Hi!
I'm looking for some alternatives to map tunnels and bridges that
contain several ways. I'm not really happy with the proposed relation
[1]. Is there any other approach for this? I'm asking myself why don't
we simply map the outline of the bridge/tunnel (the latter may be more
difficult to
2013/1/31 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com
Hi!
I'm looking for some alternatives to map tunnels and bridges that
contain several ways. I'm not really happy with the proposed relation
[1]. Is there any other approach for this? I'm asking myself why don't
we simply map the outline of the
2013/1/31 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
Hi!
I'm looking for some alternatives to map tunnels and bridges that
contain several ways. I'm not really happy with the proposed relation
[1]. Is there any other approach for this? I'm asking myself why don't
we simply map the outline of the
On 31.01.2013 12:06, Martin Vonwald wrote:
I'm looking for some alternatives to map tunnels and bridges that
contain several ways. I'm not really happy with the proposed relation
[1]. Is there any other approach for this? I'm asking myself why don't
we simply map the outline of the
On 31.01.2013 13:24, Janko Mihelić wrote:
I like building=bridge.
Not a good choice imo. According to a recent discussion, mappers might
want to use that tag specifically to map buildings built into bridges -
like these:
2013/1/31 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
On 31.01.2013 13:24, Janko Mihelić wrote:
I like building=bridge.
Not a good choice imo. According to a recent discussion, mappers might
want to use that tag specifically to map buildings built into bridges -
like these:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't call this a bridge, it is a vault, but the bridge (or
viaduct) if you wanted to map it would (IMHO) be the structure as a
whole, not just a single segment.
Instead of building=bridge, you might
On 31/01/2013 12:37, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
drawing the outline seems a good approach as it permits to group
visually (and topologically) different carriageways running over the
same bridge (as opposed to two parallel bridges).
This is approach is used by IHO for marine chart data. Where a
Am 31.01.2013 14:44, schrieb Martin Vonwald:
In my opinion this is a rather obvious approach therefore I'm not
surprised that someone already came up with it earlier. But I am
definitively surprised that we don't have any documentation in the
wiki for it. I see a lot of bridges with many ways
On 31/01/2013 13:44, Martin Vonwald wrote:
* bridge=type : use this tag just like it is used at the moment. If
the value would be yes it should be optional.
Again, borrowing from IHO, they define the following bridge types:
fixed
opening
swing
lifting
bascule
pontoon
drawbridge
transporter
2013/1/31 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote:
* something=bridge : this is the tag we should decide one. I guess
the value bridge is unchallenged.
My 2 cents:
- area=bridge
- area:bridge=yes
- man_made=bridge
-
On 31/01/2013 13:44, Martin Vonwald wrote:
* something=bridge : this is the tag we should decide one. I guess
the value bridge is unchallenged.
-1
If the primary tag is bridge=type, then why do we need the above tag
at all?
___
Tagging mailing
2013/1/31 Malcolm Herring malcolm.herr...@btinternet.com:
On 31/01/2013 13:44, Martin Vonwald wrote:
* something=bridge : this is the tag we should decide one. I guess
the value bridge is unchallenged.
-1
If the primary tag is bridge=type, then why do we need the above tag at
all?
The
Martin,
Maybe I am missing something from your proposal. I had understood it to
mean that bridges should be mapped as distinct features, separate from
the ways that pass over and under. Therefore, bridge=... tags on the
ways would become redundant and remove the ambiguity and messy rendering
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Malcolm Herring
malcolm.herr...@btinternet.com wrote:
Maybe I am missing something from your proposal. I had understood it to mean
that bridges should be mapped as distinct features, separate from the ways
that pass over and under. Therefore, bridge=... tags on
2013/1/31 Malcolm Herring malcolm.herr...@btinternet.com:
Martin,
Maybe I am missing something from your proposal.
No proposal - just ideas ;-)
I had understood it to mean
that bridges should be mapped as distinct features, separate from the ways
that pass over and under. Therefore,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote:
I would not do that. I would keep the bridge=xxx tags for backward
compatibility.
Bad idea. I like the principle one feature, one OSM element. Solve
rendering issues in the rendering toolchain.
Pieren
Am 31.01.2013 16:57, schrieb Janko Mihelić:
Well, having building=bridge and bridge=yes isn't two features. First
one is the feature (bridge) and the second one is the road with an
attribute (it is on a bridge). They are redundant, but I wouldn't call
them duplicated.
They are duplicated if
2013/1/31 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
In my opinion this is a rather obvious approach therefore I'm not
surprised that someone already came up with it earlier. But I am
definitively surprised that we don't have any documentation in the
wiki for it.
there are real examples, e.g.
I read a bit about 3D buildings, and it's pretty compatible. Here is an
article about simple 3D buildings:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings
Here is a picture that shows the concept of building:parts:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=File:Minlevel.svgpage=1
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Peter Wendorff
wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote:
For data consumers supporting the new it follows: If there's no bridge-area
(e.g. man_made=bridge) defined, but there's a bridge=yes, I have to assume
an error, I might report that as such and/or I should fall
On 31/01/2013 15:17, Martin Vonwald wrote:
As you already need to
split the roads at the edges of the structure, because you need to add
the layer (and bridge) key within the structure, there are already
nodes present - just connect them with the OSM way of the structure.
Why do you need split
+1
Not splitting the way for every bridge will make tagging a lot easier. Often
when things such as speed limits on long sections of road, bridges get missed
and then often the cause of extra routing instructions if a reference tag is
missing.
Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Nokia N9
On
On 1/31/13 12:39 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
+1
Not splitting the way for every bridge will make tagging a lot easier. Often
when things such as speed limits on long sections of road, bridges get missed
and then often the cause of extra routing instructions if a reference tag is
missing.
it
On 31.01.2013 17:31, Janko Mihelić wrote:
I read a bit about 3D buildings, and it's pretty compatible. Here is an
article about simple 3D buildings:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings
I think you are overlooking several problems. To start with,
building:part cannot do
On 1/31/13 12:53 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 1/31/13 12:39 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
+1
Not splitting the way for every bridge will make tagging a lot
easier. Often when things such as speed limits on long sections of
road, bridges get missed and then often the cause of extra routing
On 31.01.2013 18:39, Philip Barnes wrote:
Not splitting the way for every bridge will make tagging a lot easier.
Won't anybody think of the poor renderers? :(
Until now we could rely on the assumption that every way is *either* on
the ground *or* above the ground. Which is pretty helpful imo.
Am 31.01.2013 18:14, schrieb Malcolm Herring:
On 31/01/2013 15:17, Martin Vonwald wrote:
As you already need to
split the roads at the edges of the structure, because you need to add
the layer (and bridge) key within the structure, there are already
nodes present - just connect them with the
On 31.01.2013 12:06, Martin Vonwald wrote:
I'm looking for some alternatives to map tunnels and bridges that
contain several ways. I'm not really happy with the proposed relation
-1
The current method is used and well established since years and for my
point of view works fine. So I clearly
Am 01.02.2013 um 00:01 schrieb Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de:
On 31.01.2013 12:06, Martin Vonwald wrote:
I'm looking for some alternatives to map tunnels and bridges that
contain several ways. I'm not really happy with the proposed relation
-1
The current method is used and well
Hi,
A few problems with the current approach:
1) When several things pass over the same bridge (eg,
highway=secondary, highway=cycleway and highway=footway; or even just
two independent lanes), renderers currently draw multiple bridges.
2) In areas where structures (buildings, paved areas, piers,
31 matches
Mail list logo
