On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 03:52:42PM -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> You are being asked, is the word "brunnel" one you coined, or is it in use
> already by other people? Pointing to a page you wrote is not an answer to
> the question.
I have used a word I found in the wiki. I did not investigat
On 4/5/14 4:52 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> You are being asked, is the word "brunnel" one you coined, or is it in use
> already by other people? Pointing to a page you wrote is not an answer to
> the question.
>
>
it appears to me that brunnel is defined in the GDF (Geographic
Data File) forma
You are being asked, is the word "brunnel" one you coined, or is it in use
already by other people? Pointing to a page you wrote is not an answer to the
question.
On April 3, 2014 5:06:54 PM CDT, "Richard Z." wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:49:56PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:
> > On 03/04/2014
Richard Welty wrote:
and if you are not sure about the extent of the structure or its nature
there's no harm in nipping out a short section, setting layer=1 and
skipping the other tagging (bridge=yes or whatever.) you have
accurately represented what you know and maintained correct
topology.
.
On 4/4/14 5:51 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> Stop saying GPS. Forget even about aerial imagery. When I had no aerial
> imagery in my area, I either did not draw such features (leaving them for
> future improvements), or approximate. "The road there is about 6 meters
> wide, so I'll draw two nodes abo
2014-04-03 22:42 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. :
> > 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
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 smal
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 t
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.
>
> htt
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 separa
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
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
>
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
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 becau
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? A
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
>
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 whi
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.
>
>
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 man
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
> t
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
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 pr
> 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 n
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 th
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 wr
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 luck
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 in
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?
Phi
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,
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
At a road intersection, vehicle can interchange.
At a railroad intersection only one mode can use the way at a time.
A river/highway crossing is not an intersection. The stream does not stop
for traffic. These features should not share nodes, no mater how they are
tagged. I see no problem with a
2014-04-02 19:40 GMT+02:00 Mike Thompson :
> A bridge that is a single node could also have a tag for length (as well
> as one for width).
yes, but it would not tell you how they are oriented, because a node has no
direction, it is a point.
cheers,
Martin
_
2014-04-02 19:29 GMT+02:00 Mike Thompson :
> 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
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 als
>
> 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
> 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 reali
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
> 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. In most
cases we already reduce the width of roads to 0 as they are not represented
by areas. The question should be whether the value of the
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:59:40PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2014-04-02 16:41 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. :
>
> > have something revolutionary simple in my sleeve for the case where
> > a highway is going over a waterway:
> >
> >
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bridge#Simple_on
2014-04-02 16:41 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. :
> have something revolutionary simple in my sleeve for the case where
> a highway is going over a waterway:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bridge#Simple_one-node_brunnels_for_way_over_waterway
>
> We have been thinking about it for a whil
Hi,
I have something revolutionary simple in my sleeve for the case where
a highway is going over a waterway:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bridge#Simple_one-node_brunnels_for_way_over_waterway
We have been thinking about it for a while and it seems there is
some demand which cou
41 matches
Mail list logo
