Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OSM is a right mess
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 6/4/15 11:53 AM, AYTOUN RALPH wrote: The oneway=yes, oneway=no conundrum.. put yourself in the position where you are looking at a road ahead of you. It is only wide enough for one vehicle but has passing bays along it's length. It is not wide enough to be a conventional twoway road so can it be tagged twoway? That would give the impression that cars can progress along it in opposite directions at the same timethat would be incorrect. But neither direction has the right of way and it is up to driver discretion and politeness as to who will reverse back to the passing bay. So oneway=no but twoway is not necessary yes. i've used lanes=1 and omitted oneway in these cases richard Surely here the point is that the oneway tag describes the *legalities* of use, rather than the physical setup. oneway=yes means you are only permitted to travel in one direction along this way, not this way has one lane. Equally, oneway=no doesn't imply anything about the number of lanes, and would be entirely correct (if generally redundant) tagging on a single-lane road. This is why I think oneway is a suitable tag but twoway would not be -- the two might imply a set number of lanes which might not match what's on the ground. Hence the lanes tag. Thanks, David (user Pgd81) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] OSM is a right mess (was: Craigslist OpenStreetMap Rendering Issue)
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:33 AM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: On 4 June 2015 at 10:46, David Fisher djfishe...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/06/15 00:48, pmailkeey . wrote: A value of residential here seems to need a key to identify whether it relates to a building or landuse. However, you suggest building=residential as possibly being redundant. In fact, I'd turn this on its head and make landuse=residential (with the exception of moles) redundant. The only residential landuse is directly under a building but by using landuse=residential, such areas cover gardens and highways - which are clearly not residences. The tag is landuse = residenTIAL, not landuse = residenCE. In other words, as Lester Caine says, it demarcates a residential zone, i.e. an area containing (mostly) homes plus associated infrastructure such as parks, gardens etc, as opposed to an area of shops, offices, industry, farmland, or whatever else. I agree with some of your frustrations about the project, but I think you sometimes jump to negative conclusions too quickly. landuse=residential is clearly useful, and equally I don't see that directions=xx is any improvement on oneway=xx. Pick your battles! (e.g. amenity I agree is a right mess.) LOL ! The issue with the 'oneway' key is that the key itself contains 'data' relating to the value. Oneway without a value would imply =yes whereas building without a value (or =yes) would give data independent of the value, IYSWIM building= hospital= The latter describes the building without the need for a value. I note your TIAL v CE above. Why do we need to know what the landuse is in any case ? I do see what you mean. I think the difference is that building = x in some sense defines the presence of the object, as does highway = x on a way. So, if building = x is not set (presumably on a circular way), or if highway = x is not set (presumably on a linear way), then those ways are just collections of nodes, nothing more. But oneway = x defines a *characteristic* of a way. A way must fundamentally *be* something (e.g. a building or a highway), but it may nor may not have any number of characteristics which don't alter that fundamental *being*. The only sensible way to deal with *characteristics* (other than insisting that every way has hundreds of tags) is to assume defaults. oneway=no (that is, there are no legal restrictions on the direction in which one must traverse a way) seems a sensible default to me, and therefore if the oneway tag is not set, the way defaults to two-way. As I said in a separate post, though, oneway does not imply anything about number of lanes, who has priority, and so on. Does that make sense? (there are always exceptions, of course, but that's how I see the overarching philosophy.) As for landuse=residential -- I agree that we could probably do without it. But it does add to the readability of the map, especially at low zoom levels, as it enables you to see at a glance where places are and how big they are. Personally I'm an advocate of covering the majority of the map (not necessarily 100%) with some form of landuse area, e.g. residential, industrial, grass/meadow/parkland, farmland, etc. -- though I appreciate that not everyone shares that view. Cheers, David (user Pgd81). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] OSM is a right mess (was: Craigslist OpenStreetMap Rendering Issue)
On 04/06/15 00:48, pmailkeey . wrote: A value of residential here seems to need a key to identify whether it relates to a building or landuse. However, you suggest building=residential as possibly being redundant. In fact, I'd turn this on its head and make landuse=residential (with the exception of moles) redundant. The only residential landuse is directly under a building but by using landuse=residential, such areas cover gardens and highways - which are clearly not residences. The tag is landuse = residenTIAL, not landuse = residenCE. In other words, as Lester Caine says, it demarcates a residential zone, i.e. an area containing (mostly) homes plus associated infrastructure such as parks, gardens etc, as opposed to an area of shops, offices, industry, farmland, or whatever else. I agree with some of your frustrations about the project, but I think you sometimes jump to negative conclusions too quickly. landuse=residential is clearly useful, and equally I don't see that directions=xx is any improvement on oneway=xx. Pick your battles! (e.g. amenity I agree is a right mess.) Cheers, David (user Pgd81). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging
Croydon Tramlink is one counter-example, and I'd concede that someone has done great work in accurately mapping the path of it that I wouldn't want to destroy, but it is sadly completely disconnected from the highway network, and that is what I'd like to address. As a Croydon mapper myself who has made changes to the tramlink network... firstly thanks for noticing that it looks OK! It's by no means all my own work, but I like to think I've done my bit :) There's actually only one stretch which is relevant to this debate: the Addiscombe Road section between East Croydon and Sandilands (I presume it is this section you refer to when you say completely disconnected from the highway network?). All the other on-highway parts are only single-track, so are easily represented by a single way with nodes merged with the highway. Anyway. My two cents, for what it's worth: I am strongly in favour of mapping highways and railways differently (one way per separated piece of tarmac for roads; one way per rail for railways). One form of compromise, however, could be to treat specifically on-highway rail systems with the highway protocol. Or, maybe for multi-rail on-highway sections, map them as separate ways (cf Addiscombe Road tramlink) and use a relation just to cover these sections? I realise this is not ideal for cities with a large proportion of such sections, but long-term it may be a way to maintain detail whilst limiting complexity (since relations would not be needed for *every* section, just shared sections). Cheers, David Fisher. On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Martin Atkins m...@degeneration.co.ukwrote: On 04/13/2013 10:18 AM, Rovastar wrote: Martin, The example you gave for tunnels and bridges are the same for roads as well. If you have a bridge or tunnel with 2 roads (one for each one-way) and a train line(s) and footpath each will be a tagged with a separate bridge. So in that regard rail is actually are consistent with the road network. Point taken: it is a general problem with bridge tagging, not one with railway tagging. I found some discussions on the wiki about modelling bridges as areas that would address this, but I don't really have any interest in mapping bridges in particular, so example retracted for the purpose of this discussion. Also you say you want it better for simple mapping and other can do more detailed mapping if they want to. I see no part of your proposal to add additional tracks like is now yet you imply in the posts here that it is. If you do think this then it doesn't not help the crossing example you gave as we will have the same problem again. I have not described a way to describe the actual routes of tracks; I lack the expertise (or interest, frankly) to describe that next level of detail, I just propose that we separate that next level of detail from this simpler level of detail, rather than using the same tags for both. I've seen the area:highway proposal for mapping the detailed shape of streets, sidewalks and footways. My assumption was that this proposal could be extrapolated to include a similar model for railways, modeling the precise shapes of the trackbed the rails run along, the positions of the individual tracks within that trackbed, etc. If I were trying to define such a thing my first thought would be to define a new way tag to mean the exact path of a track and use separate ways from the simple route network. e.g. railway:track=rail . I've not spent nearly as much time pulling that idea apart as I have my simple route-oriented proposal, so I'm sure someone who knows more about railways than I do could find examples where that doesn't apply, but it's a strawman to start with. I could also compromise on making the schematic network be the thing that gets new tags, but I think it's tough to say whether it's better to suggest re-tagging detail work in dense areas where there are evidently lots of avid mappers at work (and the re-tagging could thus happen relatively quickly), or to suggest re-tagging the basic network in areas where there is less detail and there are fewer (or no) active mappers. Do you propose that we change *all* the currently mapped multi track rails to conform to your new standard? e.g. here there are hundreds of tracks/railways which IMHO accurately reflects what is on the ground. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?**lat=51.47119lon=-0.14847** zoom=15layers=Mhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.47119lon=-0.14847zoom=15layers=M Under my proposal it wouldn't do any harm to leave existing detailed tagging in place where the railway doesn't cross the highway, since a railway way represents one or more tracks, and that holds for the example you showed. Optionally one could add tracks=1 to the existing ways to make it very clear. The converse is not true: if you define that a railway way represents exactly one track, then there's lots of work to do to turn miles
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging
Sorry, yes, one way per track, of course. Was writing hurriedly. Thanks, David. On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 9:06 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote: David Fisher djfishe...@gmail.com wrote: Croydon Tramlink is one counter-example, and I'd concede that someone has done great work in accurately mapping the path of it that I wouldn't want to destroy, but it is sadly completely disconnected from the highway network, and that is what I'd like to address. As a Croydon mapper myself who has made changes to the tramlink network... firstly thanks for noticing that it looks OK! It's by no means all my own work, but I like to think I've done my bit :) There's actually only one stretch which is relevant to this debate: the Addiscombe Road section between East Croydon and Sandilands (I presume it is this section you refer to when you say completely disconnected from the highway network?). All the other on-highway parts are only single-track, so are easily represented by a single way with nodes merged with the highway. Anyway. My two cents, for what it's worth: I am strongly in favour of mapping highways and railways differently (one way per separated piece of tarmac for roads; one way per rail for railways). One form of compromise, however, could be to treat specifically on-highway rail systems with the highway protocol. Or, maybe for multi-rail on-highway sections, map them as separate ways (cf Addiscombe Road tramlink) and use a relation just to cover these sections? I realise this is not ideal for cities with a large proportion of such sections, but long-term it may be a way to maintain detail whilst limiting complexity (since relations would not be needed for *every* section, just shared sections). Cheers, David Fisher. On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Martin Atkins m...@degeneration.co.ukwrote: On 04/13/2013 10:18 AM, Rovastar wrote: Martin, The example you gave for tunnels and bridges are the same for roads as well. If you have a bridge or tunnel with 2 roads (one for each one-way) and a train line(s) and footpath each will be a tagged with a separate bridge. So in that regard rail is actually are consistent with the road network. Point taken: it is a general problem with bridge tagging, not one with railway tagging. I found some discussions on the wiki about modelling bridges as areas that would address this, but I don't really have any interest in mapping bridges in particular, so example retracted for the purpose of this discussion. Also you say you want it better for simple mapping and other can do more detailed mapping if they want to. I see no part of your proposal to add additional tracks like is now yet you imply in the posts here that it is. If you do think this then it doesn't not help the crossing example you gave as we will have the same problem again. I have not described a way to describe the actual routes of tracks; I lack the expertise (or interest, frankly) to describe that next level of detail, I just propose that we separate that next level of detail from this simpler level of detail, rather than using the same tags for both. I've seen the area:highway proposal for mapping the detailed shape of streets, sidewalks and footways. My assumption was that this proposal could be extrapolated to include a similar model for railways, modeling the precise shapes of the trackbed the rails run along, the positions of the individual tracks within that trackbed, etc. If I were trying to define such a thing my first thought would be to define a new way tag to mean the exact path of a track and use separate ways from the simple route network. e.g. railway:track=rail . I've not spent nearly as much time pulling that idea apart as I have my simple route-oriented proposal, so I'm sure someone who knows more about railways than I do could find examples where that doesn't apply, but it's a strawman to start with. I could also compromise on making the schematic network be the thing that gets new tags, but I think it's tough to say whether it's better to suggest re-tagging detail work in dense areas where there are evidently lots of avid mappers at work (and the re-tagging could thus happen relatively quickly), or to suggest re-tagging the basic network in areas where there is less detail and there are fewer (or no) active mappers. Do you propose that we change *all* the currently mapped multi track rails to conform to your new standard? e.g. here there are hundreds of tracks/railways which IMHO accurately reflects what is on the ground. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?**lat=51.47119lon=-0.14847** zoom=15layers=Mhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.47119lon=-0.14847zoom=15layers=M Under my proposal it wouldn't do any harm to leave existing detailed tagging in place where the railway doesn't cross the highway, since a railway way represents one or more tracks, and that holds for the example
Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider
Yes, when I first read through this thread I was thinking hang on, what's the fuss about? Solid lines don't stop you entering or exiting adjoining premises! But apparently this is not true in many countries of the world. You learn something new every day, etc. So this thread does not apply to the UK, but it's an interesting issue nonetheless :) On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-08-20 at 14:09:28 +0200, Peter Wendorff wrote: You are allowed to cross a solid line, providing it is safe, to enter ajoining premises or a side road. In cases where this is prohibited there will be a sign and this should be tagged with a turn restrictions. In Germany that's not the case. You're not allowed to cross a solid line. the same applies to Italy. Usually in the case of a side road there will be a vertical sign for convenience, but not for ajoining premises. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=residential in rural areas
Thanks all. In my current changeset ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12777484) I've gone with landuse=residential for the whole parcel (at least wherever its extent is obvious) and with leisure=garden, garden=residential, access=private for the grounds. On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:32 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.comwrote: As others have said, I usually tag the entire parcel, as long as it's not used for farming. I'd somewhat like a way to tag low-density rural residential land-use, but as it is I think the absence of a thick network of residential streets is a decent clue that one isn't looking at a built-up area. ___ 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] landuse=residential in rural areas
Hi all, I'm currently entering some survey data from my summer holiday (in rural England). Living in a city, tagging landuse=residential is straightfoward; but in the countryside houses often have large grounds attached to them, and even fields. In particular there are quite a few rows of houses following a highway, which have enormous gardens/grounds/fields behind them. I can see the logic of abutters=residential for this, but I understand that this has been deprecated. So how should landuse=residential be applied in these circumstances? Intuitively I'd like to just use it around the immediate environs of the houses (to include e.g. any kitchen-garden, garage, outbuildings etc), since tagging the whole lot (grounds and all) as landuse=residential would (to me) imply a large built-up area which does not actually exist. But I realise I'm running the risk of tagging-for-the-renderer accusations here ;-) I've read this previous thread [1] and the associated wiki page, but it seems to be concerned with urban areas and small plots of land, whereas I'm talking about much larger areas in rural settings. Maybe this doesn't matter, though... what do people think? Thanks in advance, David (user Pgd81). [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-May/007700.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
Well, ok, I probably didn't state that very clearly. My point was that the ITO map is an example of the usefulness of counting the total number of tracks, regardless of how the counting is actually achieved. Also, my point about 'sniping' and 'mediation' was that the issue of an OSM member not behaving in a manner another thinks fit is a separate issue from that of how to represent multiple railway tracks as part of a single route. But I accept that his behaviour was both your original reason for contacting him and the reason for starting this thread, so fair enough. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 14/08/2012 10:39, David Fisher wrote: -- as RM also correctly points out, knowledge of the total number of running tracks on a stretch of railway is useful for operational reasons, as shown in the ITO map.. Actually the ITO map doesn't represent total numbers. It's representing the wiki use of the tracks= tag. Dave F. __**_ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
