Now that the arguments on both sides have been repeated
a couple of times, I'd like to offer my solution; me and some
nearby have been using this for some years already.
First, I believe, why the points mentioned are incompatible:
There's two ways to look at the keys (not just this key):
1)
2015-03-11 8:24 GMT+01:00 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net:
Please
let's not adopt deletionism as well.
+1, seriously.
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
I'm playing the devil's advocate a bit here
I believe the modern day term for that is trolling, and it wastes
everyone's time.
The whole railway episode has been really disheartening for the casual
disrespect it shows to committed contributors. No-one has a monopoly on
On 11/03/2015, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
Actual physical bridges - which may offer the only way across a ravine, or a
landmark to where you are on a river sounds like a similar justification -
so rendering abandoned, yet physically existing bridges seems like exactly
the kind of thing that
On 11/03/2015, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
I'm playing the devil's advocate a bit here
I believe the modern day term for that is trolling, and it wastes
everyone's time.
Sorry if looked like trolling. I was genuinely trying to show both
sides of the
2015-03-11 11:10 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com:
Again : the osm-carto dev agree that all bridges should be rendered.
It's two longstanding bugs, it takes time to fix. Not rendering
abandoned railways (wether or not on top of a bridge which should
itself be rendered) is a
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:50:36AM +1100, Warin wrote:
On 10/03/2015 1:22 AM, ael wrote:
I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
On 09/03/2015 15:06, ael wrote:
Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on
ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey
and edits. So I am not corrupting other people's data.
You're are corrupting *the* data. which is *everybody's* data.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
The core problem is:
railway=abandoned
Refers to railway service, and does not describe what's on the ground.
What's on the ground could range from a bit of residual lead arsenate
herbicide,
up through a highly visible
On Mar 10, 2015, at 12:49 AM, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl
wrote:
On 9 March 2015 at 15:26, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote:
To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue
and it was summarily closed:
On 10/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:53 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've also seen the opposite mapping issue, where an abandoned railway was
deleted from the map,
when in fact large chunks still exist.
If an osm way represents
On 10/03/2015, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
In passing, I am a little bemused that so many people seem to have missed
the hint that I normally regard tagging for the renderer as evil by
using the word Blatant in the title of this thread and that it was
sort of a confession and plea for
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:53 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 09/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
I know it's a messy dividing line. I see it as important context to
current day mapping.
That's a fair point, but I've seen it pushed beyond reason too
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-03-09 23:06 GMT+01:00 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com:
How does it help mappers see what they have mapped to not show a large
structure which has been mapped and which is physically present?
I didn't say the
Am 09.03.2015 um 15:27 schrieb Michael Reichert:
Hi ael,
Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael:
I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
An example using a local uk map is http://binged.it/1x8GAHx
Phil (trigpoint )
On Mon Mar 9 15:16:54 2015 GMT, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group
including Councillors who
On 09/03/2015 15:16, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet?
Yes, it was pointed out to you already:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
On 9 March 2015 at 15:15, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:
Using the default OSM-Carto layer for a project isn't very professional. The
job of the default layer isn't to make a map for everyone to use in their
projects, its main job is to help mappers see what they have mapped, and to
Hi ael,
Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael:
I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:27:17PM +0100, Michael Reichert wrote:
Hi ael,
Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael:
I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:35:19PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
+1, please tag what is on the ground,
and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. Obviously I support
On 09/03/2015 14:22, ael wrote:
I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard
On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group
including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering
using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned
railways in the area (related to
On 9 March 2015 at 15:26, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote:
To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue
and it was summarily closed:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641
That was not a pull request, but a bug report, and it
W dniu 09.03.2015 15:32, fly napisał(a):
Still miss support for man_made=bridge which leads to mapping for the
renderer as user add highway=* + area=yes to the area to get it
rendered.
The ticket is not closed, but I don't know the final decision or what
may be obstacles, however there was
On 09/03/2015, Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org wrote:
+1, please tag what is on the ground,
and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
As for the discussion on rendering standalone bridges :
2015-03-09 16:06 GMT+01:00 ael law_ence@ntlworld.com:
I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group
including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering
using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned
railways in the area (related to
Hi,
Am 2015-03-09 um 16:06 schrieb ael:
Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on
ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey
and edits. So I am not corrupting other people's data.
Wrong! You have corrupted data because you have changed
On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 15:29 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
An example using a local uk map is http://binged.it/1x8GAHx
Try again http://binged.it/1x8Hhki
Phil (trigpoint )
On Mon Mar 9 15:16:54 2015 GMT, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com
Michael Reichert wrote on 2015-03-09 15:27:
Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael:
I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
to tall vehicles
On Mon Mar 9 15:49:01 2015 GMT, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
On 9 March 2015 at 15:26, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote:
To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue
and it was summarily closed:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:14:58PM +0100, Michael Reichert wrote:
Hi,
Am 2015-03-09 um 16:06 schrieb ael:
Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on
ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey
and edits. So I am not corrupting other
2015-03-09 16:18 GMT+00:00 ael law_ence@ntlworld.com:
The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism.
That sort of comment is unworthy of OSM. I did the surveys. Very
carefully. I tagged corectly as far as I knew at the time.
[...]
Your sort of comment to someone who has
case made there very clearly for (just) rendering the bridges
That is handled in a separate issue:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320
Before commenting in this issue please carefully read existing comments,
especially the first two.
I don't like tagging for the
You should show them RichardF's cycle.travel site as a different way of
rendering OSM, and it shows old railways.
Phil (trigpoint )
On Mon Mar 9 16:18:39 2015 GMT, ael wrote:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:14:58PM +0100, Michael Reichert wrote:
Hi,
Am 2015-03-09 um 16:06 schrieb ael:
How does it help mappers see what they have mapped to not show a large
structure which has been mapped and which is physically present?
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot
drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr.
On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 16:18 +, ael wrote:
The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism.
That sort of comment is unworthy of OSM.
Indeed.
Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work
to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contribute.
If the bridges are still present, the map should render them even if the
rails and railbeds on either side of the bridge have been removed. After
all, we are supposed to map the ground truth, and if the bridge is still
present, that is the ground truth.
--
John F. Eldredge --
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 1:37 PM, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote:
railway=abandoned has been used from almost year 0 in OSM to indicate
where the rails have been removed but the route is still visible in some
way. See http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned .
And yes, if
On 3/9/15 4:58 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
The broader point is intact.
When making sense of abandoned bridges and oddly rounded buildings in
various places, it is super helpful
to see the context of the prior railroad grade. It helps in mapping
from the air and on the ground.
A given
On 10/03/2015 1:22 AM, ael wrote:
I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard
On 09/03/2015 18:07, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
That is handled in a separate issue:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320
Before commenting in this issue please carefully read existing comments,
especially the first two.
I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would
On 09/03/2015 20:03, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
The core problem is:
*railway=abandoned*
Refers to railway service, and does not describe what's on the ground.
No.
railway=abandoned has been used from almost year 0 in OSM to indicate
where the rails have been removed but the route is still visible
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:18 AM, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work
to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contribute.
Please ignore these types of comments. While we all generally agree that
tagging for the
The core problem is:
*railway=abandoned*
Refers to railway service, and does not describe what's on the ground.
What's on the ground could range from a bit of residual lead arsenate
herbicide,
up through a highly visible gravel trackbed with bridges and culverts and
bits of railway artifact
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net
wrote:
...wworthwhile to consider OpenHistoricalMap as a resource for
recording information about spatial entities that no longer exist in the
modern
world. this relieves us of the argument about representing them in OSM.
On 09/03/2015, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:35:19PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
+1, please tag what is on the ground,
and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
Thanks
2015-03-09 23:06 GMT+01:00 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com:
How does it help mappers see what they have mapped to not show a large
structure which has been mapped and which is physically present?
I didn't say the bridge shouldn't be rendered. I just said it's not default
layers job to
On 09/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
Ah thanks, I stand corrected. railway=razed would be the tag to discuss.
The broader point is intact.
While there is a pretty strong consensus that osm describes the
present (leaving openhistoricalmap for the past), it seems that some
On 09/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
Somehow I come down on the side that railways have enough footprint on the
current world that
they belong in OSM proper, unlike say old buildings or former shops.
A abandoned railway slowly evolves from a mappable way, to a series of
On 09/03/2015, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
Possible work around?
Use the tag man_made=bridge to tag the bridge area?
Keeps the railway correctly tagged. And places the bridge correctly.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge
Try that and see if it works.
Not
51 matches
Mail list logo
