[OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
I notice that abandoned railways are now being rendered on Mapnik. I'm not sure that this is a good idea. Fairly near to me there are a few abandoned railway that have been made into footpaths or cycle paths and they are tagged as such and render as such. There are also a few abandoned railways that have gently melted into the landscape, with no feature left visible on the ground, yet these are displaying on the Mapnik render. I think these would be better preserved on a dedicated railway map and leave Mapnik for things that can be seen on the ground today. Mapnik is one of the principal views of our work to the public - I'd like to keep it relevant to that. Cheers, Chris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
> I notice that abandoned railways are now being rendered on Mapnik. I'm > not sure that this is a good idea. Fairly near to me there are a few > abandoned railway that have been made into footpaths or cycle paths and > they are tagged as such and render as such. These should not be tagged as railway=abandoned. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway says: "Designation not to be used if the feature has been turned into another use, eg cycleway." Regards, Marc -- Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
Marc Schütz wrote: >> I notice that abandoned railways are now being rendered on Mapnik. I'm >> not sure that this is a good idea. Fairly near to me there are a few >> abandoned railway that have been made into footpaths or cycle paths and >> they are tagged as such and render as such. >> > > These should not be tagged as railway=abandoned. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway says: > > "Designation not to be used if the feature has been turned into another use, > eg cycleway." > > Regards, Marc > > You do accurately quote the Wiki, but if you take my point further then that also needs to change: if people are interested in showing the route of abandoned railways then the ones that have been reused will also need to be tagged as abandoned railways. If these are only rendered on a railway map (not Mapnik) then any conflict can be resolved on that map to its maintainers' satisfaction. The abandoned lines that are now reused in my area are currently not tagged as railway=abandoned just as the wiki suggests. Cheers, Chris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
> I notice that abandoned railways are now being rendered on Mapnik. This was discussed a bit on talk-gb recently: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2008-December/003369.html (and related messages) There are/were quite a few "railway=abandoned" features marked around the Derby/Notts border in the UK. Although many have been reused as cycle tracks etc., many haven't, and of those that haven't there's often nothing left visible on the ground at all. In those cases I've gone for "railway=dismantled", rather than just deleting the way entirely, as it seems a shame to remove information that someone else has added that isn't actually "wrong". Way 27144373 is an example - it's a section of the former Great Central railway that runs more-or-less parallel with a former colliery railway (the GCR was actually the later addition, but by the time of the NPE mapping the colliery railway appears to have become disused). A modern cycle trail follows much of the GCR, but not this bit (it follows the older colliery railway). However, way 14837306 here: http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.19174&lon=-1.22413&zoom=15&layers=B000FTFT shows a problem with this approach - Mapnik renders the name, but not the actual way. This is one where some sections probably justify being left as "railway=abandoned", as there is more evidence on the ground (although rendering it on a "standard map" is likely to cause confusion). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Chris Hill wrote: > I notice that abandoned railways are now being rendered on Mapnik. I'm > not sure that this is a good idea. Fairly near to me there are a few > abandoned railway that have been made into footpaths or cycle paths and > they are tagged as such and render as such. There are also a few > abandoned railways that have gently melted into the landscape, with no > feature left visible on the ground, yet these are displaying on the > Mapnik render. +1 from me. just because a strip of grass is flat enough to have had a railway line on in the past, doesn't mean it needs to be shown on a low-zoom map at a similar precedence to roads or railways. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
Someoneelse wrote: >> I notice that abandoned railways are now being rendered on Mapnik. > > This was discussed a bit on talk-gb recently: > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2008-December/003369.html > > (and related messages) > > There are/were quite a few "railway=abandoned" features marked around > the Derby/Notts border in the UK. Although many have been reused as > cycle tracks etc., many haven't, and of those that haven't there's > often nothing left visible on the ground at all. In those cases I've > gone for "railway=dismantled", rather than just deleting the way > entirely, as it seems a shame to remove information that someone else > has added that isn't actually "wrong". > > Way 27144373 is an example - it's a section of the former Great > Central railway that runs more-or-less parallel with a former colliery > railway (the GCR was actually the later addition, but by the time of > the NPE mapping the colliery railway appears to have become disused). > A modern cycle trail follows much of the GCR, but not this bit (it > follows the older colliery railway). > > However, way 14837306 here: > http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.19174&lon=-1.22413&zoom=15&layers=B000FTFT > > shows a problem with this approach - Mapnik renders the name, but not > the actual way. This is one where some sections probably justify > being left as "railway=abandoned", as there is more evidence on the > ground (although rendering it on a "standard map" is likely to cause > confusion). > Changing a tag from railway=abandoned to railway=dismantled just to stop it rendering is one of the no-nos in OSM: tagging for the renderer. It would be much better to tag the line correctly and fix the renderer so they don't render on the Mapnik map. Then a railway map or historic map could render it properly. Cheers, Chris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
Chris Hill wrote: > I notice that abandoned railways are now being rendered on Mapnik. I've been tagging local disused pubs with disused=yes and hoping that the renderer will catch up with what was agreed in the wiki for some time now :) Unfortunately there's an increasing number of boarded-up pubs round here :( So I raised http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/1085 http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/1079 and someone else raises http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/1268 so go figure. There's clearly a bit of disagreement about whether disused and abandoned stuff should be shown. IMO they should not, not on the Mapnik rendering at least. The prettiest, first-impression, public-facing view should only contain active services and amenities, ditto rail lines, roads, canals etc. because the average user will only care about what's relevant and useful right now. Tongue-in-cheek suggestion: new tag, visible=yes/no or relevant=yes/no. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
On 1 Jan 2009, at 22:53, Andrew Chadwick (mailing lists) wrote: > Chris Hill wrote: >> I notice that abandoned railways are now being rendered on Mapnik. > > I've been tagging local disused pubs with disused=yes and hoping that > the renderer will catch up with what was agreed in the wiki for some > time now :) Unfortunately there's an increasing number of boarded-up > pubs round here :( > Use something like amenity=old_pub or similar. Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
> > Use something like amenity=old_pub or similar. > Yep, it would be better for tagging to think about falling back when details aren't recognised. There will be many renders and applications of OSM. Also it is a lot to ask stylesheets to check for disused=yes on every type of node/way. -- Gregory nomoregra...@gmail.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
Shaun McDonald wrote: > > Use something like amenity=old_pub or similar. Icon of an upturned/broken pint glass and dried spillage, maybe? Actually, in some areas the broken glass might be too poignant a choice. Arguably it's no longer an amenity if it's always shut, but I still think that composing existing tags with /even contradictory/ properties like disused=* beats inventing new tags. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
>> > Changing a tag from railway=abandoned to railway=dismantled just to stop > it rendering is one of the no-nos in OSM: tagging for the renderer. It > would be much better to tag the line correctly and fix the renderer so > they don't render on the Mapnik map. Then a railway map or historic map > could render it properly. > > Cheers, Chris No, this is not tagging for renderer and I think it is perfectly correct. Abandoned and dismantled railway are two different things in reality and therefore they should be tagged differently. railway=abandoned is course of old railway physically present and more or less clearly visible in landscape. This should be rendered on general purpose OSM map just like buildings, highways, amenities etc. just because it exists and could be used for orientation and navigation. railway=dismantled is "virtual" feature saying that there were railway in this place one day, but it is gone now. It should not be rendered on general purpose map, because it no longer exists in reality. It may be rendered on special historic maps. Tomas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
"Tomáš Tichý" writes: >>> >> Changing a tag from railway=abandoned to railway=dismantled just to stop >> it rendering is one of the no-nos in OSM: tagging for the renderer. It >> would be much better to tag the line correctly and fix the renderer so >> they don't render on the Mapnik map. Then a railway map or historic map >> could render it properly. >> >> Cheers, Chris > > No, this is not tagging for renderer and I think it is perfectly > correct. Abandoned and dismantled railway are two different things in > reality and therefore they should be tagged differently. > railway=abandoned is course of old railway physically present and more > or less clearly visible in landscape. This should be rendered on > general purpose OSM map just like buildings, highways, amenities etc. > just because it exists and could be used for orientation and > navigation. > railway=dismantled is "virtual" feature saying that there were railway > in this place one day, but it is gone now. It should not be rendered > on general purpose map, because it no longer exists in reality. It may > be rendered on special historic maps. What you are describing here seems to fit well railway=disused and railway=abandoned as described on Map Features: disused: A section of railway which is no longer used but where the track and infrastructure remains in place. See disused=yes for alternative tagging. abandoned: The course of a former railway which has been abandoned and the track and infrastucture removed. Designation not to be used if the feature has been turned into another use, eg cycleway. If historic data is within the scope of OSM then it surely is not only of interest for railways. Therefore a generic way of tagging should be used that can apply to any object. Maybe removed=yes| Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
2009/1/7 Matthias Julius : > If historic data is within the scope of OSM then it surely is not only > of interest for railways. Therefore a generic way of tagging should > be used that can apply to any object. Maybe removed=yes| > > Matthias > But then we get into the messy situation of not being able to read off a single tag to decide what type of feature something is. Not all data clients are likely to implement a tag that means the logical opposite of the existence of a feature. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
"Thomas Wood" writes: > 2009/1/7 Matthias Julius : >> If historic data is within the scope of OSM then it surely is not only >> of interest for railways. Therefore a generic way of tagging should >> be used that can apply to any object. Maybe removed=yes| >> >> Matthias >> > > But then we get into the messy situation of not being able to read off > a single tag to decide what type of feature something is. > > Not all data clients are likely to implement a tag that means the > logical opposite of the existence of a feature. This is true. Maybe it is better to use a namespace like removed:railway=rail; removed=. This also preserves the type of railway. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
Hi! >> If historic data is within the scope of OSM then it surely is not only >> of interest for railways. Therefore a generic way of tagging should >> be used that can apply to any object. Maybe removed=yes| >>[..] > But then we get into the messy situation of not being able to read off > a single tag to decide what type of feature something is. I don't get it. - You still know it's a railway, a highway, a building, ... . Reading more tags will unveil the name, the operator, the source and so on. There is no difference to a possible 'removed' -tag. We've alway had certain key-tags that give clues about the type of an object, others define properties. An easy example would be the pair highway and name. > Not all data clients are likely to implement a tag that means the > logical opposite of the existence of a feature. > Which 'removed' would not be. It's an objects property just like name is. Anyway, I'd like to suggest the pair 'since=' and 'until=' (with the current widely accepted implicated value 'ever' for not given tags). Regards Andreas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Andreas Fritsche wrote: > I don't get it. Really? It's pretty straightforward. > You still know it's a railway, a highway, a > building, ... . Reading more tags will unveil the name, the operator, > the source and so on. There is no difference to a possible 'removed' > -tag. We've alway had certain key-tags that give clues about the type > of an object, others define properties. An easy example would be the > pair highway and name. Right, so have a look at the following. highway = primary => I have a primary road name = Foo Street => I have a primary road that's called Foo Street ref = 58 => I have a primary road with ref 58 that's called Foo Street abandoned = yes => I don't actually have a primary road at all. Do you see how the last one is completely different? If we start tagging things like this, then there's no way of telling what's a primary road without understanding *all* other tags. It's not just abandoned, there's also construction, historical, removed and so on. So it's a convention (and a pretty straightforward one) to only use highway=primary on things that are *actually* primary roads. Only use railway=rail on things that are actually railway lines. Using highway=primary on something that is no longer a primary road is just a complete PITA for everyone, mappers and renderers and all other applications included. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
Hi! >> I don't get it. > > Really? It's pretty straightforward. >[..] > Right, so have a look at the following. > > highway = primary => I have a primary road > name = Foo Street => I have a primary road that's called Foo Street > ref = 58 => I have a primary road with ref 58 that's called Foo Street > abandoned = yes => I don't actually have a primary road at all. > > Do you see how the last one is completely different? If we start > [..] Actually: No. If interpreted straightforward, your example would end with the line abandoned = yes => I have an abandoned primary road with ref 58 that was called Foo Street The tag just adds another property. A client might chose 5px-width and red color because it's a primary road. It might not interpret the name - because for its application the name doesn't matter and the client may decide whether to display it or not because it is abandoned. No difference, just another choice. Nevertheless I do understand the "*actually*"- and espacially the "PITA"-part. So I am willing to accept the OSM-mission and join the No History Club. /Andreas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
2009/1/8 Andreas Fritsche : > Hi! > >>> I don't get it. >> >> Really? It's pretty straightforward. > >>[..] >> Right, so have a look at the following. >> >> highway = primary => I have a primary road >> name = Foo Street => I have a primary road that's called Foo Street >> ref = 58 => I have a primary road with ref 58 that's called Foo Street >> abandoned = yes => I don't actually have a primary road at all. >> >> Do you see how the last one is completely different? If we start >> [..] > > Actually: No. If interpreted straightforward, your example would end > with the line > abandoned = yes => I have an abandoned primary road with ref 58 that > was called Foo Street > The tag just adds another property. A client might chose 5px-width and > red color because it's a primary road. It might not interpret the name > - because for its application the name doesn't matter and the client > may decide whether to display it or not because it is abandoned. No > difference, just another choice. > > Nevertheless I do understand the "*actually*"- and espacially the > "PITA"-part. So I am willing to accept the OSM-mission and join the No > History Club. > > /Andreas A historical version of OSM using tags probably is possible, as long as we differentiate the tags so they are not seen as current features. For example we could just 'namespace' them all to historical:tagname=value. It would still be a bit of a PITA to edit the raw data on editors that do not allow different sets of features to be hidden. (Only really an issue with potlatch at the moment, since both JOSM and Merkaartor have their relevant theming options). -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
Matthias Julius wrote: > Maybe it is better to use a namespace like > removed:railway=rail; removed=. This also preserves the type of > railway. +1 for namespace prefixes, +0 for removed: though. Some of the usual suspects on #osm have been discussing past: and future: namespaces, the latter for construction works :) I quite like former: as well, or disused: or abandoned: name=Bateman Street # loc_name=Batman Street source:loc_name=paint former:name=East Street # yeah, I know we have old_name too What about contradictory senses? name=Shangri-La Towers # Sounds nice. building=apartments # You could live there. abandoned:building=apartments # oh, guess not. loc_name=Fred's Squat # Ah. Less nice. This sort of thing has a horrid sort of resonance round here: disused:amenity=pub name=The Blue Grape disused= # arguably backwards-compatible and also gets around the fact that you can't drink there any more, but dumb software thinking you could. And later on, if the building gets used for something else, you could perhaps change it to: shop=candy name=Fred's Wine Gum Emporium former:amenity=pub former:name=The Blue Grape # or old_name former= # ugh, mabye not Well, it appeals to the stupid, plodding, pattern-seeking part of my brain, kinda. But the reason you might keep this kind of old guff hanging around in the database would be to answer queries about old landmarks people know the old name of but not the new. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
> And later on, if the building > gets > used for something else, you could perhaps change it to: > >shop=candy >name=Fred's Wine Gum Emporium >former:amenity=pub >former:name=The Blue Grape # or old_name >former= # ugh, mabye not > > Well, it appeals to the stupid, plodding, pattern-seeking part > of my > brain, kinda. But it probably is too limited. A couple of examples that spring to mind. A building in Wolverhampton that was a cinema when my dad was young has since been things like a bank and a pound shop at various stages and I think is now a pub. How many former tags will you support? Similarly there was a shop in Oxford that was a cheese shop (Little Clarendon Street circa 1987) that was a childs toy or clothes shop (I forget which) the following year and I am sure is something else again now. And the Woolworths in Wolverhampton which until recently (I'm assuming it is now closed) was the "lower ground" version of the Woolworths I remember as a child which was about 4 floors tall in total. I believe Boots took over what used to be the Woolworths ground floor but I moved away almost a decade ago so my memories are a little rusted. There are shops near here that probably have a different business (or two) in them every year. If you're going to go with prefixes you'll want something like 20080101-20080606:name=Spring Fashions Limited and 20080607-20081231:name=Fireworks'R'Us (names made up). For now I'm mapping what is actually here. If something changes in reality I change it in OSM. If at some point in the future OSM supports historical mapping in some way then I may look at perhaps going to the effort of adding historical tags as well as updating the existing ones. Railways, which I think may have triggered this discussion (or may have cropped up recently on another related email list) are an interesting case. Abandoned railways are something that currently exist in places, until they are converted into footpaths or something else. This isn't as such historic mapping as mapping the bits of an abandoned railway that still exist. Disused pubs are something I'm in two minds about. In some cases the building is an obvious landmark which would be a useful PoI whether it opens or not. And whether it opens or not is something which would be useful additional information for anyone wanting to visit the place. But disused pubs where the sign has been removed and it has perhaps changed to residential use I don't feel should still be marked. A bit like "the old post office" or "old bakehouse" as properties surrounding an office I used to live were both residential properties (one of which was rented on behalf of Mark McGhee when he was managing Wolves, and we could see into his kitchen from our office). So I guess I'm in the map what exists now camp, until OSM has some better method of historical (or future - and I admit I've tagged a highway under construction) tagging. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
Hi Were you the only recipient? I must have hit the wrong button - will resend sorry! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Ed Loach [mailto:e...@loach.me.uk] Sent: 15 January 2009 11:17 To: 'Mike Harris' Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant Did you mean to Reply All, or was this just for me? All the best Ed > -Original Message- > From: Mike Harris [mailto:mik...@googlemail.com] > Sent: 15 January 2009 10:49 > To: 'Ed Loach' > Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant > > I've been watching this thread for a while and add these > thoughts: > > 1. The 'railway' issues: Would a simple fix be to label 'abandoned > railways' > by using a relation? They are effectively now a relation of type=route > that may include ways that are now on the ground as e.g. a footway, a > bridleway, a cycleway, etc. as well as ways that no longer exist. Only > the last of these would need tagging - and here the tag would not, by > definition, conflict with any other tag as the way is no longer there. > This is also consistent with the general concept of mapping what is > there on the ground - without losing the information regarding the > route of an abandoned railway that might be of great interest to > railway buffs. > > 2. The former shop / pub etc. issues: the use of abandoned:xxx= and > former:xxx= tags may be helpful - but may they not sometimes rather > overlap? > There is also a risk of overuse. On the other hand, even from the > point of view of "map what is there" there is a case, IMHO, for some > tagging of "what is no longer there". Examples in my area are: > > A. A large school. The OS maps (even the latest digital > edition) show it as > a school covering a considerable area. Aerial photography (e.g. > Google) > shows a demolition site. On the ground there is no trace of any > buildings - just a park (appropriately "Phoenix Park") criss-crossed > by footways and cycleways and allowing some very useful links to be > made between streets on either side of the area that were clearly not > links when they went right through the school buildings. All of this > has happened in a very few years, witness the OS mapping. As an OSM > user I would want to know that I can use these linking ways and to be > reassured that the OS map is wrong and more out-of-date than OSM ... > So a need to include the former:xxx= tag. OSM currently shows just the > park, no footways or cycleways and no school. I couldn't tell in > advance of visiting the site whether OSM had not yet added the school > or whether the OS map was out of date. > > B. Tennis courts and football field. The boundaries are shown on the > OS but not labelled. Yahoo aerial photography shows outlines but I > couldn't say their status. OSM tags these features as sport= and > disused=yes. Mapnik doesn't render them at all but osmarender shows > them as if they were live and available facilities (ignores the > disused=yes tag > presumably) - so you > don't know that you can't play sports there unless you go to the edit > page. > On this occasion, the disused= tag adds a third option to 'abandoned' > and 'former'! It would be good either for the features not to be > rendered or for them in either renderer or for them to be rendered in > both renderers but distinguished as not being available for would-be > tennis of football players! > > We do need to work some consistency into this area ... Who decides? > How can the debate be structured to work towards consistency and > consensus? > > > Mike Harris > > -Original Message- > From: Ed Loach [mailto:e...@loach.me.uk] > Sent: 13 January 2009 23:45 > To: 'Andrew Chadwick (mailing lists)'; talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant > > > And later on, if the building > > gets > > used for something else, you could perhaps change it to: > > > >shop=candy > >name=Fred's Wine Gum Emporium > >former:amenity=pub > >former:name=The Blue Grape # or old_name > >former= # ugh, mabye not > > > > Well, it appeals to the stupid, plodding, pattern-seeking > part of my > > brain, kinda. > > But it probably is too limited. > > A couple of examples that spring to mind. A building in Wolverhampton > that was a cinema when my dad was young has since been things like a > bank and a pound shop at various stages and I think is now a pub. How > many former tags will you support? > > Similarly there was a shop in Oxford that was a cheese shop (Little > Cl
