Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-29 Thread Glenn Plas 
On 29-07-16 11:50, Bart Van Lancker wrote:
> Hoi iedereen,
> 
> Ik ben dus degene die gepoogd had de Leie te fixen. Even opmerken dat begin 
> juni  het hele deel tussen Deinze en de Franse grens niet renderde, en dat 
> het Buda-eiland in Kortrijk onder water stond.
> Ik heb daarom de riverbank opgesplitst in verschillende stukken, en dat 
> leverde correcte rendering op tot en met Kortrijk.
> Ik had dit twee jaar eerder ook al zo gedaan voor het deel tussen Gent en 
> Deinze en dat werkte goed.
> Het deel van Kortrijk tot Wervik bleef inderdaad blanco, en ik wist niet 
> waarom. Nu is het blijkbaar in orde, bedankt daarvoor !


Mercie voor de uitleg.  Zoals altijd hier : Don't fix the blame, fix the
problem.

Denk dat niemand hier met slijk zal smijten en het digitaal gaat
overleven.   Je gaat van mij ook een pak fouten vinden, ik vind
wekelijks dingen van mezelf terug waarvan ik denk: waar was je toen mee
bezig !?!

Dus, maw: het was bijna allemaal ok, buiten dit kleine stukje.

Blijf trouwens goeie changeset comments geven, heel handig en belangrijk
om de context van de edits te snappen.

Mvg,

Glenn

> 
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: Glenn Plas [mailto:gl...@byte-consult.be] 
> Verzonden: donderdag 28 juli 2016 23:03
> Aan: OpenStreetMap Belgium
> Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken
> 
> 
> Wat ik trouwens wel een grappige changeset comment vind is de problematische 
> way : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/423643352/history
> 
> De comment van Jol dan. "Poging tot fix riverbank Leie"  -> denk dat Ruben 
> dat dus goed heeft ingeschat.
> 
> +1 trouwens voor goede changeset comments, ook al was het maar een 
> +poging
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-29 Thread Bart Van Lancker 
Hoi iedereen,

Ik ben dus degene die gepoogd had de Leie te fixen. Even opmerken dat begin 
juni  het hele deel tussen Deinze en de Franse grens niet renderde, en dat het 
Buda-eiland in Kortrijk onder water stond.
Ik heb daarom de riverbank opgesplitst in verschillende stukken, en dat leverde 
correcte rendering op tot en met Kortrijk.
Ik had dit twee jaar eerder ook al zo gedaan voor het deel tussen Gent en 
Deinze en dat werkte goed.
Het deel van Kortrijk tot Wervik bleef inderdaad blanco, en ik wist niet 
waarom. Nu is het blijkbaar in orde, bedankt daarvoor !

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Glenn Plas [mailto:gl...@byte-consult.be] 
Verzonden: donderdag 28 juli 2016 23:03
Aan: OpenStreetMap Belgium
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken


Wat ik trouwens wel een grappige changeset comment vind is de problematische 
way : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/423643352/history

De comment van Jol dan. "Poging tot fix riverbank Leie"  -> denk dat Ruben dat 
dus goed heeft ingeschat.

+1 trouwens voor goede changeset comments, ook al was het maar een 
+poging



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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-29 Thread Sander Deryckere 
Just some notes on waterway=river vs natural=water+water=river.

For me, a riverbank is either a line (a wall) separating the land from the
river, or a sloped land area with water-loving plants that can be inundated
when the water level rises.

When you describe the water of the river, you describe the river, not the
riverbank. And a riverbank isn't a waterway either (you navigate the river,
not the bank). It even causes some problems, like when you want to measure
the total length of waterways in an area, you have to exclude this strange
case.

So I would prefer to just rename all waterway=riverbank tags to
natural=water+water=river. But sadly, the term riverbank has also been used
for canals and streams (which sounds totally bonkers to me), so such a
conversion isn't possible when done manually.

The page describing the water=* tags also says nothing about using multi
polygons. It's just as fine to use natural=water on river segments.

So in short, I don't get why there are people who want to keep that
awkwardly named tag .

Regards,
Sander
Op 29-jul.-2016 00:09 schreef "Ruben Maes" :

> Now back on topic: we have the Leie's banks back on the render.
>
> On donderdag 28 juli 2016 17:54 Jakka wrote:
> >
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/646584#map=17/50.82877/3.25798=N
> >
> > Please feedback what and where was the cause
>
> There were two places where there were problems with relation
> http://osm.org/relation/2393380:
>
> * http://osm.org/relation/2393380#map=17/50.89599/3.34545
>The sluice was a complete mess. It took me some time to figure out what
> was going on exactly here.
>
> * http://osm.org/changeset/41095237#map=19/50.92122/3.42972
>There was a random tiny, excess way in the relation.
>
> The waterway=riverbank tags were non-uniformly applied. Not all ways had
> them, some had an additional random area=yes or area=no. Some had
> natural=riverbank, waterway=canalbank or some other weird derivation I had
> never heard of.
> I stripped those completely. No more waterway=riverbank on this part of
> the Leie [note 1]. But if some day consensus is reached (not that that will
> ever happen) that the multipolygon approach with {natural=water,
> water=river} isn't good after all, it wouldn't be so hard to convert it.
>
> [note 1] Sorry Glenn, I really couldn't be bothered any more. With a
> relation, I can tell JOSM to fetch all member ways, use webtools like the
> one you mentioned to check their integrity, and the JOSM validator will
> complain if I'm messing up.
>
> --
> Dit bericht is ondertekend met OpenPGP.
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Ruben Maes 
Now back on topic: we have the Leie's banks back on the render.

On donderdag 28 juli 2016 17:54 Jakka wrote:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/646584#map=17/50.82877/3.25798=N
> 
> Please feedback what and where was the cause

There were two places where there were problems with relation 
http://osm.org/relation/2393380:

* http://osm.org/relation/2393380#map=17/50.89599/3.34545
   The sluice was a complete mess. It took me some time to figure out what was 
going on exactly here.

* http://osm.org/changeset/41095237#map=19/50.92122/3.42972
   There was a random tiny, excess way in the relation.

The waterway=riverbank tags were non-uniformly applied. Not all ways had them, 
some had an additional random area=yes or area=no. Some had natural=riverbank, 
waterway=canalbank or some other weird derivation I had never heard of.
I stripped those completely. No more waterway=riverbank on this part of the 
Leie [note 1]. But if some day consensus is reached (not that that will ever 
happen) that the multipolygon approach with {natural=water, water=river} isn't 
good after all, it wouldn't be so hard to convert it.

[note 1] Sorry Glenn, I really couldn't be bothered any more. With a relation, 
I can tell JOSM to fetch all member ways, use webtools like the one you 
mentioned to check their integrity, and the JOSM validator will complain if I'm 
messing up.

-- 
Dit bericht is ondertekend met OpenPGP.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Glenn Plas 
On 28-07-16 22:38, Karel Adams wrote:
> Hehe, Glenn, zo'n openhartig antwoord apprecieer ik wel.

Ik heb geprobeerd het proper te houden met respect voor de mening van
ieder individu, vandaar dat ik me oprecht afvroeg wat 'veel' voor je
betekende. :)

> Wat ik eigenlijk bedoelde te zeggen: er moet toch ergens een "howto" of
> een "preferred practice" zijn voor het mappen van een courant en
> essentieel landschapselement als een rivier?

Die zijn er op de wiki maar vaak groeit het historisch, ooit was er maar
1 aanpak, en die bleek dan de lading niet helemaal te dekken, en dan
komt er een proposal en een 2de aanpak. (of een 3de, 4de ...)

Vandaar dat er vaak moet over gepraat worden, per streek/land komt er
dan nog eens lokale gewoontes bij te kijken.

> 
> Enne, jawel, het ging er me over dat er op tijd van enkele uren galant
> een twintigtal berichten rondgingen met evenzovele meningen of toch
> minstens ideeën. Ik had verwacht dat binnen de kortste keren iemand had
> verwezen naar "How to map rivers, streams, and other natural flows of
> surface waters". Meer dient er toch niet gezegd?

Ik vond het een gezonde discussie, en ja... mailing lists zijn soms
slapend en dan plots heel actief.  Niet echt abnormaal.  Het is ook
altijd goed om naast uw eigen idee ook eens een andere insteek te horen,
al is het maar om men eigen mening te toetsen aan die van de rest.  Ik
leer er altijd uit.

Maar to the point: de tagging schema's zijn er op de wiki:
water=* , waterway=* en natural=water zijn er een paar voor waterpret.

> En inderdaad, met de technische details van het mappen wil ik me niet
> inlaten, ik heb enkel een klein beetje zicht op het mappen van
> vliegvelden, euh, "luchtvaarttereinen" :) Maar ik stelde me toch wat
> vragen bij onze aanpak oftewel metodiek, ik begin zo'n beetje ambitie te
> krijgen in de richting van projectbegeleiding... ;)

Beste dat je kan doen -denk ik toch- is al het engelstalige op de wiki
naar nederlands/frans te 'porten' met de lokale gewoontes in acht te
nemen.  Ik geef toe dat het is zoals lego: je moet de stukjes zelf bij
elkaar zoeken, in die zin is er geen 'enige pagina' die alles behandelt,
helaas een feit.

Wat Ruben ook ervaart is dat je echt wel enorm veel tijd steekt in
relations te fixen en je kan bijna niet anders dan dit in JOSM te doen.

Je zou ook de digests kunnen nemen ipv elke mail.  Ik raad alleszins aan
om rules in je mail(client) te gebruiken om de dingen te sorteren.

De taggin lijst is best wel een grappige suggestie van Ruben :) OSM humor...

Ik ben ook fan van de dingen gewoon consequent te doen ipv alles om te
gooien.

Wat ik trouwens wel een grappige changeset comment vind is de
problematische way : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/423643352/history

De comment van Jol dan. "Poging tot fix riverbank Leie"  -> denk dat
Ruben dat dus goed heeft ingeschat.

+1 trouwens voor goede changeset comments, ook al was het maar een poging

Glenn

> 
> Karel
> 
> 
> On 28-07-16 20:25, Glenn Plas wrote:
>> On 28-07-16 22:16, Karel Adams wrote:
>>> Wat ik in dit hele verhaal compleet niet snap:
>>>
>>> Waarom is e nu klapsplots zoveel te doen over het mappen van 1 rivier
>>> (en dan nog *)
>> Wat is uw definitie van 'veel' ?  Beetje vage klacht.  Gaat het over het
>> aantal mails, hoeveel we in de mails zetten.  Ik faal te begrijpen wat
>> veel is in deze context.
>>
>>> Waarom zou die Leie anders gemapt worden dan de Rijn of de Seine of de
>>> Nete, Klein of Groot?
>> Goeie vraag, daarom dat we dit recht willen zetten.  De Nete is net
>> hetzelfde gemapt (in Duffelse dan) als ik voorstel en hoe de Zenne is
>> gemapt voor het merendeel.  Wat ze daar bij de Leie hebben gedaan is een
>> mix van vanalles, een relatie die overbodig is en een aantal fouten in
>> OSM die eruit mogen/moeten.
>>
>>> Verder bemoei ik me niet met de discussie, ze gaat duidelijk mijn petje
>>> te boven.
>> Beetje raar om als reactie te vermelden dat je verder niet gaat reageren
>> omdat je niet weet waarover het gaat, niet ?
>>
>> Glenn
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Ruben Maes 
On donderdag 28 juli 2016 20:38 Karel Adams wrote:
> Wat ik eigenlijk bedoelde te zeggen: er moet toch ergens een "howto" of 
> een "preferred practice" zijn voor het mappen van een courant en 
> essentieel landschapselement als een rivier?
> 
> Enne, jawel, het ging er me over dat er op tijd van enkele uren galant 
> een twintigtal berichten rondgingen met evenzovele meningen of toch 
> minstens ideeën. Ik had verwacht dat binnen de kortste keren iemand had 
> verwezen naar "How to map rivers, streams, and other natural flows of 
> surface waters". Meer dient er toch niet gezegd?

Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Dat is dus totaal niet het geval hier. :p

Als je wat minder van dit soort discussies, en wat minder hevig wil, en wat 
minder berichten snel op elkaar, raad ik je aan je te abonneren op de 
Tagging-mailing-list.

(Voor alle duidelijkheid: dat was anti-advies. Ik sta niet in voor de gevolgen 
als je dat doet.)

> En inderdaad, met de technische details van het mappen wil ik me niet 
> inlaten, ik heb enkel een klein beetje zicht op het mappen van 
> vliegvelden, euh, "luchtvaarttereinen" :) Maar ik stelde me toch wat 
> vragen bij onze aanpak oftewel metodiek, (...)

Ik ook, ik wens wel eens dat er een authoriteit was, dan werd er niet zoveel 
tijd aan dit soort dingen verspild. Want inderdaad maakt het niet zo heel veel 
uit, zo lang het maar een beetje consequent is. Dat consequent krijgen is dus 
het moeilijkst aangezien iedereen zijn eigen ding wil doen. :p


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Karel Adams 

Hehe, Glenn, zo'n openhartig antwoord apprecieer ik wel.

Wat ik eigenlijk bedoelde te zeggen: er moet toch ergens een "howto" of 
een "preferred practice" zijn voor het mappen van een courant en 
essentieel landschapselement als een rivier?


Enne, jawel, het ging er me over dat er op tijd van enkele uren galant 
een twintigtal berichten rondgingen met evenzovele meningen of toch 
minstens ideeën. Ik had verwacht dat binnen de kortste keren iemand had 
verwezen naar "How to map rivers, streams, and other natural flows of 
surface waters". Meer dient er toch niet gezegd?


En inderdaad, met de technische details van het mappen wil ik me niet 
inlaten, ik heb enkel een klein beetje zicht op het mappen van 
vliegvelden, euh, "luchtvaarttereinen" :) Maar ik stelde me toch wat 
vragen bij onze aanpak oftewel metodiek, ik begin zo'n beetje ambitie te 
krijgen in de richting van projectbegeleiding... ;)


Karel


On 28-07-16 20:25, Glenn Plas wrote:

On 28-07-16 22:16, Karel Adams wrote:

Wat ik in dit hele verhaal compleet niet snap:

Waarom is e nu klapsplots zoveel te doen over het mappen van 1 rivier
(en dan nog *)

Wat is uw definitie van 'veel' ?  Beetje vage klacht.  Gaat het over het
aantal mails, hoeveel we in de mails zetten.  Ik faal te begrijpen wat
veel is in deze context.


Waarom zou die Leie anders gemapt worden dan de Rijn of de Seine of de
Nete, Klein of Groot?

Goeie vraag, daarom dat we dit recht willen zetten.  De Nete is net
hetzelfde gemapt (in Duffelse dan) als ik voorstel en hoe de Zenne is
gemapt voor het merendeel.  Wat ze daar bij de Leie hebben gedaan is een
mix van vanalles, een relatie die overbodig is en een aantal fouten in
OSM die eruit mogen/moeten.


Verder bemoei ik me niet met de discussie, ze gaat duidelijk mijn petje
te boven.

Beetje raar om als reactie te vermelden dat je verder niet gaat reageren
omdat je niet weet waarover het gaat, niet ?

Glenn



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



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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Ruben Maes 
On donderdag 28 juli 2016 22:21 Glenn Plas wrote:
> On 28-07-16 22:03, Ruben Maes wrote:
> > On donderdag 28 juli 2016 21:56 Glenn Plas wrote:
> >> No , not for canals, when I researched this became pretty clear this
> >> was only meant for rivers.  But the Leie is a river so it's ok here.
> > 
> > Well that's weird, because there's a canal connected to the river and it 
> > also needs cleaning, and we have'd to use two fundamentally different ways 
> > to map that.
> 
> Oh, I see what you mean I think, the U detour.. interesting.
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1201127#map=16/50.9146/3.4226=N
> 
> That piece seems seriously broken (visual inspection).  But this is
> probably the 'canal' you talk about.

Yes, the Ooigem Sluice is broken badly. I'm fixing it up right now. The canal I 
was talking about is indeed the canal Roeselare-Ooigem, which joins the Leie in 
said sluice.

> Glenn
> 
> 
> > 
> >> (...)
> >> If you want to take a stab at fixing it , go ahead. If you want me to
> >> review it later on, give me the headsup and I'll take a look.  A bit
> >> short in time due to closing the books on the fiscal year of 2015.  I
> >> hate fines :)
> > 
> > I'll try my best. In fact I have been working on it for several hours, but 
> > then you came along here on the list opening the discussion. (but that's 
> > alright) ;)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > Talk-be mailing list
> > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> > 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 


-- 
Dit bericht is ondertekend met OpenPGP.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Glenn Plas 
On 28-07-16 22:03, Ruben Maes wrote:
> On donderdag 28 juli 2016 21:56 Glenn Plas wrote:
>> No , not for canals, when I researched this became pretty clear this
>> was only meant for rivers.  But the Leie is a river so it's ok here.
> 
> Well that's weird, because there's a canal connected to the river and it also 
> needs cleaning, and we have'd to use two fundamentally different ways to map 
> that.

Oh, I see what you mean I think, the U detour.. interesting.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1201127#map=16/50.9146/3.4226=N

That piece seems seriously broken (visual inspection).  But this is
probably the 'canal' you talk about.

Glenn


> 
>> (...)
>> If you want to take a stab at fixing it , go ahead. If you want me to
>> review it later on, give me the headsup and I'll take a look.  A bit
>> short in time due to closing the books on the fiscal year of 2015.  I
>> hate fines :)
> 
> I'll try my best. In fact I have been working on it for several hours, but 
> then you came along here on the list opening the discussion. (but that's 
> alright) ;)
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Karel Adams 

Wat ik in dit hele verhaal compleet niet snap:

Waarom is e nu klapsplots zoveel te doen over het mappen van 1 rivier 
(en dan nog *)


Waarom zou die Leie anders gemapt worden dan de Rijn of de Seine of de 
Nete, Klein of Groot?


Verder bemoei ik me niet met de discussie, ze gaat duidelijk mijn petje 
te boven.


Karel

*cfr Dirk Van Esbroeck op tekst van Richard Minne:
De Leie en lijkt ons maar een landelijk rivierken
Een wandelende streep, en wat traag water toe
Met aan iederen draai een waaiend populierken
Een half-verdronken ponte, een schilder en een koe


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Ruben Maes 
On donderdag 28 juli 2016 21:51 Marc Gemis wrote:
> Some background: the natural=water, water = x was proposed by Zverik.
> His idea was to make it easy for mappers using aerial imagery to map
> anything "water"-like with natural=water, eventually someone would add
> the water=x detail. x, can be pond, stream, river, canal, oxbow, etc.
> etc. [1] carto-css (the standard rendering can handle this tagging
> scheme without problems).
> 
> Recently someone was complaining about this use for bassins. [2]
> 
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water
> [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-June/076144.html

In the thread that followed several points for both sides have been made.

Reading the full thread on talk, I don't feel like fixing the Leie any more. I 
will just try to solve the render issues and then leave it be. OSM's free 
tagging is one of it's strengths, but also one of it's biggest disadvantages.

-- 
Dit bericht is ondertekend met OpenPGP.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Ruben Maes 
On donderdag 28 juli 2016 21:56 Glenn Plas wrote:
> No , not for canals, when I researched this became pretty clear this
> was only meant for rivers.  But the Leie is a river so it's ok here.

Well that's weird, because there's a canal connected to the river and it also 
needs cleaning, and we have'd to use two fundamentally different ways to map 
that.

> (...)
> If you want to take a stab at fixing it , go ahead. If you want me to
> review it later on, give me the headsup and I'll take a look.  A bit
> short in time due to closing the books on the fiscal year of 2015.  I
> hate fines :)

I'll try my best. In fact I have been working on it for several hours, but then 
you came along here on the list opening the discussion. (but that's alright) ;)

-- 
Dit bericht is ondertekend met OpenPGP.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Glenn Plas 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 28-07-16 21:42, Ruben Maes wrote:
> Hi Glenn
> 
> We can do away with the relation and make sure waterway=riverbank
> is placed everywhere. But this has seemed always strange to me: for
> canals as well? A canal is not a river, and the wiki on
> waterway=riverbank says: "This describes the tagging scheme for
> large rivers", linking to the Wikipedia page for river: "A river is
> a natural flowing watercourse ..."

No , not for canals, when I researched this became pretty clear this
was only meant for rivers.  But the Leie is a river so it's ok here.

> waterway=riverbank is less relation-fiddling and I'm starting to
> see the advantages of that as well.

I had to fix the Zenne so many times that I started to see the merits
of this as well.  I actually just discovered why this wasn't rendering
in the first place, there is some overlaying going on.

Check the relation 2393380 here:
http://analyser.openstreetmap.fr/cgi-bin/index.py

The top 2 yellow markers show you where there is a duplicate way and
it's in the relation:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/423643352

That small piece is preventing it from being rendered decently at the
moment.

If you want to take a stab at fixing it , go ahead. If you want me to
review it later on, give me the headsup and I'll take a look.  A bit
short in time due to closing the books on the fiscal year of 2015.  I
hate fines :)

Glenn


> 
> On donderdag 28 juli 2016 21:19 Glenn Plas wrote:
>> Hey Ruben,
>> 
 I do not see the merit of natural=water scheme at all on a
 river or a canal.  It's a waterway.  imho, there is nothing
 to migrate to. Unless I seriously missed something, the way
 to do it is the way (not the area) is the logical waterway.
>>> 
>>> Both have disadvantages. They are equally hard to maintain.
>> 
>> I disagree here.  Riverbank is easy to maintain for me atleast,
>> they should not be included in any relationship either, they
>> should not be named and they do make sense on rivers where the
>> waterlevel (and/or tides) influence the shape. [1]
>> 
>> The logical riverway still belongs in the the 'waterway tagging
>> scheme' if we can call it like that.
>> 
>> natural=water isn't meant for rivers.  I don't see where this
>> idea is coming from at the moment.  It's used on lakes, still
>> water etc but on a river it's not suited. [2]  The wiki doesn't
>> mention that usage either.
>> 
>> So the logical river would be waterway=river , and that is the
>> part you would put in a waterway relation, the riverbank not.
>> 
>> Keep things simple I would suggest.  Hence the suggestion to
>> delete the relation, probably have to review the tags first so we
>> don't throw away good information.
>> 
>> Now, I'm about to put the kids to bed so I really just scanned
>> the wiki but I've done quite some research on waterway logic,
>> hence why I'm quite convinced.  But always open to suggestions.
>> 
>> Glenn
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank 
>> [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___ Talk-be mailing
> list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
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=hCmV
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Marc Gemis 
Some background: the natural=water, water = x was proposed by Zverik.
His idea was to make it easy for mappers using aerial imagery to map
anything "water"-like with natural=water, eventually someone would add
the water=x detail. x, can be pond, stream, river, canal, oxbow, etc.
etc. [1] carto-css (the standard rendering can handle this tagging
scheme without problems).

Recently someone was complaining about this use for bassins. [2]

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-June/076144.html

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Ruben Maes  wrote:
> Hi Glenn
>
> We can do away with the relation and make sure waterway=riverbank is placed 
> everywhere. But this has seemed always strange to me: for canals as well? A 
> canal is not a river, and the wiki on waterway=riverbank says: "This 
> describes the tagging scheme for large rivers", linking to the Wikipedia page 
> for river: "A river is a natural flowing watercourse ..."
>
> waterway=riverbank is less relation-fiddling and I'm starting to see the 
> advantages of that as well.
>
> On donderdag 28 juli 2016 21:19 Glenn Plas wrote:
>> Hey Ruben,
>>
>> >> I do not see the merit of natural=water scheme at all on a river or a
>> >> canal.  It's a waterway.  imho, there is nothing to migrate to.
>> >> Unless I seriously missed something, the way to do it is the way (not
>> >> the area) is the logical waterway.
>> >
>> > Both have disadvantages. They are equally hard to maintain.
>>
>> I disagree here.  Riverbank is easy to maintain for me atleast, they
>> should not be included in any relationship either, they should not be
>> named and they do make sense on rivers where the waterlevel (and/or
>> tides) influence the shape. [1]
>>
>> The logical riverway still belongs in the the 'waterway tagging scheme'
>> if we can call it like that.
>>
>> natural=water isn't meant for rivers.  I don't see where this idea is
>> coming from at the moment.  It's used on lakes, still water etc but on a
>> river it's not suited. [2]  The wiki doesn't mention that usage either.
>>
>> So the logical river would be waterway=river , and that is the part you
>> would put in a waterway relation, the riverbank not.
>>
>> Keep things simple I would suggest.  Hence the suggestion to delete the
>> relation, probably have to review the tags first so we don't throw away
>> good information.
>>
>> Now, I'm about to put the kids to bed so I really just scanned the wiki
>> but I've done quite some research on waterway logic, hence why I'm quite
>> convinced.  But always open to suggestions.
>>
>> Glenn
>>
>>
>>
>>  [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank
>>  [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwater
>
>
> --
> Dit bericht is ondertekend met OpenPGP.
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Ruben Maes 
Hi Glenn

We can do away with the relation and make sure waterway=riverbank is placed 
everywhere. But this has seemed always strange to me: for canals as well? A 
canal is not a river, and the wiki on waterway=riverbank says: "This describes 
the tagging scheme for large rivers", linking to the Wikipedia page for river: 
"A river is a natural flowing watercourse ..."

waterway=riverbank is less relation-fiddling and I'm starting to see the 
advantages of that as well.

On donderdag 28 juli 2016 21:19 Glenn Plas wrote:
> Hey Ruben,
> 
> >> I do not see the merit of natural=water scheme at all on a river or a
> >> canal.  It's a waterway.  imho, there is nothing to migrate to.
> >> Unless I seriously missed something, the way to do it is the way (not
> >> the area) is the logical waterway.
> > 
> > Both have disadvantages. They are equally hard to maintain.
> 
> I disagree here.  Riverbank is easy to maintain for me atleast, they
> should not be included in any relationship either, they should not be
> named and they do make sense on rivers where the waterlevel (and/or
> tides) influence the shape. [1]
> 
> The logical riverway still belongs in the the 'waterway tagging scheme'
> if we can call it like that.
> 
> natural=water isn't meant for rivers.  I don't see where this idea is
> coming from at the moment.  It's used on lakes, still water etc but on a
> river it's not suited. [2]  The wiki doesn't mention that usage either.
> 
> So the logical river would be waterway=river , and that is the part you
> would put in a waterway relation, the riverbank not.
> 
> Keep things simple I would suggest.  Hence the suggestion to delete the
> relation, probably have to review the tags first so we don't throw away
> good information.
> 
> Now, I'm about to put the kids to bed so I really just scanned the wiki
> but I've done quite some research on waterway logic, hence why I'm quite
> convinced.  But always open to suggestions.
> 
> Glenn
> 
> 
> 
>  [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank
>  [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwater


-- 
Dit bericht is ondertekend met OpenPGP.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Glenn Plas 
Hey Ruben,

>> I do not see the merit of natural=water scheme at all on a river or a
>> canal.  It's a waterway.  imho, there is nothing to migrate to.
>> Unless I seriously missed something, the way to do it is the way (not
>> the area) is the logical waterway.
> 
> Both have disadvantages. They are equally hard to maintain.

I disagree here.  Riverbank is easy to maintain for me atleast, they
should not be included in any relationship either, they should not be
named and they do make sense on rivers where the waterlevel (and/or
tides) influence the shape. [1]

The logical riverway still belongs in the the 'waterway tagging scheme'
if we can call it like that.

natural=water isn't meant for rivers.  I don't see where this idea is
coming from at the moment.  It's used on lakes, still water etc but on a
river it's not suited. [2]  The wiki doesn't mention that usage either.

So the logical river would be waterway=river , and that is the part you
would put in a waterway relation, the riverbank not.

Keep things simple I would suggest.  Hence the suggestion to delete the
relation, probably have to review the tags first so we don't throw away
good information.

Now, I'm about to put the kids to bed so I really just scanned the wiki
but I've done quite some research on waterway logic, hence why I'm quite
convinced.  But always open to suggestions.

Glenn



 [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank
 [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwater

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Ruben Maes 
On donderdag 28 juli 2016 20:42 Glenn Plas wrote:
> On 28-07-16 20:10, Ruben Maes wrote:
> > On donderdag 28 juli 2016 19:34 Glenn Plas wrote:
> >> Ik vraag me ook sterk af wat de bedoeling is van de 2de relatie
> >> die ook Leie heet waarin enkel de riverbanks steken.
> >
> > I believe someone tried to migrate to the natural=water scheme but
> > didn't remove the waterway=riverbank.
> 
> We should keep waterway=riverbank, and delete relation 2393380
> altogether, it contains highway=paths and all sorts of stuff that
> doesn't belong there.   There are seperated sections and also admin
> boundaries that totally do not belong in a waterway.
> 
> I do not see the merit of natural=water scheme at all on a river or a
> canal.  It's a waterway.  imho, there is nothing to migrate to.
> Unless I seriously missed something, the way to do it is the way (not
> the area) is the logical waterway.

Both have disadvantages. They are equally hard to maintain.

IMO the multipolygon with natural=water is more logical. The riverbank approach 
is weird, even though it has been used longer.

> >> Als ik straks ga meten hoelang de Leie is adhv. deze data gaat
> >> dit niet juist zijn.
> >
> > Obviously you should measure the type=waterway relation[2], not the
> > type=multipolygon relation[1].
> 
> Sure, but what if I want to do it by name only, without tagging scheme
> quirks.
> 
> There is no need for 2 relations, period.  "There can be... only one!"
> 
> Glenn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > [1]
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1201127
> >>
> >> en
> >
> > [2]
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2393380
> >>
> >> Er klopt ook nog steeds iets niet in die relaties/ways, als je
> >> die links opendoet zie je het zo al.
> >>
> >> Glenn
> >>
> >>
> >> On 28-07-16 18:00, Ruben Maes wrote:
> >>> Hi Frank
> >>>
> >>> I've removed the area=no that was tagged on it. I think that
> >>> was the cause, I hope it renders again soon.
> >>>
> >>> On donderdag 28 juli 2016 17:54 Jakka wrote:
>  Hi
> 
>  A note that the rendering of riverbank "Leie" between
>  Kortrijk and Wervik is gone. In the past I added a lot of
>  stuff there and it was good. Had corrected several overlap
>  riverbanks en controlled begin to end but I do not know what
>  to look after. The "Leie" is a natural border with France Has
>  there been a mass update from there ?
> 
>  Some one with knowledge can check that?
> 
>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/646584#map=17/50.82877/3.25798=N
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> 
> Please feedback what and where was the cause
> >
> >
> >
> > ___ Talk-be mailing
> > list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> >
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 


-- 
Dit bericht is ondertekend met OpenPGP.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Glenn Plas 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 28-07-16 20:10, Ruben Maes wrote:
> On donderdag 28 juli 2016 19:34 Glenn Plas wrote:
>> Ik vraag me ook sterk af wat de bedoeling is van de 2de relatie
>> die ook Leie heet waarin enkel de riverbanks steken.
> 
> I believe someone tried to migrate to the natural=water scheme but
> didn't remove the waterway=riverbank.

We should keep waterway=riverbank, and delete relation 2393380
altogether, it contains highway=paths and all sorts of stuff that
doesn't belong there.   There are seperated sections and also admin
boundaries that totally do not belong in a waterway.

I do not see the merit of natural=water scheme at all on a river or a
canal.  It's a waterway.  imho, there is nothing to migrate to.
Unless I seriously missed something, the way to do it is the way (not
the area) is the logical waterway.

> 
>> Als ik straks ga meten hoelang de Leie is adhv. deze data gaat
>> dit niet juist zijn.
> 
> Obviously you should measure the type=waterway relation[2], not the
> type=multipolygon relation[1].

Sure, but what if I want to do it by name only, without tagging scheme
quirks.

There is no need for 2 relations, period.  "There can be... only one!"

Glenn




> 
> [1]
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1201127
>> 
>> en
> 
> [2]
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2393380
>> 
>> Er klopt ook nog steeds iets niet in die relaties/ways, als je
>> die links opendoet zie je het zo al.
>> 
>> Glenn
>> 
>> 
>> On 28-07-16 18:00, Ruben Maes wrote:
>>> Hi Frank
>>> 
>>> I've removed the area=no that was tagged on it. I think that
>>> was the cause, I hope it renders again soon.
>>> 
>>> On donderdag 28 juli 2016 17:54 Jakka wrote:
 Hi
 
 A note that the rendering of riverbank "Leie" between
 Kortrijk and Wervik is gone. In the past I added a lot of
 stuff there and it was good. Had corrected several overlap
 riverbanks en controlled begin to end but I do not know what
 to look after. The "Leie" is a natural border with France Has
 there been a mass update from there ?
 
 Some one with knowledge can check that?
 
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/646584#map=17/50.82877/3.25798=N



>>
 
Please feedback what and where was the cause
> 
> 
> 
> ___ Talk-be mailing
> list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJXmlH9AAoJELTQZq3fHKRZhcoQAJKSBzPBUMtf20DG+woETyrc
KUodnGaEGNNPUECKXmjF7bQkGzterXVccmlt3RqF7ZQgEYJ1iCkeaRs1J3nwmjM6
aUNTptnWP152CF3Xq9N/nPnqgZDUgPCRNPf+MAOMTL3CDbSWJD3xZKiWk65KxRfU
8KNXvhZFI5JiPdjFJRfaU2mAHYCfdvMItY9s9n6xK5+jwsUtuiGzZXMEnjUY3AAZ
y0JYimYZ5Sj2t7WF+XTi9XqXMvskTm++aTBD1a2IA+P1iy1NuCqArSAsRw51CMOt
K/oFJ24VFeXhPyNQULRhmSIwsRFqztI4eey5EHMKihBS34fho965xlcO2DDfSK8p
7XFti9h8U35UVUnO1q264NWadppCM4XS8lr1vVl647S4LO8HRdxsmML5Z6XBytCh
0TlM+KHvCLfHOqqJ/runlBloQxjcLYyWBYlxUJTnAhXb57Ni3C7bP/LOEfeNsBMJ
W4ls3slxF6RFAiYtdOobG2BR3EPtIRYqrbT/xIrcuGf3y5dDkv807KmZvup65kew
CvBWmHOVHq67PV1r8bLypDO9ghSvwfxkrDCrDBsmD/wQzknQS+uXNogIN3B1rZJD
Z1O25xY8bFzblAmXbgXbmft7dmBy45iObbO+GoZXoyET6PLblTn92P3JX/ynuTBB
4veF0Ja6u15epAw2H32i
=+Ps+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Ruben Maes 
On donderdag 28 juli 2016 19:34 Glenn Plas wrote:
> Ik vraag me ook sterk af wat de bedoeling is van de 2de relatie die
> ook Leie heet waarin enkel de riverbanks steken.

I believe someone tried to migrate to the natural=water scheme but didn't 
remove the waterway=riverbank.

> Als ik straks ga meten hoelang de Leie is adhv. deze data gaat dit
> niet juist zijn.

Obviously you should measure the type=waterway relation[2], not the 
type=multipolygon relation[1].

[1]
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1201127
> 
> en 

[2]
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2393380
> 
> Er klopt ook nog steeds iets niet in die relaties/ways, als je die
> links opendoet zie je het zo al.
> 
> Glenn
> 
> 
> On 28-07-16 18:00, Ruben Maes wrote:
> > Hi Frank
> >
> > I've removed the area=no that was tagged on it. I think that was
> > the cause, I hope it renders again soon.
> >
> > On donderdag 28 juli 2016 17:54 Jakka wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> A note that the rendering of riverbank "Leie" between Kortrijk
> >> and Wervik is gone. In the past I added a lot of stuff there and
> >> it was good. Had corrected several overlap riverbanks en
> >> controlled begin to end but I do not know what to look after. The
> >> "Leie" is a natural border with France Has there been a mass
> >> update from there ?
> >>
> >> Some one with knowledge can check that?
> >>
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/646584#map=17/50.82877/3.25798=N
> >>
> >>
> >>
> Please feedback what and where was the cause

-- 
Dit bericht is ondertekend met OpenPGP.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Glenn Plas 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Ik vraag me ook sterk af wat de bedoeling is van de 2de relatie die
ook Leie heet waarin enkel de riverbanks steken.

Als ik straks ga meten hoelang de Leie is adhv. deze data gaat dit
niet juist zijn.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1201127

en

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2393380

Er klopt ook nog steeds iets niet in die relaties/ways, als je die
links opendoet zie je het zo al.

Glenn


On 28-07-16 18:00, Ruben Maes wrote:
> Hi Frank
> 
> I've removed the area=no that was tagged on it. I think that was
> the cause, I hope it renders again soon.
> 
> On donderdag 28 juli 2016 17:54 Jakka wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> A note that the rendering of riverbank "Leie" between Kortrijk
>> and Wervik is gone. In the past I added a lot of stuff there and
>> it was good. Had corrected several overlap riverbanks en
>> controlled begin to end but I do not know what to look after. The
>> "Leie" is a natural border with France Has there been a mass
>> update from there ?
>> 
>> Some one with knowledge can check that?
>> 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/646584#map=17/50.82877/3.25798=N
>>
>>
>> 
Please feedback what and where was the cause
>> 
>> Thx
> 
> 
> 
> ___ Talk-be mailing
> list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
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=gZ3Y
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Rendering of stream "Leie" broken

2016-07-28 Thread Ruben Maes 
Seems someone screwed up the Leie multipolygon relation pretty bad. I can deal 
with it after dinner.

On donderdag 28 juli 2016 18:56 Glenn Plas wrote:
> Area=no should not be needed on a riverbank.  It's implied by creating
> a closed way.  The problem is elsewhere.
> 
> Glenn
> 
> 
> On 28-07-16 18:00, Ruben Maes wrote:
> > Hi Frank
> >
> > I've removed the area=no that was tagged on it. I think that was
> > the cause, I hope it renders again soon.
> >
> > On donderdag 28 juli 2016 17:54 Jakka wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> A note that the rendering of riverbank "Leie" between Kortrijk
> >> and Wervik is gone. In the past I added a lot of stuff there and
> >> it was good. Had corrected several overlap riverbanks en
> >> controlled begin to end but I do not know what to look after. The
> >> "Leie" is a natural border with France Has there been a mass
> >> update from there ?
> >>
> >> Some one with knowledge can check that?
> >>
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/646584#map=17/50.82877/3.25798=N
> >>
> >>
> >>
> Please feedback what and where was the cause
> >>
> >> Thx
> >
> >
> >
> > ___ Talk-be mailing
> > list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> >
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 


-- 
Dit bericht is ondertekend met OpenPGP.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be