I agree...very "wonky" indeed, especially cartographically.I believe the area
taken by the Park should be mapped assuch; instead of pedestrian_street it
should be footway andbridge = viaduct. Not only would this look better, it
would reducevisual confusion, especially since a pedestrian street is really
anactual city street this is closed to motor vehicles (and sometimesbicycles as
well). And the "building" makes no sense.
Be seeing you,
David
From: "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 9:50 PM
Subject: Talk-us Digest, Vol 90, Issue 7
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 03:32:14 +0000
From: Elliott Plack <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: [Talk-us] NYC High Line is Wonky on OSM
Message-ID:
<camni_re33hloht4_hvpyupvh+fkg6exwz-0ov1+-stno30v...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Friends,
I was attempting to do some pedestrian routing on the High Line (the
elevated park in NYC, see Wikipedia for background) and noticed some
oddities about how it was mapped on OSM. Quickly, this is a former elevated
train viaduct that has been converted into a popular park in Manhattan.
Since this is a popular area, I thought I'd ask the community first. Things
I've noticed:
1. There is a 'building=yes' way for the entire elevated portion, including
many of the supports that hold the platform up. This is pretty cool, and
probably looks neat in 3D. There are some building overlaps, where the line
goes through some buildings. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37054313
1a. The building also has the park tagging, which doesn't show up on the
map when tagged to the same way (apparently).
2. There are two parallel ways on the northern part of the park, one for
the former railway, another for the path. I believe that these should be
merged or at least share points. The former railway IS the pedestrian path,
so no need for parallel ways, right?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46481094
2a. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305761607
3. Stairs like this should connect to the street.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305761606
4. The 'highway=pedestrian' portion is not tagged as a bridge, which it is,
arguably. But then, if the viaduct is a 'building', is it actually a
bridge? I think it should be tagged as a bridge for cartography purposes.
4a. The 'highway=pedestrian' way does not have a name. The building does,
but that doesn't render well. Named ways should be named, right?
5. There are several 'highway=pedestrian' areas like this one. Is there a
better tag for open space like this?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277945794
6. Things get really crazy with the building passages.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277885773
7. There are a few oddities about the paths extending out from this node,
all these crossing ways are hard to comprehend.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2823299563
Local mappers have clearly spent a lot of time on this, anyone have any
feedback about how this could be mapped better, if at all?
Best,
Elliott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150512/8abfcaa9/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 22:50:36 -0500
From: Brad Neuhauser <[email protected]>
To: Elliott Plack <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] NYC High Line is Wonky on OSM
Message-ID:
<CAJA6SWYMx=jfdhpq2wpcdaiww9kgvxk-rgvbf6le0e87miz...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Seems like it might be better to tag it as man_made=bridge rather than
building=*
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Elliott Plack <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Friends,
>
> I was attempting to do some pedestrian routing on the High Line (the
> elevated park in NYC, see Wikipedia for background) and noticed some
> oddities about how it was mapped on OSM. Quickly, this is a former elevated
> train viaduct that has been converted into a popular park in Manhattan.
> Since this is a popular area, I thought I'd ask the community first. Things
> I've noticed:
>
> 1. There is a 'building=yes' way for the entire elevated portion,
> including many of the supports that hold the platform up. This is pretty
> cool, and probably looks neat in 3D. There are some building overlaps,
> where the line goes through some buildings.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37054313
> 1a. The building also has the park tagging, which doesn't show up on the
> map when tagged to the same way (apparently).
> 2. There are two parallel ways on the northern part of the park, one for
> the former railway, another for the path. I believe that these should be
> merged or at least share points. The former railway IS the pedestrian path,
> so no need for parallel ways, right?
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46481094
> 2a. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305761607
> 3. Stairs like this should connect to the street.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305761606
> 4. The 'highway=pedestrian' portion is not tagged as a bridge, which it
> is, arguably. But then, if the viaduct is a 'building', is it actually a
> bridge? I think it should be tagged as a bridge for cartography purposes.
> 4a. The 'highway=pedestrian' way does not have a name. The building does,
> but that doesn't render well. Named ways should be named, right?
> 5. There are several 'highway=pedestrian' areas like this one. Is there a
> better tag for open space like this?
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277945794
> 6. Things get really crazy with the building passages.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277885773
> 7. There are a few oddities about the paths extending out from this node,
> all these crossing ways are hard to comprehend.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2823299563
>
> Local mappers have clearly spent a lot of time on this, anyone have any
> feedback about how this could be mapped better, if at all?
>
>
> Best,
>
> Elliott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150511/04fb4ee5/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
------------------------------
End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 90, Issue 7
**************************************
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
