Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Alan Mintz > wrote: > At 2010-01-29 14:00, Dale Puch wrote: > >Your talk of "absolute levels of elevation" got me thinking. > >The tag has nothing to do with a measurement, only order of the layers. > > What I'm saying, though, is that, if you tag with an eye on m

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

At 2010-01-29 14:00, Dale Puch wrote: >Your talk of "absolute levels of elevation" got me thinking. >The tag has nothing to do with a measurement, only order of the layers. What I'm saying, though, is that, if you tag with an eye on making the layers reflect reality, it allows you to tag new feat

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

Your talk of "absolute levels of elevation" got me thinking. The tag has nothing to do with a measurement, only order of the layers. So the most important factor is what is considered layer 0 For me anything above ground would (almost) always be a bridge and anything below (almost) always a tunne

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Alan Mintz > wrote: > Columbus Blvd is more puzzling. It may be layer=-1 through this whole area, > or the whole waterfront may be lower than the street level is to the west of > I-95. This is where I think a local survey of the actual elevations, and > tagging o

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Dale Puch wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Anthony wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Dale Puch wrote: >> >>> Is it just a (very wide) road above? (layer 0) The road above would be >>> Bridge=yes layer=1 >>> Is it building or park above (wit

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

At 2010-01-28 19:13, Alan Mintz wrote: >... >It appears to me that I-95 is below the level of the surrounding surface >streets from about Market St down to Catharine St, and should be layer=-1. >I suggest: > >- Market Street overpass: bridge=yes, layer=1 >- I-95 segment from Market St. overpass,

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

At 2010-01-28 16:53, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Dale Puch wrote: Is it just a (very wide) road above?  (layer 0)  The road above would be Bridge=yes layer=1 Is it building or park above (with or without roads)?  Tunnel=yes layer=-1 and the stuff above wou

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Dale Puch wrote: > >> Is it just a (very wide) road above? (layer 0) The road above would be >> Bridge=yes layer=1 >> Is it building or park above (with or without roads)? Tunnel=yes layer=-1 >> and the stuff a

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

At 2010-01-28 16:31, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Dale Puch wrote: I feel a script applying layer=1 to any bridge without a layer tag should be ok IF it also checks for bridges that cross it a

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Dale Puch wrote: > Is it just a (very wide) road above? (layer 0) The road above would be > Bridge=yes layer=1 > Is it building or park above (with or without roads)? Tunnel=yes layer=-1 > and the stuff above would be layer 0 > I'm not sure which is in the pic

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Anthony wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Dale Puch wrote: >> >>> So a bridge over a river or dug ditch is layer 1, and the water would be >>> 0 >>> >> >> What about a dug ditch without a bridge over i

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Dale Puch wrote: > >> I feel a script applying layer=1 to any bridge without a layer tag should >> be ok IF it also checks for bridges that cross it and increment those layer >> numbers. >> > > Maybe. > You'd hav

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Dale Puch wrote: > >> So a bridge over a river or dug ditch is layer 1, and the water would be 0 >> > > What about a dug ditch without a bridge over it? Is that layer=0? It's > certainly "open to the air surface

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Dale Puch wrote: > Looking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Layer My take is that the > open to the air surface is layer 0 Ground or water. > That seems to be the intention, but it doesn't always work in the real world, mainly because the surface of the ear

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

Looking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Layer My take is that the open to the air surface is layer 0 Ground or water. I'm not sure why it is limited to -5 to 5 instead of -9 to 9... So a bridge over a river or dug ditch is layer 1, and the water would be 0 A road over a covered waterway tu

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM, wrote: > Maybe I should rephrase my question: is there any harm in adding a layer=1 > tag to something that is already tagged bridge=yes? > In some cases, yes. No layer tag implies layer=0. For example (and it's only a single example which came to mind), if the

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

- "David ``Smith''" wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Bill Ricker wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > >> > I've noticed that a lot of bridges don't include a layer= tag. I > >> > suspect this is because they render OK in mapnik...but not so well wi

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:47 PM, David ``Smith'' wrote: > Since some people consider > the entire "layer" tag to be "tagging for the renderer" these people > probably don't think it's important to add thorough layer information; > I would agree with your disagreement with such people. But I under

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Bill Ricker wrote: > What we can't tell without checking satellite view is whether the bridge is > at grade level with the Railroad in a ditch, or if the bridge pitches up > over the RR. > Or both. Or maybe halfway between the two (think "retaining wall"). _

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Bill Ricker wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> > I've noticed that a lot of bridges don't include a layer= tag.  I >> > suspect this is because they render OK in mapnik...but not so well with >> > osmarenderer.  (Consider the railroa

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > I've noticed that a lot of bridges don't include a layer= tag. I > > suspect this is because they render OK in mapnik...but not so well with > > osmarenderer. (Consider the railroad > > in > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.76931&lon

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

Dion, dion_d...@comcast.net wrote: > I've noticed that a lot of bridges don't include a layer= tag. I > suspect this is because they render OK in mapnik...but not so well with > osmarenderer. (Consider the railroad > in > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.76931&lon=-84.53762&zoom=17&layer

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

At 2010-01-26 21:58, dion_d...@comcast.net wrote: >I've noticed that a lot of bridges don't include a layer= tag. I suspect >this is because they render OK in mapnik...but not so well with >osmarenderer. (Consider the railroad in >http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.76931&lon=-84.53762&zoom=1

[Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

I've noticed that a lot of bridges don't include a layer= tag. I suspect this is because they render OK in mapnik...but not so well with osmarenderer. (Consider the railroad in http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.76931&lon=-84.53762&zoom=17&layers=0B00FTF.) I've spent a little time working