Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 02:49:53PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > PS: The same "importance" thing pops up with regard to towns and > villages - a town in rural England may have more "map significance" than > one of the dozens of cities that surround Paris. By the way ... the first thoughts about this key I had, when I thought about the network-key. Because IMHO it's used in two different ways: bicycle/hiking-routes have: network=ncn (national route), rcn (regional route), lcn (local route) resp. network=nwn, rwn, lwn (Who defines that network?) Public Transport routes have: network=London Underground, HVV, ... greetings, Stephan -- Seid unbequem, seid Sand, nicht Öl im Getriebe der Welt! - Günther Eich ,-. | Stephan Plepelits, | | Technische Universität Wien -Studium Informatik & Raumplanung | | > openstreetbrowser.org > couchsurfing.com > tubasis.at > bl.mud.at | | sk...@xover.htu.tuwien.ac.at - My Blog: http://plepe.at | `-' ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?
Hi, MP wrote: > You can use some tag object_size, where you specify size of the object: > > Catherdalamenity=place_of_worship object_size=100m > Church amenity=place_of_worship object_size=30m > Chapel amenity=place_of_worship object_size=8m What do you mean by "size", given that you have specified it in plain metres, not square or cubic? If you really want to go down that route then why not map the object as an area or even in "2.5d" as an area plus height? Bye Frederik PS: The same "importance" thing pops up with regard to towns and villages - a town in rural England may have more "map significance" than one of the dozens of cities that surround Paris. -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?
> Place of Worships: > Cathedral amenity=place_of_worship importance=regional/national > Church amenity=place_of_worship importance=urban > Chapel amenity=place_of_worship importance=suburban You can use some tag object_size, where you specify size of the object: Catherdalamenity=place_of_worship object_size=100m Church amenity=place_of_worship object_size=30m Chapel amenity=place_of_worship object_size=8m The larger object, the more "important" it is ... The "object size" is not subjective (except for errors in guessing the size) and would make good heuristics about what to show at different zoom levels (large buildings are usually more important than small ones) While there are exceptions to this (perhaps some small chapel that is very famous), I think this could be good starting point and it is not subjective but objective. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?
2009/6/4 Stephan Plepelits : > Hi Folks! > > I'm the one who originally created the proposal. > > On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 10:52:33PM +0800, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: >> Hmmm... I guess the main problem that people have is that a tag like >> "importance" (or its synonyms) is inherently subjective and a subjective >> tag is > Yeah, I see that point, but many things in the OSM are quite subjective (as > you say yourself, the level of a road, or is it a halt or a station? is > this a touristic spot or not?) > > At the moment renderers have the problem, that the information in OSM is > very huge, and maps look cluttered. The importance-key (which is more or > less derived from features on the ground) could help. Maybe we should give > more examples what you can use the key for: > > Place of Worships: > Cathedral amenity=place_of_worship importance=regional/national > Church amenity=place_of_worship importance=urban > Chapel amenity=place_of_worship importance=suburban > You could have done church_type=cathedral, church_type=church, and church_type=chapel (arbitrary tag name choice... probably not a good one) and let the renderer figure out that for itself. Then my local chapel of huge international historic architectural significance (but zero religious significance) won't get promoted over the cathedral down the road which everyone else happens to be more interested in but is only of national religious significance. (scenario made up of course :-)) It's not so much about the subjectivity but about the lack of definition of what importance actually is about, even for objects of the same type. >> For what it's worth, I viewed the purpose of the importance tag in the >> context >> of a general-purpose map which OSM is by default (though it can and does >> support specialist maps like the Cycle Map). I guess such importance/ >> popularity/prominence data can conceivably be compiled as a separate database >> to be maintained by those who are interested in it instead of being included >> into OSM. > Brrr ... seperate databases ... I don't see a reason why we would need a > seperate database for this (I think this would be really hard to maintain > and nobody would use it). > Yeah, no need for separate databases, just need to be way more precise with the tags in the first place. A universal scale of importance just doesn't exist. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?
I'm learning that people's reluctance to tag things subjectively is because they have learnt the hard way that this just leads to arguments. Maybe the mountain should be given the name of the park, since that's what the locals refer to it as, with the actual name of the mountain as an alternative name? Richard On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > Hmmm... I guess the main problem that people have is that a tag like > "importance" (or its synonyms) is inherently subjective and a subjective tag > is hard to determine "on the ground". Given the recent discussions about > unofficial cycle routes and the secondary roads in Ipswich, people seem to > be just a bit allergic to things that can't be surveyed. > > For what it's worth, I viewed the purpose of the importance tag in the > context of a general-purpose map which OSM is by default (though it can and > does support specialist maps like the Cycle Map). I guess such > importance/popularity/prominence data can conceivably be compiled as a > separate database to be maintained by those who are interested in it instead > of being included into OSM. > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2009/6/2 Nic Roets : >> > 2009/6/2 Iván Sánchez Ortega >> >> >> >> El Martes, 2 de Junio de 2009, Jonathan Bennett escribió: >> >> > Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: >> >> > > Any comments? >> >> > >> >> > "Important to who?" >> >> >> >> And important for what? >> > >> > Well, if you are drawing a map then you want to know if something is >> > important for navigation. Like a landmark. >> >> well, navigation is not the only purpose of maps, and in this example >> the mountainpeak might be a better landmark than the park. >> >> > It is of course possible to estimate (with a computer) how important >> > something is by analyzing the road network around it. Sometimes >> importance >> > follows roads and sometimes roads follow importance, but the correlation >> is >> > clear. >> >> yes, and sometimes there is a very important feature and no road to >> it. By using this kind of algorithm all motorway-crossings become >> "important" features (which they are to people in cars, but they are >> not to pedestrians, archeologists and cyclists). >> >> Martin >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > > > -- > http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?
Hi Folks! I'm the one who originally created the proposal. On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 10:52:33PM +0800, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > Hmmm... I guess the main problem that people have is that a tag like > "importance" (or its synonyms) is inherently subjective and a subjective > tag is Yeah, I see that point, but many things in the OSM are quite subjective (as you say yourself, the level of a road, or is it a halt or a station? is this a touristic spot or not?) At the moment renderers have the problem, that the information in OSM is very huge, and maps look cluttered. The importance-key (which is more or less derived from features on the ground) could help. Maybe we should give more examples what you can use the key for: Place of Worships: Cathedral amenity=place_of_worship importance=regional/national Church amenity=place_of_worship importance=urban Chapel amenity=place_of_worship importance=suburban > For what it's worth, I viewed the purpose of the importance tag in the context > of a general-purpose map which OSM is by default (though it can and does > support specialist maps like the Cycle Map). I guess such importance/ > popularity/prominence data can conceivably be compiled as a separate database > to be maintained by those who are interested in it instead of being included > into OSM. Brrr ... seperate databases ... I don't see a reason why we would need a seperate database for this (I think this would be really hard to maintain and nobody would use it). greetings, Stephan -- Seid unbequem, seid Sand, nicht Öl im Getriebe der Welt! - Günther Eich ,-. | Stephan Plepelits, | | Technische Universität Wien -Studium Informatik & Raumplanung | | > openstreetbrowser.org > couchsurfing.com > tubasis.at > bl.mud.at | | sk...@xover.htu.tuwien.ac.at - My Blog: http://plepe.at | `-' ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?
Hmmm... I guess the main problem that people have is that a tag like "importance" (or its synonyms) is inherently subjective and a subjective tag is hard to determine "on the ground". Given the recent discussions about unofficial cycle routes and the secondary roads in Ipswich, people seem to be just a bit allergic to things that can't be surveyed. For what it's worth, I viewed the purpose of the importance tag in the context of a general-purpose map which OSM is by default (though it can and does support specialist maps like the Cycle Map). I guess such importance/popularity/prominence data can conceivably be compiled as a separate database to be maintained by those who are interested in it instead of being included into OSM. On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/6/2 Nic Roets : > > 2009/6/2 Iván Sánchez Ortega > >> > >> El Martes, 2 de Junio de 2009, Jonathan Bennett escribió: > >> > Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > >> > > Any comments? > >> > > >> > "Important to who?" > >> > >> And important for what? > > > > Well, if you are drawing a map then you want to know if something is > > important for navigation. Like a landmark. > > well, navigation is not the only purpose of maps, and in this example > the mountainpeak might be a better landmark than the park. > > > It is of course possible to estimate (with a computer) how important > > something is by analyzing the road network around it. Sometimes > importance > > follows roads and sometimes roads follow importance, but the correlation > is > > clear. > > yes, and sometimes there is a very important feature and no road to > it. By using this kind of algorithm all motorway-crossings become > "important" features (which they are to people in cars, but they are > not to pedestrians, archeologists and cyclists). > > Martin > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?
2009/6/2 Nic Roets : > 2009/6/2 Iván Sánchez Ortega >> >> El Martes, 2 de Junio de 2009, Jonathan Bennett escribió: >> > Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: >> > > Any comments? >> > >> > "Important to who?" >> >> And important for what? > > Well, if you are drawing a map then you want to know if something is > important for navigation. Like a landmark. well, navigation is not the only purpose of maps, and in this example the mountainpeak might be a better landmark than the park. > It is of course possible to estimate (with a computer) how important > something is by analyzing the road network around it. Sometimes importance > follows roads and sometimes roads follow importance, but the correlation is > clear. yes, and sometimes there is a very important feature and no road to it. By using this kind of algorithm all motorway-crossings become "important" features (which they are to people in cars, but they are not to pedestrians, archeologists and cyclists). Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?
2009/6/2 Iván Sánchez Ortega > El Martes, 2 de Junio de 2009, Jonathan Bennett escribió: > > Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > > Any comments? > > > > "Important to who?" > > And important for what? > Well, if you are drawing a map then you want to know if something is important for navigation. Like a landmark. It is of course possible to estimate (with a computer) how important something is by analyzing the road network around it. Sometimes importance follows roads and sometimes roads follow importance, but the correlation is clear. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?
Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > Any comments? > "Important to who?" -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?
Hello all, I've wondered what the "Feature's popularity" field was for in Google Map Maker and I think I've found a use case for it. Please check this OSM view out: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.14189&lon=121.02199&zoom=17&layers=B000FTF. It shows Mt. Sungay as a prominent label and this obscures the more important/popular feature on the mountaintop, the People's Park in the Sky, which is a well-known tourist spot (you can see the label when you zoom in to Level 18). I think there should be a way to specify that showing the label for the park has a higher priority than the name of the mountain since this is what people expect (in fact, people going to the park hardly know what the name of the mountain is). But since there is no such "importance" or "priority" information in OSM, Mapnik defaults to labeling mountain peaks (since mountain peaks, in general, really are prominent) and only fitting other labels when there's space. There has been some discussion on the mailing list before regarding the priority labeling of place=* nodes by supplementing it with population info or some other subjective tag (e.g., a less populous settlement might be more important than a nearby more populous town). But maybe we can extend it to encompass all features and not just place=* nodes, just like in my example comparing a natural=peak node with a leisure=park,tourism=attraction area. I think the proposed importance=* tag mentioned recently might fit the bill: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Importance Any comments? Eugene / seav -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
