Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal covered=yes
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I think underground is an unfortunate qualifier on tunnels, and I'd like to see it removed. no. First of all, it's inaccurate. Look at the online dictionaries. no, don't look at online dictionaries when talking about technical issues that are well defined. IMHO the online dictionaries are inaccurate at this point. Secondly, if adopted strictly, if forces the creation of a separate tag with identical functionality for the above ground case. Which does make sense. A tunnel going underground can be crossed mostly without even noticing the tunnel while a street that is covered or inside a tube at groundlevel will mostly be an uncrossable obstacle, so that the impact of this difference is huge! The functionality might in some cases be identical for who uses the tunnel / street, but it is not for the rest. cheers, Martin Obviously, I agree with Anthony that if it is necessary, layers can be used to address the crossable issue. But, it seems to me that overpassage of the tunnel itself is rarely, if ever, an issue. Even accepting that a tunnel is above ground, it has to go through something. The issue is whether you can cross over the object it goes through, not the tunnel itself, unless I'm missing something. But, assuming we only allow tunnels to be underground, how would you propose tagging a passage open to the outside at both ends, going through a building that has no side portals into the building? I did look up the definition of tunnel in my Webster's Unabridged, and will concede that, that particular dictionary did seemingly restrict it to underground. However, in the verb form it defined creating a passage under or through something. So I guess if you tunnel through an above ground object you are creating something other than a tunnel. That's supposed to make sense? Meanwhile, we probably should re-lable this thread if we take the tunnel issue much further. I'm more interested, in this thread, in resolving whether or not there is a consensus on adding a covered tag for ways (including, but not necessarily limited to the various values of highway) that, in general, at least, proceed under or through a structure in such a way that it is inappropriate to tag them at different layers than the object they are passing through, without going to a whole new complex three dimensional mapping schema. If there are no serious objections, I will add a new entry to the Properties sub-section of the Map Features page (which although it is in the Non Physical section of the page contains numerous physical properties), after which I would welcome any appropriate tweaks to the definition. -- Randy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal covered=yes
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: If a highway and a building cross at the same layer, the building should be made partially transparent so the way can be seen to be covering it. Covering it - covered by it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal covered=yes
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com wrote: Possibly just building=roof would work (not my idea, someone else suggested it). I have a much bigger preference to building=roof or building=cover on the element on the top instead of some attribute on some hypothetical element below . Adding the attribute covered=yes is not always possible, e.g. a large balcony covering only partially a river or a simple roof in farms (a open air shelter for animals or warehouse). If it is to help the renderers only, then it sounds as a synonym of tunnel=yes. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal covered=yes
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com wrote: Possibly just building=roof would work (not my idea, someone else suggested it). I have a much bigger preference to building=roof or building=cover on the element on the top instead of some attribute on some hypothetical element below . Or man_made=canopy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canopy_(building) I think I'm going with man_made=canopy. But that doesn't work for a building with a contiguous floor over a parking area, unless you split the building, in order to use multiple layer tags. The building exists at both layer=0 and layer=1. Honestly, I don't like covered=yes here. It's a hack, but unless and until there is support for true three dimensional mapping, any solution is going to be a hack. Splitting the building into two parts, one at layer=0, touching the parking area, and one at layer=1, encompassing both the area next to and under the parking area, is another solution. It's similar to what we'd do with a highway when we want it to exist at multiple layers. But it's probably unprecedented for buildings. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal covered=yes
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Splitting the building into two parts, one at layer=0, touching the parking area, and one at layer=1, encompassing both the area next to and under the parking area, is another solution. It's similar to what we'd do with a highway when we want it to exist at multiple layers. But it's probably unprecedented for buildings. Actually, that wouldn't work if the ground level itself differs from one part of the building to the other, which is something I've seen before in malls (the second floor on one side is the first floor on the other). I can't think of a proper way to map this without changing everything... I don't know. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal covered=yes
2009/10/30 Pieren pier...@gmail.com On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com wrote: Possibly just building=roof would work (not my idea, someone else suggested it). I have a much bigger preference to building=roof or building=cover on the element on the top instead of some attribute on some hypothetical element below . Adding the attribute covered=yes is not always possible, e.g. a large balcony covering only partially a river or a simple roof in farms (a open air shelter for animals or warehouse). If it is to help the renderers only, then it sounds as a synonym of tunnel=yes. +1, I agree that it would be better to map the covering object in an appropriate way, and not to indirectly map it through attributes on the covered object, e.g. in cases that a building covers a street beeing itself a bridge (those cases currently are not displayed correctly in mapnik due to a bug by design, that is even with the building beeing on level 1 and tagged as bridge=yes the street is displayed like it was on top of it). On the other hand for galleries (covering structures like in alpine areas to protect the street, but unlike a tunnel open to one or both sides) and arcades (and colonades) I would prefer to have the attribute on the road. Tunnel should be used for real tunnels and not for all kind of structures where a street is covered. Then there is a third kind of way: those that are completely inside buildings (shopping malls, generally corridors and hallways, all kind of indoor-ways). I'd like to see a Key indoor for those to stop the abusement of the tunnel-key. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal covered=yes
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/10/30 Pieren pier...@gmail.com On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com wrote: Possibly just building=roof would work (not my idea, someone else suggested it). I have a much bigger preference to building=roof or building=cover on the element on the top instead of some attribute on some hypothetical element below . Adding the attribute covered=yes is not always possible, e.g. a large balcony covering only partially a river or a simple roof in farms (a open air shelter for animals or warehouse). If it is to help the renderers only, then it sounds as a synonym of tunnel=yes. +1, I agree that it would be better to map the covering object in an appropriate way, and not to indirectly map it through attributes on the covered object, e.g. in cases that a building covers a street beeing itself a bridge (those cases currently are not displayed correctly in mapnik due to a bug by design, that is even with the building beeing on level 1 and tagged as bridge=yes the street is displayed like it was on top of it). On the other hand for galleries (covering structures like in alpine areas to protect the street, but unlike a tunnel open to one or both sides) and arcades (and colonades) I would prefer to have the attribute on the road. Tunnel should be used for real tunnels and not for all kind of structures where a street is covered. Then there is a third kind of way: those that are completely inside buildings (shopping malls, generally corridors and hallways, all kind of indoor-ways). I'd like to see a Key indoor for those to stop the abusement of the tunnel-key. cheers, Martin a) I didn't suggest using covered=yes for areas, for the reason Pieren gave, i.e. partial coverage. However, there are limited situations when I think tagging areas as covered may be appropriate, so I wouldn't want to restrict it. b) Yes, I agree that when one can clearly differentiate levels for the components involved the current layering method should be used. I also agree that abusing the use of tunnel is inappropriate. When there is unmappable access to a tunnel, such as an open side, then it is not a tunnel. c) However, as Martin agreed, there are cases where it is a misrepresentation, at the least, to map a way and a building in different layers. Take for an example a four story department floor where the first floor is undercut to allow an exterior sheltered pedestrian way. d) Is it better to proliferate tags, i.e., have separate tags for interior ways and exterior covered ways, or to have a single tag that applies to both? I can see arguments both ways, but tend to lean toward simplification. -- Randy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal covered=yes
I've come to this discussion late, because the tagging listserv is relatively new, and I haven't been monitoring it regularly. I don't have anything like a definitive suggestion to Randy's original problem or the variants added to it in the subsequent discussion, but I'd like to add something else for consideration. I'm tagging sidewalks on the University of South Florida in Tampa, and we have a number of situations where a sidewalk goes through a building. In effect, much of the ground level of the building is open to the elements, and the sidewalk goes under the second floor. Doors to offices and other rooms open onto the sidewalk. This seems to have been a style here in the 1970s. There are two variations of this. In one, the sidewalk runs between two parts of the ground floor of the building (like a tunnel). Doors (and elevators and stairways) may front onto the sidewalk as it passes through. I have been tagging portion of these sidewalk that goes through these buildings as highway=footway, tunnel=yes, because from the perspective of the sidewalk, it is a tunnel. But I've not been entirely comfortable with it. This is, I think, the situation that Randy identified, but for sidewalks. In the other, the sidewalk runs along the side of the ground floor of the building, with grass on one side, the building (often with doors opening onto the sidewalk) on the other, and the second floor of the building overhead. These have been problematic. They function as sidewalks but are not quite normal sidewalks, and they definitely are not tunnels One of the reasons I'm doing this mapping is because we want to develop a walking-route finder for students using wheelchairs. As part of this, I've been considering proposing a tag shade=*, intended to apply to a sidewalk or street (mostly sidewalks, though), with the following values based on midday shading: =trees, if the way is heavily shaded by trees (not intended for areas on a way shaded a single tree, but for a length of way with shade covering a substantial part of the length) =pergola, if the way is covered by a pergola or similar trellis with plantings dense enough to provide shade =roof if the way is covered by an awning or similar roof impervious to rain. Intended for a free-standing structure built for the purpose of covering the sidewalk =building if the way hugs the north side of a building and is shaded by it (this would apply in latitudes farther north than here--in midsummer the sun is too high) =portico if the way runs beneath a canopy, colonnade, or similar projection of the building that provides shade and shelter but, depending on the orientation of the way, might provide shade at noon and in the morning, but not in the afternoon (or vice versa). This is the value that I have been considering for the second case above (building on one side, grass on the other, second level overhead. Older parts of some European cities are full of these. Better-designed commercial developments also have extended awnings/canopies attached to the front of the buildings, shading the sidewalk that runs along the front of the shops. =none would be the implied value if shade=* is not coded, although I would understand if a mapper coded it to make a point during a hot shadeless afternoon walk. Maybe other values, but these are the ones I've encountered here, or thought about. shade=trees could apply to older streets as well as sidewalks, but I doubt the other values would apply to streets very often. Shade=trees would also apply to stretches of hiking paths (below treeline, obviously) and cycle paths, distinguishing them from stretches through meadow, rockfields, talus, etc. Useful for planning a hike. Knowing about shade would allow the eventual routing application to trade off using a slightly longer shady route vs a shorter one without shade. Because of trees, we can't just tag shade in association with a building or architectural element There are other situations, such as some of the early grand commercial arcades, that are structurally similar to the example that Anthony provided at http://images.loopnet.com/xnet/mainsite/attachments/viewImage.aspx?FileGuid=C138EA3D-33CE-4695-AA32-11C4C9C097EAExtension=jpgWidth=631Height=421 (by the way, Anthony, I like your work in detailing the commercial complex that I'd merely traced the outline for). If there were a tag for arcade or something like that, I would use it, not for shade, but because it describes the overall situation, and shade would be implied. Because of its size, location and other functions, and the orientation of the doors, the multistory lobby of new student center on the campus now functions as a sidewalk. Students routinely cut through the building on their way from places to the north, to places to the south, or vice versa. So it is a bit like an old arcade as well, but
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal covered=yes
+1 -Original Message- From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Randy Sent: 28 October 2009 21:04 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Tagging] Highway property proposal covered=yes I have run into several situations where a service road extends under a covered area, such as a building. Layering is one way to tag the building/road system, but, technically, it is not always a correct way. Example: a building on the ground is at layer 0, associated with any pedestrian ways leading to it. That building has a small ground level footprint, a small shop, a stairway, and an elevator. The second floor (first floor to many) extends over a much larger area, and a service road/parking area is under that floor, open on three sides, therefore not a tunnel. The service road should also be at the same layer as the ground floor and the pedestrian ways. The second floor is contiguous, so separating the building into two pieces one at layer 0 and one at layer 1 is also misleading. Unless the building is mapped as a complex relation of stacked layers, there is no appropriate way, that I'm aware of, to map this situation. And, from aerial photography, it's guess work to map the hidden layers, anyway. GPS surveys can also be questionable. I propose that an additional property for highway of covered=yes be used for this and similar situations, where a road extends under a building, roof attached to a building, etc. In addition to providing a proper tagging method, there is an added benefit. There has been a continuing series of rendering bug reports about roads being on top of buildings rather than under them, independent of layering. This property tag would also make it much easier for renderers to render the way differently than on top of the building (or other structure), independent of rendering sequence. My proposed rendering would be parallel dashed lines with transparent fill, similar to a tunnel, without the entries/exits being drawn. -- Randy ___ 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] Highway property proposal covered=yes
Tobias Knerr wrote: Randy wrote: I propose that an additional property for highway of covered=yes be used for this and similar situations, where a road extends under a building, roof attached to a building, etc. If I understand you correctly, this tag is supposed to be used for ways/areas that are under buildings, not for hallways, rooms etc. inside buildings. You chose an example that is clearly not a tunnel (open on three sides), though. Therefore, some additional examples: Which of the following, if any, would use covered=yes? In my opinion, http://www.bahnfotokiste.de/s_bahn/blankenese/blankenese_6.html Covered on the left, probably covered on the right, but I would have no problem with tunnel on the right. http://www.skyduck.de/In_Japan/In_Wort_Bild/Sights_Festivals/Osaka_Trip/Building.jpg Toss up. Could be covered or tunnel. (Or how about another tag road_piercing_middle_of_building=yes) Tunnel would probably be more appropriate, but considering how complex the layering is, I'd probably be lazy and just say covered. (Leave it to the Japanese :-) I was in Osaka last May, but unfortunately didn't have the privilege of gazing on this beauty. http://tobias-knerr.de/misc/osmexamples/NK_s.jpg (the always-open gate in the building in the background) I can't tell if that is a vehicle road or a pedestrian way. In either case, I'd probably call it a tunnel. http://tobias-knerr.de/misc/osmexamples/Durchlauferhitzer_s.jpg Definitely covered. The layer tagging here isn't as difficult at my case of a building with a contiguous floor over a parking area. I would have no problem tagging the pedestrian overpass as layer=1 while tagging both buildings and road as layer=0, but I'd still call this covered, not a tunnel. There is certainly some personal judgement invoked in differentiating some of these. I think of the characteristics of covered as either being wider than long, relatively open, or having some flexibility in travel direction, such as my original example (which would not apply to railed). My rendering suggestion for covered was oriented toward vehicle highways. A different rendering would be appropriate for covered cycle and pedestrian ways, as long as it distinguished them from their respective open ways. I have not attempted mapping any building interiors at this point, so don't really know if the covered=yes tag would be appropriate for non-higways or not. Also, I haven't done enough tagging in that area of waterways to feel confident saying whether I think covered would be useful in that area, either. Those are very interesting cases you showed. Thanks. -- Randy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal covered=yes
Tobias Knerr wrote: Randy wrote: I propose that an additional property for highway of covered=yes be used for this and similar situations, where a road extends under a building, roof attached to a building, etc. If I understand you correctly, this tag is supposed to be used for ways/areas that are under buildings, not for hallways, rooms etc. inside buildings. I'd like to amplify on what you said. covered=yes could be used for ways that are under something besides a building. For example, a buried power line that is covered by the ground (I couldn't find a reference to this situation under Power, and it's information of interest to excavators [maybe covered=yes, depth=1m]). An abandoned highway that is covered by a lake (information of interest to anglers). A buried gas/oil transmission line, a buried water main, etc. The concepts are a little different from what I had proposed for traveling ways, i.e., either open on some sides or not of restricted mobility as in a tunnel, but the general principle that they can't be appropriately defined by layers applies. Layer=-1 in most of these cases doesn't really define the situation, since even though a way may be at layer=-1, it isn't by default considered to be covered by the ground, and in the case of the lake, there is the issue of whether the ground that the road was built on is layer 0 or if the lake once it covered the ground is now level 0, unless you explicitly define level 0. I believe that covered=yes circumvents all of these issues. -- Randy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
