Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote: I'm kind of considering if this is right or not - if a road is the divider between two landuses, is it still best to unglue it from the landuse(s) and move it into one or the other? It's best to unglue but it's also not wrong to glue the landuse. Some will say it's inaccurate, but hey, drawing a road with a polyline is also inaccurate. In some cases, ungluing can be worst : imagine two parallel streets and one pedestrian square in between. If you unglue the square, you need polylines to represent the roads connection (for e.g. pedestrian routing). These lines are inacurate because they can be drawn at some intervals only where physically the connection is everywhere along the square. If you glue the pedestrian square, your problem is easily solved and closer to the reality. But then we are not talking about landuse, we are actually talking about a way, albeit a very wide one - and ways should be connected to each other. (And now we are back to the topic if ways should be areas... but thats another discussion :). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
So the common problem I have here in Stockholm is that most residential areas in the suburbs have been carved out of wood- and grass-areas so there is always a mish-mash between those three. Is the correct way to split up all those landuses in smaller parts so they never overlap? Also, is it OK that natural overlaps landuse? It kind of has to be, since it's used a lot to place brushes or tree-areas inside larger landuses. -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Roadside maps
Is it OK to use information you find on map-signs next to streets or suburban areas? Usually they show the houses and street names in a certain area (residential or commercial most often). None I have found have ever had any sort of copyright text on them. -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Landuse border alignment
So as I'm adding things I also try to fix bad alignments, doing things like: * Make bordering landuses share nodes, moving the nodes for the least static ie if a forest lies next to a lake, move the forest nodes since the lake may be derived from real data, whereas the forest is probably just placed from satellite imagery. * Unglue roads that share borders with landuses and move them into the correct one (a residential road into the residential area etc). But i am wondering; What about bordering buildings - ie buldings sharing walls but having different addresses/uses ? Is it better to draw the as a single area or as separate but with shared nodes? When is it OK to remove an overlapping landuse ? In some places I found 3 overlapping landuses and it's not clear which one has priority... -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
Oh and I forgot: * landuse=grass overlapping landuse=wood, grass set as layer=-1 On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote: OK, some real world examples; * Two overlapping wood-areas, one named, the other not. * Grass inside grass landuse, rock inside grass landuse etc - is the rule that wholly interior (possibly sharing nodes with the exterior) areas are always rendered on top of its exterior area? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:50 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/5/14 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 15 May 2010 05:27, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote: Oh and I forgot: * landuse=grass overlapping landuse=wood, grass set as layer=-1 Are you mixing up landuse and land cover by any chance? you're insisting on this one? Yes, you are right: in traditional geoscience landuse is a precise term, it describes the usage of a given area in a generalized way. Eh, I am not insisting anything - that was an example of bad editing IMHO. There really should be tags for rendering-hints to mapnik - until mapnik handles everything. That way people could tag correctly and still get the appearance they wanted... Unfortunately this is not true when it come to OSM: just open your eyes. Have you ever downloaded a piece of Berlin? You would be astonished ;-). Our landuse is often fragmented (IMHO not bad, because if there is different stuff, how else should you point that out? It is easier to summarize different landuses to one according to type and size than it is to divide 1 big generalized landuse automatically into all of it's subparts). How many landcover-tags are there in OSM? Is grass, garages or landfill a landuse? Another example: cut off (burned down) forest: this would probably still be called landuse=forest in an official map, but in OSM if there are no trees it will not be a forest. On the other hand: I would like to see this mess tidyed up. In this case I suggest to first change (extend) render rules and then encourage people to change tagging. This is all because of tagging for the renderers: because it is sad to tag correct and you don't see anything on the map ;-). I don't promote a cluttered or coloured map: I do promote rendering of lots of tags, but they don't have to get all different colours. Also few colours (i.e. many features/tags with the same colour) can be a way to do it. 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
[Tagging] More tagging questions
In Sweden we have special barriers in the ground that only larger vehicles can pass, meant to allow buses but not normal cars - is there a tag for such a thing or should I make one up? Is there a a good way to define the area covered by school grounds? The examples and documentation about education tags seems to only apply to nodes or individual buildings - I would like something like landuse=school, which would also be a good place to put the name of the school. Should the cliff-tag be used even for smaller drops? I've seen it used in residential areas where bare rock can be seen, but where the height-difference is small enough to jump up on it without using your hands. -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More tagging questions
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote: On 07/05/2010 21:09, Jonas Minnberg wrote: In Sweden we have special barriers in the ground that only larger vehicles can pass, meant to allow buses but not normal cars - is there a tag for such a thing or should I make one up? barrier=bus_trap it's listed on the Key:barrier page, but without any description. Though I assume its for something like a bus trap, as described on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_trap Thanks, thats exactly it. Is there a a good way to define the area covered by school grounds? The examples and documentation about education tags seems to only apply to nodes or individual buildings - I would like something like landuse=school, which would also be a good place to put the name of the school. The tag amenity=school is intended for the whole area of the school and its grounds. You can also map the school buildings, sports pitches etc within this. This is clearly stated on this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dschool So I'm not sure which examples or documentation you are referring to. I was looking at college and university, I thought school was just another variations so I missed that... -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote: I think yard is a rather vague word, as it could also be a farmyard, industrial yard, courtyard, shipyard etc. That is what I like about it - when all I can find out about an area is that is green and lies in between buildings, yard is an appropriately vague word. The area=yes, surface=grass tag mentioned will also work to that effect. What about landuse=curtilage See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage This is the official / legal term for the enclosed area around a dwelling. And its (usually) private, not accessible by the public. It might include a lawn, trees/plants, a shed, a paved area etc. Will work for when I can visibly confirm it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Cleaning up
I am currently working on cleaning up stuff in Stockholm, and I was wondering if it was OK do to things like: * Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to that way instead. * Remove parks created from green areas on the satellite that are not really parks (adding a tree_lined=yes tag to intersecting way if appropriate). * Remove walkways that are just side walks. * Align POIs so that shops, pubs etc recognized by a store front are a small distance inside it's building. * Align hole-in-the-wall ATMs to lie on the edge of the building. * Aligning areas that lie directly next to each other in the real world (park next to building with no road in between) so there is no space in between (sharing points whenever possible). Objections? -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 5 May 2010 22:50, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote: * Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to that way instead. Is there a good reason you want to reduce information? Yes, as you may guess from my topic. Removing unnecessary stuff is a good thing IMHO. I thought the idea behind cycleway=track and cycleway=lane was to avoid having to draw lots of parallel ways. It avoids clutter on my limited resolution GPS. It makes routing easier faster. And it makes things more consistent. * Remove parks created from green areas on the satellite that are not really parks (adding a tree_lined=yes tag to intersecting way if appropriate). Instead of removing them, wouldn't it be better to change the tags to make them as wooded areas? landuse=wood on top of sidewalks inside cities? Doesn't feel like correct usage of the tag to me... * Remove walkways that are just side walks. Why do you want to remove information if things are correctly tagged? See above. * Align POIs so that shops, pubs etc recognized by a store front are a small distance inside it's building. Is the sat imagery of better quality than the original POI was sourced from? Or do you need to align the imagery with the POIs? This is just for looks, to avoid POIs in buildings to overlap POIs on the street. It also gives mapnik more space to render in. * Aligning areas that lie directly next to each other in the real world (park next to building with no road in between) so there is no space in between (sharing points whenever possible). You should use relations instead of having ways duplicate nodes, otherwise it's a pain in the butt for the next person editing to do anything useful with the ways without splitting them. In this case I meant when you have two rectangular areas right next to each other, no road. Sharing points means they will render better. But in this case I am fine letting each area have it's own points even though they lie almost on top of each other, whatever is most common. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com: On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 May 2010 22:50, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote: * Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to that way instead. Is there a good reason you want to reduce information? Yes, as you may guess from my topic. Removing unnecessary stuff is a good thing IMHO. I thought the idea behind cycleway=track and cycleway=lane was to avoid having to draw lots of parallel ways. It avoids clutter on my limited resolution GPS. It makes routing easier faster. And it makes things more consistent. Well, one man's cruft is another man's gold, so objectively you don't know what is useful and what's not, so it is simply better for everyone to remove anything what is not correct. I suggest to filter maps out when exporting them to your GPS instead of removing them from OSM. Like it or not, micromapping is on the rise and I am quite sure that we will see routers inteligent enough to make use of this uncessary stuff. I am talking about either removing incorrect things (things that are not parks, the just looked green when people mapped after satellite imagery without visiting the place) or consolidating information (moving the cycleway into the highway). So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should then draw sidewalks next to every street in the city that has them). But what's the problem with aligning POIs to building edges so they don't look like they been randomly thrown out, or removing things that are wrong? A bad compromise would be to leave the park area and retag it as fixme=looked_green_on_satellite or something, but that approach would just leave lots of useless areas... (Note also that I am talking about things in my neighborhood, I know what they look like and where they are). -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:59 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 5 May 2010 23:54, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote: So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should then draw sidewalks next to every street in the city that has them). That's where things are headed, removing existing ones only delays the inevitable... A bad compromise would be to leave the park area and retag it as fixme=looked_green_on_satellite or something, but that approach would just leave lots of useless areas... If they aren't parks, then what are they? They are trees or sometimes small areas of grass next to buildings. For instance; http://maps.google.se/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=svgeocode=q=medborgarplatsen,+stockholmsll=61.606396,21.225586sspn=41.151386,107.138672ie=UTF8hq=hnear=Medborgarplatsen,+Stockholmll=59.314198,18.076335spn=0.001299,0.00327t=hz=19layer=ccbll=59.314194,18.076695panoid=61og8jFQ7ZeAS1UebY-7ggcbp=12,275.23,,0,15.04 In this case there was a park on that sidewalk. Here I am considering adding tree_lined=yes to the street. But overlapping with landuse=wood seems insane. (Sorry for using google streetview but it was the easiest way to show the problem). -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: A bad compromise would be to leave the park area and retag it as fixme=looked_green_on_satellite or something, but that approach would just leave lots of useless areas... If they aren't parks, then what are they? Wouldn't it be smart to tag it as fixme for surveying on the ground, and by then default on most possible variant? P. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Of course I have been surveying on the ground :) Same street as in the streetview link but from my own camera: http://swimmer.se/not_a_park.jpg -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:18 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com: If they aren't parks, then what are they? They are trees or sometimes small areas of grass next to buildings. For instance; use landuse=grass, that's IMHO not wrong regarding landuse-use ;-) in general. Shouldn't you expect - you know - *grass* in areas with landuse=grass ? :9 Seriously though, from the image of the actual street you can see that it is a sidewalk. The only people who see the green surface are the ones flying over it. -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
OK, I think I'm beginning to understand the lay of the land. What I most wanted to get acknowledged is that data gathered first hand on street level should trump data traced from low-res satellite images. I will not remove any walkways or cycleways that are adjacent to other ways. I will align POI:s to walls or slightly inside for storefront shops,pubs etc. I will remove incorrect areas obviously defined from only looking at satellite images, unless I can tag them to something that fits. I will not join together joining areas since there doesn't seem to be consensus on that. In short, I can forget about consistency but hopefully be able to remove things that are wrong - and I mean wrong when considered by a person actually looking at the thing. Concerning shops - I think that the POI should be placed just inside the door, even if the shops main area is further inside. You remember shops locations by their storefronts. (Not for shops inside malls of course.) On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:46 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com: Shouldn't you expect - you know - *grass* in areas with landuse=grass ? :9 Seriously though, from the image of the actual street you can see that it is a sidewalk. The only people who see the green surface are the ones flying over it. I must admit I didn't look at your link at first (shame). I agree, there is no park and no grass ;-) What you could do is tag the trees as natural=tree on nodes (others might advocate tree-lined tags on the road). 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] Cleaning up
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:49 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com: I will not join together joining areas since there doesn't seem to be consensus on that. I think there is consensus that the nodes should be connected (and I'll even go so far to say it is wrong if they are not connected). The open question is whether this should involve multipolygon-relations to share _ways_ as well. IMHO just in cases where it is worth it (because the problem is you augment complexity quite a bit). Well since we need space for all those thousands of sidewalks that people want to add maybe we better leave space around all roads anyway :) -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
