Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - opening hours holiday select
> Am 13/mar/2014 um 19:06 schrieb Pieren : > > It's unclear if your proposal is "opening_hours=SH(summer holiday)" or > "opening_hours=SH" (then you should correct the wiki because the tag > template is using the first version) IMHO "summer_holiday" would be preferable because we should avoid abbreviations cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
> Am 13/mar/2014 um 22:31 schrieb David Bannon : > > We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road agreed, but would you say it has a "dirt surface"? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - opening hours holiday select
On 14/03/2014 08:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 13/mar/2014 um 19:06 schrieb Pieren : It's unclear if your proposal is "opening_hours=SH(summer holiday)" or "opening_hours=SH" (then you should correct the wiki because the tag template is using the first version) IMHO "summer_holiday" would be preferable because we should avoid abbreviations I there a misunderstanding here? The way I read it, SH is an existing OSM abbreviation for 'school holidays', and the proposal to add 'summer holiday' in brackets restricts it to the summer holiday. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - opening hours holiday select
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: IMHO "summer_holiday" would be preferable because we should avoid abbreviations ... and people have already used the abbreviation "SH" for "School Holidays" (which I'd argue also ought not to be abbreviated for the same reason). Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - opening hours holiday select
How do you define summer holidays? surely on its own it is not helpful. It will require a database of when holidays are, based on location. A business which serves multiple local authorities will straddle all those areas holidays. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 14/03/2014 8:48 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am 13/mar/2014 um 19:06 schrieb Pieren : > > It's unclear if your proposal is "opening_hours=SH(summer holiday)" or > "opening_hours=SH" (then you should correct the wiki because the tag > template is using the first version) IMHO "summer_holiday" would be preferable because we should avoid abbreviations cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list pier...@gmail.com https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
On 3/14/14 4:54 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> Am 13/mar/2014 um 22:31 schrieb David Bannon : >> >> We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road > > > agreed, but would you say it has a "dirt surface"? > i certainly wouldn't. i use unpaved as the more generic term, and dirt or gravel when i know for sure. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] opening-hours and closing-hours (was: Feature Proposal - Voting - opening hours holiday select)
On 2014-03-13 19:06, Pieren wrote : > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Robin `ypid` Schneider wrote: > > It's unclear if your proposal is "opening_hours=SH(summer holiday)" or > "opening_hours=SH" (then you should correct the wiki because the tag > template is using the first version) > > I guess you plan to update the main "opening_hours" wiki if the > proposal is accepted ? As well as * choose one of the 5 or 6 contradictory forms, each denying the former ones, that were answered to my case that I finally proposed unambiguously as *closing-hours=Fr 14:00-22:00* (in a message followed by -1 -1 -1 and 2 or 3 more contradictory tags) * if the answer to the simplified diagram I added to try to clarify many things is really "it's wrong", say what is wrong and correct it * especially, regarding *your* particular proposition *opening_hours="open; Fr 14:00-22:00 off"* o explain: "open" and "closed" appear to be some new invention [*of mine, *in the diagram] o write a definition for *off* or validate/correct the definition in my diagram and explain the following replies to this request or its usage: + it's not used; + it's used but not like that; + *off* must not be defined but grasped; + the meaning of "off" is wrong + "off" [must not be defined because it] has been in use for quite some time already. + http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Time_domains explains quite well how the overall opening_hours syntax works (why then did I have to add its URL to the main page?) o write a definition or *open*, make up your mind between, and clarify: + "open" and "closed" appear to be some new invention + It was introduced by Netzwolf some years ago because it is needed as (when used together with a comment). It is now used over 150 times to do exactly that (regex: /open\s+"/). Of course it is an invention but one which is required + make explanations for the general tagger (I'm fine with regexp but not everybody) o clarify: "Because of the definition that following rules will overwrite previous once, times which span over midnight have to use additional rules which are separated by comma instead of semicolon. " + probably "override previous ones" and general syntax + instead of a casual remark about an example, make it a proper explanation # of the difference between comma and semicolon # of how rules override one another; "graspingly", ranges specifying opening time would add themselves to opening time and ranges specifying closing time would subtract themselves from it, but I've seen an example for which the range was said to both add and subtract. BTW, if the only reaction to *closing-hours=Fr 14:00-22:00* is -1 -1 -1 vs all of the above (and more) for the *opening-hours= ?_0 |?_1 |?_2 |?_3 |?_4 |?_5 *... attempted equivalents, then my *closing-hours *proposition is obviously not a question of opinion or liking but an absolute necessity. Hoping this will help, Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - amenity=Boat_sharing
Dear André, >> >> the proposal is now open for voting. >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boat_sharing > BTW, slightly off topic, I still have no clean solution for > fr:covoiturage, which is translated to en:car_sharing by Nominatim. Agree, car_sharing is not a good translation for "covoiturage". I don't now a english term, but in german this would be "Mitfahrsystem" or "Mitfahrzentrale", but both referring more to the system as a whole or the operator of a website organizing this kind of "car_sharing". In Switzerland, there was a system some time ago which had real stop (like bus stops), where a member could enter his destination and then cars would stop. But this does not exist anymore, I do not now if this exists somewhere else or if it's already mapped. > And I was thinking that you're lucky that hikers probably very seldom > hitch stop boats ;-) Yes, no such kind on boats :-) > Please note my impression that it should be boat_something:type to allow > for boat:type and captain:type. I do not understand what you mean by that. The "Type"-tag seems restricted to realtions, to avoid confusion I named the subtag for the boat-type "boattype". Do you mean this should be change into "boat_sharing:type"?? What would go under "captain:type"?? Cheers, nounours ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:09 PM, ael wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:34:24AM +, jonathan wrote: >> Here's my take from an Englishman! >> >> While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all > > From another English person, I would say that "dirt" in British English > is understood to mean the substance which causes something to be "not > clean". That is it is much wider in meaning than soil or earth. But it > is almost never used to mean soil or earth under your feet, although > that might be described as "dirty" or even "dirt" if telling a child to > avoid rolling in it. Agreed --- I think of "dirt" in this sense as the American English equivalent of what in British English is usually called "earth" or "soil". __John (native British English speaker) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - opening hours holiday select
Indeed- I have no idea what "summer holidays" are. I know what "federal holidays" are, I know what some religious holidays are, but "summer holidays" isn't something I'm familiar with. - Serge On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > How do you define summer holidays? surely on its own it is not helpful. > > It will require a database of when holidays are, based on location. > > A business which serves multiple local authorities will straddle all those > areas holidays. > > > Phil (trigpoint) > > -- > > > > Sent from my Nokia N9 > > > > > On 14/03/2014 8:48 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > >> Am 13/mar/2014 um 19:06 schrieb Pieren : >> >> It's unclear if your proposal is "opening_hours=SH(summer holiday)" or >> "opening_hours=SH" (then you should correct the wiki because the tag >> template is using the first version) > > IMHO "summer_holiday" would be preferable because we should avoid > abbreviations > > cheers, > Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > pier...@gmail.com > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
Since OSM uses British English, what word would you pair with road, as in "dirt road?" Earthen road? Inquiring minds want to know. J Sent from my iPad > On Mar 14, 2014, at 10:18 PM, John Sturdy wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:09 PM, ael wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:34:24AM +, jonathan wrote: >>> Here's my take from an Englishman! >>> >>> While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all >> >> From another English person, I would say that "dirt" in British English >> is understood to mean the substance which causes something to be "not >> clean". That is it is much wider in meaning than soil or earth. But it >> is almost never used to mean soil or earth under your feet, although >> that might be described as "dirty" or even "dirt" if telling a child to >> avoid rolling in it. > > Agreed --- I think of "dirt" in this sense as the American English > equivalent of what in British English is usually called "earth" or > "soil". > > __John (native British English speaker) > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] opening-hours and closing-hours
Did you every think about "00:00-24:00; Fr 14:00-22:00 off" I really do not get your problems as the syntax already allows a lot. Still do not have any need for "open/closed" or closing_hours. One good point about the discussion is that "appointment" is considered valid. cu fly On 14.03.2014 12:37, André Pirard wrote: > On 2014-03-13 19:06, Pieren wrote : >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Robin `ypid` Schneider >> wrote: >> >> It's unclear if your proposal is "opening_hours=SH(summer holiday)" or >> "opening_hours=SH" (then you should correct the wiki because the tag >> template is using the first version) >> >> I guess you plan to update the main "opening_hours" wiki if the >> proposal is accepted ? > As well as > > * choose one of the 5 or 6 contradictory forms, each denying the > former ones, that were answered to my case that I finally proposed > unambiguously as *closing-hours=Fr 14:00-22:00* (in a message > followed by -1 -1 -1 and 2 or 3 more contradictory tags) > * if the answer to the simplified diagram I added to try to clarify > many things is really "it's wrong", say what is wrong and correct it > * especially, regarding *your* particular proposition > *opening_hours="open; Fr 14:00-22:00 off"* > o explain: "open" and "closed" appear to be some new invention > [*of mine, *in the diagram] > o write a definition for *off* or validate/correct the definition > in my diagram and explain the following replies to this request > or its usage: > + it's not used; > + it's used but not like that; > + *off* must not be defined but grasped; > + the meaning of "off" is wrong > + "off" [must not be defined because it] has been in use for > quite some time already. > + http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Time_domains > explains quite well how the overall opening_hours syntax > works (why then did I have to add its URL to the main page?) > o write a definition or *open*, make up your mind between, and > clarify: > + "open" and "closed" appear to be some new invention > + It was introduced by Netzwolf some years ago because it is > needed as (when used together with a > comment). It is now used over 150 times to do exactly that > (regex: /open\s+"/). Of course it is an invention but one > which is required > + make explanations for the general tagger (I'm fine with > regexp but not everybody) > o clarify: "Because of the definition that following rules will > overwrite previous once, times which span over midnight have to > use additional rules which are separated by comma instead of > semicolon. " > + probably "override previous ones" and general syntax > + instead of a casual remark about an example, make it a > proper explanation > # of the difference between comma and semicolon > # of how rules override one another; "graspingly", ranges > specifying opening time would add themselves to opening > time and ranges specifying closing time would subtract > themselves from it, but I've seen an example for which > the range was said to both add and subtract. > > BTW, if the only reaction to *closing-hours=Fr 14:00-22:00* is -1 -1 -1 > vs all of the above (and more) for the *opening-hours= ?_0 |?_1 |?_2 > |?_3 |?_4 |?_5 *... attempted equivalents, then my *closing-hours > *proposition is obviously not a question of opinion or liking but an > absolute necessity. > > Hoping this will help, > Cheers, > > André. > > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
Hello everyone, This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to specify a rendering order. The wiki, however, states that it is wrong to tag a whole river with layer=-1. The reason for that, as far as I could figure, is because current validators (such as JOSM's or KeepRight's) will not issue a warning on a waterway x highway crossing when their layers are different, leading some users into tagging the river with layer=-1 in order to get rid of warnings about missing bridges and tunnels. So, I think that the validation rule is inadequate: it should warn when a waterway crosses a highway that has no bridge or tunnel tag, regardless of the value in the layer tag. (Fords are the only exception, AFAIK.) Do you agree that the river can be tagged with layer=-1 as long as this value is correct in relation to the layer of other nearby/crossing ways? -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law) "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - opening hours holiday select
Summer Holidays are when schools close in the summer. The issue I have is that they vary between local authorities, so seeing opening times for summer holidays, I have to find out which local authority covers the area and then visit their website to find the dates of the summer holidays. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 14/03/2014 13:20 Serge Wroclawski wrote: Indeed- I have no idea what "summer holidays" are. I know what "federal holidays" are, I know what some religious holidays are, but "summer holidays" isn't something I'm familiar with. - Serge On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > How do you define summer holidays? surely on its own it is not helpful. > > It will require a database of when holidays are, based on location. > > A business which serves multiple local authorities will straddle all those > areas holidays. > > > Phil (trigpoint) > > -- > > > > Sent from my Nokia N9 > > > > > On 14/03/2014 8:48 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > >> Am 13/mar/2014 um 19:06 schrieb Pieren : >> >> It's unclear if your proposal is "opening_hours=SH(summer holiday)" or >> "opening_hours=SH" (then you should correct the wiki because the tag >> template is using the first version) > > IMHO "summer_holiday" would be preferable because we should avoid > abbreviations > > cheers, > Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > p...@trigpoint.me.uk > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > p...@trigpoint.me.uk > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list p...@trigpoint.me.uk https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
Re; tagging a (complete or longer segment of a) river with layer=-1 I don't understand why anyone would do this. That's it. Why? Layer= tag clearly (logically) implies that some data is above or below some other data. At least to my logic. And I don't seem to be the only one with this thinking. At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense, but what makes all rivers with this unnecessary tag render oddly. There are quite a number of such problematic waterways (also) in Nicaragua and Haiti. So, again : why tag things with with layer= tag when they are essentially on ground level = not above or below other data (or at least natural objects that might be mapped one day *) ? Am I missing something here? Cheers, -Jaakko *) I do add layer=1 to all bridges I map even if there wouldn't be any data under then at the moment and think that this kind of layer tag use makes sense -- Sent from my Android device. * +505-8845-3391 * http://about.me/jaakkoh El mar 14, 2014 8:52 a.m., "Fernando Trebien" escribió: > Hello everyone, > > This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my > understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to > specify a rendering order. The wiki, however, states that it is wrong > to tag a whole river with layer=-1. The reason for that, as far as I > could figure, is because current validators (such as JOSM's or > KeepRight's) will not issue a warning on a waterway x highway crossing > when their layers are different, leading some users into tagging the > river with layer=-1 in order to get rid of warnings about missing > bridges and tunnels. So, I think that the validation rule is > inadequate: it should warn when a waterway crosses a highway that has > no bridge or tunnel tag, regardless of the value in the layer tag. > (Fords are the only exception, AFAIK.) > > Do you agree that the river can be tagged with layer=-1 as long as > this value is correct in relation to the layer of other > nearby/crossing ways? > > -- > Fernando Trebien > +55 (51) 9962-5409 > > "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law) > "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law) > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
"Layer= tag clearly (logically) implies that some data is above or below some other data. At least to my logic." >From this logic, layer=-1 means the object is >rendered< beneath anything that has layer=0 (or, conversely, that anything with layer=0 is rendered on top of anything with layer=-1). It does not mean that it >is< in fact below it (though it almost always is). That's the situation of a river passing under a bridge. Likewise, layer=0 means the object is rendered below anything that has layer=1. Also the same situation for the situation of a bridge over a river (or of a river under a bridge). Both approaches should be possible. "At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense" This makes absolutely no sense to me. OsmAnd has confused the concept of "rendering layer order" with the concept of "level" (underground, on the ground, above the ground). It may also have confused it with the concept of a "tunnel", which is rendered using dashed casing in OSM-Carto (the default map style of the main website). "I don't understand why anyone would do this. That's it. Why?" Reason: to avoid having to add a layer tag to every bridge. If a single river is crossed by 100 bridges, it is easier to add a layer=-1 tag to the river than to add a layer=1 to each of the 100 bridges. Another reason: to work around the limitations of validators in order to avoid warnings about "missing bridges". But IMHO, this is the wrong way to handle the situation, since a workaround is easy AND is exploited in practice. See here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:layer#layer.3D-1_erroneously_used_for_many_italian_rivers "So, again : why tag things with with layer= tag when they are essentially on ground level = not above or below other data (or at least natural objects that might be mapped one day *) ? Am I missing something here?" I believe you are missing this: layer=0 does not mean "ground level". The closest to that idea is level=0, even though it is not always "ground level" but nearly so almost always. Layer=0 means: "render this to layer 0". Layer=-1 means: "render this to layer -1", which is rendered before layer 0, therefore, anything on layer 0 is drawn on top of things on layer -1. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com wrote: > Re; tagging a (complete or longer segment of a) river with layer=-1 > > I don't understand why anyone would do this. That's it. Why? > > Layer= tag clearly (logically) implies that some data is above or below some > other data. At least to my logic. And I don't seem to be the only one with > this thinking. At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with > dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense, but > what makes all rivers with this unnecessary tag render oddly. There are > quite a number of such problematic waterways (also) in Nicaragua and Haiti. > > So, again : why tag things with with layer= tag when they are essentially on > ground level = not above or below other data (or at least natural objects > that might be mapped one day *) ? Am I missing something here? > > Cheers, > -Jaakko > > *) I do add layer=1 to all bridges I map even if there wouldn't be any data > under then at the moment and think that this kind of layer tag use makes > sense > > -- > Sent from my Android device. * +505-8845-3391 * http://about.me/jaakkoh > > El mar 14, 2014 8:52 a.m., "Fernando Trebien" > escribió: >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my >> understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to >> specify a rendering order. The wiki, however, states that it is wrong >> to tag a whole river with layer=-1. The reason for that, as far as I >> could figure, is because current validators (such as JOSM's or >> KeepRight's) will not issue a warning on a waterway x highway crossing >> when their layers are different, leading some users into tagging the >> river with layer=-1 in order to get rid of warnings about missing >> bridges and tunnels. So, I think that the validation rule is >> inadequate: it should warn when a waterway crosses a highway that has >> no bridge or tunnel tag, regardless of the value in the layer tag. >> (Fords are the only exception, AFAIK.) >> >> Do you agree that the river can be tagged with layer=-1 as long as >> this value is correct in relation to the layer of other >> nearby/crossing ways? >> >> -- >> Fernando Trebien >> +55 (51) 9962-5409 >> >> "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law) >> "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law) >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tag
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com > At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with > dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense That's clearly a bug. Waterways underground is specified by "tunnel=*" > So, again : why tag things with with layer= tag when they are essentially on > ground level = not above or below other data (or at least natural objects > that might be mapped one day *) ? Am I missing something here? Real case from real world : a deep ditch where the stream is not "underground" but below the "ground" level, is crossing a village where we have 10 bridges. Either you add 10 times "layer=1" on the bridges or you add 1 time "layer=-1" on the stream. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:51:47AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: > Hello everyone, > > This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my > understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to > specify a rendering order. The wiki, however, states that it is wrong > to tag a whole river with layer=-1. The reason for that, as far as I > could figure, is because current validators (such as JOSM's or > KeepRight's) will not issue a warning on a waterway x highway crossing > when their layers are different, leading some users into tagging the > river with layer=-1 in order to get rid of warnings about missing > bridges and tunnels. So, I think that the validation rule is > inadequate: it should warn when a waterway crosses a highway that has > no bridge or tunnel tag, regardless of the value in the layer tag. > (Fords are the only exception, AFAIK.) agree that the error check should be stronger, location, pipeline and covered being other exceptions. > Do you agree that the river can be tagged with layer=-1 as long as > this value is correct in relation to the layer of other > nearby/crossing ways? in theory yes. However "nearby" is a problem as rivers can be very long. Many people simply tag rivers with layer=-1 without even thinking about the fact that the rivers may now collide with tunnels some hundreds of miles away. Furthermore there is a convention that if there is a crossing with a bridge, the bridge should have the layer tag and not the way bellow it. Similar tunnel. For both tunnels and bridges layer is now considered mandatory thus it is totally useless to put rivers at layer=-1 unless they are in a tunnel. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On 14.03.2014 16:36, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com > >> At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with >> dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense > > That's clearly a bug. Waterways underground is specified by "tunnel=*" > >> So, again : why tag things with with layer= tag when they are essentially on >> ground level = not above or below other data (or at least natural objects >> that might be mapped one day *) ? Am I missing something here? > > Real case from real world : a deep ditch where the stream is not > "underground" but below the "ground" level, is crossing a village > where we have 10 bridges. Either you add 10 times "layer=1" on the > bridges or you add 1 time "layer=-1" on the stream. Well, I do not get your problem, as bridge/tunnel always need a layer tag and you already have to cut the ways to tag the bridge/tunnel, why not simply add the layer to the bridge/tunnel and leave everything else untouched ? Using layer tags on long ways is discouraged as you often only need it on a small part and it makes it more difficult as you always have to check the layer tag of these long ways before adding a new bridge/tunnel with appropriate layer value. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:36:26PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com > > > At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with > > dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense > > That's clearly a bug. Waterways underground is specified by "tunnel=*" > > > So, again : why tag things with with layer= tag when they are essentially on > > ground level = not above or below other data (or at least natural objects > > that might be mapped one day *) ? Am I missing something here? > > Real case from real world : a deep ditch where the stream is not > "underground" but below the "ground" level, is crossing a village > where we have 10 bridges. Either you add 10 times "layer=1" on the > bridges or you add 1 time "layer=-1" on the stream. wiki says that every bridge should have a layer tag. If you are lazy you can as well omit the layer altogether, it will be still rendered correctly. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > in theory yes. However "nearby" is a problem as rivers can be very long. > Many people simply tag rivers with layer=-1 without even thinking about > the fact that the rivers may now collide with tunnels some hundreds of miles > away. In general, we should avoid single ways running over hundreds of miles. And we have QA tools to detect such issues. > Furthermore there is a convention that if there is a crossing with a bridge, > the bridge should have the layer tag and not the way bellow it. Similar > tunnel. > For both tunnels and bridges layer is now considered mandatory thus it is > totally useless to put rivers at layer=-1 unless they are in a tunnel. Who decided this and where ? The wiki about bridge says "Bridges should have a layer=*, ". "should" is not "must". Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, fly wrote: > Well, I do not get your problem, as bridge/tunnel always need a layer > tag and you already have to cut the ways to tag the bridge/tunnel, why > not simply add the layer to the bridge/tunnel and leave everything else > untouched ? You don't see the point where adding one "layer=-1" is easier than adding 10 "layer=1" ? I see the layer tag in "tunnel/bridge" in simple cases but you should not follow all recommendations as fixed in stone. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > wiki says that every bridge should have a layer tag. If you are lazy > you can as well omit the layer altogether, it will be still rendered > correctly. It's not a question of laziness. Setting "layer=-1" to the waterway instead of 10 bridges just demonstrates that you understood the original concept of the tag "layer". Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On 14.03.2014 16:57, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, fly wrote: > >> Well, I do not get your problem, as bridge/tunnel always need a layer >> tag and you already have to cut the ways to tag the bridge/tunnel, why >> not simply add the layer to the bridge/tunnel and leave everything else >> untouched ? > > You don't see the point where adding one "layer=-1" is easier than > adding 10 "layer=1" ? I see the layer tag in "tunnel/bridge" in simple > cases but you should not follow all recommendations as fixed in stone. No, as you need to split the river leading to two more objects. Or do you simply tag the whole way with layer=-1 which is not a good practices as the next mapper who adds a tunnel has to check the river to find out that she/he needs to use -2 instead of -1 as value. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:01:10PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > > > wiki says that every bridge should have a layer tag. If you are lazy > > you can as well omit the layer altogether, it will be still rendered > > correctly. > > It's not a question of laziness. Setting "layer=-1" to the waterway > instead of 10 bridges just demonstrates that you understood the > original concept of the tag "layer". Still i feel setting a layer -1 on a waterway and NOT tagging any bridges is lazyness. I remove the layer=-1 in those cases and wait for keepright to come up with layer violations. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
Setting the river to layer=-1, and the bridge to layer=0 (or 1) avoids a range of rendering artefacts when roads have casings (which they usually do). Good practice is only applying that to a shortish section of river, obviously. I don't know why the wiki has a statement against it - it always seemed like a unilateral "I don't like it" from Nathan Edgar the second. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
I think that adding "layer" to every bridge instead of the river alone is a wasteful and inefficient approach (takes more time and uses more database space). IMHO these are much more objective arguments than simply calling something you disagree with "laziness". What's wrong with "removing layer=-1" in these cases: it may actually be semantically correct (as it is in my city: Porto Alegre). All bridges have been mapped with layer=0 and the river beneath them with layer=-1. Not a single bridge is missing. (This was checked before adding the layer tags.) On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:01:10PM +0100, Pieren wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Richard Z. wrote: >> >> > wiki says that every bridge should have a layer tag. If you are lazy >> > you can as well omit the layer altogether, it will be still rendered >> > correctly. >> >> It's not a question of laziness. Setting "layer=-1" to the waterway >> instead of 10 bridges just demonstrates that you understood the >> original concept of the tag "layer". > > Still i feel setting a layer -1 on a waterway and NOT tagging any > bridges is lazyness. I remove the layer=-1 in those cases and wait > for keepright to come up with layer violations. > > Flo > -- > Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > > iQIVAwUBUyMpIJDdQSDLCfIvAQhJsg//fwOvsG/tUzY4TGLaVRiZQ8trnNGdXQjj > FFC4j23edjXQ5MR5xU3ndvSZSzxzUjxRCis5uHLh9it+NDq0WudaCUtMUulDpF5u > 50AMzyGwFj9BZcfyUi6XYtiNoMsCGeKMNNSOMlxeIerT06QUpBwZdXdbntLPSU5J > ZgPhsva7p+wY/tr/KQJfOLZXjscpMnhvUcD6GZNGZzB/ky4HD1M+/8RA1aOFA2V9 > 1RqQgOvmrt1Bxx/axwIG6jIC0xdc0eAMr50N+t6SRq9m+6yZZB5nNo9CmznsuLnY > d2DAtlUyUymh33j/167/p9HEgCwXCxSdTsRmXJ3WEMi9vPuEBf3ETeCh2lAPqEta > hnB5XDX13RBUypGUlrh2OmRONmMqTY4S8U0aPCn35LwPxW0T/dh64bcVL41PfTEq > coa+H/34gU+88EdCIfkupRoMrv4kq16+6HhW2JI7InjFSWW+opopSAergpkSGvXI > MQJDGQH4wDo2ZfKWAVXf4k/rufqTSIyjnGDJ1t4ZSi6BVUz61mrX9uYDPwlS1HOB > LDfux7IG4mrgD/HztqfJ7//SCzDAfbXAi8f3o87YCPVzbyZOdCdKCyMmgTSXoCkF > odF32M7XV41/hK7DQvbWvdJ2ISXt8EhMvGIq5GuajxLX5of2gLIM/9v/Yag+Z+YP > GtidRhmUeVs= > =1+um > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law) "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:20:13PM +, Richard Mann wrote: > Setting the river to layer=-1, and the bridge to layer=0 (or 1) avoids a > range of rendering artefacts when roads have casings (which they usually > do). Good practice is only applying that to a shortish section of river, > obviously. > > I don't know why the wiki has a statement against it - it always seemed > like a unilateral "I don't like it" from Nathan Edgar the second. When a bridge is above a river the river stays at layer=0 e.g. no tag or split at all and the road will get split (you'll need the bridge tag anyway) together with a layer=1. So you duplicate the layer=1 tag for every bridge. Who cares? Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 22:44 +0900, John Willis wrote: > Since OSM uses British English, what word would you pair with road, as in > "dirt road?" > > Earthen road? > > Inquiring minds want to know. There is no usage of dirt road in the UK most, if not all, public roads are hard surfaced (although the quality can vary). I have certainly never heard the term Earthen Road, it is probably one of those instances where we should adopt the American Dirt, like we use sidewalk. Most Brits will be familiar the term from movies. I have driven on dirt roads in Canada, we have nothing like that. Phil (trigpoint) > > J > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Mar 14, 2014, at 10:18 PM, John Sturdy wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:09 PM, ael wrote: > >>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:34:24AM +, jonathan wrote: > >>> Here's my take from an Englishman! > >>> > >>> While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all > >> > >> From another English person, I would say that "dirt" in British English > >> is understood to mean the substance which causes something to be "not > >> clean". That is it is much wider in meaning than soil or earth. But it > >> is almost never used to mean soil or earth under your feet, although > >> that might be described as "dirty" or even "dirt" if telling a child to > >> avoid rolling in it. > > > > Agreed --- I think of "dirt" in this sense as the American English > > equivalent of what in British English is usually called "earth" or > > "soil". > > > > __John (native British English speaker) > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > > > in theory yes. However "nearby" is a problem as rivers can be very long. > > Many people simply tag rivers with layer=-1 without even thinking about > > the fact that the rivers may now collide with tunnels some hundreds of miles > > away. > > In general, we should avoid single ways running over hundreds of > miles. And we have QA tools to detect such issues. well rivers are thousands of miles long. They don't care about QA tools. > > Furthermore there is a convention that if there is a crossing with a bridge, > > the bridge should have the layer tag and not the way bellow it. Similar > > tunnel. > > For both tunnels and bridges layer is now considered mandatory thus it is > > totally useless to put rivers at layer=-1 unless they are in a tunnel. > > Who decided this and where ? The wiki about bridge says "Bridges > should have a layer=*, ". "should" is not "must". it is a polite "must". There has been a proposal long ago for bridges to have implicit an layer and it was not accepted. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
I don't think you should be required to check the river's layer tag. Validators should do this job for you, it's quite easy to write a rule for that. Here's an example: Given two ways that cross internally (excluding connections at endpoints), and considering the "layer value" defined explicitly in a tag or implicitly 0 when the tag is missing, have the validator issue a warning in the following situations: 1. The ways have the same layer value and are unconnected. (They should be connected, or else something is surely missing. This could actually be considered an "error".) 1.1. Also warn if if one way is a waterway and the other is a highway and the connection is not explicitly a ford. (It should be, for clarity. If it's not, it's also possibly not a ford, therefore the connection is wrong.) 2. The ways have different layer values and both are missing a tunnel or a bridge tag. (One of them must be either a bridge or a tunnel. They can both be tunnels or bridges, but they can't be "none of those two" simultaneously in the real world.) 2.1. Additionally, if one of them is a bridge and the other is a tunnel or is neither a tunnel nor a bridge: the bridge should have a greater layer value. 2.2. Similarly, if one is a tunnel, its layer value should be lower if the other is a bridge or has neither tag. These rules apply to any arbitrary combination of stacked waterways and highways that I can think of right now. A few examples using two overlapping ways: a. The ways are connected and do not have a layer tag: everything is ok, no rules issue a warning. b. The ways are not connected and do not have a layer tag: rule 1 issues a warning. They must either be connected or lie at different layer levels. c. The ways are not connected, both have the same layer (say layer=3 or layer=-4), and have no other tags: rule 1 issues a warning. Similar to situation "b". d. The ways are not connected and one of them has a layer=-1 tag and no other tags: rule 2 issues a warning. e. The ways are not connected and one of them has a layer=1 tag and no other tags: rule 2 issues a warning too. f. The ways are not connected, one of them is a bridge with layer=2 and the other is a tunnel with layer=5: rule 2.1 issues a warning. g. The ways are not connected, one of them is a tunnel with layer=1 and the other is neither a bridge nor has a layer tag (layer=0 is assumed): rule 2.2 issues a warning. Actually, situation "d" is what would discourage people from using layer=-1 to work around today's validator warnings. With this ruleset, it's impossible to eliminate the warning without actually taking action on bridges. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:48 PM, fly wrote: > On 14.03.2014 16:36, Pieren wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com >> >> >>> At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with >>> dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense >> >> That's clearly a bug. Waterways underground is specified by "tunnel=*" >> >>> So, again : why tag things with with layer= tag when they are essentially on >>> ground level = not above or below other data (or at least natural objects >>> that might be mapped one day *) ? Am I missing something here? >> >> Real case from real world : a deep ditch where the stream is not >> "underground" but below the "ground" level, is crossing a village >> where we have 10 bridges. Either you add 10 times "layer=1" on the >> bridges or you add 1 time "layer=-1" on the stream. > > Well, I do not get your problem, as bridge/tunnel always need a layer > tag and you already have to cut the ways to tag the bridge/tunnel, why > not simply add the layer to the bridge/tunnel and leave everything else > untouched ? > > Using layer tags on long ways is discouraged as you often only need it > on a small part and it makes it more difficult as you always have to > check the layer tag of these long ways before adding a new bridge/tunnel > with appropriate layer value. > > cu > fly > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law) "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:36:26PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com > > > At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with > > dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense > > That's clearly a bug. Waterways underground is specified by "tunnel=*" this is not a bug. Rivers do not flow through thin air but through areas which are tagged as landuse=forest, landuse=meadow or some other. So what happens if you have a river with a layer=-1 going through a landuse=forest with a layer=0? Quite clearly the river should be hidden under the forest and my guess is 5 out of 10 renderers do exactly that. Mapnik is way too fault tolerant and works around this obvious breakage. Maybe it should be changed to be less fault tolerant. > > So, again : why tag things with with layer= tag when they are essentially on > > ground level = not above or below other data (or at least natural objects > > that might be mapped one day *) ? Am I missing something here? > > Real case from real world : a deep ditch where the stream is not > "underground" but below the "ground" level, is crossing a village > where we have 10 bridges. Either you add 10 times "layer=1" on the > bridges or you add 1 time "layer=-1" on the stream. This is one rare example where it may at first sight appear to be of some use. However as it is a rare example it will cause more work in the end than if you do it the normal way. Nobody expects it being done like this so it will cause more thinking for anybody trying to change something there. Everyone who tries to edit it must download the complete data along the way that is tagged layer=-1 and understand all crossings there. What happens if it is a bigger village or a small town? This does not scale well. This one rare case where it might be of theoretical use is in my opinion far outweighed by the disadvantages of allowing it: * prevents validators from doing some very easy and useful checks * very many people use layer=-1 for waterways incorrectly and taking your idea into account would make it much harder to properly detect and fix such errors Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
Considering that "surface" is loosely defined (it can have any value) and no rules are imposed on it, I believe that ground and dirt are acceptable values, but not quite desirable, as their meaning is too low quality (too imprecise) for applications such as routing and even rendering of detailed surface maps. They both hardly mean something significantly different from "unpaved" (for most practical applications I can think of). I think it hardly takes 1 extra second per way to arrive at a description using some more specific widely accepted terminology such as gravel, sand, earth, etc. which is much more useful. The only good reason to encourage the use of a generic description is when you are importing data and you are limited by the quality of the data source. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 22:44 +0900, John Willis wrote: >> Since OSM uses British English, what word would you pair with road, as in >> "dirt road?" >> >> Earthen road? >> >> Inquiring minds want to know. > > There is no usage of dirt road in the UK most, if not all, public roads > are hard surfaced (although the quality can vary). > > I have certainly never heard the term Earthen Road, it is probably one > of those instances where we should adopt the American Dirt, like we use > sidewalk. Most Brits will be familiar the term from movies. I have > driven on dirt roads in Canada, we have nothing like that. > > Phil (trigpoint) > >> >> J >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> > On Mar 14, 2014, at 10:18 PM, John Sturdy wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:09 PM, ael wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:34:24AM +, jonathan wrote: >> >>> Here's my take from an Englishman! >> >>> >> >>> While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all >> >> >> >> From another English person, I would say that "dirt" in British English >> >> is understood to mean the substance which causes something to be "not >> >> clean". That is it is much wider in meaning than soil or earth. But it >> >> is almost never used to mean soil or earth under your feet, although >> >> that might be described as "dirty" or even "dirt" if telling a child to >> >> avoid rolling in it. >> > >> > Agreed --- I think of "dirt" in this sense as the American English >> > equivalent of what in British English is usually called "earth" or >> > "soil". >> > >> > __John (native British English speaker) >> > >> > ___ >> > Tagging mailing list >> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law) "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
On 3/14/14 3:11 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> Considering that "surface" is loosely defined (it can have any value)
> and no rules are imposed on it, I believe that ground and dirt are
> acceptable values, but not quite desirable, as their meaning is too
> low quality (too imprecise) for applications such as routing and even
> rendering of detailed surface maps. They both hardly mean something
> significantly different from "unpaved" (for most practical
> applications I can think of).
>
i generally try to combine surface={dirt|gravel} with a value for
tracktype, if that helps at all.
richard
--
rwe...@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
Java - Web Applications - Search
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
more specific than "dirt" ("gravel" is more precise, for instance), it
would be even better. (That's my point: "dirt" is good, something more
is specific such as "compacted", "earth", "sand" or "clay" is even
better). The editors help you with that by providing a list of common
surface values, you should simply try to stay away from paved/unpaved,
ground and dirt and only pick one of those when you can't decide which
of the others is a better value. Sometimes it's really impossible or
it would take too long to decide on a better value (say, if you're
covering a large area at once).
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 3/14/14 3:11 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote:
>> Considering that "surface" is loosely defined (it can have any value)
>> and no rules are imposed on it, I believe that ground and dirt are
>> acceptable values, but not quite desirable, as their meaning is too
>> low quality (too imprecise) for applications such as routing and even
>> rendering of detailed surface maps. They both hardly mean something
>> significantly different from "unpaved" (for most practical
>> applications I can think of).
>>
> i generally try to combine surface={dirt|gravel} with a value for
> tracktype, if that helps at all.
>
> richard
>
> --
> rwe...@averillpark.net
> Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
> OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
> Java - Web Applications - Search
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409
"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:55:39PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: > I don't think you should be required to check the river's layer tag. > Validators should do this job for you, it's quite easy to write a rule > for that. validators can check for many errors but if you want to change anything you have to understand the whole situation. Imagine you want to add a new bridge to a complex freeway intersection with junctions and overpasses.. the validator will only prevent the most obvious errors but will give you no clue how to fix them correctly. > Given two ways that cross internally (excluding connections at > endpoints), and considering the "layer value" defined explicitly in a > tag or implicitly 0 when the tag is missing, have the validator issue > a warning in the following situations: there is no difference between connections in endpoints or in a crossing point as far as I can tell. > 1. The ways have the same layer value and are unconnected. (They > should be connected, or else something is surely missing. This could > actually be considered an "error".) except for aerial ways and similar exceptions > 1.1. Also warn if if one way is a waterway and the other is a highway > and the connection is not explicitly a ford. (It should be, for > clarity. If it's not, it's also possibly not a ford, therefore the > connection is wrong.) there is also the odd case of highways across dams, those are connected with the waterway > 2. The ways have different layer values and both are missing a tunnel > or a bridge tag. (One of them must be either a bridge or a tunnel. > They can both be tunnels or bridges, but they can't be "none of those > two" simultaneously in the real world.) or one of covered,location,indoor,steps,lift or level, maybe more. > 2.1. Additionally, if one of them is a bridge and the other is a > tunnel or is neither a tunnel nor a bridge: the bridge should have a > greater layer value. > 2.2. Similarly, if one is a tunnel, its layer value should be lower if > the other is a bridge or has neither tag. except for indoor mapping and maybe other weird cases. > These rules apply to any arbitrary combination of stacked waterways > and highways that I can think of right now. also railways? > A few examples using two > overlapping ways: > > a. The ways are connected and do not have a layer tag: everything is > ok, no rules issue a warning. > b. The ways are not connected and do not have a layer tag: rule 1 > issues a warning. They must either be connected or lie at different > layer levels. > c. The ways are not connected, both have the same layer (say layer=3 > or layer=-4), and have no other tags: rule 1 issues a warning. Similar > to situation "b". > d. The ways are not connected and one of them has a layer=-1 tag and > no other tags: rule 2 issues a warning. more general: not connected, different layer values and not one of bridge,tunnel,covered,location,indoor,steps,lift, no level tag and a few more things to take into account. I am not sure it is so easy to catch all that. > e. The ways are not connected and one of them has a layer=1 tag and no > other tags: rule 2 issues a warning too. identical to d? > f. The ways are not connected, one of them is a bridge with layer=2 > and the other is a tunnel with layer=5: rule 2.1 issues a warning. unless indoor or other strange cases > g. The ways are not connected, one of them is a tunnel with layer=1 > and the other is neither a bridge nor has a layer tag (layer=0 is > assumed): rule 2.2 issues a warning. > Actually, situation "d" is what would discourage people from using > layer=-1 to work around today's validator warnings. With this ruleset, > it's impossible to eliminate the warning without actually taking > action on bridges. It is a lot easier saying that every bridge and tunnel must have a layer tag and enforce that than catching all the situations mentioned in situation "d". With some luck, you can restrict "d" to waterways and it becomes "easy" Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > > There has been a proposal long ago for bridges to have implicit an layer > and it was not accepted. Was that for bridges being equal to layer=1 (which would obviously be bad assumption) or for less than what layer tag can specify (e.g. +/-0.1 for bridges/tunnels or whatever < 1)? -- i. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > There has been a proposal long ago for bridges to have implicit an layer > > and it was not accepted. > > Was that for bridges being equal to layer=1 (which would obviously be bad > assumption) or for less than what layer tag can specify (e.g. +/-0.1 for > bridges/tunnels or whatever < 1)? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/default_layer_for_bridge_and_tunnel Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
On 3/14/14 4:05 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
> more specific than "dirt" ("gravel" is more precise, for instance), it
> would be even better. (That's my point: "dirt" is good, something more
> is specific such as "compacted", "earth", "sand" or "clay" is even
> better).
in US usage, dirt is considered as different from gravel; i don't see the
confusion there. i'll grant that clay could be added to the list; we don't
tend to have clay surfaced roads in the northeast so much, but in large
parts of the southeast, it could make a difference.
but i seem to recall that we have had a discussion like this recently that
was ultimately unproductive. i would really would hope that we can
avoid a similarly protracted and unsuccessful discussion this time around.
i don't really understand the problem with using dirt as a value, i think
that it's pretty clear.
richard
--
rwe...@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
Java - Web Applications - Search
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > > > There has been a proposal long ago for bridges to have implicit an layer > > > and it was not accepted. > > > > Was that for bridges being equal to layer=1 (which would obviously be bad > > assumption) or for less than what layer tag can specify (e.g. +/-0.1 for > > bridges/tunnels or whatever < 1)? > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/default_layer_for_bridge_and_tunnel Sadly the mapper point of view is almost totally missing from that discussion. I've understood that is to most valuable resourse we've and we should try to avoid putting any unnecessary burden on them. Therefore, everyone needs now to handle those hardly useful layer warnings about trivial cases (and waste their time on "correcting" them). And in fact, I've wasted some time just on that today while what I'm really after is real geometry errors whose fixing would be much much more benefial but JOSM validator did not differentiate these two cases for me but follows such a bad spec. -- i.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:30:30AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > There has been a proposal long ago for bridges to have implicit an layer > > > > and it was not accepted. > > > > > > Was that for bridges being equal to layer=1 (which would obviously be bad > > > assumption) or for less than what layer tag can specify (e.g. +/-0.1 for > > > bridges/tunnels or whatever < 1)? > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/default_layer_for_bridge_and_tunnel > > Sadly the mapper point of view is almost totally missing from that > discussion. I've understood that is to most valuable resourse we've and > we should try to avoid putting any unnecessary burden on them. The proposal had the unfortunate side effect that it would have modified existing crossings in somehwat unpredictable ways. If it can be done without that side effect it may be possible. > Therefore, everyone needs now to handle those hardly useful layer > warnings about trivial cases (and waste their time on "correcting" them). even worse, people just apply layer=-1 to thousands of miles of rivers and similar tricks to hide those warnings. > And in fact, I've wasted some time just on that today while what I'm > really after is real geometry errors whose fixing would be much much more > benefial but JOSM validator did not differentiate these two cases for me > but follows such a bad spec. what kind of geometry problems? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:30:30AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There has been a proposal long ago for bridges to have implicit an > > > > > layer > > > > > and it was not accepted. > > > > > > > > Was that for bridges being equal to layer=1 (which would obviously be > > > > bad > > > > assumption) or for less than what layer tag can specify (e.g. +/-0.1 > > > > for > > > > bridges/tunnels or whatever < 1)? > > > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/default_layer_for_bridge_and_tunnel > > > > Sadly the mapper point of view is almost totally missing from that > > discussion. I've understood that is to most valuable resourse we've and > > we should try to avoid putting any unnecessary burden on them. > > The proposal had the unfortunate side effect that it would have modified > existing crossings in somehwat unpredictable ways. > If it can be done without that side effect it may be possible. It's true only if implicit layer equals to layer=1 but not if it would be less than that. > > Therefore, everyone needs now to handle those hardly useful layer > > warnings about trivial cases (and waste their time on "correcting" them). > > even worse, people just apply layer=-1 to thousands of miles of rivers and > similar tricks to hide those warnings. Which proves my point. The mappers didn't like the unnecessary burden nor the warnings which do in no way improve quality but only reduce signal-to-noise of the validator. > > And in fact, I've wasted some time just on that today while what I'm > > really after is real geometry errors whose fixing would be much much more > > benefial but JOSM validator did not differentiate these two cases for me > > but follows such a bad spec. > > what kind of geometry problems? JOSM validator reports them as: "Crossing ways" ... many are real issues such as missing nodes or crazy geometry in few of the ways (for variaous reasons: redaction bot, accidential move in GUI, misclick too far away from one of the ways, etc.) but sadly also these bridge/tunnel cases appear as noise in the error listing. (I needed to load lots of highways few weeks ago and I'm still processing all those errors a got out from that as a side-product.) -- i.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
On Mar 15, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Fernando Trebien
wrote:
> Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
> more specific than "dirt" ("gravel" is more precise, for instance)
Not when the road is dirt as opposed to gravel.
I live on a gravel road in Japan. My aunt lived on a dirt road in the US. She
has since improved the road, and now it is a gravel road.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.6956552,-116.7504381,6466m/data=!3m1!1e3
This is the area around my aunt's house. Many of the driveways that were once
dirt are now gravel or paved, due to new fire truck access laws.
So most people have a gravel/asphalt/concrete driveway. but their property, and
the backcountry of dry california is littered with dirt access roads that
thread out into the countryside.
Zoom in. Drop into street view, though the dirt roads are hard to see from the
street. There are plenty of concrete, asphalt, and gravel driveways, but there
are also a ton of grade 2 "graded" and grade3 "doubletrack" dirt access roads.
Not gravel, fine gravel, sand, asphalt, pavers, concrete, clay, cobblestones,
grass pavers, clay, nor tephra - but dirt.
Some kinds of roads are truly "dirt roads," just as some are sand.
The question is:
Do you use "dirt" "earthen" or "soil" to describe them? I vote for dirt.
gravel is not an option.
Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
How surprisingly similar the landscape in this area is to the place
where I live in Brazil. (If you're curious:
https://www.google.com/maps?q=Porto+Alegre&ll=-30.228926,-51.066213&spn=0.013942,0.047979&t=m&hnear=Porto+Alegre,+Rio+Grande+do+Sul,+Brasil&z=15&layer=c&cbll=-30.228942,-51.066222&panoid=Usk3Tqr5RIfjqj4KVzlz7Q&cbp=11,325.39,,0,7.66).
Anyway, back to your place. I believe you'd call this a dirt road
leading into a private property:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.704426,-116.720207,3a,75y,160.59h,81.43t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sH5Ez46TUHWIetR4uLSCy0Q!2e0
Would you describe this surface as "earth"? Or maybe "compacted"?
I think "sand" would usually mean fluffy sand, such as in beach sand,
like here:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=-29.347317,-49.729185&spn=0.014065,0.047979&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=-29.347303,-49.729198&panoid=nxCzohwftvM2H6wO89EJng&cbp=11,182.99,,0,3.15
Here's a road in Brazil that probably fits the American definition of
"dirt":
https://www.google.com/maps?q=dom+pedrito&hl=pt-BR&ll=-30.911356,-54.643936&spn=0.110754,0.383835&sll=-22.809099,-45.727844&sspn=1.05575,1.535339&hnear=Dom+Pedrito+-+Rio+Grande+do+Sul,+Brasil&t=m&z=12&layer=c&cbll=-30.911501,-54.644076&panoid=PPforo0GCSl6Olx7vH8-_Q&cbp=11,58.3,,0,13
However, the surface here is "compacted" according to official
sources. It's hard to tell visually, but it's possible that the
mixture has been compressed.
This is what I believe would be described as "earth" but not
"compacted" (also from official sources):
https://www.google.com/maps?q=Campo+Mour%C3%A3o+-+Paran%C3%A1,+Brasil&hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF8&ll=-24.223158,-52.403901&spn=0.470893,1.535339&sll=-22.231586,-42.793808&sspn=0.265046,0.383835&oq=campo+mour%C3%A3o&doflg=ptk&hnear=Campo+Mour%C3%A3o+-+Paran%C3%A1,+Brasil&t=m&z=10&layer=c&cbll=-24.223158,-52.403901&panoid=0ClYdUrcz7I5OEaTGYF2hw&cbp=11,183.99,,0,4.89
I wonder if you'd call this "dirt" too. The distinction is quite
relevant for calculation of routes: you can't travel as fast on earth
as can on compacted, and earth is much more likely to turn into sticky
mud that may get you bogged.
Finding a gravel road here was harder than I thought it would be. I
could only get this photo:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8dyZBqNo6TI/TUv3KhRjRiI/AXs/jOA_pfv_IH0/s1600/tainhas+-+brita.jpg
It turns out that most preparations that include "some gravel" but
mostly "soil" here fit the definition of "compacted" quite closely.
I think that "earth" and "soil" are similar enough to stay only with
"earth" - but I'm not a native speaker.
I also wonder which names the British would give to each of these surfaces.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:58 PM, johnw wrote:
>
> On Mar 15, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Fernando Trebien
> wrote:
>
> Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
> more specific than "dirt" ("gravel" is more precise, for instance)
>
>
> Not when the road is dirt as opposed to gravel.
>
> I live on a gravel road in Japan. My aunt lived on a dirt road in the US.
> She has since improved the road, and now it is a gravel road.
>
>
> https://www.google.com/maps/@32.6956552,-116.7504381,6466m/data=!3m1!1e3
>
> This is the area around my aunt's house. Many of the driveways that were
> once dirt are now gravel or paved, due to new fire truck access laws.
>
> So most people have a gravel/asphalt/concrete driveway. but their property,
> and the backcountry of dry california is littered with dirt access roads
> that thread out into the countryside.
>
> Zoom in. Drop into street view, though the dirt roads are hard to see from
> the street. There are plenty of concrete, asphalt, and gravel driveways, but
> there are also a ton of grade 2 "graded" and grade3 "doubletrack" dirt
> access roads.
>
> Not gravel, fine gravel, sand, asphalt, pavers, concrete, clay,
> cobblestones, grass pavers, clay, nor tephra - but dirt.
>
> Some kinds of roads are truly "dirt roads," just as some are sand.
>
> The question is:
>
> Do you use "dirt" "earthen" or "soil" to describe them? I vote for dirt.
> gravel is not an option.
>
>
> Javbw
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409
"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
