripe a curb, deliver a package, etc. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Driving side
On 23.03.2014 19:23, Pieren wrote: I like the idea to use left/right on the global definition (on relation) and opposite on exceptions (on ways). It's also easier for QA tools I guess. I modified the wiki accordingly. Revert if you don't like it. I don't like it, but before I consider reverting it, I would like to understand the benefit for QA tools to make sure I didn't miss something. Could you elaborate? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki
On 24.03.2014 16:07, Janko Mihelić wrote: I thought about deleting the route too, but there are some tags that need the route. For example those on the current route: maxdraught=*, maxheight:airdraft=*, maxwidth=*, and maybe fee=* which isn't there yet. Some of those could be put on ways, but we don't have good enough data for that. Also, the wikipedian article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal is actually about the route, not the individual canal way (not that we should map according to wikipedia). I would use a type=waterway relation for the canal. I think the route=boat relation wouldn't hurt. Yes, it won't but for proper routing you need to know the waterway signs and buoys. Do you plan on subtags for different class or should be tag route=canoe, route=kayak and so on ? cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:02:35AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: On 14.03.2014 15:51, Fernando Trebien wrote: This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to specify a rendering order. That is a common misconception by people who worked with graphics editing software such as Photoshop and Corel Draw. In these applications, layers are only used for ordering and grouping of objects. As opposed to that abstract layer model, we use a pysical layer model in OSM where layer=0 means ground-level, layer0 means underground, and layer0 means above ground-level. This is not written anywhere in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer to clear up this misunderstnding, this has been a relatively recent change by me. If you look at it the wording has changed but the practical application has not. Earlier there was a longstanding mention of layer=0 as ground-level along with a complicated definition of what ground-level is supposed to be. I have changed that mainly because the way ground-level was defined was prone to interpretation problems and difficult to define better. The new formulation of the kind higher value means higher above does not need the explicit definition of ground-level. Also the definition of layer=0 as ground-level confused too many people to tag elevated roads and similar with layer=1. However, the new formulation is so that in practice layer=0 will always be ground-level except perhaps in very complicated urban areas: Ways passing above other ways on a bridge will have a higher layer value, ways passing in tunnels bellow other ways will have lower (negative) values. All ways without an explicit value are assumed to have layer 0. Again, no mention in the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer) to negative layer values being used to represent the idea of underground. not an explicit mention, but if there is an object X1 with implicit layer=0, with no level or location tags, and another object X2 with a layer=-1 than there are not too many possibilities where to find X2. It could be underground or it could be under a large overhanging rock. Both should have explicit tags to clarify the situation. No, except for underground rivers. They do exist in karst regions... we need a way to tag underground rivers and lakes. layer=-1 itself is not sufficient, we need additional tags. Perhaps tunnel=cave but this would only describe part of those phenomena. I am compiling a list of landforms and natural objects that would be worthwile to map. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki
2014-03-24 16:41 GMT+01:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: I would use a type=waterway relation for the canal. Seems good to me. Yes, it won't but for proper routing you need to know the waterway signs and buoys. But even with waterway signs and buoys you need routes. You can't tag maxdrought=* on a buoy. Do you plan on subtags for different class or should be tag route=canoe, route=kayak and so on ? I think subtags are a better idea. One route can be made for more types of marine vessels, so I think something like canoe=no, tanker=yes would be ok. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On 24.03.2014 20:45, Richard Z. wrote: On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:02:35AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: As it might be even hard to define the ground level (we just have a discussion on talk-de@ about houses built on slops), I would never say that an negative layer value is an indicator/synonym for underground. Again, no mention in the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer) to negative layer values being used to represent the idea of underground. not an explicit mention, but if there is an object X1 with implicit layer=0, with no level or location tags, and another object X2 with a layer=-1 than there are not too many possibilities where to find X2. It could be underground or it could be under a large overhanging rock. Both should have explicit tags to clarify the situation. No, except for underground rivers. They do exist in karst regions... we need a way to tag underground rivers and lakes. layer=-1 itself is not sufficient, we need additional tags. Perhaps tunnel=cave but this would only describe part of those phenomena. How about location=underground ? covered=yes is another useful tag (eg your overhanging rock) fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki
I discovered recently that route=canoe *is* in the doc, in the type=route page. Yves On 24 mars 2014 22:11:43 UTC+01:00, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-24 16:41 GMT+01:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: I would use a type=waterway relation for the canal. Seems good to me. Yes, it won't but for proper routing you need to know the waterway signs and buoys. But even with waterway signs and buoys you need routes. You can't tag maxdrought=* on a buoy. Do you plan on subtags for different class or should be tag route=canoe, route=kayak and so on ? I think subtags are a better idea. One route can be made for more types of marine vessels, so I think something like canoe=no, tanker=yes would be ok. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki
On 24.03.2014 22:11, Janko Mihelić wrote: 2014-03-24 16:41 GMT+01:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com: I would use a type=waterway relation for the canal. Seems good to me. Yes, it won't but for proper routing you need to know the waterway signs and buoys. But even with waterway signs and buoys you need routes. You can't tag maxdrought=* on a buoy. maxdraught is very special for waterways if not only for canals. In general maxheight, -width and waterdepth are the important factors. Right now your route (waterway) is quite long and some parts do not have the restrictions at all. That is why I prefer it on the ways. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki
There is a definite need for a way to indicate a route that crosses an open body of water like a lake. I came across this issue when mapping a canoe route in Alaska recently. For such a route there are portions that are footways, places where one carries the canoe from one lake to another, these are called portages, and portions that go across the lake. Currently there is no way to tag the waterway portions but one can create a relation to handle them as part of a route. The route is the Swan Lake Canoe Trails: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/60.6847/-150.6384 In the area shown the footway portions are clearly visible but the water portion, which divides in Spruce Lake, is not visible. I did not tag those waterway sections because I could not figure out how to do it short of creating artificial streams through the lakes. Clearly, something needs to be done about this. Also, I am unable to search for this route in OSM. I'm not sure why that is but it's annoying. Cheers, Dave On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:12 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 24.03.2014 22:11, Janko Mihelić wrote: 2014-03-24 16:41 GMT+01:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com: I would use a type=waterway relation for the canal. Seems good to me. Yes, it won't but for proper routing you need to know the waterway signs and buoys. But even with waterway signs and buoys you need routes. You can't tag maxdrought=* on a buoy. maxdraught is very special for waterways if not only for canals. In general maxheight, -width and waterdepth are the important factors. Right now your route (waterway) is quite long and some parts do not have the restrictions at all. That is why I prefer it on the ways. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gritting routes
On 2014-03-23 22:07, Rob Nickerson wrote: Hi All, I have some winter gritting/salting routes that I am trying to work out how best to tag them. I was thinking of creating a route relation, but I may need to add some new roles: * forward:grit implies the gritting truck grits this road whilst travelling in the direction of the way. * forward:travel implies the gritting truck drives along the direction of the way but does NOT grit it. Is this ok? What is the point in mapping roads where the gritter drives, if it is not gritting there? How is that useful for anyone? It is useful for drivers to know whether or not a road will be gritted, but it doesn't matter what order the roads are gritted, or where the truck goes before or after. I suspect most of these routes are not really fixed, different drivers could cover the roads in a different order if they wanted to. Comparing it to bus routes, you only map where the bus is actually carrying or picking up passengers, not where it is driving empty to and from the depot. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki
Dave, you can connect with a straight way across the lake with no tag, but part of the relation. Yves On 25 mars 2014 01:39:33 UTC+01:00, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: There is a definite need for a way to indicate a route that crosses an open body of water like a lake. I came across this issue when mapping a canoe route in Alaska recently. For such a route there are portions that are footways, places where one carries the canoe from one lake to another, these are called portages, and portions that go across the lake. Currently there is no way to tag the waterway portions but one can create a relation to handle them as part of a route. The route is the Swan Lake Canoe Trails: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/60.6847/-150.6384 In the area shown the footway portions are clearly visible but the water portion, which divides in Spruce Lake, is not visible. I did not tag those waterway sections because I could not figure out how to do it short of creating artificial streams through the lakes. Clearly, something needs to be done about this. Also, I am unable to search for this route in OSM. I'm not sure why that is but it's annoying. Cheers, Dave On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:12 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 24.03.2014 22:11, Janko Mihelić wrote: 2014-03-24 16:41 GMT+01:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com: I would use a type=waterway relation for the canal. Seems good to me. Yes, it won't but for proper routing you need to know the waterway signs and buoys. But even with waterway signs and buoys you need routes. You can't tag maxdrought=* on a buoy. maxdraught is very special for waterways if not only for canals. In general maxheight, -width and waterdepth are the important factors. Right now your route (waterway) is quite long and some parts do not have the restrictions at all. That is why I prefer it on the ways. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
