Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
On 07/04/2013 19:37, Martin Atkins wrote: Hi all, I do mapping in San Francisco, CA and I'm frustrated about the inconsistent levels of detail we typically use when mapping urban environments. It looks just fine to me, Martin. Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
I like the idea of increasing the level of detail of the streets, and I agree that this would best be done by separating the routing network from the visual presentation. I think this can, however, be done in the existing data model, which is very flexible. Further, we wouldn't need to disrupt the existing data or the renderers since the existing data is the routing network. We would just be adding presentation data, which could be used or ignored. What would be needed is some modifications in the editors (or at least JOSM, which I have more experience with), which discourage overlapping ways. And it would be helpful if the editor did some abstraction to help users cope with the more complex road structure. Dave On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Martin Atkins m...@degeneration.co.uk wrote: On 04/07/2013 11:58 AM, LM_1 wrote: In my view the streets should be more detailed - after all having the details dropped by computers is possible (even if not always easy). but detail that is not there cannot be add in any simple way. This case might depending on the precise conditions fulfil the requirements for separate direction lanes. If not some more detailed scheme would have to be used - mapping streets as areas. Eventually that will be the only viable option city centres currently mapped in high detail with only the streets being overly simplified... I wonder if the root problem is that we've conflated the idea of the physical construct of a street with its parallel in the routing network. The most complete mapping scheme would use areas to describe the physical area occupied by the sidewalks, street areas, boarding islands and other street features, and then represent the routing network as a separate schematic of ways on top of it with little or no visible impact on normal rendering. That would be very time-consuming to maintain, of course, and would essentially turn OpenStreetMap into a huge, collaboratively edited aerial photograph with a routing database alongside it. :) It seems like the current OSM data model is really designed for and best to suited the low-detail schematic mapping rather than high-detail mapping; abutting features just manifest as ways that happen to share nodes, or worse: ways that happen to just sit alongside one another and have to be maintained individually by mappers. An interesting thought experiment is what OSM might look like if it had started with a different spatial data model. For example, what if it were a graph of connected 2D polygons, like the map format of the Doom or Duke Nukem 3D game engine, or even subdividing 3D space with planes like the Quake game engine? That sort of model would favor realistic physical mapping over schematic mapping. I wonder if it's really feasible for the use-case of highly-detailed renderings and the use-case of highly-accessible collaborative editing of a basic highway network to coexist in the same system; the former is something that requires extensive effort of a single person or coordinated group, while the latter is more suitable when you have many uncoordinated people who each have comparatively little time to spend. (If Google's self-driving cars ever take off in the mainstream I guess we'll *all* have the hardware necessary to create an accurate 3D model of the world and we'll just have to figure out how to store it!) ___ 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] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
On 8 April 2013 17:51, Dave Sutter sut...@intransix.com wrote: I like the idea of increasing the level of detail of the streets, and I agree that this would best be done by separating the routing network from the visual presentation. I think this can, however, be done in the existing data model, which is very flexible. Further, we wouldn't need to disrupt the existing data or the renderers since the existing data is the routing network. We would just be adding presentation data, which could be used or ignored. I agree. There seems to be an inherit conflict between routing and rendering because the same objects are used for both. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
On 04/08/2013 01:40 PM, Markus Lindholm wrote: On 8 April 2013 17:51, Dave Sutter sut...@intransix.com mailto:sut...@intransix.com wrote: I like the idea of increasing the level of detail of the streets, and I agree that this would best be done by separating the routing network from the visual presentation. I think this can, however, be done in the existing data model, which is very flexible. Further, we wouldn't need to disrupt the existing data or the renderers since the existing data is the routing network. We would just be adding presentation data, which could be used or ignored. I agree. There seems to be an inherit conflict between routing and rendering because the same objects are used for both. Right. It seems like the schematic vs. detail tagging situation is pretty good for streets if you accept the area:highway proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/area:highway Under this proposal you have area:highway as the detail element, and the existing highway ways as the routing network element, so the two tagging schemes can easily coexist without trampling one another. I think the remaining challenge to fix the example in my initial post in this thread is to do the same thing for railways; right now ways tagged railway=rail and railway=tram are used as both network and detail, so detailed mapping of railways (the exact layout of the rails on the ground) disturbs network mapping of the railways (this railway connects to that railway, this highway contains a railway, this is where a railway and a highway meet at grade, etc). Here's my strawman for resolving this: * Treat railway=rail and railway=tram (and the other similar values) as being schematic ways, like highway ways: a single way represents the route of a number of parallel tracks, with a tracks tag just like the lanes tag on highways. For the Mapnik output, at less-detailed zoom levels, these could render as a single line just like we do for streets. * Define a tagging scheme that allows us to represent a highway containing one or more rails as a single way, for schematic purposes. (Highways can contain railways, but I can't think of any examples of the converse.) I don't have a strong opinion about the details, but I'd probably follow the lead of the trolley_wire=yes tag (which is simply there is at least one trolley wire above this highway) and then extend that using the Lanes tagging scheme where people want to provide more detail e.g. railway=tram + railway:lanes=none|tram|tram|none * Tram route relations will contain a mixture of pure railway=tram ways and railway=tram highways. * Alongside this, define a comparable scheme to the area:highway proposal for detailed mapping of the physical railway infrastructure, that uses completely separate tags from those described above that are considered only during detail rendering. I have no big interest in detail mapping so I won't try to define a tagging scheme for this here, but I'd encourage those interested in detailed rail mapping to do so. I think this proposal has the same pros and cons as the area:highway proposal, but the main advantage is the characteristic of keeping the detailed mapping separated from the schematic mapping so that both can coexist in the OSM database without trampling on one another. If people on this list are generally favourable to this then I'll write up a wiki proposal for it (though I'd delegate the detailed rail mapping to a separate proposal written by someone else), with the ultimate goal of converting San Francisco's tram rails to this simpler scheme for now, to match with the schematically-mapped streets. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
Hi all, I do mapping in San Francisco, CA and I'm frustrated about the inconsistent levels of detail we typically use when mapping urban environments. For example, most highways are mapped in a network-oriented fashion with one string of ways representing both directions of traffic, often encapsulating other features like cycle lanes and sidewalks, and intersections simply represented by crossing the streets at a single common node. On the other hand, rail lines are most commonly mapped by their physical shape, so the rail ways come in pairs. The people who mapped the tram lines in San Francisco also mapped the curves of the rails at intersections, rather than having them meet at a single node as with the highways. This creates the following ridiculous effect in rendering: http://osm.org/go/TZHvFT5aF-- Notice how the rails only just fit inside the rendered street on straight sections, and cut the street corner completely at the intersection. However, here's how it actually looks on the ground (looking across the intersection from east to west). Notice that the rails are completely contained within this 4-lane intersection (all four being normal traffic lanes with no physical separation except for the tram boarding platforms): http://oi45.tinypic.com/w6qsgh.jpg (On the plus side, we're doing better than Google Maps, whose rendering makes it look like the rails on Church street are both off to the west side of the street! http://tinyurl.com/cedot4n ) This problem shows up in various other contexts too: it's impossible to accurately tag a bench or bus stop on a sidewalk because the sidewalk doesn't exist as a separate construct. Fences or buildings directly abut the street end up rendering either over the street or set back from it because the true width of the street is not represented. For most normal street mapping and vehicle routing purposes it seems sufficient to just know simple landmark details that aid in orientation, e.g. that whether particular street contains a railway or it passes alongside a railway. Of course, more detail-oriented uses like 3D renderings it'd be more important to have the full physical street layout described, with separated lanes and proper physical relationships with surrounding objects. How have others resolved this fundamental conflict? More detailed streets, or less-detailed everything else? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
In my view the streets should be more detailed - after all having the details dropped by computers is possible (even if not always easy). but detail that is not there cannot be add in any simple way. This case might depending on the precise conditions fulfil the requirements for separate direction lanes. If not some more detailed scheme would have to be used - mapping streets as areas. Eventually that will be the only viable option city centres currently mapped in high detail with only the streets being overly simplified... Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) 2013/4/7 Martin Atkins m...@degeneration.co.uk Hi all, I do mapping in San Francisco, CA and I'm frustrated about the inconsistent levels of detail we typically use when mapping urban environments. For example, most highways are mapped in a network-oriented fashion with one string of ways representing both directions of traffic, often encapsulating other features like cycle lanes and sidewalks, and intersections simply represented by crossing the streets at a single common node. On the other hand, rail lines are most commonly mapped by their physical shape, so the rail ways come in pairs. The people who mapped the tram lines in San Francisco also mapped the curves of the rails at intersections, rather than having them meet at a single node as with the highways. This creates the following ridiculous effect in rendering: http://osm.org/go/TZHvFT5aF-- Notice how the rails only just fit inside the rendered street on straight sections, and cut the street corner completely at the intersection. However, here's how it actually looks on the ground (looking across the intersection from east to west). Notice that the rails are completely contained within this 4-lane intersection (all four being normal traffic lanes with no physical separation except for the tram boarding platforms): http://oi45.tinypic.com/**w6qsgh.jpghttp://oi45.tinypic.com/w6qsgh.jpg (On the plus side, we're doing better than Google Maps, whose rendering makes it look like the rails on Church street are both off to the west side of the street! http://tinyurl.com/cedot4n ) This problem shows up in various other contexts too: it's impossible to accurately tag a bench or bus stop on a sidewalk because the sidewalk doesn't exist as a separate construct. Fences or buildings directly abut the street end up rendering either over the street or set back from it because the true width of the street is not represented. For most normal street mapping and vehicle routing purposes it seems sufficient to just know simple landmark details that aid in orientation, e.g. that whether particular street contains a railway or it passes alongside a railway. Of course, more detail-oriented uses like 3D renderings it'd be more important to have the full physical street layout described, with separated lanes and proper physical relationships with surrounding objects. How have others resolved this fundamental conflict? More detailed streets, or less-detailed everything else? __**_ 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
Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
I do some mapping in SF too. The Muni Metro lines weirded me out when I first saw it, and I looked up the proper practice on the wiki as well as looking for a few examples in Europe, and it seems that the best practice is to just add railway tags and the proper relations to the street whenever it runs along a street, and as a way by itself when it runs in its own right-of-way (such as the J line's jog around a hill a little south of Dolores Park). I'd support mapping the Muni Metro lines the European/more common way, if nobody else has any objections. On Apr 7, 2013 1:38 PM, Martin Atkins m...@degeneration.co.uk wrote: Hi all, I do mapping in San Francisco, CA and I'm frustrated about the inconsistent levels of detail we typically use when mapping urban environments. For example, most highways are mapped in a network-oriented fashion with one string of ways representing both directions of traffic, often encapsulating other features like cycle lanes and sidewalks, and intersections simply represented by crossing the streets at a single common node. On the other hand, rail lines are most commonly mapped by their physical shape, so the rail ways come in pairs. The people who mapped the tram lines in San Francisco also mapped the curves of the rails at intersections, rather than having them meet at a single node as with the highways. This creates the following ridiculous effect in rendering: http://osm.org/go/TZHvFT5aF-- Notice how the rails only just fit inside the rendered street on straight sections, and cut the street corner completely at the intersection. However, here's how it actually looks on the ground (looking across the intersection from east to west). Notice that the rails are completely contained within this 4-lane intersection (all four being normal traffic lanes with no physical separation except for the tram boarding platforms): http://oi45.tinypic.com/**w6qsgh.jpghttp://oi45.tinypic.com/w6qsgh.jpg (On the plus side, we're doing better than Google Maps, whose rendering makes it look like the rails on Church street are both off to the west side of the street! http://tinyurl.com/cedot4n ) This problem shows up in various other contexts too: it's impossible to accurately tag a bench or bus stop on a sidewalk because the sidewalk doesn't exist as a separate construct. Fences or buildings directly abut the street end up rendering either over the street or set back from it because the true width of the street is not represented. For most normal street mapping and vehicle routing purposes it seems sufficient to just know simple landmark details that aid in orientation, e.g. that whether particular street contains a railway or it passes alongside a railway. Of course, more detail-oriented uses like 3D renderings it'd be more important to have the full physical street layout described, with separated lanes and proper physical relationships with surrounding objects. How have others resolved this fundamental conflict? More detailed streets, or less-detailed everything else? __**_ 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
Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
You can always make a rendering with the streets drawn wider at zoom 18. That would solve most of the problems. Mapping all the street as a series of parallel lines or areas will just make a large mess of data that is a pain to decipher. It only really adds value at very high zoom, and it isn't a good idea to add complexity that can't be easily ignored. On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Martin Atkins m...@degeneration.co.ukwrote: Hi all, I do mapping in San Francisco, CA and I'm frustrated about the inconsistent levels of detail we typically use when mapping urban environments. For example, most highways are mapped in a network-oriented fashion with one string of ways representing both directions of traffic, often encapsulating other features like cycle lanes and sidewalks, and intersections simply represented by crossing the streets at a single common node. On the other hand, rail lines are most commonly mapped by their physical shape, so the rail ways come in pairs. The people who mapped the tram lines in San Francisco also mapped the curves of the rails at intersections, rather than having them meet at a single node as with the highways. This creates the following ridiculous effect in rendering: http://osm.org/go/TZHvFT5aF-- Notice how the rails only just fit inside the rendered street on straight sections, and cut the street corner completely at the intersection. However, here's how it actually looks on the ground (looking across the intersection from east to west). Notice that the rails are completely contained within this 4-lane intersection (all four being normal traffic lanes with no physical separation except for the tram boarding platforms): http://oi45.tinypic.com/**w6qsgh.jpghttp://oi45.tinypic.com/w6qsgh.jpg (On the plus side, we're doing better than Google Maps, whose rendering makes it look like the rails on Church street are both off to the west side of the street! http://tinyurl.com/cedot4n ) This problem shows up in various other contexts too: it's impossible to accurately tag a bench or bus stop on a sidewalk because the sidewalk doesn't exist as a separate construct. Fences or buildings directly abut the street end up rendering either over the street or set back from it because the true width of the street is not represented. For most normal street mapping and vehicle routing purposes it seems sufficient to just know simple landmark details that aid in orientation, e.g. that whether particular street contains a railway or it passes alongside a railway. Of course, more detail-oriented uses like 3D renderings it'd be more important to have the full physical street layout described, with separated lanes and proper physical relationships with surrounding objects. How have others resolved this fundamental conflict? More detailed streets, or less-detailed everything else? __**_ 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
Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
On 04/07/2013 11:58 AM, LM_1 wrote: In my view the streets should be more detailed - after all having the details dropped by computers is possible (even if not always easy). but detail that is not there cannot be add in any simple way. This case might depending on the precise conditions fulfil the requirements for separate direction lanes. If not some more detailed scheme would have to be used - mapping streets as areas. Eventually that will be the only viable option city centres currently mapped in high detail with only the streets being overly simplified... I wonder if the root problem is that we've conflated the idea of the physical construct of a street with its parallel in the routing network. The most complete mapping scheme would use areas to describe the physical area occupied by the sidewalks, street areas, boarding islands and other street features, and then represent the routing network as a separate schematic of ways on top of it with little or no visible impact on normal rendering. That would be very time-consuming to maintain, of course, and would essentially turn OpenStreetMap into a huge, collaboratively edited aerial photograph with a routing database alongside it. :) It seems like the current OSM data model is really designed for and best to suited the low-detail schematic mapping rather than high-detail mapping; abutting features just manifest as ways that happen to share nodes, or worse: ways that happen to just sit alongside one another and have to be maintained individually by mappers. An interesting thought experiment is what OSM might look like if it had started with a different spatial data model. For example, what if it were a graph of connected 2D polygons, like the map format of the Doom or Duke Nukem 3D game engine, or even subdividing 3D space with planes like the Quake game engine? That sort of model would favor realistic physical mapping over schematic mapping. I wonder if it's really feasible for the use-case of highly-detailed renderings and the use-case of highly-accessible collaborative editing of a basic highway network to coexist in the same system; the former is something that requires extensive effort of a single person or coordinated group, while the latter is more suitable when you have many uncoordinated people who each have comparatively little time to spend. (If Google's self-driving cars ever take off in the mainstream I guess we'll *all* have the hardware necessary to create an accurate 3D model of the world and we'll just have to figure out how to store it!) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
On 7 April 2013 20:37, Martin Atkins m...@degeneration.co.uk wrote: How have others resolved this fundamental conflict? More detailed streets, or less-detailed everything else? I'd say more detailed mapping. Looking at the picture I think it's obvious that Duboce Avenue should be mapped as two separate highways, placed on each side of the railways. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: You can always make a rendering with the streets drawn wider at zoom 18. That would solve most of the problems. Mapping all the street as a series of parallel lines or areas will just make a large mess of data that is a pain to decipher. It only really adds value at very high zoom, and it isn't a good idea to add complexity that can't be easily ignored. On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Martin Atkins m...@degeneration.co.ukwrote: Hi all, I do mapping in San Francisco, CA and I'm frustrated about the inconsistent levels of detail we typically use when mapping urban environments. For example, most highways are mapped in a network-oriented fashion with one string of ways representing both directions of traffic, often encapsulating other features like cycle lanes and sidewalks, and intersections simply represented by crossing the streets at a single common node. On the other hand, rail lines are most commonly mapped by their physical shape, so the rail ways come in pairs. The people who mapped the tram lines in San Francisco also mapped the curves of the rails at intersections, rather than having them meet at a single node as with the highways. This creates the following ridiculous effect in rendering: http://osm.org/go/TZHvFT5aF-- Notice how the rails only just fit inside the rendered street on straight sections, and cut the street corner completely at the intersection. However, here's how it actually looks on the ground (looking across the intersection from east to west). Notice that the rails are completely contained within this 4-lane intersection (all four being normal traffic lanes with no physical separation except for the tram boarding platforms): http://oi45.tinypic.com/**w6qsgh.jpghttp://oi45.tinypic.com/w6qsgh.jpg (On the plus side, we're doing better than Google Maps, whose rendering makes it look like the rails on Church street are both off to the west side of the street! http://tinyurl.com/cedot4n ) This problem shows up in various other contexts too: it's impossible to accurately tag a bench or bus stop on a sidewalk because the sidewalk doesn't exist as a separate construct. Fences or buildings directly abut the street end up rendering either over the street or set back from it because the true width of the street is not represented. For most normal street mapping and vehicle routing purposes it seems sufficient to just know simple landmark details that aid in orientation, e.g. that whether particular street contains a railway or it passes alongside a railway. Of course, more detail-oriented uses like 3D renderings it'd be more important to have the full physical street layout described, with separated lanes and proper physical relationships with surrounding objects. How have others resolved this fundamental conflict? More detailed streets, or less-detailed everything else? __**_ 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 The rendering convention that I have seen on most non-OSM maps is to show rail lines as a single cross-hatched line, regardless of the number of tracks, except for switching yards. The latter have multiple tracks shown, although usually fewer tracks than are physically present, since that level of detail isn't practical at a normal mapping scale. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for it is better to think wrongly than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
On 04/07/2013 12:13 PM, Clay Smalley wrote: I do some mapping in SF too. The Muni Metro lines weirded me out when I first saw it, and I looked up the proper practice on the wiki as well as looking for a few examples in Europe, and it seems that the best practice is to just add railway tags and the proper relations to the street whenever it runs along a street, and as a way by itself when it runs in its own right-of-way (such as the J line's jog around a hill a little south of Dolores Park). I'd support mapping the Muni Metro lines the European/more common way, if nobody else has any objections. I was actually leaning towards that too... that is, tagging the street as also being a railway, and representing the double-tracked off-road segments as a single way each. It's more consistent with how the highway network is tagged right now, and there are a lot more highways than there are railways in San Francisco. However, I'm hesitant to destroy the detailed work done by other mappers, both because that's disrespectful to the time they invested and because those details interact with other objects in the map that would also have to have their detail reduced. For example, a mapper has represented the fact that there is a physical wall between the two tracks as they enter the subway tunnel just to the east of the intersection I showed. At the same time, we lack the tagging required to do a detailed modeling of the physical street layout today, and even if we had such a tagging scheme I'm not sure that many mappers would have the time or energy to implement it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
I would see the root problem in the fact that osm has bigger scope that most other maps - from low detail overview maps to very detailed (almost aerial photograph level) city plans. Describing physical area occupied by different features seems to me like the only perspective possibility - With the more abstract features - lanes, streets being represented by relations. That way the routing database would not be alonside it, but would be directly contained in it. The drawback being more processing required to mine useful routing data from the database. LM_1 2013/4/7 Martin Atkins m...@degeneration.co.uk On 04/07/2013 11:58 AM, LM_1 wrote: In my view the streets should be more detailed - after all having the details dropped by computers is possible (even if not always easy). but detail that is not there cannot be add in any simple way. This case might depending on the precise conditions fulfil the requirements for separate direction lanes. If not some more detailed scheme would have to be used - mapping streets as areas. Eventually that will be the only viable option city centres currently mapped in high detail with only the streets being overly simplified... I wonder if the root problem is that we've conflated the idea of the physical construct of a street with its parallel in the routing network. The most complete mapping scheme would use areas to describe the physical area occupied by the sidewalks, street areas, boarding islands and other street features, and then represent the routing network as a separate schematic of ways on top of it with little or no visible impact on normal rendering. That would be very time-consuming to maintain, of course, and would essentially turn OpenStreetMap into a huge, collaboratively edited aerial photograph with a routing database alongside it. :) It seems like the current OSM data model is really designed for and best to suited the low-detail schematic mapping rather than high-detail mapping; abutting features just manifest as ways that happen to share nodes, or worse: ways that happen to just sit alongside one another and have to be maintained individually by mappers. An interesting thought experiment is what OSM might look like if it had started with a different spatial data model. For example, what if it were a graph of connected 2D polygons, like the map format of the Doom or Duke Nukem 3D game engine, or even subdividing 3D space with planes like the Quake game engine? That sort of model would favor realistic physical mapping over schematic mapping. I wonder if it's really feasible for the use-case of highly-detailed renderings and the use-case of highly-accessible collaborative editing of a basic highway network to coexist in the same system; the former is something that requires extensive effort of a single person or coordinated group, while the latter is more suitable when you have many uncoordinated people who each have comparatively little time to spend. (If Google's self-driving cars ever take off in the mainstream I guess we'll *all* have the hardware necessary to create an accurate 3D model of the world and we'll just have to figure out how to store it!) __**_ 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
Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
On 04/07/2013 01:36 PM, Markus Lindholm wrote: On 7 April 2013 20:37, Martin Atkins m...@degeneration.co.uk mailto:m...@degeneration.co.uk wrote: How have others resolved this fundamental conflict? More detailed streets, or less-detailed everything else? I'd say more detailed mapping. Looking at the picture I think it's obvious that Duboce Avenue should be mapped as two separate highways, placed on each side of the railways. The photo misleads because the boarding islands make it look like there is a separation between the railway and the roadway. In practice this is only true next to the boarding islands; almost all of the tracking in this area runs on lanes that are also open to traffic, shaped like this: | | | | | | | | /|\ | /|\| | | | | | | | | Autos | Autos+Trams | Autos+Trams | Autos | | | | | | | | | \|/ | \|/ | | | | | | | | For much of the journey of these trams there is only a strip of paint separating these lanes, not any physical barrier. It seems weird to treat this like a separated highway when there is actually no separation... drivers are free to switch lanes, make u-turns, make left turns into side streets from the Autos+Trams lane, etc at any point along the road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
Hi! 2013/4/7 Martin Atkins m...@degeneration.co.uk For much of the journey of these trams there is only a strip of paint separating these lanes, not any physical barrier. It seems weird to treat this like a separated highway when there is actually no separation... drivers are free to switch lanes, make u-turns, make left turns into side streets from the Autos+Trams lane, etc at any point along the road. Neither popular nor rendered anywhere but possible, in-line with the lanes-extension [1] and it gives exact information about the layout of the street: railway:lanes:forward=tram|no railway:lanes:backward=tram|no regards, Martin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
Am 07/apr/2013 um 22:55 schrieb Martin Atkins m...@degeneration.co.uk: The photo misleads because the boarding islands make it look like there is a separation between the railway and the roadway. In practice this is only true next to the boarding islands; Then the highway should be split for the part that runs next to the boarding island. AFAIK the European mapping way for all railway incl. trams is to have one way for each track, rather then adding railway tags to the highway, to keep the objects distinct. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
As you are talking about rendering of the roads. I am actually looking at this for the new cartoCSS mapnik style for osm.org. Currently we have several omissions in the mapping for level 18. I think 'all' roads just use the width for the level17 zoom. This is unrealitisic and misleding. I am working on 'correcting' this for level18 and tidying up all other zoom levels. There are many enhancements to be gained. Also relating directly to this I am looking add lanes too. So the width of the rendered roads will reflected by the amount of lanes. So a 8 lane motorway will have a thicker line width that will much better reflect the real world and give the more instant graphical impression of major roads on all/many zoom levels. But early days so far to get the rendering looking right and the complexities of the tunnels, bridges, construction tags for these ways and what to do/look best when, for example, 8 lane road split into two 3 lane roads. Maybe even show in the rendering road markings for the lanes. But the biggest task I feel will be trying to getting to any change anything on osm.org.:( But I am going more off topic. Hopefully rendering the examples in this thread will be improved in the future. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements
Hi! Am 08.04.2013 um 04:44 schrieb John Baker rovas...@hotmail.com: As you are talking about rendering of the roads. I am actually looking at this for the new cartoCSS mapnik style for osm.org. Have you had a look at the style Lane and road attributes for JOSM? I know it's not a cartoCSS style but it demonstrates how a detailed road rendering could look like and with the additional capabilities of cartoCSS you should also be able to solve the connection problem, i.e. if the number of lanes changes. It's sad that we don't have a common style language for (at least) the major editors and renderers. Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
