Re: [Talk-GB] OS Custom Made maps

[Marco Boeringa]

I am not surprised they outsource the digital printing aspect of the 
operation. This is something current digital printing companies seem to 
do really well, considering the boom in custom "photo album" type services.


As to changes in cartography: looking at my '90's era Landranger map and 
comparing it with the current styling of the custom printed 2017 map, 
only minor changes have taken place. As SwissTopo does in their current 
maps, OS UK also seems to be using a raster scan of their original hand 
drawn relief features as an overlay in the maps. It is clearly not 
digitally derived.


"we still lack easy to use render chains designed for print."

I am in the process of finishing of one for ArcGIS... took me four years 
though. Very early results here, cartography pretty outdated though, I 
have made significant changes and improvements since then, and present 
some more up to date results throughout more recent posts in the forums:

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=26451

"but 1:25k often is a little too large a scale for gaining a quick 
overview of an area, and 1:50k often miss detail which is important for 
navigation"


Although scales can be completely arbitrary in ArcGIS, one scale I 
designed my custom style for, is also an intermediate 1:37.500 scale. It 
indeed gives the sweet spot between to small scale for significant 
features (1:50k), and to large scale for convenience and coverage (1:25k).


Marco

Op 26-4-2017 om 14:09 schreef SK53:
AFAIK SplashMaps UK custom maps are now entirely based on OS data, 
rather than the original products which used OS OpenData and OSM. IIRC 
the original SplashMaps were 1:40k scale, but now they use Explorer 
maps at 1:25k.


I think OSGB have now out-sourced their entire 'leisure' map printing 
operation (this was always an erroneous title, plenty of professionals 
- ecologists, land agents, council officers - use them on a daily basis).


I don't know if OSGB have changed their cartography much since the 
'90s (probably not v. much for Landranger), but dont be surprised to 
see changes akin to those introduced by SwissTopo.


Personally, and, still a good reason to support OSM, I'd like maps at 
different scales. The Outdoor Leisure Explorers for Snowdonia are 
notoriously and uselessly large for practical use on the hills, but 
1:25k often is a little too large a scale for gaining a quick overview 
of an area, and 1:50k often miss detail which is important for 
navigation. However, we still lack easy to use render chains designed 
for print.


Jerry

On 26 April 2017 at 12:53, Marco Boeringa <ma...@boeringa.demon.nl 
<mailto:ma...@boeringa.demon.nl>> wrote:


A bit off topic I admit, but I just received my first two OS UK
custom maps, with my own chosen print extent. I love it!

Being custom digital print, the quality does not fully hold up
with my 1990's era "Snowdon & surrounding area" offset version,
but it is still entirely acceptable, and it is lovely to compare
the original map with my custom 1:50k and 1:25k map and see what
has changed (or not). I studied there for half a year, so know the
area quite well.

Of course I already new the custom map services some of the
OpenStreetMap companies are offering, but I wasn't yet aware
Ordnance Survey was offering such a service for Landranger (1:50k)
and Explorer (1:25k) series maps. Anyone else who tried it, and
possibly found use for it when outdoor mapping for OpenStreetMap?

Marco


---
Dit e-mailbericht is gecontroleerd op virussen met Avast
antivirussoftware.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>






---
Dit e-mailbericht is gecontroleerd op virussen met Avast antivirussoftware.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] OS Custom Made maps

[Marco Boeringa]

A bit off topic I admit, but I just received my first two OS UK custom 
maps, with my own chosen print extent. I love it!


Being custom digital print, the quality does not fully hold up with my 
1990's era "Snowdon & surrounding area" offset version, but it is still 
entirely acceptable, and it is lovely to compare the original map with 
my custom 1:50k and 1:25k map and see what has changed (or not). I 
studied there for half a year, so know the area quite well.


Of course I already new the custom map services some of the 
OpenStreetMap companies are offering, but I wasn't yet aware Ordnance 
Survey was offering such a service for Landranger (1:50k) and Explorer 
(1:25k) series maps. Anyone else who tried it, and possibly found use 
for it when outdoor mapping for OpenStreetMap?


Marco


---
Dit e-mailbericht is gecontroleerd op virussen met Avast antivirussoftware.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 125, Issue 33

[Marco Boeringa]

ael,

"but your habit of not commenting on most of your changesets did 
contribute to people's suspicion. I really would urge you to make some 
sort of comment, even if brief, and maybe repetitive where you are doing 
similar things."


Yes, this was part of my confusion. I saw at least three accounts with 
apparently similar behaviour: very active mappers, lots of changesets, 
but virtually no changeset comments. It appeared to be related, or maybe 
even three accounts of the same user...


Of course, this was all only circumstantial evidence, but I have also 
advised Dyserth to add changeset comments to make review and recognition 
of legit edits at least a bit more easy.


Marco



Message: 2
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 20:38:19 +
From: ael 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?
Message-ID: <20170213203819.xh5xxw2qnvhvle7a@shelf.conquest>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 03:07:38PM -0700, Dyserth wrote:

With regards to deleting the areas mapped by Sam888 all over Wales I frankly
did not want to block out or delete these areas as I felt it would have
meant modifying the map data too extensively, been very time consuming, and

This is very unfortunate. I am surprised to hear that you did not
receive any private messages.

As I said in an earlier email, the only mapper whose contributions were
problematical in my area was Sam88, and I contacted him/her *and* had a
polite reply.

It seems that you were just caught as a side effect after you had also
tried to clean up, but again you should have had a message at the very
least.

After you have suffered this unwarranted criticism, I am hesitant to say
this, but your habit of not commenting on most of your changesets did
contribute to people's suspicion. I really would urge you to make some
sort of comment, even if brief, and maybe repetitive where you are doing
similar things.

ael




--

Subject: Digest Footer

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


--

End of Talk-GB Digest, Vol 125, Issue 33




---
Dit e-mailbericht is gecontroleerd op virussen met Avast antivirussoftware.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

[Marco Boeringa]

Hi all,

Since there was no more real discussion, I have decided to also revert 
the other two changesets. This means all the heath should re-appear on 
the map as it used to be before, except for the single edit by Brian 
based on his local knowledge of Snowdonia.


I think the suggestion by one of the list members (was it also Brian?) 
to set up some quarterly project to manually review some of the most 
obvious potential problematic areas, like Snowdonia, is probably the way 
to go now.


If this was done, based on my own review of the data up to now, I would 
suggest to deal with the following issues:


1) - Fix JOSM reported geometric issues, like overlaps between areas, 
duplicate nodes and possibly intersections.


2) - Merge areas cut up in arbitrary small sections into a single closed 
way or multipolygon. This is especially important for point 4), adding 
geographic names. With JOSM, the size should probably not be an issue, 
since the digitization itself is quite coarse of most areas, so the 
total number of nodes to deal with is limited.


3) - Create multipolygons where appropriate, e.g. when there are other 
internal landuses or natural features. While I regularly hear people say 
"that is a problem of the renderers", I can assure you, not creating 
multipolygons and leaving the renderer to guess what needs to go on top, 
is really a genuine issue. Having created a renderer myself, I now how 
though this is, and it really helps to have multipolygons in appropriate 
situations with internal ways.


4) - Add some useful toponyms / names. I noticed that by far the 
majority of the areas don't carry a name yet, while I presume many true 
heath areas do have a name in reality.


But I will leave this to all you now to decide.

Marco


---
Dit e-mailbericht is gecontroleerd op virussen met Avast antivirussoftware.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

[Marco Boeringa]

Hi all,

Dyserth contacted me through a changeset comment about the changes I 
made and explaining his point of view. I have henceforth decided to 
revert the changes I made involving his edits. I have also invited him 
to join the Talk-GB discussion.


I have not yet reverted the other changes, in anticipation of some 
further discussion of what to do with the really problematic features.


Anyway, anyone is free to do a revert of the remaining two changesets.

Side note: By the way, are there others having issues loading JOSM's 
reverter plugin in the latest version of JOSM? After I switched to OAuth 
and the latest JOSM, and additionally re-installed my machine with Win10 
before that, I can not load the reverter plugin. It fails with an


"unable to find valid certification path to request target"

error. I have no problem uploading changes though, so the OAuth 
authentication works. As a consequence, the revert has been done 
manually by editing the saved local OSM data again and uploading it.


Marco


---
Dit e-mailbericht is gecontroleerd op virussen met Avast antivirussoftware.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

[Marco Boeringa]

Hi all,

Following Brian's example, and "playing the ball" as Warin pointed out, 
I have now taken some action.


To document what I have done:

1) I first selected all features tagged as "natural=heath" using 
Overpass Turbo in an area roughly the extent of Wales (but actually 
larger as the extent of selection was just the Overpass Turbo default 
window zoomed in to some extent).


2) I ran the following Overpass Turbo query:

/*
This has been generated by the overpass-turbo wizard.
The original search was:
“natural=heath”
*/
[out:xml]/*fixed by auto repair*/[timeout:25];
// gather results
(
  // query part for: “natural=heath”
  node["natural"="heath"]({{bbox}})(user:"USER_NAME");
  way["natural"="heath"]({{bbox}})(user:"USER_NAME");
  relation["natural"="heath"]({{bbox}})(user:"USER_NAME");
);
// print results
out meta;/*fixed by auto repair*/
>;
out meta qt;/*fixed by auto repair*/

With USER_NAME being one of the three previously named editors. This is 
a pretty conservative approach, since the Overpass API only returns 
those objects last edited by USER_NAME, so any natural=heath feature 
edited or corrected later on by another user is thus excluded. This does 
mean the resulting data is a kind of "patch-work".


3) I subsequently exported the data from Overpass Turbo using the 
"Export" option with the "raw data data directly from Overpass API" 
option selected. This gives a file that is OSM XML that can be read by 
JOSM. I only needed to rename the file and add the *.osm extension, 
since the download result of the export option did not add an extension, 
and the file was thus not recognized as a valid JOSM XML file.


4) I loaded the data in JOSM

5) I selected all natural=heath features again in JOSM

6) The reason I did the latter, was to see if there were any other tags 
on the selected features beside natural=heath and maybe source=x.


7) If there was another tag in the combined tagset of all the selected 
features (e.g. name=x or wetland=x), I deselected those by using a query 
like "name=*" to exclude all heath features having a name. The relevance 
of this is that I thought it likely that any feature with further, more 
detailed tags, was more likely to be a "true" heath feature, or 
originally created by other users. By excluding features with more 
detailed tagging, those were left alone during the edit operation


8) Next, for the remaining features, I deleted the "natural=heath" tag 
of all the selected features, and I set two similar "note" and "fixme" 
tags as Brian did.


9) I did also have a closer look at the history of some of the objects, 
and reviewed some stuff in Bing. Nonetheless, it is likely that this 
action removed some areas that may be genuine "heaths". I especially 
suspect this for some areas in the south of Wales.


Please note that, like Brian, I did NOT delete the features. They are 
still there, just with no relevant tag to render them. You can either 
re-tag or correct them as you like.


Also note that while having a closer look at the data, I also noticed 
other issues I hadn't noted before:


- Areas are inconsistently mapped. Some areas are treated as a whole, 
others are cut up in many small pieces often using arbitrary border 
lines between the "natural=heath" features, like a straight line between 
two mountain tops.


- Areas overlap with each other. Even some of the areas mapped by the 
same user, may overlap another area of natural=heath. Even more worrying 
is that some of these areas were drawn straight over other natural=heath 
features added by other users in the years before this. I actually find 
it really hard to comprehend why this has been digitized like this, it 
really does still beg the question if much of the data wasn't simply 
imported, without much regard to what was already there.


If the British community feels this is all to bold an action, feel free 
to revert the relevant changesets, I have no problem with that at all. I 
do think it would be worthwhile to continue the discussion here though 
before doing that, and possibly rethink how such areas need to be 
mapped, if at all. Personally, I think it would be much more useful, 
instead of attempting to fill in the map with large swaths of inherently 
hugely complex and diverse (semi-)natural landscapes, to start mapping 
the surrounding managed countryside and farmland instead, or add more 
easily and reliably delineate-able forest cover, or difficult to 
navigate swamp/wetland and scree areas, like they are visible in 
topographic maps. Those are the things that are really relevant when 
navigating the map, much more so then knowing that the entire Snowdonia 
National Park may contain "heath"...


The changesets I created are:

- https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46000525

- https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46000280

- https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/4566

Again: since I took a relative conservative approach to selecting the 
features, the current 

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

[Marco Boeringa]

Andy, so what is your suggestion right now, do this manually or with 
automated tools? Personally, I only did a few reverts using the JOSM 
plugin, only reverting an entire changeset, not selectively as you seem 
to suggest here. I have no experience with the other tools you mention.


Would the tools you are familiar with allow for a relatively easy 
partial revert, only removing the natural=heath features from all the 
changesets of these users? This might then be the preferred solution. I 
have thought about downloading selections of features of regions via 
Overpass, and than use these to inspect the potentially problematic 
features in JOSM and delete them there. But if there is a better way, 
than that might be the preferred way to go.


Marco


Andy: Is there any chance the DWG could figure out which company these
people are working for, so the company could be contacted about this
specific issue and asked not to add these type of difficult to
identify natural features?


Ha!  While DWG work sometimes does involve a bit of sleuthing (e.g.
finding the author of a problem app when there's nothing to go on in the
changeset info) I think that you may be overestimating our powers here



There are so many changesets involved, I guess doing reverts is almost
impossible, lest one wants to see also more useful stuff being removed
as well, like roads and large and small patches of forest that I also
see being part of these changesets.


I'd tend to agree with that, though the perl revert scripts, which can
"not touch things since edited by other mappers" and "undo changes made
by one particular user in particular changesets" might be userful.



---
Dit e-mailbericht is gecontroleerd op virussen met Avast antivirussoftware.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

[Marco Boeringa]

Hi all,

I now had a very preliminary and short look at some of the changesets 
involved in the Wales area, which was revealing. I now noticed most of 
these features seem to have been added by multiple users / accounts:


- Sam888, e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/413378224

- Glucosamine: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/405845733

- Dyserth: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/388818928

There may be more... All of these "users" are prolific, leave almost no 
changeset comments, and seem to be editing all day. It seems to me these 
are editors working professionally for some OSM related company.


Andy: Is there any chance the DWG could figure out which company these 
people are working for, so the company could be contacted about this 
specific issue and asked not to add these type of difficult to identify 
natural features?


There are so many changesets involved, I guess doing reverts is almost 
impossible, lest one wants to see also more useful stuff being removed 
as well, like roads and large and small patches of forest that I also 
see being part of these changesets.


I have the feeling the most offending stuff is primarily the false 
natural=heath. So maybe it is a better course of action to select the 
heath features in the affected regions in JOSM, and delete only those in 
a new changeset. I think this is by far the easiest solution. Of course, 
a bit of caution and review will be required to not include properly 
digitized heath features by regular OSM users.


Any other ideas?

Marco


--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:09:24 +
From: ael 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?
Message-ID: <20170208130924.wdbn72h2r6rk7n6f@shelf.conquest>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:22:30AM +, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 08/02/2017 10:49, Brian Prangle wrote:

  It would be great in my opinion if we moved on as a community and
actually decided to act on our discussions.

I agree that at least those changes that have not been subsequently
modified by a "legitimate" mapper should be reverted. I thought
something like that was going to happen.

As I have noted before, I have encountered this rubbish in the South
West and have partly corrected some areas where I have directly
surveyed, but it was still problematical. I didn't touch adjacent areas
although I was sure they were wrong.

In the light of these discussion, I now feel more bold about perhaps
just deleting more of this junk unless someone/ some group undertakes
bulkish reversion.

ael




---
Dit e-mailbericht is gecontroleerd op virussen met Avast antivirussoftware.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Fwd: Re: Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

[Marco Boeringa]

Hi Brian,

Yes, I would especially second Jerry's good comments in the previous 
discussion thread he started about sticking to a "strict" definition of 
heath as being characterized by species of the Ericacea 
(http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/natural-heath-td5888994.html). This is 
also a quite common definition for heath on topographic maps in other 
countries, e.g. here in the Netherlands where I live.


Marco

Op 8-2-2017 om 11:49 schreef Brian Prangle:

Hi everyone

Looks like a challenge.  We have discussed this before and there were 
lots of very thoughtful and knowledgeable opinions, but no decisions 
on any actions. I kind of got the consensus that many were 
uncomfortable with the spread of heathland landuse data but we never 
decided to do anything about it.  It would be great in my opinion if 
we moved on as a community and actually decided to act on our discussions.


Regards

Brian

On 8 February 2017 at 10:37, Marco Boeringa <ma...@boeringa.demon.nl 
<mailto:ma...@boeringa.demon.nl>> wrote:


Hi David,

I know the opinions about the need to create multipolygons are as
diverse as there are political opinions. It was just one example
where these features cause issues. My main question is simply if
there are any plans or ideas by the British community of how to
deal with these features, or if there is any consensus whether
they are desired or not. If not, would the community oppose
someone else removing them?

Marco

    On 07/02/17 19:19, Marco Boeringa wrote:
> Lastly, the lack of proper multipolygon creation, means that
other types
> of renderers and styles than Carto, and GIS's like QGIS and
ArcGIS, that
> do not stack features based on size but need multipolygons to
deal with
> polygon-within-polygon problems, have many older detailed features
> covered up by these new ones, as the original data may be hidden
beneath
> the newly added ones.

That' a problem with the renderers.  Multipolygons are difficult for
both (human) editors and (machine) renderers, so only be used where
strictly necessary.



<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
Virusvrij. www.avast.com

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>






---
Dit e-mailbericht is gecontroleerd op virussen met Avast antivirussoftware.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

[Marco Boeringa]

Hi David,

I know the opinions about the need to create multipolygons are as 
diverse as there are political opinions. It was just one example where 
these features cause issues. My main question is simply if there are any 
plans or ideas by the British community of how to deal with these 
features, or if there is any consensus whether they are desired or not. 
If not, would the community oppose someone else removing them?


Marco

On 07/02/17 19:19, Marco Boeringa wrote:
> Lastly, the lack of proper multipolygon creation, means that other types
> of renderers and styles than Carto, and GIS's like QGIS and ArcGIS, that
> do not stack features based on size but need multipolygons to deal with
> polygon-within-polygon problems, have many older detailed features
> covered up by these new ones, as the original data may be hidden beneath
> the newly added ones.

That' a problem with the renderers.  Multipolygons are difficult for
both (human) editors and (machine) renderers, so only be used where
strictly necessary.



---
Dit e-mailbericht is gecontroleerd op virussen met Avast antivirussoftware.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

[Marco Boeringa]

Hi all,

I noticed that in Wales, large parts of the Snowdonia National Park have 
been covered with natural=heath, much of which seems blatantly 
incorrect. Although I am from the Netherlands, having studied for half a 
year in Bangor in 1993, I know the area around Snowdon mountain and 
Llanberis quite well, as I made several hikes there. As you all know, 
there is much more variation in the natural landscape there, for which a 
single swath of heath seems wholly inappropriate as a representation of 
the landscape. Even along the outer borders, the features often seem 
totally disconnected with reality looking at Bing, there is often no 
real visible difference in the landscape, or clearly other types of 
landscapes and natural features, all of this also strongly suggesting a 
possible import of some small scale, coarse landscape map.


Lastly, the lack of proper multipolygon creation, means that other types 
of renderers and styles than Carto, and GIS's like QGIS and ArcGIS, that 
do not stack features based on size but need multipolygons to deal with 
polygon-within-polygon problems, have many older detailed features 
covered up by these new ones, as the original data may be hidden beneath 
the newly added ones.


I noticed the particular user who initially created these features is 
already under scrutiny of the British community, based on the profile 
page and history of the objects, but what are the plans of the community 
with these features? Looking at the current data, I would really suggest 
a revert of the changesets, but considering some of these features seem 
to have been left for a couple of months already, are there any other 
ideas in the UK community?


P.S. I did notice the other discussion started by user "sk53.osm" about 
these problems caused by this user and natural=heath:


http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/natural-heath-td5888994.html

but that discussion seems to have veered of course into a general 
discussion of quality control tools, and didn't really answer the 
question of what the community intends to do with all this disputable 
data, despite a small suggestion by Andy to possibly keep some of the 
data as maybe already corrected by other users.


Marco


---
Dit e-mailbericht is gecontroleerd op virussen met Avast antivirussoftware.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk] 3D somehow not compatible with our map and editing concepts / capabilities?

[Marco Boeringa]

Martin,

I have now added a type=building relation to group the Pantheon's Simple 
3D features in a logical way. It is this relation: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6325840.


I added the "outline" role to the multipolygon representing the 
building's footprint, and added the "part" role to all building:part 
features in the relation. This is how a properly formed Simple 3D 
building should be tagged.


As you can see now on the OpenStreetMap website, whatever part you 
click, you can now navigate "upwards" to the parent type=building 
relation, to see which features are all parts of the building, and then 
move "downwards" to the feature with the "outline" role to get to the 
actual building tags. I hope you agree that navigating the buildings 
individual parts, and finding the actual feature that carries the 
buildings tags (which should always be the closed way or multipolygon 
with the outline role), is now fare easier.


I still wish though that the main OpenStreetMap website's interface 
would stop showing the senseless individual nodes or ways links first 
when you select a feature, and put relation links on top instead. This 
would make it even more obvious that there is a parent building relation 
present. Now, you sometimes need to scroll down considerably, to get to 
the relation links. In my opinion, the hierarchy of nodes/ways/relations 
should be reversed in the display on the website. I have never 
understood the choice for the current display / order, it is just not 
logical for navigation.


Marco

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [OSM-talk] 3D somehow not compatible with our map and editing concepts / capabilities?

[Marco Boeringa]

I agree there are currently issues. It is an unstoppable trend, but it 
would be good if there was better support and enforcing of "best 
practices" so as to avoid loosing the ability to create proper 2D maps 
in a quest to map every detail of 3D (or for that matter Indoor) buildings.


One thing I have posted about before on the OpenStreetMap Forum is that 
it is paramount that users add proper building relations 
(type=building), and group all the individual building:part elements in 
there. Unfortunately, many people don't do this, even thought it is 
written here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_buildings.  
But admittedly, the Wiki page could be a bit more clear and specific 
about this.


More importantly though, the building relations should ALWAYS include a 
building footprint, with role=outline added to it. The footprint can be 
either a simple closed way, or if inner courts are present, preferably 
be a multipolygon itself. The tags for the Simple 3D building as a whole 
should preferably be on this outline, as the outline can then be used as 
the source data for. If the tags are put on the type=building relation 
(which may seem logical), it will become harder for (automated) data 
users to get to the building tags.


If all Simple 3D buildings had proper role=outline features and building 
relations to group the parts together, navigating the data on the 
OpenStreetMap website or in OSM editors, would be fare less painful. 
Finding the tags related to the building from a selected building:part 
would just mean first moving up to the type=building relation, then down 
to the role=outline feature. The links on the website would properly 
guide you.


Also, the role=outline feature would serve as the source for creating 
proper 2D building maps, allowing filtering out of the outlines, and 
ignoring building:part (if desired).


Marco



   With this mail I would like to open a general discussion, whether it
   makes sense to add detailed 3D data into the current OSM db.

   Living in a historic city with lots of tourists (many of them
   mappers apparently), and lots of famous monuments, I am observing
   for years now, that more and more detailed 3D objects get mapped.

   While at first this seemed to be an interesting (and maybe logical)
   development of some advanced mappers, to further push the limits of
   mapping, more and more doubts have grown in the meantime whether
   this kind of data is sustainable. Particularly because the raised
   complexity leads to many errors, where people recreate already
   existing objects or add localized name tags (or other tags) to
   (building:)parts that are mainly there for geometric representation
   in 3d, but are not the objects that actually represent the feature
   (i.e. those that have most of the tags). Subsequently other mappers
   find these objects (with some tags) and add more, and after a while
   it can become plain chaos, until someone with a lot of time
   dedicates herself to clean the mess up.

   And honestly, I can understand this happening, these objects are
   really complex and after something has been "3D-fied" it becomes at
   least time consuming, if not completely confusing to make any simple
   edit (like adding a new tag), because you have to search the "main
   object" and understand where to put the tag.

   I believe there is something conceptually wrong with adding those
   3D-monsters into the common db and require from everybody to
   understand them, without proper support or hierarchy on an API- or
   editor-level.

   (a side-issue is that many monuments like columns, obelisks and
   similar are modelled as "building:parts", where there clearly is
   nothing that is a building, but rather a massive stone)

   Some examples (load them in your editor to understand what I am
   talking about):

   https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.90224/12.45784
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.90297/12.46658
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.89591/12.48466 (the
   Trajan's column, a simple column consisting in osm of 9 concentric
   objects! Find the right one, if all of them get their name rendered
   at the same spot in the editor)
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.89854/12.47695 (the
   Pantheon, countless times there pop up duplicates as nodes)

   What are your experiences?


   Cheers,
   Martin

   ___
   talk mailing list
   [hidden email]
   


   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
   Remove Ads
   



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk