Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways
I that case nodes are not shared by the ways, but are duplicate (same lat/lon) and as Clay mentionned, this will ring some other alarm.. I would move one of them a little bit to avoid it. 2013/1/10 Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com: Can I ask for some clarification on what is meant by sharing nodes. For example, if I draw the layer 0 way, then draw the layer 1 way on top, using the same nodes as a guide, BUT THEN unglue all the nodes by pressing G in JOSM, does this still count as a shared node? -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France - http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquest ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways
Christian Quest wrote: I that case nodes are not shared by the ways, but are duplicate (same lat/lon) and as Clay mentionned, this will ring some other alarm.. I would move one of them a little bit to avoid it. I can understand why you're saying this, but isn't education of remote fixers that an alarm isn't necessarily an error the better option here? If we can help them to think a little more, and interact with local mappers a little more, then surely that's better for everyone in the future? * The aim of OSM isn't no errors displayed by QA sites, it's a map that best reflects reality. Cheers, Andy * as an aside I'd also suggest the same approach with new mappers - give them a bit of time to get the hang of things, then after that try and help them with issues that they might be having trouble with, rather than just diving in and fixing stuff. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways
2013/1/10 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk: Christian Quest wrote: I that case nodes are not shared by the ways, but are duplicate (same lat/lon) and as Clay mentionned, this will ring some other alarm.. I would move one of them a little bit to avoid it. I can understand why you're saying this, but isn't education of remote fixers that an alarm isn't necessarily an error the better option here? If we can help them to think a little more, and interact with local mappers a little more, then surely that's better for everyone in the future? * The aim of OSM isn't no errors displayed by QA sites, it's a map that best reflects reality. I agree, even more when the QA alarm could be considered as a false positive: 2 overlapping ways with different layer=* tag should not be considered as duplicates as they clearly represent different things in reality one above the other. It is useful to report false positives on tools like Osmose, as these can be reviewed to improve the algorithms. For example JOSM validator rings a lot of bells that do not always require a fix without a possibility to have false positive feedback due to its local nature. Cheers, Andy * as an aside I'd also suggest the same approach with new mappers - give them a bit of time to get the hang of things, then after that try and help them with issues that they might be having trouble with, rather than just diving in and fixing stuff. I also agree. I'm contacting many new mappers in France, and have a look at their first edits (when I have enough time). If I find errors like unconnected ways or very bag tagging, I also mention it in this welcome message (as a post-scriptum because I prefer to have the welcoming part of the message being the main one). I may fix most errors not to discourage new mappers with too many required fixes but usually leave at least a few as examples with explanations on how to fix them. -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France - http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquest ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways
Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr wrote: I that case nodes are not shared by the ways, but are duplicate (same lat/lon) and as Clay mentionned, this will ring some other alarm.. I would move one of them a little bit to avoid it. 2013/1/10 Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com: Can I ask for some clarification on what is meant by sharing nodes. For example, if I draw the layer 0 way, then draw the layer 1 way on top, using the same nodes as a guide, BUT THEN unglue all the nodes by pressing G in JOSM, does this still count as a shared node? Nodes that have the same latitude and longitude, but different layer or level values, should not be flagged as duplicates. It sounds like some programmer forgot to allow for the fact that we live in a three-dimensional world. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways
The nodes don't have (and don't have to have) a layer tag, the way does. On 01/10/2013 10:43 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr wrote: I that case nodes are not shared by the ways, but are duplicate (same lat/lon) and as Clay mentionned, this will ring some other alarm.. I would move one of them a little bit to avoid it. 2013/1/10 Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com: Can I ask for some clarification on what is meant by sharing nodes. For example, if I draw the layer 0 way, then draw the layer 1 way on top, using the same nodes as a guide, BUT THEN unglue all the nodes by pressing G in JOSM, does this still count as a shared node? Nodes that have the same latitude and longitude, but different layer or level values, should not be flagged as duplicates. It sounds like some programmer forgot to allow for the fact that we live in a three-dimensional world. -- --- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways
It sounds like some programmer forgot to allow for the fact that we live in a three-dimensional world. No, no. The nodes hadn't been properly unglued and hence the fixing tool flagged the ways as duplicate. I'm going to restore the way but make sure the nodes are not shared (connected) this time. It shouldn't then appear in any fixer tool. It was a case of my poor mapping being flagged as erroneous, then another mapping fixing it with more erroneous mapping! Always helps to ask people and discuss things on this mailing list - I certainly won't make the mistake again. Thanks everybody who has helped on this one :-) Rob ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways
You can use the layer tag on one of both ways. It probably also needs bridge=yes. Jo 2013/1/9 Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com Hi List, If I have a situation (e.g. a 2 level carpark) where a road runs exactly above another road, how do I map this? Currently I used layers but I have found that the way is being deleted by another mapper who sees this as a duplicated way (possibly in keep right). Do I simply need to draw then incredibly close together but not sharing nodes? Thanks, Rob ___ 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] Overlapping ways
Hello, You can simply revert the other mappers changeset or redraw the way, as you mapped it right. Adding a bridge tag would be wrong as there is no bridge. It probably helps to message the other user what you are doing and why. On 01/09/2013 08:38 PM, Jo wrote: You can use the layer tag on one of both ways. It probably also needs bridge=yes. Jo 2013/1/9 Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com Hi List, If I have a situation (e.g. a 2 level carpark) where a road runs exactly above another road, how do I map this? Currently I used layers but I have found that the way is being deleted by another mapper who sees this as a duplicated way (possibly in keep right). Do I simply need to draw then incredibly close together but not sharing nodes? Thanks, Rob --- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways
Hi, I used the layer tag, but not bridge (as its a carpark not a bridge) but because the way shares nodes with the way one layer down, it seems to be flagged as duplicate and deleted by other mappers. For example, in the following car park, cars enter up the ramp on to level 1. There is a rectangular service road (parking aisle) on this level, which I have tagged with layer=1. Cars can the go down the ramp to layer 0. Although I can't see this on Bing to fill in the parking aisle, I do know that part of this runs underneath the level 1 parking aisle in order to get to the car parks ground exit. As you will see, because the layer 0 exit way runs directly under my rectangular level 1 parking aisle, it appears to be flagged as a duplicate way in one of the fixer tools. As such someone has removed part of the rectangular layer=1 way, leaving just a horse shoe (which is incorrect): http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/141374480 Am I doing something wrong? Is the fixer tool flagging something up incorrectly? Regards, Rob On 9 January 2013 19:38, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: You can use the layer tag on one of both ways. It probably also needs bridge=yes. Jo 2013/1/9 Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com Hi List, If I have a situation (e.g. a 2 level carpark) where a road runs exactly above another road, how do I map this? Currently I used layers but I have found that the way is being deleted by another mapper who sees this as a duplicated way (possibly in keep right). Do I simply need to draw then incredibly close together but not sharing nodes? Thanks, Rob ___ 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] Overlapping ways
Hello, The ways should be on top of each other, but they should _not_ share all nodes. Only the nodes at the ends where they connect in the real world should be shared with something. A shared node means something shares the same space in _three_ dimensions and you should be able to route from all objects connected to that node to all other objects connected to the same node. (Baring access restrictions of course. At a level railroad crossing the road and railway share a node, but almost no vehicles can route that way.) Fixer tools often flags things incorrectly. That is why good tools allow you to flag things as false positives. On 01/09/2013 09:51 PM, Rob Nickerson wrote: Hi, I used the layer tag, but not bridge (as its a carpark not a bridge) but because the way shares nodes with the way one layer down, it seems to be flagged as duplicate and deleted by other mappers. For example, in the following car park, cars enter up the ramp on to level 1. There is a rectangular service road (parking aisle) on this level, which I have tagged with layer=1. Cars can the go down the ramp to layer 0. Although I can't see this on Bing to fill in the parking aisle, I do know that part of this runs underneath the level 1 parking aisle in order to get to the car parks ground exit. As you will see, because the layer 0 exit way runs directly under my rectangular level 1 parking aisle, it appears to be flagged as a duplicate way in one of the fixer tools. As such someone has removed part of the rectangular layer=1 way, leaving just a horse shoe (which is incorrect): http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/141374480 Am I doing something wrong? Is the fixer tool flagging something up incorrectly? Regards, Rob On 9 January 2013 19:38, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: You can use the layer tag on one of both ways. It probably also needs bridge=yes. Jo 2013/1/9 Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com Hi List, If I have a situation (e.g. a 2 level carpark) where a road runs exactly above another road, how do I map this? Currently I used layers but I have found that the way is being deleted by another mapper who sees this as a duplicated way (possibly in keep right). Do I simply need to draw then incredibly close together but not sharing nodes? Thanks, Rob ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- --- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways
Rob Nickerson wrote: Am I doing something wrong? Is the fixer tool flagging something up incorrectly? In cases such as this I normally say to the other mapper that I was last there on so-and-so date, and when I was last there it looked like X; and ask whether perhaps he's been there more recently and the geometry's changed? Personally I believe that the various QA tools do an excellent job, but it'd be simply impossible to miss all the false negatives and not catch some false positives - it has to be up to the mapper to decide what's a real issue and what's not. (begin rant) I wish more of the people doing these remote corrections would actually talk to the person who did the original mapping in the first place. Perhaps the way was drawn by a new mapper who actually has lots of questions about how to do things, but doesn't know who or where to ask. Maybe it's a mistake by someone who's been mapping for a while (we all still make them!), in which the best person to correct the error is surely a person who's been there rather than a person who hasn't. In some cases it does make sense to correct remotely (perhaps non-connecting footpaths that match GPS traces that were drawn by a mapper who hasn't been seen since 2009 would be an example), but in many cases I would argue that it doesn't. (end rant) As an interesting aside, what I've found myself doing more frequently recently is revisiting places that I'd mapped previously that had been subsequently armchaired. In almost all cases what resulted from a resurvey wasn't exactly the same as from the original, but slightly more nuanced and with a lot more detail - revisiting isn't necessarily a bad thing. Still, it can be annoying to have to go back and resurvey an area because someone has corrected it to look like an old Bing photo, prompted by a false positive on a QA site. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways
Consider slightly offsetting each level. Add a note saying slightly-offset-from-level-below. Sharing nodes between vertical layers is certainly wrong. Richard On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:31 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.ukwrote: Rob Nickerson wrote: Am I doing something wrong? Is the fixer tool flagging something up incorrectly? In cases such as this I normally say to the other mapper that I was last there on so-and-so date, and when I was last there it looked like X; and ask whether perhaps he's been there more recently and the geometry's changed? Personally I believe that the various QA tools do an excellent job, but it'd be simply impossible to miss all the false negatives and not catch some false positives - it has to be up to the mapper to decide what's a real issue and what's not. (begin rant) I wish more of the people doing these remote corrections would actually talk to the person who did the original mapping in the first place. Perhaps the way was drawn by a new mapper who actually has lots of questions about how to do things, but doesn't know who or where to ask. Maybe it's a mistake by someone who's been mapping for a while (we all still make them!), in which the best person to correct the error is surely a person who's been there rather than a person who hasn't. In some cases it does make sense to correct remotely (perhaps non-connecting footpaths that match GPS traces that were drawn by a mapper who hasn't been seen since 2009 would be an example), but in many cases I would argue that it doesn't. (end rant) As an interesting aside, what I've found myself doing more frequently recently is revisiting places that I'd mapped previously that had been subsequently armchaired. In almost all cases what resulted from a resurvey wasn't exactly the same as from the original, but slightly more nuanced and with a lot more detail - revisiting isn't necessarily a bad thing. Still, it can be annoying to have to go back and resurvey an area because someone has corrected it to look like an old Bing photo, prompted by a false positive on a QA site. Cheers, Andy __**_ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways
Can I ask for some clarification on what is meant by sharing nodes. For example, if I draw the layer 0 way, then draw the layer 1 way on top, using the same nodes as a guide, BUT THEN unglue all the nodes by pressing G in JOSM, does this still count as a shared node? Thanks, Rob ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways
On Jan 9, 2013 5:03 PM, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: For example, if I draw the layer 0 way, then draw the layer 1 way on top, using the same nodes as a guide, BUT THEN unglue all the nodes by pressing G in JOSM, does this still count as a shared node? That is perfectly valid as they are separate nodes according to OSM. Some validators might pick up on these and call them errors, but that's a false negative. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways warning for areas
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Thomas Wood wrote: Ignore the warnings, they were mostly as a warning to inform you that there happen to be two ways there rather than as an error. Ok, I thought as much, thanks. Would there be any bad side effects of the validator never warning of overlapping ways where one of those ways has area=yes? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways warning for areas
Ignore the warnings, they were mostly as a warning to inform you that there happen to be two ways there rather than as an error. The validator plugin should probably move it's level down to info from warning (can't remember what it is at the moment for certain) Also see: http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/774 On 6/2/08, Steve Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have created a number of landuse areas which are divided by ways. E.g. a natural=wood area abutting a landuse=farm area with a highway=footway running along the join. Where they join, the two areas share the same nodes, as does the footway which goes along the join. However, JOSM's validator is complaining of overlapping ways. I know there is some contention as to whether sharing nodes is necessarilly the right thing to do, but in this case the footway really is the thing that divides the woodland from the farmland - should I take notice of the validator and change the way I have drawn the land use areas (I guess I could move them to layer -5, but shouldn't landuse areas default to being on the lowest layer anyway?), or should I just ignore the warnings? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping Ways - Embrace or Avoid?
Steve Hill schrieb: JOSM handles overlapping objects reasonably well (using the middle-click menu). Relying on middle-click only is bad for those using a 1-button mouse. Invoking a context menue works for me if I hold ctrl and click. But this won't work in JOSM... Thus I vote to emulate the middle-click along these lines: first select the object(s) and then simply press 'i'. If you need to separate the ways you can add a new node to each way individually and then delete the shared node - could be neater, but it isn't bad. This never worked for me. I always must resort to potlatch for such actions. -- Karl Eichwalder ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping Ways - Embrace or Avoid?
Steve Hill wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. The area shares some nodes with the highway, creating overlapping ways. 2. The area shares no nodes and was drawn as close as possible to the road. I couldn't find any recommendations in the wiki on which option to prefer. I prefer sharing nodes. But it is an area that needs to be fine tuned in the guides! In reality at smaller scales they are never in the same place, so *IF* the information is available to accurately plot the real area that should be used in preference to 'abuts' simply dropping to the shared model when the information is not accurate? Adding footpath and crossing information to maps is another aspect where the physical width of the road becomes important and where - like rivers - area may become an attractive alternative! Overlapping ways allow a cleaner data model and saves nodes. But editing such ways is quite a hassle. There is currently no function to split nodes so that ways can be separated again. So if the border of the area needs to be changed, the complete area has to be redrawn (at least to my knowledge). JOSM handles overlapping objects reasonably well (using the middle-click menu). If you need to separate the ways you can add a new node to each way individually and then delete the shared node - could be neater, but it isn't bad. Some means of restoring a split WILL be needed in the future. I'd even go as far as to say that using node elements to build ways and areas is the cause of an unnecessary problem and that the node data for them should be integral to each object. However I can see the arguments either way. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping Ways - Embrace or Avoid?
Lester Caine wrote: But it is an area that needs to be fine tuned in the guides! In reality at smaller scales they are never in the same place This depends what you are mapping. For example, I have used shared nodes on beaches - below the high water mark I have mapped a beach with a water=tidal tag, above the high water mark I have mapped a nontidal beach. Where the tidal and nontidal beaches join, they share nodes - this reflects reality since there really is no gap between tidal and nontidal bits of beach. Similarly, where beaches change from sand to rock, there is no gap and so the nodes should be shared. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping Ways - Embrace or Avoid?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. The area shares some nodes with the highway, creating overlapping ways. 2. The area shares no nodes and was drawn as close as possible to the road. I couldn't find any recommendations in the wiki on which option to prefer. I prefer sharing nodes. Overlapping ways allow a cleaner data model and saves nodes. But editing such ways is quite a hassle. There is currently no function to split nodes so that ways can be separated again. So if the border of the area needs to be changed, the complete area has to be redrawn (at least to my knowledge). JOSM handles overlapping objects reasonably well (using the middle-click menu). If you need to separate the ways you can add a new node to each way individually and then delete the shared node - could be neater, but it isn't bad. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping Ways - Embrace or Avoid?
Hi, A residential area is bordered by a road. Plesae read the thread area topology which is about exactly this topic and has been started 4 days ago in this mailing list ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
