Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
I don't see any thing against using level=* to solve some rendering issues. Feature-independance is maybe the key for more simplicity and versatility. As location=underground is one other example. power=cable isn't feature independent at all, are we? 2013/1/16 A.Pirard.Papou > I'm somewhat of a tourist in this thread (if you didn't notice) but I > can't help wondering why these lines aka cables are not tagged with at > least layer=±3 (1). > Now, if we do not want the non-specialized renderer to be updated with > each new feature, the best is a tag telling whether a underground hidden > object has to be rendered with a dotted line. This is not tagging for the > renderer (2), it is making an OSMap. > > This is the same feature-independence reasoning as saying that bridges are > black objects a little wider than the road, just that, and tagged at level > road-1, thus supporting the road without interrupting nor hiding it (as > done at legacy level +1) and extending two black stripes to each side. > While bridge=yes was OK, I have had rendering problems with bridge=culvert > and I'm wondering why the renderer is messing in the hidden underskirt of a > bridge :-) > > Cheers, > > André. > (1) which should have been called level in my mind. > BTW, wiki/Layer had better say that the ground at Earth surface is layer 0. > (2) which is working around its mistakes > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] year in opening_hours syntax
On 1/16/13 12:24 PM, Eckhart Wörner wrote: Hi Richard, Am Dienstag, 15. Januar 2013, 15:25:27 schrieb Richard Welty: the use case would be that known road closures could be placed in advance, and routing/GPS software that could handle it would be able to generate alternate routes depending on the time. last year, I started a proposal that defines time domains properly (including optional year) and therefore should be suitable for a lot of cases (opening_hours, ferry departures, …): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Time_domains Unfortunately, I wasn't able to follow up on the proposal due to lack of time. this is a decent looking proposal. can we revive activity on this one? thanks, richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
On 2013-01-16 14:24, Janko Mihelić wrote : I think that if we map underground cables with "power=line, location=underground" we will expect too much from renderers that don't want to think too much about this. If you put "power=cable" they will not render it, and everything is ok. I'm somewhat of a tourist in this thread (if you didn't notice) but I can't help wondering why these lines aka cables are not tagged with at least layer=±3 (1). Now, if we do not want the non-specialized renderer to be updated with each new feature, the best is a tag telling whether a underground hidden object has to be rendered with a dotted line. This is not tagging for the renderer (2), it is making an OSMap. This is the same feature-independence reasoning as saying that bridges are black objects a little wider than the road, just that, and tagged at level road-1, thus supporting the road without interrupting nor hiding it (as done at legacy level +1) and extending two black stripes to each side. While bridge=yes was OK, I have had rendering problems with bridge=culvert and I'm wondering why the renderer is messing in the hidden underskirt of a bridge :-) Cheers, André. (1) which should have been called level in my mind. BTW, wiki/Layer had better say that the ground at Earth surface is layer 0. (2) which is working around its mistakes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Wiki draft about power lines
Hi, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power_lines This article dealing with power lines and electric substations seems to use some deprecated tags like power=minor_underground_cable. It would be great to update it to the current format for these tags. Eventually we could split it in two parts respectively about lines and substations to best describe these main parts of power grids and link it directly from the WikiProject Power Networks page. The third part about power routes should be merged with other articles dealing with this topic. Does it mind someone? Do you see any other way of improvement? Cheers. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cycleway Tagging and Wiki-Page
To me, the Schutzstreifen example should be tagged a bike lane. This page discusses an example of what I'd see as the shared lane (see photo at bottom of page)... http://www.bikewalktwincities.org/news-events/news/biking-walking-and-blogging-what-bicyclists-may-use-full-lane (tl;dr: by state law in Minnesota (and I'm assuming other places), cars are legally supposed to share the road with bikes, the signage just reinforces that for both drivers and cyclists.) ...which matches up exactly with what it says on the wiki. Regarding "sharrow", the wiki says it means the same as shared lane, but may have different signage. Maybe they should be merged in the wiki (ie in the shared lane description add "includes sharrows") The Minneapolis chart of bike markings actually uses the sharrow sign as an example of shared lane: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/bicycles/WCMS1P-083213 Also, if you look at these examples, the lanes with dashed lines are areas where vehicles may be merging in or through the bike lane (ie for turning near an intersection)--the dashed lines are there more for the cars than the bikes. Nowhere on the cycleway wiki page does it discuss bikes being required to use bike lanes. I'm not sure how you'd tag that if it were the case. Brad On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Balgofil wrote: > > > > Judging from the description, "shared_lane" means that there are bike > > markings on the side of the road, but no full lane. We have something > > like that here: usually a bike symbol with a metre or so of dotted > > line next to it. > > > Here is an image of a "Schutzstreifen": > > http://www.hamburg.adfc.de/index.php?eID=tx_cms_showpic&file=uploads%2Fpics%2Ff28ud_Gustav-Fr-Str_neu.jpg&md5=d21bd0aa86be5ac56961e505d9fe8305436db5a4¶meters%5B0%5D=YTo0OntzOjU6IndpZHRoIjtzOjQ6IjgwMG0iO3M6NjoiaGVpZ2h0IjtzOjQ6IjYw¶meters%5B1%5D=MG0iO3M6NzoiYm9keVRhZyI7czo0MToiPGJvZHkgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbjowOyBi¶meters%5B2%5D=YWNrZ3JvdW5kOiNmZmY7Ij4iO3M6NDoid3JhcCI7czozNzoiPGEgaHJlZj0iamF2¶meters%5B3%5D=YXNjcmlwdDpjbG9zZSgpOyI%2BIHwgPC9hPiI7fQ%3D%3D > > So is that the same marking as a shared_lane? > > > > > I take it you meant: > > Radfahrstreifen: cycleway=lane, cycleway:bicycle=designated > > Schutzstreifen: cycleway=lane, cycleway:bicycle=yes > > > > That seems sensible, and follows all the existing semantics. What > > "backward-compatibility" does it break? > > The cyclemap and velomap interpret cycleway=lane as the bicycle have > to move on that lane. So its mandatory. But with the new tagging the > useage is stated by cycleway:bicycle=designated|yes. And it is only > implicit documented on the wiki. I will fix that if we come to a > conclusion on this thread. > > > > The English is a bit unclear. "As shared_lane..." here means "Used the > > same way as shared_lane". This seems like a pretty dumb tag: > > cycleway=sharrow has exactly the same meaning and function as > > cycleway=shared_lane except the marking on the ground happens to look > > like a chevron. > > Hm, so should it be deleted from the wiki-page? > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] year in opening_hours syntax
Hi Richard, Am Dienstag, 15. Januar 2013, 15:25:27 schrieb Richard Welty: > the use case would be that known road closures could be placed in > advance, and > routing/GPS software that could handle it would be able to generate > alternate routes > depending on the time. last year, I started a proposal that defines time domains properly (including optional year) and therefore should be suitable for a lot of cases (opening_hours, ferry departures, …): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Time_domains Unfortunately, I wasn't able to follow up on the proposal due to lack of time. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cycleway Tagging and Wiki-Page
> > Judging from the description, "shared_lane" means that there are bike > markings on the side of the road, but no full lane. We have something > like that here: usually a bike symbol with a metre or so of dotted > line next to it. > Here is an image of a "Schutzstreifen": http://www.hamburg.adfc.de/index.php?eID=tx_cms_showpic&file=uploads%2Fpics%2Ff28ud_Gustav-Fr-Str_neu.jpg&md5=d21bd0aa86be5ac56961e505d9fe8305436db5a4¶meters%5B0%5D=YTo0OntzOjU6IndpZHRoIjtzOjQ6IjgwMG0iO3M6NjoiaGVpZ2h0IjtzOjQ6IjYw¶meters%5B1%5D=MG0iO3M6NzoiYm9keVRhZyI7czo0MToiPGJvZHkgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbjowOyBi¶meters%5B2%5D=YWNrZ3JvdW5kOiNmZmY7Ij4iO3M6NDoid3JhcCI7czozNzoiPGEgaHJlZj0iamF2¶meters%5B3%5D=YXNjcmlwdDpjbG9zZSgpOyI%2BIHwgPC9hPiI7fQ%3D%3D So is that the same marking as a shared_lane? > > I take it you meant: > Radfahrstreifen: cycleway=lane, cycleway:bicycle=designated > Schutzstreifen: cycleway=lane, cycleway:bicycle=yes > > That seems sensible, and follows all the existing semantics. What > "backward-compatibility" does it break? The cyclemap and velomap interpret cycleway=lane as the bicycle have to move on that lane. So its mandatory. But with the new tagging the useage is stated by cycleway:bicycle=designated|yes. And it is only implicit documented on the wiki. I will fix that if we come to a conclusion on this thread. > > The English is a bit unclear. "As shared_lane..." here means "Used the > same way as shared_lane". This seems like a pretty dumb tag: > cycleway=sharrow has exactly the same meaning and function as > cycleway=shared_lane except the marking on the ground happens to look > like a chevron. Hm, so should it be deleted from the wiki-page? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
Hi Janko. Earlier this month, I asked to french list why only lines are mapped instead of circuits. The answer was "Mapping cricuits by two parallels ways more of the time is useless and not efficient. We'd better mapping lines". Furthermore, we have relations to document circuits through power grid and this answer was really the good one. It's consistent to do the same for cables vs lines. All topics on wiki deals with reification of lines, not for cables. I think consistency is more important than all particular situations we can find. You find a deal for the renderer. But as a raw data consumer, It will be mandatory for me to find all the combinations to describe a line. It's not simpler. 2013/1/16 Janko Mihelić > I think that if we map underground cables with "power=line, > location=underground" we will expect too much from renderers that don't > want to think too much about this. If you put "power=cable" they will not > render it, and everything is ok. > > There are three cables in the air as well. I'm sure we will find an > example of a powerline drawn with 3 lines :) And I'm not sure if I could > defend deleting those two. They "are" there. > > Janko Mihelić > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
I think that if we map underground cables with "power=line, location=underground" we will expect too much from renderers that don't want to think too much about this. If you put "power=cable" they will not render it, and everything is ok. There are three cables in the air as well. I'm sure we will find an example of a powerline drawn with 3 lines :) And I'm not sure if I could defend deleting those two. They "are" there. Janko Mihelić ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground, Vol 40, Issue 30
Hi. 2013/1/15 St Niklaas How do we recognize the connections between the sations ? Or is the data > added by external sources as mentioned ? > Do you mean when you see line lines go underground inside the stations? Sometimes it's write down on cables and you can read it (the name of end point + number of line). Otherwise, maps could be published by operators : http://www.rte-france.com/uploads/media/images/projets/plaquette_riverain_VDEF.pdf > But something else crossed my mind. What do we do with the other > underground transport systems, like oil (sometimes secret military lines) > natural or industrial gas and waste and drinking water ? I search for it > but no WIKI solution IMHO. > Greetz > There are something about it on the wiki, Power Networks page. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Power_networks#Pipelines 2013/1/16 St Niklaas > > Thanks, I didnt use the right key word to see the tags. But the way of a > underground line remains secret to most of us if the data isnt backup by > extrenals. I doubt to draw a powerline straight between to substations ! > Greetz > If you don't have a clue, don't map it, that's wiser. Cheers. -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
