[Tagging] Highway proposed/planned distinction
Hi, We're about to abandon rendering highway=proposed in the osm-carto (default OSM map style), but we think it's still good to show those which are closer to be really constructed: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1654 Is highway=planned a good choice to be rendered instead or some other tagging scheme would be better? -- "The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down" [A. Cohen] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway proposed/planned distinction
This is a question of language. The OSM life cycle discussion http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix lists "planned" as duplicate of "proposed". I would agree with that. As a map user I always like maps that look ahead and show planned roadways, not only those where you can already see the construction work going on. This has the added value when you plan a trip, that you would be alerted to possible problems (in case the local mappers missed the transition from "planned" to "construction"). I would tend to suggest that we keep the Proposed and Under Construction objects visualised with different representation. Volker (Italy) On 14 July 2015 at 19:23, Daniel Koć wrote: > Hi, > > We're about to abandon rendering highway=proposed in the osm-carto > (default OSM map style), but we think it's still good to show those which > are closer to be really constructed: > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1654 > > Is highway=planned a good choice to be rendered instead or some other > tagging scheme would be better? > > -- > "The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags > down" [A. Cohen] > > ___ > 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] Highway proposed/planned distinction
W dniu 14.07.2015 19:38, Volker Schmidt napisał(a): As a map user I always like maps that look ahead and show planned roadways, not only those where you can already see the construction work going on. This has the added value when you plan a trip, that you would be alerted to possible problems (in case the local mappers missed the transition from "planned" to "construction"). I would tend to suggest that we keep the Proposed and Under Construction objects visualised with different representation. This proposition doesn't touch "construction" at all. It's just about removing rendering for proposed (which is already pale) and maybe showing only something closer to construction instead, so we have less amount, but more probable highways on this map. -- "The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down" [A. Cohen]construction ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway proposed/planned distinction
On 14/07/2015 18:23, Daniel Koć wrote: Hi, We're about to abandon rendering highway=proposed in the osm-carto (default OSM map style), but we think it's still good to show those which are closer to be really constructed: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1654 Is highway=planned a good choice to be rendered instead or some other tagging scheme would be better? If you're going to decide to not render "highway=proposed" then just make that decision - if you render "planned" instead, people who want their pet schemes to be rendered will just change "proposed" to "planned" and carry on as before, just as when "abandoned" railways somehow magically became "disused" when "abandoned" was no longer rendered. Some of the "proposed" highways* are clearly just flights of fancy with no timescale or money behind them. Unlike with abandoned railways, there's no dirty great scar on the ground to see, so they're not easily verifiably either. Cheers, Andy * like http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/290450974/history ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway proposed/planned distinction
Linguistically I would say proposed comes before planned. Planning your wedding is not the same as proposing marriage! Personally I don't think we should routinely display proposed routes, because they may never come to reality, but planned routes are ones that have passed the usual planning discussions and are awaiting construction, which can sometimes be many months or years, but will happen, short of a political change of heart. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Volker Schmidt Sent: Tuesday, 14 July 2015 18:38 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools This is a question of language. The OSM life cycle discussion http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix lists "planned" as duplicate of "proposed". I would agree with that. As a map user I always like maps that look ahead and show planned roadways, not only those where you can already see the construction work going on. This has the added value when you plan a trip, that you would be alerted to possible problems (in case the local mappers missed the transition from "planned" to "construction"). I would tend to suggest that we keep the Proposed and Under Construction objects visualised with different representation. Volker (Italy) On 14 July 2015 at 19:23, Daniel Koć wrote: Hi, We're about to abandon rendering highway=proposed in the osm-carto (default OSM map style), but we think it's still good to show those which are closer to be really constructed: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1654 Is highway=planned a good choice to be rendered instead or some other tagging scheme would be better? -- "The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down" [A. Cohen] ___ 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] Highway proposed/planned distinction
sent from a phone > Am 14.07.2015 um 20:57 schrieb > : > > but planned routes are ones that have passed the usual planning discussions > and are awaiting construction, which can sometimes be many months or years, > but will happen, short of a political change of heart. typically these plans get modified during the process (sometimes during construction), and these modifications can be anything significant like alternative route, bigger, smaller, not built at all etc. The process sometimes takes decades, so it is also natural that these modifications occur and sometimes are drastic cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway proposed/planned distinction
Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 15, 2015, at 3:05 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: > > Some of the "proposed" highways* are clearly just flights of fancy with no > timescale or money behind them. Yea, thats true - There are some freeways in California that have been proposed for 50 years! California has a plan for their freeways (with money behind it) out to about 2030 or so (maybe to 2050, i think) - and those old ones still are not on the list to be built. Tokyo has the ring tollways being built now (actual construction) with the last pieces of some rings linking smaller roads in the "planning" stages (planned to be built, but exact routing is unsure), set for completion by 2020 or so. Ill have to move those pieces from proposed to planned, as they are actually planned. But poor 125 in California will have to stay as "proposed" Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway proposed/planned distinction
On 14 July 2015 19:57:30 GMT+01:00, jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me wrote: >Linguistically I would say proposed comes before planned. Planning >your wedding is not the same as proposing marriage! +1 >Personally I don't think we should routinely display proposed routes, >because they may never come to reality, but planned routes are ones >that have passed the usual planning discussions and are awaiting >construction, which can sometimes be many months or years, but will >happen, short of a political change of heart. I think there's a fairly objective criteria that can be used to distinguish 'planed' from 'proposed' : if the financing has been completed (money has been set aside in the budgets and will not be used for something else), then it fits the osm definition of planned. There was some amount of tagging for the renderer shortly after the railway rendering changes, but it didn't last long (that i could see) and we now have better, more finegrained data. The same would hopefully happen with planned/proposed, especially with a clear criteria and less historical confusion. -- Vincent Dp ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] highway=crossing/crossing=traffic_signals
Hi The predefined options for a pedestrian road crossing that shares it's location with a set of traffic lights in P2, ID & JOSM is highway=crossing & crossing=traffic_signals: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1353800523 And yet it doesn't render in mapnik. Is this intentional or an oversight? If highway is changed to traffic_signals it renders but ruins the concept of sub-tag keys relating to their parent's value. It's not like it's a rare occurrence: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=crossing#combinations I think this should be included in a future update of mapnik carto's. I suggest a traffic light icon with a different colour icon. I note the default French render with 'zebra' lines but that doesn't indicate any lights are used. Cheers Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
