Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

[Richard]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 01:46:41AM -0700, Ben Discoe wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Richard  wrote:
> >> FWIW, I simply set the following key mapping in JOSM:
> >>
> >> Shift-D: add bridge=yes, layer=1
> >> Shift-C: add tunnel=culvert, layer=-1
> >
> > nice.. but still need to select or add two nodes, split the
> > ways, and select the correct segment before hitting s-d/s-c.
> 
> I agree, I always intended to add that to make it easier... so this
> evening I took the time to figure it out, and it works great: You can
> select a way, or multiple ways, or a way and two nodes, or just two
> nodes.  I'll write up a diary post soon with my new powerful script.
> :)

great thanks, where do I find the script?

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

[Ben Discoe]

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Richard  wrote:
>> FWIW, I simply set the following key mapping in JOSM:
>>
>> Shift-D: add bridge=yes, layer=1
>> Shift-C: add tunnel=culvert, layer=-1
>
> nice.. but still need to select or add two nodes, split the
> ways, and select the correct segment before hitting s-d/s-c.

I agree, I always intended to add that to make it easier... so this
evening I took the time to figure it out, and it works great: You can
select a way, or multiple ways, or a way and two nodes, or just two
nodes.  I'll write up a diary post soon with my new powerful script.
:)

-Ben

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

[malenki]

On Tue, 31 May 2016 23:08:22 +0200,
Richard wrote:

> I found plenty of places where people have done everything
> correctly but accidentally applied the bridge/culvert/layer
> to the wrong way segment or one of the nodes - any way to 
> automate that even more?

And how will you get this people not to apply ford=no to the waterway
instead of the highway or to the wrong highway or to some node or
ford=yes to all of the highway?

I never saw so much energy wasted like in this discussion /not/ to map
certain things. How many bridges, fords, culverts or even nothing you
and all the other people involved could have mapped instead of replying
to this thread.

Oh my goodness!


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

[Warin]

On 6/1/2016 7:18 AM, Richard wrote:

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:01:07PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

2016-05-31 15:03 GMT+02:00 Richard :


often enough I get messages from people saying that drawing a bridge
or culvert for every minor highway/waterway crossing causes more
trouble than use and I tend to agree.


If you and they don't 'like' them .. don't enter them and don't render them.
There are a few things in OSM that I have no interest in .. but I don't 
advocate there demotion.



I disagree. Either there is a bridge / culvert in reality, and in this case
why wouldn't we want it in OSM, or there isn't and then it is a simple
error waiting to be corrected.

so what do you do if you drove along a track know there is not a single
ford but don't have enough information to know whether there is
a bridge or culvert in most places? There are some notable bridges but
everything that is notable probably deserves at least a man_made=bridge
anyway while the rest ist just I don't get wet feet here.


If you don't know if there are bridges/culverts then you don't map them ...


Which trouble do these elements cause? I realize they make it harder to
apply modifications to long (i.e. probably more pieces) ways, but on the
other hand, casual mistakes also don't extend very far.

I have seen many examples of culverts applied to the wrong segment
of the way.. theese seem to go easily unnoticed for long periods of
time.



Any entry is prone to error. Even ford=no!
Introducing a new tag/value just introduces more possible errors if you want to 
look at it that way.
You are looking for a solution to a problem, but your proposed solution just 
adds yet another potential problem.




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

[Richard]

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:01:07PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2016-05-31 15:03 GMT+02:00 Richard :
> 
> > often enough I get messages from people saying that drawing a bridge
> > or culvert for every minor highway/waterway crossing causes more
> > trouble than use and I tend to agree.
> >
> 
> 
> I disagree. Either there is a bridge / culvert in reality, and in this case
> why wouldn't we want it in OSM, or there isn't and then it is a simple
> error waiting to be corrected.

so what do you do if you drove along a track know there is not a single 
ford but don't have enough information to know whether there is
a bridge or culvert in most places? There are some notable bridges but
everything that is notable probably deserves at least a man_made=bridge
anyway while the rest ist just I don't get wet feet here.

> Which trouble do these elements cause? I realize they make it harder to
> apply modifications to long (i.e. probably more pieces) ways, but on the
> other hand, casual mistakes also don't extend very far.

I have seen many examples of culverts applied to the wrong segment
of the way.. theese seem to go easily unnoticed for long periods of 
time.

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

[Richard]

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:13:36AM -0700, Ben Discoe wrote:
> FWIW, I simply set the following key mapping in JOSM:
> 
> Shift-D: add bridge=yes, layer=1
> Shift-C: add tunnel=culvert, layer=-1

nice.. but still need to select or add two nodes, split the
ways, and select the correct segment before hitting s-d/s-c.

I found plenty of places where people have done everything
correctly but accidentally applied the bridge/culvert/layer
to the wrong way segment or one of the nodes - any way to 
automate that even more?

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

[Ben Discoe]

FWIW, I simply set the following key mapping in JOSM:

Shift-D: add bridge=yes, layer=1
Shift-C: add tunnel=culvert, layer=-1

Making bridges/culverts is then very quick and easy.

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> 2016-05-31 15:03 GMT+02:00 Richard :
>>
>> often enough I get messages from people saying that drawing a bridge
>> or culvert for every minor highway/waterway crossing causes more
>> trouble than use and I tend to agree.
>
>
>
> I disagree. Either there is a bridge / culvert in reality, and in this case
> why wouldn't we want it in OSM, or there isn't and then it is a simple error
> waiting to be corrected.
> Which trouble do these elements cause?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-05-31 15:03 GMT+02:00 Richard :

> often enough I get messages from people saying that drawing a bridge
> or culvert for every minor highway/waterway crossing causes more
> trouble than use and I tend to agree.
>


I disagree. Either there is a bridge / culvert in reality, and in this case
why wouldn't we want it in OSM, or there isn't and then it is a simple
error waiting to be corrected.
Which trouble do these elements cause? I realize they make it harder to
apply modifications to long (i.e. probably more pieces) ways, but on the
other hand, casual mistakes also don't extend very far.

Think how much work it is to construct a culvert or a bridge, those will
last typically for a long time (also because they are there for a reason),
and compare to how much work it is to put them into OSM (2 nodes, split,
add one tag). Is this still a real problem?

If you are not interested in mapping them, don't do it, but please do not
invent a tag that encourages not to map them.

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk