Re: [Tagging] Micro Mapping, was Race track
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:06 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Imagine a mechanism in your favourite editor when you can drag the width of the node outwards to match the width of the road, this then gets stored against the node information for the way. Ah ok. Hmm, I'd prefer that the OSM way is the centerline of the feature. This would mean: 1) the OSM way is consistently meaningful in itself, and matches current usage 2) you only have one width value per node, which might simplify editing. But it seems like you're suggesting that the OSM way instead should represent: a) if a oneway feature: the centerline b) if a twoway feature: the divider between traffic travelling in each direction Could work I guess... the thinner lines are lanes. Huh? Do they exist in the database? If so, as what? That's part of my goal with all this, to make them exist. way id='-1' visible='true' nd ref='-1' width='50' lanes:left='2' lanes:right='3' / nd ref='-2' width='40' lanes:left='2' lanes:right='2' / /way Or something to that effect. Ah now I see what you mean. Can you add all of the necessary tags to the example in your diagram? In particular: 1) please indicate the geometric interpretation of width='50' and width='40' 2) write out the lane tags next to each node. I think you'll quickly see that it's difficult to decide how many lanes:right the middle node has, i.e. 2 or 3? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Micro Mapping, was Race track
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:06 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Imagine a mechanism in your favourite editor when you can drag the width of the node outwards to match the width of the road, this then gets stored against the node information for the way. Ah ok. Hmm, I'd prefer that the OSM way is the centerline of the feature. This would mean: 1) the OSM way is consistently meaningful in itself, and matches current usage 2) you only have one width value per node, which might simplify editing. I think I'm inclined to agree. Any renderer that supports all these tags won't be particularly inconvenienced by the fact that the line isn't down the centreline, and any renderer that doesn't will do a better job of rendering it. That said, it would be fairly rare for the central divider to be far from the geometric centre of the road for a non-divided highway, wouldn't it? Are there really that many asymmetric roads, with say one lane on one direction, and two in the others (as in the diagram)? The biggest problem I see with John's proposal (as I understand it) is that it adds lane information not onto nodes, and not onto ways, but onto the *relationship* between ways and nodes. I could be misunderstanding it, as I'm not really familiar with the underlying data structure. And in any case, lane information is intuitively not a property of a node, but of a section between two nodes. This proposal would appear to make it very easy to make long sections of road where the number of lanes is changing - not particularly useful. In fact, I'm not sure it's even useful to be able to code that. But it seems like you're suggesting that the OSM way instead should represent: a) if a oneway feature: the centerline b) if a twoway feature: the divider between traffic travelling in each direction It does seem a bit inconsistent. A three lane one-way road will have the way running down the centre of the middle lane. A three lane two-way road will have it running between two lanes. Or, to put it differently, for a given way with lane tags, where a renderer should render the road will depend on the property of the oneway=* tag. Which is extremely counterintuitive. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Micro Mapping, was Race track
On 5 February 2010 06:13, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: But it seems like you're suggesting that the OSM way instead should represent: a) if a oneway feature: the centerline b) if a twoway feature: the divider between traffic travelling in each direction I already map the node at the centreline, which isn't nessicarily the same thing as the midle of the road, this is more likely to be somewhat accurate if you are driving along the lanes either side of the centre line, but since we don't have super accurate GPS units yet it won't be that apparent. way id='-1' visible='true' nd ref='-1' width='50' lanes:left='2' lanes:right='3' / nd ref='-2' width='40' lanes:left='2' lanes:right='2' / /way Ah now I see what you mean. Can you add all of the necessary tags to the example in your diagram? In particular: 1) please indicate the geometric interpretation of width='50' and width='40' 2) write out the lane tags next to each node. I think you'll quickly see that it's difficult to decide how many lanes:right the middle node has, i.e. 2 or 3? The example above was before I realised you'd need 2 widths to describe things properly in the case of asymmetric lanes. I also realise the description isn't the best way to do things but I'm having a hard time thinking of something better, although if we use the direction of the way we could just tag it left/right... However to describe the previous diagram in XML it might be something like this: ?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'? osm version='0.6' generator='JOSM' node id='-1' visible='true' lat='-0.17652801739620505' lon='-3.788568828743543' / node id='-2' visible='true' lat='1.1360435677193206' lon='-1.0003270145189043' / node id='-4' visible='true' lat='1.1179416038429335' lon='3.0009810435567132' / way id='-3' action='modify' visible='true' nd ref='-1' left lanes='1' width='5' / right lanes='1' width='5' / /nd nd ref='-2' left lanes='1' width='5' / right lanes='1' width='5' / /nd nd ref='-4' left lanes='2' width='10' / right lanes='1' width='5' / /nd /way /osm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Proposed feature: Gated Communities
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/2/3 Chango640 chango...@gmail.com: If you are interested in this proposal, please visit http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Gated_community to see full details and discuss. Why not use landuse=residential I agree with this, although where feasible I'd rather see landuse=residential only on the residential sections of the gated community. together with another tag, say community=gated (where community could also become other stuff like religious, seniors, female, Adding community=gated seems redundant. Just map the wall or fence itself. ... and or add access=private? I guess you could put access=private on the wall/fence, but isn't that the default? I'd definitely put access=private on all the roads, parking spaces, parks, etc. Anyway I would suggest to map the extent of the gated area by adding the fence barrier=fence and the entraces / gates. Yeah, definitely. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tag proposal image=http:/... .jpg
On 5 February 2010 15:00, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I edited the page 'image' feel free to fix / edit/ delete There seems to be a number of URL type tags, is there a need for a specific image tag? Wouldn't it be better to unify these? eg URI:image=* URI:wikipedia=* URI:website=* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tag proposal image=http:/... .jpg
Sure, the OSM poi KML script can handle all variations. The point is, is to find 1 that people are happy with, and market it out there to all the 'map editoring tools' so they all will support it. osv:url=http:// .jpg is another one. When people are out there 'photo mapping' why not share these photos with a standard tag? I.e. A 'view_point' should have a photo in there :-) imo, Sam On 2/4/10, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 February 2010 15:00, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I edited the page 'image' feel free to fix / edit/ delete There seems to be a number of URL type tags, is there a need for a specific image tag? Wouldn't it be better to unify these? eg URI:image=* URI:wikipedia=* URI:website=* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blog: http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: samvekemans OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org @Acrosscanadatrails ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
