Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
Now that the arguments on both sides have been repeated a couple of times, I'd like to offer my solution; me and some nearby have been using this for some years already. First, I believe, why the points mentioned are incompatible: There's two ways to look at the keys (not just this key): 1) anything with railway=* is some sort of railway right now; the humanitarian map layer seems to consider the key like that, every way with railway=* is rendered equal. If the track is abandoned, the soil and right to use the land is intact, and new tracks could be laid down relatively easily; not a usable railway, but a big portion of the structure is still there. In this case, a railway=dismantled is internally invalid; it's no longer some sort of railway right now. 2) things tagged with the key railway are somehow intrisically related to the rail tracks; signalling, water points for steam locomotives etc. The same viewpoint is used sometimes even with the key highway: highway=street_lamp is not a highway, but it was considered so essentially related to the highway, that it would have been possible to just fetch all objects with highway=* to have the important parts of the highway environment. Even barrier=gate's were highway=gate in the beginning. If one uses this viewpoint in all their interpretations, the former course of a railway, even if only verifiable from old documents, is somehow related to the current day rail network, i.e. belonging to the key railway=*. Neither of 1 and 2, above, are always correct. I have some insight on bits of old track in urban environments, so I'll use them as examples. Near me, there's a straight opening in the wood, somewhat elevated from the surroundings. There's no visible path on it, and there could be buildings on it in the future. The rails were removed in 2000, and one might find some remains of the auxiliary structures. Clearly, a railway=abandoned on that section. Where that track used to connect with the present day tracks, a road for buses only was built in its place (in the center!); the old railroad bridge even remains standing as a part of the road. The tracks were actually left behind for several years, and it was changed from disused to abandoned just last summer: the embankments, cuttings and the layout still remains. Near the cemetery, a long straight cycleway across some fields etc. turned out to have been built on a former railbed. Only where it crosses a small stream, one might be able to visually identify the past. None of the other cycleways in the area are that straight, and the orientation of the straight seems out of place; the fact that it was a railway is great knowledge. Elsewhere, there's a long curved cutting in the rocky hillside near the former harbour. The curve turns out to be such because a freight rail track used to run there 60+ years ago; for all I know, the curve is likely to stay in place for decades. In the city center, there's a building with an exceptionally high loading dock, because the building used to be harbour warehouse with a freight track for loading and unloading right where the present day sidewalk is. As long as the building is standing (and it's likely to be protected, if it hasn't been protected already), there are visual signs that there used to be a railroad. moltonel 3x Combo wrote: railway=abandoned without glancing at the satellite imagery (no, Also, if an abandoned railway has evolved into something else, then it's not an abandoned railway anymore. If you add a highway=cycleway The solution: Tags are cheap. I have mentioned the idea in the past, that when any feature is removed because it was destroyed, one could first prepend was: to every key, set end_date=*, upload to server, and only then delete the object from the database. That way it would be at least stored somewhere that the object was removed because it no longer exists. Hidden in the full history dump, but it didn't vanish without a trace. Some have used the prefix historic:, but I prefer was: because it's shorter, clearly indicates it no longer is that, and is almost at the end of the alphabetic sort order. Extending this, when there's nothing left of the rail track, change railway=rail (or railway=abandoned/disused) into was:railway=rail (or was:railway=abandoned etc.), set end_date if you know it. Now, it doesn't anymore try to claim it's a some sort of railway right now - it's not tagged railway=* anymore - but it conveys the past, no matter whether the relevant parts of the ways are reused for footways or whatever, or whether the ways run through a void. If the area gets extensive reuse in some other form, and the ways get in the way of editing, the next editor might remove them. If not, they don't then do no harm. Elsewhere near the center, a cycleway was built in a deep trench, right where the tracks used to run; the existence of the trench can be explained with one or two simple tags on the cycleway: *
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
2015-03-11 8:24 GMT+01:00 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: Please let's not adopt deletionism as well. +1, seriously. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
moltonel 3x Combo wrote: I'm playing the devil's advocate a bit here I believe the modern day term for that is trolling, and it wastes everyone's time. The whole railway episode has been really disheartening for the casual disrespect it shows to committed contributors. No-one has a monopoly on deciding what belongs in OSM and what doesn't, but honouring the dedication and commitment of the users who have made our map great must surely be high on the list. We've already imported too much of the bureaucracy and the automate everything attitudes that have damaged the Wikipedia community so. Please let's not adopt deletionism as well. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Blatant-tagging-for-the-renderer-bridges-abandoned-railways-tp5836370p5836644.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 11/03/2015, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: Actual physical bridges - which may offer the only way across a ravine, or a landmark to where you are on a river sounds like a similar justification - so rendering abandoned, yet physically existing bridges seems like exactly the kind of thing that would be included - especially since their inclusion would offer no clutter or distraction at levels where other items would cause quite a lot of visual clutter for similar orinentation benefit. [...] Again : the osm-carto dev agree that all bridges should be rendered. It's two longstanding bugs, it takes time to fix. Not rendering abandoned railways (wether or not on top of a bridge which should itself be rendered) is a separate issue (this time not a bug but a conscious decision). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 11/03/2015, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: moltonel 3x Combo wrote: I'm playing the devil's advocate a bit here I believe the modern day term for that is trolling, and it wastes everyone's time. Sorry if looked like trolling. I was genuinely trying to show both sides of the argument, as a way to soften conflicts ahead of time (since as far as I can tell they'll continue to happen). My devil's advocate remark was indented to clarify that defending one argument doesn't mean that I blindly always side with that camp. The whole railway episode has been really disheartening for the casual disrespect it shows to committed contributors. No-one has a monopoly on deciding what belongs in OSM and what doesn't, but honouring the dedication and commitment of the users who have made our map great must surely be high on the list. We've already imported too much of the bureaucracy and the automate everything attitudes that have damaged the Wikipedia community so. Please let's not adopt deletionism as well. Agreed. I always strive to be conservative and chatty when touching somebody else's work, railway or otherwise. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
2015-03-11 11:10 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: Again : the osm-carto dev agree that all bridges should be rendered. It's two longstanding bugs, it takes time to fix. Not rendering abandoned railways (wether or not on top of a bridge which should itself be rendered) is a separate issue (this time not a bug but a conscious decision). if the bridge is not mapped, but just an attribute to another feature (here abandoned railway), and that other feature doesn't get rendered anymore, it might seem for mappers interested in that feature that the issues are intertwined. I agree they are not. Also abandoned features do not guarantee that the bridge is still physically present or usable. I hope (and believe) that the carto-osm-style will soon render man_made=bridge objects, so that bridges can be rendered as objects on their own. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:50:36AM +1100, Warin wrote: On 10/03/2015 1:22 AM, ael wrote: I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance Possible work around? Use the tag man_made=bridge to tag the bridge area? Keeps the railway correctly tagged. And places the bridge correctly. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge I think that may be a good pragmatic solution for the moment at least. I will have to make some sort of very rough estimate of an area from my surveys, photographs and gps traces. These bridges are under tree cover and are not visible in aerial imagery. I would be more comfortable with tagging them as a short ways which do not introduce spurious accuracy into the data base. I see from the page that taginfo shows that to be in use despite the prohibition in the description. In passing, I am a little bemused that so many people seem to have missed the hint that I normally regard tagging for the renderer as evil by using the word Blatant in the title of this thread and that it was sort of a confession and plea for help on how to avoid doing that. Anyway, it seems to have been productive overall and it sounds as if the decision on the standard rendering might be revisited. ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 09/03/2015 15:06, ael wrote: Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey and edits. So I am not corrupting other people's data. You're are corrupting *the* data. which is *everybody's* data. Regards Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: The core problem is: railway=abandoned Refers to railway service, and does not describe what's on the ground. What's on the ground could range from a bit of residual lead arsenate herbicide, up through a highly visible gravel trackbed with bridges and culverts and bits of railway artifact scattered about. Is that the case?/ If so then I suggest that such objects be moved to a more suitable home where they're less susceptible to deletion, such as a database of historical objects. If there's nothing visible then such objects are likely going to be deleted at some point by someone who is walking/driving by and doesn't see the railroad. I've had this issue myself in NYC where there's no tracks, because the objects were mis-tagged as being on layer 0 rather than underground. I deleted railroad tracks that I could not observe. Apparently the tunnels still exist, so the issue was resolved, but I can imagine this becoming a source of conflict. I know that the railway community in OSM is very passionate. I'm wondering if there's not a better way to get their mapping needs met. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On Mar 10, 2015, at 12:49 AM, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: On 9 March 2015 at 15:26, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote: To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue and it was summarily closed: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641 That was not a pull request, but a bug report, and it happened to be a duplicate bug report so it was closed with a reference to the earlier bug report. We have decided not to render abandoned railways, but we haven't taken a decision on how to render standalone/abandoned bridges. — Matthijs When I complained about he strong black of power line renderings, and the response was that that the lines offer orientation guidance in rural areas, so their inclusion and high prominence was justified. Actual physical bridges - which may offer the only way across a ravine, or a landmark to where you are on a river sounds like a similar justification - so rendering abandoned, yet physically existing bridges seems like exactly the kind of thing that would be included - especially since their inclusion would offer no clutter or distraction at levels where other items would cause quite a lot of visual clutter for similar orinentation benefit. There is an amazing amount of abandoned and bypassed bridges here in Japan - way more than in America, especially in rural areas. Many people see the usefulness of the -carto default rendering as the end goal of their work, right or wrong - there’s very few other ways a simple tagger can interact with their input to OSM, so balancing the data shown and the clarity of the map is very difficult - but not rendering actually existing bridges seems wholly incorrect. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 10/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:53 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: I've also seen the opposite mapping issue, where an abandoned railway was deleted from the map, when in fact large chunks still exist. If an osm way represents a railway that is 50% gone, is it more correct to keep the way or to delete it (ignoring the actually-correct but time-consuming task of deleting only the parts that are gone) ? Where would you put the % gone before complete deletion is justified threshold ? Throw in the problem that gone is a subjective term (plus different answers on the ground and using imagery), and you get a nice recipe for disagreements. I'm playing the devil's advocate a bit here, to show how quickly opinions can diverge. Please always discuss your intent with the other contributor. Thankfully the distinction between abandoned and disused is clear. It's between abandoned and razed/not_maped that things get tricky. Also, if an abandoned railway has evolved into something else, then it's not an abandoned railway anymore. If you add a highway=cycleway tag, you should remove the railway=abandoned tag. I don't see that railway=razed damages highway=cycleway. s/razed/abandoned/. No damage done, it's just no longer usefull. The present day cycleway may well have photos of that same old railway on interpretive signs. The current cycleway may in fact be called a rail to trail. Some people seek those out explicitly, because they're associated with a flat grade and gentle curves. In cases like this the history is* a part of a present day object.* Railway=* is a poor heuristic for flat grades and gentle curves : lots of false negatives. If the cycleway is advertised as a 'rail to trail', it'll transpire in other tags, name=* and maybe tourist=*. I'm not saying that the attributes you describe are not interesting, but that describing them by tagging the history of the object is the wrong way around. Tag the current state, not how it came to be. Just like we tag smoothness=* rather than the name of the road surfacing company (yeah, silly example). Railroads are special in part because they're large and long, far bigger than any abandoned shop or razed cottage. They leave a major footprint on the future world, one that's often apparent well after the last bit of gravel is dug out and planted over. It's more like tagging shoe shop in a landmark beaux arts former post office than turn left where the fruit stand used to be. Yes, railways do leave long-lasting signs. Then again, even cow paths have a tendency to turn into avenues (with a tell-tale layout appreciated by historians and tourists) given enough time, so it's not particularly unique or impressive. Yet when it comes to tagging the past, OSM apparently only cares about railways. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 10/03/2015, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: In passing, I am a little bemused that so many people seem to have missed the hint that I normally regard tagging for the renderer as evil by using the word Blatant in the title of this thread and that it was sort of a confession and plea for help on how to avoid doing that. I don't think that anybody missed the hint, just confirmed that it was just as evil and unnecessary in this case. Anyway, it seems to have been productive overall and it sounds as if the decision on the standard rendering might be revisited. I very much doubt that the decision to not render railway=abandoned is going to be revisited. As for the issue of rendering various cases of stand-alone bridges, it was already on the todo. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:53 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: I know it's a messy dividing line. I see it as important context to current day mapping. That's a fair point, but I've seen it pushed beyond reason too many times. I've also seen the opposite mapping issue, where an abandoned railway was deleted from the map, when in fact large chunks still exist. Also, if an abandoned railway has evolved into something else, then it's not an abandoned railway anymore. If you add a highway=cycleway tag, you should remove the railway=abandoned tag. I don't see that railway=razed damages highway=cycleway. The present day cycleway may well have photos of that same old railway on interpretive signs. The current cycleway may in fact be called a rail to trail. Some people seek those out explicitly, because they're associated with a flat grade and gentle curves. In cases like this the history is* a part of a present day object.* -- Railroads are special in part because they're large and long, far bigger than any abandoned shop or razed cottage. They leave a major footprint on the future world, one that's often apparent well after the last bit of gravel is dug out and planted over. It's more like tagging shoe shop in a landmark beaux arts former post office than turn left where the fruit stand used to be. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-03-09 23:06 GMT+01:00 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com: How does it help mappers see what they have mapped to not show a large structure which has been mapped and which is physically present? I didn't say the bridge shouldn't be rendered. I just said it's not default layers job to render everything that someone needs for a project. It's for this reason I really miss the Osmarender layer... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
Am 09.03.2015 um 15:27 schrieb Michael Reichert: Hi ael, Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael: I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard rendering. According to the wiki railway=abandoned applies when the rails have been removed, and disused should be used when the rails are still present. Not suprisingly this has been raised before, as for instance at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways. I don't like tagging for the renderer and normally avoid it, but in this case it seems to be necessary to maintain the reputation of OSM/mapnik. Would you please change this back?! There also other maps using OSM data which rely on good and exact tagging! http://openrailwaymap.org There is no reason to increase the reputation of OSM-Carto. If it renders bad images, they bad and the stylesheet has to be fixed, not the data! +1 Still miss support for man_made=bridge which leads to mapping for the renderer as user add highway=* + area=yes to the area to get it rendered. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
An example using a local uk map is http://binged.it/1x8GAHx Phil (trigpoint ) On Mon Mar 9 15:16:54 2015 GMT, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned railways in the area (related to mining) and I think that they will be singularly unimpressed if prominent major bridges on the local lanes are missing. Do you have an example of how local maps render these bridges? So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet? Yes, it was pointed out to you already: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320 But as mentioned, developer time is limited. Although bug reports are useful, writing a pull request is typically a quicker way to get desired rendering on the map than filing a bug report. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 09/03/2015 15:16, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet? Yes, it was pointed out to you already: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320 But as mentioned, developer time is limited. Although bug reports are useful, writing a pull request is typically a quicker way to get desired rendering on the map than filing a bug report. To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue and it was summarily closed: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641 I can understand the decision not to render abandoned railways, but it's a little disingenuous to suggest that the reason that they aren't getting rendered is due to the lack of a pull request (although I'm sure that there are lots of other features for which pull requests would be welcome). Best Regards, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 9 March 2015 at 15:15, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: Using the default OSM-Carto layer for a project isn't very professional. The job of the default layer isn't to make a map for everyone to use in their projects, its main job is to help mappers see what they have mapped, and to guide mappers in their choice of tags. That's not necessarily true. According to CARTOGRAPHY.md, the purposes of the default layer are: - It's the primary feedback mechanism for mappers to validate their edits - so detail is useful - It's a major part of the impression visitors to osm.org receive - so clear design is useful - It's an examplar stylesheet for rendering OSM data - so easy customisation is useful That said, as the openstreetmap-carto is a one-size-fits all map, there are often better maps for specific situations. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
Hi ael, Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael: I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard rendering. According to the wiki railway=abandoned applies when the rails have been removed, and disused should be used when the rails are still present. Not suprisingly this has been raised before, as for instance at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways. I don't like tagging for the renderer and normally avoid it, but in this case it seems to be necessary to maintain the reputation of OSM/mapnik. Would you please change this back?! There also other maps using OSM data which rely on good and exact tagging! http://openrailwaymap.org There is no reason to increase the reputation of OSM-Carto. If it renders bad images, they bad and the stylesheet has to be fixed, not the data! Best regards Michael -- Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten ausgenommen) I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:27:17PM +0100, Michael Reichert wrote: Hi ael, Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael: I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard rendering. Would you please change this back?! There also other maps using OSM data which rely on good and exact tagging! http://openrailwaymap.org There is no reason to increase the reputation of OSM-Carto. If it renders bad images, they bad and the stylesheet has to be fixed, not the data! Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey and edits. So I am not corrupting other people's data. Nevertheless, I agree that it is a problem with OSM-Carto, as I indicated in the OP. I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned railways in the area (related to mining) and I think that they will be singularly unimpressed if prominent major bridges on the local lanes are missing. I suppose that it might be a useful lessson in distinguishing the data base from the rendering, but there might be sceptics present. Also I want to keep it simple at least for the first introduction. So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet? ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:35:19PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: +1, please tag what is on the ground, and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. Obviously I support the case made there very clearly for (just) rendering the bridges. A pity that it seems to have been dismissed without any real explanation. An ordinary person who hears of Openstreetmap goes straight to the Mapnik default front page. They may find the Layers and select another rendering (none of which seem to show these bridges). But they are not going to find all the other OSM based maps without digging fairly deeply. It is a pity that there isn't a prominent page in the wiki listing all/many of the other maps. Yes, I know it is a wiki, so I ought to add it myself... ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 09/03/2015 14:22, ael wrote: I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard rendering. Mapnik the software is just fine; it's our standard map that's the problem. This was discussed to death on https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 and frankly there's nothing more to be said that hasn't already been said there on the subject. However please DO tag what's on the ground. Just because one online map is incapable of rendering large physical features as they appear is not a good reason to tag things incorrectly. Other maps do render abandoned railways; if the standard map doesn't work for you, don't use it (it doesn't for me and I don't). Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned railways in the area (related to mining) and I think that they will be singularly unimpressed if prominent major bridges on the local lanes are missing. Do you have an example of how local maps render these bridges? So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet? Yes, it was pointed out to you already: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320 But as mentioned, developer time is limited. Although bug reports are useful, writing a pull request is typically a quicker way to get desired rendering on the map than filing a bug report. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 9 March 2015 at 15:26, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote: To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue and it was summarily closed: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641 That was not a pull request, but a bug report, and it happened to be a duplicate bug report so it was closed with a reference to the earlier bug report. We have decided not to render abandoned railways, but we haven't taken a decision on how to render standalone/abandoned bridges. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard rendering. According to the wiki railway=abandoned applies when the rails have been removed, and disused should be used when the rails are still present. Not suprisingly this has been raised before, as for instance at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways. I don't like tagging for the renderer and normally avoid it, but in this case it seems to be necessary to maintain the reputation of OSM/mapnik. A quick search of the wiki didn't find where to report bugs on the standard mapnik osm style, but I can't imagine that this has not been raised before. Should I just switch to disused even when no rails are present? ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
W dniu 09.03.2015 15:32, fly napisał(a): Still miss support for man_made=bridge which leads to mapping for the renderer as user add highway=* + area=yes to the area to get it rendered. The ticket is not closed, but I don't know the final decision or what may be obstacles, however there was not so much problems, so I guess developer's time may be the key factor here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/436 -- Mambałaga ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 09/03/2015, Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org wrote: +1, please tag what is on the ground, and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 As for the discussion on rendering standalone bridges : https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320 Note that there has been lots of arguing on the railway topic on github (and elsewhere). Please don't refuel that particular debate, osm-carto's choices may not match your own, but they are coherent. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
2015-03-09 16:06 GMT+01:00 ael law_ence@ntlworld.com: I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned railways in the area (related to mining) and I think that they will be singularly unimpressed if prominent major bridges on the local lanes are missing. I suppose that it might be a useful lessson in distinguishing the data base from the rendering, but there might be sceptics present. Also I want to keep it simple at least for the first introduction. So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet? ael Using the default OSM-Carto layer for a project isn't very professional. The job of the default layer isn't to make a map for everyone to use in their projects, its main job is to help mappers see what they have mapped, and to guide mappers in their choice of tags. If you decide to use this layer for different purposes you are guaranteed to have problems. Janko Mihelić ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
Hi, Am 2015-03-09 um 16:06 schrieb ael: Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey and edits. So I am not corrupting other people's data. Wrong! You have corrupted data because you have changed tags to values which are wrong. What about people who want to calculate the length of the railway network including disused tracks which have not been removed yet (and therefore are easy to reactivate)? The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism. Nevertheless, I agree that it is a problem with OSM-Carto, as I indicated in the OP. I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned railways in the area (related to mining) and I think that they will be singularly unimpressed if prominent major bridges on the local lanes are missing. I suppose that it might be a useful lessson in distinguishing the data base from the rendering, but there might be sceptics present. Also I want to keep it simple at least for the first introduction. Well, if these people do not like OSM because /one/ OSM-based map does not show a couple of bridges, it is not bad if they do not use OSM. OSM is a database and no map! Please explain this if they ask why osm.org does not show bridge X. So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet? https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues btw, what's your nickname? Best regards Michael -- Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten ausgenommen) I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 15:29 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: An example using a local uk map is http://binged.it/1x8GAHx Try again http://binged.it/1x8Hhki Phil (trigpoint ) On Mon Mar 9 15:16:54 2015 GMT, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned railways in the area (related to mining) and I think that they will be singularly unimpressed if prominent major bridges on the local lanes are missing. Do you have an example of how local maps render these bridges? So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet? Yes, it was pointed out to you already: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320 But as mentioned, developer time is limited. Although bug reports are useful, writing a pull request is typically a quicker way to get desired rendering on the map than filing a bug report. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
Michael Reichert wrote on 2015-03-09 15:27: Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael: I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard rendering. According to the wiki railway=abandoned applies when the rails have been removed, and disused should be used when the rails are still present. Not suprisingly this has been raised before, as for instance at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways. I don't like tagging for the renderer and normally avoid it, but in this case it seems to be necessary to maintain the reputation of OSM/mapnik. Michael Reichert wrote on 2015-03-09 15:27: Would you please change this back?! There also other maps using OSM data which rely on good and exact tagging! http://openrailwaymap.org There is no reason to increase the reputation of OSM-Carto. If it renders bad images, they bad and the stylesheet has to be fixed, not the data! +1, please tag what is on the ground, and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On Mon Mar 9 15:49:01 2015 GMT, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On 9 March 2015 at 15:26, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote: To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue and it was summarily closed: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641 That was not a pull request, but a bug report, and it happened to be a duplicate bug report so it was closed with a reference to the earlier bug report. We have decided not to render abandoned railways, but we haven't taken a decision on how to render standalone/abandoned bridges. Most are not standalone, but part of embankments/cuttings which are significant navigational features. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:14:58PM +0100, Michael Reichert wrote: Hi, Am 2015-03-09 um 16:06 schrieb ael: Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey and edits. So I am not corrupting other people's data. Wrong! You have corrupted data because you have changed tags to values which are wrong. What about people who want to calculate the length of the railway network including disused tracks which have not been removed yet (and therefore are easy to reactivate)? That is ludicrous. I have changed a few metres only. The error bars on my surveys of several km of abondoned railway will far exceed that. The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism. That sort of comment is unworthy of OSM. I did the surveys. Very carefully. I tagged corectly as far as I knew at the time. I only changed a very small section on a couple of bridges to explore the rendering and was unaware of this hornets' nest of bickering. And consulted this list. Another mapper who has given no source has added 1/2 km or more of track that I am fairly confident no longer exists: I intend to try to survey to confirm or refute, but it is on private ground. He also added an entirely ficticious section of railway right across what is now a dual carriage way and other developments. That might perhaps be near vandalism, although I suspect that he was a novice perhaps looking at an historical route, perhaps without realizing that he was modifying the database. Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contribute. Well, if these people do not like OSM because /one/ OSM-based map does not show a couple of bridges, it is not bad if they do not use OSM. OSM is a database and no map! Please explain this if they ask why osm.org does not show bridge X. Many are likely to be complete novices, and even drawing that distinction at their first brush with the project might put them off. If I still give the talk after this reaction, I will pitch as best I can to the audience. If they are at the right level, obviously I will explain and illustrate the distinction between the data base and rendering. But that may be way over the heads of some local politicians. Or not. ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
2015-03-09 16:18 GMT+00:00 ael law_ence@ntlworld.com: The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism. That sort of comment is unworthy of OSM. I did the surveys. Very carefully. I tagged corectly as far as I knew at the time. [...] Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contribute. On behalf of other people, I'd like to apologise for that comment. People on this list, and elsewhere, seem to have using the word vandalism to describe various types of edit that disagree with their perception of OSM consensus, rather than the true meaning of vandalism which I don't need to spell out here. That's a lazy habit and very rude to the recipient. Best wishes Dan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
case made there very clearly for (just) rendering the bridges That is handled in a separate issue: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320 Before commenting in this issue please carefully read existing comments, especially the first two. I don't like tagging for the renderer and normally avoid it, but in this case it seems to be necessary to maintain the reputation of OSM/mapnik. Please, avoid tagging as rendering as method for maintaining reputation of OSM/default map style. This is not helpful. 2015-03-09 17:27 GMT+01:00 ael law_ence@ntlworld.com: On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:35:19PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: +1, please tag what is on the ground, and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. Obviously I support the case made there very clearly for (just) rendering the bridges. A pity that it seems to have been dismissed without any real explanation. An ordinary person who hears of Openstreetmap goes straight to the Mapnik default front page. They may find the Layers and select another rendering (none of which seem to show these bridges). But they are not going to find all the other OSM based maps without digging fairly deeply. It is a pity that there isn't a prominent page in the wiki listing all/many of the other maps. Yes, I know it is a wiki, so I ought to add it myself... ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
You should show them RichardF's cycle.travel site as a different way of rendering OSM, and it shows old railways. Phil (trigpoint ) On Mon Mar 9 16:18:39 2015 GMT, ael wrote: On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:14:58PM +0100, Michael Reichert wrote: Hi, Am 2015-03-09 um 16:06 schrieb ael: Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey and edits. So I am not corrupting other people's data. Wrong! You have corrupted data because you have changed tags to values which are wrong. What about people who want to calculate the length of the railway network including disused tracks which have not been removed yet (and therefore are easy to reactivate)? That is ludicrous. I have changed a few metres only. The error bars on my surveys of several km of abondoned railway will far exceed that. The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism. That sort of comment is unworthy of OSM. I did the surveys. Very carefully. I tagged corectly as far as I knew at the time. I only changed a very small section on a couple of bridges to explore the rendering and was unaware of this hornets' nest of bickering. And consulted this list. Another mapper who has given no source has added 1/2 km or more of track that I am fairly confident no longer exists: I intend to try to survey to confirm or refute, but it is on private ground. He also added an entirely ficticious section of railway right across what is now a dual carriage way and other developments. That might perhaps be near vandalism, although I suspect that he was a novice perhaps looking at an historical route, perhaps without realizing that he was modifying the database. Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contribute. Well, if these people do not like OSM because /one/ OSM-based map does not show a couple of bridges, it is not bad if they do not use OSM. OSM is a database and no map! Please explain this if they ask why osm.org does not show bridge X. Many are likely to be complete novices, and even drawing that distinction at their first brush with the project might put them off. If I still give the talk after this reaction, I will pitch as best I can to the audience. If they are at the right level, obviously I will explain and illustrate the distinction between the data base and rendering. But that may be way over the heads of some local politicians. Or not. ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
How does it help mappers see what they have mapped to not show a large structure which has been mapped and which is physically present? -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. On March 9, 2015 10:16:43 AM Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-03-09 16:06 GMT+01:00 ael law_ence@ntlworld.com: I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned railways in the area (related to mining) and I think that they will be singularly unimpressed if prominent major bridges on the local lanes are missing. I suppose that it might be a useful lessson in distinguishing the data base from the rendering, but there might be sceptics present. Also I want to keep it simple at least for the first introduction. So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet? ael Using the default OSM-Carto layer for a project isn't very professional. The job of the default layer isn't to make a map for everyone to use in their projects, its main job is to help mappers see what they have mapped, and to guide mappers in their choice of tags. If you decide to use this layer for different purposes you are guaranteed to have problems. Janko Mihelić -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 16:18 +, ael wrote: The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism. That sort of comment is unworthy of OSM. Indeed. Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contribute. I'd personally urge you not to take that step ael. OSM is a much bigger project than a few people unable to discuss matters using reasonable words. I experienced a similar reaction analysing why THE Map does not distinguish between paved and unpaved roads. A good percentage of the world's roads are unpaved. Please remember that like the mapping that you and I enjoy, building the rendering engine is unpaid work. They concentrate their efforts on the aspects they personally consider important, just as we map the things we consider important. In both cases, it may not be the shortest route to the perfect map. I will explain and illustrate the distinction between the data base and rendering. But that may be way over the heads of some local politicians. Or not. I'd emphasise that THE Map is just a starting point. The local council could undertake to use the database to generate what ever map they want to see. Iff they have the skills and time necessary. Sigh ! Don't go suggesting a pull request - who knows what that would be taken as meaning ! David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
If the bridges are still present, the map should render them even if the rails and railbeds on either side of the bridge have been removed. After all, we are supposed to map the ground truth, and if the bridge is still present, that is the ground truth. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. On March 9, 2015 9:35:59 AM Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org wrote: Michael Reichert wrote on 2015-03-09 15:27: Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael: I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard rendering. According to the wiki railway=abandoned applies when the rails have been removed, and disused should be used when the rails are still present. Not suprisingly this has been raised before, as for instance at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways. I don't like tagging for the renderer and normally avoid it, but in this case it seems to be necessary to maintain the reputation of OSM/mapnik. Michael Reichert wrote on 2015-03-09 15:27: Would you please change this back?! There also other maps using OSM data which rely on good and exact tagging! http://openrailwaymap.org There is no reason to increase the reputation of OSM-Carto. If it renders bad images, they bad and the stylesheet has to be fixed, not the data! +1, please tag what is on the ground, and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 1:37 PM, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote: railway=abandoned has been used from almost year 0 in OSM to indicate where the rails have been removed but the route is still visible in some way. See http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned . And yes, if it's a highway=track now, you can of course map it as that as well. If it's not visible (e.g. someone's build a factory on it) it's NOT railway=abandoned. Ah thanks, I stand corrected. railway=razed would be the tag to discuss. The broader point is intact. When making sense of abandoned bridges and oddly rounded buildings in various places, it is super helpful to see the context of the prior railroad grade. It helps in mapping from the air and on the ground. A given railway grade may (and often does) exist as razed, abandoned, disused, and reused (e.g. highway=residential or highway=service, leisure=park) along it's length. So how can we represent the former way, and the current use of each bit, in a rational way? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 3/9/15 4:58 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The broader point is intact. When making sense of abandoned bridges and oddly rounded buildings in various places, it is super helpful to see the context of the prior railroad grade. It helps in mapping from the air and on the ground. A given railway grade may (and often does) exist as razed, abandoned, disused, and reused (e.g. highway=residential or highway=service, leisure=park) along it's length. So how can we represent the former way, and the current use of each bit, in a rational way? it's probably worthwhile to consider OpenHistoricalMap as a resource for recording information about spatial entities that no longer exist in the modern world. this relieves us of the argument about representing them in OSM. i am now in the opening phase of a campaign to describe old auto racing venues in OHM; in some cases they are related to existing physical entities (e.g., the first and second Watkins Glen Grand Prix courses used public roads of the time, most of which still exist. likewise, many airport courses have been used over the years and are no longer; but the airports frequently still exist. these things go in OHM because while the physical entities still exist, the racing usage is long gone.) the issue of how to relate OHM objects to OSM objects is an open question; right now i am not attempting to provide links from OHM entities to OSM entities and instead am depending on a leaflet application to use OSM as a basemap to provide context. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 10/03/2015 1:22 AM, ael wrote: I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard rendering. According to the wiki railway=abandoned applies when the rails have been removed, and disused should be used when the rails are still present. Possible work around? Use the tag man_made=bridge to tag the bridge area? Keeps the railway correctly tagged. And places the bridge correctly. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge Try that and see if it works. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 09/03/2015 18:07, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: That is handled in a separate issue: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320 Before commenting in this issue please carefully read existing comments, especially the first two. I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would make this comment: 'Unless you are a maintainer on this project, please do not mention or even hint at abandoned railways since that will lead to your comments being deleted and you being blocked from making future comments.' -- Steve --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 09/03/2015 20:03, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The core problem is: *railway=abandoned* Refers to railway service, and does not describe what's on the ground. No. railway=abandoned has been used from almost year 0 in OSM to indicate where the rails have been removed but the route is still visible in some way. See http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned . And yes, if it's a highway=track now, you can of course map it as that as well. If it's not visible (e.g. someone's build a factory on it) it's NOT railway=abandoned. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:18 AM, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contribute. Please ignore these types of comments. While we all generally agree that tagging for the renderer isn't appropriate, I do it all the time. I love adding buildings which I think enhances OSM cartography. It is appropriate to open tickets to get the rendering fixed. Your comments did remind me that I need to add an abandoned bridge near home. One spring, when the river is high, the bridge is going to wash away. It mostly just rust now. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
The core problem is: *railway=abandoned* Refers to railway service, and does not describe what's on the ground. What's on the ground could range from a bit of residual lead arsenate herbicide, up through a highly visible gravel trackbed with bridges and culverts and bits of railway artifact scattered about. So how do we tag the railway history AND what we can see on the ground? *railway=abandoned (part of a railway relation)* *highway=track* *bridge=yes* *width=5m* *access=**unenforced* And a bit down the old track: *railway=abandoned **(part of a railway relation)* *natural=tree_row* Somehow we have to map what it was (a railway) and what it is now (perhaps a farm field, subdivision, or secret shortcut through the woods). Then the default rendering pretty clearly can show what it is now*,* without running rendered lines through current day buildings, parks and parking lots. http://www.abandonedrails.com/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: ...wworthwhile to consider OpenHistoricalMap as a resource for recording information about spatial entities that no longer exist in the modern world. this relieves us of the argument about representing them in OSM. Somehow I come down on the side that railways have enough footprint on the current world that they belong in OSM proper, unlike say old buildings or former shops. A abandoned railway slowly evolves from a mappable way, to a series of other things, before disappearing completely. But it leaves significant land use patterns on the waterways, roadways and buildings it once ran near. I know it's a messy dividing line. I see it as important context to current day mapping. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 09/03/2015, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:35:19PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: +1, please tag what is on the ground, and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. Obviously I support the case made there very clearly for (just) rendering the bridges. A pity that it seems to have been dismissed without any real explanation. Developers like to keep issue/pull discussions on topic, and that pull's topic was about no longer rendering railway=abandoned, not the separate issue of rendering underlaying bridges. Two separate issues were created (and linked to in this thread) to fix rendering of bridges. That pull discussion heated up quickly but certainly wasn't low on explanations. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
2015-03-09 23:06 GMT+01:00 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com: How does it help mappers see what they have mapped to not show a large structure which has been mapped and which is physically present? I didn't say the bridge shouldn't be rendered. I just said it's not default layers job to render everything that someone needs for a project. And the post i replied to said that the bridge should be rendered because he has a project with the local council. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 09/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Ah thanks, I stand corrected. railway=razed would be the tag to discuss. The broader point is intact. While there is a pretty strong consensus that osm describes the present (leaving openhistoricalmap for the past), it seems that some railway contributors like to map the past (that's what 'razed' and 'reused' describe). Railway=razed is the equivalent of keeping the building=house way after big appartment blocks have been built and maped in its location. Railway=reused (i believe it's usually tagged as 'abandoned') is the equivalent of tagging 'this used to be a post office' after it has been turned into a shoe shop. These comparisons may be poorly chosen, but you get the idea. I never understood what made railways different from buildings, shops, streets etc in that respect. Maybe because it's easyer to deduce where a railway used to pass than where a cotage used to be ? To make things worse, a number of enthusiastic contributors have tagged 'abandoned' what should have been tagged 'razed' (or better: not mapped at all). This fact contributed to the decision of not rendering 'abandoned' anymore. When making sense of abandoned bridges and oddly rounded buildings in various places, it is super helpful to see the context of the prior railroad grade. It helps in mapping from the air and on the ground. A given railway grade may (and often does) exist as razed, abandoned, disused, and reused (e.g. highway=residential or highway=service, leisure=park) along it's length. So how can we represent the former way, and the current use of each bit, in a rational way? If there's still a bridge or maybe even an embankment, then railway=abandoned is fair game (assuming it hasn't turned into, for example, a highway=track in the meantime). And it'd be nice if osm-carto rendered these bridges and embankments even though railway=abandoned isn't (they are working on the former, at least). These bridges are interesting to the contemporary map user. The fact that they were built for a railway is only interesting to the history-inclined map users, which osm-carto has decided not to target. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 09/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Somehow I come down on the side that railways have enough footprint on the current world that they belong in OSM proper, unlike say old buildings or former shops. A abandoned railway slowly evolves from a mappable way, to a series of other things, before disappearing completely. But it leaves significant land use patterns on the waterways, roadways and buildings it once ran near. I know it's a messy dividing line. I see it as important context to current day mapping. That's a fair point, but I've seen it pushed beyond reason too many times. Often it seems that the contributor used an old map to trace railway=abandoned without glancing at the satellite imagery (no, there's nothing left of the raillway when a housing estate with a pond have been built in its location). Also, if an abandoned railway has evolved into something else, then it's not an abandoned railway anymore. If you add a highway=cycleway tag, you should remove the railway=abandoned tag. Lots of real-world objects evolve while retaining traits from their previous use. In some cases that trait can be tagged for itself and kept after the evolution (deconsecrated building=church for example), but in the case of railways, the only traits that survive are normally bridges, cuttings and embankments. Those can be mapped for their own sake, without resorting to railway=abandoned. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
On 09/03/2015, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Possible work around? Use the tag man_made=bridge to tag the bridge area? Keeps the railway correctly tagged. And places the bridge correctly. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge Try that and see if it works. Not rendered yet : https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/436 That doesn't mean that you shouldn't use man_made=bridge, it's a great way to map what's there (see also the bridge relation). But it won't provide your get it rendered by osm-carto fix yet (patches welcome). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
