Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 08:16:43AM +0900, John Willis via Tagging wrote: > On Nov 19, 2019, at 6:53 AM, Richard wrote: > > > > Other than that, "dyke_area" or "area:dyke" in analogy to > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway ? > > I think dykes/levees are made of inner and

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

Although they are constructed the same (pile of dirt), they are named and mapped differently. The man_made=levee tag exists, and I just want to extend it. Perhaps the man_made=embankment Can have a embankment=* to tag different types of berms and other man-made slopes, but in this case, the

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

John Just wondering if the suggestion I gave Volker this morning about walls around a shooting range may also work for you? " I was wondering about barrier=wall, even though it's possibly not a constructed wall as such? When I was just looking at barriers, I spotted

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> On Nov 19, 2019, at 12:49 PM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Is there something else that we are expecting could be done by mapping > this in great detail which cannot be done with a simpler > representation + a DEM? I understand that, topographically speaking, we can get information about

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> peaks are contained in DEMs, why map them in OSM Mainly so we can add their name=* and elevation based on survey. But also, DEMs have trouble localizing point and line features, so if you climb the peak or walk along a ridgeline to check the location with GPS, it is usually more accurate than

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

Am Di., 19. Nov. 2019 um 04:49 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > Are you sure that the information that you want is not already > available from a Digital Elevation Model? > I do not agree with this. DEMs (at least what is commonly and freely available currently) do

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

Javbw, Are you sure that the information that you want is not already available from a Digital Elevation Model? See for example how your area looks in Opentopomap.org, on Opencyclemap, or on the Terrain layer of Google Maps, or a similar rendering. Large embankments should be clearly visible in

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

On Nov 19, 2019, at 6:53 AM, Richard wrote: > > Other than that, "dyke_area" or "area:dyke" in analogy to > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway ? I think dykes/levees are made of inner and outer embankments, and pairing them might be the only way to do it properly. Whatever

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 11:15:49AM +0900, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > 1) Map the central line as man_made=dyke, or highway + cutting=yes / > embankment=yes as relevant. This line should not be 100 kilometers > long, but a reasonable length: probably no more than 10 kilometers, > and even shorter

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> for straight embankments, cuttings, slopes, if they are done with an area > that shares nodes, then I don’t think you need a relation. Agreed. You can map the area of the cutting or embankment as a new tag like man_made=embankment_area or similar, and the area would include the same nodes as

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

for straight embankments, cuttings, slopes, if they are done with an area that shares nodes, then I don’t think you need a relation. if they are jsut two lines that happen to be near each other, and do not share nodes, you might need a relation to associate them. also, if a levee is made of

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> On Nov 16, 2019, at 7:50 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: > > A complicated scheme dreamt up here isn't going to get taken up by anyone. I took these 3 pictures yesterday while out cycling: https://imgur.com/gallery/Wqc5Ems The largest of the 8 levees I rode

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:17:41PM +0900, John Willis via Tagging wrote: > The “reply-to” email address might be being secretly changed by some mail > clients - when I choose “reply” to Peter’s mail, it chooses the tagging > group. When I choose reply to Martin’s, it chooses Martin. This is

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 06:54:52PM +0900, John Willis via Tagging wrote: > > On Nov 11, 2019, at 6:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > > wrote: > > A relation seems easier to evaluate and explicit, while a spatial query > > heuristic will inevitably fail in some cases > > > I think there is a need

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 06:21:13PM +0900, John Willis via Tagging wrote: > Still looking for feedback on the idea, Specifically: my idea.. > - lower base way or area sharing nodes with the top line in embankment / > cutting, etc? way instead of area. Simpler to do and more flexible. Also I

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

On 11/16/19 9:21 AM, John Willis via Tagging wrote: Still looking for feedback on the idea, Specifically: - lower base way or area sharing nodes with the top line in embankment / cutting, etc? - relation or no relation needed? - map levee with embankment pairs, or map with two pairs of

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

Still looking for feedback on the idea, Specifically: - lower base way or area sharing nodes with the top line in embankment / cutting, etc? - relation or no relation needed? - map levee with embankment pairs, or map with two pairs of levee specific tags in a relation with the =dyke way?

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

I've seen the same with the Australia list. Here, "reply" go to the list; while on AU, "reply" only goes to that person, while "Reply All" goes to them & the list? Thanks Graeme On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 13:19, John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > The “reply-to” email

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

The “reply-to” email address might be being secretly changed by some mail clients - when I choose “reply” to Peter’s mail, it chooses the tagging group. When I choose reply to Martin’s, it chooses Martin. This is Mail.app on MacOS 10.13.6. I have never really had this issue before. I don’t

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

Messages are sent with Reply-To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" So simple reply should be enough, that's what I do and it works. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op do 14 nov. 2019 om 11:46 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 14. Nov 2019,

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

sent from a phone > On 14. Nov 2019, at 04:08, John Willis via Tagging > wrote: > > Sorry, I am continuing to have trouble properly replying to the tagging > group, it keeps defaulting to the individual. you have to “reply to all” @list-admin maybe this setting could be changed?

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

Sorry, I am continuing to have trouble properly replying to the tagging group, it keeps defaulting to the individual. > On Nov 13, 2019, at 4:48 PM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > For a levee it can just go around the whole levee If I understand your suggestion correctly, this is

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

(I mis-sent this email) > On Nov 13, 2019, at 3:44 AM, Richard wrote: > > We need new tags for the bottom of embankmets, top of cuttings, bottom of > cliffs, earth_banks > and maybe a few others if we want to map them. that is very true. I think we can cleanly do this with the ways you

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> I think there is a need for a basic relation, ... to simply associate the two > lines ... When mapped, they are not joined The easiest way to do this is to make an area which represents the area of the cliff, embankment, dyke (levee) or whatnot. Have it use the same nodes as the upper and

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> On Nov 13, 2019, at 3:44 AM, Richard wrote: > > We need new tags for the bottom of embankmets, top of cuttings, bottom of > cliffs, earth_banks > and maybe a few others if we want to map them. that is very true. I think we can cleanly do this with the ways you mentioned. We need to

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 07:04:42AM +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 05:05, Richard wrote: > > > > > We need new tags for the bottom of embankmets, top of cuttings, bottom of > > cliffs, earth_banks > > and maybe a few others if we want to map them. > > > > Imho all those

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 05:05, Richard wrote: > > We need new tags for the bottom of embankmets, top of cuttings, bottom of > cliffs, earth_banks > and maybe a few others if we want to map them. > > Imho all those should be tagged ways such as cliff:base, relations could > be used optionaly > to

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 01:53:55PM +0900, John Willis via Tagging wrote: > > > > On Nov 12, 2019, at 10:26 AM, Joseph Eisenberg > > wrote: > > > > If you are mapping an area, as in this case, just use a closed way or > > multipolygon. > > How would a closed

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> On Nov 12, 2019, at 10:26 AM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > If you are mapping an area, as in this case, just use a closed way or > multipolygon. How would a closed way (area polygon) denote “top” and “Bottom”? if embankments can be easily expressed as

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> On Nov 11, 2019, at 6:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > I agree we should have a way to map both limits, upper and lower, for all > kind of similar features, e.g. embankments, slopes, and similar. > On Nov 11, 2019, at 7:40 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I have stood in front of

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

I have stood in front of these large levees that prevent big rivers from flooding the surrounding country side many times her in Italy and did not find a suitable tagging for both the top and the bottom border lines of the object. We have a similar problem with extended stairs for which there is

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 07:27 Uhr schrieb John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > It seems I was (very) confused, possibly by misreading it several > different times. I have mapped 40km of levees wrong, with an improper lower > bounds line. I’ll have to fix it. > I now understand

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> On Nov 11, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > We use two tags for rivers: `waterway=riverbank` (or natural=water + > water=river) for the area and waterway=river for the central line of > the river. Thanks so much for all of the clear and thoughtful replies. I sometimes

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> I really love the top-lines of the embankments, as these embankment tops are > not uniform in shape - but I will delete them if it is bad tagging. It's not bad tagging, you should keep these. (make sure that the lower side is on the right hand of way direction) > would there be some advantage

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> On Nov 11, 2019, at 11:16 AM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > "it should be tagged on a way drawn with the lower side on right side > of way direction" - Tag:man_made=embankment for some reason, I remember reading documentation about using a pair of embankment lines to denote the extent of

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> They usually have a 2-10m wide “top” on the levee The tag man_made=embankment should always be placed at the top of the embankment, so your two lines will only be 2 to 10 meters apart. This tag is not meant to show the size of the embankment or levee, but the location of the top of the steep