Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
On 2 November 2010 00:19, Andrew Errington a.erring...@lancaster.ac.uk wrote: ford=yes on a way means (to me) that this segment of the way is often covered with water. ford=yes on a node means (to me) that the ford is very short. Except in drier areas where they mostly aren't covered with water... :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
2010/11/2 Gorm E. Johnsen osml...@gorm.cc: I don't _have_ to change the nodes. I ask if it's a good idea. asking is always good. And I asked (in the original post) for comments on the wiki. -1, discussions are better held on the ML IMHO. That's the purpose. Use the wiki to document the outcome. Most _ways_ is already changed, so I think it would be nice to do the same with nodes. there is no benefit IMHO in changing the nodes to ford=yes, but IMHO also no big harm (besides hundreds of programms and x pages in the wiki will have to be modified). Will YOU personally modify all wiki pages to assure consistency? There is currently 143 pages: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchsearch=ford some of them might not be related to fords but to Fords. If we change: Why not barrier=ford? This would IMHO imply more information and would be valid for all the nodes I tagged with highway=ford. Does it work as well for the fords you tagged on nodes? Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: Again: Left and right co-exist nicely. I do not propose to convert between them. That is of course up to the individual mapper. Again: What I _do_ propose, is to rename a tag on some elements. From top to bottom in the example. It's all right, you can stop explaining. People aren't disagreeing with you because they don't understand your proposal. People are disagreeing with you because they don't see the merits of it. From this distance, you simply haven't made a convincing case for why this change should be made. There is no actual evidence of data consumers finding that highway=ford is a problem. People are not saying my routing can't work because fords are in the highway namespace. People aren't saying I really want to tag mini-roundabouts in fords and the current system doesn't let me. There isn't actually a problem. Rather, you appear to be proposing it for some mythical idea of consistency and because it would be nice. As SomeoneElse has pointed out, if you change it now, you _will_ break existing uses of OSM. People who currently compile Garmin cycling maps of OSM will find that fords suddenly disappear from their rendering, and users of these maps will have a worse experience. Anyone who uses osm2pgsql will have to employ an extra column for what is a fairly little-used tag. All this for a change that achieves nothing. Tag migrations do happen. Sometimes there are good reasons. I think, for example, that moving highway=gate to barrier=gate was a sensible change and enabled finer-grained tagging in the 'barrier' tag. But it was largely a consensus-driven change and the database evolved from one to the other over time. Maybe one day someone will come up with a smart, genuinely beneficial idea like that, and we can migrate the ford tagging over time. But they haven't done yet. Please. Go outside and do some mapping. Stay inside and code. Write or tidy some documentation. Do something that makes a real _difference_. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-ford-vs-ford-yes-tp5668436p5696548.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
2010/11/2 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: Tag migrations do happen. Sometimes there are good reasons. I think, for example, that moving highway=gate to barrier=gate was a sensible change and enabled finer-grained tagging in the 'barrier' tag. But it was largely a consensus-driven change and the database evolved from one to the other over time. And still there are 1 750 objects tagged as highway=gate in the db. Could some of the bot-users change them to barrier=gate, please? Cheers, Martin PS: I do agree with the change highway=xy ford=yes on ways. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
On 2 November 2010 10:27, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Maybe one day someone will come up with a smart, genuinely beneficial idea like that, and we can migrate the ford tagging over time. But they haven't done yet. This isn't a theoretical discussion, these edits have been going on since August (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/gormur/edits) and a lot of the fords have already been changed over to ford=yes so either he continues and changes them all + updates the wiki, or someone needs to change them back. Personally, I am not bothered how they are tagged as long as it is consistent. Kevin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
On 02/11/2010 10:27, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: Again: Left and right co-exist nicely. I do not propose to convert between them. That is of course up to the individual mapper. Again: What I _do_ propose, is to rename a tag on some elements. From top to bottom in the example. It's all right, you can stop explaining. People aren't disagreeing with you because they don't understand your proposal. People are disagreeing with you because they don't see the merits of it... Actually Richard, on consideration, I agree with Gorm's proposals. As you see from his example top-right it *does* break the secondary highway. People are not saying my routing can't work because fords are in the highway namespace. Then that's bad assumptive programming by the routers not a valid reason not to change it. As is disrupting Garmin osm2pgsql. In fact tagging it highway=*, ford=yes makes it *easier* for routers as they have to do less checking to see whether the ways on each side are the same. To change the nodes is not essential but makes it easier for all to have consistency. As others have mentioned the renderers need to be informed but I don't see that it's too difficult to change. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
Dave F. wrote: In fact tagging it highway=*, ford=yes makes it *easier* for routers as they have to do less checking to see whether the ways on each side are the same. Hang on a sec. :) Gorm has already changed highway=ford on _ways_ to ford=yes, highway=something_or_other. This has happened. Arguably there could have been some more discussion beforehand but hey, it's happened. What's principally under discussion now is changing it on _nodes_. John Smith's posting (second in the thread) refers: There was/is very good reasons why highway=ford wasn't good enough for ways, but why do nodes need to be updated at all? Gorm replied Simply to de-clutter the highway tag and to be more consistent. The debate is as to whether this is adequate reason given the disruption involved. (Same reply applies to Kevin Peat's posting.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-ford-vs-ford-yes-tp5668436p5697874.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
2010/11/1 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk: On 31/10/2010 13:46, Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: I propose to replace highway=ford with ford=yes (or perhaps barrier=ford?) on nodes as well, simply to de-clutter the highway tag and to be more consistent. IMHO for the cases I tagged highway=ford on nodes it fits well. simply to declutter is not a sufficient argument to change 5000 tags that are in use for a long time. Please don't change things unless you've actually been there and surveyed the item in question. +1 As it says on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits/Code_of_Conduct , Always remember that local knowledge beats a couch potato from central command any time!. +1 cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
2010/11/1 Andrew Errington a.erring...@lancaster.ac.uk: On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 18:22:19 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/11/1 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk: On 31/10/2010 13:46, Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: I propose to replace highway=ford with ford=yes (or perhaps barrier=ford?) on nodes as well, simply to de-clutter the highway tag and to be more consistent. IMHO for the cases I tagged highway=ford on nodes it fits well. simply to declutter is not a sufficient argument to change 5000 tags that are in use for a long time. ford=yes is the right answer, like bridge=yes and tunnel=yes. A ford is a linear feature, usually extending across the width of a river, much like a bridge does, which could be several metres long. I tagged a path crossing a stream with highway=ford. Even if this is on closeup a linear feature, beeing the stream less then 1 meter wide and the path as well, anything else then a node seems exaggerated to me. If the ford is to cross a real river I agree that a way would be better. Replacing 5000 instances of the 'old' tag is a drop in the ocean. no, it is completely replacing an entire feature forcing your own idea of how a feature should be represented. Automated Edits of this kind are not welcome. See the wiki on automated edits. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 18:56:59 +0900 Andrew Errington a.erring...@lancaster.ac.uk wrote: It should have been highway=path, ford=yes. Well don't redefine any I have mapped as 'path', because most would have been for vehicles. Again, don't retag without having visited the site. How many times does this need to be repeated?? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: Well don't redefine any I have mapped as 'path', because most would have been for vehicles. Again, don't retag without having visited the site. Sorry, perhaps I missed something but the suggestion was to replace highway=ford by ford=yes on nodes, not ways. I think something similar was done in the past with highway=barrier and I don't understand the arguments against this change. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:28:53 Elizabeth Dodd wrote: On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 18:56:59 +0900 Andrew Errington a.erring...@lancaster.ac.uk wrote: It should have been highway=path, ford=yes. Well don't redefine any I have mapped as 'path', because most would have been for vehicles. I wouldn't dream of it. I was talking about the specific ford I mapped.Of course, the highway=* tag would be obvious from the preceding and following way segments. Again, don't retag without having visited the site. How many times does this need to be repeated?? Once more it would seem. Best wishes, Andew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:41:02 Pieren wrote: On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: Well don't redefine any I have mapped as 'path', because most would have been for vehicles. Again, don't retag without having visited the site. Sorry, perhaps I missed something but the suggestion was to replace highway=ford by ford=yes on nodes, not ways. I think something similar was done in the past with highway=barrier and I don't understand the arguments against this change. It could apply equally to ways or nodes. ford=yes on a way means (to me) that this segment of the way is often covered with water. ford=yes on a node means (to me) that the ford is very short. Best wishes, Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:08:45 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/11/1 Andrew Errington a.erring...@lancaster.ac.uk: On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 18:22:19 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/11/1 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk: On 31/10/2010 13:46, Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: I propose to replace highway=ford with ford=yes (or perhaps barrier=ford?) on nodes as well, simply to de-clutter the highway tag and to be more consistent. IMHO for the cases I tagged highway=ford on nodes it fits well. simply to declutter is not a sufficient argument to change 5000 tags that are in use for a long time. ford=yes is the right answer, like bridge=yes and tunnel=yes. A ford is a linear feature, usually extending across the width of a river, much like a bridge does, which could be several metres long. I tagged a path crossing a stream with highway=ford. Even if this is on closeup a linear feature, beeing the stream less then 1 meter wide and the path as well, anything else then a node seems exaggerated to me. If the ford is to cross a real river I agree that a way would be better. So ford=yes can apply to a way or a node. Easy. Replacing 5000 instances of the 'old' tag is a drop in the ocean. no, it is completely replacing an entire feature forcing your own idea of how a feature should be represented. Automated Edits of this kind are not welcome. See the wiki on automated edits. Well it would be if I was going to do it, which I never even mentioned. Best wishes, Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
2010/11/1 Andrew Errington a.erring...@lancaster.ac.uk: It could apply equally to ways or nodes. I agree that ford=yes is better for ways then highway=ford, but on nodes this problem doesn't arise. You could still keep highway=ford. I think that this proposal wants to unify the tagging in this particular case, yet creating inconsistencies on other places: shouldn't railway=level_crossing then become level_crossing=yes ? Or highway=stop stop=yes? I find it easier to agree with this change if it augmented consistency in general (i.e. changing also other keys), and not only changed one value from a to b. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
On 24/10/2010 20:02, Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: There are now few, if any, ways with highway=ford left. They have all been changed to highway=whatever the connecting ways are + ford=yes http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ford. Any suggestions on what to do with the 4800 nodes also tagged with highway=ford? Change them to ford=yes all in one go as well? It would be helpful to follow the usual tag proposal process to deprecate highway=ford, and replace it with ford=yes. Then you should update any editors or renderers or other applications to support this. Then, after this, you could consider making bulk changes. I do agree that replacing highway=ford with ford=yes is a good idea, though it should be done properly, and not breaking existing applications. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
Craig Wallace wrote: On 24/10/2010 20:02, Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: There are now few, if any, ways with highway=ford left. They have all been changed to highway=whatever the connecting ways are + ford=yes http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ford. Any suggestions on what to do with the 4800 nodes also tagged with highway=ford? Change them to ford=yes all in one go as well? It would be helpful to follow the usual tag proposal process to deprecate highway=ford, and replace it with ford=yes. Then you should update any editors or renderers or other applications to support this. Then, after this, you could consider making bulk changes. I do agree that replacing highway=ford with ford=yes is a good idea, though it should be done properly, and not breaking existing applications. As long as the DISTANCE of the water area of the ford can be handled by this change then it may be acceptable, but simply tagging a node is not the right way to provide ALL of the information that would be useful when it comes to micro-mapping the details? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
2010/11/1 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: I do agree that replacing highway=ford with ford=yes is a good idea, though it should be done properly, and not breaking existing applications. As long as the DISTANCE of the water area of the ford can be handled by this change then it may be acceptable, but simply tagging a node is not the right way to provide ALL of the information that would be useful when it comes to micro-mapping the details? if it's about a ford in a stream which is tagged say width=0.7, which other information would you get from a way for the ford instead of a node? Wouldn't hydrants (or public telephones, etc.) be better mapped as areas when it comes to micro-mapping ;-) ? There is no node in real world, still many objects are better (or almost equally) represented by a node instead of by an area. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I do agree that replacing highway=ford with ford=yes is a good idea, though it should be done properly, and not breaking existing applications. As long as the DISTANCE of the water area of the ford can be handled by this change then it may be acceptable, but simply tagging a node is not the right way to provide ALL of the information that would be useful when it comes to micro-mapping the details? if it's about a ford in a stream which is tagged say width=0.7, which other information would you get from a way for the ford instead of a node? Well a number of the fords around the Cotswolds are not simple passages across a narrow stream like that. They can have some considerable distance in the water and way well come out at a different position on the bank on the other side. SO the way that forms the path through is required! Simplifying things at one level makes including that detail at another more difficult so SIMPLY removing ford from highway then requires some other way to map the 'highway' element through more complex fords ... Wouldn't hydrants (or public telephones, etc.) be better mapped as areas when it comes to micro-mapping;-) ? There is no node in real world, still many objects are better (or almost equally) represented by a node instead of by an area. Some means of including the microlevel deat,l IS required and has yet to be agreed on. At some scale a nde needs to be replaced with an area but at present OSM has no way of including that data :( -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
Dear everybody Nice to see that some actually read the original post before replying, in an effort to keep on subject. Interesting to see that nobody seems to object strongly to the (manual) edits I have already done with *ways* tagged with highway=ford. Now all those ways show up in all(?) renderers and are routeable. I do hope that is for the better. Now I ask for a simple yes or no or better alternatives for changing the tagging scheme for a few k *nodes*. Please, can we continue the discussion on the wiki? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:ford Thank you. Gorm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 23:51:47 +0100 Gorm E. Johnsen osml...@gorm.cc wrote: Now I ask for a simple yes or no or better alternatives for changing the tagging scheme for a few k *nodes*. Please, can we continue the discussion on the wiki? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:ford Simply No, and No *why* do you have to change the nodes? and *why* do you want us to switch to arguing on the wiki? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
Elisabeth I don't *_have_ to* change the nodes. I ask if it's a good idea. And I asked (in the original post) for comments on the wiki. I believe the wiki is a better arena for it. You can of course continue here if you like. I have argued that I would like to do it for consistency. Most *_*ways*_* is already changed, so I think it would be nice to do the same with nodes. Apparently you oppose to that idea. Then I suggest you put a no-vote on the wiki. I also hope you put together a sentence or two why you oppose it. All I sense there might be a misunderstanding here: I have _not_ changed the geometry of the way-fords (apart from connecting them to existing riverbanks where available, and a few other minor adjustments). I am _not_ proposing to create ways out of single nodes tagged with highway=ford. I'm simply asking to replace highway=ford with ford=yes on nodes as well. best regards On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 23:51:47 +0100 Gorm E. Johnsen osml...@gorm.cc wrote: Now I ask for a simple yes or no or better alternatives for changing the tagging scheme for a few k *nodes*. Please, can we continue the discussion on the wiki? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:ford Simply No, and No *why* do you have to change the nodes? and *why* do you want us to switch to arguing on the wiki? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: I sense there might be a misunderstanding here: I have _not_ changed the geometry of the way-fords (apart from connecting them to existing riverbanks where available, and a few other minor adjustments). I am _not_ proposing to create ways out of single nodes tagged with highway=ford. I'm simply asking to replace highway=ford with ford=yes on nodes as well. BUT adding fine detail DOES require changing the nodes to ways ... This seems to be the misunderstanding that you and others may be missing? At SOME scales, then a ford is simply a node - as are many features - but the higher the zoom, there comes a point where a node MUST become a way or even an area. So changing the top level view is simply wrong when the lower levels still expect that element to be expanded to a way at some point ... Just because no one has added the fine detail is no reason to remove the element into some other 'domain'. That applies in a lot of cases where people are arguing that some node tag should be simplified. So just because YOU are not proposing to add missing information is no reason to make that difficult for everybody else? When would you then change them back to highway=ford ... so that the way detail can be added? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
On 01/11/2010 22:51, Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: Interesting to see that nobody seems to object strongly to the (manual) edits I have already done with *ways* tagged with highway=ford. That's not strictly true; I did object (and you replied) via the OSM message system when you started updating fords so that they didn't reflect the sense of what was there on the ground. The highway=ford to highway=blah/ford=yes change did make sense*; it was the other tidying that you did at the same time that I objected to. Please, can we continue the discussion on the wiki? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:ford Please no. There seems to be an infinite number of monkeys over there but they've not come close to the works of Shakespeare. If you want to influence the way stuff is tagged in OSM go out and map stuff; you can then tag it how you like. * some warning would have been helpful though, so that people who render maps (which includes anyone who creates maps for e.g. Garmin GPSs) can keep up to date with how someone in an armchair thinks things should be tagged this week. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
Perhaps an example of the two schemes is in its place. Examine this area: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=58.999175lon=5.787731zoom=18layers=M (Yes, I'm using a small patch my neck of the woods as sandbox for this example. I promise to clean up afterwards :-) Left: fords tagged as single nodes. Right: fords drawn as short ways. Top: using highway=ford Bottom: using ford=yes Today there is mostly a mix of top-left and bottom-right. Again: Left and right co-exist nicely. I do not propose to convert between them. That is of course up to the individual mapper. Again: What I _do_ propose, is to rename a tag on some elements. From top to bottom in the example. best regards ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
John I propose to replace highway=ford with ford=yes (or perhaps barrier=ford?) on nodes as well, simply to de-clutter the highway tag and to be more consistent. best regards Gorm Egeberg Johnsen On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:16 PM, John Smith wrote: There was/is very good reasons why highway=ford wasn't good enough for ways, but why do nodes need to be updated at all? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
2010/10/31 Gorm E. Johnsen osml...@gorm.cc: John I propose to replace highway=ford with ford=yes (or perhaps barrier=ford?) on nodes as well, simply to de-clutter the highway tag and to be more consistent. What about junction=ford ? Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
On 31/10/2010 17:08, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/10/31 Gorm E. Johnsenosml...@gorm.cc: John I propose to replace highway=ford with ford=yes (or perhaps barrier=ford?) on nodes as well, simply to de-clutter the highway tag and to be more consistent. What about junction=ford ? No. Because it's not a junction, except if you have an amphibious craft of course. -- I'm not sure how the highway tag is cluttered see no real reason to change to ford=yes, but don't see a problem with it either. Does this 'clutter' problem mean you'll want to amend traffic_lights/mini_roundabout nodes as well? Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 31/10/2010 17:08, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/10/31 Gorm E. Johnsenosml...@gorm.cc: John I propose to replace highway=ford with ford=yes (or perhaps barrier=ford?) on nodes as well, simply to de-clutter the highway tag and to be more consistent. What about junction=ford ? No. Because it's not a junction, except if you have an amphibious craft of course. My thoughts exactly. Thanks. -- I'm not sure how the highway tag is cluttered see no real reason to change to ford=yes, but don't see a problem with it either. For consistency. One thing should be one tag. Not like its today with highway=incline on nodes and incline=* on ways, highway=ford on nodes and ford=yes on ways, highway=mini_roundabout on nodes and junction=roundabout on ways. Tagging all these on just a single node is not good, but even worse when its a different tag for way and node. There is many things the higway tags is (mis)used for: amenities, traffic signs, properties etc. In general highway should probably exclusively be used on ways, not nodes. So, yes, I think the highway tag is cluttered. So I have started cleaning up the long tail, starting with some of the least used. Does this 'clutter' problem mean you'll want to amend traffic_lights/mini_roundabout nodes as well? I would personally prefer to change mini_roundabout to junction=roundabout, yes. There is a vague difference anyway. That difference can perfectly well be conveyed by the fact that it is tagged on a single node or not.. I had not considered traffic_signals, but yes it does fit into junction=. But please let us not start that discussion now. But don't worry, I won't go ahead and change 29k and 251k elements, respectively, just like that. best regards ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
On 31/10/2010 13:46, Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: I propose to replace highway=ford with ford=yes (or perhaps barrier=ford?) on nodes as well, simply to de-clutter the highway tag and to be more consistent. Please don't change things unless you've actually been there and surveyed the item in question. You can't possibly know that your changes better reflect the sense of the reality unless you have (or have contacted the original mapper in question to ask them). As it says on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits/Code_of_Conduct , Always remember that local knowledge beats a couch potato from central command any time!. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:02:56 +0200 Gorm E. Johnsen osml...@gorm.cc wrote: Any suggestions on what to do with the 4800 nodes also tagged with highway=ford? Change them to ford=yes all in one go as well? The nodes I have put in as highway=ford you can leave unless you wish to attend the sites and mark the start and end of the ford and split the way. I'd regard nodes as points marked highway=ford as points which would benefit from further survey. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
2010/10/27 Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net: On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:02:56 +0200 Gorm E. Johnsen osml...@gorm.cc wrote: Any suggestions on what to do with the 4800 nodes also tagged with highway=ford? Change them to ford=yes all in one go as well? The nodes I have put in as highway=ford you can leave unless you wish to attend the sites and mark the start and end of the ford and split the way. I'd regard nodes as points marked highway=ford as points which would benefit from further survey. I've recently tagged a node with highway=ford (with width and depth) in a situation where a path crossed a stream without a bridge. As neither the path nor the stream were mapped (or will be mapped) as areas, I'd consider a node the most appropriate approach. http://www.23hq.com/dieterdreist/photo/6137652 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/955908102 the only thing I don't consider appropriate is the car in the icon ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
Hi There are now few, if any, ways with highway=ford left. They have all been changed to highway=whatever the connecting ways are + ford=yes http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ford. Any suggestions on what to do with the 4800 nodes also tagged with highway=ford? Change them to ford=yes all in one go as well? Anyone have strong objections on removing highway=ford from map features? I have put a reference to ford=yes where it should be, in map features#propertieshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Propertiesalong with bridge, tunnel etc. I'm of course open for other suggestions too. Might as well RFC on ford=yes http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ford, too while I'm at it... best regards Gorm Egeberg Johnsen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
There was/is very good reasons why highway=ford wasn't good enough for ways, but why do nodes need to be updated at all? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
