Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
On 11/08/18 07:02, Andrew Harvey wrote: > No, all highways are areas :) Mapping them as a line is a manual generalization ;) Yes, but you're mapping the road centerline, which isn't a generalization but a real world feature. Mapping the path of a highway as a 'way' is a generalization. This can be extended by adding additional tags to describe all the fine detail such as width, number of lanes, associated cycle and footpaths, and so on, but this is a simplification to the actual fine detail. I'll repeat what I said, 'highway' SHOULD only be attached to a way and not to areas so that we have the simplification for lower resolutions of the data. ADDING areas to map the fine detail that is associated with the information also contained in the additional tags should be tagged by association and not by adding additional 'highway' tags to the areas. IN THAT CASE area=yes could be used to identify that there are associated area objects that can be used on higher resolution mapping. I don't think 'area:highway=' has place especially where the 'centerline' way is used to combine several highway=xxx types such as road,cycleway and footpath ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
On Saturday 11 August 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > The wiki has definitely had problems recently and we should have a > > good discussion about what we want from it. > > I don’t know since when you are following the wiki development, but > from my point of view, there is nothing that would be worse > “recently” that couldn’t have happened 10 years ago. On the contrary, > I think it is now more stable and there are more eyes on it than > before. It seems, questionable edits are often discovered and > reverted within some hours or few days, while it took months and > years when there were only few users. This is part of the problem. There is a certain trend towards a wikipediarization of our wiki in the sense that there are many active editors who essentially try to maintain the status quo in tag documentation, even if it does not represent how a tag is used or who try to document a subjective view what a tag should mean instead of documenting how it is actually used. In other words: If tag documentation pages on the wiki are out of touch with the reality of tag use this is often not the result of undiscovered questionable edits but because active wiki editors want them to be this way or don't care they are this way. We don't really have a mechanism that forces or even incentivizes editors to ensure documentation is accurate. This is not a new phenomenon - like in wikipedia this is a fairly natural result of the transit from expansion (where edits were predominantly writing new documentation) to maintainance (with predominantly changes of existing documentation). -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
sent from a phone > On 11. Aug 2018, at 07:56, Andrew Hain wrote: > > The wiki has definitely had problems recently and we should have a good > discussion about what we want from it. I don’t know since when you are following the wiki development, but from my point of view, there is nothing that would be worse “recently” that couldn’t have happened 10 years ago. On the contrary, I think it is now more stable and there are more eyes on it than before. It seems, questionable edits are often discovered and reverted within some hours or few days, while it took months and years when there were only few users. It definitely helps that pages you edit are automatically added to your watch list “now” (for some time, but not since ever). The scope of the wiki is documenting current mapping practice and osm related software, organizing the community, coordinating tag development. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
> No, all highways are areas :) Mapping them as a line is a manual generalization ;) Yes, but you're mapping the road centerline, which isn't a generalization but a real world feature. On 11 August 2018 at 15:56, Andrew Hain wrote: > The wiki has definitely had problems recently and we should have a good > discussion about what we want from it. > > -- > Andrew > -- > *From:* Paul Johnson > *Sent:* 10 August 2018 18:13:36 > *To:* Tomasz Wójcik > *Cc:* Talk Openstreetmap > *Subject:* Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=* > > Sounds fine by me. Seems there's a decent sized contingency working the > wiki independently of how things are actually tagged anymore, it's been > getting hard to point to the wiki as a usable reference for a couple years > now. > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 05:08 Tomasz Wójcik wrote: > > So basing on your opinions, it looks like highway=* + area=yes isn't > incorrect, it's just not documented. What do you guys think about adding > a better documentation of combination with area=yes to some of highway=* > Wiki pages? > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > ___ > 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] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
The wiki has definitely had problems recently and we should have a good discussion about what we want from it. -- Andrew From: Paul Johnson Sent: 10 August 2018 18:13:36 To: Tomasz Wójcik Cc: Talk Openstreetmap Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=* Sounds fine by me. Seems there's a decent sized contingency working the wiki independently of how things are actually tagged anymore, it's been getting hard to point to the wiki as a usable reference for a couple years now. On Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 05:08 Tomasz Wójcik mailto:tom...@wp.pl>> wrote: So basing on your opinions, it looks like highway=* + area=yes isn't incorrect, it's just not documented. What do you guys think about adding a better documentation of combination with area=yes to some of highway=* Wiki pages? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
Sounds fine by me. Seems there's a decent sized contingency working the wiki independently of how things are actually tagged anymore, it's been getting hard to point to the wiki as a usable reference for a couple years now. On Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 05:08 Tomasz Wójcik wrote: > So basing on your opinions, it looks like highway=* + area=yes isn't > incorrect, it's just not documented. What do you guys think about adding > a better documentation of combination with area=yes to some of highway=* > Wiki pages? > > > ___ > 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] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
sent from a phone > On 10. Aug 2018, at 12:02, Tomasz Wójcik wrote: > > So basing on your opinions, it looks like highway=* + area=yes isn't > incorrect, it's just not documented. I believe it is documented. It means a traffic area (omnidirectional) as opposed to a street (linear). It doesn’t make sense to use highway=secondary (for instance) with area=yes, because secondary is a network importance class and a traffic area will always have very low importance for the network. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
highway=* with area=yes are already most often for highway=pedestrian, but actually renderers already apply consistant representations whe nthese are used for other types of highways: the typical use is the representation of residential highways without exit: instead of a terminal node with a single highway=turning-circle (which is not very accurate as in most cases the shapes are pentagonal), the highway is terminated by a closed polygon with "highway=residential" + "area=yes". For now this has no impact on routability there because it is already a no-exit. But areas still cause problems for routers: for such case we need to have BOTH a linear representation and the area representation (already used for plazzas, which also typically have their own name, independantly of the highway name that crosses it and represented by the linear representation keeping the name of the street, notably to keep continuity in addresses with house numbers). Slowly however, routers and address finders are able to consider areas ; and note that in some countries or cities (notably in Eastern Asia), house numbering is made by blocks: blocks are named and represented by surfaces enclosing several highways, and housenumbers are grouped in that block independantly of the highway passing through the area. We are almost ready to have support for both representations (justs like what was made for rivers with the oriented linear waterway=* and and non-oriented area-based riverbanks, all of them beoinf groupable in a relation for the whole river): what is missing is some support in routers (to determine ways to go): note that we still need the linear representation at least for one central lane to allow tagging directions (not possible for tagging restrictions correctly: an area has no well defined direction even if its shape is a long rubber. using the two abstractions gives the best of both world and allows compatibilyt with existing routers which most often ignore areas, and that's why areas are used most often only for pedestrian areas and no-exit). However a good question is how to delimit the shape of these streets: only the areas where vehicle are driving, or including the side parkings, or including also the footways. detailing of areas by lane seems excessive. In my opinion, the shape should include the whole street: including parkings and footways, and separating kerbs or plantations which can be drawn inside them, but excluding the private areas: it should be limid to barriers, gates, walls and should not touch the buildings. Another difficulty existes for bridges: bridges are already representable (and represented) as shapes with building=bridge, which is convenient to avoid splitting bridges in two parts when there's a physical central separation built on top of the bridge. This really helps improving the rendering of bridges as a single structure, even if on top of it there are separated unidiretional highways, cycleways, footways, or railways/subway lines. And note that some bridges also exist on top of buildings and can pass in the middle of them in a tunnel ! The linear representation only is difficult to render and interpret on the map but remains useful for routing algorithms and directional restrictions (and also allows orienting correctly the labels of street names). A standard rendering will draw linear highways on top of area-based highways, making them invisible if the fill colors are identical, provided that shapes used to render the linear highway do not use any thin borders to constrast them with the background, but some borders are still drawn when there steep inclines or protecting walls: these walls should then not be tagged on the linear highway in that case, but separately on the OSM ways defining the highway area: this could require using areas represented by multipolygons, and many people with have difficulties working with them, so area-based highways will be introduced very slowly, and only in relatively stable areas which are already densely mapped, to improve the rendering for high zoom levels and allow easier interpretation. In most cases, area-based highways are not needed (notably in rural areas, or for tracks, or for most roads in developping countries where the areas are unstable across seasons and fuzzily-delimited, and there's actually no need to represent data with high density of details such as street lights, signals, bus stop areas, parking lots, recycling containers, details of footways and crossings, including accessiblity tags for equipments for walk/vision-handicaped people, and other public equipements on footways such as benches, water fountains, information panels, and advertizing panels). I don't think that OSM should forbid the area representation, but it should be only a secondary goal, after completing the linear and oriented representation. Le ven. 10 août 2018 à 14:22, Jérôme Seigneuret a écrit : > @djakk all object are area but that don't make sens use it in
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
@djakk all object are area but that don't make sens use it in database because data are an abstraction. area is documented! highway are in model linestring but in other context it is as an area so highway area are forced with area=yes to map this object. there is no other solution to set an highway as a linstring because you can't easily have a good reprensentation with low level scale and can't map name correctly. But for micro mapping and set more realistic area (use in zoom level 19, 20 for representation) and data analyse there is an other model and you can join twice solution. It can be similar to interlis (suisse model) reprensetion based on data abstraction multilevel. Same data have multiple object type representation of your information with level scale definition. database is just a container and store an abstraction of information with a specific model. You can translate with same model or an other but there is a limitation corresponding to you abstraction level. an highway is also a 3D reprensation with concrete layers, kerb, and sidewalk... In other way you separete highway, cycleway, footway and other is there is a separator but this is the same global 3D object but you need use vector line and contrains for routing and it can use just in global polygon object. in this base you need use polygon and line solution. Other limitation is time cycle, number of contributors, resource materials and you will do choices to add udpated data in time. Jerome Le ven. 10 août 2018 à 13:23, djakk djakk a écrit : > No, all highways are areas :) Mapping them as a line is a manual > generalization ;) > > > djakk > > > Le ven. 10 août 2018 à 12:15, Andy Townsend a écrit : > >> >> > So basing on your opinions, it looks like highway=* + area=yes isn't >> incorrect, it's just not documented. >> >> I'd suggest that it depends what you're mapping. If it's a predominantly >> linear feature then it would be wrong to try and "somehow record the width" >> using area=yes on the highway tag - use area:highway (or width) for that. >> >> If it really is an area, then area=yes would make sense. Most highways >> are not, though. >> >> Best Regards, >> Andy >> >> >> ___ > talk mailing list > t...@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
On 10.08.2018 13:20, djakk djakk wrote: No, all highways are areas :) Mapping them as a line is a manual generalization ;) 1., yes. 2., no, it is a mental abstraction, necessary to apply the mathematical graph theory for routing. On 10.08.2018 12:02, Tomasz Wójcik wrote: > ... it looks like highway=* + area=yes isn't incorrect, it's just not documented. As said before, it was documented already on the area=* page. It might need to be more explicit on the highway pages. tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
No, all highways are areas :) Mapping them as a line is a manual generalization ;) djakk Le ven. 10 août 2018 à 12:15, Andy Townsend a écrit : > > > So basing on your opinions, it looks like highway=* + area=yes isn't > incorrect, it's just not documented. > > I'd suggest that it depends what you're mapping. If it's a predominantly > linear feature then it would be wrong to try and "somehow record the width" > using area=yes on the highway tag - use area:highway (or width) for that. > > If it really is an area, then area=yes would make sense. Most highways > are not, though. > > Best Regards, > Andy > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
So basing on your opinions, it looks like highway=* + area=yes isn't incorrect, it's just not documented. What do you guys think about adding a better documentation of combination with area=yes to some of highway=* Wiki pages? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
sent from a phone > On 8. Aug 2018, at 18:17, Tobias Knerr wrote: > > Linear roads/paths are mapped as highway=* ways, optionally with an > additional area:highway=* polygon. > > Plazas/squares are mapped as highway=* + area=yes polygons. +1 it isn’t clear though, whether area:highway can be applied to the second type (square) as well (I would think it can). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
area:highway= to highway= is what waterway=riverbank to waterway=river. The first is area used to understand the curvature of the edge, the second is a routable way. They denote different things and aren't interchangeable. As with rivers, it's expected that lines are mapped first, and on top of those detailed polygons are overlaid later. ср, 8 авг. 2018 г. в 20:11, djakk djakk : > A linear road is also a surface, the surface is useless at zoom=8 but > useful at zoom=16. > Like waterways, both can coexist. > > djakk > > > > Le mer. 8 août 2018 à 18:19, Tobias Knerr a écrit : > >> On 08.08.2018 12:49, Tomasz Wójcik wrote: >> > Due to our rules, that we shouldn't have 2 active tagging >> > schemes for the same feature >> >> These tagging schemes are for 2 different real-world features: >> * roads/paths (i.e. linear features with a direction) >> * plazas/squares (i.e. open areas where people will walk across in all >> directions) >> >> Linear roads/paths are mapped as highway=* ways, optionally with an >> additional area:highway=* polygon. >> >> Plazas/squares are mapped as highway=* + area=yes polygons. >> >> So the area:highway key is never an alternative to highway polygons with >> area=yes! In any given situation, only one or the other will be correct. >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Darafei Praliaskouski Support me: http://patreon.com/komzpa ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
On 08.08.2018 12:49, Tomasz Wójcik wrote: > Due to our rules, that we shouldn't have 2 active tagging > schemes for the same feature These tagging schemes are for 2 different real-world features: * roads/paths (i.e. linear features with a direction) * plazas/squares (i.e. open areas where people will walk across in all directions) Linear roads/paths are mapped as highway=* ways, optionally with an additional area:highway=* polygon. Plazas/squares are mapped as highway=* + area=yes polygons. So the area:highway key is never an alternative to highway polygons with area=yes! In any given situation, only one or the other will be correct. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
sent from a phone > On 8. Aug 2018, at 14:40, djakk djakk wrote: > > I don’t get why highway=footway + area=yes is considered as wrong tagging ! because an area is not a “way”, a way implies linearity. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
sent from a phone > On 8. Aug 2018, at 12:49, Tomasz Wójcik wrote: > > Due to our rules, that we shouldn't have 2 active tagging schemes for the > same feature, so we should discuss this topic. can you point me to this rule? Is it documented somewhere? While I agree it is preferable to not have different tags for the exact same meaning, it is still occurring with a fee tags and there isn’t a huge problem with it (compared to having the same tag with different intended meaning). Btw: in the beginning it was rather common to have different values with the same meaning, e.g. yes, true and 1. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
On 08.08.2018 12:49, Tomasz Wójcik wrote: As highway=footway etc. tags are set to "should not be used on areas" on Wiki, and mapping them in combination with area=yes is not documented at all and considered as wrong tagging by part of users, there is a key "area:highway=*" (133k uses at the moment). Part of users still map footway areas as a combination anyway, propably because it's rendered by default style. Due to our rules, that we shouldn't have 2 active tagging schemes for the same feature, so we should discuss this topic. There is nothing on the wiki page that explicitly discourages or deprecates the use of highway tags on an area, except the flag in the template that defines that a closed loop means it is not filled, in the absence of other tagging. area=yes is the traditional tagging then to distinguish a closed loop from an filled area. "some closed ways ... are assumed to be areas, but others, such as highway=footway are not, being treated as linear features instead, except when there is also an area=yes tag." [1] "The area=yes tag is required for some closed ways when used to define an Area (polygon)" area=yes is used nearly a million times, 300k with highway* area=yes and highway:area=* have different purposes, the first for the occasional filled polygon, the latter for systematically mapping highway width and shape. Thus, area=yes is _well_ documented, and I see no reason to change that. [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Area [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
Then I still don't understand the problem. A closed way tagged with highway=* will by default route. A closed way with area:highway=* will not. You'll have to introduce logic in the router to do so. Regards, Maarten On 2018-08-08 14:49, john whelan wrote: I don’t get why highway=footway + area=yes is considered as wrong tagging ! The problem is consistency. If the renderers and routers don't understand your tagging then it is less visible. Cheerio John On 8 August 2018 at 08:40, djakk djakk wrote: I don’t get why highway=footway + area=yes is considered as wrong tagging ! djakk Le mer. 8 août 2018 à 12:52, Tomasz Wójcik a écrit : As highway=footway etc. tags are set to "should not be used on areas" on Wiki, and mapping them in combination with area=yes is not documented at all and considered as wrong tagging by part of users, there is a key "area:highway=*" (133k uses at the moment). Part of users still map footway areas as a combination anyway, propably because it's rendered by default style. Due to our rules, that we shouldn't have 2 active tagging schemes for the same feature, so we should discuss this topic. I vote for area:highway=* key, because it's simpler, and it gives a possibility to show also street areas with crossings in the future. * Wiki with specyfications of a:h=* for certain keys: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway [1] * TagInfo: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/area:highway [2] * area:highway=* visualisation: http://osmapa.pl/w/area [3] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [4] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [4] Links: -- [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway [2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/area:highway [3] http://osmapa.pl/w/area [4] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ 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] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
> I don’t get why highway=footway + area=yes is considered as wrong tagging ! The problem is consistency. If the renderers and routers don't understand your tagging then it is less visible. Cheerio John On 8 August 2018 at 08:40, djakk djakk wrote: > I don’t get why highway=footway + area=yes is considered as wrong tagging ! > > > djakk > > > > Le mer. 8 août 2018 à 12:52, Tomasz Wójcik a écrit : > >> As highway=footway etc. tags are set to "should not be used on areas" on >> Wiki, and mapping them in combination with area=yes is not documented at >> all and considered as wrong tagging by part of users, there is a key >> "area:highway=*" (133k uses at the moment). Part of users still map footway >> areas as a combination anyway, propably because it's rendered by default >> style. Due to our rules, that we shouldn't have 2 active tagging schemes >> for the same feature, so we should discuss this topic. >> >> I vote for area:highway=* key, because it's simpler, and it gives a >> possibility to show also street areas with crossings in the future. >> >> * Wiki with specyfications of a:h=* for certain keys: https://wiki. >> openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway >> * TagInfo: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/area:highway >> * area:highway=* visualisation: http://osmapa.pl/w/area >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > ___ > 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] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
I don’t get why highway=footway + area=yes is considered as wrong tagging ! djakk Le mer. 8 août 2018 à 12:52, Tomasz Wójcik a écrit : > As highway=footway etc. tags are set to "should not be used on areas" on > Wiki, and mapping them in combination with area=yes is not documented at > all and considered as wrong tagging by part of users, there is a key > "area:highway=*" (133k uses at the moment). Part of users still map footway > areas as a combination anyway, propably because it's rendered by default > style. Due to our rules, that we shouldn't have 2 active tagging schemes > for the same feature, so we should discuss this topic. > > I vote for area:highway=* key, because it's simpler, and it gives a > possibility to show also street areas with crossings in the future. > > * Wiki with specyfications of a:h=* for certain keys: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway > * TagInfo: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/area:highway > * area:highway=* visualisation: http://osmapa.pl/w/area > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
As highway=footway etc. tags are set to "should not be used on areas" on Wiki, and mapping them in combination with area=yes is not documented at all and considered as wrong tagging by part of users, there is a key "area:highway=*" (133k uses at the moment). Part of users still map footway areas as a combination anyway, propably because it's rendered by default style. Due to our rules, that we shouldn't have 2 active tagging schemes for the same feature, so we should discuss this topic. I vote for area:highway=* key, because it's simpler, and it gives a possibility to show also street areas with crossings in the future. * Wiki with specyfications of a:h=* for certain keys: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway * TagInfo: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/area:highway * area:highway=* visualisation: http://osmapa.pl/w/area ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
