Re: [Tagging] Why is this user editing in this manner?
Hi, On 08/16/12 06:16, Jais Pedersen wrote: Looking at his other recent edits, it looks like he is systematically going through and fixing the issues in OSM Inspectors Multipolygon view: http://goo.gl/aWpXQ - It still shows the error as i write this, but the view might have been updated with his edits by the time you click the link. The tagging that Dave described - a closed ring adjacent to a multipolygon, and sharing a few nodes with the multipolygon's outer ring - is not an error. OSMI checks things object by object and therefore would not even be able to detect a problem that arises from two totally seperate objects (e.g. it would not be able to detect two buildings overlapping). My personal take on the tagging style is that I'm happy to use Dave's style if the number of nodes shared by both objects is less than 10, but if it becomes more I'd choose the kind of tagging that the other guy used. But neither is wrong and this is a matter of personal taste. What is *not* a matter of personal taste, and what OSMI usually complains about, is when the polygon geometry cannot be built due to * unclosed rings (dangling segments) * self-intersections within one ring * overlaps between different rings The Inspector is sometimes less than clear about what its problem is, exactly, and you often have to take a closer look. The Inspector is nearly always right in detecting something fishy but it is not always immediately clear *what* the fishy thing is. In this specific case, I believe the error persists in the current version of the relation: relation id=1754193 visible=true timestamp=2012-08-15T18:44:57Z user=mentor uid=38588 version=14 changeset=12742505 member type=way ref=173633663 role=outer/ member type=way ref=125820705 role=outer/ member type=way ref=125820705 role=outer/ member type=way ref=140782843 role=inner/ member type=way ref=140782844 role=inner/ member type=way ref=140783771 role=outer/ member type=way ref=175005862 role=outer/ member type=way ref=130171853 role=inner/ member type=way ref=173633664 role=outer/ member type=way ref=130171898 role=inner/ tag k=description v=River Avon/ tag k=source v=Bing/ tag k=type v=multipolygon/ tag k=waterway v=riverbank/ /relation Way 125820705 is there twice, making it impossible to build a proper outer ring out of all the outer ways. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Why is this user editing in this manner?
On 16/08/2012 07:58, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 08/16/12 06:16, Jais Pedersen wrote: Looking at his other recent edits, it looks like he is systematically going through and fixing the issues in OSM Inspectors Multipolygon view: http://goo.gl/aWpXQ - It still shows the error as i write this, but the view might have been updated with his edits by the time you click the link. OSMI checks things object by object and therefore would not even be able to detect a problem that arises from two totally seperate objects. The Inspector is sometimes less than clear about what its problem is, exactly, and you often have to take a closer look. The Inspector is nearly always right in detecting something fishy but it is not always immediately clear *what* the fishy thing is. In this specific case, I believe the error persists in the current version of the relation: relation id=1754193 visible=true timestamp=2012-08-15T18:44:57Z user=mentor uid=38588 version=14 changeset=12742505 member type=way ref=173633663 role=outer/ member type=way ref=125820705 role=outer/ member type=way ref=125820705 role=outer/ Way 125820705 is there twice, making it impossible to build a proper outer ring out of all the outer ways. OK, so what appears to have happened is he's used OSMI to check for MP errors, but misinterpreted the results it's thrown up. He seems to think the red crosses indicate intersection errors with the adjacent polygon whereas they're within the MP. His edits to fix the problem appear a bit overkill so I'll try make contact to save him some time. Thanks for your help. Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
Dave has been quite rude, and completely dismissive of the value of anything other than his interpretation of what the wiki states. Internet etiquette is that you do not respond to rudeness, so I haven't. Counting parallel lines is a pain, and trying to put the info into relations is unnecessarily complicated. So I favour a total_tracks on ways approach. Since Peter (ITO) seems moderately relaxed about the tracks info being deleted where there are multiple tracks (and he's the only known user), I'll probably remove the tags. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
On 16/08/2012 14:46, Richard Mann wrote: Dave has been quite rude, I believe you've confused the meanings of the words rude critical. I initially asked a civil, simple question to which you've continuously evaded giving a direct response. Any curtness on my part is due to your repeated reluctance to go along with the majority view. and completely dismissive of the value of anything other than his interpretation of what the wiki states. Come again? The wiki interpretation (which I didn't write) has been agreed by many, many users. (I would say everyone except you). To double check I came here for clarification - All who replied agree with the wiki. It's disappointing you thought it acceptable to hi-jack a tag just to suit your requirements. Since Peter (ITO) seems moderately relaxed about the tracks info being deleted where there are multiple tracks (and he's the only known user), I'll probably remove the tags. No Richard, removing them is as bad as keeping them with your erroneous values. You need to return them to their original state. Please make sure it's only your edits you amend. Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Why is this user editing in this manner?
Am 16.08.2012, 02:53 Uhr, schrieb Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: The latest editor has split both the closed way outer polygon, deleted one of the overlapping ways added the remaining way to both the outer way a newly created multi-polygon (2338583) as a substitute for the closed way. Why has the editor done this? Is there a new preferred reason for doing this? To me it seems a pointless exercise that adds nothing but makes it more confusing for any future editor, especially putting a previously closed way into a multi-polygon. I see your problem is solved. But not your question Is there a new preferred reason for doing this? First, both ways of mapping is correct (closed way some non-closed ways that forming an outer multipolygon)! But you are not alone with your opinion, that spliting is too overkill. In german forum most of the user are against splitting (82%; against: about 23 + 3x0.5 pro: about 5), but they are to shy or have no wiki accound/no mailinglist to speak out their opinion. The greatest reason against is, that editing, especially for new user, is much to difficult. There are some parts, where splitting is useful: for borders and verry large areas e.g. huge lakes. (for what the splitting have been introduced in past, because of the 2000 nodes limit.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
