Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:24:07AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Sat, 15 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > Therefore, everyone needs now to handle those hardly useful layer > > > warnings about trivial cases (and waste their time on "correcting" them). > > > > even worse, people just apply layer=-1 to thousands of miles of rivers and > > similar tricks to hide those warnings. > > Which proves my point. The mappers didn't like the unnecessary burden > nor the warnings which do in no way improve quality but only reduce > signal-to-noise of the validator. I am in favor of having the warnings fully configurable. Obviously if you do not know an area well you can't decide whether a waterway crossing should be a bridge, culvert or a ford and should not be bothered with such warnings. And I am thinking this warning should be off by default because it is one of the most frequently useless warnings that I know. File tickets for the JOSM validator whenever you think the validator could be improved or otherwise fine tuned. Other warnings otoh should be added. There are many instances of tunnel=culvert without a layer and almost all of them were accidental errors - someone added the culvert to the wrong segment of the way. As of the bridges, the editing software could make it a lot easier to create them. Currently its quite many manual steps to insert a bridge properly and I think there would be a demand to have a plugin or whatever doing it easier. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
Hi, I wonder why we make bridges split and split and split the roads. In reality, bridges are pieces of concrete or stonework at level -1 under an uninterrupted foil of tarmac at level 0. Or at level 0 if it's understood that the renderer knows what's a bridge. And the renderer knows, as it draws two thin stripes beside the road. So, a bridge can be a little way segment overlaying the road. This lets the routing software ignore the unnecessary complication of having to account for bridges as part of the route. This lets the bridge having its own attributes, unrelated to the road, for example a different name. This makes obsolete discussions wondering if the bridge must be split in two because the road changes in the middle. Etc. etc., all pieces clutch in very neatly. And BTW, this is similar to tunnel=culvert which is an optional feature of a bridge and that surprises no one at layer -1. And now, if we put bridges and culverts at -1, the rivers or streams are normally at -2. Tunnels (inside which the road runs) should be segments too, at level +1 or 0. I have tagged a number of streams and rivers at -2 -1 0 and I find it appreciable to have an instant view of where the complete main stream is, if not exaggeratedly long, as well as less prone to errors. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
> Am 14/mar/2014 um 15:51 schrieb Fernando Trebien : > > Do you agree that the river can be tagged with layer=-1 as long as > this value is correct in relation to the layer of other > nearby/crossing ways? I would discourage you to do so. Layer tags should only be applied to ways that actually cross other objects on different layers (ie without intersecting them). To me the Josm way of warning seems correct, as a crossing of objects on different layers should issue a warning. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
> Am 14/mar/2014 um 16:36 schrieb Pieren : > > Real case from real world : a deep ditch where the stream is not > "underground" but below the "ground" level, is crossing a village > where we have 10 bridges. Either you add 10 times "layer=1" on the > bridges or you add 1 time "layer=-1" on the stream. in a deep ditch the waterway is still on ground level, just that the ground is lower at this point than it is in the surroundings. I would advocate for adding layer=1 to the bridges and leave the waterway without layer tag cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
> Am 14/mar/2014 um 16:35 schrieb Fernando Trebien : > > From this logic, layer=-1 means the object is >rendered< beneath > anything that has layer=0 (or, conversely, that anything with layer=0 > is rendered on top of anything with layer=-1). It does not mean that > it >is< in fact below it (though it almost always is). no, the opposite is true, you will render stuff as you like (when using dashed lines for underground features you might opt to render them above other lines for instance), but the real world stacking order is given by the layer tag cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
> Am 14/mar/2014 um 19:55 schrieb Fernando Trebien : > > I don't think you should be required to check the river's layer tag. > Validators should do this job for you, it's quite easy to write a rule > for that. first you'll have to download all data along this river in order to make this work,seems easier to download all data along a bridge when you add it then to put layer tags on long ways which tend to extend into not downloaded areas when you edit cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote: > How surprisingly similar the landscape in this area is to the place > where I live in Brazil. That's really pretty! > Anyway, back to your place. I believe you'd call this a dirt road > leading into a private property: > https://www.google.com/maps/@32.704426,-116.720207,3a,75y,160.59h,81.43t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sH5Ez46TUHWIetR4uLSCy0Q!2e0 Honestly, I would say this is more of a gravel surface, or at least it has a strong amount of gravel in it. But you are exactly right - I would colloquially describe it as a dirt road. https://www.google.com/maps/@32.754457,-116.675043,3a,75y,244.08h,66.68t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJhyTrxQnSp12qvq6uDJ_QA!2e0 is what I would say is dirt, grade 2 And here is a dirt grade 4 or 5. https://www.google.com/maps/@32.704654,-116.725304,3a,69.4y,194.94h,67.89t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shSHA3wkceuNcBDfUVBL9CQ!2e0 > > Would you describe this surface as "earth"? Or maybe "compacted"? > > I think "sand" would usually mean fluffy sand, such as in beach sand, > like here: > https://www.google.com/maps?ll=-29.347317,-49.729185&spn=0.014065,0.047979&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=-29.347303,-49.729198&panoid=nxCzohwftvM2H6wO89EJng&cbp=11,182.99,,0,3.15 That road looks really old! Sand is hard, because a truly sand road is usually just river bottom, like in a wadi (wash) or beach, because the road is usually defined by the natural borders (the wadi's banks, shoreline, etc). I don't think there could be many marked "dune" roads, they'd disappear before they were mapped. but maybe my experience is limited. https://www.google.com/maps/@32.915195,-116.240605,3a,33.3y,14.3h,79.76t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6SYOIDZphiH9EfbnOULxfw!2e0 you can see the white sand where the road starts from the turnout. you can easily get stuck in it. > > Here's a road in Brazil that probably fits the American definition of > "dirt": Exactly. > > However, the surface here is "compacted" according to official > sources. It's hard to tell visually, but it's possible that the > mixture has been compressed. Compacted "what" is the question. Tephra? Decomposed Granite? gravel? A mixture of clay, sand, gravel, and organic bits called "dirt" ? I assume almost any grade 1or 2 track is compacted - isn't that part of the definition or grade 1 & 2? but a whole lot of grade 3/4/5 maybe was once compacted, now it's just falling apart/grass growing in the center. Grade 3 from the wiki: " Unpaved track; an even mixture of hard and soft materials. " > This is what I believe would be described as "earth" but not > "compacted" (also from official sources): > I wonder if you'd call this "dirt" too. ' yea, that's a dirt road alight - not sand and not little stones. I'm not sure, but that looks a lot like like DG - decomposed granite - similar to the red around my aunt's area in Jamul. > The distinction is quite > relevant for calculation of routes: you can't travel as fast on earth > as can on compacted, and earth is much more likely to turn into sticky > mud that may get you bogged. > > Finding a gravel road here was harder than I thought it would be. I > could only get this photo: > http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8dyZBqNo6TI/TUv3KhRjRiI/AXs/jOA_pfv_IH0/s1600/tainhas+-+brita.jpg That is some coarse gravel, like for a quarry road for big trucks or something. Most of the road gravel here in Japan is about 1cm. it slowly sinks into the volcanic tephra clay, and then they add more. and more and more and more. > > It turns out that most preparations that include "some gravel" but > mostly "soil" here fit the definition of "compacted" quite closely. > > I think that "earth" and "soil" are similar enough to stay only with > "earth" - but I'm not a native speaker. > > I also wonder which names the British would give to each of these surfaces. A few of the British people I've heard responded have said that they don't have "dirt" roads there, so they are having trouble naming these. But that isn't true. This looks a lot like a grade 3 dirt track in sheffield. A little gravel at the intersection, but the track sure is dirt (look at that mud!). https://www.google.com/maps/@53.48623,-1.646717,3a,77y,292.61h,92.29t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sIeza8rGd6eybG9tBBgRMwg!2e0 Grade 3 farming track. https://www.google.com/maps/@53.480851,-1.621276,3a,75y,222.14h,71.75t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOCVq7UW1AdoLCbgIloHlhA!2e0 Grade 3-4 track https://www.google.com/maps/@51.064536,0.093548,3a,41.3y,350.72h,76.84t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sbJDev6_uegah7WelCu1fkA!2e0 Grade 3 dirt track https://www.google.com/maps/@50.872787,0.514791,3a,75y,30.01h,68.59t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sIQaQzUZI-E1t7_2dIBzAvg!2e0 What do british people call this surface? I hope it can go somewhere this time =D. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
Hi, I agree partially with you here. Yes, adding bridges in addition to the road is possible and may be a good idea. What we currently map as being a bridge in fact is the property of "the road is on a bridge" instead. Changing the current tagging scheme to "duplicate the corresponding segment of the way and tag the bridge as a separate, but again linear object" is worse in all but one point. The only point this is better in is that a street with a continuous name may not have to be splitted because of the bridge; but on the other hand we do so for anything else, too: speed restrictions, footway or not, highway type, surface and anything else; so it doesn't solve an issue dedicated to bridges. On the other hand it doesn't solve the issue with multiple parallel ways on the same bridge, e.g. considering a dual carriage way on one bridge construction we currently map the property "road is on a bridge" again on both parts of the dual carriage way independently, but it's impossible to decide from the data (usually) if it's one bridge or two bridges. Your proposal to duplicate the way does not solve this issue either, as you would still need two separate ways here. regards Peter Am 15.03.2014 13:25, schrieb André Pirard: > Hi, > > I wonder why we make bridges split and split and split the roads. > In reality, bridges are pieces of concrete or stonework at level -1 > under an uninterrupted foil of tarmac at level 0. > Or at level 0 if it's understood that the renderer knows what's a bridge. > And the renderer knows, as it draws two thin stripes beside the road. > So, a bridge can be a little way segment overlaying the road. > This lets the routing software ignore the unnecessary complication of > having to account for bridges as part of the route. > This lets the bridge having its own attributes, unrelated to the road, > for example a different name. > This makes obsolete discussions wondering if the bridge must be split in > two because the road changes in the middle. > Etc. etc., all pieces clutch in very neatly. > And BTW, this is similar to tunnel=culvert which is an optional feature > of a bridge and that surprises no one at layer -1. > And now, if we put bridges and culverts at -1, the rivers or streams are > normally at -2. > Tunnels (inside which the road runs) should be segments too, at level +1 > or 0. > > I have tagged a number of streams and rivers at -2 -1 0 and I find it > appreciable to have an instant view of where the complete main stream > is, if not exaggeratedly long, as well as less prone to errors. > > Cheers, > > André. > > > > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
I believe there was a proposal for tagging a bridge separately: man_made=bridge. I think it would be really nice to have the actual outline of the bridge rendered Em 15/03/2014 10:02, "Peter Wendorff" escreveu: > Hi, > > I agree partially with you here. > Yes, adding bridges in addition to the road is possible and may be a > good idea. > What we currently map as being a bridge in fact is the property of "the > road is on a bridge" instead. > Changing the current tagging scheme to "duplicate the corresponding > segment of the way and tag the bridge as a separate, but again linear > object" is worse in all but one point. > The only point this is better in is that a street with a continuous name > may not have to be splitted because of the bridge; but on the other hand > we do so for anything else, too: speed restrictions, footway or not, > highway type, surface and anything else; so it doesn't solve an issue > dedicated to bridges. > > On the other hand it doesn't solve the issue with multiple parallel ways > on the same bridge, e.g. considering a dual carriage way on one bridge > construction we currently map the property "road is on a bridge" again > on both parts of the dual carriage way independently, but it's > impossible to decide from the data (usually) if it's one bridge or two > bridges. > Your proposal to duplicate the way does not solve this issue either, as > you would still need two separate ways here. > > regards > Peter > > > Am 15.03.2014 13:25, schrieb André Pirard: > > Hi, > > > > I wonder why we make bridges split and split and split the roads. > > In reality, bridges are pieces of concrete or stonework at level -1 > > under an uninterrupted foil of tarmac at level 0. > > Or at level 0 if it's understood that the renderer knows what's a bridge. > > And the renderer knows, as it draws two thin stripes beside the road. > > So, a bridge can be a little way segment overlaying the road. > > This lets the routing software ignore the unnecessary complication of > > having to account for bridges as part of the route. > > This lets the bridge having its own attributes, unrelated to the road, > > for example a different name. > > This makes obsolete discussions wondering if the bridge must be split in > > two because the road changes in the middle. > > Etc. etc., all pieces clutch in very neatly. > > And BTW, this is similar to tunnel=culvert which is an optional feature > > of a bridge and that surprises no one at layer -1. > > And now, if we put bridges and culverts at -1, the rivers or streams are > > normally at -2. > > Tunnels (inside which the road runs) should be segments too, at level +1 > > or 0. > > > > I have tagged a number of streams and rivers at -2 -1 0 and I find it > > appreciable to have an instant view of where the complete main stream > > is, if not exaggeratedly long, as well as less prone to errors. > > > > Cheers, > > > > André. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:25:16PM +0100, André Pirard wrote: > Hi, > > I wonder why we make bridges split and split and split the roads. do not like that too much either. > In reality, bridges are pieces of concrete or stonework at level -1 > under an uninterrupted foil of tarmac at level 0. but in our model we don't map the concret, nor do we map cellars instead of houses. We map bridges as a property of the road. There is also the possibility to use man_made=bridge instead. > Or at level 0 if it's understood that the renderer knows what's a bridge. > And the renderer knows, as it draws two thin stripes beside the road. > So, a bridge can be a little way segment overlaying the road. it must be somehow connected to the road though. Do you advocate overlapping ways? > And BTW, this is similar to tunnel=culvert which is an optional feature > of a bridge and that surprises no one at layer -1. > And now, if we put bridges and culverts at -1, the rivers or streams are > normally at -2. > Tunnels (inside which the road runs) should be segments too, at level +1 > or 0. > > I have tagged a number of streams and rivers at -2 -1 0 and I find it > appreciable to have an instant view of where the complete main stream > is, if not exaggeratedly long, as well as less prone to errors. I think everyone else who will come across this tagging will remove your layer tags as incorrect. Seems to me the wiki should be kept in sync better. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
Hi John, yes, that's one possibility; knew that already, but thanks for pointing the list to the link. regards Peter Am 15.03.2014 14:16, schrieb John Packer: > I believe there was a proposal for tagging a bridge separately: > man_made=bridge. I think it would be really nice to have the actual outline > of the bridge rendered > Em 15/03/2014 10:02, "Peter Wendorff" escreveu: > >> Hi, >> >> I agree partially with you here. >> Yes, adding bridges in addition to the road is possible and may be a >> good idea. >> What we currently map as being a bridge in fact is the property of "the >> road is on a bridge" instead. >> Changing the current tagging scheme to "duplicate the corresponding >> segment of the way and tag the bridge as a separate, but again linear >> object" is worse in all but one point. >> The only point this is better in is that a street with a continuous name >> may not have to be splitted because of the bridge; but on the other hand >> we do so for anything else, too: speed restrictions, footway or not, >> highway type, surface and anything else; so it doesn't solve an issue >> dedicated to bridges. >> >> On the other hand it doesn't solve the issue with multiple parallel ways >> on the same bridge, e.g. considering a dual carriage way on one bridge >> construction we currently map the property "road is on a bridge" again >> on both parts of the dual carriage way independently, but it's >> impossible to decide from the data (usually) if it's one bridge or two >> bridges. >> Your proposal to duplicate the way does not solve this issue either, as >> you would still need two separate ways here. >> >> regards >> Peter >> >> >> Am 15.03.2014 13:25, schrieb André Pirard: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I wonder why we make bridges split and split and split the roads. >>> In reality, bridges are pieces of concrete or stonework at level -1 >>> under an uninterrupted foil of tarmac at level 0. >>> Or at level 0 if it's understood that the renderer knows what's a bridge. >>> And the renderer knows, as it draws two thin stripes beside the road. >>> So, a bridge can be a little way segment overlaying the road. >>> This lets the routing software ignore the unnecessary complication of >>> having to account for bridges as part of the route. >>> This lets the bridge having its own attributes, unrelated to the road, >>> for example a different name. >>> This makes obsolete discussions wondering if the bridge must be split in >>> two because the road changes in the middle. >>> Etc. etc., all pieces clutch in very neatly. >>> And BTW, this is similar to tunnel=culvert which is an optional feature >>> of a bridge and that surprises no one at layer -1. >>> And now, if we put bridges and culverts at -1, the rivers or streams are >>> normally at -2. >>> Tunnels (inside which the road runs) should be segments too, at level +1 >>> or 0. >>> >>> I have tagged a number of streams and rivers at -2 -1 0 and I find it >>> appreciable to have an instant view of where the complete main stream >>> is, if not exaggeratedly long, as well as less prone to errors. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> André. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
Please correct me if I'm wrong, after reading what you said, I think that the point that I was missing was this: - "tracktype" is the "degree of compaction" of the material (regardless of material) - "smoothness" is the "degree of irregularity" of the surface (for wheeled vehicles, also regardless of material) - "surface" more closely represents the material structure, usually regardless of other characteristics (with a few exceptions) The surface (not the "surface tag") can be fluffy and regular (some of the dirt roads, beach sand, etc.), or hard and irregular (such as in a road full of potholes). Fluffy or hard, it can be made of sand, clay, earth, etc. and many of those would be collectively called "dirt". If this conclusion is correct: - these tags are significantly more orthogonal than I thought they were - this is worthy of several notes in the wiki - it should simplify a lot of decisions in applications (for me) - these values of "surface" almost always imply tracktype=grade1: compacted, paved, asphalt, concrete, concrete_lanes, concrete_plates, sett, cobblestone, paving_stones, grass paver - in case we find something apparently contradictory as surface=asphalt+tracktype=grade5 (meaning "loose asphalt", which is silly but possible), tracktype is probably more relevant to predict surface quality - other values of surface can have any tracktype - all values of surface can present any level of smoothness (so smoothness is completely independent, while tracktype and surface may be thought of overlapping for several values) The whole confusion surrounding these tags is that some surfaces are usually "highly compacted" (concrete, asphalt, paving stones, etc.). These would almost always get tracktype=grade1. Moreover, the description for tracktype includes references to surface types, and maybe it shouldn't (or maybe should just be phrased a little differently). In summary: - "tracktype tag"="surface:compaction" - "smoothness tag"="surface:regularity" - "surface tag"="surface:material_structure" On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:36 AM, johnw wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Fernando Trebien > wrote: > > How surprisingly similar the landscape in this area is to the place > where I live in Brazil. > > > That's really pretty! > > Anyway, back to your place. I believe you'd call this a dirt road > leading into a private property: > https://www.google.com/maps/@32.704426,-116.720207,3a,75y,160.59h,81.43t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sH5Ez46TUHWIetR4uLSCy0Q!2e0 > > > Honestly, I would say this is more of a gravel surface, or at least it has a > strong amount of gravel in it. > > But you are exactly right - I would colloquially describe it as a dirt road. > > > > https://www.google.com/maps/@32.754457,-116.675043,3a,75y,244.08h,66.68t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJhyTrxQnSp12qvq6uDJ_QA!2e0 > > is what I would say is dirt, grade 2 > > And here is a dirt grade 4 or 5. > > https://www.google.com/maps/@32.704654,-116.725304,3a,69.4y,194.94h,67.89t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shSHA3wkceuNcBDfUVBL9CQ!2e0 > > > > Would you describe this surface as "earth"? Or maybe "compacted"? > > I think "sand" would usually mean fluffy sand, such as in beach sand, > like here: > https://www.google.com/maps?ll=-29.347317,-49.729185&spn=0.014065,0.047979&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=-29.347303,-49.729198&panoid=nxCzohwftvM2H6wO89EJng&cbp=11,182.99,,0,3.15 > > > That road looks really old! > > > Sand is hard, because a truly sand road is usually just river bottom, like > in a wadi (wash) or beach, because the road is usually defined by the > natural borders (the wadi's banks, shoreline, etc). I don't think there > could be many marked "dune" roads, they'd disappear before they were mapped. > but maybe my experience is limited. > > https://www.google.com/maps/@32.915195,-116.240605,3a,33.3y,14.3h,79.76t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6SYOIDZphiH9EfbnOULxfw!2e0 > > you can see the white sand where the road starts from the turnout. you can > easily get stuck in it. > > > Here's a road in Brazil that probably fits the American definition of > "dirt": > > > Exactly. > > > However, the surface here is "compacted" according to official > sources. It's hard to tell visually, but it's possible that the > mixture has been compressed. > > > Compacted "what" is the question. Tephra? Decomposed Granite? gravel? A > mixture of clay, sand, gravel, and organic bits called "dirt" ? > > I assume almost any grade 1or 2 track is compacted - isn't that part of the > definition or grade 1 & 2? > > but a whole lot of grade 3/4/5 maybe was once compacted, now it's just > falling apart/grass growing in the center. > > Grade 3 from the wiki: > > " > Unpaved track; an even mixture of hard and soft materials. > " > > > This is what I believe would be described as "earth" but not > "compacted" (also from official sources): > > > > I wonder if you'd call this "dirt" too. ' > > > yea, that's a dirt road alight - not sand and not little stones. I'm not > sure, but that looks a lot like like DG - decompos
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 14/mar/2014 um 15:51 schrieb Fernando Trebien : Do you agree that the river can be tagged with layer=-1 as long as this value is correct in relation to the layer of other nearby/crossing ways? I would discourage you to do so. Layer tags should only be applied to ways that actually cross other objects on different layers (ie without intersecting them). I agree totally with: "Layer tags should only be applied to ways that actually cross other objects." At its simplest, a layer tag is a hint to a renderer which of two crossing ways should be rendered later (i.e. on top). If a renderer does not apply the real world knowledge that a bridge (by its definition) crosses over a way (road, water, whatever) underneath, then it can still take the hint to render it correctly. The renderers have no problem interpreting the situation correctly, with or without the layer tag, afaik. A layer tag is not a way to define the relative height of different objects. Some of the discussion on the proposal's talk page is confused about that. I would tag the structure (bridge or tunnel) with a layer tag*. I would not tag a river or stream along its entire length. Rivers, streams, canals, etc. are surface features (in most cases). The mere fact that the bed of a waterway is often at a lower level than the surrounding ground level is not relevant for the layer tag since hinting for correct rendering is not necessary. (In the Netherlands and other polder areas, waterways are often above the surrounding area.) *Actually, as I made clear on talk when we had this discussion very recently, I would prefer not to use the layer tag at all in most of these cases. The fact that somewhere between one quarter (taginfo) and one third (overpass turbo samples in the Netherlands) do not use a layer tag with bridges indicates to me that it is not as clear cut as people are suggesting. (Note: I realise that there are specific cases where explicit tagging for layer hinting is necessary (e.g. bridges or viaducts layered vertically). These are relatively rare.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse=civic_admin
> Am 14/mar/2014 um 00:54 schrieb johnw : > > I'm very interested to hear people's opinion on landuse=civic_admin > > It would be a landuse for townhalls and other capital buildings, Federal > Buildings, DMV, courthouses, and other basic civic administrative offices > where it is clearly a government building. maybe this is a language or cultural problem, but I'd consider neither courthouses nor government buildings "administration". Courthouses serve the Judiciary and administration is together with government the executive branch. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
Alright. I see that "applying layer to long ways" is bad for several reasons. Surely this could be turned into a validation warning. But what's the difference between tagging the bridge with layer=1 and tagging the river underneath with layer=-1? Some people seem to think that both are necessary, many think it's best to use layer=1 on the bridge, I'm saying that layer=-1 on the river (let's say a short section, not the entire length) is "equivalent". Is it not equivalent? Is it wrong? If it is wrong, why is it wrong? On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Frank Little wrote: > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>> >>> Am 14/mar/2014 um 15:51 schrieb Fernando Trebien >>> : >>> >>> Do you agree that the river can be tagged with layer=-1 as long as >>> this value is correct in relation to the layer of other >>> nearby/crossing ways? >> >> >> I would discourage you to do so. Layer tags should only be applied to ways >> that actually cross other objects on different layers (ie without >> intersecting them). >> > I agree totally with: "Layer tags should only be applied to ways that > actually cross other objects." > > At its simplest, a layer tag is a hint to a renderer which of two crossing > ways should be rendered later (i.e. on top). If a renderer does not apply > the real world knowledge that a bridge (by its definition) crosses over a > way (road, water, whatever) underneath, then it can still take the hint to > render it correctly. The renderers have no problem interpreting the > situation correctly, with or without the layer tag, afaik. > > A layer tag is not a way to define the relative height of different objects. > Some of the discussion on the proposal's talk page is confused about that. > > I would tag the structure (bridge or tunnel) with a layer tag*. > I would not tag a river or stream along its entire length. > > Rivers, streams, canals, etc. are surface features (in most cases). The mere > fact that the bed of a waterway is often at a lower level than the > surrounding ground level is not relevant for the layer tag since hinting for > correct rendering is not necessary. (In the Netherlands and other polder > areas, waterways are often above the surrounding area.) > > *Actually, as I made clear on talk when we had this discussion very > recently, I would prefer not to use the layer tag at all in most of these > cases. The fact that somewhere between one quarter (taginfo) and one third > (overpass turbo samples in the Netherlands) do not use a layer tag with > bridges indicates to me that it is not as clear cut as people are > suggesting. (Note: I realise that there are specific cases where explicit > tagging for layer hinting is necessary (e.g. bridges or viaducts layered > vertically). These are relatively rare.) > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law) "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
Fernando Trebien wrote: Alright. I see that "applying layer to long ways" is bad for several reasons. Surely this could be turned into a validation warning. But what's the difference between tagging the bridge with layer=1 and tagging the river underneath with layer=-1? Some people seem to think that both are necessary, many think it's best to use layer=1 on the bridge, I'm saying that layer=-1 on the river (let's say a short section, not the entire length) is "equivalent". Is it not equivalent? Is it wrong? If it is wrong, why is it wrong? I don't think 'wrong' is the way to approach this; afaik, they are indeed equivalent. There are four alternatives which mappers follow, none of which are 'wrong': tag the bridge segment, tag the water segment under the bridge, tag both, tag neither. I've run waterway=stream or =canal (or =ditch, I think) through a few of the small rivers and streams here in the Netherlands. Roads need splitting to make bridges, so it makes sense to do all the relevant tagging on the road segment with the bridge tag when you are working on it. I don't have any reason to split the waterway=*, so I just draw on without stopping. Since I put the name on the waterway and not on the riverbank, it leaves it to the renderer to find a good place to fit in the river/stream/canal name. In principle, that should mean a cleaner map if the renderer can work out the proper placement (difficult job, though). So I would be against splitting the waterway at a bridge and tagging it layer=-1 on practical grounds. And you can be sure that it would cause confusion with other mappers who would imagine that you are trying to model an inverted siphon with the piece of waterway tagged layer=-1, or that you had simply made a mistake. (The 'level' confusion again.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse=civic_admin
Civil administration is surely hardly a land use. A council office is no different to any other office. I suggest looking at planning zones and their designations as a reference. Typically classifications like residential, retail, commercial, industrial and agricultural are seen, and changing the use of a parcel of land from one classification to another is a serious process which doesn't happen very frequently (in the big scheme of things). I don't expect so see the local plans define a particular plot as "civil administration" as the specific land use will be covered by one of the other classifications. The council can't just knock down a council office building or a courthouse and replace it with a highways yard in the middle of a city centre because they are all the same "land use". Colin On 2014-03-15 17:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> Am 14/mar/2014 um 00:54 schrieb johnw : I'm very interested >> to hear people's opinion on landuse=civic_admin It would be a landuse for >> townhalls and other capital buildings, Federal Buildings, DMV, courthouses, >> and other basic civic administrative offices where it is clearly a >> government building. > > maybe this is a language or cultural problem, but I'd consider neither > courthouses nor government buildings "administration". Courthouses serve the > Judiciary and administration is together with government the executive branch. > > cheers, > Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
> > > In summary: > - "tracktype tag"="surface:compaction" > - "smoothness tag"="surface:regularity" > - "surface tag"="surface:material_structure" That is how I understand it. the Smoothness is the most subjective one, but the others should be pretty straightforward. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
"the validator will only prevent the most obvious errors but will give
you no clue how to fix them correctly"
I know. But two or three rounds of trial and error with the validator
should be enough to bring a new user to an acceptable representation.
"there is no difference between connections in endpoints or in a
crossing point as far as I can tell."
You're right. I should have used "overlap" not "cross". That's what I
meant really. If a waterway and a highway cross, that means they share
a common node, so it represents a ford and maybe a dam. If they
overlap but do not cross, they should, in principle, be in different
vertical positions, so they should have a different value in the
"layer" tag.
"or one of covered,location,indoor,steps,lift or level, maybe more."
I have to read more about them an check their usage, but they could
all be incorporated in the same rule in the validator. It's just a few
extra values in a set referred to in a rule. Surely this set can grow
over time.
"except for indoor mapping and maybe other weird cases."
I'm not so much involved with indoor mapping yet, but I think the
rules would still apply. What I know about indoor mapping (possibly
too little): it is being done in such a way that people will first
filter by level and then render. So "layer" probably applies within
"level". If you have two ways that overlap at the same level but do
share a node, they must sit at different layers, right? They must be
vertically displaced, so one of them should be an indoor "tunnel" and
the other should be an indoor "bridge" (or something alike), right?
"also railways?"
As far as I can imagine, it should apply to railways too. Also to
combinations of railways with highways, and railways with waterways.
(If it does not, please show me an example.)
"more general: not connected, different layer values and not one of
bridge,tunnel,covered,location,indoor,steps,lift, no level tag and
a few more things to take into account."
I believe you mean that these propositions are joined with "AND"
logic: not connected AND different layer values AND not of
{bridge,tunnel,...} AND no level tag", right?
Different layer values AND not one of {bridge,tunnel,...} will issue a
warning for the way without bridge=* or layer=* that goes underneath
bridge=yes+layer=1, right?
"identical to d?"
Exactly, that's the point I'm trying to state. Layer is a relative
value, its actual values should not be assigned any special meaning.
Layer=0 does not mean ground level, and layer=-1 does not mean
underground nor should be forbidden for rivers (as long as it obeys
the other thumb rule: "use layer only in short ways or short spans of
a way").
"unless indoor or other strange cases"
Correct, let's add "within the same level" to all of those rules, and
assume level=0 when level is not specified in a tag. Then they all
work also for indoor mapping.
"It is a lot easier saying that every bridge and tunnel must have a
layer tag and enforce that than catching all the situations mentioned
in situation "d"."
Yes but it is also much harder to get everyone in the world to follow
it. Even a person that knows that rule may forget to apply it
sometimes. I know that this same reason does not apply to many other
similar situations in which a validation rule would be much more
complex than that.
"With some luck, you can restrict "d" to waterways and it becomes "easy"."
Fair enough, since the current problem mostly concerns waterways. I
just tried to arrive at a more generic rule, which I believed would be
more useful in the long term.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:55:39PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
>> I don't think you should be required to check the river's layer tag.
>> Validators should do this job for you, it's quite easy to write a rule
>> for that.
>
> validators can check for many errors but if you want to change
> anything you have to understand the whole situation.
> Imagine you want to add a new bridge to a complex freeway intersection
> with junctions and overpasses.. the validator will only prevent the
> most obvious errors but will give you no clue how to fix them
> correctly.
>
>> Given two ways that cross internally (excluding connections at
>> endpoints), and considering the "layer value" defined explicitly in a
>> tag or implicitly 0 when the tag is missing, have the validator issue
>> a warning in the following situations:
>
> there is no difference between connections in endpoints or in a crossing
> point as far as I can tell.
>
>> 1. The ways have the same layer value and are unconnected. (They
>> should be connected, or else something is surely missing. This could
>> actually be considered an "error".)
>
> except for aerial ways and similar exceptions
>
>> 1.1. Also warn if if one way is a waterway and the other is a highway
>> and the connection is not explicitly a ford. (It should be, for
>> clarity. If it's not, it's also possibly not a ford, ther
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
I thought a bit more and this statement I said is incorrect:
"Correct, let's add "within the same level" to all of those rules, and
assume level=0 when level is not specified in a tag. Then they all
work also for indoor mapping."
The correct wording of those warning rules, taking indoor mapping into
account, should be:
---
If level is missing, use the value of location instead for the
following rules. Otherwise, consider it equal to 0.
When layer is equal between both ways, and so is level, warn when:
1. The ways are unconnected (ie. they just overlap without sharing a node).
2. The ways are connected, one way is a waterway and the other is a
highway and the connection is not explicitly a ford or a dam.
When only level is equal between both ways, warn when:
3. The ways have different layer value and both are missing a tunnel
or a bridge tag.
4. The layer value of a bridge is inferior to that of a way that is
not a bridge.
5. The layer value of a tunnel is superior to that of a way that is
not a tunnel.
In addition, also warn when location=underground/underwater and level
> 0, and when location=overground and level < 0.
---
I thought about the meaning of covered and steps, but they don't say
anything about the vertical order of the overlapping elements, so it
may be interesting to get users to declare that order when ways
overlap within the same level.
Please see if you can find a situation that would not be identified by
those rules, or one that would be identified incorrectly.
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Fernando Trebien
wrote:
> "the validator will only prevent the most obvious errors but will give
> you no clue how to fix them correctly"
>
> I know. But two or three rounds of trial and error with the validator
> should be enough to bring a new user to an acceptable representation.
>
> "there is no difference between connections in endpoints or in a
> crossing point as far as I can tell."
>
> You're right. I should have used "overlap" not "cross". That's what I
> meant really. If a waterway and a highway cross, that means they share
> a common node, so it represents a ford and maybe a dam. If they
> overlap but do not cross, they should, in principle, be in different
> vertical positions, so they should have a different value in the
> "layer" tag.
>
> "or one of covered,location,indoor,steps,lift or level, maybe more."
>
> I have to read more about them an check their usage, but they could
> all be incorporated in the same rule in the validator. It's just a few
> extra values in a set referred to in a rule. Surely this set can grow
> over time.
>
> "except for indoor mapping and maybe other weird cases."
>
> I'm not so much involved with indoor mapping yet, but I think the
> rules would still apply. What I know about indoor mapping (possibly
> too little): it is being done in such a way that people will first
> filter by level and then render. So "layer" probably applies within
> "level". If you have two ways that overlap at the same level but do
> share a node, they must sit at different layers, right? They must be
> vertically displaced, so one of them should be an indoor "tunnel" and
> the other should be an indoor "bridge" (or something alike), right?
>
> "also railways?"
>
> As far as I can imagine, it should apply to railways too. Also to
> combinations of railways with highways, and railways with waterways.
> (If it does not, please show me an example.)
>
> "more general: not connected, different layer values and not one of
> bridge,tunnel,covered,location,indoor,steps,lift, no level tag and
> a few more things to take into account."
>
> I believe you mean that these propositions are joined with "AND"
> logic: not connected AND different layer values AND not of
> {bridge,tunnel,...} AND no level tag", right?
>
> Different layer values AND not one of {bridge,tunnel,...} will issue a
> warning for the way without bridge=* or layer=* that goes underneath
> bridge=yes+layer=1, right?
>
> "identical to d?"
>
> Exactly, that's the point I'm trying to state. Layer is a relative
> value, its actual values should not be assigned any special meaning.
> Layer=0 does not mean ground level, and layer=-1 does not mean
> underground nor should be forbidden for rivers (as long as it obeys
> the other thumb rule: "use layer only in short ways or short spans of
> a way").
>
> "unless indoor or other strange cases"
>
> Correct, let's add "within the same level" to all of those rules, and
> assume level=0 when level is not specified in a tag. Then they all
> work also for indoor mapping.
>
> "It is a lot easier saying that every bridge and tunnel must have a
> layer tag and enforce that than catching all the situations mentioned
> in situation "d"."
>
> Yes but it is also much harder to get everyone in the world to follow
> it. Even a person that knows that rule may forget to apply it
> sometimes. I know that this same reason does not apply to many other
> similar situations in which a validation rule
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
Here are a few arguable reasons to split the waterway and tag it with layer=-1: 1. Bridges may come in pairs for dual carriageways. In this case, it's a single layer tag for the waterway versus 2 layer tags for the bridges. This may happen many times in a row. In this case, it makes sense to split the waterway at 1 point (dividing into "urban" and "not urban" parts) and tag the whole urban part with layer=-1. That's the case in my hometown (54 tags, one for every bridge vs 1 tag only + 1 split waterway), see here towards the East: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-30.04781/-51.22689 2. If you split only near the bridges, the name of the waterway will be rendered between the bridges, which is the optimal position. (But this "could" be considered mapping for the renderer.) Situation 1 happens in many other cities across the world, and if you tag the bridge as layer=1, you may end up inverting the rendering order of highways, leading to this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138032009 "(The 'level' confusion again.)" If this is a common mistake, let's write the distinction at the very top of the respective article in the wiki. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Frank Little wrote: > Fernando Trebien wrote: >> >> Alright. I see that "applying layer to long ways" is bad for several >> reasons. Surely this could be turned into a validation warning. >> >> But what's the difference between tagging the bridge with layer=1 and >> tagging the river underneath with layer=-1? Some people seem to think >> that both are necessary, many think it's best to use layer=1 on the >> bridge, I'm saying that layer=-1 on the river (let's say a short >> section, not the entire length) is "equivalent". Is it not equivalent? >> Is it wrong? If it is wrong, why is it wrong? >> > I don't think 'wrong' is the way to approach this; afaik, they are indeed > equivalent. > There are four alternatives which mappers follow, none of which are 'wrong': > tag the bridge segment, tag the water segment under the bridge, tag both, > tag neither. > > I've run waterway=stream or =canal (or =ditch, I think) through a few of the > small rivers and streams here in the Netherlands. Roads need splitting to > make bridges, so it makes sense to do all the relevant tagging on the road > segment with the bridge tag when you are working on it. > > I don't have any reason to split the waterway=*, so I just draw on without > stopping. Since I put the name on the waterway and not on the riverbank, it > leaves it to the renderer to find a good place to fit in the > river/stream/canal name. In principle, that should mean a cleaner map if the > renderer can work out the proper placement (difficult job, though). > > So I would be against splitting the waterway at a bridge and tagging it > layer=-1 on practical grounds. And you can be sure that it would cause > confusion with other mappers who would imagine that you are trying to model > an inverted siphon with the piece of waterway tagged layer=-1, or that you > had simply made a mistake. (The 'level' confusion again.) > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law) "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
It's not that straightforward to me since tracktype is described in terms of surface materials, which can have widely varying levels of compaction. But great, I'll update the articles trying to make this distinction clearer, then post back here my changes. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:59 PM, johnw wrote: >> >> >> In summary: >> - "tracktype tag"="surface:compaction" >> - "smoothness tag"="surface:regularity" >> - "surface tag"="surface:material_structure" > > That is how I understand it. the Smoothness is the most subjective one, but > the others should be pretty straightforward. > > Javbw > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law) "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 02:06:13PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: > "the validator will only prevent the most obvious errors but will give > you no clue how to fix them correctly" > > I know. But two or three rounds of trial and error with the validator > should be enough to bring a new user to an acceptable representation. the validator has no idea how the crossing is supposed to look like, this is a very optimistic assumption optimistic for anything but the simplest cases. > "or one of covered,location,indoor,steps,lift or level, maybe more." > > I have to read more about them an check their usage, but they could > all be incorporated in the same rule in the validator. It's just a few > extra values in a set referred to in a rule. Surely this set can grow > over time. I have a bunch of search strings for JOSM on my user page, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RicoZ use those as tests for the assumptions. In most part of the world what they match are obvious errors - with the exception of some parts of Chicago City which I do not know well enough to judge what is going on there. Reply to "level" related things in next email. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
Am 15.03.2014 19:19, schrieb Fernando Trebien: > Here are a few arguable reasons to split the waterway and tag it with > layer=-1: > 1. Bridges may come in pairs for dual carriageways. In this case, it's > a single layer tag for the waterway versus 2 layer tags for the > bridges. This may happen many times in a row. In this case, it makes > sense to split the waterway at 1 point (dividing into "urban" and "not > urban" parts) and tag the whole urban part with layer=-1. That's the > case in my hometown (54 tags, one for every bridge vs 1 tag only + 1 > split waterway), see here towards the East: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-30.04781/-51.22689 On the other hand you don't have to split anything if you put the layer tag on the bridges because the bridge is already a separate object. And even bridges span several parallel osm-ways often: cyclepaths footpaths, streets, railway lines... along the waterway, one sided or both-sided. > 2. If you split only near the bridges, the name of the waterway will > be rendered between the bridges, which is the optimal position. (But > this "could" be considered mapping for the renderer.) This is heavily mapping for the renderer. A good and powerful renderer would a) join ways with the same name but different "detail" tags for layer positioning b) place the label where no bridge or way above the tunnel is in conflict regarding the space on the canvas. This may not be the case out of performance reasons for an online rendering system like the mapnik stylesheet on osm.org, but that's another issue. > Situation 1 happens in many other cities across the world, and if you > tag the bridge as layer=1, you may end up inverting the rendering > order of highways, leading to this: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138032009 good point, but I would consider this a bug independent of rendering as the same may occur on the way below the bridge as well, if there's a join of that way with another one without a layer tag.x anyone going to report this as a bug in the stylesheet? regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: > > Situation 1 happens in many other cities across the world, and if you > > tag the bridge as layer=1, you may end up inverting the rendering > > order of highways, leading to this: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138032009 > good point, but I would consider this a bug independent of rendering as > the same may occur on the way below the bridge as well, if there's a > join of that way with another one without a layer tag.x > > anyone going to report this as a bug in the stylesheet? > > regards > Peter > > It's exactly this reason why the roads should be at a single layer (except the underpass) in a given vicinity, and the river set to one layer lower. If you want to make all the roads layer=1, then feel free, but it's easier to make the river layer=-1. It's not a bug. The data is wrong. No renderer could reasonably be asked to make sense of that mess. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
2014-03-15 16:29 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien : > "tracktype" is the "degree of compaction" of the material > (regardless of material) > I have always more thought of it "how much it was constructed", while tracktype=1 is a paved road, 5 will be a track on grass (almost or not constructed at all) and the rest in between. Generally a tracktype=grade1 should be easily navigable by bike or foot also after days of rain while for grade2 you would hope so and grade3 is not clear, 4 and 5 probably not. In the end it is a generalized hierarchical system that comprises several single characteristics to come to a summarizing tag value (and the single characteristics are not documented and may vary on individual basis). Somehow it still works as you can compare the values with other tracks in the same area. > - "smoothness" is the "degree of irregularity" of the surface (for > wheeled vehicles, also regardless of material) > yes. in other words how "smooth" or "even" the surface is. > - "surface" more closely represents the material structure, usually > regardless of other characteristics (with a few exceptions) > yes, surface is a mixture of the ~material (roughly classified) and in some cases the way of application / the overall structure (e.g. cobblestones). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 03:19:36PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: > Situation 1 happens in many other cities across the world, and if you > tag the bridge as layer=1, you may end up inverting the rendering > order of highways, leading to this: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138032009 what exactly is the problem here? Colour artefacts on the Quai des Gevres? If it is affected by the layer than it is a bug in Mapnik - and no, we should not use layer to fix bugs in Mapnik. Looking at the data in JOSM I see a few problems - for example there is no reason why this particular way should have any layer tag at all. It seems completely useless and one of the reasons I want to enforce the "no layer tag without a bridge/tunnel" rule which would catch similar accidents. While not wrong in this case it is also not needed to have the bridge at layer=2. Also building=bridge is the wrong tag for this bridge (tagging for Mapnik again ?) but if it is used at all the ways entering the bridge ought at least share a node with the bridge where they are entering it. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse=civic_admin
On Mar 16, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I'd consider neither courthouses nor government buildings "administration". Federal buildings in the US are the equivalent to branch offices of the US government - basically "national hall" - they are very far apart, usually 1-3 per state. They have the offices needed for passports and visas (immigration), and other federal offices, like state offices or city offices. I can see how courthouses are the odd man out - good point on executive vs judicial, but the judges are civil servants. they just work in the judicial branch. The President of the United States is a "civil servant" if you work for the government in an non-military position, you are a public worker or a civil servant, hence the civic in civic_admin. Administration, to me, is offices that you visit because they are the area's authority on the matter, or do the civil job that that their department is in charge of. That might be a national authority or a local one. In Japan, The City offices are huge compared to their american ones. Most of the federal services are administered via city halls and regional buildings. As the small villages have dwindled in population, these former cities have been merged into the larger ones, their former city hall becoming a "branch office" for the larger city's offices. The prefectural office - often by far the tallest and biggest building in the prefecture, is the next level of offices. These are the "federal buildings" of Japan, they are about 2 hours apart by car. The national buildings are, of course, in Tokyo. http://www.gtia.jp/kokusai/english/img/traveling/201012_4.jpg The 5 buildings in that picture are all government office buildings in Gunma. This is giant for a population of 2 million people, especially considering there are dozens of local city offices as well. This is because the bureaucracy of Japan is thick and a part of of your life on a monthly basis. On Mar 16, 2014, at 1:53 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > Civil administration is surely hardly a land use. As opposed to meadow? Salt pond? Village green? Perhaps I am missing something. [K-12] School is a landuse, right? Hospital is a landuse. College is a landuse. If you want to talk zoning laws and all that, yea. City hall is on "public" land and all, and it really doesn't have a usage limitation attached to it like "residential" or "Industrial". But landuse doesn't seem to care about that. It seems to be a way to separate the land into landuses for mapping differentiation in OSM. OSM is mapping what exists, not the zoning for what it could be. (as I understand it). ~ I was told that commercial is the proper landuse for city hall, and we treat it like an office building. My proposal is that it isn't a commercial landuse - it's something different. That it should be differentiated from the other basic landuses, as school or hospital is. In some countries, the location of city hall is as important as knowing where the hospital or university is - you visit it much more often than a hospital anyways. landuse seems to be the appropriate tag, because it is used to outline the land that the buildings sit on. And in OSM, those landsues are colored to denote use. I am looking for a tag to define the area the townhall building sits on, or other similarly related offices that are neither commercial, industrial, or residential. Considering the plethora of landuse tags, I assume there is room for something like civic_admin. How far does it need to be narrowed, or is there another category of area tags that can be used to differentiate these place's area that I don't know about? Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
