Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
On 5/12/2011 9:45 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/5/12 Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com: On 5/12/2011 2:31 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/5/12 flylowfligh...@googlemail.com: What do we do with dual-carriage ways ? Sometimes there exist paved connections between both directions. Maybe blocked by a barrier but that is no need. if they are constantly connected (no change of the paving, no physical barrier) it's actually not a dual-carriage way. If these connections are punctually you'd simply draw them explicitly and tag them as what they are (incl. turn restrictions. etc.) Well, one could have a single area of pavement with barriers placed on top to separate it into two carriageways. Hi Nathan Edgars II, that's why I wrote above: no physical barrier OK, but there's still the issue of a so-called flush median. I think in a rural area with few intersections this would be called a dual carriageway. I can't find an image, but Interstate 90 used to have one over Lookout Pass in Idaho. You can imagine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPaP3K9xp3g with the concrete barrier removed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/13 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: OK, but there's still the issue of a so-called flush median. I think in a rural area with few intersections this would be called a dual carriageway. I can't find an image, but Interstate 90 used to have one over Lookout Pass in Idaho. You can imagine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPaP3K9xp3g with the concrete barrier removed. We should make a difference between physically impossible and physically possible but legally forbidden. This is important for a series of situations, e.g. an emergency car in action could cross a road marking without problems (paying attention to surrounding traffic), while if would still be physically impossible to cross a concrete or steel barrier. Ideally our data would allow to extract this information. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
On 5/13/2011 6:47 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: We should make a difference between physically impossible and physically possible but legally forbidden. This is important for a series of situations, e.g. an emergency car in action could cross a road marking without problems (paying attention to surrounding traffic), while if would still be physically impossible to cross a concrete or steel barrier. Ideally our data would allow to extract this information. An emergency vehicle could also cross a grass median if there's no raised barrier. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/13 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On 5/13/2011 6:47 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: An emergency vehicle could also cross a grass median if there's no raised barrier. yes, and a person can jump over a 2ft wall and climb a 8ft wall. A series of bollards is no barrier to bicycles and pedestrians, but it is to cars. You can also open a wire fence if you have pincers. You won't be able to cut metal bars with pincers though. Personally I think that it would be interesting to have these details in the map. For dual carriageways and other parallel / close by streets there is also a proposal how this data could be entered (relation area). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
Am 11.05.2011 23:45, schrieb Stefan Bethke: Am 11.05.2011 um 23:01 schrieb Tobias Knerr: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: If you follow the convention that each way should be drawn along the center of the real-world feature, then the width of e.g. a sidewalk can still be determined at any point along the road from just the single outline area and the way position. no, if this would be possible there would be no sense at all to map areas. You can't see sidewalks as just another lane, because they tend to be quite irregular in certain settings (unlike lanes which usually keep their width and have no corners and other weird points). I don't think this contradicts my argument. Look at the cross-section of the road at any point: | * . . . .* | The vertical lines are road area outlines, the stars are sidewalk ways and the dots are other lanes. If we make the assumption that each way marks the center of that lane, we can easily calculate the width of the two sidewalks at this particular cut through the road: It's 2 times the width between the sidewalk and the area outline. The last time I checked, we're mapping in two dimensions, not one :-) I'm not sure that mapping the actual physical extent of the various parts of roads is feasible in terms of number of mappers and their motivation, but if anybody is serious about mapping crossings and physical properties of these areas, I think mapping them as areas is the obvious and logical way forward. Well, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't be happy if mappers felt that they had to draw the outline of every single lane in a road. I also wouldn't be happy to implement support for two different mapping styles (especially considering that these are We already map waterways with both a way and an area. I'd map the road, the sidewalks, connecting areas, crosswalks, parking spots, what have you, all as areas (if I felt I had exhaused housenumbers on buildings etc.) I'd probably add curbs as ways, not areas, unless they have multiple steps in them and approach a meter or so in width. Of course, that doesn't answer how anybody would be able to tell that all these features together form the road, except for their proximity. I'd like to learn about where that information would actually be required. Example: A 2D rendering wants to visualize highway=residential as a way with two : Describe an algorithm that does that based on a bunch of ways, each with its own area, where these areas don't even necessarily share nodes. Any sensible rendering for applications will *not* render . You wouldn't see anything in lower zoom levels, and the exact shape of a sidewalk is pretty much irrelevant for most purposes. So they will draw a fixed-width line for a highway (much wider than it is in reality), and maybe colored casings depending on whether or not there are sidewalks. Stefan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/11 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: If you follow the convention that each way should be drawn along the center of the real-world feature, then the width of e.g. a sidewalk can still be determined at any point along the road from just the single outline area and the way position. no, if this would be possible there would be no sense at all to map areas. You can't see sidewalks as just another lane, because they tend to be quite irregular in certain settings (unlike lanes which usually keep their width and have no corners and other weird points). I don't think this contradicts my argument. Look at the cross-section of the road at any point: | * . . . .* | The vertical lines are road area outlines, the stars are sidewalk ways and the dots are other lanes. If we make the assumption that each way marks the center of that lane, we can easily calculate the width of the two sidewalks at this particular cut through the road: It's 2 times the width between the sidewalk and the area outline. How a cross-section of a road looks will of course vary a lot along the road - lanes, including sidewalks, might change their width, disappear entirely etc. But that isn't a problem as long as you can determine the road structure at each interesting point along the road. So your point is that we should use width=* to describe that? How about large sidewalks that get narrower were a bay of sort is reserved to cars (bus stops, parkings)? Should I break the way of the street into three parts, each with its own width? Ciao, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
Sorry for my previous unfinished mail, I didn't want to send it. To summarize what I intended to say: * I assume that most road shapes are adequately described with just a single outline area for the entire road, and no one has provided a counter example yet. * If everyone mapped road parts as separate areas, it would actually make it *easier* for me to support them in my application. But it seems like an excessive amount of effort for mappers. * For some applications, it will be necessary to reconstruct the entire road from the various separate ways, and I assume that an area around the entire road could reduce the amount of guessing involved. Of course, that's not the purpose the area:highway key was originally invented for. -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
Also, sidewalks are not always directly next to the driving lanes. There are sometimes grassy borders between the driving lanes and the sidewalk. Typically, this is a meter or so, but can be wider. On one street here in Nashville, Tennessee, USA, the sidewalk is about three meters to the side, and about two meters above the roadway, with occasional steps down to the roadway (the road ascends a steep hill on a diagonal). ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway From :mailto:simone.savi...@gmail.com Date :Thu May 12 03:09:50 America/Chicago 2011 2011/5/11 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: If you follow the convention that each way should be drawn along the center of the real-world feature, then the width of e.g. a sidewalk can still be determined at any point along the road from just the single outline area and the way position. no, if this would be possible there would be no sense at all to map areas. You can't see sidewalks as just another lane, because they tend to be quite irregular in certain settings (unlike lanes which usually keep their width and have no corners and other weird points). I don't think this contradicts my argument. Look at the cross-section of the road at any point: | * . . . . * | The vertical lines are road area outlines, the stars are sidewalk ways and the dots are other lanes. If we make the assumption that each way marks the center of that lane, we can easily calculate the width of the two sidewalks at this particular cut through the road: It's 2 times the width between the sidewalk and the area outline. How a cross-section of a road looks will of course vary a lot along the road - lanes, including sidewalks, might change their width, disappear entirely etc. But that isn't a problem as long as you can determine the road structure at each interesting point along the road. So your point is that we should use width=* to describe that? How about large sidewalks that get narrower were a bay of sort is reserved to cars (bus stops, parkings)? Should I break the way of the street into three parts, each with its own width? Ciao, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
Am 12.05.2011 um 10:50 schrieb Tobias Knerr: Sorry for my previous unfinished mail, I didn't want to send it. To summarize what I intended to say: * I assume that most road shapes are adequately described with just a single outline area for the entire road, and no one has provided a counter example yet. Ever been to any city? Should I post photos just looking out the window here? What examples to you need? What is this assumption of yours based on? * If everyone mapped road parts as separate areas, it would actually make it *easier* for me to support them in my application. But it seems like an excessive amount of effort for mappers. Ultimately, that's up to the mappers to decide. I think it'll be a while before I would get around mapping to this level of detail, but I won't stop anyone putting in the work. * For some applications, it will be necessary to reconstruct the entire road from the various separate ways, and I assume that an area around the entire road could reduce the amount of guessing involved. Of course, that's not the purpose the area:highway key was originally invented for. There already is a concrete requirement to have the different spaces (for vehicles, bikes, pedestrians) represented appropriately, plus visually impaired users who would love to get information on physical features of these. By mapping both a conventional highway=* way as well as an area, applications can decide what level of detail they're interested in. The areas are complementary to the ways; they don't replace them, just as with waterways. Stefan -- Stefan Bethke s...@lassitu.de Fon +49 151 14070811 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/12 Stefan Bethke s...@lassitu.de Am 12.05.2011 um 10:50 schrieb Tobias Knerr: Sorry for my previous unfinished mail, I didn't want to send it. To summarize what I intended to say: * I assume that most road shapes are adequately described with just a single outline area for the entire road, and no one has provided a counter example yet. Ever been to any city? Should I post photos just looking out the window here? What examples to you need? What is this assumption of yours based on? * If everyone mapped road parts as separate areas, it would actually make it *easier* for me to support them in my application. But it seems like an excessive amount of effort for mappers. Ultimately, that's up to the mappers to decide. I think it'll be a while before I would get around mapping to this level of detail, but I won't stop anyone putting in the work. * For some applications, it will be necessary to reconstruct the entire road from the various separate ways, and I assume that an area around the entire road could reduce the amount of guessing involved. Of course, that's not the purpose the area:highway key was originally invented for. There already is a concrete requirement to have the different spaces (for vehicles, bikes, pedestrians) represented appropriately, plus visually impaired users who would love to get information on physical features of these. By mapping both a conventional highway=* way as well as an area, applications can decide what level of detail they're interested in. The areas are complementary to the ways; they don't replace them, just as with waterways. +1 about everything. You worded it great. Stefan Ciao, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
On 5/12/2011 7:58 AM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Also, sidewalks are not always directly next to the driving lanes. There are sometimes grassy borders between the driving lanes and the sidewalk. Typically, this is a meter or so, but can be wider. On one street here in Nashville, Tennessee, USA, the sidewalk is about three meters to the side, and about two meters above the roadway, with occasional steps down to the roadway (the road ascends a steep hill on a diagonal). More importantly, there may be features between the sidewalk and roadway. This is something that cannot be represented by using a sidewalk=* tag on a highway. This is not as important on suburban residential streets, but there are still issues with representing the fact that sometimes the (paved) sidewalk curves around a corner without a branch allowing one to cross the street to the next segment of sidewalk without walking across or hopping over the grass. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/12 j...@jfeldredge.com: Also, sidewalks are not always directly next to the driving lanes. There are sometimes grassy borders between the driving lanes and the sidewalk. Typically, this is a meter or so, but can be wider. On one street here in Nashville, Tennessee, USA, the sidewalk is about three meters to the side, and about two meters above the roadway, with occasional steps down to the roadway (the road ascends a steep hill on a diagonal). If the sidewalks are separated from the driving lanes by grass or some other divider I would map them separately. (i.e. if you draw area:highway-objects you will draw different objects for the sidewalk and the street). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
Stefan Bethke wrote: Am 12.05.2011 um 10:50 schrieb Tobias Knerr: * I assume that most road shapes are adequately described with just a single outline area for the entire road, and no one has provided a counter example yet. Ever been to any city? Should I post photos just looking out the window here? What examples to you need? What is this assumption of yours based on? I wondered how I could implement this, and drafted a possible solution: http://tobias-knerr.de/temp/Road%20area%20draft.pdf Then I tried to imagine situations that wouldn't work well with that solution, only found ones that I considered rare, and most of these were only of minor interest to me anyway. That was how I arrived at that assumption. Therefore, what I'm still hoping for are practical examples along the lines of the following situation is relatively common in [Someplace], you cannot describe it without separate areas for sidewalks, and it's important for applications to understand that situation because -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
Am 12.05.2011 19:03, schrieb Tobias Knerr: Stefan Bethke wrote: Am 12.05.2011 um 10:50 schrieb Tobias Knerr: * I assume that most road shapes are adequately described with just a single outline area for the entire road, and no one has provided a counter example yet. Ever been to any city? Should I post photos just looking out the window here? What examples to you need? What is this assumption of yours based on? I wondered how I could implement this, and drafted a possible solution: http://tobias-knerr.de/temp/Road%20area%20draft.pdf Then I tried to imagine situations that wouldn't work well with that solution, only found ones that I considered rare, and most of these were only of minor interest to me anyway. That was how I arrived at that assumption. Therefore, what I'm still hoping for are practical examples along the lines of the following situation is relatively common in [Someplace], you cannot describe it without separate areas for sidewalks, and it's important for applications to understand that situation because +1 Yeah, the big problem is to whole area of the road/street. Then we end up that the highways gonna be only lanes. What do we do with dual-carriage ways ? Sometimes there exist paved connections between both directions. Maybe blocked by a barrier but that is no need. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/12 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: What do we do with dual-carriage ways ? Sometimes there exist paved connections between both directions. Maybe blocked by a barrier but that is no need. if they are constantly connected (no change of the paving, no physical barrier) it's actually not a dual-carriage way. If these connections are punctually you'd simply draw them explicitly and tag them as what they are (incl. turn restrictions. etc.) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
On 5/12/2011 2:31 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/5/12 flylowfligh...@googlemail.com: What do we do with dual-carriage ways ? Sometimes there exist paved connections between both directions. Maybe blocked by a barrier but that is no need. if they are constantly connected (no change of the paving, no physical barrier) it's actually not a dual-carriage way. If these connections are punctually you'd simply draw them explicitly and tag them as what they are (incl. turn restrictions. etc.) Well, one could have a single area of pavement with barriers placed on top to separate it into two carriageways. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
Am 12.05.2011 22:27, schrieb Stefan Bethke: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.569837lon=10.027266zoom=18layers=M For comparison: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8hq=ll=53.569829,10.026878spn=0.0015,0.003468t=hz=19 (about two years old, a couple of details have changed since.) As you can see, some attemps have been made to represent areas where pedestrians and bikes are allowed, but a lot of detail is (still) missing. I don't see how your proposal would model for example the bus bay at the stop next to the Subway on Mundsburger Damm, and the adjoining parking spots, at least not easily. Or the intersection of Mundsburger Damm, Uhlenhorster Weg, Heideweg, and Birkenau, just to the south west on Mundsburger Damm. Drawing areas from aerial pics or from carefully selected waypoints seems straightforward to me, putting ways just so that the medians between the ways fall on the actual borders between the areas seems unnecessarily complicated, and would likely require significant support in the editor. Maybe first try to add the kerbs, green areas, bus bay as highway=service and the parking lot. There are probably even more barriers in this area. Are these footways really highway=footways with bicycle=yes ? (designated/offical?) The cycleways are track seperately and at the roads as cycleway=track but nothing about a sidewalk. Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
it has been brought up a couple of times in the german forums, so it seems there is a need for mapping the dimensions of roads (similar to riverbanks for rivers). the tag itself was suggested by another user, but i thought it would be a good idea to put it into a dedicated proposal. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/area:highway flaimo ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
On 5/11/2011 5:09 AM, Flaimo wrote: it has been brought up a couple of times in the german forums, so it seems there is a need for mapping the dimensions of roads (similar to riverbanks for rivers). the tag itself was suggested by another user, but i thought it would be a good idea to put it into a dedicated proposal. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/area:highway There's a problem if this is treated like landuse. The highway landuse goes up to the edge of the right-of-way, and includes sidewalks and and clear zones, but your example includes only the paved driving area. This is more of a surface tag, like a pond in a park or a sand trap in a golf course. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: There's a problem if this is treated like landuse. it is not landuse, so there is no problem. There is still space for landuse=highway. The highway landuse goes up to the edge of the right-of-way, and includes sidewalks and and clear zones, but your example includes only the paved driving area. This is more of a surface tag, like a pond in a park or a sand trap in a golf course. +1 I think that area:highway is fine for the key name. There is some other problems (or better missed opportunities) in this proposal. See the discussion page. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
On 5/11/2011 7:34 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com: There's a problem if this is treated like landuse. it is not landuse, so there is no problem. There is still space for landuse=highway. The proposal makes reference to landuse, in particular stating that one might cut off adjacent landuses at its border. But the two positions on landuse are that it shouldn't be cut or that it should be cut at the right-of-way line, not at the edge of the roadway. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: The proposal makes reference to landuse, in particular stating that one might cut off adjacent landuses at its border. But the two positions on landuse are that it shouldn't be cut or that it should be cut at the right-of-way line, not at the edge of the roadway. +1, you're right I overlooked this. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
On 5/11/2011 10:47 AM, Flaimo wrote: you misread that. because if its imprecise definition, there are still heated discussions on how detailed landuses should be mapped. some leave out the areas of the streets, some don't. all i wanted to state out is, that this isn't a part of the area:highway proposal. if you want to draw it over landuses you can do so, but if you are part of the other fraction you can connect it to landuses. I'm not taking sides with this proposal. But does anyone stop the landuse at the edge of the main roadway, including the sidewalks within it? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com On 5/11/2011 10:47 AM, Flaimo wrote: you misread that. because if its imprecise definition, there are still heated discussions on how detailed landuses should be mapped. some leave out the areas of the streets, some don't. all i wanted to state out is, that this isn't a part of the area:highway proposal. if you want to draw it over landuses you can do so, but if you are part of the other fraction you can connect it to landuses. I'm not taking sides with this proposal. But does anyone stop the landuse at the edge of the main roadway, including the sidewalks within it? I do. My residential, industrial and farm landuses are outlined by the sidewalks or by the road. I know other mappers do this too, and they usually exclude sidewalks too. Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
On 5/11/2011 11:15 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: 2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com mailto:nerou...@gmail.com On 5/11/2011 10:47 AM, Flaimo wrote: you misread that. because if its imprecise definition, there are still heated discussions on how detailed landuses should be mapped. some leave out the areas of the streets, some don't. all i wanted to state out is, that this isn't a part of the area:highway proposal. if you want to draw it over landuses you can do so, but if you are part of the other fraction you can connect it to landuses. I'm not taking sides with this proposal. But does anyone stop the landuse at the edge of the main roadway, including the sidewalks within it? I do. My residential, industrial and farm landuses are outlined by the sidewalks or by the road. I know other mappers do this too, and they usually exclude sidewalks too. Wait, so you include sidewalks in the landuse but exclude the main roadway? That's what I asked. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com On 5/11/2011 11:15 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: 2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com mailto:nerou...@gmail.com On 5/11/2011 10:47 AM, Flaimo wrote: you misread that. because if its imprecise definition, there are still heated discussions on how detailed landuses should be mapped. some leave out the areas of the streets, some don't. all i wanted to state out is, that this isn't a part of the area:highway proposal. if you want to draw it over landuses you can do so, but if you are part of the other fraction you can connect it to landuses. I'm not taking sides with this proposal. But does anyone stop the landuse at the edge of the main roadway, including the sidewalks within it? I do. My residential, industrial and farm landuses are outlined by the sidewalks or by the road. I know other mappers do this too, and they usually exclude sidewalks too. Wait, so you include sidewalks in the landuse but exclude the main roadway? That's what I asked. No, wait. I put landuse up to the border of the property, let's say up to the fence; then there (may be) the sidewalk; then there's the road (I know that road legally includes the sidewalks too; I'm using it here with the commonly used meaning). The residential, industrial, whatever landuse stops before the sidewalk: the sidewalk is NOT part of a residential landuse, for instance. I understand it's debatable whether to include the sidewalk into the area:highway object. I think it should ideally be given a different object. If we agree that sidewalks should be mapped as linear highway=footway (I know there's discussion on this point, I'm making a supposition), then we should have two different area features (or multipolys or whatever), one with area:highway=unclassified/residential/whatever and another one with area:highway=footway. In simpler terms, I wouldn't use area:highway to cover the whole right-of-way area. Ciao, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
On 5/11/2011 11:36 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: No, wait. I put landuse up to the border of the property, let's say up to the fence; then there (may be) the sidewalk; then there's the road (I know that road legally includes the sidewalks too; I'm using it here with the commonly used meaning). The residential, industrial, whatever landuse stops before the sidewalk: the sidewalk is NOT part of a residential landuse, for instance. OK, that's what I thought. Unless there is someone who puts the sidewalk inside the landuse, there's no point in mentioning landuse in this proposal. (By the way, I go up to the property line too in those cases where the landuse changes at the road. If the landuse is the same on both sides, I'll include the road in the landuse polygon, however.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
Flaimo wrote: it has been brought up a couple of times in the german forums, so it seems there is a need for mapping the dimensions of roads (similar to riverbanks for rivers). the tag itself was suggested by another user, but i thought it would be a good idea to put it into a dedicated proposal. I agree with the idea of using a tag like area:highway=* on areas that are mapped in addition to roads, but I'm not sure whether I agree with the example image provided on the proposal page, too. In the example image, lanes (in this case: sidewalks) of the road that are mapped as separate ways also have their own areas. Currently, I tend to instead support one area for the entire road, containing the central highway ways and the ways for the lanes. If you follow the convention that each way should be drawn along the center of the real-world feature, then the width of e.g. a sidewalk can still be determined at any point along the road from just the single outline area and the way position. So unless I'm mistaken, separate areas for the individual lanes wouldn't provide more information; they'd just add more clutter. -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: In the example image, lanes (in this case: sidewalks) of the road that are mapped as separate ways also have their own areas. Currently, I tend to instead support one area for the entire road, containing the central highway ways and the ways for the lanes. If you follow the convention that each way should be drawn along the center of the real-world feature, then the width of e.g. a sidewalk can still be determined at any point along the road from just the single outline area and the way position. So unless I'm mistaken, separate areas for the individual lanes wouldn't provide more information; they'd just add more clutter. I think this depends on whether you adopt the sidewalk as a separate way method or the sidewalk=left/right/both/no method. In my area of suburbia, I'm using separate ways, so I would likewise use two separate areas. For other areas that use sidewalk=*, such as cities with integrated sidewalks and streets (such as Washington D.C.), it might make more sense to use a single area, depending on the local community. That being said, I don't intend to use this tagging yet. I'd be more interested in seeing an integrated method that would allow tagging not only the area of the road, but also separate lanes that allow for turning restrictions, to be used for simulation purposes as well as precise navigation. -Josh ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
Josh Doe wrote: So unless I'm mistaken, separate areas for the individual lanes wouldn't provide more information; they'd just add more clutter. I think this depends on whether you adopt the sidewalk as a separate way method or the sidewalk=left/right/both/no method. In my area of suburbia, I'm using separate ways, so I would likewise use two separate areas. Just because it seems intuitively consistent, or is there some practical advantage - something that can only be expressed with these separate areas? Separate sidewalk ways have advantages (you can properly connect other ways and crossings to them, you can add tags such as surface, ...), that's why I prefer them, too. Separate areas don't seem to let you express any additional information, so I currently don't see a reason to use them. In fact, I think that a /single/ area:highway=* has an additional advantage precisely if you map sidewalks and such as separate ways: it becomes more feasible for applications to find out which sidewalk ways belong to a highway because the highway and sidewalk ways are in the same area:highway=* boundary. You wouldn't need relations or other solutions to connect them. -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/11 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: Flaimo wrote: In the example image, lanes (in this case: sidewalks) of the road that are mapped as separate ways also have their own areas. Currently, I tend to instead support one area for the entire road, containing the central highway ways and the ways for the lanes. If you follow the convention that each way should be drawn along the center of the real-world feature, then the width of e.g. a sidewalk can still be determined at any point along the road from just the single outline area and the way position. no, if this would be possible there would be no sense at all to map areas. You can't see sidewalks as just another lane, because they tend to be quite irregular in certain settings (unlike lanes which usually keep their width and have no corners and other weird points). The point of mapping areas is to be able to map irregular street areas, changes in the sidewalk and similar. That's why I proposed the area relation: to be able to map these details, to be able to add topology details like kerbs and lower kerbs and similar issues. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
that is perfectly possible with area:highway. just tag the road area:highway=residential for example and the other area:highway=footway. all values from the highway key are possible (at least from the roads or paths category). flaimo Message: 7 Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:36:04 +0200 From: Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway Message-ID: banlktinwgnh6t0zntxoh3m3dvwnytao...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 I understand it's debatable whether to include the sidewalk into the area:highway object. I think it should ideally be given a different object. If we agree that sidewalks should be mapped as linear highway=footway (I know there's discussion on this point, I'm making a supposition), then we should have two different area features (or multipolys or whatever), one with area:highway=unclassified/residential/whatever and another one with area:highway=footway. In simpler terms, I wouldn't use area:highway to cover the whole right-of-way area. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: If you follow the convention that each way should be drawn along the center of the real-world feature, then the width of e.g. a sidewalk can still be determined at any point along the road from just the single outline area and the way position. no, if this would be possible there would be no sense at all to map areas. You can't see sidewalks as just another lane, because they tend to be quite irregular in certain settings (unlike lanes which usually keep their width and have no corners and other weird points). I don't think this contradicts my argument. Look at the cross-section of the road at any point: | * . . . .* | The vertical lines are road area outlines, the stars are sidewalk ways and the dots are other lanes. If we make the assumption that each way marks the center of that lane, we can easily calculate the width of the two sidewalks at this particular cut through the road: It's 2 times the width between the sidewalk and the area outline. How a cross-section of a road looks will of course vary a lot along the road - lanes, including sidewalks, might change their width, disappear entirely etc. But that isn't a problem as long as you can determine the road structure at each interesting point along the road. The point of mapping areas is to be able to map irregular street areas, changes in the sidewalk and similar. That's why I proposed the area relation: to be able to map these details, to be able to add topology details like kerbs and lower kerbs and similar issues. The area relation is interesting conceptually, but it just seems so very different from the way-based modelling we currently use for roads. I don't believe it would work without a major redesign of our editing tools, and I don't see OSM as a project with enough coordination to successfully implement a major change like that if it cannot easily be broken down into small evolutionary steps. -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
Am 11.05.2011 um 23:01 schrieb Tobias Knerr: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: If you follow the convention that each way should be drawn along the center of the real-world feature, then the width of e.g. a sidewalk can still be determined at any point along the road from just the single outline area and the way position. no, if this would be possible there would be no sense at all to map areas. You can't see sidewalks as just another lane, because they tend to be quite irregular in certain settings (unlike lanes which usually keep their width and have no corners and other weird points). I don't think this contradicts my argument. Look at the cross-section of the road at any point: | * . . . .* | The vertical lines are road area outlines, the stars are sidewalk ways and the dots are other lanes. If we make the assumption that each way marks the center of that lane, we can easily calculate the width of the two sidewalks at this particular cut through the road: It's 2 times the width between the sidewalk and the area outline. The last time I checked, we're mapping in two dimensions, not one :-) I'm not sure that mapping the actual physical extent of the various parts of roads is feasible in terms of number of mappers and their motivation, but if anybody is serious about mapping crossings and physical properties of these areas, I think mapping them as areas is the obvious and logical way forward. We already map waterways with both a way and an area. I'd map the road, the sidewalks, connecting areas, crosswalks, parking spots, what have you, all as areas (if I felt I had exhaused housenumbers on buildings etc.) I'd probably add curbs as ways, not areas, unless they have multiple steps in them and approach a meter or so in width. Of course, that doesn't answer how anybody would be able to tell that all these features together form the road, except for their proximity. I'd like to learn about where that information would actually be required. Stefan -- Stefan Bethke s...@lassitu.de Fon +49 151 14070811 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
