Re: [Tagging] better mapping for embankments / slopes

2016-11-29 Thread John Willis
Javbw > On 30 Nov 2016, at 7:28 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > 'Embankment' is frequently used for a built-up structure on a steep hillside > that keeps a road, railroad, or similar feature from sliding into a gorge or > river. So a retaining wall (or reinforced "retaining slope"?) is when an

Re: [Tagging] better mapping for embankments / slopes

2016-11-29 Thread Kevin Kenny
I render the things that OSM shows as cliffs, because sometimes surprises lurk between the contour lines. Otherwise, when I care, on my own maps I render elevation contours (and hence have no use for the cliff height in the data base). In a spot like https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test3.html?l

Re: [Tagging] better mapping for embankments / slopes

2016-11-29 Thread Warin
I would hope that a scheme can be had that is one sided - and the same for cliff, embankment, cutting etc. As such it should be one sided. After all another side could have a different slope/area. A single sided scheme could be used for 2 sided or multi sided structures by many separate one si

Re: [Tagging] better mapping for embankments / slopes

2016-11-29 Thread Lorenzo "Beba" Beltrami
It makes sense that a road embankment have only one slope. Perhaps for a levee[1] we need a specific tagging system because a levee has always two slopes. I'm native of the Po Valley where levees are along every river (Volker can confirm it ;) ). A levee for flood prevention could be simple[2] bu

Re: [Tagging] better mapping for embankments / slopes

2016-11-29 Thread Kevin Kenny
'Embankment' is frequently used for a built-up structure on a steep hillside that keeps a road, railroad, or similar feature from sliding into a gorge or river. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embankment_%28transportation%29#/media/File:Embankment_1_%28PSF%29.png for an illustration from Wikipedi

Re: [Tagging] better mapping for embankments / slopes

2016-11-29 Thread Volker Schmidt
On 29 November 2016 at 22:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not all embankment have 2 slopes > To my understanding of the English term, an "embankment" is the equivalent of dyke or levee and is a long, narrow man-made elevation. Therefore they always have two slopes of opposite direction

Re: [Tagging] better mapping for embankments / slopes

2016-11-29 Thread Warin
Not all embankment have 2 slopes .. nor does a 'slope' describe all of the properties of an embankment. The same problem exists for a 'cliff' and a 'cutting' ... and stairs that cover a large area. So use what has been done for them as a guide. What are the key properties of these features ...

Re: [Tagging] better mapping for embankments / slopes

2016-11-29 Thread Volker Schmidt
If you want to micromap slopes you should create a new key "slope" or something similar. An embankment has two slopes. It is equivalent to dyke or levee. The one-side embankments that are defined in the OSM wiki, are in reality slopes and should be retagged accordingly. Independently of the name u

[Tagging] better mapping for embankments / slopes

2016-11-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Currently we are mapping only one side of the embankment (I think it's the upper side, but am not sure if the wiki says this explicitly), with the direction. What we would IMHO need is a way to map the lower side as well and to combine both. A closed polygon will not work I believe. The obvious so

Re: [Tagging] Key:visibility

2016-11-29 Thread markus schnalke
[2016-11-29 11:10] Martin Koppenhoefer > 2016-11-29 7:02 GMT+01:00 markus schnalke : > > This is just like the smoothness=* case. Instead of having values > like ``excellent'', ``bad'' or ``horrible'', we now learned that > it is better to tag for what cases some smoothness is okay. T

Re: [Tagging] Key:visibility

2016-11-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2016-11-29 7:02 GMT+01:00 markus schnalke : > This is just like the smoothness=* case. Instead of having values > like ``excellent'', ``bad'' or ``horrible'', we now learned that > it is better to tag for what cases some smoothness is okay. The > same here: You'll always need the explanations abov