On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Pieren wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> What about closed ways tagged with barrier=* and some other ambiguous
>> *=* (e.g. barrier=hedge & amenity=marketplace).
>
> No, the tag "barrier=*" is not ambiguous and is self explanatory (does
>
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Anthony wrote:
> What about closed ways tagged with barrier=* and some other ambiguous
> *=* (e.g. barrier=hedge & amenity=marketplace).
No, the tag "barrier=*" is not ambiguous and is self explanatory (does
not need to check any tag combination).
Btw, by digging
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2012/5/1 Pieren :
>> Not only mine. I'm still waiting at least a single example where a
>> closed way for platforms is not an area (and rendering issue cannot be
>> fixed by splitting the way for instance).
>
>
> our data model should no
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>> 01.05.2012 11:53, Pieren wrote:
>>> (and rendering issue cannot be
>>> fixed by splitting the way for instance).
>>
>> We could do that for highways and other examples, too: Always treat
>> cl
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> 01.05.2012 11:53, Pieren wrote:
>> Not only mine. I'm still waiting at least a single example where a
>> closed way for platforms is not an area
>
> How about that one?
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/48923955
>
> It's a public_transp
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> 01.05.2012 11:53, Pieren wrote:
> How about that one?
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/48923955
If I understand correctly this document
(http://regiowiki.pnp.de/index.php/Zentraler_Omnibusbahnhof_Passau),
it is serving 5 stations. So
01.05.2012 11:53, Pieren wrote:
> Not only mine. I'm still waiting at least a single example where a
> closed way for platforms is not an area
How about that one?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/48923955
It's a public_transport=platform for busses. There's a building with
ticket shops and
2012/5/1 Pieren :
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>> our data model should not need hacks like "split the way to fix
>> rendering issues".
>
> For me, the "hack" is to add a 2nd tag when it is not required in most
> (if not all) of the closed ways.
+1 for all, -1 for most ;
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> our data model should not need hacks like "split the way to fix
> rendering issues".
For me, the "hack" is to add a 2nd tag when it is not required in most
(if not all) of the closed ways.
Pieren
2012/5/1 Pieren :
> Not only mine. I'm still waiting at least a single example where a
> closed way for platforms is not an area (and rendering issue cannot be
> fixed by splitting the way for instance).
our data model should not need hacks like "split the way to fix
rendering issues". It should
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> And Pieren continues to add his opinion to the page.
Not only mine. I'm still waiting at least a single example where a
closed way for platforms is not an area (and rendering issue cannot be
fixed by splitting the way for instance). You
On 4/27/2012 3:25 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
While this is ongoing, Pieren continues to remove area=yes from
railway=platform, which has been on the page since it was created in
2008:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:railway%3Dplatform&action=history
And Pieren continues to
2012/4/30 Pieren :
> I'm always standing in the contributor point of view. It is not the
> wiki (or better said "our recommendations") to follow the osm2pqsql
> style file but the opposite.
+1
> especially
> when the main reaction is to say that mapnik/osm2pgsql will fail
> because the assumpti
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Right now, we already have to distinguish three types of tags:
> * always area
> * always way
> * way unless area=yes is present.
>
> I simply do not think that the possibility to decrease of the number of
> tags is worth introducing "area un
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
> For the barrier=city_wall I in fact see way AND area as possible:
Isn't area always possible?
> I think, we should (!) introduce an area tag in the next API version, that
> allows the strict distinction between area and way by type, indep
Am 28. April 2012 16:10 schrieb Peter Wendorff :
> For the barrier=city_wall I in fact see way AND area as possible:
> A mid-age city wall of a bigger city may have walls of several meters width
> sometimes, that include corridors, stairways and more, as another building
> would.
> If I map a strip
For the barrier=city_wall I in fact see way AND area as possible:
A mid-age city wall of a bigger city may have walls of several meters
width sometimes, that include corridors, stairways and more, as another
building would.
If I map a strip of grass as an area with a width of 1m, a city wall
wi
Another example is amenity=marketplace. How am I supposed to know if
this is "always way", "always area", or "way unless area=yes is
present"? Which one is it?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/t
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Right now, we already have to distinguish three types of tags:
> * always area
> * always way
> * way unless area=yes is present.
>
> I simply do not think that the possibility to decrease of the number of
> tags is worth introducing "area unl
On 4/28/2012 7:59 AM, Anthony wrote:
Scanning the wiki it looks like usually-not-area would be less of a
moving target. Otherwise almost every time someone adds a new amenity
you have to add a new always-area tag. The usually-not-area would be
junction=roundabout, barrier=*, highway=pedestrian,
On 27.04.2012 10:12, Pieren wrote:
> You have to know anyway if your feature can be either a closed way or
> an area and therefore need some special handling in your apps.
Unfortunately, yes. I wish we already had a proper area primitive so
this whole discussion would be obsolete.
> The question
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Komяpa wrote:
>> What specific program or programs are we looking at?
>
> Any program that needs to go from OSM data model to OGC-compatible
> one, having "area" object.
Well, my question is what program or programs are you requesting
patches for. Presumably thes
> What specific program or programs are we looking at?
Any program that needs to go from OSM data model to OGC-compatible
one, having "area" object.
That basically lists any database backend (osm2pgsql, osm2sqlite,
nominatim...) and any converter like osm2shp/osm2ogr.
The list of software that dep
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Anthony wrote:
> Scanning the wiki it looks like usually-not-area would be less of a
> moving target. Otherwise almost every time someone adds a new amenity
> you have to add a new always-area tag. The usually-not-area would be
> junction=roundabout, barrier=*, h
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Komяpa wrote:
>> I think we should decide the better way to map first, and then let the
>> programmers prioritize the fix. Since programmers are already
>> checking for always-area, it doesn't seem like a difficult fix. Are
>> patches welcome?
>
> Patches welcome
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> I assume that this is a misunderstanding, because I don't think anybody
> was suggesting that area=yes should be used together with tags that are
> unambiguous anyway. My suggestion, and current practice as far as I can
> tell, is:
>
> * If a
> I think we should decide the better way to map first, and then let the
> programmers prioritize the fix. Since programmers are already
> checking for always-area, it doesn't seem like a difficult fix. Are
> patches welcome?
Patches welcome.
As programmers, we need a complete machine-readable
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Marl wrote:
> On 27/04/12 20:11, Anthony wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>>> Anthony wrote:
>>> If I were writing a renderer (actually, I am), I would assume that a
>>> closed way does not represent an area unless it a) has an always
Am 28. April 2012 11:34 schrieb Peter Wendorff :
> On the other hand, a fenced field is landuse=* (and in this respect
> implicitly area=yes) and barrier=fence (and here implicitly area=no), and
> that's fine.
I'd tag the way barrier=fence and create a multipolygon for the
landuse with this way a
28.04.2012 11:34, Peter Wendorff wrote:
> Let's consider two well known examples:
>
> building=* => usually by default area=yes, a non-closed way may be
> considered as invalid(?)
Yes, it would be invalid. As documented in the wiki, the building key
(ignoring building=entrance and the like) is fo
Let's consider two well known examples:
building=* => usually by default area=yes, a non-closed way may be
considered as invalid(?)
highway=* => usually by default area=no, even if a closed way
A common default value would lead to either
~56M area=yes on buildings
or
~52M area=no on highways
On 4/28/2012 4:06 AM, Marl wrote:
By the way - why are you tagging railway=platform? The public transport
scheme has changed this to public_transport=platform more than a year ago.
Because old habits die hard, especially when the new standard is
convoluted as all hell.
__
On 27/04/12 20:11, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>> Anthony wrote:
>> If I were writing a renderer (actually, I am), I would assume that a
>> closed way does not represent an area unless it a) has an always-area
>> tag such as landuse or b) is tagged with ar
While this is ongoing, Pieren continues to remove area=yes from
railway=platform, which has been on the page since it was created in
2008:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:railway%3Dplatform&action=history
___
Tagging mailing list
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>> If I were writing a renderer, I would assume that a
>> closed way railway=platform represented an area unless it was tagged
>> area=no. So that's an effect.
>
> If I were writing a renderer (actually, I am), I would assume
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Am 27. April 2012 20:14 schrieb Anthony :
>> A default set to the value which is correct 99.9%
>> of the time is not arbitrary.
>
> how would you distinguish between default values and incomplete
> data/missing infor
Anthony wrote:
>
>> "area=no" can be considered a "sic!", but that tag should never have any
>> actual effect.
>
> Effect on what?
On renderers or any other applications working with OSM data.
> If I were writing a renderer, I would assume that a
> closed way railway=platform represented an are
Op 27 apr. 2012 20:41 schreef "Martin Koppenhoefer"
het volgende:
>
> Am 27. April 2012 20:14 schrieb Anthony :
> > A default set to the value which is correct 99.9%
> > of the time is not arbitrary.
>
>
> how would you distinguish between default values and incomplete
> data/m
Am 27. April 2012 20:14 schrieb Anthony :
> A default set to the value which is correct 99.9%
> of the time is not arbitrary.
how would you distinguish between default values and incomplete
data/missing information?
We could have a tag
defaults_checked=area;surface;lanes;one
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Pieren wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>
>> If a feature can be either a closed way or an area, the default
>> interpretation should always be the closed way. Otherwise, you'd have to
>> know arbitrary defaults for each type of object
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>> Where did I mention a renderer? If you draw a closed polygon with
>>> railway=platform, that's a continuous platform with a hole in the middle.
>>> There may be a
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> If a feature can be either a closed way or an area, the default
> interpretation should always be the closed way. Otherwise, you'd have to
> know arbitrary defaults for each type of object.
You have to know anyway if your feature can be eith
Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> Where did I mention a renderer? If you draw a closed polygon with
>> railway=platform, that's a continuous platform with a hole in the middle.
>> There may be a few cases of such in real life at a complicated junction.
>
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> Where did I mention a renderer? If you draw a closed polygon with
> railway=platform, that's a continuous platform with a hole in the middle.
> There may be a few cases of such in real life at a complicated junction.
If so, they should be
On Apr 25, 2012 1:54 AM, "Pieren" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II
wrote:
>
> > Because a railway platform is usually drawn as a single line (as is a
pier).
> > Omitting area=yes gives a hole in the middle.
>
> Sounds "tagging for the renderer"...
If it's not incorre
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Komяpa wrote:
> OSM does not have "area" object,
not yet (maybe in API0.7)
> thus it needs something to mark
> object as polygon.
No. Most of the polygons do not require a tag "area" (amenity,
building, landuse, leisure, landuse).
> There are some tags that i
On 4/25/2012 4:53 AM, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Because a railway platform is usually drawn as a single line (as is a pier).
Omitting area=yes gives a hole in the middle.
Sounds "tagging for the renderer"...
Where did I mention a renderer? If y
miau.
OSM does not have "area" object, thus it needs something to mark
object as polygon.
There are some tags that insist that a line/relation is filled inside.
These are area=yes and type=multipolygon.
All the other tags may mean either line or a polygon depending on
context. Sometimes context
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> Because a railway platform is usually drawn as a single line (as is a pier).
> Omitting area=yes gives a hole in the middle.
Sounds "tagging for the renderer"...
Pieren
___
Tagging mailing l
On 4/25/2012 3:39 AM, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
It's not highway only. For example, it can be used on railway=platform:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/94063273
or man_made=pier: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/71124853
Thanks for
The german article still has the recommendation of adding area=yes.
One of the biggest problems in the wiki is the fact, that very often
articles in different languages are not really translations, but
different articles.
As the tag railway=platform is applicable to areas as well, according
to ar
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> It's not highway only. For example, it can be used on railway=platform:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/94063273
> or man_made=pier: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/71124853
Thanks for pointing that out. I see that sile
52 matches
Mail list logo
