On 04/03/2014 08:56, Lester Caine wrote:
Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
What's unacceptable is taking an area where someone carefully and
deliberately
mapped polygons, and wantonly gluing them, damaging what was done.
Is this happening often these days?
There were many instances in the past where 'new
On 04/03/2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> On 04/03/2014, Bryce Nesbitt wrote
>> If glued polygons are a valid mapping technique, they must be valid
>> mapping
>> technique at any time (initial entry or data maintenance).
>>
>> What's unacceptable is taking an area where someone carefully and
>> d
On 04/03/2014, Bryce Nesbitt wrote
> That's not a good time to be mad.
There's rarely a good time for that :)
> If glued polygons are a valid mapping technique, they must be valid mapping
> technique at any time (initial entry or data maintenance).
>
> What's unacceptable is taking an area where
Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
What's unacceptable is taking an area where someone carefully and deliberately
mapped polygons, and wantonly gluing them, damaging what was done.
Is this happening often these days?
There were many instances in the past where 'new mappers' were tiding up their
local area
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
>
> 2014-03-03 13:19 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo :
>
>>
>> The disambiguating word is "initially". I explicitly say that
>> separating nodes is an improvement. I'm trying to make it clear that
>> "glued vs separate" is a "good vs better" issue,
2014-03-03 13:19 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo :
> The disambiguating word is "initially". I explicitly say that
> separating nodes is an improvement. I'm trying to make it clear that
> "glued vs separate" is a "good vs better" issue, not a "wrong vs
> right" one.
Some users will say that good ta
On 03/03/2014, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> 2014-03-03 13:19 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo :
>> The disambiguating word is "initially". I explicitly say that
>> separating nodes is an improvement. I'm trying to make it clear that
>> "glued vs separate" is a "good vs better" issue, not a "wrong vs
>> right
2014-03-03 13:19 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo :
>
> The disambiguating word is "initially". I explicitly say that
> separating nodes is an improvement. I'm trying to make it clear that
> "glued vs separate" is a "good vs better" issue, not a "wrong vs
> right" one.
>
So if someone starts gluing se
On 03/03/2014, Dave F. wrote:
> On 28/02/2014 00:41, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> Once again : sharing nodes is fine, nobody should give out to you if
>> you initially share nodes between a highway and a park. But it's just
>> an approximation/simplification; not sharing nodes (and giving the
>> pa
On 28/02/2014 00:41, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
Once again : sharing nodes is fine, nobody should give out to you if
you initially share nodes between a highway and a park. But it's just
an approximation/simplification; not sharing nodes (and giving the
park its actual shape) is better. And peopl
2014-02-28 9:42 GMT+01:00 Christian Quest :
> Instead of a "rule", promote this as a best-practice or a guideline...
> that's more in the OSM open spirit.
>
> Something like Validation layer in JOSM.
Janko
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
Instead of a "rule", promote this as a best-practice or a guideline...
that's more in the OSM open spirit.
2014-02-27 19:57 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić :
> I think we can divide features to virtual and physical features.
>
> Virtual: highway centerlines, waterway centerlines, administrative
> border
On 28/02/2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> On 27/02/2014, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
>>
>>> Virtual: highway centerlines, waterway centerlines, administrative
>>> borders, industrial and residental landuse, parks
>>> Physical: riverbanks, buildi
On 27/02/2014, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
>
>> I think we can divide features to virtual and physical features.
>>
>> Virtual: highway centerlines, waterway centerlines, administrative
>> borders, industrial and residental landuse, parks
>> Physi
> Am 27/feb/2014 um 19:57 schrieb Janko Mihelić :
>
> Virtual: highway centerlines, waterway centerlines, administrative borders,
> industrial and residental landuse, parks
> Physical: riverbanks, buildings, meadows, forests, farm fields
>
> Can we make a rule to never share points between the
I suspect that part of the border line is based on rather old and
generalised information, most likely traced from the old "NPE" maps.
When I look at the recent boundary information from OS Boundary Line the
border is clearly to the east of the road, which would explain why the
road markings are
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> I think we can divide features to virtual and physical features.
>
> Virtual: highway centerlines, waterway centerlines, administrative
> borders, industrial and residental landuse, parks
> Physical: riverbanks, buildings, meadows, forests,
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> I think we can divide features to virtual and physical features.
>
> Virtual: highway centerlines, waterway centerlines, administrative
> borders, industrial and residental landuse, parks
> Physical: riverbanks, buildings, meadows, forests,
I think we can divide features to virtual and physical features.
Virtual: highway centerlines, waterway centerlines, administrative borders,
industrial and residental landuse, parks
Physical: riverbanks, buildings, meadows, forests, farm fields
Can we make a rule to never share points between the
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 10:28 -0600, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> Part of the border of Davidson County in Tennessee, USA runs down the
> centerline of a road.
>
>
The village of Llanymynech straddles the England (Shropshire)/Wales
(Powis) border, the border runs up the middle of the main street (A483
Part of the border of Davidson County in Tennessee, USA runs down the
centerline of a road.
On February 26, 2014 12:42:00 PM CST, moltonel 3x Combo
wrote:
>On 26/02/2014, Dave F. wrote:
>> On 26/02/2014 11:16, Maarten Deen wrote:
>>> On 2014-02-26 11:42, Dave F. wrote:
It would be pretty
And sometimes it matters, and sometimes it doesn't. For boundaries
between higher-level administrations with highways responsibility, it
matters. District Councils and Civil Parishes (in the UK) for example
don't usually have highways responsiblities, so won't matter *in this
case* whether the b
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Dave F. wrote:
> On 26/02/2014 01:02, Mike Thompson wrote
> It would be pretty silly to have a municiple boundary splitting the centre
> of a road so different administrations were responsible for maintaining the
> left & the right.
And yet: exactly that is done
2014-02-26 19:43 GMT+01:00 Andrew Hain :
> Jean-Marc Liotier liotier.org>
> writes:
>
> >
> > On 26/02/2014 15:35, Martin
> Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > > I am going even further by saying
> ideally a
> > > landuse=residential/industrial/
> commercial/retail polygon should not
> > > incorporate any pu
2014-02-26 15:56 GMT+01:00 Jean-Marc Liotier :
> But then how do you tag named industrial or commercial zones ? In France
> there are ZI "Zone Industrielle" or ZA 'Zone d'Activité") which include
> public ways.
I would do this with name and place tags.
cheers,
Martin
__
On 26/02/2014 18:42, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
On 26/02/2014, Dave F. wrote:
On 26/02/2014 11:16, Maarten Deen wrote:
On 2014-02-26 11:42, Dave F. wrote:
It would be pretty silly to have a municiple boundary splitting the
centre of a road so different administrations were responsible for
maint
On 26/02/2014 18:34, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
On 26/02/2014, Dave F. wrote:
On 26/02/2014 10:27, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Clifford Snow
Think that, in some parts of the world, you don't have high res.
images and you cannot count the amout of lanes or see the shoulders or
Jean-Marc Liotier liotier.org>
writes:
>
> On 26/02/2014 15:35, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > I am going even further by saying
ideally a
> > landuse=residential/industrial/
commercial/retail polygon should not
> > incorporate any public road at all.
>
> But then how do you tag named
ind
On 26/02/2014, Dave F. wrote:
> On 26/02/2014 10:27, Pieren wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Clifford Snow
>> Think that, in some parts of the world, you don't have high res.
>> images and you cannot count the amout of lanes or see the shoulders or
>> the limit between the road and next
On 26/02/2014, Dave F. wrote:
> On 26/02/2014 11:16, Maarten Deen wrote:
>> On 2014-02-26 11:42, Dave F. wrote:
>>> It would be pretty silly to have a municiple boundary splitting the
>>> centre of a road so different administrations were responsible for
>>> maintaining the left & the right.
>>
>>
On 26/02/2014 15:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I am going even further by saying ideally a
landuse=residential/industrial/commercial/retail polygon should not
incorporate any public road at all.
But then how do you tag named industrial or commercial zones ? In France
there are ZI "Zone Indus
2014-02-26 14:50 GMT+01:00 hbogner :
>
> Yes, that's what I'm saying. Don't attach landuse and other real world
> representing polygons to the road centerline. We should not attach
> landuse=park,grass,cemetary,... to highway=road,primary,secundary, ...
>
>
>
>
I am going even further by saying i
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:02:53PM -0700, Mike Thompson wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be nice if the editors wouldn't allow polygon to connect to
> > highways.
> >
> The edges of some polygons are truly coincident with road centerlines. For
> example, many municipal boundaries.
it is the same problem as
On 02/26/2014 12:11 PM, Dave F. wrote:
On 26/02/2014 10:27, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Clifford Snow
wrote:
5m,10m... and there is no reason to virtualy extend them and falsify
the
real world.
+1
omg. In the "real world", a highway is not a thin polyline...
Yes, that wh
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Dave F. wrote:
> I'm not convinced this is usually true. It maybe UK specific, but
> municipal boundaries were more likely to originally be placed on physical
> boundaries to farms & estates such as walls, fences etc. before
> tracks/roads were developed. Roads su
On 2014-02-26 12:31, Dave F. wrote:
On 26/02/2014 11:16, Maarten Deen wrote:
On 2014-02-26 11:42, Dave F. wrote:
I'm not convinced this is usually true. It maybe UK specific, but
municipal boundaries were more likely to originally be placed on
physical boundaries to farms & estates such as wal
On 26/02/2014 11:16, Maarten Deen wrote:
On 2014-02-26 11:42, Dave F. wrote:
I'm not convinced this is usually true. It maybe UK specific, but
municipal boundaries were more likely to originally be placed on
physical boundaries to farms & estates such as walls, fences etc.
before tracks/roads w
On 2014-02-26 11:42, Dave F. wrote:
On 26/02/2014 01:02, Mike Thompson wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if the editors wouldn't allow polygon to connect
to highways.
The edges of some polygons are truly coincident with road centerlines.
For example, many municipal boundaries.
I'm not convinced
On 26/02/2014 10:27, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Clifford Snow wrote:
5m,10m... and there is no reason to virtualy extend them and falsify the
real world.
+1
omg. In the "real world", a highway is not a thin polyline...
Yes, that why he's saying don't attach it to the cen
Inthe UK the boundaries were there long before road maintenance was thought of.
A couple of real life examples
http://osm.org/go/eu5Dsjb0--?layers =N
The border between Leicestershire and Warwickshire has been split to either
side of Watling Street to solve the problem of maintenance.
The bounda
On 26/02/2014 01:02, Mike Thompson wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if the editors wouldn't allow polygon to connect
to highways.
The edges of some polygons are truly coincident with road centerlines.
For example, many municipal boundaries.
I'm not convinced this is usually true. It maybe UK spe
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Clifford Snow wrote:
>> 5m,10m... and there is no reason to virtualy extend them and falsify the
>> real world.
> +1
omg. In the "real world", a highway is not a thin polyline...
> Wouldn't it be nice if the editors wouldn't allow polygon to connect to
> highways
Clifford Snow wrote:
When editing, it is time consuming to make changes to one when the two are
connected. Leaving the two connect can lead to problems if the editor doesn't
see that they inadvertently moved the other.
Roads are not a special case here ... any way elements that co-exist with ot
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
> The edges of some polygons are truly coincident with road centerlines. For
> example, many municipal boundaries.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean we need to connect roads with
polygons. As was stated in a post from a time past, roads
> Wouldn't it be nice if the editors wouldn't allow polygon to connect to
> highways.
>
The edges of some polygons are truly coincident with road centerlines. For
example, many municipal boundaries.
Mike
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:15 AM, hbogner wrote:
> I'll always make polygon separate from the road.
> One of the reasons is that we mark road only with it's centerline and not
> whole dimensions, shape and width.
> And if we connect the polygon to that centerline we create false data.
> Those fil
> For example if a farm field was
> mapped this way then any barrier for it, such as hedge, gate etc,
> would appear to be on the road as well.
So, for a polygon, the boundary can be tagged for a barrier that
completely encircles the polygon?
Is this all that common? In my experience the barri
On 02/25/2014 07:54 PM, Johan C wrote:
It looks utterly wrong to me when a wall is being put in the middle of a
normal road (I've only seen this in Berlin in the mid 80's, but that was an
actual groundtruth situation at the time). Not to mention that attaching
polygons to roads is very unfriendly
It looks utterly wrong to me when a wall is being put in the middle of a
normal road (I've only seen this in Berlin in the mid 80's, but that was an
actual groundtruth situation at the time). Not to mention that attaching
polygons to roads is very unfriendly to newcomers who will not be able to
sel
This is the changeset: http://tinyurl.com/ndjzpkm
Notice in particular the attachment of the cemetery (that in reality has
a wall boundary) to the middle of a roundabout. As we increasing map to
a finer detail, especially in urban areas, His reversal to a 'blanket'
style coverage is a step bac
On 01:36 2014-02-23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 23/feb/2014 um 00:44 schrieb Minh Nguyen :
A residential subdivision here will often place a decorative fence or hedge along the
road, with a sidewalk in front of it, but the subdivision maintains everything up to the
curb, where the paveme
> Am 23/feb/2014 um 00:44 schrieb Minh Nguyen :
>
> A residential subdivision here will often place a decorative fence or hedge
> along the road, with a sidewalk in front of it, but the subdivision maintains
> everything up to the curb, where the pavement ends (and still owns half the
> land
On 16:02 2014-02-21, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:29 PM, moltonel 3x Combo mailto:molto...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I agree with the "matter of taste" argument insofar as I dont complain
to mappers who initially glue areas to lines. It's just data that can
be improved lik
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:02:19PM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> To say that "the park occupies the space between these four streets" is a
> very reasonable first approximation model.
> It's the micro-mapping that brings up hard to process situations. Imagine
> that same area micromap
> Am 21/feb/2014 um 22:29 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo :
>
> That's the crux of it. Separating the area from the road *is* an
> improvement in itself (at least if you've got high-res imagery to
> place the polygon more precisely). If that changeset gets reverted to
> re-glue the area to the line (e
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:29 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> I agree with the "matter of taste" argument insofar as I dont complain
> to mappers who initially glue areas to lines. It's just data that can
> be improved like any other, and if it "tastes easyer" to that mapper,
> it's fine. You reall
>
>There are many mapping alternatives that are a matter of taste or up
>for debate. But I do think that this particular issue is matematically
>clear-cut, it's basic geometry. See
>https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/17501/when-mapping-polygons-surrounded-by-streets-should-they-share-nodes
On 21/02/2014, Dave F. wrote:
> On 20/02/2014 22:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> On 20.02.2014 23:04, Dave F. wrote:
>> What is *not* ok is one person "cleaning up" after the other without
>> actually adding any other improvement.
In cases that can be likened to a "change code indentation" commit I
a
Dave F. wrote:
This whole question is essentially a matter of taste, and you are
allowed to map according to your taste, and discouraged from enforcing
your taste for others.
Disagree again, I'm afraid. Improving OSM's accuracy supersedes taste.
To clarify I'm only referring to instances of po
Agreed.
If you have a property that is 20m x 100m = 2,000m², you could be adding,
for example, 5m x 100m = 500m² to it by attaching it to the road, resulting
in 2500m², i.e., a *25% increase in area*. A really big accuracy error, in
my opinion.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Dave F. wrote:
>
On 20/02/2014 22:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 20.02.2014 23:04, Dave F. wrote:
There's a general consensus that attaching polygons to ways that
represent roads was a bad idea.
Not really.
There is not a consensus but a ceasefire. Everyone is free to map this
as they like, and to change it
Am 21.02.2014 10:44, schrieb Pieren:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Peter Wendorff
> wrote:
>
>> If the other mapper shares nodes between the road and the field, and the
>> field is surrounded (and tagged as such) with a fence, so the field is
>> e.g. landuse=farmland, barrier=fence, then thi
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
> If the other mapper shares nodes between the road and the field, and the
> field is surrounded (and tagged as such) with a fence, so the field is
> e.g. landuse=farmland, barrier=fence, then this is an error in the map
> as it states that t
Hi Frederik,
I agree - but only in parts.
If the other mapper shares nodes between the road and the field, and the
field is surrounded (and tagged as such) with a fence, so the field is
e.g. landuse=farmland, barrier=fence, then this is an error in the map
as it states that the fence is in the midd
It would be so much simpler if people would just map the area of the road as
landuse=highway, in as similar fashion to landuse=railway.
Shaun
On 20 Feb 2014, at 22:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 20.02.2014 23:04, Dave F. wrote:
>> There's a general consensus that attaching polygons to
Hi,
On 20.02.2014 23:04, Dave F. wrote:
> There's a general consensus that attaching polygons to ways that
> represent roads was a bad idea.
Not really.
There is not a consensus but a ceasefire. Everyone is free to map this
as they like, and to change it if there's a need - e.g. someone else has
What's the username? Changesets?
- Serge
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Dave F. wrote:
> Hi
>
> There's a general consensus that attaching polygons to ways that represent
> roads was a bad idea. For example if a farm field was mapped this way then
> any barrier for it, such as hedge, gate et
How about this?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Areas_and_Ways_Sharing_Nodes
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Dave F. wrote:
> Hi
>
> There's a general consensus that attaching polygons to ways that represent
> roads was a bad idea. For example if a farm fie
Hi
There's a general consensus that attaching polygons to ways that
represent roads was a bad idea. For example if a farm field was mapped
this way then any barrier for it, such as hedge, gate etc, would appear
to be on the road as well.
I have a user who's repeatedly doing this. I've tried
69 matches
Mail list logo
