Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?
On 27/5/20 9:40 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote: then why are there tags ? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway and if the platform posts are still there ? Those tags are for things that are still there, if what remains is still identifiable as a building/railway/road/bridge then that should be mapped in OSM. Historic things should be mapped into OHM, even if they are no longer there or still remain ( a start and end date are usefull in OHM as a date slider can be used to revel what is there at that date). Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:52 PM -05:00 from Jack Armstrong : Thanks. I'll try that. From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > Advise them to enter the historic railway into OHM ... or any historic object for that matter. This satisfies them that the object is mapped and frees OSM from it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?
(1) sorry for an empty email send earlier (2) we have plenty of things that should not be added https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/mapper - single paid mapping group produced 800 000+ instances of an unwanted tag (they promised recently to fix it) (3) sometimes this tags are used to describe still existing remains that is OK, though I would tag it differently (map existing embankment rather that railway that used to be located on still existing embankment) (4) Wiki documents used tags, not just desirable ones In some cases it documents tags as a very bad idea. (5) Some people thought/think that mapping completely gone objects in OSM is OK. AFAIK they used to be more prominent in the past. May 27, 2020, 01:40 by talk@openstreetmap.org: > then why are there tags ? > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway > > and if the platform posts are still there ? > > >> Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:52 PM -05:00 from Jack Armstrong >> : >> >> Thanks. I'll try that. >> >> >>> From: Warin <>>> 61sundow...@gmail.com >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Advise them to enter the historic railway into OHM ... or any historic >>> object for that matter. This satisfies them that the object is mapped and >>> frees OSM from it. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?
May 27, 2020, 01:40 by talk@openstreetmap.org: > then why are there tags ? > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway > > and if the platform posts are still there ? > > >> Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:52 PM -05:00 from Jack Armstrong >> : >> >> Thanks. I'll try that. >> >> >>> From: Warin <>>> 61sundow...@gmail.com >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Advise them to enter the historic railway into OHM ... or any historic >>> object for that matter. This satisfies them that the object is mapped and >>> frees OSM from it. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > > > >___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?
then why are there tags ? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway and if the platform posts are still there ? >Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:52 PM -05:00 from Jack Armstrong >: > >Thanks. I'll try that. > >>From: Warin < 61sundow...@gmail.com > >> >>Advise them to enter the historic railway into OHM ... or any historic object >>for that matter. This satisfies them that the object is mapped and frees OSM >>from it. > > > >___ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?
Thanks. I'll try that.From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Advise them to enter the historic railway into OHM ... or any historic object for that matter. This satisfies them that the object is mapped and frees OSM from it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CyclOSM Lite a new cycling infrastructure map layer
The concept is understood outside Germany and actually rendered in CyclOSM It's more or less the same concept as cyclestreet=yes, we render it the same way. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cyclestreet Example in Netherland https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=18/51.56239/5.07029/cyclosm Example in Germany https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=17/49.88046/8.66031/cyclosm And yes, CyclOSM Lite should render it also. https://github.com/cyclosm/cyclosm-cartocss-style/issues/380 Bicycle parking will not be rendered, only road infrastructure. The legend is crafted by hand with sometime much pain ':) Le mar. 26 mai 2020 à 18:05, Marc M. a écrit : > Hello, > > Le 26.05.20 à 17:52, Hartmut Holzgraefe a écrit : > > it doesn't even really matter: such rows should be > > visible in the overlay, even if simply rendered the same > > as "normal" cycleways ... > > on the contrary, it probably matters ! > I'm not surprised that a tag that is incomprehensible outside > its country of origin is not rendered by a style that does not > come from its country. > Despite all the explanations, at worst, it should have been > a value in cycleway, for ex cycleway=bicycle_road (or =road ?) > > Regards, > Marc > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Florimond Berthoux ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CyclOSM Lite a new cycling infrastructure map layer
May 26, 2020, 15:53 by talk@openstreetmap.org: > > > On 26/05/2020 09:19, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: > >> >> sorry, my fault, it is bicycle_road=yes in addition to highway=* >> (usually residential) >> >> and it isn't a cycleway as it is a regular road that is either blocked >> for most motor vehicles, >> > > Then that's a cycleway. Irrelevant of construction (width, surface, kerbs, > drainage) if only bike riders are allowed along it, then it's a cycleway. > "blocked for most motor vehicles" vs "if only bike riders are allowed along it" bicycle_road have some limited motor traffic allowed on it, cycleway none or extremely limited (emergency vehicles etc) >> or -- unfortunately more common -- that motor >> vehicles may also use, but with bicycles having priority. >> > > There's no mention of that on the English wiki page. Looks more like a > standard residential road with 'drivers be aware - there are cyclists about. > "bicycles having priority" may be an important difference worth tagging ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CyclOSM Lite a new cycling infrastructure map layer
Hello, Le 26.05.20 à 17:52, Hartmut Holzgraefe a écrit : > it doesn't even really matter: such rows should be > visible in the overlay, even if simply rendered the same > as "normal" cycleways ... on the contrary, it probably matters ! I'm not surprised that a tag that is incomprehensible outside its country of origin is not rendered by a style that does not come from its country. Despite all the explanations, at worst, it should have been a value in cycleway, for ex cycleway=bicycle_road (or =road ?) Regards, Marc ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CyclOSM Lite a new cycling infrastructure map layer
On 2020-05-26 15:53, Dave F via talk wrote: > > > On 26/05/2020 09:19, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: >> >> sorry, my fault, it is bicycle_road=yes in addition to highway=* >> (usually residential) >> >> and it isn't a cycleway as it is a regular road that is either blocked >> for most motor vehicles, > > Then that's a cycleway. Irrelevant of construction (width, surface, > kerbs, drainage) if only bike riders are allowed along it, then it's a > cycleway. > well, tagging reality disagrees, and it is also a different legal construct than a cycleway here in Germany. By that logic you could also say we don't need highway=pedestrian as irrelevant of construction it is just a footway ... >> or -- unfortunately more common -- that motor >> vehicles may also use, but with bicycles having priority. > > There's no mention of that on the English wiki page. Looks more like a > standard residential road with 'drivers be aware - there are cyclists > about. There is, although it is somewhat hidden. It starts with "In Germany the following tags are implied but they are usually still tagged: vehicle=no (all vehicles are prohibited) bicycle=designated (except bicycles, road is designated for this vehicle type)" but at least in my area most of these roads have the extra "motor_vehicle=yes" from the bottom of the "additional signs" list. Also legally it is not just "be aware of cyclists" (for that we have a different sign, white triangle with red outline and a bicycle icon), it is "this road is primarily for bicycles, in case of conflict, e.g. if a space is too tight to pass for both at the same time, the motor vehicle has to stand back", and it also comes with an implicit max. speed of 30km/h for motor vehicles, among other restrictions ... While for the "pure" bycicle_road I'd somewhat agree to "these are just extra wide cycleways", but for those with "motor vehicles allowed" exception (which is more like the norm in my area) it is really a different class of road. But in the end it doesn't even really matter: such rows should be visible in the overlay, even if simply rendered the same as "normal" cycleways ... -- hartmut ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CyclOSM Lite a new cycling infrastructure map layer
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:22 AM James wrote: > and if pedestrians are allowed on it: > > highway=path > segregated=no > Maybe. If it clearly has lanes marked out, I tend to consider this a cycleway even if there's no sidewalk as it was clearly built for bicycles a forethought with minimal, if any, consideration for pedestrians in such a case. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CyclOSM Lite a new cycling infrastructure map layer
and if pedestrians are allowed on it: highway=path segregated=no On Tue., May 26, 2020, 9:58 a.m. Dave F via talk, wrote: > > > On 26/05/2020 09:19, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: > > > > sorry, my fault, it is bicycle_road=yes in addition to highway=* > > (usually residential) > > > > and it isn't a cycleway as it is a regular road that is either blocked > > for most motor vehicles, > > Then that's a cycleway. Irrelevant of construction (width, surface, > kerbs, drainage) if only bike riders are allowed along it, then it's a > cycleway. > > > or -- unfortunately more common -- that motor > > vehicles may also use, but with bicycles having priority. > > There's no mention of that on the English wiki page. Looks more like a > standard residential road with 'drivers be aware - there are cyclists > about. > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CyclOSM Lite a new cycling infrastructure map layer
On 26/05/2020 09:19, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: sorry, my fault, it is bicycle_road=yes in addition to highway=* (usually residential) and it isn't a cycleway as it is a regular road that is either blocked for most motor vehicles, Then that's a cycleway. Irrelevant of construction (width, surface, kerbs, drainage) if only bike riders are allowed along it, then it's a cycleway. or -- unfortunately more common -- that motor vehicles may also use, but with bicycles having priority. There's no mention of that on the English wiki page. Looks more like a standard residential road with 'drivers be aware - there are cyclists about. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CyclOSM Lite a new cycling infrastructure map layer
On 2020-05-26 10:00, Marc M. wrote: >> I'm missing highway=bicycle_road being rendered > > only one https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=bicycle_road :) > why it isn't a highway=cycleway ? sorry, my fault, it is bicycle_road=yes in addition to highway=* (usually residential) and it isn't a cycleway as it is a regular road that is either blocked for most motor vehicles, or -- unfortunately more common -- that motor vehicles may also use, but with bicycles having priority. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bicycle_road#overview ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?
On 25/5/20 2:37 pm, Jack Armstrong wrote: Greetings. Recently, a user mapped “razed” railways inside a construction zone (link below). These rails had been removed by our local mappers since they don’t exist anymore. Using the latest imagery (Maxar), you can see the rails have been completely removed from “Project 70”, a $1.2 billion Denver-area transportation corridor construction project. I think this mapper has good intentions, but what is the point of mapping something that does not exist? Doesn’t this clearly contradict the OSM Good Practice wiki in regards the sections, “Verifiability”, “Map what's on the ground” and “Don't map historic events and historic features”? The last section states, "*Do not map objects if they do not exist currently*." Should we tag (invisible) razed sidewalks? Should we leave (invisible) destroyed buildings in place, tag them as razed and then create new buildings on top of them? https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/39.78016/-104.94562 Advise them to enter the historic railway into OHM ... or any historic object for that matter. This satisfies them that the object is mapped and frees OSM from it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CyclOSM Lite a new cycling infrastructure map layer
Hello, Le 26.05.20 à 09:36, Hartmut Holzgraefe a écrit : > I'm missing highway=bicycle_road being rendered only one https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=bicycle_road :) why it isn't a highway=cycleway ? Regards, Marc ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CyclOSM Lite a new cycling infrastructure map layer
On 2020-05-25 16:19, Florimond Berthoux wrote: > Hello, > > For a local project we worked on a new cycle layer map with only road > cycling infrastructure : cycle track, lane, bus lane, opposite. > The idea is to use this transparent layer over other map where full > cycle map is not desirable. looking at my area I'm missing highway=bicycle_road being rendered (and maybe bicycle parking facilities, too) And in rather unrelated news I'm wondering whether you generated that nice map legend sidebar with some automated tool, or by hand? -- hartmut ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
