Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification
On 05/27/2011 09:06 AM, Richard Welty wrote: if you peruse the wiki, and make a reasonably through search for definitions of trunk in the US, you will find an extensive complex of contradictions and inconsistencies. Maybe someone should find all these and bring it up on the list so that a definition can be determined and the inconsistencies can be fixed? Just saying “the definition is inconsistent so I’ll just use my own interpretation” isn’t very constructive. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Tracks and there place in society
On 05/24/2011 01:49 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Um, we have that already. For physical tags, we have: highway=footway, or highway=cycleway, or highway=bridleway, or highway=track See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, call it a duck. It’s unfortunate then that footways, cycleways, and bridleways, and even some tracks, all fall within the same range of appearance. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM data used for X-Plane 10
I just saw this blog post yesterday, saying that OSM data will be used for showing road networks in the terrain data for the X-Plane flight simulator in version 10. http://www.x-plane.com/blog/2011/04/openstreetmap-and-x-plane-10/ Cool stuff! —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM data used for X-Plane 10
On 04/18/2011 11:03 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Yes, that's cool. There is also a screenshot here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page No, that’s a screenshot of data imported using OSM2XP. OSM2XP is a third-party tool which imports buildings and certain scenery objects into X-Plane. It doesn’t touch the roads. Integration of OSM roads into X-Plane proper is new. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Zero tolerance on imports
On 02/21/2011 11:26 AM, Kevin Peat wrote: The point isn't whether or not your tool will create correct route relations but what the point of doing that would be. I can understand creating route relations for long distance cycling/hiking paths that people actually want to navigate and historic routes (Route 66 comes to mind as a non-American) but what is the point of creating a route relation for every highway? Getting highway shields to render, for one. No-one gets up in the morning and decides to navigate State Highway 483 from one end to the other and even if they did a decent routing engine could create the route on the fly, so adding it to OSM is a waste of time and would just add pointless complexity to the data-set. No one? Really? Pretty sure that some people do in fact do this sort of thing… —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Tags for waterways
On 01/31/2011 03:54 PM, Chris Moss wrote: 2. That page says issues include is it navigable by powered craft? but I can't find the relevant tag. Key:boat only relates to access as far as I can see, not to the type of boat. This could be canoe, rowing boat, powered boat, ship, ... Is this important? Sure, see: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access section Water-based transportation ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On 01/12/2011 11:39 AM, Anthony wrote: Which I suppose is one of my main questions. If a way is tagged with highway=road, and nothing else, should a router route motor vehicle traffic down it? I would think the answer is yes, which means that paths which are not meant for motor vehicle traffic shouldn't be tagged with highway=road. Well, nothing should end up tagged as highway=road, it’s an interim tag only. It means exactly “we don’t know what this is, except it looks like a road from the aerial photos”: It could be private or pedestrian-only, there could be a gate or one-way spike strips, or bollards (rising or otherwise), or any number of other things which make it unsuitable for routing. So at best it could be routed with strong “use at your own risk” warnings. But in general it’s probably best if routers do not send people down them. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On 01/09/2011 12:01 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: No. highway=unsurfaced could be what's now commonly tagged as highway=track, or highway=unclassified, or highway=bridleway. Only one of those three is a road. Which one were you thinking of? I count two road types in your list: highway=track and highway=unclassified. And it could be other highway=* types too. It’s still better to use highway=road even if it turns out to be a bridleway, because highway=road is basically “we don’t know what it is, only that there’s something there; this needs to be (re-)surveyed”. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On 01/10/2011 11:27 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Alex Mauer wrote: Which one were you thinking of? I count two road types in your list: highway=track and highway=unclassified. And it could be other highway=* types too. highway=track doesn't imply a road round here; clearly YMV. Sounds like the usage is wrong “round there” then. The example image on the wiki[1] clearly shows a road, and one which is pretty typical of a highway=track around here (green grassy field aside, given that it’s winter here) Obviously I can't speak for (and don't really care about) your part of the world, but I would consider a mass change of highway=unsurfaced to highway=road in the UK as vandalism, and would take steps to revert it. That seems quite extreme: while it might be better to do a best-guess+fixme, it’s not clearly “wrong” to change from one form of unknown road classification, to another form of unknown road classification. —Alex Mauer “hawke” 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fr%C3%BChlingslandschft_Aaretal_Schweiz.jpg ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Creating relations for abandoned railway lines
On 01/10/2011 10:23 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff operator = Elgin Belvidere Electric Co. This should be unabbreviated: Elgin and Belvidere Electric Company. “” is not an abbreviation, so it should be “Elgin Belvidere Electric Company” —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Creating relations for abandoned railway lines
On 01/10/2011 11:05 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: “” is not an abbreviation, so it should be “Elgin Belvidere Electric Company” Say what? http://books.google.com/books?id=FI0pYAAJpg=PA390 Ah, indeed. The company is in fact called “Elgin and Belvidere Electric Company”. I had assumed that the name was correctly “Elgin Belvidere”. Were that the case, it would be wrong to replace “” with “and” on the mistaken idea that “” is an abbreviation. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway tagging (was Re: highway shields: get your kicks, where?)
On 01/05/2011 09:50 AM, Richard Weait wrote: On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: Not sure if you’re looking for commentary on the shield overlay in general, but it seems like it has some problems. Take a look at I-39/US-51 here[1]. Only one shield for I-39 until you scroll all the way south to Bloomington, IL. I don’t know if that’s because it’s prioritizing US shields over interstate shields or what, but it should show both at equal frequency. It also seems like there are way too many US-51 shields. When more than one relation is shared on a way, the shield placement is sensitive to relative way-length, and starting points. Zoom in a bit and you get alternating shields. You have to zoom in quite a bit (z11) to start seeing I-39 regularly. It makes it quite a bit harder to follow the route. The correct way to do this will be to find co-incident relations, and build a combined shield to place at each shield location, rather then alternating positions. This scales better for multiple co-incident relations. And it looks great. It seems to me that the correct way is to actually alternate positions…at zoom 9 you see one I-39 shield near Wausau, and then bunches of US-51 shields as you go south. I’m sure that building a combined shield would also do the job though, as long as it doesn’t end up too wide. I've added state routes in several states. Check your favorite places in CA, CO, NH, NY, OH, MA, and a few others (so far). I also added some shields in Australia the other day. Ah, I only looked in WI. I’d give the shields a black outline rather than putting them on a solid black box. I understand that others will make different rendering choices when they build their styles. ;-) I have nothing against the die-cut style of US shield, but the ones I see posted on the roads 'round here have the black rectangular background. I think CA still uses the die-cut shield. Do others? As NE2 said, the black background is common on standalone signs but the die-cut style is used on the green guide signs [1]. I find the black corners distracting, and it loses the distinctive shape of the US sign. It also looks sort of like the artifacts you see when text has the wrong-color background or a colored background instead of a transparent one. Maybe try just a black outline on the shaped shield, or even just beveling the corners of the black outline? —Alex Mauer “hawke” 1. http://www.aaroads.com/delaware/delaware010/us-040_eb_at_de-001_sb.jpg ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway tagging (was Re: highway shields: get your kicks, where?)
On 01/04/2011 10:49 AM, Richard Weait wrote: Then let me make this point absolutely clear. Don't look at the background layer. It doesn't matter at all. Look at the shield overlay. The shield overlay could be added to any rendering layer. Not sure if you’re looking for commentary on the shield overlay in general, but it seems like it has some problems. Take a look at I-39/US-51 here[1]. Only one shield for I-39 until you scroll all the way south to Bloomington, IL. I don’t know if that’s because it’s prioritizing US shields over interstate shields or what, but it should show both at equal frequency. It also seems like there are way too many US-51 shields. I assume it’s not expected to display state routes, at least not yet. I’d give the shields a black outline rather than putting them on a solid black box. Other than that it looks great. —Alex Mauer “hawke” 1. http://weait.com:8080/map/shield2.html?zoom=9lat=44.90346lon=-89.61928layers=0BTT ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Divided diamond interchanges in the US
I recently stumbled upon an article[1] about the new use of the divided diamond interchange design in the US. It seems that the first one[2] is here[3] in Missouri and as yet unmapped. A second one in the same city is here[4], and it appears that the old interchange hasn’t been mapped either. Aerial photos on Google and Yahoo are both out of date, so I can’t map them myself. Is anyone in that area and able to update these interchanges? —Alex Mauer “hawke” 1. http://www.core77.com/blog/technology/video_visualization_of_a_new_type_of_traffic-improving_intersection_17734.asp 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diverging_diamond_interchange#Use_in_North_America 3. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.24975lon=-93.31073zoom=15layers=M 4. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.24975lon=-93.31073zoom=15layers=M ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/26/2010 10:50 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: The actual size of a circular 7 shield generated by Mapnik. Yeah, but is it set in stone that it Cannot Be Larger Than It Is Now? I doubt it. And I feel that gaining the ability to have state-specific shields is worth giving up a tiny bit of space. Is it not possible to render an icon at any size we want? Yes, if it’s too big it will not work on the map, but I think 20×20 is quite reasonable (and readable). It's a tradeoff where bigger shields reduce the space for other features. Sure, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t adjust to give a little more space to highway shields. Not that we have to or should follow the lead of other map sites, but it seems like 17×17 is a pretty bare minimum. Mapquest US highway: 24×22 Mapquest Interstate: 22×23 Mapquest generic state: 22×18 Google US highway: 22×22 Google Interstate: 20×21 Google generic state: 24×16 Yahoo US highway: 17×17 Yahoo Interstate: 17×18 Yahoo generic state: 22×13 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/26/2010 12:15 PM, Richard Weait wrote: These rendering decisions are completely unrelated to the discussion of how shields might best be tagged. This portion of the thread clearly moved on to a different but related topic as soon as someone said “Some shields are poorly-designed for display in a limited number of pixels”. Thanks though. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/26/2010 12:42 PM, Anthony wrote: As for the question of tagging, basically you can use relations, or you can hack something up to simulate relations (specifically, to handle the very common situation where there is more than one route using the same way) without actually using relations. I haven’t seen anyone say that route relations are not the way to go. Have you? Then there's the question of how to render it. Probably something to discuss on a different list, like a mapnik-specific one. Why? It’s a mostly US-specific problem, though I hear that at least shield rendering is also desired in Australia. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/23/2010 10:46 AM, Ian Dees wrote: On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.comwrote: Because we're not in Europe? The common way to visually specify the difference between our roads is with shields. Every single nav product I've interacted with (Google Maps, MapQuest, Bing, Garmin, TomTom, and Google Navigation to name a few) display the blue/red shields for interstates, white with black outline shields for US routes, round white circles for county roads, etc. They don't display the prefix (but they may use them in routing). Having the prefix in the ref does not preclude displaying it as a shield. Much as it’s easier to store the long form and render an abbreviation, it’s easier to strip the prefix than to add it later. Also, some people insist that certain states do absolutely need the prefix; in particular Michigan [1]. So dealing with having a prefix in the ref is pretty much guaranteed to be a requirement no matter what. —Alex Mauer “hawke” 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Highway_System#Usage ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/25/2010 02:44 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: * Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net [2010-10-25 12:44 -0500]: So dealing with having a prefix in the ref is pretty much guaranteed to be a requirement no matter what. Not strictly. Having a prefix in the rendering is important, but that can be synthesized from the other tags in every suggestion that's been made. I totally agree. My point is just that some people and some states (Michigan, Kansas) feel that the prefix itself is an important part of the reference number: “The M in the state highway numbers is an integral part of the designation…Michigan highways are properly referred to using the M and never as ‘Route 28’ or ‘Highway 28’”. Personally, I think it’s a bit silly, but then I’m not a resident of either of those states. (I can imagine similar objections being raised if someone proposed removing M-, A- and B- in Britain, and simply inferring them from the highway=* type.) —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/25/2010 04:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I totally agree. My point is just that some people and some states (Michigan, Kansas) feel that the prefix itself is an important part of the reference number: “The M in the state highway numbers is an integral part of the designation…Michigan highways are properly referred to using the M and never as ‘Route 28’ or ‘Highway 28’”. It's part of the name when you're talking about the route, just like one would say I-95 or US 1. It's not part of the designation as shown in shields, either on the ground or on maps. Oh, really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M-28.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Highway_System ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Amenity key
On 10/22/2010 03:16 PM, David Murn wrote: On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 19:06 +0200, Claudius wrote: You could propose that footpaths should no longer use the highway= tag, as they’re not highways, using a similar argument. Sure they are. From Wikipedia: A highway is a public road, especially a major road connecting two or more destinations. Traditionally highways were used by people on foot or on horses. In English law, […] the term is used to denote any public road used which include streets, lanes as well as main road, trunk roads and motorways In American law, the word highway is sometimes used to denote any public way used for travel, whether major highway, freeway, turnpike, street, lane, alley, pathway, dirt track, footpaths, and trails, and navigable waterways. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
On 10/21/2010 07:12 PM, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/21/2010 08:06 AM, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Greg Troxelg...@ir.bbn.comwrote: So if we have whole-multiple-counties=5 (eg NYC) county=6 township=7 city/town=8 then it would make sense everywhere. What would be an example of a township that would be at admin_level=7? I don’t have a specific, named example, but see pages 8-32–8-35 of http://www.census.gov/geo/www/GARM/Ch8GARM.pdf It’s not about whether they do that much; it’s about whether they’re administered by a government. School boards are a part of the government yes, but they’re don’t govern the districts that they cover. Absolutely they do. In some (most) cases, you’re right, although it does vary from state to state. They are special-purpose governments though. The point of admin_level is *not* primarily to record which governments are above another. It’s to indicate which governments across different countries and states are (approximately) equivalent. Then we shouldn't use numbers, or if we're going to use numbers we should assign those numbers in random order. Huh? Why? What do you propose instead? Please don’t say “use the name of the entity”, because we already have a key that does that (border_type) and it would make it a nightmare to make a consistent international map. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 03:47 PM, Anthony wrote: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_civil_division So far all (three) of the states I've checked fit fine with admin_level=6 for county equivalent, and admin_level=8 for municipality. I’ve recorded what I’ve found at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level along with some relevant references. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 03:59 PM, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Anthonyo...@inbox.org wrote: At the very least it would be nice to have a table outlining exactly what municipality or minor civil division means for each state. Is there one somewhere already? Should I start one? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_municipalities Can someone please turn off my need to constantly enter a capatcha (User:User_5528)? You can stop this by using interwiki links like [[wikipedia:Page on wikipedia]] instead of external links like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page on wikipedia]. You’ll still need to use the CAPTCHA for other external links though. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 03:59 PM, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Anthonyo...@inbox.org wrote: At the very least it would be nice to have a table outlining exactly what municipality or minor civil division means for each state. Is there one somewhere already? Should I start one? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_municipalities Can someone please turn off my need to constantly enter a capatcha (User:User_5528)? Is it because you’re adding external references? That always triggers a CAPTCHA… —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 02:42 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: Perhaps we need to shift the discussion to actually figuring out a better replacement for place=*? place=incorporated? I’d try to find something that wouldn’t exclude unincorporated communities ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_area#United_States ) —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 05:37 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Why can't something with admin_level=x cross a border with admin_level less than x? There are a lot of cities that are in more than one county. Agreed, though I think New York City is a special case since it actually encompasses several counties rather than simply being a part of several counties. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 05:51 PM, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: I’d put town at 7, city and village at 8, based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_New_York#Town and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_New_York#Village Specifically, Villages are a third layer of government, which are usually overlaid inside a town, and co-administer with the town, county, and state. and To be incorporated, the area of the proposed village must have at least 500 inhabitants and not be part of an existing city or village. I don't know. Cities are neither part of nor subordinate to towns except for the city of Sherrill, which for some purposes is treated as if it were a village of the town of Vernon. If you're going to use 7 and 8, wouldn't 7 be city/town, and 8 be village? (Or, IMO more consistent with the rest of the US, 8=city/town and 9=village)? I would, but villages are (by my understanding) closer to what any other municipality is in the rest of the US. I don’t think/know that a lower level (higher number) admin_level necessarily implies that it must be, or can be, within a higher level (lower number) admin_level. They’re just there to give an indication of equivalence. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/18/2010 04:54 PM, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/18/2010 04:41 PM, Anthony wrote: And, in fact, that attitude is exactly why the maps currently suck. And having no shields at all is a big improvent. Oh, wait, it’s not. No, it's a step toward fixing the current mess. No, fixing the renderers is what’s needed to fix the current “mess”. In what strange alternate universe do you live where deleting valid information which is stored following the current documented system, is not vandalism? First of all, the ref tags aren't valid. The numbers are references of *routes*, not of *ways*. The numbers are references of neither. “ways” is a concept built by openstreetmap, and has no true analogue in the real world. You could equally say “the name tags aren’t valid; the names are references of *streets*, not of *ways*”. But that’s both silly and irrelevant. We have to apply the tags we have to the elements we have. So just like applying a name= tag to a way to say “this way is part of the street named foo”, we must apply a ref= tag to a way to say “this way is part of the route with reference foo” in order to get it to show up on the map. It’s what we’ve got for now; until we have something better we have to live with it. Secondly, they are redundant. In what strange alternative universe do you live in where deleting redundant information is vandalism? The world we actually live in, where sometimes you need redundant data in order to be able to make use of it. At some point (hopefully) the renderers will be able to handle ref tags on route relations. At that point, the documentation can be updated to note that applying ref tags to ways is deprecated (at least for routes, which AFAIK is the only current use of ref tags on ways). Only then do ref tags on ways becomes *extraneous* as well as redundant, and they can reasonably be removed. And at that time I’ll be happy to be among the first to start deleting them. Fix the renderers first. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/19/2010 02:06 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/18/2010 04:54 PM, Anthony wrote: First of all, the ref tags aren't valid. The numbers are references of *routes*, not of *ways*. [snip] You could equally say “the name tags aren’t valid; the names are references of *streets*, not of *ways*”. I could, and I have, actually. And I agree that street relations are a better option in the long run, if a little silly for the majority of cases where a street consists of a single way (and also a usability nightmare in editors). But I also don’t think that removing the names from every way in the hopes that someone will notice the problem and fix the renderer would be the right way to go. Same for ref tags. until we have something better we have to live with it. In terms of routes, we do have something better. Route relations. We don’t have something better. We have the *start* of something better. Fix the renderers first. Don't tag for the renderer. That’s not tagging for the renderer. “Tagging for the renderer” would be if I wanted my fenceline to show up as a blue line at a low zoom level, so I might it highway=motorway. That’s wrong. Tagging something accurately, but also applying something which is not your pet schema, is not wrong, and is not “tagging for the renderer”. No matter how much you may wish it were otherwise, part of the current standard system is to apply ref=* to the ways which make up the route. Once the route relation is better, I’m sure people will start using that instead, and stop using the current system. —Alex Mauer “hawke”. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/18/2010 09:53 PM, Peter Budny wrote: Ian Deesian.d...@gmail.com writes: On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: For relations I agree, but for ways this doesn’t work. And as renderers can only handle ways for now… This is a data project, not a renderer project. It’s actually kinda both. Without the renderers, the data is useless (at least for making a map—analysis is still useful) If the renderers aren't doing the right thing then we need to make them do the right thing. +1 +1 from me as well. Continuing to use ref= tags at all when we have relations that represent a much cleaner way to tag roads is a terrible case of tagging for the renderer. I think it's premature to remove ref tags, but I don't see any point in adding them to new ways, rather than just creating a relation. If you want them to actually appear on this map we’re making, you kind of need to add them to new ways until renderers support the new system. If you don’t care whether or not they appear on the map, what’s the point of adding them? —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/19/2010 02:37 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: And I agree that street relations are a better option in the long run, if a little silly for the majority of cases where a street consists of a single way (and also a usability nightmare in editors). But I also don’t think that removing the names from every way in the hopes that someone will notice the problem and fix the renderer would be the right way to go. I certainly wouldn't recommend removing the names from the ways until you have the names in the relations. At the point where you do, sure, they should be removed. The idea that no one will ever create a renderer which uses the names in the relations is ludicrous. Agreed, but that does us little good when we’re trying to make a map in the present, using the tools we have now. It would be trivial to write a preparser snip explanation Sounds good. Why hasn’t it been done, then? No matter how much you may wish it were otherwise, part of the current standard system is to apply ref=* to the ways which make up the route. Once the route relation is better, I’m sure people will start using that instead, and stop using the current system. What about the route relation needs to be improved? Renderer support, and a decision about how to handle mixed dual/single-carriageway roads. Should it be one relation per direction plus a super-relation, or one relation with roles? In either case, validator support needs improvement. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/19/2010 03:09 PM, Anthony wrote: Agreed, but that does us little good when we’re trying to make a map in the present, using the tools we have now. That's not what I'm trying to do, because I don't see the point in trying to do that. …you may want to consider some other project, then. It would be trivial to write a preparsersnip explanation Sounds good. Why hasn’t it been done, then? Because it's unnecessary, because no one has removed the ref tags from the ways. Sure, it’s unnecessary…unless you want people to stop applying the ref tags to ways. It's also more difficult to write the preparser when you have contradictory information on the ways. Part of the process of removing the information from the ways would be to reconcile inconsistencies and decide which of the two pieces of information is correct and which is incorrect. Not necessary. Use the route relation and ignore the way ref data. Or if you’re particularly ambitious, just combine the two, ignoring duplicates and you’re good. So a way which was tagged WI-66 and a member of a relation tagged with network=US:WI + ref=66 would end up with two final-rendering ref values (One WI-66, one US:WI 66). It’s not the end of the world, and I am quite certain that it’d get fixed PDQ. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/19/2010 03:27 PM, Toby Murray wrote: So to get back to the basics of this thread... I think we can all agree that we should (and are) using relations to represent highway routes and that we need to get renderer support for route relations ASAP. +1 So then the question is what tags to use on relations. All documented long ago at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route (especially http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Tags ) There does seem to be some debate about county roads. I would probably throw my vote in with something like network=US:KS:Riley Yup, there’s debate about that. I’d prefer something like US:KS:CTH or US:KS:COUNTY. Or even US:KS:CR, though I don’t like the two-character code as it looks just like a state abbreviation. IMO, connecting the road to the county should be done with a relation (super-relation actually) between the route and the boundary of the applicable county. I do have one question: Is it acceptable/proper to have a name=* tag on a relation? I have seen it on some and have actually used it a couple of times - for example name=KS 18 It is incorrect on a route relation unless it does have a name, like “The Joe Q. Bloggs Memorial Parkway” or something like that. The only advantage I see is that it makes things easier to read in editors and when browsing data since the name tag is used when displaying relations in lists or listing what relations a way is part of instead of just showing the numeric ID. But this is a case of tagging for tools so I could see reasonable objections to it. Exactly. The tools should be improved. The interface for relations in josm (not sure about potlatch) is atrocious. Let's focus on getting a concrete system in place that we can go beat the rendering people over the head with. I think if we as a US community come out with a solid plan and say we need this now people will listen. We’ve had one for a long time. What’s needed is for someone to do the hard (“trivial” as Anthony would say) work of actually making use of the plan. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/19/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote: What project would you recommend? I'm looking for a project that creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them. Not one that makes maps in the present, using the tools we have now. Well, presumably you’d want to start your own. That way it can always be a perfect system in the future, never actually producing a map with the tools that you have in the present. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/19/2010 03:58 PM, Peter Budny wrote: For example, Kansas highway 18: type = route route = road network = US:KS ref = 18 (optional?) symbol=* tag Also an optional wikipedia link. There does seem to be some debate about county roads. I would probably throw my vote in with something like network=US:KS:Riley The county name needs to be in there, otherwise you can't tell two county roads apart which use the same number. (Analogously, you wouldn't put US:STATE... how would you know which state?) A relation with the boundary relation. This could be done with US:STATE as well, but I think the use of the postal abbreviation for states is well-established while this is not the case for counties. You could also add a link to an SVG icon for the shield rendering into the county boundary relation, so it would only be need to be changed in once place. (I know linking to such things is a little iffy though) I don't see any advantage to abbreviating the county name... that just seems like more effort for mappers, with no real payback. (I certainly don't know abbreviations for all 159 counties in Georgia.) +1. However, there are many stretches of road that are designated Col. John Q Public Memorial Highway or something like that. It only applies to part of the route (the whole route through a state, or maybe just a bridge or an intersection). In that case, it belongs on the ways, not the route. Yup, or on another route relation. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/19/2010 05:24 PM, Peter Budny wrote: Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net writes: You could also add a link to an SVG icon for the shield rendering into the county boundary relation, so it would only be need to be changed in once place. (I know linking to such things is a little iffy though) I'd support this, too... for generic shields that look like put numbers inside an outline of the state we could do this, and then handle the exceptions as such, but I'd be quite happy right now just to have ordinary symbol= tags rendered. There was (is) some work done (I think by JohnSmith) to get this sort of thing done. Wikipedia has some blank SVGs with placeholder digits which can be substituted; it’s not hard at all with the appropriate fonts to make that bit work, or to modify an existing numbered SVG. Only problem is that you generally need a different sign for 3-digit vs. 2-digit signs (and sometimes 1-digit signs as well). However, there are many stretches of road that are designated Col. John Q Public Memorial Highway or something like that. It only applies to part of the route (the whole route through a state, or maybe just a bridge or an intersection). In that case, it belongs on the ways, not the route. Yup, or on another route relation. What, so make the route relation contain sub-relations for each distinct stretch of road, recursively, until it gets down to single ways that can't be combined (e.g. due to different bridge/tunnel tags, speed limits, etc)? It could be done that way, but I was thinking of a more single-level approach: route network=US:I/ ref=XX/ members way1/ way2/ way3/ way4/ way5/ way6/ /members /route route name=John Q. Public Memorial Highway/ members way3/ way4/ /members /route route name=Joe Bloggs Interchange/ note=interchange between I-XX and I-YY/ members way5/ way6/ way7/ way8/ /members /route ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/19/2010 04:11 PM, Anthony wrote: Well, presumably you’d want to start your own. That way it can always be a perfect system in the future, never actually producing a map with the tools that you have in the present. What would be the point of that? I don’t know, it’s what you seem to want to do. I’ll take Ian’s advice and stop here. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/18/2010 03:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/15/2010 09:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote: i've seen an argument that the correct network value for a county route involves using the actual county name, e.g. I wouldn’t say it’s wrong. “Unnecessary” probably, since county roads / highways / trunk highways don’t, as far as I know, have different signs within a state. In most states they at least mention the name of the county (though we obviously wouldn't do this on maps); Wisconsin may be alone in leaving it off. Some counties (usually those that started signing routes before the now-standard blue pentagon was created) have very different designs, especially in New York (example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erie_County_Route_30_NY.svg - for Good to know. If they used the same pattern everywhere, just changing the name, I would still be in favor of simply recording that it was a county highway, but since different counties within a state use entirely different signs I stand corrected. It is useful to have the county name in the network tag. Perhaps it would be useful to make a wiki page documenting which states and counties have “non-standard” signs? —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote: I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now. For now shouldn't last too long, though. Just remove the ref info from the ways, and the renderers will likely get their act together rather quickly. I for one would consider that to be vandalism. I also doubt its efficacy, as the maintainers of the renderers have no vested interest in having relations render as we might like. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/18/2010 04:41 PM, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthonyo...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote: I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now. For now shouldn't last too long, though. Just remove the ref info from the ways, and the renderers will likely get their act together rather quickly. I for one would consider that to be vandalism. Perhaps, but you'd be wrong. And, in fact, that attitude is exactly why the maps currently suck. And having no shields at all is a big improvent. Oh, wait, it’s not. In what strange alternate universe do you live where deleting valid information which is stored following the current documented system, is not vandalism? Fix the renderers, don’t just delete valid data and hope someone else fixes them. I’m sure patches would be welcome: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/667 http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/1666 http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2610 http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2864 —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
On 08/30/2010 10:41 AM, Graham Jones wrote: I think we might need some finer grained assessment of c, because as my son gets bigger (or I get older!) I am finding I give up on more tracks than I used to... Does anyone know if there is such a scheme in use already, or would we need to invent a new one? You may want to have a look at the (much-maligned) smoothness tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness#Values —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Abbreviation Police
On 08/04/2010 07:09 AM, Richard Welty wrote: otherwise, i'd go with local usage. some places use Service Road, others use Frontage Road, and i'm sure there are other usages. Either way though, that’s not the actual name of the road. It’s a description of the road’s function. (though sometimes they are actually named that by the local municipality as well, YMMV) —Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] United States Roadway Classification Guidelines
On 07/27/2010 08:00 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: We have those tags: lanes=*, width=*, etc. But there's no on the ground definition of importance, and there's nothing wrong with tagging correctly for the renderers. Classification has been subjective from the beginning in the US, because there is no consistent government-assigned classification. I’ve found that, when available, the HFCS (Highway Functional Classification System—not to be confused with High Fructose Corn Syrup) is quite consistent. Unfortunately, it’s not available for every area. I am of the opinion that it should be followed when possible. The system described at the wiki page under discussion seems like a good way to do it where HFCS is not available (with the addition of /trunk/ as described below, though trunks are not always limited-access.) (By the way, the four lane limited access highway would still be highway=motorway (or highway=trunk if it has at-grade intersections).) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] Mapquest launches site based on OSM!
On 07/19/2010 02:52 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: The wiki also explicitly says that you should use the two-character postal abbreviation for the state the road is in, but that seems to have been disregarded in states where a different prefix (like SR) is normally used. (To be fair, there's a lot of other stuff people have done with the ref tags on state roads, including not having any network identifiers and putting the number in parentheses.) Yeah, if people put in bad data you can’t expect to get good data out. It just means the bad data needs to be corrected. —Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Shared nodes between non-routable objects?
On 07/12/2010 03:22 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: Exactly. +1. In the case described (building and attached parking lot), it makes sense, as it usually does for adjacent land parcels (landuse=* closed ways) and administrative subdivisions (boundary=administrative closed ways) too. If they really are two polygons of a similar type that share a single interface (edge), then glue them. If they just happen to have parts that seem to lie in the same place, don't. Another case where I’ve found it especially useful to share nodes, even between routable and non-routable objects, is for speed limits. In at least one case that I’m aware of, the speed limit is defined in the law as “on XXX street, from YYY street westerly to the city limits”. The node where the speed limit-changing way split is located should also be part of the polygon that describes the city limits. —Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapquest launches site based on OSM!
On 07/09/2010 03:50 AM, David Ellams wrote: The company, a subsidiary of AOL, plans to announce Friday morning that it is launching a site in the U.K. based on a project called OpenStreetMap, which is dedicated to user-created mapping. I wonder why they seem to suggest that it’s UK-only? Scroll far enough West and the US shows up, sure enough. —Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapquest launches site based on OSM!
On 07/09/2010 04:42 PM, Ian Dees wrote: Presumably because the data's not good enough in the US to market it to the whole world. Sure, but it’s beta anyway, so I think people wouldn’t be expecting too much from it. Still nice that they render it at least. —Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Street Naming Conventions
On 04/08/2010 10:32 PM, Val Kartchner wrote: 6) Should the direction prefix even be part of the street name since it (mostly) isn't on the sign? That’s not true in all areas. I’m in Wisconsin, and in most cities I’ve been to, if the street has a direction prefix it’s on the sign (abbreviated of course). —Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Public notary (Map feature POI proposal)
On 01/05/2010 11:42 AM, Pieren wrote: I suggested some time ago to use a new general key for such things (when it's not really an amenity, a shop or a leisure like for lawyers, architects, designers, etc) : office=notary service? Though that conflicts slightly with the service=* for describing a highway=service... -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tiger data and county lines
On 09/30/2009 09:46 AM, Mike N. wrote: JOSM - How to select a way underneath another way? Usually admin boundaries are selected when trying to select the way. When there are 2 duplicate ways and nodes under an admin boundary, this is very time consuming. middle-click and hold to bring up a context menu; begin holding Ctrl key; mouse over the way you’re trying to select; release mouse button; release Ctrl. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
On 09/21/2009 09:20 AM, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 8:21 AM, d f fac63te...@yahoo.com wrote: amenity=bridge (or would it be landuse=bridge?), to be attached to a way or polygon. manmade=bridge? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map quarters?
On 09/11/2009 10:06 AM, Vlatko Kosturjak wrote: Jonathan Bennett wrote: Valent Turkovic wrote: Currently on wiki I only found place=suburb tag and I see that it is used also for mapping city's quarters. Only issue is that when you map quarter of some town or village currently the quarter has bigger font than name of village or town. Maybe, it's time for tag microsuburb? which can be used with place=town and place=village? Sounds to me like a renderer problem, not a case for a new tag. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map quarters?
On 09/11/2009 10:54 AM, Craig Wallace wrote: Why? How does the renderer know whether its a large suburb that's within a city, or a small suburb that's part of a town or village (or part of a larger suburb). As you would want these to be shown at different zoom levels, with different font sizes etc. I know you can map the suburb as an area, to show its size, but that isn't always practical. Many suburbs don't have clearly defined boundaries, so its easiest just to use a node in the middle of it. I don’t think it's necessary to map the suburb as an area; only the place it’s within. If a suburb (node) is within a town (area), then render it smaller than one which is within a city (area). -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] georgia road classifications
On 09/09/2009 03:17 PM, Kevin Samples wrote: it looks like classifying Urban Freeways and Expressways as motorway is the way to go. I double checked GA400, US78, and GA316 and they fall in the Urban Freeways and Expressways where they are exclusively limited access. So after going back through the definitions from the FHWA documents, here is a revised crosswalk. let me know what you think Rural Interstate Principal Arterial - highway:motorway Rural Principal Arterial - highway:trunk Rural Minor Arterial - highway:primary Rural Major Collector - highway:secondary Rural Minor Collector - highway:tertiary Rural Local Road - highway:residential Urban Interstate Principal Arterial - highway:motorway Urban Freeways and Expressways - highway:motorway Urban Principal Arterial - highway:primary Urban Minor Arterial - highway:secondary Urban Collector Street - highway:tertiary Urban Local Street - highway:residential I'd consider setting “Rural Local road” as highway=unclassified. Otherwise, it looks great to me. -Alex mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On 09/08/2009 02:19 PM, Paul Fox wrote: and that most true dirt roads are unnamed. perhaps. but i'd say that's mostly only true if they're not publicly accessible. any sort of public right-of-way usually comes with at least a locally-assigned number: Forest Route NN, or Fire Road NN, or County Road NNN. in OSM that's ref=* not name=* And finally I would agree with you that regardless of their relative numbers, true dirt roads (not gravel) as described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirt_road should indeed be highway=track. no, i don't agree. as greg troxel (i think) said earlier, the term track implies a private right-of-way. That’s not correct, and is not what he said. He said, ”highway=track, on the other hand, seems definitely second-class ... if someone lives on a track, their address will be a value on the real road the track connects to.” While generally the case, this is not a defining characteristic of a track, and says nothing at all about whether it’s access=private. there are many many dirt roads in my travels that are better described highway=residential surface=unpaved, due both to their public nature, and the presence of multiple residences. Then describe them as such (though surface=dirt might be better). But their public nature has nothing to do with it. We have access=* to describe that. was only saying that *in general*, gravel roads are not highway=track, while *in general* dirt roads are. It’s a rule of thumb, not an absolute. Obviously there are exceptions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DirtRoadCows.jpg should probably be highway=unclassified, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seymour_Logging_Road.JPG should probably be highway=track. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On 09/06/2009 05:56 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: I would tend to go with highway=track unless the street in question is a gravelled over macadam or some other semi-paved surface mostly because I would expect that this applies to at least the majority of named roads... most routing engines and all renderers at this point are more likely to use the highway tag to determine and render such objects correctly. “Tagging for the renderer” is generally discouraged. It's probably a better idea to tag what's actually on the ground, and put in a trac ticket if you feel that it should be rendered differently. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On 09/08/2009 01:18 PM, Paul Fox wrote: alex wrote: On 09/06/2009 05:56 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: I would tend to go with highway=track unless the street in question is a gravelled over macadam or some other semi-paved surface mostly because I would expect that this applies to at least the majority of named roads... i don't understand. the majority of named roads are, of course, paved. You're right there. I should have said “The majority of named roads which are not paved with some form of concrete” i would say that the next most numerous are simply dirt roads (at least here in new england, and in most of the US that i've traveled). roads which are partly paved, or which are gravel over macadam (i'm not entirely clear on what that means) would be a small minority. You can find more on macadam here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macadam I would consider a gravel-paved road (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_road) to be not a highway=track in OSM terms, in most cases. Further, I would expect that gravel-paved roads are the most common of non-concrete-paved (including asphalt concrete) named roads, and that most true dirt roads are unnamed. And finally I would agree with you that regardless of their relative numbers, true dirt roads (not gravel) as described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirt_road should indeed be highway=track. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On 09/03/2009 09:17 AM, Ian Dees wrote: No tag should ever imply any other tag. It's always better to be more verbose than not. No it's not. Are you seriously putting oneway=no (just to name one example) on every street you tag? -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Trace type
On 09/01/2009 12:25 PM, Peter Körner wrote: I have not thought about adding that I used a bicycle for that. Without having some kind of documentation about what *could* be added, people won't add the information nor get developers to use them. So maybe a documentation about the possibilities would be a better start. Two things that I think would be the most helpful, would be the ability to apply additional tags after the fact, and some sort of way of showing common already-used tags (e.g. a completion dropdown while typing a tag value) -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Trace type
On 09/01/2009 01:59 PM, Ed Loach wrote: Two things that I think would be the most helpful, would be the ability to apply additional tags after the fact, I think you can already do this. Ah, so you can. I was only looking for edit links (which all went to Potlatch) and assumed that the Edit this track button went to the same place as all the edit links. Perhaps this could be changed, so that it's more obvious what exactly is being edited. Thanks -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] GPX tagging problem
On 09/01/2009 01:59 PM, Ed Loach wrote: I think you can already do this. When someone added the comma separator support recently I went through all my old traces adding the commas at appropriate places Now that I know this, I'm trying to go back and re-tag some GPX tracks, but it keeps treating them as space-delimited instead of comma-delimited. Is something wrong with the tag interpreter? -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
On 08/28/2009 03:46 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: If dieterdriest has found a number of people who've been ignoring the definition, Nobody (that I know of) has been ignoring the definition. It's just that the definitions didn't match the top-leveldescription. *None* of the definitions of the highway values has ever described the physical characteristics of the road, apart from motorway in a very limited sense. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Tenfoot
On 08/28/2009 02:05 PM, Chris Hill wrote: In many towns and cities in the UK there are small ways behind rows of houses. In my part of the world (Yorkshire) we know them as a tenfoot (they are traditionally 10 feet wide). Any ideas? These are extremely common in the US as well. I have always tagged these as simply highway=service -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging vague, ill-defined, or unfriendly paths
On 08/26/2009 10:19 AM, Roland Olbricht wrote: I use http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=path/Examples and have concluded to use highway=path, wheelchair=no The first tag classifies the way as being an unpaved and small path... It does nothing of the sort. unpaved would require surface=unpaved/dirt/mud/etc., while small would require the width tag, I think. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Labeling community gardens
On 08/20/2009 03:12 PM, Cameron Adamez wrote: I was unsure what to use as a tag so some plots are tagged by landuse=community_garden but I'm not sure if that is the best tag to use. That sounds like a good tag to me. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] [Fwd: Re: Proliferation of path vs. footway]
On 08/13/2009 01:24 PM, David Earl wrote: realise we are missing a use case (say we discover motorways in Ecuador permit learner drivers to use them [please don't tell me this isn't the case - it's only an example]) we have to add tags to every other highway you don't even have to go that far -- at least some, probably most or all, states in the US allow learner drivers to use the motorway/freeway/interstate. -Alex mauer Hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 08/12/2009 05:14 AM, Pieren wrote: see why we should add foot=no now in all cycleways in France. I read somewhere that some motorways in US gives access to bicycles. Does it mean that we have to add bicycle=no to all other motorways in the world ? No, that would make no sense because most motorway-equivalents around the world do not allow bicycles. We have to add bicycle=yes to the motorways that allow it. designated means with a sign in most cases; however I am sure there are some places in the world where it's only defined in the local law, without actually being signed. Hence the lack of it needs a sign in the wiki for access=designated. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 08/12/2009 12:46 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: so the routers don't send the ambulances that way if it's shorter? That's meant to be interpreted as emergency=destination. As far as I know, emergency vehicles are pretty much allowed to go where they need to; this gets back to the idea of suitability, which people are keen to remove from the access=* tags. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 08/11/2009 01:58 PM, DavidD wrote: 2009/8/11 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: Those eight people can only do this if not even 0.1% of the other 1 care enough to oppose the proposal. If that's the case, then apparently the proposal isn't so bad, is it? Why didn't all those people who apparently hate path vote against it? I originally did vote against it. Then when it looked like the vote would go the wrong way it was stopped before being started again some time later after tweaking the proposal. Yup. Problems were brought up (primarily the idea of deprecating footway/bridleway/cycleway), so they were corrected. Seems like a good practice to me, and a large part of the purpose of the whole voting system. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tag proposal surface=gravel; concrete: dirt; grass
On 08/11/2009 07:41 PM, Sam Vekemans wrote: So anyway, i propose to add surface=gravel;dirt;grass;concrete, to go along side highway=value. (which listed more generally, what the way is generally used for (type of travel between 2 points) We already have those values, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface -- or am I missing something? -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-ca] tag proposal surface=gravel; concrete: dirt; grass
On 08/11/2009 07:41 PM, Sam Vekemans wrote: So anyway, i propose to add surface=gravel;dirt;grass;concrete, to go along side highway=value. (which listed more generally, what the way is generally used for (type of travel between 2 points) We already have those values, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface -- or am I missing something? -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-us] bike rail trail as built vs as proposed and imported
On 08/11/2009 06:10 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: But, is abandoned really in use in other countries to mean what in the US we call old railroad grade? (Here I am taking USGS norms to be established practice in the US.) Probably not; however, it is accepted practice in OSM. As you say, someone with more familiarity with railroad procedures and how they differ between the US and elsewhere might be able to answer that. The Surface Transportation Board of the ICC makes abandonment decisions, and they are published by the federal government. An example: http://regulations.vlex.com/vid/railroad-abandonment-lamoille-valley-22682301 I'm not saying this is trivial to find, I think that's a big understatement. I would go so far as to say that it's nearly impossible to take an arbitrary piece of railroad track and determine whether it's abandoned or out of service (in the US legal sense) -- or indeed, whether it's in fact still in service. If my understanding is correct: * This several page document describes just one section of track. So there are many, many of these documents. * This document just lists an intent to abandon a section of railroad. It may or may not have been accepted by the relevant authority (although it probably was) Can you provide an example of the steps one would have to go through to actually find this out for a specific piece of track? As far as I can tell it would involve trawling through http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/DailyReleases?OpenView or http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/advanced.html (the latter of which only goes back to 1995, and the former of which goes back to 1996) So you might be able to find out if it *is* abandoned (If you're really lucky it's on your other link at http://www.trainweather.com/aban.html) but even that's extremely difficult, and it's even less possible to determine that it's not abandoned. It seems that the only way to do so is to go through every single abandonment notice, and if it's not on any of them, then it's probably not abandoned after 1995 -- though it would be easy to miss it among the huge number of documents. And if it is on one of those abandonment notices, then you have to somehow figure out if the abandonment was approved. Do I have it right? -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 08/10/2009 07:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: highway=cycleway foot=official that latter was introduced (probably by the same people that already forced path) Nope. Cbm and I were the ones behind highway=path, as you can see from the wiki. Access=official has nothing to do with me. I agree that it's redundant -- it seems like it's just a combination of travelmode=designated and access=no. Not sure how you think path was forced though. It had 34 votes, 22 for and 9 against (3 abstain). Nobody forced anything, we just used the standard procedure. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 08/10/2009 05:31 PM, Liz wrote: On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Dave Stubbs wrote: Anarchy in tagging died a bit back when some guys on the wiki decided ochlocracy was the way to go. Tagging used to be occasionally a confused mess. Now it's an organised, and approved confused mess where anyone with a clue automatically withdraws from discussions to keep their sanity intact (and to give them some more time to go and actually map something), knowing full well that not being there won't make much difference to the eventual stupid decision. Gah... must... be... more... positive... I would consider that if we have thousands of mappers, that we should set a quorum for a vote so that unless at least x hundred people vote the vote is not valid From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features#Proposal_Status_Process: 8 unanimous approval votes or 15 total votes with a majority approval It seems to me that we have one. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 08/10/2009 05:27 AM, Frank Sautter wrote: Tom Chance wrote: I'm 100% unclear about the distinction between highway=path and highway=footway. the whole highway=path-thingy was victim of a hostile takeover ;-) It was? when did that happen? can you point to it in the wiki? at the beginning highway=path was proposed as a something like a NARROW highway=track for use by bike, foot, horse, hiking, deer (mainly in non-urban areas). No it wasn't. Read the history at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Approved_features/Pathdir=prevaction=history Prior to that, I created the proposal Trail which was also not like you describe. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Trail From the very beginning, it did not mean what you say it did. Maybe you're thinking of something else? -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] bike rail trail as built vs as proposed and imported
On 08/08/2009 07:31 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: The current tag definition is awkward: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway because tags mean something unintuitive: It's not unintuitive, it's just not the same as US legal definitions. disused = no longer used abandoned = track/infrastructure removed Is there somewhere that describes the difference between abandoned and out of service railways, preferably something which is verifiable (in the OSM sense, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability)? -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On 08/04/2009 07:17 PM, David Lynch wrote: The USA has no such sign, nor do Canada and Mexico (AFAIK.) Do we have no motorways? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I-95.svg -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On 07/28/2009 11:45 AM, Christoph Böhme wrote: According to Wikipedia clearance [1] is the free space between a vehicle and the structure (i.e. bridge) it is passing through. The maximum height (and width) of the vehicle is -- at least for railways -- called loading gauge [2] while the dimensions of the structure are called structure gauge [3]. Thus, what we find on signs is the loading gauge. It may also be worth mentioning that there's another meaning of clearance when referring to vehicles: that of the free space beneath a vehicle (ground clearance). So it would seem that clearance always refers to free space below -- meaning that it's the bridge's clearance that is marked. This does not contradict that it is also the loading gauge of the vehicles passing underneath it... -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Communications tower/transponders
Simon Wood wrote: On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 23:17:37 -0600 Simon Wood si...@mungewell.org wrote: I have had a go at tidying the proposed tags for communication towers and would welcome any comments. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Communications_tower http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Communications_Transponder If no-one has any objections I'd like to formally move these to the 'RFC' stage. Do I do it just by setting the date field? Simon, Yup. That and send a message to the list, for which the above message will do the job nicely. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Stephen Hope wrote: OK, so while we're talking about this, there are a number of paths near me. Nice smooth concrete, about 2m wide. They run through parks, and there are signs on the park as a whole that say No motorised vehicles. These paths are marked with a sign that has a pedestrian and a bicycle, and another sign that says Cyclists give way to Pedestrians. How would you normally mark these? I've used footway, plus bicycle=yes. I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they have to give way to other users. I would tag it as highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=designated. highway=cycleway+foot=designated would also make sense, IMO. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Hatto von Hatzfeld wrote: Russ Nelson wrote: On Mar 28, 2009, at 1:50 AM, Stephen Hope wrote: I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they have to give way to other users. Cyclists ALWAYS have to give way to other users. It's a simple matter of the laws of physics. At least here in Germany there are cycleways which are not allowed for pedestrians and others which are shared by cyclists and pedestrians. This is also true in at least some parts of the US. I suppose it's technically still true that cyclists have to at least try to give way (I assume that if a pedestrian is walking down the motorway, motorists shouldn't just casually run them down; the cycleway situation is similar) -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Richard Mann wrote: Map Features says that highway=cycleway should be used for ways that are mainly/exclusively for bicycles. Map Features is wrong. :) So you're saying that highway=cycleway is not intended for ways which are for bicycles? What an ... interesting interpretation! -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Ed Loach wrote: So you're saying that highway=cycleway is not intended for ways which are for bicycles? What an ... interesting interpretation! I think mainly/exclusively may overstress the exclusively bit. In a few jurisdictions and a few cases, they're exclusive; in most jurisdictions some other traffic may use it. Hence mainly (most jurisdictions) or exclusively (a few jurisdictions). I see highway=path as a handy shortcut like highway=road for tagging something until a 'proper' tag can be assigned, though I realise not everyone will agree... Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/8/84/Designatedsigns.jpeg is an example I keep coming back to for this kind of thing. It's quite clearly not a cycleway, a footway, or a bridleway. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Alex Mauer wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: Map Features says that highway=cycleway should be used for ways that are mainly/exclusively for bicycles. Map Features is wrong. :) So you're saying that highway=cycleway is not intended for ways which are for bicycles? Thanks for putting words into my mouth. Clearly I'm not. You went too far in your change, A path on which bicycle access is permitted. What makes a way a cycleway, other than being mainly for bicycles? mainly/exclusively is the difference. Access permissions cascade down[1]. Down from what, to what? What's the hierarchy? As far as I can interpret this, you mean that access always defaults to yes *except on motorways -- Is this correct? So why on earth you think that highway=cycleway;foot=yes is still required, I have no idea. Unless, of course, you do actually go around tagging highway=secondary;motorcar=yes;foot=yes etc. etc., in which case full marks for consistency albeit no marks for clue. Well, either you're tagging foot=yes+horse=yes+ski=yes+moped=yes+snowmobile=yes on a large subset of paths, or you're tagging foot=no+horse=no+ski=no+moped=no+snowmobile=no on a large subset of paths. I find that most paths have a list of what is allowed to use them, so between a bunch of yes values and a bunch of no values, yes makes more sense IMO. Roads are not the same, they should be default access yes. But at least around here, paths -- including those for bicycles, horse, or foot -- should be default no But, you know, well done on finally uploading some GPS tracks in the last few weeks (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Hawke/traces). Maybe actually doing some mapping will give your opinions some weight, rather than just being another tedious wikignome. We live in hope. For what it's worth, I've had my city essentially complete[1] for about 2 years, and created my own render of the local paths and truck routes[2]. So I hope that my opinions carry at least some weight, and I'll thank you not to insult my contributions. 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/b/b3/Hawke_northwestportage.png 2. http://web.hawkesnest.net/osm.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Richard Mann wrote: We all contribute in our own way. For instance I found 1467 instances of snowmobile=no in Germany in tagwatch. It isn't clear whether each of those had the proper No Snowmobiles sign (the wiki seems to be a bit vague on the criteria) :) Even aside from signs it's hard to say whether this is correct or not. Maybe snowmobiles are always illegal on some type of route in Germany -- is it then incorrect to tag it with snowmobile=no? I'd say not. In fact, it might be most correct to put snowmobile=no on nearly every road in Germany...I know this is true in Wisconsin. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Note that Richard's is not a definitive answer (not that this one is either). My own interpretation is: 1. path: a route, 2-4 meters wide, possibly paved, possibly with a slightly wider shoulder. Too confined or narrow for a car to navigate safely, especially if there are other people using it (no passing room at all). 2. footway: same as a path, but no provision is made for any traffic besides pedestrian. (bridges may not be strong enough to support a horse, walls/fences crossed by stiles, narrow gates, etc.) 3. bridleway: same as a path, but no provision is made for any traffic besides equestrian. 4. cycleway: same as a path, but no provision is made for any traffic except bicycles. 5. track: a road which is not graded or paved, but created by people driving along it. It might be built to the extent that trees have been removed and grass or brush cleared. At its simplest, it is just a pair of wheel ruts. Definitely intended for four-wheeled motor vehicles, though it may be risky to drive a normal car along it. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Clarifying tagging for footway/cycleway etc
Andy Allan wrote: On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Ed Loach ed-vqwv6p3hcnr10xsdtd+...@public.gmane.org wrote: So if you have a shared use cycle/footpath where the bicycle and people are above each other white on a blue sign I'd say that highway=cycleway, foot=designated, cycle=designated and highway=footway, foot=designated, cycle=designated are equivalent, and the only difference is in how they render. I tend to sway towards cycleway if they are part of a signposted cycle route, or if there is a preferred cycle route sign anywhere, or footway otherwise. For footpaths on housing estates I'll probably have highway=footway, foot=yes and also add cycle=no where there is a no cycling sign. This designated thing really hasn't been well thought through. How do I tag the following? * A purpose built, private cycle path * A purpose built, permissive foot path * A path built for cyclists, with a legal right for pedestrians and cyclists Both of the options you listed would seem to work (I'd use highway=path+access=private for the first, highway=path+foot=permissive for the second, and highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=yes for the third) Now I'm not saying that cycleway/footway is a great tagging scheme, but I sure wish that that the designated thing had been thought through a bit more. We can come up with pathological cases for both methods. For designated it involves combining designated and permissive. For highway=*way it involves anything other than cyclists, pedestrians or equestrians, or any path intended for more than one of those. One guess as to which is more common and easier to map on the ground. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Clarifying tagging for footway/cycleway etc
Richard Mann wrote: I'm aware that there's a school of thought that says there should be a lot fewer highway tags, with further details in other tags. Can we not rehearse that debate (please). I'm assuming the lower change option of keeping the diversity of tags (and suggesting the addition of a new one between cycleway and footway) precisely because renderers typically use this diversity. There is a definite difference between a 2m wide path and a 4m wide path, and I think this is a distinction that could sensibly be made. There's a definite difference between the two paths, but nothing says that a cyclefootway will be 4m wide, nor that a cycleway or footway will not be 4m wide. Especially around the world, there is no consistency in this regard. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Clarifying tagging for footway/cycleway etc
Richard Mann wrote: Path/footway/cycleway/bridleway/track isn’t really descriptive enough, and come laden with assumptions about cycle access (in particular) that currently need to be reviewed when tagging and rendering. highway=path has no such assumptions. highway=track is totally irrelevant to the discussion (being for motor vehicles), but also has no such assumptions. I’d like feedback on two things: 1) highway=cyclefootway It seems to me that this conflicts with your point 2. If you want to separate the legal access rights from the physical path description, creating a new highway value which only has different access rights. 2) divorcing the legal status from the highway tag Sounds good to me. Isn't this exactly what highway=path does, since it doesn't carry any access implications? -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Clarifying tagging for footway/cycleway etc
Simon Ward wrote: On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 07:11:06PM +, Tom Hughes wrote: Do you think that, just possibly, having to change the tagging on every single road in the database to implement your scheme might make it just a tad impractical... Oh, there are only 20‐odd million. Piece of cake ;) To be fair, it wouldn't really be that hard. It's convincing those who care, and then educating the mappers, that is the hard part. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] mapnik riverbank problem
The large cluster of islands within a riverbank visible here on the osmarender layer: http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=44.559416836708124lon=-89.63008108668645zoom=14layers=BF000F ...does not show up properly on Mapnik. As far as I can tell, it's tagged entirely correctly. I've managed to get a few islands to render correctly by loading and then saving them without making any actual changes. Is there something weird with mapnik where the order in which the ways are stored in the database would matter? -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] place=island rendering
Ted Mielczarek wrote: I've noticed that there's a GNIS import going on in the USA recently, and one of the types of POIs being imported are islands, which are tagged place=island. Of course, the GNIS database contains some very tiny islands, but Mapnik renders place=island up to z10. For example: I opened ticket #1644 (http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/1644) about the problem. One solution is to apply the tags to the area rather than the node. (and thus render appropriately based on the actual size of the island. Of course, this also implies deleting the place=island node to avoid label conflicts. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Tags for US Forest Service GIS Trail Data
Matt Maxon wrote: Spencer Riddile wrote: I'm working on figuring out what tags to use for the fields/columns that are included in the USFS GIS trail data that I am going to import into OSM. Has anyone set a precedent for this already? Would it make sense for me to add a section to the wiki page for the USFS (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Service_Data) in an effort to standardize? This would be for trails specifically and would follow what has been established on the Hiking wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking). I do think a US specific trails page (s) would is needed and would be useful National Forest Trails tags proposed: * owner = national_forest, private_on_nf, private_noton_nf, county, state, city_town * closure_status = open, closed, restricted, decommissioned I'd like to see some US specific (relevant) tags Generally here in California and my experience with the west is trails have a series of designations Horse Foot Bicycle OHV Handicapped 4WD Cross Country (informal) aka - XC or CC There are NOT recommended designations, while not specifically prohibiting an activity you'd be wise to heed it or at least exercise caution Is this not covered by the access key? horse=designated, ski:nordic=designated, etc.? Not sure what OHV is (off-highway vehicle?), but it seems that a new access type might be needed. There seems be to a lack of discussion about other agencies BLM, Park Service are two biggies that come to mind. The OHV tag would need to cover recommendations about vehicle type, Motorcycle, ATV, Jeep(4wd) trail width etc signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: Highway administrative and physical descriptions
Please read and comment on the following proposal, intended to provide a method to describe the physical road as well as the legal/administrative designation of a road, in more detail than the highway key. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Highway_administrative_and_physical_descriptions -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM on LWN
An article about OpenStreetMap was included on this week's Linux Weekly News front page. It's primarily about the relatively recent influx of large amounts of imported data. The article can be read here: http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/318801/9860286043a9f77c/ -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:smoothness, value:Good - summary
Sam Vekemans wrote: Hi all,1st off I got the page set up better now :) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:smoothness%3Dgood BTW The page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness and the page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Smoothness should actually be merged, as the page ALSO lists the values. I organized the page so we have 'discussion FOR' and 'discussion AGAINST' so that should encourage people to list explanations in the right place. I think that the talk page should be more for the 'Overall Wiki page discussion', as technically speaking, the 'discussion:For' and 'against' is actually part of the map feature proposal process. ::We submit ideas, talk about it with examples, then refine our ideas until a satisfied answer is found. (in contrast, submitting ideas like headings to be changed, and content omitted/added.. is needed for the talk page) I don't understand: the original key:smoothness proposal was accepted, why would we need a new rfc/approval process for each separate value? If you want to propose a slew of new values to replace the good/bad/horrible series for smoothness=*, why not create a new page for that (or contribute to the existing proposed usability key or surface unification) -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki: chriscf vandalism
Richard Fairhurst wrote: But around here in rural Charlbury, that kind of information is absolutely crucial when mapping bridleways. As someone on the wiki pointed out, though, the smoothness tag as currently conceived is near as dammit useless for these because it offers no chance for differentiating between winter and summer. There's a very good reason for that: Seasonal changes are not a generally solved problem in OSM, and so smoothness doesn't solve it. Compare the access tag series. Similarly, I could say the access tag is useless because it offers no chance for differentiating between winter and summer. Many trails and some roads have different access in summer vs. winter. But does that mean that the whole access system is useless? No! Some other new system will be needed to handle seasonal differentiation, and it'll need to handle seasonal differentiation of all kinds of features. Tacking it onto an unrelated tag would be a mistake. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Ed Loach wrote: Looks good to me. Describe what the road is like, rather than making subjective judgments. Every driver/cyclist/vehicle will be different and will have to make their own choices. You can't tag for that. Or perhaps usability:kia_cee'd:edloach=good / usability:unicycle:edloach=can't balance Except that leads to impossibly complex tagging and mapping requirements. pothole_coverage max_pothole_depth= max_pothole_circumference= max_pothole_length= max_pothole_width= average_pothole_depth= average_pothole_circumference= average_pothole_length= average_pothole_width= center_hump_height max_rut_depth max_stone_diameter average_stone_diameter max_root_diameter average_root_diameter minimum_ground_clearance largest_unavoidable_bump_height for a motorcycle largest_unavoidable_bump_height_for_a_car_2m_wide largest_unavoidable_bump_height_for_a_bicycle maximum_mud_depth average_mud_viscosity maximum_rut_depth maximum_puddle_depth_during_rainy_season maximum_puddle_depth_one_hour_after_5_cm_of_rain Get out your measuring sticks and other tools, and be prepared to stop regularly to measure! There's more to surface quality than merely what it's made out of. surface=* just doesn't cut it. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Douglas Furlong wrote: My biggest issues is that smoothness varies depending on the vehicle in question, and as such it's just to vague to really be of use. No it doesn't. It's not like a paving machine runs just ahead of every off-road vehicle, making the road smoother for them. The smoothness of the way is the same, whether you're using inline skates, or a tank. The vehicle is just a tool for measuring the smoothness. At one end of the scale, you have a perfectly smooth ride (or at least the best the vehicle can give), no matter what vehicle you're in. At the other end, you have total unsuitability for all but a few vehicles. If you tag a road with smoothness valid for a car user (what type of car? 4wd big effin thing, or a lotus elise?), Did you even read the smoothness key page? It clearly defines different values for each of them. If it's usable in the former, it's at worst smoothness=horrible. If it's usable in the latter, it's at worst smoothness=intermediate. There is no smoothness valid for a car user. bad is usable by a normal car, intermediate is usable by a sports car. (I consider the Elise a sports car). then what about a cyclist (and lets not even start looking at the different types of cyclists!). I just perceive it to be far to vague to cover the average users of that way, it's got nothing to do with fringe cases at all. There is no generic cyclist. It depends on type of bicycle they're using. And smoothness takes that into account. A mountain bike (and a suitably skilled rider, presumably) can use routes that a racing bike cannot. specialist tagging for those who care to do it in those area's That's not what the smoothness key attempts to accomplish. What it attempts to do is give a simple, single-key estimate of how rough/smooth a road or path is. The various vehicle types are there only to give examples of what sort of vehicles can be expected to tolerate a given class of road (and to say how a road which can be tolerated by a given vehicle should be classified). Are there perhaps two different sets of expectations for the smoothness key? On the one hand, there are people who expect something like mtb:scale and sac_scale, where it defines the quality or difficulty of a given route for a given vehicle type. And on the other hand, there are people who just want to know how smooth the route is (based on what vehicles can handle it), and can judge from there whether they're willing to take their vehicle down it. I think the smoothness key is currently based around the latter, and that the objections come from the former. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
