Hi Were you the only recipient? I must have hit the wrong button - will resend sorry!
Mike Harris -----Original Message----- From: Ed Loach [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 15 January 2009 11:17 To: 'Mike Harris' Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant Did you mean to Reply All, or was this just for me? All the best Ed > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Harris [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 15 January 2009 10:49 > To: 'Ed Loach' > Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant > > I've been watching this thread for a while and add these > thoughts: > > 1. The 'railway' issues: Would a simple fix be to label 'abandoned > railways' > by using a relation? They are effectively now a relation of type=route > that may include ways that are now on the ground as e.g. a footway, a > bridleway, a cycleway, etc. as well as ways that no longer exist. Only > the last of these would need tagging - and here the tag would not, by > definition, conflict with any other tag as the way is no longer there. > This is also consistent with the general concept of mapping what is > there on the ground - without losing the information regarding the > route of an abandoned railway that might be of great interest to > railway buffs. > > 2. The former shop / pub etc. issues: the use of abandoned:xxx= and > former:xxx= tags may be helpful - but may they not sometimes rather > overlap? > There is also a risk of overuse. On the other hand, even from the > point of view of "map what is there" there is a case, IMHO, for some > tagging of "what is no longer there". Examples in my area are: > > A. A large school. The OS maps (even the latest digital > edition) show it as > a school covering a considerable area. Aerial photography (e.g. > Google) > shows a demolition site. On the ground there is no trace of any > buildings - just a park (appropriately "Phoenix Park") criss-crossed > by footways and cycleways and allowing some very useful links to be > made between streets on either side of the area that were clearly not > links when they went right through the school buildings. All of this > has happened in a very few years, witness the OS mapping. As an OSM > user I would want to know that I can use these linking ways and to be > reassured that the OS map is wrong and more out-of-date than OSM ... > So a need to include the former:xxx= tag. OSM currently shows just the > park, no footways or cycleways and no school. I couldn't tell in > advance of visiting the site whether OSM had not yet added the school > or whether the OS map was out of date. > > B. Tennis courts and football field. The boundaries are shown on the > OS but not labelled. Yahoo aerial photography shows outlines but I > couldn't say their status. OSM tags these features as sport= and > disused=yes. Mapnik doesn't render them at all but osmarender shows > them as if they were live and available facilities (ignores the > disused=yes tag > presumably) - so you > don't know that you can't play sports there unless you go to the edit > page. > On this occasion, the disused= tag adds a third option to 'abandoned' > and 'former'! It would be good either for the features not to be > rendered or for them in either renderer or for them to be rendered in > both renderers but distinguished as not being available for would-be > tennis of football players! > > We do need to work some consistency into this area ... Who decides? > How can the debate be structured to work towards consistency and > consensus? > > > Mike Harris > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Loach [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 13 January 2009 23:45 > To: 'Andrew Chadwick (mailing lists)'; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant > > > And later on, if the building > > gets > > used for something else, you could perhaps change it to: > > > > shop=candy > > name=Fred's Wine Gum Emporium > > former:amenity=pub > > former:name=The Blue Grape # or old_name > > former=<date> # ugh, mabye not > > > > Well, it appeals to the stupid, plodding, pattern-seeking > part of my > > brain, kinda. > > But it probably is too limited. > > A couple of examples that spring to mind. A building in Wolverhampton > that was a cinema when my dad was young has since been things like a > bank and a pound shop at various stages and I think is now a pub. How > many former tags will you support? > > Similarly there was a shop in Oxford that was a cheese shop (Little > Clarendon Street circa 1987) that was a childs toy or clothes shop (I > forget > which) the following year and I am sure is something else again now. > > And the Woolworths in Wolverhampton which until recently (I'm assuming > it is now closed) was the "lower ground" version of the Woolworths I > remember as a child which was about 4 floors tall in total. I believe > Boots took over what used to be the Woolworths ground floor but I > moved away almost a decade ago so my memories are a little rusted. > > There are shops near here that probably have a different business (or > two) in them every year. If you're going to go with prefixes you'll > want something like 20080101-20080606:name=Spring Fashions Limited and > 20080607-20081231:name=Fireworks'R'Us (names made up). > > For now I'm mapping what is actually here. If something changes in > reality I change it in OSM. If at some point in the future OSM > supports historical mapping in some way then I may look at perhaps > going to the effort of adding historical tags as well as updating the > existing ones. > Railways, which I > think may have triggered this discussion (or may have cropped up > recently on another related email > list) are an interesting case. Abandoned railways are something that > currently exist in places, until they are converted into footpaths or > something else. This isn't as such historic mapping as mapping the > bits of an abandoned railway that still exist. Disused pubs are > something I'm in two minds about. In some cases the building is an > obvious landmark which would be a useful PoI whether it opens or not. > And whether it opens or not is something which would be useful > additional information for anyone wanting to visit the place. But > disused pubs where the sign has been removed and it has perhaps > changed to residential use I don't feel should still be marked. A bit > like "the old post office" or "old bakehouse" as properties > surrounding an office I used to live were both residential properties > (one of which was rented on behalf of Mark McGhee when he was managing > Wolves, and we could see into his kitchen from our office). > > So I guess I'm in the map what exists now camp, until OSM has some > better method of historical (or future - and I admit I've tagged a > highway under > construction) tagging. > > Ed > > > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
