On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The whole point of using an area is that it doesn't behave like a
line, though. If all you have is a line with a width, use a line with
a width tag.
Is it? Perhaps I missed the start of the conversation. I had presumed
the whole
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The whole point of using an area is that it doesn't behave like a
line, though. If all you have is a line with a width, use a line with
a width tag.
Is
A thought occurred to me, that people are only planning to use areas
because editors don't easily allow for widths to be entered
graphically.
I wonder how much work it would be if you could draw the way and then
stretch it sideways to fill out the extact area you wanted covered and
then the
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:03:46 +0200, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
A thought occurred to me, that people are only planning to use areas
because editors don't easily allow for widths to be entered
graphically.
I wonder how much work it would be if you could draw the way and
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Teemu Koskinen teemu.koski...@mbnet.fi wrote:
With areas you can explicitly map how neighboring ways are connected to
each other, this is useful for sidewalks, lanes etc. If we were to map the
ways with only simple way with a width, a relation would be needed to
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Without good editor support, mapping highways as areas is already
quite cumbersome.
It's not so bad, for areas with good aerial imagery (I wouldn't call
tracing cumbersome). And yes, not everywhere has good aerial
imagery, but then
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:03 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
A thought occurred to me, that people are only planning to use areas
because editors don't easily allow for widths to be entered
graphically.
To some extent, perhaps... but the real reason is because the inherent
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Without good editor support, mapping highways as areas is already
quite cumbersome.
It's not so bad, for areas with good aerial imagery (I wouldn't call
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Nice idea, BUT then you are limited to a series of rectangles. In some
situations, I think that will be too restrictive for not much gain.
A series of quadrilaterals, perhaps. If width=10, then 50 metres
later, width =15,
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Nice idea, BUT then you are limited to a series of rectangles. In some
situations, I think that will be too restrictive for not much gain.
A series of quadrilaterals, perhaps. If width=10, then 50 metres
later, width
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
interpolation. But approximation with trapezoids or whatever is a bit
fudgye.g. what if you *do* want to represent an instantaneous
change in width?
I can think of several options, and I'm sure you can too :)
My
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
interpolation. But approximation with trapezoids or whatever is a bit
fudgye.g. what if you *do* want to represent an instantaneous
change
On Nov 29, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
From the point of view of a map, a road really
is a line...that happens to have some width and shape. Mapping it as
an area makes it primarily a chunk of asphalt...that you happen to be
able to drive along to get somewhere.
Hmm...I think these
Using areas seems like a lot of work for no benefit if you just need a
simple 2 lane road that has no foot paths or other interesting
features.
Are you saying that you wouldn't find mapping areas satisfying? If so,
that's fine - you don't have to.
But for people who want to do it, they
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Richard Bullock rb...@cantab.net wrote:
For renderers:
* nearly all maps exaggerate road width except when really zoomed in. A
30-35 metre wide motorway would appear almost insignificant at z levels less
than 10 or 12 - but this is precisely the opposite
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Richard Bullock rb...@cantab.net wrote:
In summary, I have no problem with people mapping everything as areas;
however, I believe for the moment we will have to use both areas and ways.
If you're going to use an area and a way, don't tag them both with
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I missed the crucial bit, but presumably any area=yes highway
has an implicit line running down the middle of it. The renderer would
use that line at lower zoom levels exactly as it uses any other line.
That kind
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o)
stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping
everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we
go for it now
On 25/11/09 21:59, Roy Wallace wrote:
This raises another interesting question, that is, whether highways=*
should *necessarily* express logical paths of travel, or whether
they are just a convenient way to represent an *area* used as a path
of travel, as a placeholder for future, more
I've been seeing this thread develop, and apart from trying to use
areas and relations in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways wouldn't
it be simpler from a logical point of view to treat ways as a grouping
of lanes and those lanes can be assigned tags that differ from the
ways, such as
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 5:47 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been seeing this thread develop, and apart from trying to use
areas and relations in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways wouldn't
it be simpler from a logical point of view to treat ways as a grouping
of lanes
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:47 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Using areas seems like a lot of work for no benefit if you just need a
simple 2 lane road that has no foot paths or other interesting
features.
Yeah, that would be a bad place to use an area :). Areas would be
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
But for people who want to do it [map areas], they should be able to. That's
what
this thread is about - giving them a way to map the world more
accurately, if that's what they're into.
Right now, what's stopping them?
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
But for people who want to do it [map areas], they should be able to. That's
what
this thread is about - giving them a way to map the world more
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
But for people who want to do it [map areas], they should be able to.
That's what
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Right now, what's stopping them?
Documentation. Or, in other words, at least some suggestions as to how
to do it. For example, you'll notice that Map Features states that
highway's are ways, not areas.
Weird.
2009/11/28 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 5:47 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been seeing this thread develop, and apart from trying to use
areas and relations in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways wouldn't
it be simpler from a logical
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Right now, what's stopping them?
Documentation. Or, in other words, at least some suggestions as to how
to do it. For example, you'll notice that Map
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:32 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Is a lane a directed area? If it isn't an area, then it's not really
relevant to this thread, is it?
That depends if you are you only after opinions that agree with yours,
or if you really want a solution to a
On 25/11/2009, at 14.11, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o)
stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping
everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense.
Should we
go for it now ?
Talking about
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
On 25/11/2009, at 14.11, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
The map-drawing approach is valuable in OSM because it allows us to
indicate residential areas parks, etc. However, in addition, OSM has
a graph-based approach for a description of the network of roads
which makes
On 26/11/2009, at 09.47, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
Conversely, there isn't much you can do with graphs that can't be done
with areas, and since the map-drawing approach has great appeal to
people enjoying beautiful and detailed maps, the pressure for
deprecating the graph-based approach in
2009/11/26 Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.dk:
So for example, if the multiplex in the example represents an intersection,
you would connect B-D (left turn from B), B-F (going straigh ahead from
B), B - D (right turn from B). And so on, to make all other possible
connections inside the
Anthony wrote:
2009/11/26 Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.dk:
So for example, if the multiplex in the example represents an intersection,
you would connect B-D (left turn from B), B-F (going straigh ahead from
B), B - D (right turn from B). And so on, to make all other possible
connections
2009/11/26 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
2009/11/26 Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.dk:
How would you measure the distance from, for example, B-D? It's not
a straight line.
A minor error, I suppose, for an intersection, especially a simple
intersection like the one you've outlined, but if the
Morten,
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.dk wrote:
It is indeed true that this concept could be expanded to deal with, say, a
six-lane highway, a cloverleaf intersection, etc. Fascinating...
Well, the internal connections would be constructed from nodes and
Anthony wrote:
Morten,
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.dk wrote:
It is indeed true that this concept could be expanded to deal with, say, a
six-lane highway, a cloverleaf intersection, etc. Fascinating...
Well, the internal connections would be constructed
On 26/11/2009, at 11.13, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
On 25/11/2009, at 14.11, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
The map-drawing approach is valuable in OSM because it allows us to
indicate residential areas parks, etc. However, in addition, OSM has
a graph-based approach for a
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote:
Maybe lines and areas each serve a different purpose : areas describe
the physical layout of the world whereas lines describe navigation
paths. So maybe the debate should be re-framed as whether OpenStreetMap
wants to
Roy Wallace wrote:
Re: Morten's suggestion of a multiplex, is that just for
intersections? If not, could you explain how you would use a
multiplex to map a road or lane as a directed area?
It's for everything that you'd like to draw as an area, but that needs to
connect to the road network.
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:11:29 +0100, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org
wrote:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o)
stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping
everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we
go for
2009/11/25 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o)
stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping
everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we
go for it now ?
Mapping the crossing of
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 13:11, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o)
stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping
everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we
go for it now ?
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote:
Mapping the crossing of two roads, four cycleways and four sidewalks all
as surfaces requires about twenty times as many nodes as mapping the
crossing of two linear roads. That is a hefty increase in complexity,
Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o)
stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping
everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we
go for it now ?
Imo, area mapping is too advanced for now.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Isn't it better in most situations to have both (ways and areas)
rather than just one or the other?
At an intersection, yes, there is one squarish section of road that I
am capable of traveling on in any spot in any direction.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not convinced that, say, a road should be mapped as *both* a way
and an area - I don't see any need for that.
If the road doesn't have a constant width you basically need an area.
Now, how are you going to indicate a
2009/11/25 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de
Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o)
stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping
everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we
go for it
2009/11/25 Anthony o...@inbox.org
I didn't know that was up for debate. I thought the consensus was
that they should not only share nodes, but they should share ways as
well.
no, I don't think that's a good idea as the resulting multipolygons make the
situation unnecessarily complicated.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/11/25 Anthony o...@inbox.org
I didn't know that was up for debate. I thought the consensus was
that they should not only share nodes, but they should share ways as
well.
no, I don't think that's a good
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb:
2009/11/25 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de
Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o)
stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping
everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Wow. I hope you're in the minority on that one, because now that I
discovered multipolygon relations there's no way I'm going back to
mapping the exact same line three times (e.g. to represent a park
adjacent to a residential area separated by a fence).
That's certainly
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/11/25 Anthony o...@inbox.org
I didn't know that was up for debate. I thought the consensus was
that they should not only share nodes, but they should share ways as
well.
no, I don't think that's
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
There have been several discussions whether area borders - such as
landuse areas - should use the same nodes as streets they are adjacent
to. Iirc, some participants complained that sharing nodes causes editing
problems
2009/11/26 Anthony o...@inbox.org
losing method into the winning method. By that time we'll have every
single area of the globe (except maybe the oceans) covered by an area,
right? :)
or even by several areas and inside even more boundaries... ;-)
cheers,
Martin
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/11/26 Anthony o...@inbox.org
losing method into the winning method. By that time we'll have every
single area of the globe (except maybe the oceans) covered by an area,
right? :)
or even by several
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Now, how are you going to indicate a direction of travel on an area?
I guess you could come up with some way to do it, but you'd basically
be defining a way.
Good point. Anyone got ideas on this? Maybe it is indeed necessary to
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:40:53 +0200, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Now, how are you going to indicate a direction of travel on an area?
I guess you could come up with some way to do it, but you'd basically
be defining
On Nov 25, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Now, how are you going to indicate a direction of travel on an area?
I guess you could come up with some way to do it, but you'd basically
be defining a way.
Good point. Anyone
2009/11/25 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o)
stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping
everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we
go for it now ?
The main usage for this
Michal Migurski wrote:
I think it will be necessary to retain both lines and areas [..]
Maybe lines and areas each serve a different purpose : areas describe
the physical layout of the world whereas lines describe navigation
paths. So maybe the debate should be re-framed as whether OpenStreetMap
61 matches
Mail list logo
