Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Stephen Wing]

As Simon has mentioned, it is correctly mapped.  I don't travel that far
South down the M1 on a regular basis anymore (I used to use that section
daily), and certainly do remember that old slip road (having used it many
times when J1 was busy).  It's interesting it's still there and maintained,
although I'm not personally sure if they would ever bring it back into use
now.

Steve

On 04/04/2008, Steve Chilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Stephen - Presume you are reasonably local to area mentioned in your
> note.
>
> I have often wondered about an artefact at the lower end of the M1:
>
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.60727&lon=-0.24076&zoom=17&layers=B0FT
>
> Labelled as "former M1 junc2".
>
> I have driven down the A41 several times and can see no actual sign of it
> as I flash past, but Y! imagery shows it visible on ground.
>
> Google imagery shows it looking much more like a footpath.
>
> Do you (or anyone else) know what is actually on the ground, as I am sure
> that having it tagged as motorway is wrong?!
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> STEVE
>
> Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow
> Learning and Technical Support Unit Manager
> School of Health and Social Sciences
> Middlesex University
> phone/fax: 020 8411 5355
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.mdx.ac.uk/schools/hssc/staff/profiles/technical/chiltons.asp
>
> Chair of the Society of Cartographers: http://www.soc.org.uk/
>
> SoC conference 2008:
> http://www.abdn.ac.uk/cartographers08/
>   --
>
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Wing
> *Sent:* 01 April 2008 07:05
> *To:* talk@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass
>
>
>
> On 31/03/2008, *Jon Burgess* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have deployed Steve's changes and one example which has rendered
> already is the current alterations to M1 J8:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.75704&lon=-0.41518&zoom=16&layers=B0FT
>
>  In fact, even more of the new M1 J8 will appear with the weekly update
> this week, as I was able to map out the changes to the M1 J8 Southbound
> junction last week, and have recorded the start of the new parallel road on
> that side too (these parallel roads will run alongside the M1 on both sides
> all the way to J7.
>
> Steve
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Steve Chilton]

Amazing. Thanks for sharing that (and the photos).
My work is moving to just up the road (the Burroughs) in a couple of
months time and I shall certainly troll down and have a look at that at
some point.
I had obviously been looking sideways at the bridging point, whereas I
should have just looked sideways/backwards at the point it has blocked
reconnection at the southerly point. Will bike over and cycle down the
motorway like you did!
Cheers
STEVE

Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow
Learning and Technical Support Unit Manager
School of Health and Social Sciences
Middlesex University
phone/fax: 020 8411 5355
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/schools/hssc/staff/profiles/technical/chiltons.asp

Chair of the Society of Cartographers: http://www.soc.org.uk/

SoC conference 2008:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/cartographers08/

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Hewison
Sent: 04 April 2008 16:56
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

Steve Chilton wrote:
> Stephen - Presume you are reasonably local to area mentioned in your
note.
> 
> I have often wondered about an artefact at the lower end of the M1:
> 
>
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.60727&lon=-0.24076&zoom=17&layers=B
0FT 
>
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.60727&lon=-0.24076&zoom=17&layers=
B0FT>
> 
> Labelled as "former M1 junc2".
> 
> I have driven down the A41 several times and can see no actual sign of

> it as I flash past, but Y! imagery shows it visible on ground.
> 
> Google imagery shows it looking much more like a footpath.
> 
> Do you (or anyone else) know what is actually on the ground, as I am 
> sure that having it tagged as motorway is wrong?!

That would have been me, who mapped it, in person. I rode my bike along
it.. 
which is maybe illegal, but maybe not.

It's really there on the ground, and really is a slip-road, just that
either 
end has crash barriers to prevent people from using it.

The hedges either side are overgrown, but is apparently still being
maintained 
sufficiently to be put into place as an exit at short notice should the 
current real J2 southbound slip road be out of action for a prolonged
period.

There's even street lights. Microsoft's "Bird's Eye" view on
maps.live.com 
shoes a fairly accurate representation of what's on the ground.

I tagged it as highway=motorway_link; use_status=disused (which was the 
preferred method of tagging such things at the time), and made sure that

neither end are connected - because they are not really accessible from
the 
roads at either end.

-- 
Simon Hewison

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Simon Hewison]

Steve Chilton wrote:
> Stephen - Presume you are reasonably local to area mentioned in your note.
> 
> I have often wondered about an artefact at the lower end of the M1:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.60727&lon=-0.24076&zoom=17&layers=B0FT 
> 
> 
> Labelled as “former M1 junc2”.
> 
> I have driven down the A41 several times and can see no actual sign of 
> it as I flash past, but Y! imagery shows it visible on ground.
> 
> Google imagery shows it looking much more like a footpath.
> 
> Do you (or anyone else) know what is actually on the ground, as I am 
> sure that having it tagged as motorway is wrong?!

That would have been me, who mapped it, in person. I rode my bike along it.. 
which is maybe illegal, but maybe not.

It's really there on the ground, and really is a slip-road, just that either 
end has crash barriers to prevent people from using it.

The hedges either side are overgrown, but is apparently still being maintained 
sufficiently to be put into place as an exit at short notice should the 
current real J2 southbound slip road be out of action for a prolonged period.

There's even street lights. Microsoft's "Bird's Eye" view on maps.live.com 
shoes a fairly accurate representation of what's on the ground.

I tagged it as highway=motorway_link; use_status=disused (which was the 
preferred method of tagging such things at the time), and made sure that 
neither end are connected - because they are not really accessible from the 
roads at either end.

-- 
Simon Hewison

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Steve Chilton]

Stephen - Presume you are reasonably local to area mentioned in your
note.

I have often wondered about an artefact at the lower end of the M1:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.60727&lon=-0.24076&zoom=17&layers=B
0FT

Labelled as "former M1 junc2".

I have driven down the A41 several times and can see no actual sign of
it as I flash past, but Y! imagery shows it visible on ground.

Google imagery shows it looking much more like a footpath.

Do you (or anyone else) know what is actually on the ground, as I am
sure that having it tagged as motorway is wrong?!

 

Cheers

STEVE

Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow
Learning and Technical Support Unit Manager
School of Health and Social Sciences
Middlesex University
phone/fax: 020 8411 5355
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/schools/hssc/staff/profiles/technical/chiltons.asp

Chair of the Society of Cartographers: http://www.soc.org.uk/

SoC conference 2008:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/cartographers08/ 

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Wing
Sent: 01 April 2008 07:05
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

 

On 31/03/2008, Jon Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I have deployed Steve's changes and one example which has
rendered
already is the current alterations to M1 J8:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.75704&lon=-0.41518&zoom=16&layers=B
0FT

In fact, even more of the new M1 J8 will appear with the weekly update
this week, as I was able to map out the changes to the M1 J8 Southbound
junction last week, and have recorded the start of the new parallel road
on that side too (these parallel roads will run alongside the M1 on both
sides all the way to J7.

Steve 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Andy Allan]

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Robert (Jamie) Munro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  end_date=-MM-DD (estimated date if needed, leave off the day and or
>  the month if you like)
>
>  Hopefully renders will automatically take account of this at some point
>  in the future,

I'd doubt it. What's far more likely (and probably more useful) is for
the end-date to be one of the inputs to maplint (or other future
tools) to flag things for mappers to double-check at the appropriate
time.

There's going to be so, so many applications using OSM data in a few
months from now, and many will have naive implementations, at least to
start. end_date and start_date is about the 85th thing you'd implement
in a renderer, not the second (behind rendering highways). So it's
probably better to rely more on the community than the technology, as
we usually do.

> meaning we will no longer need the:
>  x=y => x=z,z=y
>  hack (where z is proposed or disused or whatever)

Again, it's only a hack to make the simple, most common use of OSM
data a little bit easier. We don't want to put off application
developers at the very first hurdle - and it's much easier to filter
by tags than by dates*

Cheers,
Andy

* I can tell, because nobody has actually coded the latter, only
talked about it.

>
>  Robert (Jamie) Munro
>  -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>  Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
>  Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>  iD8DBQFH85qqz+aYVHdncI0RAtSyAKCs2y/QUQMENTUf9O7Rd4kduBVjuACeL1fO
>  0DcrWoRdPB8rLDFC3AHbUYM=
>  =wG54
>  -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
>
>  ___
>  talk mailing list
>  talk@openstreetmap.org
>  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Robert (Jamie) Munro]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Stephen Wing wrote:
| On 01/04/2008, *Norbert Hoffmann* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| > wrote:
|
| >Ok, so how do I tag a section of highway that is going to be grubbed
| up and
| >returned to nature (which is happening for short sections of the
A14 at
| >Haughley Bends)?
| >
|  >highway="trunk"
|  >construction="disused"
| I think
|
| highway="disused"
| disused="trunk"
|
| would be more consistent to "construction" and "proposed".
|
|
| Although that may be more consistent *once* the road has been dug up,
| this particular road is still in use at the moment;  in that case what
| should (if any) additional tags be applied to the road?

end_date=-MM-DD (estimated date if needed, leave off the day and or
the month if you like)

Hopefully renders will automatically take account of this at some point
in the future, meaning we will no longer need the:
x=y => x=z,z=y
hack (where z is proposed or disused or whatever)

Robert (Jamie) Munro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH85qqz+aYVHdncI0RAtSyAKCs2y/QUQMENTUf9O7Rd4kduBVjuACeL1fO
0DcrWoRdPB8rLDFC3AHbUYM=
=wG54
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Michael Collinson]

At 09:01 AM 4/2/2008, Stephen Wing wrote:
On 01/04/2008, Norbert Hoffmann 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Ok, so how do I tag a section of highway that is going to be grubbed up and
>returned to nature (which is happening for short sections of the A14 at
>Haughley Bends)?
>
>highway="trunk"
>construction="disused"
I think

highway="disused"
disused="trunk"

would be more consistent to "construction" and "proposed".

Although that may be more consistent *once* the road has been dug 
up, this particular road is still in use at the moment;  in that 
case what should (if any) additional tags be applied to the road?


Steve


Just use the note= tag to make a note for yourself or future mappers 
or the description= tag for interesting pop-up info to be displayed 
in future versions of the slippy map??  It sounds as if the road is 
just a regular road at the moment.


Beyond doing that and digressing slightly, it sounds rather a case of 
historical mapping where we'd start tagging features with things like 
date_appears= date_disappears= and could then render out time-based 
maps accordingly.  ... but I think we have enough on our plate with 
mapping things as they are right now to handle that for a couple of 
years or so!


Mike

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Stephen Wing]

On 01/04/2008, Norbert Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Ok, so how do I tag a section of highway that is going to be grubbed up
> and
> >returned to nature (which is happening for short sections of the A14 at
> >Haughley Bends)?
> >
> >highway="trunk"
> >construction="disused"
> I think
>
> highway="disused"
> disused="trunk"
>
> would be more consistent to "construction" and "proposed".


Although that may be more consistent *once* the road has been dug up, this
particular road is still in use at the moment;  in that case what should (if
any) additional tags be applied to the road?

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Norbert Hoffmann]

Peter Miller wrote:

>
>Ok, so how do I tag a section of highway that is going to be grubbed up and
>returned to nature (which is happening for short sections of the A14 at
>Haughley Bends)?
>
>I am currently using the following coding:
>
>highway="trunk"
>construction="disused"
>
>
>Does that seem ok?
>
I think

highway="disused"
disused="trunk"

would be more consistent to "construction" and "proposed".

Norbert


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Peter Miller]

Ok, so how do I tag a section of highway that is going to be grubbed up and
returned to nature (which is happening for short sections of the A14 at
Haughley Bends)?

I am currently using the following coding:

highway="trunk"
construction="disused"


Does that seem ok?



Peter


> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Burgess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 31 March 2008 23:31
> To: Peter Miller
> Cc: 'Steve Chilton'; 'Dave Stubbs'; 'Talk Openstreetmap'
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed
> bypass
> 
> I have deployed Steve's changes and one example which has rendered
> already is the current alterations to M1 J8:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.75704&lon=-
> 0.41518&zoom=16&layers=B0FT
> 
> In the current Mapnik osm.xml file a road will render in the same dashed
> style if it has highway={proposed,construction} regardless of the
> proposed= or construction= tag. In both cases the name= tag will be used
> for the text.
> 
> This construction has recently moved the position of the entry/exit
> roads on the Eastern side of the junction. Someone corrected this data
> earlier this week and the updates are shown already on the Osmarender
> layer.
> 
>   Jon
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 21:48 +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
> > Excellent. Thanks Steve.
> >
> > So how should a proposed road be tagged? Should it be highway=proposed
> > Proposed=trunk Name=foo bypass?
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Steve Chilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: 31 March 2008 20:53
> > > To: Dave Stubbs; Peter Miller
> > > Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
> > > Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass
> > >
> > > In an attempt to avoid this kind of "false tagging for rendering" I
> have a
> > > submitted an addition to the mapnik style tonight.
> > > It will render highway=construction or highway=proposed from z12
> upwards.
> > > It will also render a text label (based on name=) for z13 upwards.
> > > Jamie's more sophisticated suggestions make sense but are not easily
> to
> > > render at the moment. Perhaps we can work towards that time-based
> approach
> > > later.
> > > For now it would make a lot of sense for people to revisit roads under
> > > construction they have tagged and follow this suggested scheme:
> > > highway=construction
> > > construction=foo (motorway, trunk, primary or whatever - if known)
> > > name=Foo bypass, due to open Dec 08 (or whatever)
> > >
> > > PS: I haven't looked at the file but hope this doesn't throw
> osmarender
> > > rules out, which I know picks something up to render construction
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > STEVE
> > >
> > >   -Original Message-
> > >   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dave Stubbs
> > >   Sent: Mon 3/31/2008 6:03 PM
> > >   To: Peter Miller
> > >   Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
> > >   Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed
> > > bypass
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Peter Miller
> > >   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >   >
> > >   >  Thanks for that Robert. A few other questions:
> > >   >
> > >   >  1) How does one tag something that is being considered seriously
> > > (such as
> > >   >  the Mottram Tintwistle bypass), but which may well never get
> > > built? I think
> > >   >  I will just put the estimated build date given by the highways
> > > agency for
> > >   >  now. (I will also continue to use the tunnel trick to get it to
> > > render in
> > >   >  the mean time).
> > >
> > >
> > >   By "tunnel trick" I presume that you mean tag it as a tunnel so that
> > >   it turns up dotted, despite not being a tunnel, nor ever will be a
> > >   tunnel?
> > >
> > >   That's not a trick, that's a dirty, dirty hack and should be stomped
> > > on hard.
> > >
> > >   If you want proposed roads to show up dotted then fix the renderer,
> > >   don't engage in phantom tagging.
> > >
> > >   ___
> > >   talk mailing list
> > >   talk@openstreetmap.org
> > >   http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
> > >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Stephen Wing]

On 31/03/2008, Jon Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have deployed Steve's changes and one example which has rendered
> already is the current alterations to M1 J8:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.75704&lon=-0.41518&zoom=16&layers=B0FT
>
> In fact, even more of the new M1 J8 will appear with the weekly update
this week, as I was able to map out the changes to the M1 J8 Southbound
junction last week, and have recorded the start of the new parallel road on
that side too (these parallel roads will run alongside the M1 on both sides
all the way to J7.

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Jon Burgess]

I have deployed Steve's changes and one example which has rendered
already is the current alterations to M1 J8:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.75704&lon=-0.41518&zoom=16&layers=B0FT

In the current Mapnik osm.xml file a road will render in the same dashed
style if it has highway={proposed,construction} regardless of the
proposed= or construction= tag. In both cases the name= tag will be used
for the text.

This construction has recently moved the position of the entry/exit
roads on the Eastern side of the junction. Someone corrected this data
earlier this week and the updates are shown already on the Osmarender
layer.

Jon


On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 21:48 +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
> Excellent. Thanks Steve.
> 
> So how should a proposed road be tagged? Should it be highway=proposed
> Proposed=trunk Name=foo bypass?
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Steve Chilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 31 March 2008 20:53
> > To: Dave Stubbs; Peter Miller
> > Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
> > Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass
> > 
> > In an attempt to avoid this kind of "false tagging for rendering" I have a
> > submitted an addition to the mapnik style tonight.
> > It will render highway=construction or highway=proposed from z12 upwards.
> > It will also render a text label (based on name=) for z13 upwards.
> > Jamie's more sophisticated suggestions make sense but are not easily to
> > render at the moment. Perhaps we can work towards that time-based approach
> > later.
> > For now it would make a lot of sense for people to revisit roads under
> > construction they have tagged and follow this suggested scheme:
> > highway=construction
> > construction=foo (motorway, trunk, primary or whatever - if known)
> > name=Foo bypass, due to open Dec 08 (or whatever)
> > 
> > PS: I haven't looked at the file but hope this doesn't throw osmarender
> > rules out, which I know picks something up to render construction
> > 
> > Cheers
> > STEVE
> > 
> >     -Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dave Stubbs
> > Sent: Mon 3/31/2008 6:03 PM
> > To: Peter Miller
> > Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed
> > bypass
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Peter Miller
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Thanks for that Robert. A few other questions:
> > >
> > >  1) How does one tag something that is being considered seriously
> > (such as
> > >  the Mottram Tintwistle bypass), but which may well never get
> > built? I think
> > >  I will just put the estimated build date given by the highways
> > agency for
> > >  now. (I will also continue to use the tunnel trick to get it to
> > render in
> > >  the mean time).
> > 
> > 
> > By "tunnel trick" I presume that you mean tag it as a tunnel so that
> > it turns up dotted, despite not being a tunnel, nor ever will be a
> > tunnel?
> > 
> > That's not a trick, that's a dirty, dirty hack and should be stomped
> > on hard.
> > 
> > If you want proposed roads to show up dotted then fix the renderer,
> > don't engage in phantom tagging.
> > 
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
> > 
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Steve Chilton]

If you will excuse the pun - yes, that is what I am proposing.
 
STEVE

-Original Message- 
From: Peter Miller on behalf of Peter Miller 
Sent: Mon 3/31/2008 9:48 PM 
To: Steve Chilton; 'Dave Stubbs' 
Cc: 'Talk Openstreetmap' 
        Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass




Excellent. Thanks Steve.

So how should a proposed road be tagged? Should it be highway=proposed
Proposed=trunk Name=foo bypass?


Peter

> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Chilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 31 March 2008 20:53
> To: Dave Stubbs; Peter Miller
> Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
    > Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass
>
> In an attempt to avoid this kind of "false tagging for rendering" I 
have a
> submitted an addition to the mapnik style tonight.
> It will render highway=construction or highway=proposed from z12 
upwards.
> It will also render a text label (based on name=) for z13 upwards.
> Jamie's more sophisticated suggestions make sense but are not easily 
to
> render at the moment. Perhaps we can work towards that time-based 
approach
> later.
> For now it would make a lot of sense for people to revisit roads under
> construction they have tagged and follow this suggested scheme:
> highway=construction
> construction=foo (motorway, trunk, primary or whatever - if known)
> name=Foo bypass, due to open Dec 08 (or whatever)
>
> PS: I haven't looked at the file but hope this doesn't throw 
osmarender
> rules out, which I know picks something up to render construction
>
> Cheers
> STEVE
>
>   -Original Message-
>   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dave Stubbs
>   Sent: Mon 3/31/2008 6:03 PM
>   To: Peter Miller
>   Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
>   Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed
> bypass
>
>
>
>   On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Peter Miller
>   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   >
>   >  Thanks for that Robert. A few other questions:
>   >
>   >  1) How does one tag something that is being considered 
seriously
> (such as
>   >  the Mottram Tintwistle bypass), but which may well never get
> built? I think
>   >  I will just put the estimated build date given by the 
highways
> agency for
>   >  now. (I will also continue to use the tunnel trick to get it 
to
> render in
>   >  the mean time).
>
>
>   By "tunnel trick" I presume that you mean tag it as a tunnel so 
that
>   it turns up dotted, despite not being a tunnel, nor ever will 
be a
>   tunnel?
>
>   That's not a trick, that's a dirty, dirty hack and should be 
stomped
> on hard.
>
>   If you want proposed roads to show up dotted then fix the 
renderer,
>   don't engage in phantom tagging.
>
>   ___
>   talk mailing list
>   talk@openstreetmap.org
>   http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Peter Miller]

Excellent. Thanks Steve.

So how should a proposed road be tagged? Should it be highway=proposed
Proposed=trunk Name=foo bypass?


Peter

> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Chilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 31 March 2008 20:53
> To: Dave Stubbs; Peter Miller
> Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
> Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass
> 
> In an attempt to avoid this kind of "false tagging for rendering" I have a
> submitted an addition to the mapnik style tonight.
> It will render highway=construction or highway=proposed from z12 upwards.
> It will also render a text label (based on name=) for z13 upwards.
> Jamie's more sophisticated suggestions make sense but are not easily to
> render at the moment. Perhaps we can work towards that time-based approach
> later.
> For now it would make a lot of sense for people to revisit roads under
> construction they have tagged and follow this suggested scheme:
> highway=construction
> construction=foo (motorway, trunk, primary or whatever - if known)
> name=Foo bypass, due to open Dec 08 (or whatever)
> 
> PS: I haven't looked at the file but hope this doesn't throw osmarender
> rules out, which I know picks something up to render construction
> 
> Cheers
> STEVE
> 
>   -Original Message-
>   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dave Stubbs
>       Sent: Mon 3/31/2008 6:03 PM
>   To: Peter Miller
>   Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
>   Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed
> bypass
> 
> 
> 
>   On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Peter Miller
>   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   >
>   >  Thanks for that Robert. A few other questions:
>   >
>   >  1) How does one tag something that is being considered seriously
> (such as
>   >  the Mottram Tintwistle bypass), but which may well never get
> built? I think
>   >  I will just put the estimated build date given by the highways
> agency for
>   >  now. (I will also continue to use the tunnel trick to get it to
> render in
>   >  the mean time).
> 
> 
>   By "tunnel trick" I presume that you mean tag it as a tunnel so that
>   it turns up dotted, despite not being a tunnel, nor ever will be a
>   tunnel?
> 
>   That's not a trick, that's a dirty, dirty hack and should be stomped
> on hard.
> 
>   If you want proposed roads to show up dotted then fix the renderer,
>   don't engage in phantom tagging.
> 
>   ___
>   talk mailing list
>   talk@openstreetmap.org
>   http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
> 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Steve Chilton]

In an attempt to avoid this kind of "false tagging for rendering" I have a 
submitted an addition to the mapnik style tonight.
It will render highway=construction or highway=proposed from z12 upwards.
It will also render a text label (based on name=) for z13 upwards.
Jamie's more sophisticated suggestions make sense but are not easily to render 
at the moment. Perhaps we can work towards that time-based approach later.
For now it would make a lot of sense for people to revisit roads under 
construction they have tagged and follow this suggested scheme:
highway=construction
construction=foo (motorway, trunk, primary or whatever - if known)
name=Foo bypass, due to open Dec 08 (or whatever)
 
PS: I haven't looked at the file but hope this doesn't throw osmarender rules 
out, which I know picks something up to render construction
 
Cheers
STEVE

-Original Message- 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dave Stubbs 
Sent: Mon 3/31/2008 6:03 PM 
To: Peter Miller 
Cc: Talk Openstreetmap 
    Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass



On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Peter Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Thanks for that Robert. A few other questions:
>
>  1) How does one tag something that is being considered seriously 
(such as
>  the Mottram Tintwistle bypass), but which may well never get built? 
I think
>  I will just put the estimated build date given by the highways 
agency for
>  now. (I will also continue to use the tunnel trick to get it to 
render in
>  the mean time).


By "tunnel trick" I presume that you mean tag it as a tunnel so that
it turns up dotted, despite not being a tunnel, nor ever will be a
tunnel?

That's not a trick, that's a dirty, dirty hack and should be stomped on 
hard.

If you want proposed roads to show up dotted then fix the renderer,
don't engage in phantom tagging.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Peter Miller]

The 'dirty hack' was recommended on this list so I am only following orders
;)

I am not personally qualified to go tinkering with Mapnik and osmarender and
don't intend to practice now but

I would be happy to put a small bounty forward for the work to be done. My
company would be happy to give £150 but would need a receipt. If I get more
than one offer I will either choose based on experience or take a name out
of a hat.

A spec would need to be produced and agreed by the community prior to
implementation. I guess the renderer should show as proposed anything with a
proposed= tag and a start-date= tag where the date is in the future. If the
start date is in the past then it should be shown as existing. The tagging
method would also need to be properly documents on the wiki.

What I do ask is that the feature is left in the dataset for the time being.
I intend to take a cut of it on Thursday (assuming it renders properly on
mapnik) and put it into the wikipedia article for the road.


Regards,



Peter

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave
> Stubbs
> Sent: 31 March 2008 18:04
> To: Peter Miller
> Cc: Robert (Jamie) Munro; Talk Openstreetmap
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass
> 
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Peter Miller
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  Thanks for that Robert. A few other questions:
> >
> >  1) How does one tag something that is being considered seriously (such
> as
> >  the Mottram Tintwistle bypass), but which may well never get built? I
> think
> >  I will just put the estimated build date given by the highways agency
> for
> >  now. (I will also continue to use the tunnel trick to get it to render
> in
> >  the mean time).
> 
> 
> By "tunnel trick" I presume that you mean tag it as a tunnel so that
> it turns up dotted, despite not being a tunnel, nor ever will be a
> tunnel?
> 
> That's not a trick, that's a dirty, dirty hack and should be stomped on
> hard.
> 
> If you want proposed roads to show up dotted then fix the renderer,
> don't engage in phantom tagging.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Dave Stubbs]

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Peter Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Thanks for that Robert. A few other questions:
>
>  1) How does one tag something that is being considered seriously (such as
>  the Mottram Tintwistle bypass), but which may well never get built? I think
>  I will just put the estimated build date given by the highways agency for
>  now. (I will also continue to use the tunnel trick to get it to render in
>  the mean time).


By "tunnel trick" I presume that you mean tag it as a tunnel so that
it turns up dotted, despite not being a tunnel, nor ever will be a
tunnel?

That's not a trick, that's a dirty, dirty hack and should be stomped on hard.

If you want proposed roads to show up dotted then fix the renderer,
don't engage in phantom tagging.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Andy Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  On the basis that we only put data into the project relating to
>  physical objects I dont think we should put any items in that "might"
>  get built.

In general I agree, but for some things like highways I think you can
make an exception. There's a freeway in the area that's been in the
planning for 20 years. The land is cleared, on a satellite image you
can see exactly where it will be. In that case I think putting it in
as "proposed" is not unreasonable.

Basically, if you can see the effects already, it's mappable. This may
be prior to the start of construction.

Have a nice day,
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Robert Vollmert]

On Mar 29, 2008, at 09:39, Andy Robinson wrote:
> On 28/03/2008, Peter Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 1) How does one tag something that is being considered seriously  
>> (such as
>> the Mottram Tintwistle bypass), but which may well never get built?  
>> I think
>> I will just put the estimated build date given by the highways  
>> agency for
>> now. (I will also continue to use the tunnel trick to get it to  
>> render in
>> the mean time).

> On the basis that we only put data into the project relating to
> physical objects I dont think we should put any items in that "might"
> get built.

This should really go into a separate layer...

If consensus is that this data should not go in the database, I'd  
suggest creating it in JOSM and saving to a .osm file. Then if you  
want to create a map that shows the proposed highway, you could  
include this file in the input to the renderer.

Personally, I don't see any harm in adding the data to the OSM  
database for now -- it certainly shouldn't get rendered on the main  
maps, but that can be achieved by appropriate tagging.

Cheers
Robert


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Norbert Hoffmann]

Andy Robinson wrote:

>  Something
>like highway=trunk and proposed=true would be good enough for me.

If you make that highway=proposed and proposed=trunk only those, that want
to render proposed streets, have to change their rulefiles.

Norbert


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Andy Robinson]

On 28/03/2008, Peter Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Thanks for that Robert. A few other questions:
>
>  1) How does one tag something that is being considered seriously (such as
>  the Mottram Tintwistle bypass), but which may well never get built? I think
>  I will just put the estimated build date given by the highways agency for
>  now. (I will also continue to use the tunnel trick to get it to render in
>  the mean time).

On the basis that we only put data into the project relating to
physical objects I dont think we should put any items in that "might"
get built. Once construction starts then you tag the object with
something appropriate to indicate its a feature under construction.
However I appreciate that once planning consent is approved we should
have the object represented if we know where it is to go. Something
like highway=trunk and proposed=true would be good enough for me.

>
>  2) I have a more difficult job with the new Haughley Bends upgrade on the
>  A14. A new section of A14 is being opened in the summer 08 and then the old
>  carriageways will be closed for 6 months and will then re-emerge as a
>  tertiary road (the west carriageway) and a bridleway (the east carriageway)
>  for most of the old section in Dec08, although a couple of short bits will
>  be grubbed up entirely and some new linking bits will be created. Is there
>  any way of coding such a thing? I feel it may be better to create a
>  relationship around all of the old stuff and say that it is going to go on
>  the switchover date, and then separately model the new network for the
>  replacement. Currently one has to add dates to every single little section
>  of road and as the opening date slips one should really change all the dates
>  which would be bonkers. In reality when a scheme opens in parts one might
>  have a series of versions of the model to be used in turn.
>
>  I realise that I am pushing the model beyond its initial intentions but we
>  are going to need to have robust ways of dealing with change.
>
>
>
>  Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Peter
>
>
>
>
>  > -Original Message-
>  > From: Robert (Jamie) Munro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  > Sent: 28 March 2008 12:29
>  > To: Peter Miller; Talk Openstreetmap
>  > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass
>  >
>  > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>  > Hash: SHA1
>  >
>  > Peter Miller wrote:
>  > |
>  > | This job does raise an important question about how to map and model
>  > | proposed roads. We have used the tags 'highway=trunk' and 'tunnel=yes'
>  > | and name='Mottram . bypass (proposed)', 'proposed=trunk' and added a
>  > | note. It would be better not to have to use the tunnel tag to get it to
>  > | render properly (especially as part of the road is indeed in a proposed
>  > | tunnel which we can't represent!). Btw, the Glossop Spur didn't render
>  > | properly this week under mapnik and I think (hope) it was because I used
>  > | 'tunnel=true' not 'tunnel=yes'. I have changed the tags for the Glossop
>  > | Spur so that they are now identical to that for the main bypass and
>  > | should render properly next week.
>  >
>  > The correct tagging is to put a start_date that is somewhere in the
>  > future (i.e. the estimated date of completion of the project). I don't
>  > think renderers support this yet - they just render it as a normal road.
>  > They should render it as under construction (or not at all) if the date
>  > is in the future, and normally otherwise. Similarly for end_date. Dates
>  > should be in -MM-DD format as this is the most easily machine
>  > readable. I think renderers should allow partial dates - so if you know
>  > something will open in 2010, but not what month, you can just put
>  > start_date=2010, or if you know it's February start_date=2010-02.
>  >
>  > I also think renderers should ignore things after a space, so you can
>  > put "start_date=2010-01-01 approximately" or "start_date=2010 proposed"
>  > or other unforeseen uses.
>  >
>  > Robert (Jamie) Munro
>  > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>  > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
>  > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>  >
>  > iD8DBQFH7OSOz+aYVHdncI0RAuWKAKD8Zfojnl07nhH78z72H4bs4pgRGQCfZLnl
>  > s1g5bSrPwSpHRz899DtZc20=
>  > =kaiQ
>  > -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
>  ___
>  talk mailing list
>  talk@openstreetmap.org
>  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>


-- 
Andy Robinson

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Peter Miller]

Thanks for that Robert. A few other questions:

1) How does one tag something that is being considered seriously (such as
the Mottram Tintwistle bypass), but which may well never get built? I think
I will just put the estimated build date given by the highways agency for
now. (I will also continue to use the tunnel trick to get it to render in
the mean time).

2) I have a more difficult job with the new Haughley Bends upgrade on the
A14. A new section of A14 is being opened in the summer 08 and then the old
carriageways will be closed for 6 months and will then re-emerge as a
tertiary road (the west carriageway) and a bridleway (the east carriageway)
for most of the old section in Dec08, although a couple of short bits will
be grubbed up entirely and some new linking bits will be created. Is there
any way of coding such a thing? I feel it may be better to create a
relationship around all of the old stuff and say that it is going to go on
the switchover date, and then separately model the new network for the
replacement. Currently one has to add dates to every single little section
of road and as the opening date slips one should really change all the dates
which would be bonkers. In reality when a scheme opens in parts one might
have a series of versions of the model to be used in turn.

I realise that I am pushing the model beyond its initial intentions but we
are going to need to have robust ways of dealing with change.



Regards,





Peter



> -Original Message-
> From: Robert (Jamie) Munro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 28 March 2008 12:29
> To: Peter Miller; Talk Openstreetmap
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Peter Miller wrote:
> |
> | This job does raise an important question about how to map and model
> | proposed roads. We have used the tags 'highway=trunk' and 'tunnel=yes'
> | and name='Mottram . bypass (proposed)', 'proposed=trunk' and added a
> | note. It would be better not to have to use the tunnel tag to get it to
> | render properly (especially as part of the road is indeed in a proposed
> | tunnel which we can't represent!). Btw, the Glossop Spur didn't render
> | properly this week under mapnik and I think (hope) it was because I used
> | 'tunnel=true' not 'tunnel=yes'. I have changed the tags for the Glossop
> | Spur so that they are now identical to that for the main bypass and
> | should render properly next week.
> 
> The correct tagging is to put a start_date that is somewhere in the
> future (i.e. the estimated date of completion of the project). I don't
> think renderers support this yet - they just render it as a normal road.
> They should render it as under construction (or not at all) if the date
> is in the future, and normally otherwise. Similarly for end_date. Dates
> should be in -MM-DD format as this is the most easily machine
> readable. I think renderers should allow partial dates - so if you know
> something will open in 2010, but not what month, you can just put
> start_date=2010, or if you know it's February start_date=2010-02.
> 
> I also think renderers should ignore things after a space, so you can
> put "start_date=2010-01-01 approximately" or "start_date=2010 proposed"
> or other unforeseen uses.
> 
> Robert (Jamie) Munro
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFH7OSOz+aYVHdncI0RAuWKAKD8Zfojnl07nhH78z72H4bs4pgRGQCfZLnl
> s1g5bSrPwSpHRz899DtZc20=
> =kaiQ
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Robert (Jamie) Munro]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Peter Miller wrote:
|
| This job does raise an important question about how to map and model
| proposed roads. We have used the tags ‘highway=trunk’ and ‘tunnel=yes’
| and name=’Mottram … bypass (proposed)’, ‘proposed=trunk’ and added a
| note. It would be better not to have to use the tunnel tag to get it to
| render properly (especially as part of the road is indeed in a proposed
| tunnel which we can’t represent!). Btw, the Glossop Spur didn’t render
| properly this week under mapnik and I think (hope) it was because I used
| ‘tunnel=true’ not ‘tunnel=yes’. I have changed the tags for the Glossop
| Spur so that they are now identical to that for the main bypass and
| should render properly next week.

The correct tagging is to put a start_date that is somewhere in the
future (i.e. the estimated date of completion of the project). I don't
think renderers support this yet - they just render it as a normal road.
They should render it as under construction (or not at all) if the date
is in the future, and normally otherwise. Similarly for end_date. Dates
should be in -MM-DD format as this is the most easily machine
readable. I think renderers should allow partial dates - so if you know
something will open in 2010, but not what month, you can just put
start_date=2010, or if you know it's February start_date=2010-02.

I also think renderers should ignore things after a space, so you can
put "start_date=2010-01-01 approximately" or "start_date=2010 proposed"
or other unforeseen uses.

Robert (Jamie) Munro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH7OSOz+aYVHdncI0RAuWKAKD8Zfojnl07nhH78z72H4bs4pgRGQCfZLnl
s1g5bSrPwSpHRz899DtZc20=
=kaiQ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk