On 01/06/2019 13:55, Michael Collinson wrote:
... I tried, then going out to "just verify" and found that I was
hopelessly inaccurate. It defeats the point, to get a highly accurate
localised network for folks who might depend on it.
I did something similar on the dev server a while back
On 2019-06-01 13:26, Andy Townsend wrote:
On 01/06/2019 11:11, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which i'm not overly impressed
withor am I being a Luddite?
I personally wouldn't map sidewalks in a dense UK city like that
On 2019-06-01 13:32, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> You're talking about a different subject, which 'associatedstreets' won't
> resolve.
Are you sure? Maybe you would restate concisely the problem as you see
it. The relation linked to in Jez' original post was
type=associatedStreet and he actually
Not a fan -- for the more prosaic issue of what happens when you split
the street -- I don't think any of the editors will automatically
reassign the buildings.
Neil
On 01/06/2019 11:24, Andrew Hain wrote:
> It is documented at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet
>
I too was very anti at first. Reykavik was the first time I saw it on a
systematic basis, and I thought it made a map I did aesthetically
dreadful. But a small tweak, rendering sidewalk-tagged footways as a
very unobtrusive narrow line fixed that.
I now map them zealously for three reasons:
On 01/06/2019 12:00, Colin Smale wrote:
Relations are great to represent real-world relations that cannot be
inferred (reliably) from the other data in OSM. Often a geometrical
relation exists, such as a node inside a polygon, but not always.
OSM loves to allow things to be inferred from the
You're talking about a different subject, which 'associatedstreets'
won't resolve.
DaveF
On 01/06/2019 12:06, Colin Smale wrote:
On 2019-06-01 12:34, Gareth L wrote:
I was about to say, relations of this manner seem duplicitous of simply having
an address.
Using only the street name to
On 01/06/2019 11:11, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which i'm not overly impressed
withor am I being a Luddite?
I personally wouldn't map sidewalks in a dense UK city like that (though
some people do, with the intention of
On 2019-06-01 12:34, Gareth L wrote:
> I was about to say, relations of this manner seem duplicitous of simply
> having an address.
Using only the street name to link objects is unreliable. A street can
be divided into multiple segments. Think of a residential side-road with
the same name as
On 2019-06-01 12:29, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've yet to hear a valid reasoning for this relation type. It's much more
> beneficial to add addresses instead.
>
> There appears an increasing tendency to collect almost anything together into
> a relation. See public-transport's
A surprising number of the new build housing estates around me have few
pavements and are not very contiguous. There’s often even a space where they
could lay the asphalt, but then it’s left as grass – before then getting
sequestered as cars park over it.
I’d like to see more affirmative
Agree with both Gareth and Dan. It's all part of the discussion on how
detailed the map goes, and possibly more relevant in countries with wider
roads and obviously separate sidewalks. In the UK we always assume that a
road has a pavement unless stated otherwise. I came slightly unstuck myself
I was about to say, relations of this manner seem duplicitous of simply having
an address.
Street objects.. like bins and benches might make a bit of sense. I don’t think
I’ve ever seen a street address on a bench node. But I’m fairly sure a query
could be crafted to detect the nearest way to
Hi
I've yet to hear a valid reasoning for this relation type. It's much
more beneficial to add addresses instead.
There appears an increasing tendency to collect almost anything together
into a relation. See public-transport's 'stop_area' as another example
This is not why relations were
I noticed a "sidewalk" here too in Brighton:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684610225
I'm ambivalent. Both of these examples are pavements that are fully
adjacent (continguous) to their roads, and by default I'd prefer not
to map them separately. I guess the long one that you refer to does
It is documented at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet , the terracer
plugin used to create it a lot but now doesn’t by default. The Germans have
been stripping it out of the database recently [
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=65510 ] and I’d be
Sidewalks (pavements) are difficult in the compressed and crowded layouts of
our towns and cities. I would love them to be more uniformly mapped though. As
they rarely are mapped, where they are, they stand out and look a bit out of
place.
What do you think it lacks? Would it be improved with
Thank you all for your feedback on this. I’ll have a look at the options and
hopefully get to tidy it up early next week.
From: Brian Prangle
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 1:35:29 PM
To: Rob Nickerson; OSM Group WM
Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Road
Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which
i'm not overly impressed withor am I being a Luddite?
Regards,
Jez
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Has anyone else come across relations grouping road assets? i.e. the road
itself plus shops, buildings, street objects? e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1866997 Has this format become
accepted elsewhere in the world or is it experimental?
Regards,
Jez
20 matches
Mail list logo
