Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking (redux)
2011/3/18 Flaimo : > just relying on a surrounding amenity=parking area without a relation > also has another flaw: underground parking. basically nobody maps > underground parking facilities as areas with layer=-1. all of those i > have seen so far in OSM are mapped as nodes at the entrances. and that > is the problem. underground parking facilities often have more than > one entrance. right now, each entrance is interpreted as its own > parking lot. the relation would group them together to one parking > facility. Yes, it can be a possibility (and indeed to group nodes a relation different then multipolygons is needed), but I'd consider this not the better approach, as a simple area will be more useful then a relation with some nodes (and easier to map as it would be "mapping as usual" instead of "exception"/new relation type). Reasons that the area currently is not used a lot this might be: - the exact size and position are not known to the mapper (I'd suggest to map it approximately, still better then nodes) - the renderers currently don't support underground buildings in a nice way (will maybe change in the future), maybe even render them not distinguishable from surface buildings (which is discouraging). - documentation in the wiki suggests that a node is sufficient, or is not very specific. (could be changed) Btw.: you wrote that "nobody" mapped underground parkings as area with a layer=-1 but I found that people indeed do it. I found 90 nodes with parking='underground' (of which 4 with layer=-1) in my extract versus 40 polygons (of which 15 had layer=-1), so almost one third of the underground parkings in my region are indeed mapped as areas. This is opposite to all amenity=parking (8000 nodes vs 16000 polygons) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking (redux)
If you have a driveway, some parts of which have a secondary lane for parallel parking or diagonal parking, and some sections of which have only a driving lane, how should this be tagged? This is a common arrangement in parks, from my experience. In some cases, the parking lane may only be large enough for one or two vehicles. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking (redux) >From :mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com Date :Sat Mar 19 13:12:53 America/Chicago 2011 2011/3/18 Flaimo : > just relying on a surrounding amenity=parking area without a relation > also has another flaw: underground parking. basically nobody maps > underground parking facilities as areas with layer=-1. all of those i > have seen so far in OSM are mapped as nodes at the entrances. and that > is the problem. underground parking facilities often have more than > one entrance. right now, each entrance is interpreted as its own > parking lot. the relation would group them together to one parking > facility. Yes, it can be a possibility (and indeed to group nodes a relation different then multipolygons is needed), but I'd consider this not the better approach, as a simple area will be more useful then a relation with some nodes (and easier to map as it would be "mapping as usual" instead of "exception"/new relation type). Reasons that the area currently is not used a lot this might be: - the exact size and position are not known to the mapper (I'd suggest to map it approximately, still better then nodes) - the renderers currently don't support underground buildings in a nice way (will maybe change in the future), maybe even render them not distinguishable from surface buildings (which is discouraging). - documentation in the wiki suggests that a node is sufficient, or is not very specific. (could be changed) Btw.: you wrote that "nobody" mapped underground parkings as area with a layer=-1 but I found that people indeed do it. I found 90 nodes with parking='underground' (of which 4 with layer=-1) in my extract versus 40 polygons (of which 15 had layer=-1), so almost one third of the underground parkings in my region are indeed mapped as areas. This is opposite to all amenity=parking (8000 nodes vs 16000 polygons) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking (redux)
I would map the driveway as a way with highway=service + service=driveway, then areas of parallel or diagonal parking I would map as an area with tags that depend on how this proposal turns out. However there is another proposal [1] which would suggests tagging the appropriate section of the driveway itself with a tag parking:lane=both/right/left. That seems to have about 17000 usages. Well maybe I would tag it that way instead of according to this proposal, I'm not sure. -Josh [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking:lane On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 3:57 PM, wrote: > If you have a driveway, some parts of which have a secondary lane for > parallel parking or diagonal parking, and some sections of which have only a > driving lane, how should this be tagged? This is a common arrangement in > parks, from my experience. In some cases, the parking lane may only be large > enough for one or two vehicles. > > ---Original Email--- > Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking (redux) > From :mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com > Date :Sat Mar 19 13:12:53 America/Chicago 2011 > > > 2011/3/18 Flaimo : >> just relying on a surrounding amenity=parking area without a relation >> also has another flaw: underground parking. basically nobody maps >> underground parking facilities as areas with layer=-1. all of those i >> have seen so far in OSM are mapped as nodes at the entrances. and that >> is the problem. underground parking facilities often have more than >> one entrance. right now, each entrance is interpreted as its own >> parking lot. the relation would group them together to one parking >> facility. > > > Yes, it can be a possibility (and indeed to group nodes a relation > different then multipolygons is needed), but I'd consider this not the > better approach, as a simple area will be more useful then a relation > with some nodes (and easier to map as it would be "mapping as usual" > instead of "exception"/new relation type). Reasons that the area > currently is not used a lot this might be: > - the exact size and position are not known to the mapper (I'd suggest > to map it approximately, still better then nodes) > - the renderers currently don't support underground buildings in a > nice way (will maybe change in the future), maybe even render them not > distinguishable from surface buildings (which is discouraging). > - documentation in the wiki suggests that a node is sufficient, or is > not very specific. (could be changed) > > Btw.: you wrote that "nobody" mapped underground parkings as area with > a layer=-1 but I found that people indeed do it. > I found 90 nodes with parking='underground' (of which 4 with layer=-1) > in my extract versus 40 polygons (of which 15 had layer=-1), so almost > one third of the underground parkings in my region are indeed mapped > as areas. > > This is opposite to all amenity=parking (8000 nodes vs 16000 polygons) > > cheers, > Martin > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -- > John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com > "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to > think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] border mapping
Hi, I'm currently doing some Bing-supported armchair mapping along the Turkish-Armenian boarder. http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&where1=Ocakl%C4%B1%2C%20T%C3%BCrkei&q=ani%2C%20turkey&cp=40.490005925682524~43.61241415143237&lvl=18&sty=h&encType=1 What is the best/recommended/suitable way to map border watch towers (used by border police/soldiers) and a stripe along the border (that is at least on Armenian side, looks like a very wide track with maybe a fence (there seem to be gates)) which is kept free for patrolling and watching, I guess. I did not find anything in the documentation, really. Help is appreciated! Christian ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] border mapping
2011/3/19 geowas : > What is the best/recommended/suitable way to map border watch towers (used > by border police/soldiers) you could use man_made=tower and look for a suitable tower:type. There is observation http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tower:type=observation but the definition says "Observation towers such as fire-towers, observation platforms and tourist attractions. Also see tourism=viewpoint." which does not really fit for your towers. What about tower:type=watchtower For the areas I don't know if there is something in use. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
