On Mar 16, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I'd consider neither courthouses nor government buildings "administration".
Federal buildings in the US are the equivalent to branch offices of the US
government - basically "national hall" - they are very far apart, usually 1-3
per
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 03:19:36PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> Situation 1 happens in many other cities across the world, and if you
> tag the bridge as layer=1, you may end up inverting the rendering
> order of highways, leading to this:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138032009
what exa
2014-03-15 16:29 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien :
> "tracktype" is the "degree of compaction" of the material
> (regardless of material)
>
I have always more thought of it "how much it was constructed", while
tracktype=1 is a paved road, 5 will be a track on grass (almost or not
constructed at all)
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
> > Situation 1 happens in many other cities across the world, and if you
> > tag the bridge as layer=1, you may end up inverting the rendering
> > order of highways, leading to this:
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138032009
> good point
Am 15.03.2014 19:19, schrieb Fernando Trebien:
> Here are a few arguable reasons to split the waterway and tag it with
> layer=-1:
> 1. Bridges may come in pairs for dual carriageways. In this case, it's
> a single layer tag for the waterway versus 2 layer tags for the
> bridges. This may happen m
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 02:06:13PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> "the validator will only prevent the most obvious errors but will give
> you no clue how to fix them correctly"
>
> I know. But two or three rounds of trial and error with the validator
> should be enough to bring a new user to an
It's not that straightforward to me since tracktype is described in
terms of surface materials, which can have widely varying levels of
compaction.
But great, I'll update the articles trying to make this distinction
clearer, then post back here my changes.
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:59 PM, johnw
Here are a few arguable reasons to split the waterway and tag it with layer=-1:
1. Bridges may come in pairs for dual carriageways. In this case, it's
a single layer tag for the waterway versus 2 layer tags for the
bridges. This may happen many times in a row. In this case, it makes
sense to split
I thought a bit more and this statement I said is incorrect:
"Correct, let's add "within the same level" to all of those rules, and
assume level=0 when level is not specified in a tag. Then they all
work also for indoor mapping."
The correct wording of those warning rules, taking indoor mapping i
"the validator will only prevent the most obvious errors but will give
you no clue how to fix them correctly"
I know. But two or three rounds of trial and error with the validator
should be enough to bring a new user to an acceptable representation.
"there is no difference between connections in
>
>
> In summary:
> - "tracktype tag"="surface:compaction"
> - "smoothness tag"="surface:regularity"
> - "surface tag"="surface:material_structure"
That is how I understand it. the Smoothness is the most subjective one, but the
others should be pretty straightforward.
Javbw
___
Civil administration is surely hardly a land use. A council office is no
different to any other office. I suggest looking at planning zones and
their designations as a reference. Typically classifications like
residential, retail, commercial, industrial and agricultural are seen,
and changing th
Fernando Trebien wrote:
Alright. I see that "applying layer to long ways" is bad for several
reasons. Surely this could be turned into a validation warning.
But what's the difference between tagging the bridge with layer=1 and
tagging the river underneath with layer=-1? Some people seem to think
Alright. I see that "applying layer to long ways" is bad for several
reasons. Surely this could be turned into a validation warning.
But what's the difference between tagging the bridge with layer=1 and
tagging the river underneath with layer=-1? Some people seem to think
that both are necessary,
> Am 14/mar/2014 um 00:54 schrieb johnw :
>
> I'm very interested to hear people's opinion on landuse=civic_admin
>
> It would be a landuse for townhalls and other capital buildings, Federal
> Buildings, DMV, courthouses, and other basic civic administrative offices
> where it is clearly a go
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 14/mar/2014 um 15:51 schrieb Fernando Trebien
:
Do you agree that the river can be tagged with layer=-1 as long as
this value is correct in relation to the layer of other
nearby/crossing ways?
I would discourage you to do so. Layer tags should only be applied to
Please correct me if I'm wrong, after reading what you said, I think
that the point that I was missing was this:
- "tracktype" is the "degree of compaction" of the material
(regardless of material)
- "smoothness" is the "degree of irregularity" of the surface (for
wheeled vehicles, also regardless
Hi John,
yes, that's one possibility; knew that already, but thanks for pointing
the list to the link.
regards
Peter
Am 15.03.2014 14:16, schrieb John Packer:
> I believe there was a proposal for tagging a bridge separately:
> man_made=bridge. I think it would be really nice to have the actual ou
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:25:16PM +0100, André Pirard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder why we make bridges split and split and split the roads.
do not like that too much either.
> In reality, bridges are pieces of concrete or stonework at level -1
> under an uninterrupted foil of tarmac at level 0.
b
I believe there was a proposal for tagging a bridge separately:
man_made=bridge. I think it would be really nice to have the actual outline
of the bridge rendered
Em 15/03/2014 10:02, "Peter Wendorff" escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> I agree partially with you here.
> Yes, adding bridges in addition to the ro
Hi,
I agree partially with you here.
Yes, adding bridges in addition to the road is possible and may be a
good idea.
What we currently map as being a bridge in fact is the property of "the
road is on a bridge" instead.
Changing the current tagging scheme to "duplicate the corresponding
segment of
On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Fernando Trebien
wrote:
> How surprisingly similar the landscape in this area is to the place
> where I live in Brazil.
That's really pretty!
> Anyway, back to your place. I believe you'd call this a dirt road
> leading into a private property:
> https://www.goo
> Am 14/mar/2014 um 19:55 schrieb Fernando Trebien :
>
> I don't think you should be required to check the river's layer tag.
> Validators should do this job for you, it's quite easy to write a rule
> for that.
first you'll have to download all data along this river in order to make this
work
> Am 14/mar/2014 um 16:35 schrieb Fernando Trebien :
>
> From this logic, layer=-1 means the object is >rendered< beneath
> anything that has layer=0 (or, conversely, that anything with layer=0
> is rendered on top of anything with layer=-1). It does not mean that
> it >is< in fact below it (tho
> Am 14/mar/2014 um 16:36 schrieb Pieren :
>
> Real case from real world : a deep ditch where the stream is not
> "underground" but below the "ground" level, is crossing a village
> where we have 10 bridges. Either you add 10 times "layer=1" on the
> bridges or you add 1 time "layer=-1" on the s
Hi,
I wonder why we make bridges split and split and split the roads.
In reality, bridges are pieces of concrete or stonework at level -1
under an uninterrupted foil of tarmac at level 0.
Or at level 0 if it's understood that the renderer knows what's a bridge.
And the renderer knows, as it draws
> Am 14/mar/2014 um 15:51 schrieb Fernando Trebien :
>
> Do you agree that the river can be tagged with layer=-1 as long as
> this value is correct in relation to the layer of other
> nearby/crossing ways?
I would discourage you to do so. Layer tags should only be applied to ways that
actuall
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:24:07AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> > > Therefore, everyone needs now to handle those hardly useful layer
> > > warnings about trivial cases (and waste their time on "correcting" them).
> >
> > even worse, people just apply l
28 matches
Mail list logo
