Re: [Tagging] Underground power lines in tunnel
Hi, I agree with you Martin. And that's why I'm looking for a way to say those power lines/lanes/roads are on the same bridge/tunnel. As you mentionned, the tunnel/bridge name can precise which bridge is but it's not a relational (or even spatial) way of bringing objets together. Ok a tunnel isn't easy to map since we can't use GPS. But nothing prevent us to create a relation to setup such a link between roads and bridge for example. That's why I'm interested by the proposal given above. Nobody wants it accepted ? Cheers. François Lacombe francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2013/6/5 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: On 04/giu/2013, at 08:54, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote: A motorway with two separate highways in OSM may be one bridge alltogether - but is mapped as two. actually we usually don't map bridges or tunnels, there is only the indirect mapping with an attribute on the road that says: this street is on a bridge, eventually there is also a bridge_name that tells on which bridge, but still an actual bridge (or tunnel) object isn't mapped usually. cheers, Martin ___ 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] Underground power lines in tunnel
Am 05.06.2013 um 10:37 schrieb François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu: As you mentionned, the tunnel/bridge name can precise which bridge is but it's not a relational (or even spatial) way of bringing objets together. Ok a tunnel isn't easy to map since we can't use GPS. yes, but you can easily see whether it is one tube with both directions going through, or if there is one tube per direction (more usual case due to security reasons). Then you still have to define what is one tunnel, maybe also 2 (or more) distinct tubes could qualify as one tunnel? But nothing prevent us to create a relation to setup such a link between roads and bridge for example. Yes, you could either use a relation for the bridge (with name, ref, wikipedia and other tags, describing the bridge) and add the highways to the relation with a role running over the bridge, or draw distinct geometry for the bridge perimeter (and eventually geometry for the supports, pylons, etc.). The latter could also be done additionally and added to the relation). The same applies for tunnels besides that we often don't know exactly the shape of the tunnel. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] pastry and confectionery
Hi Murry, being yet another German I'm afraid I still don't buy into the proposal. I guess this has a lot to do with both cultural and language differences. Also some background to start with. For many people in at least continental Europe bread is a basic food and a key component of the daily diet. For example for me bread is the key ingredient for two meals of the day. For this reason bread is something pretty relevant in daily life and it's not only about having some kind of bread but also the type and freshness of bread. Recently I've been travelling in France. Every morning one of the first things has been to get some fresh bread. For this I used OSM and looked for the next artisan bakery. A supermarket would also sell bread but that would have been second choice only. There were also many shops selling various treats but no the basic bread we were looking for. So to me this basic distinction is really important. From my point of view another aspect is the occurence of bakeries. Both in Germany and in France I expect to find a bakery more or less in every village of reasonable size. This is not always a place where bread is baked on the premises but at least in the morning there's a choice of various types of bread etc. My personal experience from travelling in the US, the UK and Canada is rather different. To get bread there I would rather go to a supermarket. To me a bakery in these countries is less of a everyday shop but more special. To me this is also reflected by the number of bakeries you've given for Colorado. Here a more or less randomly picked query in Strasbourg, France: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/iv. This gives around 50 bakeries in an area of about 30 square kilometers. I would claim from this that the relevance of bakeries is significantly different between e.g. the US and Germany. As a conclusion I would argue that the tagging should be mainly tailored towards the regions where bakeries are acutally found more often. Of course the tagging must be applicable globally. But I am still in favour if having the distiction between bakery, pastry and confectionery on the top-level with shop=... Michael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Underground power lines in tunnel
2013/6/5 Martin Koppenhöfer dieterdre...@gmail.com: yes, but you can easily see whether it is one tube with both directions going through, or if there is one tube per direction (more usual case due to security reasons). Then you still have to define what is one tunnel, maybe also 2 (or more) distinct tubes could qualify as one tunnel? Tunnels can have even more complex topologies than only 1 or 2 tubes going through, it depends on the purpose. Regarding power lines, technical facilities can follow surface streets but it's not mandatory. They can have different heights, different levels with links between them, manhole access, etc... We still call them tunnels here but there's really nothing common with road tunnels. It's out of question to map such restricted access facilties with details, but it's important to show if several features share the same infrastructure or not even if it's difficult to represent whata tunnel is in that particular situation. Yes, you could either use a relation for the bridge (with name, ref, wikipedia and other tags, describing the bridge) and add the highways to the relation with a role running over the bridge, or draw distinct geometry for the bridge perimeter (and eventually geometry for the supports, pylons, etc.). The latter could also be done additionally and added to the relation). The same applies for tunnels besides that we often don't know exactly the shape of the tunnel. The problem is such features (like power lines or ways of a highway) are always redundant with components of tunnels or bridges themselves. We don't need to create dedicated geometry for an highway tunnel since the geometry of the road gives the path followed by this tunnel. So we can precise it in the role attribute of the tunnel/bridge relation member which tube the road way represent. Since OSM doesn't manage relation member attributes at all, it will be difficult. = A relation for each tube or gallery ? 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] tagging cannons
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: +1, e.g. there is a cannon in Rome on the gianicolo hill that is fired once every day at noon (but I guess they don't put a ball in) in remembrance of the Italian unification. I suspect most fixed cannon still in use have fixed firing times; see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_O%27Clock_Gun#One_O.27Clock_Gun and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noon_Gun Perhaps a good way of indicating such continuing use would be to indicate firing-time=* ? More informative than simply indicating it is still in use. __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Underground power lines in tunnel
On 05/giu/2013, at 11:30, François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu wrote: We don't need to create dedicated geometry for an highway tunnel since the geometry of the road gives the path followed by this tunnel. for Road tunnels this is mostly true, but if you look at caves or mines it is different. I was more pointing at bridges here anyway. So we can precise it in the role attribute of the tunnel/bridge relation member which tube the road way represent. Since OSM doesn't manage relation member attributes at all, it will be difficult. of course relations can have tags - it is up to the consumer to do sth with them cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Underground power lines in tunnel
One reason it would be useful to be able to tag bridges (and, to a lesser extent, tunnels) as single physical objects is that they may be used as landmarks. For example, you may be traveling along a street that runs parallel to a river, looking for a location just past a certain bridge. If the renderer showed three bridges, for example, due to the tagging, but there is really just one bridge, you may end up going past your intended destination before realizing that the map didn't match reality. Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/giu/2013, at 11:30, François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu wrote: We don't need to create dedicated geometry for an highway tunnel since the geometry of the road gives the path followed by this tunnel. for Road tunnels this is mostly true, but if you look at caves or mines it is different. I was more pointing at bridges here anyway. So we can precise it in the role attribute of the tunnel/bridge relation member which tube the road way represent. Since OSM doesn't manage relation member attributes at all, it will be difficult. of course relations can have tags - it is up to the consumer to do sth with them cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Underground power lines in tunnel
Am 05.06.2013 00:11, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: On 04/giu/2013, at 08:54, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote: A motorway with two separate highways in OSM may be one bridge alltogether - but is mapped as two. actually we usually don't map bridges or tunnels, there is only the indirect mapping with an attribute on the road that says: this street is on a bridge, eventually there is also a bridge_name that tells on which bridge, but still an actual bridge (or tunnel) object isn't mapped usually. Yes, I do and others as well: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-January/012795.html http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=bridge http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made=bridge man_made=tunnel does also work. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Underground power lines in tunnel
Martin, John, Can't we get the type=tunnel or type=bridge proposal voted and accepted ? It need a little clean up and example of different kind but it seems to be a good way to map tunnel and bridges. Finally asking for comments and vote it is the best way to be sure of it. Fly, Tunnel and bridges may be complex structures which sometimes aren't built in a single piece. Relation is needed here to link all pieces to each other in one hand and on the other to link the whole structure to its direct environment. I'm not convinced into in mapping all bridges or tunnels spatially is the best way, according to what I explained before. Cheers. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2013/6/5 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com Am 05.06.2013 00:11, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: On 04/giu/2013, at 08:54, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote: A motorway with two separate highways in OSM may be one bridge alltogether - but is mapped as two. actually we usually don't map bridges or tunnels, there is only the indirect mapping with an attribute on the road that says: this street is on a bridge, eventually there is also a bridge_name that tells on which bridge, but still an actual bridge (or tunnel) object isn't mapped usually. Yes, I do and others as well: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-January/012795.html http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=bridge http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made=bridge man_made=tunnel does also work. fly ___ 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] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes: When was landuse=reservoir [1] deprecated ? There was only little discussion on tagging@ about water=* [2][3]. Now we have to different uses which do not fit together (eg, water=lake;intermittent ?). Anyway landuse=reservoir was never deprecated and has 20+ uses and might not be exact equal to water=reservoir. There is no problem with using both tags at the same time. I'm not objecting to using both, but landuse=reservoir has a messy history in Massachusetts, and is inherently confusing. water=reservoir is pretty clearly appropriate for the area that is actually water (looks like a lake). The problem with landuse=reservoir is that often there is a situation where there is a parcel (legal unit of land under one ownership) that cotains some dry land, often wooded, and a reservoir (water). The purpose of the land is 1) to contain the reservoir and 2) to provide a buffer around it. Often it is signed public water supply -- no trespassing. Originally, the MassGIS openspace import had these land parcels tagged as landuse=reservoir, which made them all blue. Then they got retagged, I think to landuse=reservoir_protection. So I have seen landuse=reservoir_protection, landuse=reservoir_watershed, and other things. Because of that, I think landuse=reservoir should be avoided, because it's likely to be misinterpreted. I don't like reservoir_watershed either, because properly that's not a landuse, but an area that happens to drain into a reservoir, and is something that doesn't seem to fit OSM. The pednant in me would want landuse=reservoir_protection for the land buffer around a reservoir, landuse=reservoir *and* water=reservoir for the water, and landuse=water_works for land used for equipment. But I think putting landuse=reservoir_protection around the whole parcel and water=reservoir on the water is necessary and sufficient. I'm not arguging for running a bot - just that with landuse=reservoir it is hard to be sure one understands what was meant. pgpga2RegzpPK.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
