[OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[wiseLYNX]

Hi everybody,

my quest to map Torino continues, and yesterday I was gratified by
seeing the first update of the rendered map containing my work.

I have a question though. Torino is full of wonderful wide avenues, with
a central two way lane, and two one way lane on the sides. something
like this little ascii art:

<-- <-- <-- <-- <--
Tree Tree Tree Tree
<- <- <
> -> ->
Tree Tree Tree Tree
--> --> --> --> -->

To make things more complicated, central lanes are often double lanes,
there are often tramway rails, or buses reserved lanes; sometimes
cycleway tracks.

Any suggestion about how to render all this? Even an example of an
already done similar object could be useful.

thanks in advance,

Enrico

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[David Earl]

On 08/02/2008 16:43, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> <-- <-- <-- <-- <--   highway = service
> Tree Tree Tree Tree   amenity = park

err... leisure=park


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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[wiseLYNX]

bvh wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 04:52:55PM +, David Earl wrote:
>> On 08/02/2008 16:43, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
>>> <-- <-- <-- <-- <--   highway = service
>>> Tree Tree Tree Tree   amenity = park
>> err... leisure=park
> 
> err... is a line of trees a park?

it ususally is just a line of trees. this piture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Corso_Vittorio_Emanuele_II_Torino.JPG/400px-Corso_Vittorio_Emanuele_II_Torino.JPG

should give the idea.

Enrico



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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[David Earl]

On 08/02/2008 16:12, bvh wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 04:52:55PM +, David Earl wrote:
>> On 08/02/2008 16:43, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
>>> <-- <-- <-- <-- <--   highway = service
>>> Tree Tree Tree Tree   amenity = park
>> err... leisure=park
> 
> err... is a line of trees a park?

A bigger question.

I see someone has already proposed landuse=tree_row
   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/tree_row

I wanted a tag for miscellaneous bits of open grass with trees and shrubs
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Misc._urban_open_space

but the most common comment on the mailing list was "I don't understand 
what the difference is between this and a park" (though no one has put 
that in the wiki page). So I gave up, even though I think they are very 
different. I've tagged my bits of open space as parks even though they 
aren't.

Maybe I should resurrect this.

David

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

El Viernes, 8 de Febrero de 2008, wiseLYNX escribió:
> bvh wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 04:52:55PM +, David Earl wrote:
> >> On 08/02/2008 16:43, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> >>> <-- <-- <-- <-- <--   highway = service
> >>> Tree Tree Tree Tree   amenity = park
> >>
> >> err... leisure=park
> >
> > err... is a line of trees a park?
>
> it ususally is just a line of trees.

I'm used to see wider green areas as part of big avenues (between the main 
road and the aux. road). See:

http://flickr.com/photos/photomedicamadrid/2171643452/
http://flickr.com/photos/photomedicamadrid/2094446669/
http://flickr.com/photos/zaqarbal/472383597/
http://flickr.com/photos/batiburrillo/140499288/
http://flickr.com/photos/vribeiro/256148375/


All those should use a leisure=park area, IMHO (and it will, as soon as I have 
some time to do so).

If it's *just* a tree line, with no noticeable green area... I guess that the 
proposed "landuse=tree_row" would apply better.


Cheers,
-- 
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Next Friday will not be your lucky day.  As a matter of fact, you don't
have a lucky day this year.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

El Viernes, 8 de Febrero de 2008, wiseLYNX escribió:
> <-- <-- <-- <-- <--
> Tree Tree Tree Tree
> <- <- <
> > -> ->
> Tree Tree Tree Tree
> --> --> --> --> -->

> Any suggestion about how to render all this? Even an example of an
> already done similar object could be useful.

Make one way per type of way in the avenue. E.g.:


<-- <-- <-- <-- <--   highway = service
Tree Tree Tree Tree   amenity = park
<- <- <   highway = primary
<- <- <   highway = cycleway
<- <- <   railway = tramway
> -> ->   railway = tramway
> -> ->   highway = cycleway
> -> ->   highway = primary
Tree Tree Tree Tree   amenity = park
--> --> --> --> -->   highway = service

*If* the central way does *not* have a division between the lanes, then join 
the two ways, and specify "oneway=false".

Just a suggestion, though.

-- 
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

La esperanza es el sueño de un hombre despierto.- Aristóteles.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

El Viernes, 8 de Febrero de 2008, wiseLYNX escribió:
> can someone have a look at "Corso Massimo d'Azeglio"?

Coordinates?

-- 
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

MSN:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[bvh]

On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 04:52:55PM +, David Earl wrote:
> On 08/02/2008 16:43, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> > <-- <-- <-- <-- <--   highway = service
> > Tree Tree Tree Tree   amenity = park
> err... leisure=park

err... is a line of trees a park?

cu bart

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[wiseLYNX]

Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> El Viernes, 8 de Febrero de 2008, wiseLYNX escribió:
>> <-- <-- <-- <-- <--
>> Tree Tree Tree Tree
>> <- <- <
>> > -> ->
>> Tree Tree Tree Tree
>> --> --> --> --> -->
> 
>> Any suggestion about how to render all this? Even an example of an
>> already done similar object could be useful.
> 
> Make one way per type of way in the avenue. E.g.:
> 
> 
> <-- <-- <-- <-- <--   highway = service
> Tree Tree Tree Tree   amenity = park
> <- <- <   highway = primary
> <- <- <   highway = cycleway
> <- <- <   railway = tramway
> > -> ->   railway = tramway
> > -> ->   highway = cycleway
> > -> ->   highway = primary
> Tree Tree Tree Tree   amenity = park
> --> --> --> --> -->   highway = service
> 
> *If* the central way does *not* have a division between the lanes, then join 
> the two ways, and specify "oneway=false".
> 
> Just a suggestion, though.
> 

(I'm not if this can be done, as it's not rendered and I don't know if
Potlatch will let others see what I just changed) can someone have a
look at "Corso Massimo d'Azeglio" (I checked, OSM gives only the right
occurrence) is right following your suggestions? It is an avenue with
separated double one-way lanes, with a tree line in the middle, which
crosses several two-way streets. In ascii art:

BUILDING BUILDING
<-- <-- <-- <-- <
<--- <--- <--- <-
tree tree tree tr
---> ---> ---> --
--> --> --> --> -
park park park pa

thanks,

Enrico

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Robin Paulson]

On 09/02/2008, Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Viernes, 8 de Febrero de 2008, wiseLYNX escribió:
> > <-- <-- <-- <-- <--
> > Tree Tree Tree Tree
> > <- <- <
> > > -> ->
> > Tree Tree Tree Tree
> > --> --> --> --> -->
>
> > Any suggestion about how to render all this? Even an example of an
> > already done similar object could be useful.

there are loads of these in melbourne, australia. here's an example
near st kilda

http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.841299&lon=144.977815&zoom=18&layers=B0FT

with a tramway down the middle

> Make one way per type of way in the avenue. E.g.:
>
>
> <-- <-- <-- <-- <--   highway = service

a service road is different and not for busy, it's really for alley
ways or small lanes between/behind shops. very inappropriate here

just draw a single, oneway st, tagged with the same name and ref as
the main part

> Tree Tree Tree Tree   amenity = park

a park has a specific meaning, decided by the local (or regional)
council. it implies lots of bylaws, etc. this is not a park unless
it's explicitly marked as such. it's just a verge

i think landuse = row_of_trees or whatever was suggested, is a hideous
abuse of the landuse tag. landuse isn't there as a dumping ground for
things that taggers can't be bothered to categorise properly

there is a tag proposal called natural=life, which may be the way to
go with this, but it's not finalised yet

> <- <- <   highway = primary
> <- <- <   highway = cycleway
> <- <- <   railway = tramway
> > -> ->   railway = tramway
> > -> ->   highway = cycleway
> > -> ->   highway = primary
> Tree Tree Tree Tree   amenity = park
> --> --> --> --> -->   highway = service
>
> *If* the central way does *not* have a division between the lanes, then join
> the two ways, and specify "oneway=false".

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[bvh]

On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 06:24:12PM +0100, wiseLYNX wrote:
> >>> <-- <-- <-- <-- <--   highway = service
> >>> Tree Tree Tree Tree   amenity = park
> >> err... leisure=park
> > err... is a line of trees a park?
> it ususally is just a line of trees. this piture:
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Corso_Vittorio_Emanuele_II_Torino.JPG/400px-Corso_Vittorio_Emanuele_II_Torino.JPG
> 
> should give the idea.

And the idea that it gives me is that it is no park...

cu bart

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[bvh]

On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 01:30:07PM +1300, Robin Paulson wrote:
> i think landuse = row_of_trees or whatever was suggested, is a hideous
> abuse of the landuse tag. landuse isn't there as a dumping ground for
> things that taggers can't be bothered to categorise properly

I agree.

> there is a tag proposal called natural=life, which may be the way to
> go with this, but it's not finalised yet

Since trees lining a way/street are such a common occurence, why
not have a simple additional tag to the main road.

lined_by_trees=yes/no/left/right

Or do you really want to propose to add three seperate ways for
something like this

http://www.cubra.nl/bomen/boomvandeweek/elsendorptammekastanje/oprijlaan.jpg

cu bart

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[bvh]

On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 08:32:01AM -0800, Karl Newman wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 01:30:07PM +1300, Robin Paulson wrote:
> > > i think landuse = row_of_trees or whatever was suggested, is a hideous
> > > abuse of the landuse tag. landuse isn't there as a dumping ground for
> > > things that taggers can't be bothered to categorise properly
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > > there is a tag proposal called natural=life, which may be the way to
> > > go with this, but it's not finalised yet
> >
> > Since trees lining a way/street are such a common occurence, why
> > not have a simple additional tag to the main road.
> >
> > lined_by_trees=yes/no/left/right
> >
> > Or do you really want to propose to add three seperate ways for
> > something like this
> > http://www.cubra.nl/bomen/boomvandeweek/elsendorptammekastanje/oprijlaan.jpg
> Really, it's just a divider. Does it matter that there's trees on it? If it
> were made of concrete, it would just be ignored (except inasmuch as it
> causes the street(s) to be divided into parallel ways). I doubt anybody
> would propose that we create a separate way for it. Or is someone planning
> to make a super-nifty 3D map view with trees along the road? (That would be
> cool...)

Read the thread again. Yes people are proposing to tag that line of
tree as a seperate way with landuse=row_of_trees. And yes I agree
with you that is ridiculous. Hence the rethorical nature of my question.

cu bart

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Karl Newman]

On Feb 9, 2008 12:55 AM, bvh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 01:30:07PM +1300, Robin Paulson wrote:
> > i think landuse = row_of_trees or whatever was suggested, is a hideous
> > abuse of the landuse tag. landuse isn't there as a dumping ground for
> > things that taggers can't be bothered to categorise properly
>
> I agree.
>
> > there is a tag proposal called natural=life, which may be the way to
> > go with this, but it's not finalised yet
>
> Since trees lining a way/street are such a common occurence, why
> not have a simple additional tag to the main road.
>
> lined_by_trees=yes/no/left/right
>
> Or do you really want to propose to add three seperate ways for
> something like this
>
>
> http://www.cubra.nl/bomen/boomvandeweek/elsendorptammekastanje/oprijlaan.jpg
>
> cu bart
>

Really, it's just a divider. Does it matter that there's trees on it? If it
were made of concrete, it would just be ignored (except inasmuch as it
causes the street(s) to be divided into parallel ways). I doubt anybody
would propose that we create a separate way for it. Or is someone planning
to make a super-nifty 3D map view with trees along the road? (That would be
cool...)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[wiseLYNX]

Karl Newman wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2008 12:55 AM, bvh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 01:30:07PM +1300, Robin Paulson wrote:
> > i think landuse = row_of_trees or whatever was suggested, is a hideous
> > abuse of the landuse tag. landuse isn't there as a dumping ground for
> > things that taggers can't be bothered to categorise properly
> 
> I agree.
> 
> > there is a tag proposal called natural=life, which may be the way to
> > go with this, but it's not finalised yet
> 
> Since trees lining a way/street are such a common occurence, why
> not have a simple additional tag to the main road.
> 
> lined_by_trees=yes/no/left/right
> 
> Or do you really want to propose to add three seperate ways for
> something like this
> 
> 
> http://www.cubra.nl/bomen/boomvandeweek/elsendorptammekastanje/oprijlaan.jpg
> 
> cu bart
> 
> 
> Really, it's just a divider. Does it matter that there's trees on it? If
> it were made of concrete, it would just be ignored (except inasmuch as
> it causes the street(s) to be divided into parallel ways). I doubt
> anybody would propose that we create a separate way for it. Or is
> someone planning to make a super-nifty 3D map view with trees along the
> road? (That would be cool...)

well, I' quite new to this kind of things, but in my opinion a line of
trees is quite a more important landmark than a concrete shoulder.. If I
was to give direction, I would for sure say "take the avenue with the
trees", while of course I wouldn't in the other case. There is even an
italian expression, "viale alberato" which specifically describes an
avenue with tree lines..

and, I agree, a 3d map view with rendered trees would be very cool ^_^

Enrico

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Karl Newman]

On Feb 9, 2008 7:45 AM, bvh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 08:32:01AM -0800, Karl Newman wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 01:30:07PM +1300, Robin Paulson wrote:
> > > > i think landuse = row_of_trees or whatever was suggested, is a
> hideous
> > > > abuse of the landuse tag. landuse isn't there as a dumping ground
> for
> > > > things that taggers can't be bothered to categorise properly
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > >
> > > > there is a tag proposal called natural=life, which may be the way to
> > > > go with this, but it's not finalised yet
> > >
> > > Since trees lining a way/street are such a common occurence, why
> > > not have a simple additional tag to the main road.
> > >
> > > lined_by_trees=yes/no/left/right
> > >
> > > Or do you really want to propose to add three seperate ways for
> > > something like this
> > >
> http://www.cubra.nl/bomen/boomvandeweek/elsendorptammekastanje/oprijlaan.jpg
> > Really, it's just a divider. Does it matter that there's trees on it? If
> it
> > were made of concrete, it would just be ignored (except inasmuch as it
> > causes the street(s) to be divided into parallel ways). I doubt anybody
> > would propose that we create a separate way for it. Or is someone
> planning
> > to make a super-nifty 3D map view with trees along the road? (That would
> be
> > cool...)
>
> Read the thread again. Yes people are proposing to tag that line of
> tree as a seperate way with landuse=row_of_trees. And yes I agree
> with you that is ridiculous. Hence the rethorical nature of my question.
>
> cu bart
>

I was just questioning whether we need to tag it at all, separate way or
no... Heresy, I know. "In OSM, we tag EVERYTHING!"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Martin Trautmann]

wiseLYNX wrote:
> There is even an
> italian expression, "viale alberato" which specifically describes an
> avenue with tree lines..

Could an avenue exist without tree lines?

In Germany it's called "Allee", in Dansk, Norsk Svenska it's "Allé". I 
don't know the difference between the French usage of "Avenue" and 
"Allée", the second one proably within parks only.

BTW: An Allee may have trees either on both sides or one side only - and 
there may be occasions where the trees follow the former track of the 
road while there's a straight route by the newer road, which would 
require the separate line-of-trees.

- Martin


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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Robin Paulson]

On 10/02/2008, Martin Trautmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> wiseLYNX wrote:
> > There is even an
> > italian expression, "viale alberato" which specifically describes an
> > avenue with tree lines..
>
> Could an avenue exist without tree lines?

not in english - it explicitly means a road with trees. although there
are plenty of roads in aus/nz called avenues, with no trees.damn
colonials, mangling the language

> In Germany it's called "Allee", in Dansk, Norsk Svenska it's "Allé". I
> don't know the difference between the French usage of "Avenue" and
> "Allée", the second one proably within parks only.

yes, wp agrees with you, parks only for allee

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Andrew MacKinnon]

On Feb 9, 2008 8:38 PM, Robin Paulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/02/2008, Martin Trautmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > wiseLYNX wrote:
> > > There is even an
> > > italian expression, "viale alberato" which specifically describes an
> > > avenue with tree lines..
> >
> > Could an avenue exist without tree lines?
>
> not in english - it explicitly means a road with trees. although there
> are plenty of roads in aus/nz called avenues, with no trees.damn
> colonials, mangling the language

In Canada and the US, "Avenue" is usually meaningless. Sometimes
Avenue is exclusively used to refer to roads that go in a certain
direction (like north/south in New York City) but in Toronto Canada,
roads of all types are arbitrarily called "street", "avenue",
"boulevard", "drive", etc. with no rhyme or reason. It definitely has
nothing to do whether there are trees in the middle.

Perhaps this is true in the UK but it definitely isn't true in Canada or the US.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Thomas Wood]

On Feb 10, 2008 5:50 AM, Andrew MacKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2008 8:38 PM, Robin Paulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/02/2008, Martin Trautmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > wiseLYNX wrote:
> > > > There is even an
> > > > italian expression, "viale alberato" which specifically describes an
> > > > avenue with tree lines..
> > >
> > > Could an avenue exist without tree lines?
> >
> > not in english - it explicitly means a road with trees. although there
> > are plenty of roads in aus/nz called avenues, with no trees.damn
> > colonials, mangling the language
>
> In Canada and the US, "Avenue" is usually meaningless. Sometimes
> Avenue is exclusively used to refer to roads that go in a certain
> direction (like north/south in New York City) but in Toronto Canada,
> roads of all types are arbitrarily called "street", "avenue",
> "boulevard", "drive", etc. with no rhyme or reason. It definitely has
> nothing to do whether there are trees in the middle.
>
> Perhaps this is true in the UK but it definitely isn't true in Canada or the 
> US.
>
The same generally applies in the UK, although minus boulevard.

-- 
Regards,
Thomas Wood
(Edgemaster)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

> Since trees lining a way/street are such a common occurence, why
> not have a simple additional tag to the main road.
> 
> lined_by_trees=yes/no/left/right

I'm a bit unhappy about needlessly inflating the importance of the
direction of ways. Long-term, I would actually like to get rid of the
direction and express everything in relations. The reasons for this
are

(a) the direction is too easily changed, sometimes by mistake

(b) there might be multiple conflicting things that rely on the
direction, e.g. a road that is oneway from A to B but has a
slope from B to A

Anything with "left/right" in it also relies on direction. I'd prefer
"east/west/north/south", or using an explicit relation that says
"trees on the right between nodes A and B along road C".

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ##  N49°00.09' E008°23.33'


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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[bvh]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 01:21:46PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I'm a bit unhappy about needlessly inflating the importance of the
> direction of ways. Long-term, I would actually like to get rid of the
> direction and express everything in relations. The reasons for this
> are

Hehe. The last time I said on #osm "we got rid of segments, now
let's get rid of ways" I met stiff resistance :)

But moving to relationship will not help you getting rid of
direction : to represent a way you need to order your nodes and
order implies direction.

> (a) the direction is too easily changed, sometimes by mistake

That is a problem with the editors. I think we are in a good position
to improve on this.

> (b) there might be multiple conflicting things that rely on the
> direction, e.g. a road that is oneway from A to B but has a
> slope from B to A

That is why we have oneway=-1

cu bart

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Karl Newman]

On Feb 10, 2008 4:21 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Since trees lining a way/street are such a common occurence, why
> > not have a simple additional tag to the main road.
> >
> > lined_by_trees=yes/no/left/right
>
> I'm a bit unhappy about needlessly inflating the importance of the
> direction of ways. Long-term, I would actually like to get rid of the
> direction and express everything in relations. The reasons for this
> are
>
> (a) the direction is too easily changed, sometimes by mistake
>
> (b) there might be multiple conflicting things that rely on the
>direction, e.g. a road that is oneway from A to B but has a
>slope from B to A
>
> Anything with "left/right" in it also relies on direction. I'd prefer
> "east/west/north/south", or using an explicit relation that says
> "trees on the right between nodes A and B along road C".
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>

Okay, this thread is at risk of spinning wildly off-topic, but I've been
thinking about this situation recently. It seems to clamor for the use of
specialized relations that are "direction-aware". That way, if a way is a
member of a relation and has directional properties (left/right), then the
editors could look for those relations when the way is reversed and either
fix them automatically or at the minimum raise a warning dialog.

I also had some other ideas about enforcing referential integrity for
another type of specialized relation (if one or more node relation members
is required to be part of a way relation member, then enforce that rule).
That rule could actually be enforced by the API.

These specialized relations would just give some structure to the wide-open
relation type, without implying anything about the nature of the relation.
It could possibly be accomplished through special tags on the existing
relation structure.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Karl Newman]

On Feb 11, 2008 8:58 AM, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Karl Newman wrote:
> > Big +1 on this proposal. That's exactly what I've been thinking about
> > lately. It's stupid to chop up nice long ways just because the speed
> > limit changes or the way happens to cross a bridge.
>
> Isn't this exactly why relations were invented? To unite a set of ways
> with a common attribute? Or have I misunderstood?
>
> Gerv
>
> I think it depends on the perspective you take. To me, the nodes and ways
should follow the physical world as much as possible--the road didn't change
just because the speed limit changed, so why chop it up? Either way we go,
it's going to require good editor support for this, but to me, it's easier
to manage one long way than to hunt down and select each constituent way if
I want to change some aggregate property (I've done some editing of the
TIGER data). I think it also does more to encourage an iterative,
incremental approach to data refinement--first get the physical tracks down,
then add speed limits, lanes, surface information, etc. I know, it would be
great if all that stuff was done at once, but putting an emphasis on getting
the physical ways in place first does more to expand OSM coverage and make
visual progress to the renderers, and makes OSM more useful to more people,
sooner.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Karl Newman]

On Feb 11, 2008 7:20 AM, Bernd Raichle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> on Sunday, 10 February 2008 08:34:31 -0800,
> Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>  > On Feb 10, 2008 4:21 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > > > Since trees lining a way/street are such a common occurence, why
>  > > > not have a simple additional tag to the main road.
>  > > >
>  > > > lined_by_trees=yes/no/left/right
>  > >
>  > > I'm a bit unhappy about needlessly inflating the importance of the
>  > > direction of ways. Long-term, I would actually like to get rid of the
>  > > direction and express everything in relations.
>
> This means, that you find it necessary to have something like a
> "direction" or a "side", both of this features related to a way?
> But you don't want to express a direction or a side by the _implicit
> order_ of the way nodes.
>
>
>  > > The reasons for this
>  > > are
>  > >
>  > > (a) the direction is too easily changed, sometimes by mistake
>
> ... because none of the current OSM editors show direction- or
> side-related tags explicitly.
>
>
>  > > (b) there might be multiple conflicting things that rely on the
>  > >direction, e.g. a road that is oneway from A to B but has a
>  > >slope from B to A
>  > >
>  > > Anything with "left/right" in it also relies on direction. I'd prefer
>  > > "east/west/north/south", or using an explicit relation that says
>  > > "trees on the right between nodes A and B along road C".
>
> I am against east/west/north/south because there are a lot of
> ways/areas/things which do not go straight ahead.
>
>
>  > Okay, this thread is at risk of spinning wildly off-topic, but I've
> been
>  > thinking about this situation recently. It seems to clamor for the use
> of
>  > specialized relations that are "direction-aware". That way, if a way is
> a
>  > member of a relation and has directional properties (left/right), then
> the
>  > editors could look for those relations when the way is reversed and
> either
>  > fix them automatically or at the minimum raise a warning dialog.
>  >
>  > I also had some other ideas about enforcing referential integrity for
>  > another type of specialized relation (if one or more node relation
> members
>  > is required to be part of a way relation member, then enforce that
> rule).
>  > That rule could actually be enforced by the API.
>  >
>  > These specialized relations would just give some structure to the
> wide-open
>  > relation type, without implying anything about the nature of the
> relation.
>  > It could possibly be accomplished through special tags on the existing
>  > relation structure.
>
> Do you have any propositions how this will look like or how this
> should be done?
>
> A few days ago I have started a new proposal for a "Segmented Tag",
> which relates a set of tags to a directed or undirected part of a way
> (I have called this part "segment" inspired by GDF's "Segmented
> Attributes").  I have not found the time yet to finalize the proposal
> adding some examples, nonetheless it can already be found in the OSM
> Wiki (Relations/Proposed/Segmented Tags).
>
>
> Best wishes,
>  -bernd
>

Big +1 on this proposal. That's exactly what I've been thinking about
lately. It's stupid to chop up nice long ways just because the speed limit
changes or the way happens to cross a bridge.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Bernd Raichle]

Hi,


on Sunday, 10 February 2008 08:34:31 -0800,
Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
 > On Feb 10, 2008 4:21 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > > > Since trees lining a way/street are such a common occurence, why
 > > > not have a simple additional tag to the main road.
 > > >
 > > > lined_by_trees=yes/no/left/right
 > >
 > > I'm a bit unhappy about needlessly inflating the importance of the
 > > direction of ways. Long-term, I would actually like to get rid of the
 > > direction and express everything in relations.

This means, that you find it necessary to have something like a
"direction" or a "side", both of this features related to a way?
But you don't want to express a direction or a side by the _implicit
order_ of the way nodes.


 > > The reasons for this
 > > are
 > >
 > > (a) the direction is too easily changed, sometimes by mistake

... because none of the current OSM editors show direction- or
side-related tags explicitly.


 > > (b) there might be multiple conflicting things that rely on the
 > >direction, e.g. a road that is oneway from A to B but has a
 > >slope from B to A
 > >
 > > Anything with "left/right" in it also relies on direction. I'd prefer
 > > "east/west/north/south", or using an explicit relation that says
 > > "trees on the right between nodes A and B along road C".

I am against east/west/north/south because there are a lot of
ways/areas/things which do not go straight ahead.


 > Okay, this thread is at risk of spinning wildly off-topic, but I've been
 > thinking about this situation recently. It seems to clamor for the use of
 > specialized relations that are "direction-aware". That way, if a way is a
 > member of a relation and has directional properties (left/right), then the
 > editors could look for those relations when the way is reversed and either
 > fix them automatically or at the minimum raise a warning dialog.
 > 
 > I also had some other ideas about enforcing referential integrity for
 > another type of specialized relation (if one or more node relation members
 > is required to be part of a way relation member, then enforce that rule).
 > That rule could actually be enforced by the API.
 > 
 > These specialized relations would just give some structure to the wide-open
 > relation type, without implying anything about the nature of the relation.
 > It could possibly be accomplished through special tags on the existing
 > relation structure.

Do you have any propositions how this will look like or how this
should be done?

A few days ago I have started a new proposal for a "Segmented Tag",
which relates a set of tags to a directed or undirected part of a way
(I have called this part "segment" inspired by GDF's "Segmented
Attributes").  I have not found the time yet to finalize the proposal
adding some examples, nonetheless it can already be found in the OSM
Wiki (Relations/Proposed/Segmented Tags).


Best wishes,
  -bernd

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Gervase Markham]

Karl Newman wrote:
> Big +1 on this proposal. That's exactly what I've been thinking about 
> lately. It's stupid to chop up nice long ways just because the speed 
> limit changes or the way happens to cross a bridge.

Isn't this exactly why relations were invented? To unite a set of ways 
with a common attribute? Or have I misunderstood?

Gerv


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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[bvh]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 04:20:02PM +0100, Bernd Raichle wrote:
>  > > (a) the direction is too easily changed, sometimes by mistake
> ... because none of the current OSM editors show direction- or
> side-related tags explicitly.

Merkaartor does for the direction related tags it understands.
I need to add support for more such tags though.

> I am against east/west/north/south because there are a lot of
> ways/areas/things which do not go straight ahead.

Yes.

> A few days ago I have started a new proposal for a "Segmented Tag",
> which relates a set of tags to a directed or undirected part of a way
> (I have called this part "segment" inspired by GDF's "Segmented
> Attributes").  I have not found the time yet to finalize the proposal
> adding some examples, nonetheless it can already be found in the OSM
> Wiki (Relations/Proposed/Segmented Tags).

I am not really sure about this. Just splitting the ways seems
less complex?

An obvious problem with your proposal seems that it does not
specify what happens with conflicting segmentations (ie,
way A-B-C-D-E and segmented relation X says from A till D is
90kmp maxspeed and segmented relation Y says from B till E is
70kmp maxspeed.

cu bart

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Robert (Jamie) Munro]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Bernd Raichle wrote:
| Hi,
|
|
| on Sunday, 10 February 2008 08:34:31 -0800,
| Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|  > On Feb 10, 2008 4:21 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|  > > > Since trees lining a way/street are such a common occurence, why
|  > > > not have a simple additional tag to the main road.
|  > > >
|  > > > lined_by_trees=yes/no/left/right
|  > >
|  > > I'm a bit unhappy about needlessly inflating the importance of the
|  > > direction of ways. Long-term, I would actually like to get rid of the
|  > > direction and express everything in relations.
|
| This means, that you find it necessary to have something like a
| "direction" or a "side", both of this features related to a way?
| But you don't want to express a direction or a side by the _implicit
| order_ of the way nodes.
|
|
|  > > The reasons for this
|  > > are
|  > >
|  > > (a) the direction is too easily changed, sometimes by mistake
|
| ... because none of the current OSM editors show direction- or
| side-related tags explicitly.
|
|
|  > > (b) there might be multiple conflicting things that rely on the
|  > >direction, e.g. a road that is oneway from A to B but has a
|  > >slope from B to A
|  > >
|  > > Anything with "left/right" in it also relies on direction. I'd prefer
|  > > "east/west/north/south", or using an explicit relation that says
|  > > "trees on the right between nodes A and B along road C".
|
| I am against east/west/north/south because there are a lot of
| ways/areas/things which do not go straight ahead.

But they nearly all run nearer to one of those directions than they do
to any of the others. If you want to say that a North East road is one
way, you can call it North or East - there is no contradiction. Pick the
one it is closest to, or either if the road is really exactly at 45 degrees.

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

iD8DBQFHtNkez+aYVHdncI0RAsleAKCqI0x+fuIcQTrg2ww/YHd5HesiNwCgwLZr
pZ+FSfRQXCcsohXIihj6QkU=
=Yl5c
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Robert (Jamie) Munro]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Karl Newman wrote:
| On Feb 11, 2008 7:20 AM, Bernd Raichle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| > wrote:
|
| Hi,
|
|
| on Sunday, 10 February 2008 08:34:31 -0800,
| Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
| writes:
|  > On Feb 10, 2008 4:21 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| > wrote:
|  > > > Since trees lining a way/street are such a common
occurence, why
|  > > > not have a simple additional tag to the main road.
|  > > >
|  > > > lined_by_trees=yes/no/left/right
|  > >
|  > > I'm a bit unhappy about needlessly inflating the importance
of the
|  > > direction of ways. Long-term, I would actually like to get rid
| of the
|  > > direction and express everything in relations.
|
| This means, that you find it necessary to have something like a
| "direction" or a "side", both of this features related to a way?
| But you don't want to express a direction or a side by the _implicit
| order_ of the way nodes.
|
|
|  > > The reasons for
| this
|  > > are
|  > >
|  > > (a) the direction is too easily changed, sometimes by mistake
|
| ... because none of the current OSM editors show direction- or
| side-related tags explicitly.
|
|
|  > > (b) there might be multiple conflicting things that rely on the
|  > >direction, e.g. a road that is oneway from A to B but has a
|  > >slope from B to A
|  > >
|  > > Anything with "left/right" in it also relies on direction. I'd
| prefer
|  > > "east/west/north/south", or using an explicit relation that says
|  > > "trees on the right between nodes A and B along road C".
|
| I am against east/west/north/south because there are a lot of
| ways/areas/things which do not go straight ahead.
|
|
|  > Okay, this thread is at risk of spinning wildly off-topic, but
| I've been
|  > thinking about this situation recently. It seems to clamor for
| the use of
|  > specialized relations that are "direction-aware". That way, if a
| way is a
|  > member of a relation and has directional properties (left/right),
| then the
|  > editors could look for those relations when the way is reversed
| and either
|  > fix them automatically or at the minimum raise a warning dialog.
|  >
|  > I also had some other ideas about enforcing referential
integrity for
|  > another type of specialized relation (if one or more node
| relation members
|  > is required to be part of a way relation member, then enforce
| that rule).
|  > That rule could actually be enforced by the API.
|  >
|  > These specialized relations would just give some structure to the
| wide-open
|  > relation type, without implying anything about the nature of the
| relation.
|  > It could possibly be accomplished through special tags on the
| existing
|  > relation structure.
|
| Do you have any propositions how this will look like or how this
| should be done?
|
| A few days ago I have started a new proposal for a "Segmented Tag",
| which relates a set of tags to a directed or undirected part of a way
| (I have called this part "segment" inspired by GDF's "Segmented
| Attributes").  I have not found the time yet to finalize the proposal
| adding some examples, nonetheless it can already be found in the OSM
| Wiki (Relations/Proposed/Segmented Tags).
|
|
| Best wishes,
|  -bernd
|
|
| Big +1 on this proposal. That's exactly what I've been thinking about
| lately. It's stupid to chop up nice long ways just because the speed
| limit changes or the way happens to cross a bridge.

I think the opposite - we should move nearly all tags from ways into
relations so that we can chop the ways more - probably at every junction
- - without causing duplication.


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

iD8DBQFHtNn2z+aYVHdncI0RAhBRAJ9XK0il1W4tAiAumfcKqWDqY/NR2ACg3eGx
nHl5J7hXD+iNpOOSyKADb+4=
=58IA
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues

[Karl Newman]

>
> | I am against east/west/north/south because there are a lot of
> | ways/areas/things which do not go straight ahead.
>
> But they nearly all run nearer to one of those directions than they do
> to any of the others. If you want to say that a North East road is one
> way, you can call it North or East - there is no contradiction. Pick the
> one it is closest to, or either if the road is really exactly at 45
> degrees.
>

Umm... What happens if the road is not straight, but in fact winds around
quite a bit? Then left and right are still unambiguous, but cardinal
directions are definitely not.

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