Re: [Tagging] Mountain passes
2011/2/14 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=36.76925,-82.20018z=16t=T If this isn't mountain_pass=yes, what should it be mapped as? IMHO natural=pass would be the most logical way to do it. Natural describes in it's vast majority geographical features as which I would see a pass as well. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mountain passes
2011/2/14 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: That was the start of the discussion in 2007, but was changed due to the changes (around the same time) of highway=tunnel / highway=bridge to tunnel=yes / bridge=yes - so using the same logic for passes seemed like a good idea then ... Ah, yes, good point. Although it's slightly complicated by a pass theoretically being a point rather than a stretch of road. And that presumably makes it hard to render - you'd need to work out which way the point is oriented. IMHO you don't. Simply render Simplonpass, 2005 m at the given point in a pleasant font. Done. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mountain passes
Am 14.02.2011 13:40, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: 2011/2/14 Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com: http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=36.76925,-82.20018z=16t=T If this isn't mountain_pass=yes, what should it be mapped as? IMHO natural=pass would be the most logical way to do it. Natural describes in it's vast majority geographical features as which I would see a pass as well. While I agree that this would be logical, the crowd has chosen otherwise ... Regards, ULFL ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mountain passes
Am 14.02.2011 14:22, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: 2011/2/14 Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com: On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: That was the start of the discussion in 2007, but was changed due to the changes (around the same time) of highway=tunnel / highway=bridge to tunnel=yes / bridge=yes - so using the same logic for passes seemed like a good idea then ... Ah, yes, good point. Although it's slightly complicated by a pass theoretically being a point rather than a stretch of road. And that presumably makes it hard to render - you'd need to work out which way the point is oriented. IMHO you don't. Simply render Simplonpass, 2005 m at the given point in a pleasant font. Done. Rendering a single point and a label is often found on topological maps. For street maps, you'll usually have a bridge like symbol which needs an orientation of the corresponding way to be drawn properly (as Osmarender is already doing). Obviously, it would be much better than nothing if mapnik at least would just render a point with a label ... :-) Regards, ULFL ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mountain passes
On 2/14/2011 4:05 PM, yvecai wrote: Actually, Mapnik would render a 'pointSymbolizer', how would it look like? Just a label could be enough. Why not simply use the same style as place=locality? They fit the definition (in fact there seems to be no reason not to apply that tag to passes other than redundancy). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mountain passes
Am 14.02.2011 22:22, schrieb Nathan Edgars II: On 2/14/2011 4:05 PM, yvecai wrote: Actually, Mapnik would render a 'pointSymbolizer', how would it look like? Just a label could be enough. Why not simply use the same style as place=locality? Because I would like to see the elevation in the label - at least in higher zoomlevels. Basically the same behaviour as natural=peak would be my favourite. They fit the definition (in fact there seems to be no reason not to apply that tag to passes other than redundancy). Well, tagging every unpopulated named place with place=locality is really misleading. A football stadium is usually unpopulated and has a name :-) If we have a specific tag for a specific feature we shouldn't add more generic stuff to it IMHO. Makes it more difficult to render without a real benefit. Regards, ULFL ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mountain passes
2011/2/14 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com: Because I would like to see the elevation in the label - at least in higher zoomlevels. Basically the same behaviour as natural=peak would be my favourite. +1 If we have a specific tag for a specific feature we shouldn't add more generic stuff to it IMHO. Makes it more difficult to render without a real benefit. +1. It is an unpopulated place, but more detail is better, and passes deserve their own tag IMHO. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mountain passes
2011/2/13 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mountain_pass passes only make sense on ways. But it's possible to have a pass with no way crossing it (not even an informal footpath) or with multiple ways crossing (a dual carriageway, or parallel highway and railway). How should these cases be handled? no, it is IMHO not possible that a pass has no way that crosses it, otherwise it wouldn't be a pass. If there is more then 1 one way I guess you would have to tag all of them. Maybe natural=pass (or mountain_pass) on a node might be more logical for the feature if you bear in mind that the wiki suggests to tag ele with it. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mountain passes
I guess this partly comes down to the questions of how you define a way, and how you define a pass. If a particular pass becomes little-used, because a tunnel or a lower pass provides an easier way to get past the mountains, does that make it stop being a pass? What if the pass is a boundary between two nations, and the border crossing is closed because one or both nations don't maintain a customs station there? Does that make the pass stop being a pass, in the geographic, rather than political, sense? ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Mountain passes From :mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com Date :Sun Feb 13 13:36:08 America/Chicago 2011 2011/2/13 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mountain_pass passes only make sense on ways. But it's possible to have a pass with no way crossing it (not even an informal footpath) or with multiple ways crossing (a dual carriageway, or parallel highway and railway). How should these cases be handled? no, it is IMHO not possible that a pass has no way that crosses it, otherwise it wouldn't be a pass. If there is more then 1 one way I guess you would have to tag all of them. Maybe natural=pass (or mountain_pass) on a node might be more logical for the feature if you bear in mind that the wiki suggests to tag ele with it. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mountain passes
Am 13.02.2011 20:57, schrieb j...@jfeldredge.com: I guess this partly comes down to the questions of how you define a way, and how you define a pass. If a particular pass becomes little-used, because a tunnel or a lower pass provides an easier way to get past the mountains, does that make it stop being a pass? What if the pass is a boundary between two nations, and the border crossing is closed because one or both nations don't maintain a customs station there? Does that make the pass stop being a pass, in the geographic, rather than political, sense? ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Mountain passes From :mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com Date :Sun Feb 13 13:36:08 America/Chicago 2011 2011/2/13 Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com: According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mountain_pass passes only make sense on ways. But it's possible to have a pass with no way crossing it (not even an informal footpath) or with multiple ways crossing (a dual carriageway, or parallel highway and railway). How should these cases be handled? no, it is IMHO not possible that a pass has no way that crosses it, otherwise it wouldn't be a pass. In the narrower sense you are correct, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Col_de_Bretolet A pass (french: Col) that has no way to either side, but a way over a ridge from the Col de Cou ;-) If there is more then 1 one way I guess you would have to tag all of them. Especially in the U.S., I've seen some dual carriageways with two pass nodes, e.g.: http://osm.org/go/T2U0CV8Ye-?layers=O Maybe natural=pass (or mountain_pass) on a node might be more logical for the feature if you bear in mind that the wiki suggests to tag ele with it. The underlying problem what makes a pass a pass is *very* difficult to answer, e.g. there's a lengthy Wikipedia discussion about it. If a pass is closed due to political differences but there's a way over it, this is an easy one (mountain_pass=yes and access=no). The difficult question: What is generally a way in this regard? If you can travel the pass by car, 4*4, horse, MTB, hiking, via ferrata or extreme sports? If you read the wiki page, it started in 2007 with highway=pass, so you can see that I (and others) basically had roads in mind when I've wrote it (and no one at that time seemed to even mention passes with no way). In practice today, a lot of nodes with mountain_pass=yes are tagged, where you don't see any way nearby (maybe from imports?), and a lot of nodes on hiking trails, roads, etc. So today in OSM a mountain_pass=yes denotes the geographical feature in the wider sense (german: Scharte, Sattel, Joch, ...), not the narrow definition of being a passage on a way. Regards, ULFL P.S: What bugs me more is the (not so un)common practice to put the node near the way (where the sign is?) and not exactly on the road. This makes it difficult for renderers to detect the kind of way a pass provides ... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mountain passes
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: P.S: What bugs me more is the (not so un)common practice to put the node near the way (where the sign is?) and not exactly on the road. This makes it difficult for renderers to detect the kind of way a pass provides ... That makes sense if you think of a pass being a locality (we had a picnic up at the pass) rather than a particular road feature (we drove over the pass). I would probably do the same thing, naïvely. Probably a more intuitive tag would have been highway=mountain_pass (like highway=turning_circle...) Also, it doesn't look like Mapnik actually does render it? http://osm.org/go/znyo7Chj2-- Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mountain passes
On 2/13/2011 6:07 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: That makes sense if you think of a pass being a locality (we had a picnic up at the pass) rather than a particular road feature (we drove over the pass). I would probably do the same thing, naïvely. Probably a more intuitive tag would have been highway=mountain_pass (like highway=turning_circle...) That assumes it's only a highway thing, and railways don't cross passes. As for a pass not being a pass if nothing crosses it, that appears to be false. For example, Merriam-Webster defines wind gap as a pass not occupied by a stream, and I've certainly come across named wind gaps on topos with no highway of any sort crossing. Here are two examples, Meetinghouse Gap and Wooten Gap in Virginia: http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=36.76925,-82.20018z=16t=T If this isn't mountain_pass=yes, what should it be mapped as? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mountain passes
Am 14.02.2011 00:07, schrieb Steve Bennett: On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ulf Lampingulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: P.S: What bugs me more is the (not so un)common practice to put the node near the way (where the sign is?) and not exactly on the road. This makes it difficult for renderers to detect the kind of way a pass provides ... That makes sense if you think of a pass being a locality (we had a picnic up at the pass) rather than a particular road feature (we drove over the pass). I would probably do the same thing, naïvely. Probably a more intuitive tag would have been highway=mountain_pass (like highway=turning_circle...) That was the start of the discussion in 2007, but was changed due to the changes (around the same time) of highway=tunnel / highway=bridge to tunnel=yes / bridge=yes - so using the same logic for passes seemed like a good idea then ... Anyway, every solution has it's pros and cons here. Also, it doesn't look like Mapnik actually does render it? http://osm.org/go/znyo7Chj2-- AFAIK, only osmarender at (too?) high zoom levels (from z15) and JOSM renders it. I would be glad, if Mapnik would render this as well. The same zoomlevels and logic as for peaks (icon, name, ele at different zoomlevels) would make sense for me ... Regards, ULFL ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mountain passes
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: That was the start of the discussion in 2007, but was changed due to the changes (around the same time) of highway=tunnel / highway=bridge to tunnel=yes / bridge=yes - so using the same logic for passes seemed like a good idea then ... Ah, yes, good point. Although it's slightly complicated by a pass theoretically being a point rather than a stretch of road. And that presumably makes it hard to render - you'd need to work out which way the point is oriented. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
