Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinking_water

[François Lacombe]

Hi,

Do you think this proposal and the Water Network one could be merged ?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_network

It would be great to have a complete and consistent tagging model for water
facilities including drinking water point and reservoirs.

Let me know if people are interested in such work.

*François Lacombe*

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com


2014-04-02 22:40 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt :

> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Rudolf Martin wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> according to the discussion in the mailinglist I cancel the former
>> proposal "drinkable" and start a new proposal "drinking_water".
>
>
> Note: There's quite an active mapping effort around drinking water:
> including
> use of drinking_water=yes/no as an attribute of  places like restrooms
> or businesses.  There are several drinking water mapping applications
> in the various app stores.
>
> ___
> 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] Wilderness huts

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-04-03 3:39 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout :

> It's difficult to come up with a scheme that handles all the possibilities
> especially if you consider the reality that most tag information will never
> show up on a standard map.



well, you won't get them on a paper map most probably, but digital maps
(e.g. on smartphones) will display more and more information, maybe even
raw tags in some cases, and so it is definitely worth adding as much
details as you'd like yourself to find in the data ;-)

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-04-03 1:53 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić :

> Rationale in the Wiki says this would save us database space, we would
> have 2 ways and 1 node less per bridge. Also, that maintaining one node is
> easier than maintaining 3 ways. Lastly, problem of pretending you have
> drawn a little bridge precise, when you didn't.
>
> All of these are valid points,
>



FWIW, it is not true, we  would "save" 1 way or 2, but the amount of nodes
would remain the same, because with the new proposal the waterway would get
an extra node which it hasn't otherwise. The 1 way saved is on the other
hand loss of information as pointed out before.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Philip Barnes]

Whilst I think this is a very bad idea for the same reasons as already given by 
Martin and Janko.

What on earth is a Brunnel? I don't know and neither does google. I have an 
idea from reading the thread but I wonder how many have ignored the thread 
through the choice of words in the title?

Phil (trigpoint)
--

Sent from my Nokia N9



On 03/04/2014 10:12 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



2014-04-03 1:53 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić :

Rationale in the Wiki says this would save us database space, we would have 2 
ways and 1 node less per bridge. Also, that maintaining one node is easier than 
maintaining 3 ways. Lastly, problem of pretending you have drawn a little 
bridge precise, when you didn't.


All of these are valid points,




FWIW, it is not true, we  would "save" 1 way or 2, but the amount of nodes 
would remain the same, because with the new proposal the waterway would get an 
extra node which it hasn't otherwise. The 1 way saved is on the other hand loss 
of information as pointed out before.


cheers,
Martin


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Janko Mihelić]

2014-04-03 11:12 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> FWIW, it is not true, we  would "save" 1 way or 2, but the amount of nodes
> would remain the same, because with the new proposal the waterway would get
> an extra node which it hasn't otherwise. The 1 way saved is on the other
> hand loss of information as pointed out before.
>

I went super-geeky, and made a quick estimation of xml size:

http://pastebin.com/ZDXPv8fK

I don't know if the database sizes are proportional to xml, but there's 674
letters in the brunnell version, and 1306 letters in the bridge version of
the xml. So more than double :) Waterway only refers the same node.

Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Dave F.]

On 02/04/2014 17:14, Richard Z. wrote:
as explained in the rationale the dimensions of the bridge/culvert are 
frequently only a fraction of the achievable precision. Think of a 
track crossing a small creek in a forest valley int the mountains. The 
GPS precision will be 10 meters if you are lucky, the brunnel 2-3m. 
Mapping this the old fashioned way will produce junk data, not precision.


Rubbish. Please don't rely on a GPSr. It is only one, of many, ways to 
survey. If I see a small bridge over a stream, say 3m I'll map is as 
that, because that's how it accurately is in the real world. Some users 
have access to detailed aerial imagery to help map accurately.


David Fox

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Dave F.]

Mike

We should be mapping as accurately as we can within the limitations (gps 
accuracy, aerial imagery etc) that we have. Data can always be upgraded 
when more accurate information becomes available. This proposal is a 
step backwards towards inaccuracy.



On 02/04/2014 18:29, Mike Thompson wrote:


> We aim at precision/accuracy (IMHO, at least I do),
1) How much precision/accuracy?  No real world measurement or 
recording of such measurement is exactly precise/accurate. Do you use 
a commercial grade differential GPS when surveying?  When you are 
create a way to represent a road which in reality is an arc or curve, 
how many nodes do you use?  You could increase your precision by 
adding more nodes.
2) In general, there is a cost to increased precision (and accuracy) 
in terms of the survey effort, the survey equipment, the recording 
effort, and the computing resources.
3) At some point the value of increased precision ceases to grow, and 
may even decline.










On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:



2014-04-02 18:16 GMT+02:00 Mike Thompson mailto:miketh...@gmail.com>>:

> It is also a significant loss of detail because you reduce
the length of the bridge to 0
Maps are abstractions. They don't represent reality precisely.




We aim at precision/accuracy (IMHO, at least I do), you can always
create more abstracted maps from precise geodata, while the other
way round it is not possible.

  In most cases we already reduce the width of roads to 0 as
they are not represented by areas.



no, their geometric representation is a line, but their width is
(or can be) added with a tag like width and lanes, of which the
latter defaults to 2 (for non-links) if not added explicitly.


 The question should be whether the value of the data is
significantly degraded if some very short bridges are
represented as nodes.



OK. Can you explain how long a "very short bridge" should be? What
is the benefit of this kind of mapping style?
In this context I'd like to point out that GPS precision is not
the limit, you do not have to take 2 waypoints at the beginning
and end of the bridge and the result will become your bridge,
automatically, usually you will interpret these waypoints and will
estimate the bridge length and represent it according to your
estimate, so I do not think a 3 meters long bridge will result in
a 45 meters long zigzag in your mapping, just because you had bad
GPS reception under the tree canopy and made a break on the bridge ;-)


cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Ticket for JOSM to read contact metadata closed

[fly]

On 03.04.2014 01:13, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On 2 April 2014 18:37, Tobias Knerr  wrote:
>> On 02.04.2014 19:25, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> 
>> The response probably refers to the fact
>> that, unfortunately, very few business websites offer contact data in a
>> machine-readable format.
> 
> Perhaps, though a number do.
> 
> But why would the machine-readable data need to be on their own
> websites? We have such data, for example, in infoboxes on Wikipedia
> articles.

Think there is also "scripting"-Plugin which can handle several other
language.

>> However, all hope is not lost: This functionality would be ideal for a
>> JOSM plugin. And it's not unheard of that popular plugins later make it
>> into JOSM itself.
> 
> So where do I request one of those?

Just reopen and change the component to "Plugin"


cu fly

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

[fly]

Some parts are still valid and not off topic.

As material:wikidata shows that we need to well define the usage of
*:wikidata.

On the other hand we already the wiki as data base for tags and their
values. So if we stay with material or surface adding link to wikidata
in the value description would be nice.

Cheers
fly

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinking_water

[fly]

On 03.04.2014 10:26, François Lacombe wrote:

> Do you think this proposal and the Water Network one could be merged ?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_network

Seems to me that this page needs some clean up.

* please use boundary=protected_area
* What key or value do the taginfo numbers on the right side represent ?

> It would be great to have a complete and consistent tagging model for
> water facilities including drinking water point and reservoirs.

Think the aim was to clear the situations about springs, fountains,
wells and similar which are only one small part of the water network.

In general I like your list about water networks but I do not see a
chance to merge but rather use it as an overview to link to the tag
pages (maybe use a template ?).

fly


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

[fly]

ATM on the german mailing list noexit=yes is discussed.

On user pointed out that on the english wiki page it is defined for
nodes and ways where as on the german one it is only valid for nodes.

I had a look at the history of the page and found some actions 3 years
ago. First it was only defined for nodes then only for ways and later
for both.

I did not find much talk about it on this list that is why I ask my
question:

Is noexit=yes useful on ways ?
How do you use it ?
Should we only define it for nodes and get warnings about wrong usage
from quality insurance tools ?


So far I only use it on nodes where no other way is connected. It is
useful to make sure that at this point is no through way or missing data
and that you need not to try and check out again.

Thanks for your opinions

fly

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

[fly]

ATM on the german mailing list noexit=yes is discussed.

On user pointed out that on the english wiki page it is defined for
nodes and ways where as on the german one it is only valid for nodes.

I had a look at the history of the page and found some actions 3 years
ago. First it was only defined for nodes then only for ways and later
for both.

I did not find much talk about it on this list that is why I ask my
question:

Is noexit=yes useful on ways ?
How do you use it ?
Should we only define it for nodes and get warnings about wrong usage
from quality insurance tools ?


So far I only use it on nodes where no other way is connected. It is
useful to make sure that at this point is no through way or missing data
and that you need not to try and check out again.

Thanks for your opinions

fly

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

[Nelson A. de Oliveira]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM, fly  wrote:
> Is noexit=yes useful on ways ?

The way has one side that has/is an exit :-)
Tagging the whole way as "noexit=yes" seems strange.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

[SomeoneElse]

fly wrote:

Is noexit=yes useful on ways ?



Asking a slightly broader question, in what situations is "noexit=yes" 
useful at all, except as a cue to subsequent mappers in the very rare 
situation that one way ends very close to another one and there's 
absolutely nothing (not a wall, footpath, anything) between them?


Cheers,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

[John Packer]

> in what situations is "noexit=yes" useful at all, except as a cue to
> subsequent mappers in the very rare situation that one way ends very close
> to another one and there's absolutely nothing (not a wall, footpath,
> anything) between them?
>
It might be useful when there is limited visibility of the ways using the
satellite imagery (for example, being blocked by clouds or trees), so it
becomes a confirmation that the way does indeed end there.
It can also may make it easier to visualize the streets if the city has a
lot of streets without exit. (JOSM properly renders nodes with noexit=yes)



2014-04-03 16:22 GMT-03:00 SomeoneElse :

> fly wrote:
>
>> Is noexit=yes useful on ways ?
>>
>>
> Asking a slightly broader question, in what situations is "noexit=yes"
> useful at all, except as a cue to subsequent mappers in the very rare
> situation that one way ends very close to another one and there's
> absolutely nothing (not a wall, footpath, anything) between them?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] What is OSM: a base layer for individual maps, or a fully featured geobased information system?

[Richard Z.]

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 08:18:12PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Problem is that while "wanting things to show on the map" is a strong
> motivator for people, it doesn't scale - we are not far from the point
> where for every feature we add to our main map we have to remove another
> feature from this map. The map is already saturated with features. Still
> we hope that we can motivate people to add more detail - but such
> motivation must come through specialist applications and maps, and not
> be defined by "this shows on the main map and this doesn't".

The map is saturated - isn't it only the question of the right zoom-level?
I think sooner or later a few more zoom-levels become inevitable.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

[fly]

On 03.04.2014 21:30, John Packer wrote:
> 
> in what situations is "noexit=yes" useful at all, except as a cue to
> subsequent mappers in the very rare situation that one way ends very
> close to another one and there's absolutely nothing (not a wall,
> footpath, anything) between them?
> 
> It might be useful when there is limited visibility of the ways using
> the satellite imagery (for example, being blocked by clouds or trees),
> so it becomes a confirmation that the way does indeed end there.
> It can also may make it easier to visualize the streets if the city has
> a lot of streets without exit. (JOSM properly renders nodes with noexit=yes)

JOSM Validator uses it to suppress warnings like "(high)way ends near
other way)

It is also useful in the woods to state that the way clearly ends and
the next mapper does not have to check again and end up at the dead end
instead of taking the next (un-)mapped way.

cu fly

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Richard Z]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 06:08:46PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 17:14, Richard Z. wrote:
> >as explained in the rationale the dimensions of the bridge/culvert
> >are frequently only a fraction of the achievable precision. Think
> >of a track crossing a small creek in a forest valley int the
> >mountains. The GPS precision will be 10 meters if you are lucky,
> >the brunnel 2-3m. Mapping this the old fashioned way will produce
> >junk data, not precision.
> 
> Rubbish. Please don't rely on a GPSr. It is only one, of many, ways
> to survey. If I see a small bridge over a stream, say 3m I'll map is
> as that, because that's how it accurately is in the real world. Some
> users have access to detailed aerial imagery to help map accurately.

so again: *** <> ***

Where is your aerial imagery? I want that!!

In the mountains you are very lucky if your imagery has less than 10 meter
offset and forests render most aerial imagery useless.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 03/apr/2014 um 21:22 schrieb SomeoneElse :
> 
> and there's absolutely nothing (not a wall, footpath, anything) between them?


you could still map that as natural=void ;-)

Seriously, there will always be something (guard rail, ditch, scrub, grass, 
fence, gate, )
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

[Florian Schäfer]

Hello,

Am 03.04.2014 21:22, schrieb SomeoneElse:

fly wrote:

Is noexit=yes useful on ways ?



Asking a slightly broader question, in what situations is "noexit=yes" 
useful at all, except as a cue to subsequent mappers in the very rare 
situation that one way ends very close to another one and there's 
absolutely nothing (not a wall, footpath, anything) between them?
In the diskussion on the German ML, some users pointed out, that it is 
rendered on some (esp. outdoor-)maps to indicate, that the way really 
ends. Because otherwise one could think that the mapper who added this 
way has just entered the first part of the way and forgot to tag 
fixme=continue or something similar.
And obviously there is the advantage for QA-tools to filter out 
false-positive unconnected-way-errors.


By the way: I am the user who started the discussion on talk-de. And my 
intention was to define the usage of the tag more precisely and to point 
out, that there are currently situations, where this tag is used but 
where it makes no sense.
For example it was used at entrances of buildings, because the way ends 
there of course (I oppose this usage). And the discussion showed, that 
it makes no sense there, because some people can always enter an 
entrance, so is not a deadend.
Another conclusion from the discussion was, that noexit=yes should only 
be used where no person can travel further.


For a more complete overview over the conclusions, see the german 
Wiki-page [1] (Google translate: [2]), which I've updated today with the 
insights from the discussion.


Cheers,
Florian

[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:noexit
[2]: 
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FDE%3AKey%3Anoexit&edit-text=&act=url


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 03/apr/2014 um 21:43 schrieb Richard Z :
> 
> so again: *** <> ***
> 
> Where is your aerial imagery? I want that!!


you don't need imagery, you simply draw a segment with the approx. length of 
the bridge. If you have no reliable sources, putting a node won't make this 
more accurate neither. That's not an argument for softening the topology rules.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Richard Z.]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 01:53:15AM +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> Also -1 for the proposal.
> 
> Rationale in the Wiki says this would save us database space, we would have
> 2 ways and 1 node less per bridge. Also, that maintaining one node is
> easier than maintaining 3 ways. Lastly, problem of pretending you have
> drawn a little bridge precise, when you didn't.
> 
> All of these are valid points, but I think they don't overweight the
> problems this would give us. We would break one of the most basic rules we
> have, and we don't have much rules.

this basic rule seems to spook around here and I think we should look at it. 
So what is it? 

>   We don't know what that could hurt.

we have an idea. There are some 10,000 single node bridges in OSM data already. 
Some share of those does also share a node with the waterway bellow and not all 
of them are in exotic locations where nobody would ever notice.

>   Second are mappers who like clear rules. And if we don't have those
> core rules, future may bring us problems.

are the rules for the proposal unclear?


Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Richard Z.]

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 07:44:40PM +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> On 02.04.2014 18:14, Richard Z. wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:59:40PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >> IMHO there is a fundamental problem to your proposal because you want to
> >> connect 2 ways with a node which are in reality disjunct 
> > 
> > objects connected with pylons and lifts are also disjunct. So what?
> 
> Don't dismiss that argument so casually. The current rule is that the
> way below the bridge should not share a node with the bridge itself.

the current idea that culverts float bellow roads without having anything
common with them is not correct in most cases. These culverts are part of 
an integral highway-culvert-waterway construction. The same is true for 
most bridges, only a small fraction does float independently above valeys 
but most are connected with the lower way by the actual bridge construction.

> I could imagine adding an exception to that rule if it were hard to
> avoid a shared node. But in this case, it can very easily be avoided by
> mapping the bridge in the same manner two million other bridges have
> already been added: as a way.

easily? So you have biked 60 miles along a forest track and know reliably 
that there was not a single ford on your route today. You look at OSM data 
in the evening and see there are 120 streams which you crossed with missing
bridges/culverts. 

What do you do? Leave those 120 crossings in incomplete state even though
someone might be really interested to know whether there are some fords on
the way?

Add fictional bridges or culverts?

Say "ford=no"?

The other point - even if you know it is a bridge or culvert - is it worth
"painting" an insignificant structure which is perhaps 3m in size when the 
GPS error is more likely 10 meters? In a deep valley and forest in the mountains
you are often lucky to get GPS precision better than 60m.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Richard Z.]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 09:52:13PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> > Am 03/apr/2014 um 21:43 schrieb Richard Z :
> > 
> > so again: *** <> ***
> > 
> > Where is your aerial imagery? I want that!!
> 
> 
> you don't need imagery, you simply draw a segment with the approx. length of 
> the bridge. If you have no reliable sources, putting a node won't make this 
> more accurate neither. That's not an argument for softening the topology 
> rules.

at least a node won't pretend pecision which is not there. We have dams, fords, 
weirs 
as either node or way. It is normal to map them as a single node for smaller 
structures
and as way when they are worth it. 
Why not bridges?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Topology_rules&action=edit&redlink=1

I think that page is waiting to be written.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Richard Z.]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 09:53:44AM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
> Whilst I think this is a very bad idea for the same reasons as already given 
> by Martin and Janko.
> 
> What on earth is a Brunnel? I don't know and neither does google. I have an 
> idea from reading the thread but I wonder how many have ignored the thread 
> through the choice of words in the title?

A brunnel is a crossbreed of a bridge with a tunnel. It has been used somewhere 
to describe
constructions where it is not easy to decide whether a grade separated crossing 
is better
described as a tunnel under a road or bridge above something. The distinction 
between bridge 
and tunnel variant is somewhat arbitrary, very often completely uninteresting - 
and in many 
cases the construction is really something of a mix of a bridge and tunnel.


Richard


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[John F. Eldredge]

Yes, one reason to reject this is that it involves a neologism, coined by the 
proposal author, that few people will recognize and use.


On April 3, 2014 4:53:44 AM CDT, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> Whilst I think this is a very bad idea for the same reasons as already
> given by Martin and Janko.
> 
> What on earth is a Brunnel? I don't know and neither does google. I
> have an idea from reading the thread but I wonder how many have
> ignored the thread through the choice of words in the title?
> 
> Phil (trigpoint)
> --
> 
> Sent from my Nokia N9
> 
> 
> 
> On 03/04/2014 10:12 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 2014-04-03 1:53 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić :
> 
> Rationale in the Wiki says this would save us database space, we would
> have 2 ways and 1 node less per bridge. Also, that maintaining one
> node is easier than maintaining 3 ways. Lastly, problem of pretending
> you have drawn a little bridge precise, when you didn't.
> 
> 
> All of these are valid points,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, it is not true, we  would "save" 1 way or 2, but the amount of
> nodes would remain the same, because with the new proposal the
> waterway would get an extra node which it hasn't otherwise. The 1 way
> saved is on the other hand loss of information as pointed out before.
> 
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot drive 
out hate; only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Richard Z.]

 Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 12:07:42PM +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> 2014-04-03 11:12 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
> 
> >
> > FWIW, it is not true, we  would "save" 1 way or 2, but the amount of nodes
> > would remain the same, because with the new proposal the waterway would get
> > an extra node which it hasn't otherwise. The 1 way saved is on the other
> > hand loss of information as pointed out before.
> >
> 
> I went super-geeky, and made a quick estimation of xml size:
>
> http://pastebin.com/ZDXPv8fK
>
> I don't know if the database sizes are proportional to xml, but there's 674
> letters in the brunnell version, and 1306 letters in the bridge version of
> the xml. So more than double :) Waterway only refers the same node.

thanks. I suspect the difference would be more substantial if the bridge would
carry several hiking routes or you want to put a waterway into a culvert which
happens to share way with 3 admin boundaries? Also, it is frequent practice
to "anchor" the other way which would add other (up to) two completely useless 
nodes.

More than database size the other issues bug me much more:
* we pretend a level of precision which is not there and knowingly enter junk 
data
  into the database.
* the resulting structure is more difficult to cleanup and maintain than a 
single
  node


Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[John F. Eldredge]

That is my main objection as well.  This proposal is to deliberately reduce the 
accuracy of the data in the name of saving a few seconds of mapping time.


On April 3, 2014 12:25:46 PM CDT, "Dave F."  wrote:
> Mike
> 
> We should be mapping as accurately as we can within the limitations
> (gps 
> accuracy, aerial imagery etc) that we have. Data can always be
> upgraded 
> when more accurate information becomes available. This proposal is a 
> step backwards towards inaccuracy.
> 
> 
> On 02/04/2014 18:29, Mike Thompson wrote:
> 
> > > We aim at precision/accuracy (IMHO, at least I do),
> > 1) How much precision/accuracy?  No real world measurement or 
> > recording of such measurement is exactly precise/accurate. Do you
> use 
> > a commercial grade differential GPS when surveying?  When you are 
> > create a way to represent a road which in reality is an arc or
> curve, 
> > how many nodes do you use?  You could increase your precision by 
> > adding more nodes.
> > 2) In general, there is a cost to increased precision (and accuracy)
> 
> > in terms of the survey effort, the survey equipment, the recording 
> > effort, and the computing resources.
> > 3) At some point the value of increased precision ceases to grow,
> and 
> > may even decline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> > mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2014-04-02 18:16 GMT+02:00 Mike Thompson  > >:
> >
> > > It is also a significant loss of detail because you reduce
> > the length of the bridge to 0
> > Maps are abstractions. They don't represent reality
> precisely.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > We aim at precision/accuracy (IMHO, at least I do), you can
> always
> > create more abstracted maps from precise geodata, while the
> other
> > way round it is not possible.
> >
> >   In most cases we already reduce the width of roads to 0 as
> > they are not represented by areas.
> >
> >
> >
> > no, their geometric representation is a line, but their width is
> > (or can be) added with a tag like width and lanes, of which the
> > latter defaults to 2 (for non-links) if not added explicitly.
> >
> >
> >  The question should be whether the value of the data is
> > significantly degraded if some very short bridges are
> > represented as nodes.
> >
> >
> >
> > OK. Can you explain how long a "very short bridge" should be?
> What
> > is the benefit of this kind of mapping style?
> > In this context I'd like to point out that GPS precision is not
> > the limit, you do not have to take 2 waypoints at the beginning
> > and end of the bridge and the result will become your bridge,
> > automatically, usually you will interpret these waypoints and
> will
> > estimate the bridge length and represent it according to your
> > estimate, so I do not think a 3 meters long bridge will result
> in
> > a 45 meters long zigzag in your mapping, just because you had
> bad
> > GPS reception under the tree canopy and made a break on the
> bridge ;-)
> >
> >
> > cheers,
> > Martin
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot drive 
out hate; only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Dave F.]

On 03/04/2014 22:04, Richard Z. wrote:


A brunnel is a crossbreed of a bridge with a tunnel. It has been used somewhere 
to describe
constructions where it is not easy to decide whether a grade separated crossing 
is better
described as a tunnel under a road or bridge above something.


Really? Are you sure you're not just making this up?

Show us where or I'm calling you a fibber.

Dave F.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Dave F.]

On 03/04/2014 22:05, John F. Eldredge wrote:

Yes, one reason to reject this is that it involves a neologism, coined by the 
proposal author, that few people will recognize and use.


I think he's getting confused with I.K. Brunel ;-)

Dave F.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Richard Z.]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:27:57PM -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> That is my main objection as well.  This proposal is to deliberately reduce 
> the accuracy of the data in the name of saving a few seconds of mapping time.

nonsense. This proposal is here to improve the accuracy. You do not have to use
when you have precise data about bridge position and size. On the other hand if 
your data is of the average precision (i.e. 5 meter GPS error) and you try to 
enter a 3m bridge into the database you are entering junk data. This is the
situation when less data is better because it means less junk data in effect.

Richard

> 
> 
> On April 3, 2014 12:25:46 PM CDT, "Dave F."  wrote:
> > Mike
> > 
> > We should be mapping as accurately as we can within the limitations
> > (gps 
> > accuracy, aerial imagery etc) that we have. Data can always be
> > upgraded 
> > when more accurate information becomes available. This proposal is a 
> > step backwards towards inaccuracy.
> > 
> > 
> > On 02/04/2014 18:29, Mike Thompson wrote:
> > 
> > > > We aim at precision/accuracy (IMHO, at least I do),
> > > 1) How much precision/accuracy?  No real world measurement or 
> > > recording of such measurement is exactly precise/accurate. Do you
> > use 
> > > a commercial grade differential GPS when surveying?  When you are 
> > > create a way to represent a road which in reality is an arc or
> > curve, 
> > > how many nodes do you use?  You could increase your precision by 
> > > adding more nodes.
> > > 2) In general, there is a cost to increased precision (and accuracy)
> > 
> > > in terms of the survey effort, the survey equipment, the recording 
> > > effort, and the computing resources.
> > > 3) At some point the value of increased precision ceases to grow,
> > and 
> > > may even decline.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> > > mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 2014-04-02 18:16 GMT+02:00 Mike Thompson  > > >:
> > >
> > > > It is also a significant loss of detail because you reduce
> > > the length of the bridge to 0
> > > Maps are abstractions. They don't represent reality
> > precisely.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We aim at precision/accuracy (IMHO, at least I do), you can
> > always
> > > create more abstracted maps from precise geodata, while the
> > other
> > > way round it is not possible.
> > >
> > >   In most cases we already reduce the width of roads to 0 as
> > > they are not represented by areas.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > no, their geometric representation is a line, but their width is
> > > (or can be) added with a tag like width and lanes, of which the
> > > latter defaults to 2 (for non-links) if not added explicitly.
> > >
> > >
> > >  The question should be whether the value of the data is
> > > significantly degraded if some very short bridges are
> > > represented as nodes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OK. Can you explain how long a "very short bridge" should be?
> > What
> > > is the benefit of this kind of mapping style?
> > > In this context I'd like to point out that GPS precision is not
> > > the limit, you do not have to take 2 waypoints at the beginning
> > > and end of the bridge and the result will become your bridge,
> > > automatically, usually you will interpret these waypoints and
> > will
> > > estimate the bridge length and represent it according to your
> > > estimate, so I do not think a 3 meters long bridge will result
> > in
> > > a 45 meters long zigzag in your mapping, just because you had
> > bad
> > > GPS reception under the tree canopy and made a break on the
> > bridge ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Tagging mailing list
> > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Tagging mailing list
> > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> > protection is active.
> > http://www.avast.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> -- 
> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
> "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot 
> drive out hate; only love can do that."
> Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Richard Z.]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:49:56PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:
> On 03/04/2014 22:04, Richard Z. wrote:
> >
> >A brunnel is a crossbreed of a bridge with a tunnel. It has been used 
> >somewhere to describe
> >constructions where it is not easy to decide whether a grade separated 
> >crossing is better
> >described as a tunnel under a road or bridge above something.
> 
> Really? Are you sure you're not just making this up?
> 
> Show us where or I'm calling you a fibber.

How much more stupid do you want to get if you don't use the basic
search function.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Advanced_relationships
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Dave F.]

On 03/04/2014 22:58, Richard Z. wrote:

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:27:57PM -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote:

That is my main objection as well.  This proposal is to deliberately reduce the 
accuracy of the data in the name of saving a few seconds of mapping time.

nonsense. This proposal is here to improve the accuracy. You do not have to use
when you have precise data about bridge position and size. On the other hand if
your data is of the average precision (i.e. 5 meter GPS error) and you try to
enter a 3m bridge into the database you are entering junk data. This is the
situation when less data is better because it means less junk data in effect.


No.
If you have a GPS/GPX trace you must have been there & seen it. So don't 
rely on your hardware, use your eyes!


A bridge with two nodes & way will always be more accurate (note: not 
necessarily completely accurate) than a node. We're mapping physical 
objects from the real world as accurately as we can.


David F.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Dave F.]

On 03/04/2014 23:06, Richard Z. wrote:

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:49:56PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:

On 03/04/2014 22:04, Richard Z. wrote:

A brunnel is a crossbreed of a bridge with a tunnel. It has been used somewhere 
to describe
constructions where it is not easy to decide whether a grade separated crossing 
is better
described as a tunnel under a road or bridge above something.

Really? Are you sure you're not just making this up?

Show us where or I'm calling you a fibber.

How much more stupid do you want to get if you don't use the basic
search function.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Advanced_relationships
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer


No, I meant in the real world. A dictionary entry? A Google image? 
Anybody can edit a wiki page & type in "junk" as you like to call it.


Dave F.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Richard Welty]

On 4/3/14 6:06 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:49:56PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:
>>
>> Really? Are you sure you're not just making this up?
>>
>> Show us where or I'm calling you a fibber.
> How much more stupid do you want to get if you don't use the basic
> search function.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Advanced_relationships
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer
umm, the term only seems to appear here. google does not
find any references to it. from this i have to assume that the
term "brunnel" is something that was proposed and maybe
even standardized, but never gained traction.

i am not persuaded by the arguments for this
tagging scheme.

richard
-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[SomeoneElse]

On 03/04/14 23:27, Richard Welty wrote:

On 4/3/14 6:06 PM, Richard Z. wrote:



http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Advanced_relationships
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer

umm, the term only seems to appear here. google does not
find any references to it. from this i have to assume that the
term "brunnel" is something that was proposed and maybe
even standardized, but never gained traction.



The only sense in which I remember it being used in the real world is
this one:

http://www.csmonitor.com/1984/1204/120446.html/%28page%29/2

As in, a crossing scheme for e.g. the English Channel comprising both
bridge and tunnel - not the thing that seems to be being proposed here
at all.

Cheers,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Georg Feddern]

Am 03.04.2014 21:43, schrieb Richard Z:

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 06:08:46PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:

On 02/04/2014 17:14, Richard Z. wrote:

as explained in the rationale the dimensions of the bridge/culvert
are frequently only a fraction of the achievable precision. Think
of a track crossing a small creek in a forest valley int the
mountains. The GPS precision will be 10 meters if you are lucky,
the brunnel 2-3m. Mapping this the old fashioned way will produce
junk data, not precision.

Rubbish. Please don't rely on a GPSr. It is only one, of many, ways
to survey. If I see a small bridge over a stream, say 3m I'll map is
as that, because that's how it accurately is in the real world. Some
users have access to detailed aerial imagery to help map accurately.

so again: *** <> ***

Where is your aerial imagery? I want that!!

In the mountains you are very lucky if your imagery has less than 10 meter
offset and forests render most aerial imagery useless.


The offset (either GPS or imagery) has influence on _where_ you can map 
the bridge - but not much on _how_ you are able to map it.
I'm neither a friend of a "crossing" node when there is no connection in 
reality.

Missing or loosing the "bridge" tag I would always assume a ford there ...

Georg

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging