On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 03:52:42PM -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote:
You are being asked, is the word brunnel one you coined, or is it in use
already by other people? Pointing to a page you wrote is not an answer to
the question.
I have used a word I found in the wiki. I did not investigate
You are being asked, is the word brunnel one you coined, or is it in use
already by other people? Pointing to a page you wrote is not an answer to the
question.
On April 3, 2014 5:06:54 PM CDT, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:49:56PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:
On 4/5/14 4:52 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
You are being asked, is the word brunnel one you coined, or is it in use
already by other people? Pointing to a page you wrote is not an answer to
the question.
it appears to me that brunnel is defined in the GDF (Geographic
Data File) format. but
Am 03.04.2014 21:43, schrieb Richard Z:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 06:08:46PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:
On 02/04/2014 17:14, Richard Z. wrote:
as explained in the rationale the dimensions of the bridge/culvert
are frequently only a fraction of the achievable precision. Think
of a track crossing a
2014-04-03 22:42 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
Don't dismiss that argument so casually. The current rule is that the
way below the bridge should not share a node with the bridge itself.
the current idea that culverts float bellow roads without having anything
common with them
On 4/4/14 5:51 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
Stop saying GPS. Forget even about aerial imagery. When I had no aerial
imagery in my area, I either did not draw such features (leaving them for
future improvements), or approximate. The road there is about 6 meters
wide, so I'll draw two nodes about 6
Richard Welty wrote:
and if you are not sure about the extent of the structure or its nature
there's no harm in nipping out a short section, setting layer=1 and
skipping the other tagging (bridge=yes or whatever.) you have
accurately represented what you know and maintained correct
topology.
2014-04-03 1:53 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com:
Rationale in the Wiki says this would save us database space, we would
have 2 ways and 1 node less per bridge. Also, that maintaining one node is
easier than maintaining 3 ways. Lastly, problem of pretending you have
drawn a little
Whilst I think this is a very bad idea for the same reasons as already given by
Martin and Janko.
What on earth is a Brunnel? I don't know and neither does google. I have an
idea from reading the thread but I wonder how many have ignored the thread
through the choice of words in the title?
2014-04-03 11:12 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
FWIW, it is not true, we would save 1 way or 2, but the amount of nodes
would remain the same, because with the new proposal the waterway would get
an extra node which it hasn't otherwise. The 1 way saved is on the other
On 02/04/2014 17:14, Richard Z. wrote:
as explained in the rationale the dimensions of the bridge/culvert are
frequently only a fraction of the achievable precision. Think of a
track crossing a small creek in a forest valley int the mountains. The
GPS precision will be 10 meters if you are
Mike
We should be mapping as accurately as we can within the limitations (gps
accuracy, aerial imagery etc) that we have. Data can always be upgraded
when more accurate information becomes available. This proposal is a
step backwards towards inaccuracy.
On 02/04/2014 18:29, Mike Thompson
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 06:08:46PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:
On 02/04/2014 17:14, Richard Z. wrote:
as explained in the rationale the dimensions of the bridge/culvert
are frequently only a fraction of the achievable precision. Think
of a track crossing a small creek in a forest valley int the
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 01:53:15AM +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote:
Also -1 for the proposal.
Rationale in the Wiki says this would save us database space, we would have
2 ways and 1 node less per bridge. Also, that maintaining one node is
easier than maintaining 3 ways. Lastly, problem of
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 07:44:40PM +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote:
On 02.04.2014 18:14, Richard Z. wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:59:40PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
IMHO there is a fundamental problem to your proposal because you want to
connect 2 ways with a node which are in reality
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 09:52:13PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 03/apr/2014 um 21:43 schrieb Richard Z ricoz@gmail.com:
so again: *** a small creek in a forest valley int the mountains ***
Where is your aerial imagery? I want that!!
you don't need imagery, you
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 09:53:44AM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
Whilst I think this is a very bad idea for the same reasons as already given
by Martin and Janko.
What on earth is a Brunnel? I don't know and neither does google. I have an
idea from reading the thread but I wonder how many
Yes, one reason to reject this is that it involves a neologism, coined by the
proposal author, that few people will recognize and use.
On April 3, 2014 4:53:44 AM CDT, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
Whilst I think this is a very bad idea for the same reasons as already
given by
Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 12:07:42PM +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote:
2014-04-03 11:12 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
FWIW, it is not true, we would save 1 way or 2, but the amount of nodes
would remain the same, because with the new proposal the waterway would get
an
That is my main objection as well. This proposal is to deliberately reduce the
accuracy of the data in the name of saving a few seconds of mapping time.
On April 3, 2014 12:25:46 PM CDT, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Mike
We should be mapping as accurately as we can within the
On 03/04/2014 22:04, Richard Z. wrote:
A brunnel is a crossbreed of a bridge with a tunnel. It has been used somewhere
to describe
constructions where it is not easy to decide whether a grade separated crossing
is better
described as a tunnel under a road or bridge above something.
Really?
On 03/04/2014 22:05, John F. Eldredge wrote:
Yes, one reason to reject this is that it involves a neologism, coined by the
proposal author, that few people will recognize and use.
I think he's getting confused with I.K. Brunel ;-)
Dave F.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:27:57PM -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote:
That is my main objection as well. This proposal is to deliberately reduce
the accuracy of the data in the name of saving a few seconds of mapping time.
nonsense. This proposal is here to improve the accuracy. You do not have
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:49:56PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:
On 03/04/2014 22:04, Richard Z. wrote:
A brunnel is a crossbreed of a bridge with a tunnel. It has been used
somewhere to describe
constructions where it is not easy to decide whether a grade separated
crossing is better
described
On 03/04/2014 22:58, Richard Z. wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:27:57PM -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote:
That is my main objection as well. This proposal is to deliberately reduce the
accuracy of the data in the name of saving a few seconds of mapping time.
nonsense. This proposal is here to
On 03/04/2014 23:06, Richard Z. wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:49:56PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:
On 03/04/2014 22:04, Richard Z. wrote:
A brunnel is a crossbreed of a bridge with a tunnel. It has been used somewhere
to describe
constructions where it is not easy to decide whether a grade
On 4/3/14 6:06 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:49:56PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:
Really? Are you sure you're not just making this up?
Show us where or I'm calling you a fibber.
How much more stupid do you want to get if you don't use the basic
search function.
On 03/04/14 23:27, Richard Welty wrote:
On 4/3/14 6:06 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Advanced_relationships
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer
umm, the term only seems to appear here. google does not
find any references to it. from this i have to assume
Hi,
I have something revolutionary simple in my sleeve for the case where
a highway is going over a waterway:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bridge#Simple_one-node_brunnels_for_way_over_waterway
We have been thinking about it for a while and it seems there is
some demand which
2014-04-02 16:41 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
have something revolutionary simple in my sleeve for the case where
a highway is going over a waterway:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bridge#Simple_one-node_brunnels_for_way_over_waterway
We have been thinking about
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:59:40PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-04-02 16:41 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
have something revolutionary simple in my sleeve for the case where
a highway is going over a waterway:
It is also a significant loss of detail because you reduce the length of
the bridge to 0
Maps are abstractions. They don't represent reality precisely. In most
cases we already reduce the width of roads to 0 as they are not represented
by areas. The question should be whether the value of the
2014-04-02 18:16 GMT+02:00 Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com:
It is also a significant loss of detail because you reduce the length of
the bridge to 0
Maps are abstractions. They don't represent reality precisely.
We aim at precision/accuracy (IMHO, at least I do), you can always create
We aim at precision/accuracy (IMHO, at least I do),
1) How much precision/accuracy? No real world measurement or recording of
such measurement is exactly precise/accurate. Do you use a commercial grade
differential GPS when surveying? When you are create a way to represent a
road which in
In most cases we already reduce the width of roads to 0 as they are not
represented by areas.
no, their geometric representation is a line, but their width is (or can
be) added with a tag like width and lanes, of which the latter defaults to
2 (for non-
links) if not added explicitly.
A
On 02.04.2014 18:14, Richard Z. wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:59:40PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
IMHO there is a fundamental problem to your proposal because you want to
connect 2 ways with a node which are in reality disjunct
objects connected with pylons and lifts are also
2014-04-02 19:29 GMT+02:00 Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com:
1) How much precision/accuracy? No real world measurement or recording
of such measurement is exactly precise/accurate. Do you use a commercial
grade differential GPS when surveying? When you are create a way to
represent a road
2014-04-02 19:40 GMT+02:00 Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com:
A bridge that is a single node could also have a tag for length (as well
as one for width).
yes, but it would not tell you how they are oriented, because a node has no
direction, it is a point.
cheers,
Martin
At a road intersection, vehicle can interchange.
At a railroad intersection only one mode can use the way at a time.
A river/highway crossing is not an intersection. The stream does not stop
for traffic. These features should not share nodes, no mater how they are
tagged. I see no problem with
Also -1 for the proposal.
Rationale in the Wiki says this would save us database space, we would have
2 ways and 1 node less per bridge. Also, that maintaining one node is
easier than maintaining 3 ways. Lastly, problem of pretending you have
drawn a little bridge precise, when you didn't.
All
40 matches
Mail list logo
