[Talk-GB] Urban Mixed Access Ways and Barriers (restricted to motor vehicles, open to foot)
I keep coming across cases where marking the access to a way based on primary category will imply that the way is not suitable for use on foot. That becomes particularly interesting with barriers, as in those cases, the sidewalk may bypass the barrier. For concrete examples, I'll use Northwick Park and Northwick Part Tube station, in North West London. At the North end, there is a stub road http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/6134854. This is gated off, almost permanently, where it joins the local public road, but has sidewalks and there are gaps in the barrier for each sidewalk. At the station end, it leads to a permanently open foot tunnel, which exits to Proyer's Path, which is signposted as mixed foot and cycle, and was recently re-laid explicitly to make it suitable for mixed use. There are also foot routes into Westminster University and Northwick Park Hospital, from the end of the tunnel. It seems to me that the stub road has private status for motor vehicles, and as it is in the form of a road for such vehicles, that is its primary status. Is must have destination status on foot and dismounted bicycles, for the tube station. The junction with Proyers Path suggests that it should have at least yes status for foot and cycle. At the moment, I've coded it as access=private; foot=yes, which should result in correct routing decisions, but will cause it not to show as passable to pedestrians on normal map renderings. The gate is more of a problem, as my reading of the access rules for gates is that they specify what can pass when the gate is open, so don't allow you to specify categories for which the gate effectively doesn't exist (pedestrians, in this case). Gates possibly need a way of indicating types of traffic for which they are really entrances. (Possibly foot=entrance, or, with more backward compatibility problems, motor_vehicle=gate.) At the other end of Proyers path, is a car park, and a roadway leads South from there, to another gate http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/370154648, which is open to authorised vehicles only (as signed on the driveway, beyond the gate, so really not an attribute of the gate). The gate is bypassed by people on the pavement on the public road, but is open from 8am to nominal dusk. To add complications, just inside the gate is a PROW public footpath sign, for a footpath to the park, so, although the scope of this is very unclear, the bypass probably has PROW status. Authorised vehicles are, I suspect, ones using the pavilion, by the car park, but the main reason is probably to stop its use as a station car park, by long distance commuters. The road has cycle markings, so there is some presumption that it is always open to cycles. If I mark the gate with opening hours and access, it implies these restrictions apply to pedestrians and cyclists, which they don't. If I mark the driveway as private or destination, it will be shown as that on the standard map, even if the restriction is removed by the use of foot and cycle keys. Whilst one could break out the sidewalk paths on each side of the gate, as explicit features, that will clutter the map (as a side note, I already see some areas of the map being cluttered by having every private path and car park). It doesn't help with the driveway through the park, as that has no sidewalks, once you get past the gate. What are peoples thoujghts on the best way of getting the data model correct, whilst also producing something useful to people using the standard map rendering, particularly for barriers. PS There are yellow padlocks on the second gate, so even the opening hours are not valid for emergency vehicles. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Urban Mixed Access Ways and Barriers (restricted to motor vehicles, open to foot)
OpenStreetmap HADW wrote: I keep coming across cases where marking the access to a way based on primary category will imply that the way is not suitable for use on foot. That becomes particularly interesting with barriers, as in those cases, the sidewalk may bypass the barrier. In that instance isn't there effectively a short footway that runs parallel to the short piece of road that has the barrier on it? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Urban Mixed Access Ways and Barriers (restricted to motor vehicles, open to foot)
Sent from my android device so the quoting is crap! -Original Message- From: SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 12:16 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Urban Mixed Access Ways and Barriers (restricted to motor vehicles, open to foot) OpenStreetmap HADW wrote: I keep coming across cases where marking the access to a way based on primary category will imply that the way is not suitable for use on foot. That becomes particularly interesting with barriers, as in those cases, the sidewalk may bypass the barrier. In that instance isn't there effectively a short footway that runs parallel to the short piece of road that has the barrier on it? Micro mapping would add the 'sidewalks' as separate ways and ideally that is the way forward, but there are still roads where foot traffic share the blocked vehical way ... ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Urban Mixed Access Ways and Barriers (restricted to motor vehicles, open to foot)
Sent from my android device so the quoting is crapp! -Original Message- From: OpenStreetmap HADW osmh...@gmail.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 13:44 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Urban Mixed Access Ways and Barriers (restricted to motor vehicles, open to foot) On 7 September 2013 12:15, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: In that instance isn't there effectively a short footway that runs parallel to the short piece of road that has the barrier on it? Micro-mapping tends to clutter the rendered map. In any case, street maps are abstractions of the real world and do deliberately simplify. Then it is up to the rederers to make any simplificatons needed - you do not map for them !!! OK agreeing on how things simplify may need to be agreed, but that is a different problem. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Wish LIst for Mapnik Stylesheet (overmapping of private features)
Is there a mechanism for getting requests onto the wish list for the Open Street Map Mapnk style sheets? The particular issue is that now that people can trace quite small features, some areas are getting overloaded with private foot paths and private car parks (not to mention alleys and driveways), particularly where apartment blocks are involved. These make it difficult to find public ones and pollute the landuse colouring. I've added a comment to the access Wiki page, but comments on wiki pages don't seem to get looked at. What I'd like to do is to get onto the wish list that private features like this should require a higher zoom level, before they render, than equivalent public ones. (A thin, dotted footpath can be difficult to spot in a sea of dashed ping lines. (A secondary problem is that people map these all with no access restriction, or name them Private, but that can be fixed in the source data without destroying information - the only problem is that it needs verifying on the ground, whereas they can map, particularly car parks, from aerial imagery.) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Urban Mixed Access Ways and Barriers (restricted to motor vehicles, open to foot)
On Sat, 2013-09-07 at 13:43 +0100, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote: On 7 September 2013 12:15, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: In that instance isn't there effectively a short footway that runs parallel to the short piece of road that has the barrier on it? Micro-mapping tends to clutter the rendered map. In any case, street maps are abstractions of the real world and do deliberately simplify. Streetmaps do tend to be abstractions of the real world, and openstreetmap ceased to be be a mere streetmap several years ago, and is a far far better map than a mere streetmap can ever be. The word streetmap implies urban, cities. In many way I do wish a different name had been chosen, when trying to wean friends and colleges off google and onto OSM I do find the word streetmap is a perceptive barrier to acceptance as they then assume and A to Z and not something rivaling, and exceeding, OS maps, that can allow you to walk in the countryside and show hedges and stiles. In the UK we have all grown up with high quality mapping and obviously we are not going to be content to stop short of that. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Urban Mixed Access Ways and Barriers (restricted to motor vehicles, open to foot)
On 7 September 2013 14:46, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: Streetmaps do tend to be abstractions of the real world, and openstreetmap ceased to be be a mere streetmap several years ago, and is a far far better map than a mere streetmap can ever be. The word streetmap implies urban, cities. OS maps are abstractions even when not dealing with streets. The other problems with micro-mapping are: - the transition between higher and lower levels of abstraction. I have considered mapping certain road areas as areas, because the line approximation loses important information, but, unless a road joins an area perpendicularly, this doesn't work well in the transition region; - with things like sidewalks, there is usually a fixed distance between the two pedestrian ways and the vehicle way, but the current data structure cannot represent that, and the current tooling doesn't support it very well, so if everyone started mapping sidewalks explicitly, there would be big maintenance problems (I've just seen a transition case where a road both has a separate footpath, with cycle access and the road itself is marked as having parallel cycle tracks); - routing software can no longer just operate on a network of edges and nodes, but needs to know that your can normally cross from one sidewalk to the other, at arbitrary places. (currently I have seen explicit footway crossings, where no physical features exists, being inserted to get round this one. Basically, the abstraction is adding value, by showing that the the sidewalks are related. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Urban Mixed Access Ways and Barriers (restricted to motor vehicles, open to foot)
On 7 September 2013 14:36, les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Sent from my android device so the quoting is crapp! -Original Message- From: OpenStreetmap HADW osmh...@gmail.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 13:44 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Urban Mixed Access Ways and Barriers (restricted to motor vehicles, open to foot) On 7 September 2013 12:15, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Then it is up to the rederers to make any simplificatons needed In practice, there is only one renderer for general users, and my impression is that that doesn't have that much deep understanding, so relies on conventional mapping abstractions and a lot of user provided rules. Although technical users may use special renderers for special tasks, to be generally useful, the map has to provide as much useful information to the user as possible using a relatively simple minded renderer. (I did actually chance on a paper discussion how Mapnik's placing and selection of labels is far from ideal, which is probably one of the more difficult things that it actually tries to do.) The maps also have to work with mappers who don't understand the difference between the rendered map and the internal representation, so will not provide the rich metadata needed for an intelligent renderer (as mentioned on another thread, they will load the map with footpaths and car parks, but not add the access=* tags needed to distinguish between those that can and cannot be used). If a render tries to get too clever on data that doesn't have consistent and rich meta-data, it is likely to guess wrong and introduce artefacts as a result. That's OK if the result will be cleaned up by a human, the machines will have done a lot of let work, but that is not the case here. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Wish LIst for Mapnik Stylesheet (overmapping of private features)
On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 02:45:51PM +0100, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote: Is there a mechanism for getting requests onto the wish list for the Open Street Map Mapnk style sheets? The particular issue is that now that people can trace quite small features, some areas are getting overloaded with private foot paths and private car parks (not to mention alleys and driveways), particularly where apartment blocks are involved. These make it difficult to find public ones and pollute the landuse colouring. I've added a comment to the access Wiki page, but comments on wiki pages don't seem to get looked at. What I'd like to do is to get onto the wish list that private features like this should require a higher zoom level, before they render, than equivalent public ones. (A thin, dotted footpath can be difficult to spot in a sea of dashed ping lines. (A secondary problem is that people map these all with no access restriction, or name them Private, but that can be fixed in the source data without destroying information - the only problem is that it needs verifying on the ground, whereas they can map, particularly car parks, from aerial imagery.) I would look at adding an Issue to the github project: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto Cheers Chris -- e: m...@chrisfleming.org m: 07980 214061 w: http://chrisfleming.org/ t: @chrisfl ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Urban Mixed Access Ways and Barriers (restricted to motor vehicles, open to foot)
Long time discussion but the data is not the map. If a detail is need, such as adding a way to show the pedestrian route around an object, then it should be mapped. Not mapping it leaves gaps in the data. Now replacing the obstruction with a short length of 'footpath' may be an alternative, but knowing the detail of some of the type of street being mapped, there are alternative footpaths which do not join naturally to the vechical sections, but do to additional footpaths alongside. One would take a wheelchair 'around' via another route. Sent from my android device so the quoting is crap!___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Urban Mixed Access Ways and Barriers (restricted to motor vehicles, open to foot)
Sent from my android device so the quoting is crap! -Original Message- From: OpenStreetmap HADW osmh...@gmail.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 15:07 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Urban Mixed Access Ways and Barriers (restricted to motor vehicles, open to foot) On 7 September 2013 14:46, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: Streetmaps do tend to be abstractions of the real world, and openstreetmap ceased to be be a mere streetmap several years ago, and is a far far better map than a mere streetmap can ever be. The word streetmap implies urban, cities. OS maps are abstractions even when not dealing with streets. The other problems with micro-mapping are: - the transition between higher and lower levels of abstraction. I have considered mapping certain road areas as areas, because the line approximation loses important information, but, unless a road joins an area perpendicularly, this doesn't work well in the transition region; - with things like sidewalks, there is usually a fixed distance between the two pedestrian ways and the vehicle way, but the current data structure cannot represent that, and the current tooling doesn't support it very well, so if everyone started mapping sidewalks explicitly, there would be big maintenance problems (I've just seen a transition case where a road both has a separate footpath, with cycle access and the road itself is marked as having parallel cycle tracks); - routing software can no longer just operate on a network of edges and nodes, but needs to know that your can normally cross from one sidewalk to the other, at arbitrary places. (currently I have seen explicit footway crossings, where no physical features exists, being inserted to get round this one. Basically, the abstraction is adding value, by showing that the the sidewalks are related. Trying to incorporate all of the conditions relating to the physical structure of the road using just tags would make things almost impossible to understand. With the level of detail becoming available for buildings, adding the footpaths through developments is accepted, and those around the edge add value simply by showing their presence. YES routers need a bit more inteligence, and in cities with barriers between car and pedestrian, things are simple. A 'clever' foot router could be made to recognise that people can walk anywhere in shopping precincts, so why not the area of a footpath/road combination? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Urban Mixed Access Ways and Barriers (restricted to motor vehicles, open to foot)
OpenStreetmap HADW wrote: In practice, there is only one renderer for general users That's a statement that could provoke some discussion, I suspect. If you have a look at the questions on help.osm.org you'll see lots of why doesn't X do Y type questions, but it isn't always immediately obvious what X is. Sometimes it's one of the four main layers on www.osm.org, but if so very often it's the Cycle Map rather than the standard layer. Sometimes the question is asking about some completely different website that uses OSM data, and very often it's about a mobile application with no connection to OSM whatsoever except that it uses OSM data. Then there are all the backgrounds for data representation that use OSM data (http://www.whitehouse.gov/change , Apple iOS iPhoto, sundry information boards on poles around the world). I don't know which is the most-viewed rendering of OSM data (either by counting pairs of eyes, or by measuring time). It's actually a very interesting question, but the answer's not straightforward. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] iD and accidental landuse deletions
I've seen two new users accidentally delete residential landuse areas near me in the past fortnight: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17695130 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17505646 Could this be a problem with the iD editor? Has anyone else noticed it? Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] iD and accidental landuse deletions
Tom Chance wrote: I've seen two new users accidentally delete residential landuse areas near me in the past fortnight: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17695130 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17505646 Could this be a problem with the iD editor? Has anyone else noticed it? A known bug it iD is that it selects the relation if nothing else is found, so you can easily highlight something without actually seeing it. They would have to delete as well, but if they had something selected and hovered over the delete it is all to easy to remove something without knowing! This was a reason we objected to iD being made default - it's not ready yet :( -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
