Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
On 28/08/09 13:07, wynnd...@lavabit.com wrote: On 27/08/09 12:13, Jack Stringer wrote: lock=yes lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock When you are tagging a way, you can't use name= because that will already contain the name of the canal. Hence lock_name=. Why would you want to repeat the name of a canal on its individual nodes? Isn’t that repeating the mistake of the TIGER node tags? You wouldn't. The tagging scheme above is for the *way* between the two gate nodes. That way will already have e.g. name=Grand Union so you need a lock_name tag to avoid a clash. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
Peter Childs schrieb: 2009/8/28 wynnd...@lavabit.com: On 27/08/09 12:13, Jack Stringer wrote: lock=yes lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock When you are tagging a way, you can't use name= because that will already contain the name of the canal. Hence lock_name=. Why would you want to repeat the name of a canal on its individual nodes? Isn’t that repeating the mistake of the TIGER node tags? Read it again. on a node lock=yes name=lock name or on a node waterway=lock_gate name=lock gate name and on the way between the lock gates waterway=canal name=canal name lock=yes lock_name=lock name The Canal way will need to be split at the lock gates, (or in some cases where a diversion starts (due to some rivers going over weirs) while there is a lock for boats. Peter. I really like this methode! let's do it that way :) -- Mario ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
Gervase Thanks for the tip - I like the idea of using a relation here. Non-rendering is a downer (yes - I know - don't tag for the renderers) but sounds like some Good Samaritans have it in hand. If fully and universally implemented, this solution - which I feel is technically the right one - would create a huge number of new relations (a lot of bridges in the world!) - is this a problem anywhere in the software chain? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv-gm...@gerv.net] Sent: 28 August 2009 09:41 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock On 27/08/09 14:27, Mike Harris wrote: On a related canal issue, I have a problem with deciding how to tag a canal bridge as a segment of a way. The way will often already have name= and ref= tags as a highway; but I want to add a name= and ref= tag for the canal bridge. Not keen on name_1 or ref_1 - any better ideas? I did wonder about adding a node in the middle of the bridge and then tagging this with the canal bridge information and reserving the name and ref tags for the highway segment. The correct solution here is to use relations. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_ and_Tunnels The relation should be as follows: type=bridge across=the road under=the waterway ref=bridge number Optionally: maxwidth= maxheight= name= However, no renderer yet shows this, although I've been working with Steve Chilton for a while to get it done. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
... Because in England locks almost always have unique (and often fascinating and historic) names that are nothing to do with the canal name. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: wynnd...@lavabit.com [mailto:wynnd...@lavabit.com] Sent: 28 August 2009 13:07 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock On 27/08/09 12:13, Jack Stringer wrote: lock=yes lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock When you are tagging a way, you can't use name= because that will already contain the name of the canal. Hence lock_name=. Why would you want to repeat the name of a canal on its individual nodes? Isnt that repeating the mistake of the TIGER node tags? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
On 27/08/09 12:13, Jack Stringer wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dlock_gate Shows to tag both ends of the lock. If there is a name just to use name. This was the original tag. However, it has various problems - for example, it makes it hard to render a lock as a single icon if there are two tags (one for each end) and in a staircase lock, things get even more confusing. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lock Says to tag either both ends or just use a single node. This was created to deal with the above problem. For high-resolution mapping, use it to tag the water way between the gates as lock=yes. For low-resolution mapping, just add a node to the canal and tag it. lock=yes lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock When you are tagging a way, you can't use name= because that will already contain the name of the canal. Hence lock_name=. I have then seen people use name_1=5 to tell you the lock number. Ick. Please use ref for this. If you are mapping carefully, I'd suggest the tags you want are lock=yes on the waterway section, lock_name for the name, and ref for the number if present. If you want to add waterway=lock_gate to the two ends as well, knock yourself out. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
On 27/08/09 14:27, Mike Harris wrote: On a related canal issue, I have a problem with deciding how to tag a canal bridge as a segment of a way. The way will often already have name= and ref= tags as a highway; but I want to add a name= and ref= tag for the canal bridge. Not keen on name_1 or ref_1 - any better ideas? I did wonder about adding a node in the middle of the bridge and then tagging this with the canal bridge information and reserving the name and ref tags for the highway segment. The correct solution here is to use relations. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels The relation should be as follows: type=bridge across=the road under=the waterway ref=bridge number Optionally: maxwidth= maxheight= name= However, no renderer yet shows this, although I've been working with Steve Chilton for a while to get it done. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
On 27/08/09 12:13, Jack Stringer wrote: lock=yes lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock When you are tagging a way, you can't use name= because that will already contain the name of the canal. Hence lock_name=. Why would you want to repeat the name of a canal on its individual nodes? Isnt that repeating the mistake of the TIGER node tags? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
2009/8/28 wynnd...@lavabit.com: On 27/08/09 12:13, Jack Stringer wrote: lock=yes lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock When you are tagging a way, you can't use name= because that will already contain the name of the canal. Hence lock_name=. Why would you want to repeat the name of a canal on its individual nodes? Isn’t that repeating the mistake of the TIGER node tags? Read it again. on a node lock=yes name=lock name or on a node waterway=lock_gate name=lock gate name and on the way between the lock gates waterway=canal name=canal name lock=yes lock_name=lock name The Canal way will need to be split at the lock gates, (or in some cases where a diversion starts (due to some rivers going over weirs) while there is a lock for boats. Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
Peter Childs wrote: The Canal way will need to be split at the lock gates, (or in some cases where a diversion starts (due to some rivers going over weirs) while there is a lock for boats. (UK-specific tagging stuff follows) Ideally I'd like to discourage people from using a (non-closed) way for locks where possible. It makes dealing with the data vastly harder; doesn't actually give you many real advantages; and is actively misleading in that it suggests the length of the way is significant. Given that UK locks have a tolerance measured in inches, and our mapping doesn't, the length is much better expressed in the maxlength tag. About the one thing to be said for mapping the lock as a way, with lock-gate nodes at either end, is that you can route a footpath over one of them. Which is quite nice in a micro-mapping sort of way but so much of an edge case (99% of footpath crossings are actually on lock bridges) that I don't see a real issue. If there's a _large_ lock - say, those on the Manchester Ship Canal - then it should really be mapped as an area, not an unclosed way. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/waterway%3Dlock-tp25170540p25189952.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
2009/8/28 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: Peter Childs wrote: The Canal way will need to be split at the lock gates, (or in some cases where a diversion starts (due to some rivers going over weirs) while there is a lock for boats. (UK-specific tagging stuff follows) Ideally I'd like to discourage people from using a (non-closed) way for locks where possible. It makes dealing with the data vastly harder; doesn't actually give you many real advantages; and is actively misleading in that it suggests the length of the way is significant. Given that UK locks have a tolerance measured in inches, and our mapping doesn't, the length is much better expressed in the maxlength tag. About the one thing to be said for mapping the lock as a way, with lock-gate nodes at either end, is that you can route a footpath over one of them. Which is quite nice in a micro-mapping sort of way but so much of an edge case (99% of footpath crossings are actually on lock bridges) that I don't see a real issue. If there's a _large_ lock - say, those on the Manchester Ship Canal - then it should really be mapped as an area, not an unclosed way. While I agree that a maxlength tag is a good idea. maxlength still needs to be on a way otherwise its saying the max length of the gate which is utter rubbish. Your suggestion is even more complex. a Closed area would not work as you need to map the gates so you would need 4 ways, one for each bank and one for each gate. I have no knowledge of Canals and shipping, so maybe we need an expert on how to map waterways properly. I guess you need two parallel ways for each bank of a river or canal and a third for the river itself right, When I was adding Tenston Lock I did not the banks where not maped only the river so there was no clue to river width. Oh sorry a river is a series of Area (he frowns) What event happens at the joins are they completely arbitratory. Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
2009/8/27 Jack Stringer jack.ix...@googlemail.com: Just looking at Keepright and I can see loads of waterway=lock What is the preferred way to record the information? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dlock_gate Shows to tag both ends of the lock. If there is a name just to use name. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lock Says to tag either both ends or just use a single node. Problem I see is that there are 2 ways to name a lock and 2 ways to indicate one exists. For example, waterway=lock_gate name=Withrington Bottom Lock My reading is that that should be on the Node that is the Lock Gate. or lock=yes lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock The way I read it that should be on the way between the two lock gates, that make up the lock. There should not be any need to put the name on each gate unless they have different names, But putting waterway=lock_gate on a node without any way saying lock=yes is a short hand of saying lock here but not putting in the stretch of water between the lock and the second lock gate. I will grant this needs cleaning up. In the case of a lock I added in Teston, Kent, Uk last week, I put name=Teston Lock on both gates and lock_name=Teston Lock, lock=yes on the diversion I added, as the main River goes over a weir. (Marked weir=yes), Probably over kill but never mind. I have to grant that most of the renders don't show waterways very well currently. There is also a 5knots speed limit there as well, But I'm not sure I got the tags right. Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
Jack I have tried various systems for this one. At present I favour tagging two nodes - one for each gate (or multiples of 2 for complex locks e.g. Vale Royal where there are two parallel locks, each with - of course - two gates), isolating the section of canal between and giving this the tags name= and ref= . I have no strong opinion - beyond wishing to record the name and number of the lock - and would be interested in other views. Not keen on using name_1 - prefer the ref= tag. Not quite clear whether you add identical name= and ref= to each of the two gates? On a related canal issue, I have a problem with deciding how to tag a canal bridge as a segment of a way. The way will often already have name= and ref= tags as a highway; but I want to add a name= and ref= tag for the canal bridge. Not keen on name_1 or ref_1 - any better ideas? I did wonder about adding a node in the middle of the bridge and then tagging this with the canal bridge information and reserving the name and ref tags for the highway segment. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Jack Stringer [mailto:jack.ix...@googlemail.com] Sent: 27 August 2009 12:14 To: Talk Openstreetmap Subject: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock Just looking at Keepright and I can see loads of waterway=lock What is the preferred way to record the information? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dlock_gate Shows to tag both ends of the lock. If there is a name just to use name. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lock Says to tag either both ends or just use a single node. Problem I see is that there are 2 ways to name a lock and 2 ways to indicate one exists. For example, waterway=lock_gate name=Withrington Bottom Lock or lock=yes lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock I have then seen people use name_1=5 to tell you the lock number. I would suggest, waterway=lock_gate name=Withrington Bottom Lock ref=5 Discuss... Jack Stringer ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
