Tom Hughes writes:
For the record I personally was perfectly happy to see things like long
obliterated railways removed from the standard rendering.
Railway=dismantled was never in the standard rendering. It was
railway=abandoned which was removed. I think you should be less than
perfectly
On 25/07/2014 20:18, Andy Street wrote:
Yes this is a bug. I would have reported it myself but it appears that
you need a GitHub account to do that rather than a standard OSM
account. Please feel free to report it on my behalf.
For info, I've created
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:51:24 -0700
Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
* Cleaning up path rendering on low zooms
(https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/747)
Is there any chance this could be tweaked slightly? A lot of the
public footpaths near me are now disappearing
It is a tagging error to tag public footways as access=private. Can you
give an example? It seems that I miss something in this case.
2014-07-25 13:52 GMT+02:00 Andy Street a...@street.me.uk:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:51:24 -0700
Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
* Cleaning up path
No, it is not a tagging error. It is a direct result of the unholy mess
created by the definition of the path tag. Often the only way to tag
working access restrictions on highway=path, is to first close it with
access=no/private and then opening it up with more specific tags like
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:58:18 +0200
Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a tagging error to tag public footways as access=private. Can
you give an example? It seems that I miss something in this case.
It's a public footpath i.e. private property over which the public has
been
On 25/07/2014 13:21, Andy Street wrote:
It's a public footpath i.e. private property over which the public has
been granted a right of access (on foot). Since everything but
pedestrian access is not permitted it therefore tagged as
access=private, foot=yes.
This isn't Andy's example, but is
IMHO it is a tagging error as it should be tagged as [highway=footway;
foot=permissive]
Using yes rather than permissive also seems to be wrong in this case.
2014-07-25 14:21 GMT+02:00 Andy Street a...@street.me.uk:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:58:18 +0200
Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com
Am 7/25/14 14:21 , schrieb Andy Street:
It's a public footpath i.e. private property over which the public has
been granted a right of access (on foot). Since everything but
pedestrian access is not permitted it therefore tagged as
access=private, foot=yes.
Not an expert here, but this sounds
On 25/07/2014 13:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
IMHO it is a tagging error as it should be tagged as [highway=footway;
foot=permissive]
Using yes rather than permissive also seems to be wrong in this case.
Is my highway=track example also a tagging error?
Cheers,
Andy
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:16:34 +0200
Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
No, it is not a tagging error. It is a direct result of the unholy
mess created by the definition of the path tag. Often the only way to
tag working access restrictions on highway=path, is to first close it
with
I was under the impression more shops would be displayed than
previously?
So far I'm seeing fewer, a notable example being liquor stores that have
now vanished from visual.
Examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2939951075
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2125818740
Also worrying that
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:41:44 +0200
Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO it is a tagging error as it should be tagged as [highway=footway;
foot=permissive]
Using yes rather than permissive also seems to be wrong in this case.
It isn't permissive as the landowner does not have the
From this description - I would tag it as highway=footway (as for public it
is a footway and I guess that it is used
primarily as footway, not as a driveway) with vehicle=private (as owner may
use it this way). I am unsure about
value of foot tag, but I probably would leave default value as
Both linked shops are displayed.
2014-07-25 14:59 GMT+02:00 Jóhannes Birgir Jensson j...@betra.is:
I was under the impression more shops would be displayed than previously?
So far I'm seeing fewer, a notable example being liquor stores that have
now vanished from visual.
Examples:
On my screen I see a purple dot in zoom 19, the address number at zoom
18 and nothing in zoom 17. Before I was a basket with a wine bottle or
similar.
Þann 25.07.2014 13:04, Mateusz Konieczny reit:
Both linked shops are displayed.
2014-07-25 14:59 GMT+02:00 Jóhannes Birgir Jensson
Still, I think that it is better to use cascading tags - put as much
valuable info in basic tags (highway and access in this case)
so it is not be necessary to process all tags to achieve good results.
So [highway=footway] it can be used by pedestrians, maybe
[highway=footway; vehicle=private] it
Addendum: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2939951086 is a sport shop,
only displayed as the address number as well.
On my screen I see a purple dot in zoom 19, the address number at zoom
18 and nothing in zoom 17. Before a liquor store was a basket with a
wine bottle or
similar.
So I'm
2014-07-25 15:03 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
From this description - I would tag it as highway=footway (as for public
it is a footway and I guess that it is used
primarily as footway, not as a driveway) with vehicle=private (as owner
may use it this way). I am unsure
On 25/07/2014 14:03, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
From this description - I would tag it as highway=footway (as for
public it is a footway and I guess that it is used
primarily as footway, not as a driveway)
It's not used primarily as a footway - it's primarily a track used to
access farmland
On 25/07/14 14:51, SomeoneElse wrote:
I do get the impression that these changes haven't really been thought
through at all - no thought given to what the impact will be worldwide
(as opposed to a couple of well-mapped cities), no thought about tablet
or phone access, no attempt at QA (to let
On 25/07/14 15:20, SomeoneElse wrote:
On 25/07/2014 15:03, Tom Hughes wrote:
How about assuming good intent ...
No-one's suggesting anything other than people wanting to make the
standard layer better. It's better for what that's the issue. I
think that we ought to be making a map style
On 25/07/2014 15:03, Tom Hughes wrote:
How about assuming good intent ...
No-one's suggesting anything other than people wanting to make the
standard layer better. It's better for what that's the issue. I
think that we ought to be making a map style that better helps people
navigate to
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:18:16 +0200
Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote:
[highway=footway; vehicle=private] it can
be used by pedestrians but some people may drive here
The trouble is that you are merging the distinction between highway
and access. Your example above would, to me,
On 25/07/2014 15:26, Tom Hughes wrote:
Traditionally we have always said that out web site is aimed at
supporting mappers
That certainly used to be the case, but the most recent series of
changes have all being about showing less rather than showing more.
How does that support mappers?
On 25/07/14 15:33, SomeoneElse wrote:
On 25/07/2014 15:26, Tom Hughes wrote:
For the record I personally was perfectly happy to see things like
long obliterated railways removed from the standard rendering.
We never (well not for 5 years or so?) rendered dismantled railways -
it's the
2014-07-25 16:38 GMT+02:00 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu:
I would dispute the claim that the Hertford East-North link is in any
way a significant feature in the landscape.
Looking at this http://www.hertford.net/images/Hertford_East_Sidings.jpg it
seems to be.
looking here it doesn't seem to
2014-07-25 16:20 GMT+02:00 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk:
On 25/07/2014 15:03, Tom Hughes wrote:
How about assuming good intent ...
No-one's suggesting anything other than people wanting to make the
standard layer better. It's better for what that's the issue. I think
that we
The issue with services seems to be already noticed and fixed - see
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/730
2014-07-25 16:30 GMT+02:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
Hi
Good to see updates for the mapnik rendering.
Unsure if these two problems are directly linked to
On 25/07/14 15:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-07-25 16:38 GMT+02:00 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu
mailto:t...@compton.nu:
I would dispute the claim that the Hertford East-North link is in
any way a significant feature in the landscape.
Looking at this
On Friday 25 July 2014, Christian Quest wrote:
On the first zoom levels, I think we can put the priority on map
users a little bit more... but as map contributors are more checking
their work at the highest zoom levels we should stick with strict
rendering showing errors. Doing more than that
On 25 July 2014 12:52, Andy Street a...@street.me.uk wrote:
* Cleaning up path rendering on low zooms
(https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/747)
Is there any chance this could be tweaked slightly? A lot of the
public footpaths near me are now disappearing completely
at
On 25 July 2014 13:59, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson j...@betra.is wrote:
I was under the impression more shops would be displayed than previously?
So far I'm seeing fewer, a notable example being liquor stores that have now
vanished from visual.
Examples:
Hi Tom,
On 25 July 2014 15:26, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Traditionally we have always said that out web site is aimed at supporting
mappers and not at providing end user services like helping people navigate
- we provide the data to let other people build services like that.
I have
On 25 July 2014 15:30, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
highway=services (ie service stations where you can get a drink/meal etc) as
an area are rendering as a high level layer hiding detail such as car parks.
Can this be put at a lower level?
I created an issue for that here:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:01:40 +0100
Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote:
On 25 July 2014 12:52, Andy Street a...@street.me.uk wrote:
* Cleaning up path rendering on low zooms
(https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/747)
Is there any chance this could be
So it is. Just came through now, with a bit of refreshing.
Thanks
Dave F.
On 25/07/2014 15:57, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
The issue with services seems to be already noticed and fixed - see
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/730
2014-07-25 16:30 GMT+02:00 Dave F.
I just hope that the 'tertiary_link' casing problem can be fixed soon. In some
places, that looks horrible.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
I just hope that the 'tertiary_link' casing problem can be fixed soon. In some
places, that looks horrible.
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/753
-James
It's great to see the default map layer finally moving forward!
Janko
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
+1. Really great job, thank you guys :)
*François Lacombe*
francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com
2014-07-23 11:38 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com:
It's great to see the default map layer finally moving forward!
Janko
v2.17.0 of the openstreetmap-carto stylesheet has been released, though
not yet deployed on tile.osm.org.
Significant changes include
* Rendering other shop values with a generic icon
(https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/604)
* Rendering wider road shields, and converting
42 matches
Mail list logo
