Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Now that we have that settled, can we continue? ;-) Yes please. This discussion is absolutely offtopic in josm-dev. Move it to talk if necessary, but I fear this has already been discussed a hundred times and people will not agree on one common standard. Ciao -- http://www.dstoecker.eu/ (PGP key available) ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
2010/3/26 Frederik Ramm :
> I think we've heard all possible sides of this argument. You have three
> options:
>
> 1. Draw areas using same nodes as road - wrong because it suggests the
> area is larger than it really is.
good for the database because you need less nodes.
> 2. Let areas end a few metres away from road - wrong because it suggests
> that there is something in between the road and the area when in fact
> there is nothing.
no, there is in many cases "something" between the road (asphalt) and
the adjacent areas. There are ditches, fences, shrubs, walls. Even if
you look at roads in forests there will be a perimeter where there are
no trees but neither there is road.
> 3. Draw roads as areas, either re-using the nodes of the adjoining
> landuse areas or using a multipolygon relation for landuse areas and
> road area (so they can share the border way which would remain
> untagged). Wrong because it defeats routing and puzzles newcomers.
This is not "wrong" in a mapping sense but maybe creates difficulties
and problems for people that supposedly can't manage it ("newcomers").
That's a big difference. Btw: If you decide to map overlapping
landuses instead of multipolygon-relations you can lower the hurdle
for beginners.
> Now that we have that settled, can we continue? ;-)
+1
cheers,
Martin
PS: Sorry for having this discussion in Josm-dev
___
josm-dev mailing list
josm-dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
2010/3/26 Klaus Dietrich : > In my opinion this also means that as long as we don't use areas to map > roads, the only correct approach for e.g. landuse next to the road is > using the same nodes for both road and landuse. Because if the way > tagged highway IS the road and the landuse extends UP TO the road there > is no gap between them. I have thought like this some time before, but this approach creates lots of problems and therefore I changed my mind: Where do you put fences, walls and other barriers that limit the landuse? On the road=highway? This cannot work, of course you will try to put them on their actual location: the landuse extents (in many cases) UP TO these barriers (or buildings, ...), then there is usually the sidewalk (in urban areas), then parked cars, grass-beds, and then finally the road. If you map the landuse connected to the roads you complicate life of everyone that comes after you and wants to add these details (like barriers, highway-areas, ...). cheers, Martin ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:57:34 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > 3. Draw roads as areas, either re-using the nodes of the adjoining > landuse areas or using a multipolygon relation for landuse areas and > road area (so they can share the border way which would remain > untagged). Wrong because it defeats routing and puzzles newcomers. > If we had areas that had also a "direction", the roads could be drawn as areas but routing would also work. It would however require new datatype, like the "lane" -type in: http://elanor.mine.nu/daeron/types.png Maybe it could be also done with relations, but then it would be prone to errors if there's even a single editor that doesn't handle them well, so having an explicit type for it would be better. In any case, there are solutions that wouldn't result in "wrong" models of the world. Teemu Koskinen ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Klaus Dietrich wrote: > am 26.03.2010 01:41, schrieb Anthony: > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Paul Johnson > wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:50:23 -0400, Anthony wrote: > >>> In OSM, the way which is tagged > >>> highway represents the physical road, right? > >> > >> Centerlines, actually. > >> > > What centerline? The actual painted centerline (surely not, it's not > always > > there, and it's not always in the center)? The center of the physical > road? > > The center of the lanes of travel? The center of the right of way? > > Something else? > I'm not sure what the correct english term is, maybe "axis", but in > germany the relevent line is called "Straßenachse" or "Bauachse". See > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achse_%28Verkehrsweg%29 > > In my understanding, the way tagged highway represents the entire road > including the shoulder and is defined by the "Bauachse". > > In my opinion this also means that as long as we don't use areas to map > roads, the only correct approach for e.g. landuse next to the road is > using the same nodes for both road and landuse. Because if the way > tagged highway IS the road and the landuse extends UP TO the road there > is no gap between them. > I understand what you're saying, and *if* the landuse extends up to the road and there is no gap between them, I think you have a perfectly valid point: to my mind, if that is the case neither situation is correct. You can't get the gap correct and the position correct simultaneously, without using an area to map the road (what Frederik said). Maybe for these situations we are best off using a landuse=highway area. These areas could also be used in situations where the landuse for the highway is greater than the road, but they would be required as an alternative to connecting landuse areas to highway ways. I had pretty much abandoned it (not because I think it's a bad idea, but because I realized that the wiki isn't a very productive place), but see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
am 26.03.2010 12:36, schrieb ste...@binaervarianz.de: > I heavily oppose that! Purposefully map something in a wrong place is just > wrong in my opinion. Well, it's not purposefully wrong, but reasonably generalized. Besides, how would you map the landuse in the correct place? Map the axis of the road, then map the border of the left landuse, then the border of the right landuse? Or the axis and width of the road, then project the coordinates of the landuse? You end up with three nodes orthogonal to the axis. > Points and shapes are defined by coordinates, not by there relation to > other nodes or ways. Sure, in the database, but is the landuse really defined with its own coordinates? > You can't rely on the renderer to expand the road and correct your > misplaced landuse. You have to, thats generalization and it's necessary for any map with a scale lesser than say 1:5000. > What's the logic for mapping then? I map to the border of the landuse if it > stands on its on, but to the next road if there is any? Yes. > What if the road gets deleted or moved? Should the landuse be moved also? You mean if the physical road changes? Of course. It has to be re-mapped then. If the road still exists and the way is deleted it's an error and the way should be restored. If the way must be moved because it was not precise you simply move it and it stays correct. Whereas with your approach you would have to move 3 different nodes at once which becomes a problem in bends, because the radius changes. I've often seen roughly mapped forest (landsat, ~20m maximum precision with calibration) next to a road. Now someone moves the road in direction of the forest because it was imprecise, but does not move the forest. You now have forest to both sides of the road, which is really wrong. Had both been glued together it would still be correct. > Wherever I've seen landuse mapped near a road, it was mapped to its > physical extends, leaving free space to the single way defining the center > line of the road. > If anyone decides to map the road as an area later, he don't have to touch > the landuse. That's a point though, but we're very far from that. > Or take the practical approach: If you are standing on asphalt, but your > maps says you're standing on grass, who is wrong? They are both right, but you are using the wrong map for the task. You either need a map with generalization or you shouldn't demand such a high precision. Remember, we are using comsumer-grade GPS. Precision higher than say 3m will require high effort with these devices. > Undefinied (e.g. empty space) is far better that blatant wrong. Right. > Sorry to hijack this thread, but I just had to comment this. Same for me. ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
Hi, ste...@binaervarianz.de wrote: > I heavily oppose that! Purposefully map something in a wrong place is just > wrong in my opinion. I think we've heard all possible sides of this argument. You have three options: 1. Draw areas using same nodes as road - wrong because it suggests the area is larger than it really is. 2. Let areas end a few metres away from road - wrong because it suggests that there is something in between the road and the area when in fact there is nothing. 3. Draw roads as areas, either re-using the nodes of the adjoining landuse areas or using a multipolygon relation for landuse areas and road area (so they can share the border way which would remain untagged). Wrong because it defeats routing and puzzles newcomers. So, whichever way you do it, it's wrong. Now that we have that settled, can we continue? ;-) Bye Frederik ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
> > In my opinion this also means that as long as we don't use areas to map > roads, the only correct approach for e.g. landuse next to the road is > using the same nodes for both road and landuse. Because if the way > tagged highway IS the road and the landuse extends UP TO the road there > is no gap between them. > I heavily oppose that! Purposefully map something in a wrong place is just wrong in my opinion. Points and shapes are defined by coordinates, not by there relation to other nodes or ways. You can't rely on the renderer to expand the road and correct your misplaced landuse. What's the logic for mapping then? I map to the border of the landuse if it stands on its on, but to the next road if there is any? What if the road gets deleted or moved? Should the landuse be moved also? Wherever I've seen landuse mapped near a road, it was mapped to its physical extends, leaving free space to the single way defining the center line of the road. If anyone decides to map the road as an area later, he don't have to touch the landuse. Or take the practical approach: If you are standing on asphalt, but your maps says you're standing on grass, who is wrong? Undefinied (e.g. empty space) is far better that blatant wrong. Sorry to hijack this thread, but I just had to comment this. Stefan ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
am 26.03.2010 01:41, schrieb Anthony: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:50:23 -0400, Anthony wrote: >>> In OSM, the way which is tagged >>> highway represents the physical road, right? >> >> Centerlines, actually. >> > What centerline? The actual painted centerline (surely not, it's not always > there, and it's not always in the center)? The center of the physical road? > The center of the lanes of travel? The center of the right of way? > Something else? I'm not sure what the correct english term is, maybe "axis", but in germany the relevent line is called "Straßenachse" or "Bauachse". See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achse_%28Verkehrsweg%29 In my understanding, the way tagged highway represents the entire road including the shoulder and is defined by the "Bauachse". In my opinion this also means that as long as we don't use areas to map roads, the only correct approach for e.g. landuse next to the road is using the same nodes for both road and landuse. Because if the way tagged highway IS the road and the landuse extends UP TO the road there is no gap between them. ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:50:23 -0400, Anthony wrote: > > In OSM, the way which is tagged > > highway represents the physical road, right? > > Centerlines, actually. > What centerline? The actual painted centerline (surely not, it's not always there, and it's not always in the center)? The center of the physical road? The center of the lanes of travel? The center of the right of way? Something else? ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:50:23 -0400, Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Paul Johnson > wrote: > >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:09:43 -0400, Anthony wrote: >> >> > When I lived in New Jersey it was the same way, and I'd imagine it's >> > the same way in most of the United States. >> >> I'd say more research is needed before we call that conclusive. > > > I guess. I'd love to hear of a statewide counterexample. If the > right-of-way doesn't extend beyond the road, where are you supposed to > walk? (I know of some local situations where there is no walking space > on the side of the road, but not of any entire states where this isn't > the norm.) At least around Portland (and probably statewide since I don't have any reason to believe this isn't the case elsewhere, but I don't have any high-quality WMS property maps and aerial photography to compare to), the property lines for the right of way extend beyond the roadway to include space for future expansion and sidewalks (or in cases where cyclists or trucks aren't allowed on the main route, a third carriageway for cyclists, such as I205 through East Portland or I5 near Terwilliger). > That's a different question, though. In OSM, the way which is tagged > highway represents the physical road, right? Centerlines, actually. > I assume this is the case > because we tag dual carriageways as two ways, as there are two > physically separate roadways, whereas there is generally only a single > right of way. Outside of dual carriageways I guess it's ambiguous, > unless there's a width tag, in which case, what is it that we're > supposed to measure the width of? This is where an area tagged landuse=highway or landuse=railway would make more sense, since the width of the right of way is frequently variable, particularly along dual-, triple- and quadruple- and quintuple- carriageway¹ roads. > I can think of at least three different possibilities - the paved > surface, the actual lanes used for traffic, and the entire right of way > including the unpaved shoulder > and/or the sidewalks and/or the [ > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_lawn]. Which would you say is > correct? Centerlines as the linear way, landuse incorporating the entire right of way. We currently handle rivers somewhat similarly. ¹ I know of at least one quintuple-carriageway: I205 in East Portland has several segments where there's a seperate carriageway for bicycles, and then four carriageways for a freeway in a local/express configuration. http://osm.org/go/WIDne7cb ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:09:43 -0400, Anthony wrote: > > > When I lived in New Jersey it was the same way, and I'd imagine it's the > > same way in most of the United States. > > I'd say more research is needed before we call that conclusive. I guess. I'd love to hear of a statewide counterexample. If the right-of-way doesn't extend beyond the road, where are you supposed to walk? (I know of some local situations where there is no walking space on the side of the road, but not of any entire states where this isn't the norm.) > At least > in Oregon and Washington, street boundaries often extend beyond the > street for service access and future expansion reasons (plus the local > governments don't deem it particularly fair to tax folks for property > extending into the street, preferring to condemn the protruding portions). > That's a different question, though. In OSM, the way which is tagged highway represents the physical road, right? I assume this is the case because we tag dual carriageways as two ways, as there are two physically separate roadways, whereas there is generally only a single right of way. Outside of dual carriageways I guess it's ambiguous, unless there's a width tag, in which case, what is it that we're supposed to measure the width of? I can think of at least three different possibilities - the paved surface, the actual lanes used for traffic, and the entire right of way including the unpaved shoulder and/or the sidewalks and/or the [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_lawn]. Which would you say is correct? ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:09:43 -0400, Anthony wrote: > When I lived in New Jersey it was the same way, and I'd imagine it's the > same way in most of the United States. I'd say more research is needed before we call that conclusive. At least in Oregon and Washington, street boundaries often extend beyond the street for service access and future expansion reasons (plus the local governments don't deem it particularly fair to tax folks for property extending into the street, preferring to condemn the protruding portions). I wonder if it's a western/eastern thing, with county surveyors being a tad on the overwhelmed side back east. ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:02:48 -0400, Anthony wrote: > > > But the road is not the same as the right of way. The right of way > > generally (at least in places I'm aware of) extends beyond the road. > > I'm curious where you are that this is the case, and if we can take a > look at a documented example. > I live in Florida. For a documented example, see http://propmap3.hcpafl.org/main.asp?cmd=ZOOMFOLIO&msize=380&folio=0684003040and change the layers to "Aerials + Parcels". The right of way clearly extends beyond the road. When I lived in New Jersey it was the same way, and I'd imagine it's the same way in most of the United States. ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:02:48 -0400, Anthony wrote: > But the road is not the same as the right of way. The right of way > generally (at least in places I'm aware of) extends beyond the road. I'm curious where you are that this is the case, and if we can take a look at a documented example. ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010, Paul Johnson wrote: On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:23:54 +0100, Dirk Stöcker wrote: Mapping also means generalizing. This means you do NOT map what is EXACTLY on the ground, but you map what it means and is sensible. Art generalizes. Cartography is a science. Well, than I'm an artist. But I learned to generalize. A lot of research in modern cartography is about the fact how you can do this generalizing automatically. But it is a major component of VERY map making process. Ciao -- http://www.dstoecker.eu/ (PGP key available)___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > > If you go the absurdist route, maybe. If you want to map the > > landuse of the right-of-way, how about landuse=highway? > > > > > This has already been proposed. But until everyone is drawing a polygon for > the road, we have to accept that the polyline "is" the road. But the road is not the same as the right of way. The right of way generally (at least in places I'm aware of) extends beyond the road. > So, gluing the > adjacent landuse to the highway or leaving a space preparing the road > polygone are both correct. The second is just more accurate than the first. > > Pieren > ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:23:54 +0100, Dirk Stöcker wrote: > Mapping also means generalizing. This means you do NOT map what is > EXACTLY on the ground, but you map what it means and is sensible. Art generalizes. Cartography is a science. ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > If you go the absurdist route, maybe. If you want to map the > landuse of the right-of-way, how about landuse=highway? > > This has already been proposed. But until everyone is drawing a polygon for the road, we have to accept that the polyline "is" the road. So, gluing the adjacent landuse to the highway or leaving a space preparing the road polygone are both correct. The second is just more accurate than the first. Pieren ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Teemu Koskinen > wrote: > >> >> Definitely not, IMO the warning should be elevated to an error, when >> dealing with wide linear features (roads, rivers, etc.). >> >> > If you go that way, drawing a road or a river with a polyline should be > reported as an error. Or don't tag is as a highway but > "the_white_line_in_the_middle_of_the_road" ;-) If you go the absurdist route, maybe. If you want to map the landuse of the right-of-way, how about landuse=highway? ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Teemu Koskinen wrote: > > Definitely not, IMO the warning should be elevated to an error, when > dealing with wide linear features (roads, rivers, etc.). > > If you go that way, drawing a road or a river with a polyline should be reported as an error. Or don't tag is as a highway but "the_white_line_in_the_middle_of_the_road" ;-) Pieren ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Teemu Koskinen wrote: >> The method to leave a little space beside the road is broken by design >> and as geodesy is my profession I have the little advantage that map >> making is a part of my profession. Databases where one feature did not >> directly join with the next one cause and caused a lot trouble in GIS >> and will also cause in OSM (when we start to use the data for something >> else beside making a map). > > But that is not mapping what's on the ground, on the ground the landuse > does not extend to the center of the road. OSM is not GIS, and it > shouldn't be. Mapping also means generalizing. This means you do NOT map what is EXACTLY on the ground, but you map what it means and is sensible. > Definitely not, IMO the warning should be elevated to an error, when > dealing with wide linear features (roads, rivers, etc.). It is no error in any case. Ways and lines can overlap. Why should that be an error? Ciao -- http://www.dstoecker.eu/ (PGP key available) ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:29:20 +0200, Dirk Stöcker wrote: > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Marko Mäkelä wrote: > >> +1. Some days ago, I came across a mkgmap warning for a dead-end oneway >> in a residential area that was riddled with landuse polygons that shared >> points with ways. It was very hard to see that the oneway was not >> connected >> to the road it was supposed to. I spent several minutes detaching the >> landuses from the roads in the area. > > From my point of view landuses either cross streets or are glued to > streets. Until we introduce area style streets there is no other sensible > way. > > The method to leave a little space beside the road is broken by design > and as geodesy is my profession I have the little advantage that map > making is a part of my profession. Databases where one feature did not > directly join with the next one cause and caused a lot trouble in GIS > and will also cause in OSM (when we start to use the data for something > else beside making a map). > But that is not mapping what's on the ground, on the ground the landuse does not extend to the center of the road. OSM is not GIS, and it shouldn't be. > Regarding the duplicate nodes: Duplicate nodes are an validator ERROR > whereas everything else you discussed here are warnings and informational > state. > > When JOSM really warns in cases where areas in line features overlap at > the borders, than that warning needs to be removed. > Definitely not, IMO the warning should be elevated to an error, when dealing with wide linear features (roads, rivers, etc.). Teemu Koskinen ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:29:20AM +0100, Dirk Stöcker wrote: > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Marko Mäkelä wrote: > > >+1. Some days ago, I came across a mkgmap warning for a dead-end oneway > >in a residential area that was riddled with landuse polygons that shared > >points with ways. It was very hard to see that the oneway was not connected > >to the road it was supposed to. I spent several minutes detaching the > >landuses from the roads in the area. > > From my point of view landuses either cross streets or are glued to > streets. Until we introduce area style streets there is no other > sensible way. > > The method to leave a little space beside the road is broken by > design and as geodesy is my profession I have the little advantage > that map making is a part of my profession. Databases where one > feature did not directly join with the next one cause and caused a > lot trouble in GIS and will also cause in OSM (when we start to use > the data for something else beside making a map). Sometimes, ways are mapped as single lines. Later, if the way is rebuilt (or remapped) as dual one-way street, or a footway or cycleway is built (or mapped) beside the street, the glued-to-street areas are causing problems. I found find it awkward to extend the landuse all the way to the middle of a street, crossing a footway or cycleway, for example. Having detached landuse areas makes it easier to draw fences and the like. > When JOSM really warns in cases where areas in line features overlap > at the borders, than that warning needs to be removed. I believe that the validator plugin does. Marko ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Marko Mäkelä wrote: +1. Some days ago, I came across a mkgmap warning for a dead-end oneway in a residential area that was riddled with landuse polygons that shared points with ways. It was very hard to see that the oneway was not connected to the road it was supposed to. I spent several minutes detaching the landuses from the roads in the area. From my point of view landuses either cross streets or are glued to streets. Until we introduce area style streets there is no other sensible way. The method to leave a little space beside the road is broken by design and as geodesy is my profession I have the little advantage that map making is a part of my profession. Databases where one feature did not directly join with the next one cause and caused a lot trouble in GIS and will also cause in OSM (when we start to use the data for something else beside making a map). Regarding the duplicate nodes: Duplicate nodes are an validator ERROR whereas everything else you discussed here are warnings and informational state. When JOSM really warns in cases where areas in line features overlap at the borders, than that warning needs to be removed. Ciao -- http://www.dstoecker.eu/ (PGP key available)___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
Alan Mintz wrote: > From a technical standpoint, the land parcels do indeed usually extend out > to the centerline of the roadway, but an easement is granted to the > city/county/state for the road, utilities, etc., and the area within the > easement may not be built upon by the landowner. IMO, that should exclude > the area within the easement from the landuse boundary. At least in the US, this is not the case, the public owns a strip of land for the road right of way, usually, but not always, with the centerline at the center of the public's plot. Exception being privately owned roads (rare, usually not more than a block long, usually ending in a cul-de-sac if it's not a gated community). ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
At 2010-03-04 09:10, Richard Welty wrote: >On 3/4/10 11:54 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: > >>From a technical standpoint, the land parcels do indeed usually >> extend out >>to the centerline of the roadway, but an easement is granted to the >>city/county/state for the road, utilities, etc., and the area within the >>easement may not be built upon by the landowner. IMO, that should exclude >>the area within the easement from the landuse boundary. >> >> >and from a practical point of view, this is how they are in the database >at the present time; nodes >for landuse/areas are at the same locations as nodes in highways. Some imported ones, yes. I doubt human-drawn ones are (I certainly don't do it). It would be nice if someone would create a tool that lets you select two nodes, specify a direction and distance, and have it dup and move them, as well as the specified way that connects them. It should also be possible to have it do the same thing with an entire polygon and/or, in the case where it is rectangular, specify separate easement distances for all 4 sides (this would be the most common usage). This would greatly speed up fixing of these types of issues when they are encountered by the more experienced of us. -- Alan Mintz ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 06:39:34PM +0100, colliar wrote: > Richard Welty schrieb: > > On 3/4/10 11:54 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: > >> At 2010-03-03 14:31, Richard Welty wrote: > >>From a technical standpoint, the land parcels do indeed usually extend > >> out > >> to the centerline of the roadway, but an easement is granted to the > >> city/county/state for the road, utilities, etc., and the area within the > >> easement may not be built upon by the landowner. IMO, that should exclude > >> the area within the easement from the landuse boundary. > >> > >> > > and from a practical point of view, this is how they are in the database > > at the present time; nodes > > for landuse/areas are at the same locations as nodes in highways. > > I came accross this, too, and have to say it is quite a lot of work to get the > landuse of the road and often you get conflicts later on these areas again. > > Maybe a tool for unglueing those objects and moving the area aubout 2 meters > of > would be nice or even a automatical fix by josm itself. +1. Some days ago, I came across a mkgmap warning for a dead-end oneway in a residential area that was riddled with landuse polygons that shared points with ways. It was very hard to see that the oneway was not connected to the road it was supposed to. I spent several minutes detaching the landuses from the roads in the area. Marko ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Richard Welty schrieb: > On 3/4/10 11:54 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: >> At 2010-03-03 14:31, Richard Welty wrote: >>From a technical standpoint, the land parcels do indeed usually extend out >> to the centerline of the roadway, but an easement is granted to the >> city/county/state for the road, utilities, etc., and the area within the >> easement may not be built upon by the landowner. IMO, that should exclude >> the area within the easement from the landuse boundary. >> >> > and from a practical point of view, this is how they are in the database > at the present time; nodes > for landuse/areas are at the same locations as nodes in highways. I came accross this, too, and have to say it is quite a lot of work to get the landuse of the road and often you get conflicts later on these areas again. Maybe a tool for unglueing those objects and moving the area aubout 2 meters of would be nice or even a automatical fix by josm itself. Also validator warns about landuses glued together if there exists nothing else and these landuses should be glued you get warnings about them. cheers colliar -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREIAAYFAkuP8FQACgkQalWTFLzqsCsBPQCguEasIjHG0peW+mRHXwLvwy9J 708An3kFqEcKz0VFX4U1vxuLj87pb8e8 =/e0l -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On 3/4/10 11:54 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: > At 2010-03-03 14:31, Richard Welty wrote: > >On 3/3/10 4:29 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> Alan Mintz wrote: > >> > >>> A similar problem exists with some landuse=* ways that > >>> people have glued to roads. > >>> > >> I'd call that a bit of an error: Clearly that landuse doesn't > >> continue all the way out to the street centerline. > >> > >but for people using josm w/the validator who are not aware of the issue, > >they are told that the duplicate nodes are an error, and there's a > >convenient > >fix button right there. > > Sounds like the validator should take into account the type of features in > this case, right? I'm all for joining nodes of like feature types (like > landuse to landuse), but it shouldn't tell you (let you?) join landuse to > highway. > i would agree with you. not being familiar with internals in this case, i don't know how hard that would be to adjust. however, at a minimum, there probably ought to be some sort of documentation/help option available for errors and warnings so a newish user can get immediate feedback on whether a fix is advisable, maybe right click/help-with-error leading to a text help dialog? >From a technical standpoint, the land parcels do indeed usually extend out > to the centerline of the roadway, but an easement is granted to the > city/county/state for the road, utilities, etc., and the area within the > easement may not be built upon by the landowner. IMO, that should exclude > the area within the easement from the landuse boundary. > > and from a practical point of view, this is how they are in the database at the present time; nodes for landuse/areas are at the same locations as nodes in highways. richard ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
At 2010-03-03 14:31, Richard Welty wrote: >On 3/3/10 4:29 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: >> Alan Mintz wrote: >> >>> A similar problem exists with some landuse=* ways that >>> people have glued to roads. >>> >> I'd call that a bit of an error: Clearly that landuse doesn't >> continue all the way out to the street centerline. >> >but for people using josm w/the validator who are not aware of the issue, >they are told that the duplicate nodes are an error, and there's a >convenient >fix button right there. Sounds like the validator should take into account the type of features in this case, right? I'm all for joining nodes of like feature types (like landuse to landuse), but it shouldn't tell you (let you?) join landuse to highway. From a technical standpoint, the land parcels do indeed usually extend out to the centerline of the roadway, but an easement is granted to the city/county/state for the road, utilities, etc., and the area within the easement may not be built upon by the landowner. IMO, that should exclude the area within the easement from the landuse boundary. -- Alan Mintz ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On 3/3/10 5:43 PM, Teemu Koskinen wrote: > On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:31:32 +0200, Richard Welty > wrote: > >> >> but for people using josm w/the validator who are not aware of the >> issue, >> they are told that the duplicate nodes are an error, and there's a >> convenient >> fix button right there. >> > > But then, if he runs the validator again (either manually or on > upload), he gets a warning saying that a road is overlapping an area. and perhaps there's a lesson about the current state of the validator here? newish josm users are told they should install the validator right in the splash screen, they install it and use it implicitly when uploading, it tells them there are errors, they "fix" them, then they get told of different errors after they've laboriously "fixed" 20 or 50 or 100 duplicate nodes. they don't really get a whole lot of help in understanding the rabbit hole they've just gone down. they know it's a rabbit hole, but they have no real idea what just happened. richard ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:31:32 +0200, Richard Welty wrote: > On 3/3/10 4:29 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: >> Alan Mintz wrote: >> >> >>> A similar problem exists with some landuse=* ways that >>> people have glued to roads. >>> >> I'd call that a bit of an error: Clearly that landuse doesn't >> continue all the way out to the street centerline. >> > but for people using josm w/the validator who are not aware of the issue, > they are told that the duplicate nodes are an error, and there's a > convenient > fix button right there. > But then, if he runs the validator again (either manually or on upload), he gets a warning saying that a road is overlapping an area. Teemu Koskinen ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
On 3/3/10 4:29 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > Alan Mintz wrote: > > >> A similar problem exists with some landuse=* ways that >> people have glued to roads. >> > I'd call that a bit of an error: Clearly that landuse doesn't > continue all the way out to the street centerline. > but for people using josm w/the validator who are not aware of the issue, they are told that the duplicate nodes are an error, and there's a convenient fix button right there. richard ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
Alan Mintz writes: > At 2010-02-23 09:41, Matthias Julius wrote: >>... >>I am wondering whether JOSM should actively support the creation of >>self-intersecting ways or whether the Join Node to Way command should >>only join a node to ways it is not already member of. > > Based on my usage, the latter (do not join to existing parents of the node). > >>Also, I am wondering whether it should join a node only to the nearest >>way instead of all ways withing snap distance. If one wants to join >>the node to another way one can just repeat the command. > > I like this. I'm often dealing with administrative boundaries that run down > the centerlines of streets, and have to move either the boundary or the > street to join a new cross-street. > > Of course, I'd really like to see the ability to ignore admin boundaries > completely (perhaps during download), as they almost always are simply in > the way, either because they have been glued to roads, or because they are > close to roads. A similar problem exists with some landuse=* ways that > people have glued to roads. IMHO the right thing to do for boundaries that run down the middle of roads, rivers, or other linear features to use those as members instead of duplicating the way. JOSM also has a hidden and undocumented filter feature with which it should be possible to hide objects you don't want to see. Of course this is hidden and undocumented for a reason. Matthias ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
At 2010-02-23 09:41, Matthias Julius wrote: >... >I am wondering whether JOSM should actively support the creation of >self-intersecting ways or whether the Join Node to Way command should >only join a node to ways it is not already member of. Based on my usage, the latter (do not join to existing parents of the node). >Also, I am wondering whether it should join a node only to the nearest >way instead of all ways withing snap distance. If one wants to join >the node to another way one can just repeat the command. I like this. I'm often dealing with administrative boundaries that run down the centerlines of streets, and have to move either the boundary or the street to join a new cross-street. Of course, I'd really like to see the ability to ignore admin boundaries completely (perhaps during download), as they almost always are simply in the way, either because they have been glued to roads, or because they are close to roads. A similar problem exists with some landuse=* ways that people have glued to roads. -- Alan Mintz ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
[josm-dev] self-intersecting ways
The Join Node to Way command currently inserts the node into all way segments within snap distance unless the node is already part of the way segment or the way segments are consecutive. This has the potential of producing self-intersecting ways by either joining a node to a way it is already member of or when a node is close to more than one non-consecutive way segments. The validator will put a warning on those ways. I am wondering whether JOSM should actively support the creation of self-intersecting ways or whether the Join Node to Way command should only join a node to ways it is not already member of. Also, I am wondering whether it should join a node only to the nearest way instead of all ways withing snap distance. If one wants to join the node to another way one can just repeat the command. Any opinions? Matthias ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
