Hi all,
I do mapping in San Francisco, CA and I'm frustrated about the
inconsistent levels of detail we typically use when mapping urban
environments.
For example, most highways are mapped in a network-oriented fashion with
one string of ways representing both directions of traffic, often
On 04/07/2013 11:58 AM, LM_1 wrote:
In my view the streets should be more detailed - after all having the
details dropped by computers is possible (even if not always easy). but
detail that is not there cannot be add in any simple way. This case
might depending on the precise conditions fulfil th
On 04/07/2013 12:13 PM, Clay Smalley wrote:
I do some mapping in SF too. The Muni Metro lines weirded me out when I
first saw it, and I looked up the proper practice on the wiki as well as
looking for a few examples in Europe, and it seems that the best
practice is to just add railway tags and th
On 04/07/2013 01:36 PM, Markus Lindholm wrote:
On 7 April 2013 20:37, Martin Atkins mailto:m...@degeneration.co.uk>> wrote:
How have others resolved this fundamental conflict? More detailed
streets, or less-detailed everything else?
I'd say more detailed mapping. Loo
On 04/08/2013 01:40 PM, Markus Lindholm wrote:
On 8 April 2013 17:51, Dave Sutter mailto:sut...@intransix.com>> wrote:
I like the idea of increasing the level of detail of the streets, and
I agree that this would best be done by separating the routing network
from the visual presenta
Hi all,
In an earlier thread I lamented that railways are tagged inconsistently
throughout the world, and in some cases even within a certain area. I
attribute this to a lack of definition in the railway tagging scheme.
With that in mind, I've written up a proposal that attempts to:
- Refin
On 04/13/2013 04:21 AM, Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
Martin Atkins wrote:
Refine the basic railway=* tagging to have a more specific definition,
taking inspiration from the tagging conventions around highway=* .
IMO this is flawed in two ways:
- on empty highways, one can drive in circles on the
On 04/13/2013 04:54 AM, Rovastar wrote:
As San Fran doesn't look like it has many railways I suggest you look at
locations around the world maybe UK that has a detailed rail infrastructure
so you get a better understanding about how it is done there.
Yes, I have looked at examples from elsewh
On 04/13/2013 09:40 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Martin Atkins mailto:m...@degeneration.co.uk>> wrote:
- Adapt the "lanes" tagging scheme from highways to allow
descriptions of individual tracks of a railway where railway mappers
find t
On 04/13/2013 10:18 AM, Rovastar wrote:
Martin,
The example you gave for tunnels and bridges are the same for roads as well.
If you have a bridge or tunnel with 2 roads (one for each one-way) and a
train line(s) and footpath each will be a tagged with a separate bridge. So
in that regard rail is
On 04/13/2013 10:36 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
[snip the details]
To sum this up: I'm aware that we have unsolved problems with our
railway mapping scheme, and that it is hard to serve the needs of many
different use cases at once. But your proposal feels like giving up and
focusing exclusively on
Hello again,
Based on the great feedback I got about the proposal I've updated in an
attempt to address the following concerns:
- Representing multiple tracks with a single way doesn't make sense
because trains can't "change lanes": I scrapped that part of the
proposal in favor of a new sep
On 04/13/2013 12:52 PM, David Fisher wrote:
Anyway. My two cents, for what it's worth: I am strongly in favour of
mapping highways and railways differently (one way per separated piece
of tarmac for roads; one way per rail for railways). One form of
compromise, however, could be to treat spec
On 04/14/2013 06:02 AM, Rovastar wrote:
Now I started looking at trams and lightrail I see more of a need of
consistent standards.
They seem to be used interchangeably in San Fran and in Portland which was
quoted a good example in the US most (nearly all) of what I would call tram
lines are tagg
On 04/14/2013 06:32 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Hi,
My view (I'll try to be concise).
Being able to map both abstractions (like a schematic route) and
physical details is a real problem. We need to be able to do both. The
problem is not unique to rail. Use cases I've thought of:
- roads (the roa
15 matches
Mail list logo
