On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:24:07AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
Therefore, everyone needs now to handle those hardly useful layer
warnings about trivial cases (and waste their time on correcting them).
even worse, people just apply layer=-1 to
Hi,
I wonder why we make bridges split and split and split the roads.
In reality, bridges are pieces of concrete or stonework at level -1
under an uninterrupted foil of tarmac at level 0.
Or at level 0 if it's understood that the renderer knows what's a bridge.
And the renderer knows, as it draws
Am 14/mar/2014 um 15:51 schrieb Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
Do you agree that the river can be tagged with layer=-1 as long as
this value is correct in relation to the layer of other
nearby/crossing ways?
I would discourage you to do so. Layer tags should only be applied
Am 14/mar/2014 um 16:36 schrieb Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
Real case from real world : a deep ditch where the stream is not
underground but below the ground level, is crossing a village
where we have 10 bridges. Either you add 10 times layer=1 on the
bridges or you add 1 time layer=-1 on
Am 14/mar/2014 um 16:35 schrieb Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
From this logic, layer=-1 means the object is rendered beneath
anything that has layer=0 (or, conversely, that anything with layer=0
is rendered on top of anything with layer=-1). It does not mean that
it is in
Am 14/mar/2014 um 19:55 schrieb Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
I don't think you should be required to check the river's layer tag.
Validators should do this job for you, it's quite easy to write a rule
for that.
first you'll have to download all data along this river in
Hi,
I agree partially with you here.
Yes, adding bridges in addition to the road is possible and may be a
good idea.
What we currently map as being a bridge in fact is the property of the
road is on a bridge instead.
Changing the current tagging scheme to duplicate the corresponding
segment of
I believe there was a proposal for tagging a bridge separately:
man_made=bridge. I think it would be really nice to have the actual outline
of the bridge rendered
Em 15/03/2014 10:02, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de escreveu:
Hi,
I agree partially with you here.
Yes, adding bridges
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:25:16PM +0100, André Pirard wrote:
Hi,
I wonder why we make bridges split and split and split the roads.
do not like that too much either.
In reality, bridges are pieces of concrete or stonework at level -1
under an uninterrupted foil of tarmac at level 0.
but
Hi John,
yes, that's one possibility; knew that already, but thanks for pointing
the list to the link.
regards
Peter
Am 15.03.2014 14:16, schrieb John Packer:
I believe there was a proposal for tagging a bridge separately:
man_made=bridge. I think it would be really nice to have the actual
Please correct me if I'm wrong, after reading what you said, I think
that the point that I was missing was this:
- tracktype is the degree of compaction of the material
(regardless of material)
- smoothness is the degree of irregularity of the surface (for
wheeled vehicles, also regardless of
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 14/mar/2014 um 15:51 schrieb Fernando Trebien
fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
Do you agree that the river can be tagged with layer=-1 as long as
this value is correct in relation to the layer of other
nearby/crossing ways?
I would discourage you to do so. Layer tags
Alright. I see that applying layer to long ways is bad for several
reasons. Surely this could be turned into a validation warning.
But what's the difference between tagging the bridge with layer=1 and
tagging the river underneath with layer=-1? Some people seem to think
that both are necessary,
Fernando Trebien wrote:
Alright. I see that applying layer to long ways is bad for several
reasons. Surely this could be turned into a validation warning.
But what's the difference between tagging the bridge with layer=1 and
tagging the river underneath with layer=-1? Some people seem to think
Civil administration is surely hardly a land use. A council office is no
different to any other office. I suggest looking at planning zones and
their designations as a reference. Typically classifications like
residential, retail, commercial, industrial and agricultural are seen,
and changing
In summary:
- tracktype tag=surface:compaction
- smoothness tag=surface:regularity
- surface tag=surface:material_structure
That is how I understand it. the Smoothness is the most subjective one, but the
others should be pretty straightforward.
Javbw
the validator will only prevent the most obvious errors but will give
you no clue how to fix them correctly
I know. But two or three rounds of trial and error with the validator
should be enough to bring a new user to an acceptable representation.
there is no difference between connections in
I thought a bit more and this statement I said is incorrect:
Correct, let's add within the same level to all of those rules, and
assume level=0 when level is not specified in a tag. Then they all
work also for indoor mapping.
The correct wording of those warning rules, taking indoor mapping into
Here are a few arguable reasons to split the waterway and tag it with layer=-1:
1. Bridges may come in pairs for dual carriageways. In this case, it's
a single layer tag for the waterway versus 2 layer tags for the
bridges. This may happen many times in a row. In this case, it makes
sense to split
It's not that straightforward to me since tracktype is described in
terms of surface materials, which can have widely varying levels of
compaction.
But great, I'll update the articles trying to make this distinction
clearer, then post back here my changes.
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:59 PM, johnw
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 02:06:13PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
the validator will only prevent the most obvious errors but will give
you no clue how to fix them correctly
I know. But two or three rounds of trial and error with the validator
should be enough to bring a new user to an
Am 15.03.2014 19:19, schrieb Fernando Trebien:
Here are a few arguable reasons to split the waterway and tag it with
layer=-1:
1. Bridges may come in pairs for dual carriageways. In this case, it's
a single layer tag for the waterway versus 2 layer tags for the
bridges. This may happen many
2014-03-15 16:29 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
tracktype is the degree of compaction of the material
(regardless of material)
I have always more thought of it how much it was constructed, while
tracktype=1 is a paved road, 5 will be a track on grass (almost or not
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 03:19:36PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
Situation 1 happens in many other cities across the world, and if you
tag the bridge as layer=1, you may end up inverting the rendering
order of highways, leading to this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138032009
what
On Mar 16, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd consider neither courthouses nor government buildings administration.
Federal buildings in the US are the equivalent to branch offices of the US
government - basically national hall - they are very far apart,
25 matches
Mail list logo
