Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I've noticed that a lot of bridges don't include a layer= tag. I suspect this is because they render OK in mapnik...but not so well with osmarenderer. (Consider the railroad in http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.76931lon=-84.53762zoom=17layers=0B00FTF .) I'd suggest to modify Osmarender rather than the data, then. No this is Tiger import data, the data arrived wrong and was half corrected. (much of tiger has intersecting nodes where there should be bridges. some bridge insertion went without layering), It missing all but implied layering of bridge-nature. What we can't tell without checking satellite view is whether the bridge is at grade level with the Railroad in a ditch, or if the bridge pitches up over the RR. If two otherwise uncorrected tiger records cross with a bridge, the bridge should be level-of-other + 1 , which normally would make it layer=1 as Tiger has no layers. If three, hard to tell which is top ... -- Bill n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Fw: script for adding layer=1 to bridges
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Chris Hunter chunter...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:49:46 To: Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges I agree with Fredrick that this comes perilously close to tagging for the renderer, but you're correct that there should be layer=* tags on all bridges. I think the best way to handle this would be to have the script open an openstreetbugs ticket for each untagged bridge. Chris --Original Message-- From: Frederik Ramm Sender: talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: dion_d...@comcast.net Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges Sent: Jan 27, 2010 2:13 AM Dion, dion_d...@comcast.net wrote: I've noticed that a lot of bridges don't include a layer= tag. I suspect this is because they render OK in mapnik...but not so well with osmarenderer. (Consider the railroad in http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.76931lon=-84.53762zoom=17layers=0B00FTF.) I'd suggest to modify Osmarender rather than the data, then. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fw: script for adding layer=1 to bridges
On 1/27/10 9:50 AM, Chris Hunter wrote: Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Chris Hunterchunter...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:49:46 To: Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges I agree with Fredrick that this comes perilously close to tagging for the renderer, but you're correct that there should be layer=* tags on all bridges. I think the best way to handle this would be to have the script open an openstreetbugs ticket for each untagged bridge. i concur. there is too much variation in the tagging/non-tagging of bridges right now for arbitrarily adding layer=1 to be safe. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fw: script for adding layer=1 to bridges
The keepright checker http://keepright.ipax.at/ shows layer conflicts (amongst other things), if you want to clean up an area. Brad On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 1/27/10 9:50 AM, Chris Hunter wrote: Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Chris Hunterchunter...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:49:46 To: Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges I agree with Fredrick that this comes perilously close to tagging for the renderer, but you're correct that there should be layer=* tags on all bridges. I think the best way to handle this would be to have the script open an openstreetbugs ticket for each untagged bridge. i concur. there is too much variation in the tagging/non-tagging of bridges right now for arbitrarily adding layer=1 to be safe. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Bill Ricker bill.n1...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I've noticed that a lot of bridges don't include a layer= tag. I suspect this is because they render OK in mapnik...but not so well with osmarenderer. (Consider the railroad in http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.76931lon=-84.53762zoom=17layers=0B00FTF.) I'd suggest to modify Osmarender rather than the data, then. No this is Tiger import data, the data arrived wrong and was half corrected. (much of tiger has intersecting nodes where there should be bridges. some bridge insertion went without layering), It missing all but implied layering of bridge-nature. What we can't tell without checking satellite view is whether the bridge is at grade level with the Railroad in a ditch, or if the bridge pitches up over the RR. I wouldn't put any faith in when TIGER says something is a bridge. It seems like, in the process of merging tiger lines into single ways, no consideration was given to which segments were bridges. As a result, the entire length of the street gets bridge=yes. Furthermore, this usually appears on roads with no obvious bridges (though there could be a tiny culvert somewhere along it) and not on roads that have bridges of any significant length. As far as I can tell, it could be completely random. Anyway, I have seen places where people have cleaned up freeway corridors, and neglected to tag layer on anything unless there are bridges crossing over other bridges. Mapnik renders this fine (actually that could be considered a deficiency of Mapnik in my opinion) but it looks a little goofy in Osmarender. (On the other hand, when one end of a layer=0 bridge is directly at an intersection with other layer=0 streets, Osmarender renders this beautifully and Mapnik makes it look odd.) Since some people consider the entire layer tag to be tagging for the renderer these people probably don't think it's important to add thorough layer information; instead, they add just enough to make it look decent in the renderer. I am not of that opinion. -- David Smith a.k.a. Vid the Kid a.k.a. Bír'd'in Does this font make me look fat? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Bill Ricker bill.n1...@gmail.com wrote: What we can't tell without checking satellite view is whether the bridge is at grade level with the Railroad in a ditch, or if the bridge pitches up over the RR. Or both. Or maybe halfway between the two (think retaining wall). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:47 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.comwrote: Since some people consider the entire layer tag to be tagging for the renderer these people probably don't think it's important to add thorough layer information; I would agree with your disagreement with such people. But I understand their confusion. The *naming* of layer=* is unfortunately renderish, but it carries real meaning beyond the oldschool mapmakers' plate masks. I would wish the tag:layer had been more abstractly named tag:level. ah well. I would also prefer real altitudes on all points rather than ordinal relative levels (whether misnamed layer or not), but that's a bit of an ask. And would cause semantic problems when ways become buildings (foundation or roof elevation? include vertical segments?). Ordering of the bridges in http://www.stockphotopro.com/photo-thumbs-2/stockphotopro_33168BXD_no_title.jpgfrom top-most to bottom-most is Data. Likewise ordering of tunnel ramps weaving out of our Big Dig is Data. It is DATA that a Transit line is in a uncovered ditch even when it's not under a bridge. Some non-rendering data-using software (or a person using data access) will want to know up from down. Silly example -- I could write a script to find examples of various topological knots in the interchange ramp network, and which is under or over at a crossing is critical. Truck routing really need to know headroom at each underpass too, but we don't have that usually. -- Bill n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
