do we really have to map this explicitly with relations? Can’t you already see
them from the waterway and ridge data? IIRR, people have been rendering maps
for these in the past by just analyzing existing waterway data, no need for
explicit watersheds.
Re: "Data consumers have a right to being able to interpret the data as the
mapper intended"
For data users, it would be most useful if the coastline is in a consistent
position in relation to the sea and land, clearly.
In the past, it was decided that the coastline would represent the high
tide
"do we really have to map this explicitly with relations? Can’t you already
see them from the waterway and ridge data?"
1) Ridges are missing in many parts of the world, partially because they
are not rendered, but also because it might not be clear how they can be
useful. The presence of
I believe some waterways in Australia will flow away from wherever the
rain happens to fall ...
That is a produce not just of the flatness of the terrain but also to
the quantity of rain - there can be 5 years of rainfall delivered in a
single day.
Someone has put in the Australian Great
Christoph,
So you believe the ridges are verifiable (and the network of waterways, I
assume), but potentially parts of the watershed would not be verifiable
because eg. terrain is too flat? I was thinking that in fairly flat areas
it is still possbile to see which way water flows in drainage
(Sorry, Lake Habema is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8688509)
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:12 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> Christoph,
> So you believe the ridges are verifiable (and the network of waterways, I
> assume), but potentially parts of the watershed would not be verifiable
>
On Thursday 13 September 2018, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Relations of type=watershed are currently used over 2000 times and
> there is a descriptive Wiki page but no proposal. (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:watershed)
>
> It would be useful to have a relation that showed drainage
"In fact this does occur, a river can disappear into the sand!
And some lakes have no outflow."
Right, these are called an "endorheic basin"; an area where the water flow
does not reach the ocean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorheic_basin
In one of my examples above, the river disappears into
On Thursday 13 September 2018, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Christoph,
> So you believe the ridges are verifiable (and the network of
> waterways, I assume), but potentially parts of the watershed would
> not be verifiable because eg. terrain is too flat?
There are many reasons why a the watershed
Here in Georgia (USA) I believe we call these types of lanes "passing
lanes". But that's usually only in reference to the left lane. You
generally stay to the right except to pass.
https://www.dawsonnews.com/local/gdot-remove-hwy-53-passing-lane/
Kevin
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Dave
In California the narrow mountain roads will have “turn outs”. These are very
short, basically just enough room for a vehicle to pull over and stop to allow
others to pass. These are signed in advance with something like “Turn out 500
ft ahead”.
There are also “passing lane” signs for areas
Tod writes:
>In California the narrow mountain roads will have “turn outs”. These are
very short, basically just enough room for a >vehicle to pull over and stop
to allow others to pass. These are signed in advance with something like
“Turn out 500 ft >ahead”.
These are tagged in OSM, according
sent from a phone
> On 13. Sep 2018, at 10:02, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> "do we really have to map this explicitly with relations? Can’t you already
> see them from the waterway and ridge data?"
>
> 1) Ridges are missing in many parts of the world, partially because they are
> not
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:02 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> you’ll have to put the ridges to map the watersheds anyway, the catchment
> basin is implicit with the waterways, coastlines and ridges.
>
> If there are names or other properties for the watersheds and catchment
> basins in play,
Thx. Two follow-up questions.
(A)
I had a look at a place to which - if I'm not mistaken - you contributed to [1]
and I see what you mean.
Still, I'm curious why we wouldn't use the "role" attributes of a relation to
*explicitly* qualify the outer polygon as the "parent" of the parking spaces
I've worked extensively with the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) from
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. I think it may be helpful (maybe) to look
at the way they delineate estuarine and marine habitats. Their
classification methods are described in this document...
sent from a phone
> On 13. Sep 2018, at 22:35, OSMDoudou
> <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> What do you think ?
I’m hardly using the site relation because you can express almost everything
spatially (a (multi-) polygon for the site, everything inside is
Seems you are confusing passing places [1], i.e. a short widening on a
road, with lanes for slow moving vehicles [2,3], which can have a
length of several kilometres.
[1]:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scotland_Kinlochewe_SingleTrackRoad.jpg
[2]:
I do see why a parking is different from a university. If there is 1
polygon in which everything is placed, there is no need for a site
relation.
The argument of 1 scheme is also strange, because you do make a
difference for a university with 1 campus (you are not using a site
relation there) vs.
*@OSMDoudou :*
At the moment, i only used the role entrance for the underground parking
site relation with some parking_entrance, because it was suggested by JOSM.
Roles could be used when the situation is complicated (ex : no clear
perimeter exist -> like for underground parking), it may then be
Currently the primary language of a place can be guessed by looking at the
name=* tags and comparing to name:= or loc_name, if you can
read the local characters and know the language.
For example, by looking at the map in Pakistan, I can tell that they use
Arabic characters to name places and
I have been ignoring bus bays for several years and I'm happy we now have a
way to tag them. These extra lanes are very similar, so I'd say that is the
way to go for mapping them. No need for a preset, you'll find that the
double split map mode in PT_Assistant is a lot more practical to split a
[Off list, I've had my say on list]
> In the past, it was decided that the coastline would represent the high
tide line, and the first OSM mappers generally put the coastline up at the
tidal limit of rivers (which were easy to verify for them, because there is
usually a dam or weir at that
23 matches
Mail list logo
