Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 01:46:41AM -0700, Ben Discoe wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Richard wrote: > >> FWIW, I simply set the following key mapping in JOSM: > >> > >> Shift-D: add bridge=yes, layer=1 > >> Shift-C: add tunnel=culvert, layer=-1 > > > > nice.. but still need to select or add two nodes, split the > > ways, and select the correct segment before hitting s-d/s-c. > > I agree, I always intended to add that to make it easier... so this > evening I took the time to figure it out, and it works great: You can > select a way, or multiple ways, or a way and two nodes, or just two > nodes. I'll write up a diary post soon with my new powerful script. > :) great thanks, where do I find the script? Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Richard wrote: >> FWIW, I simply set the following key mapping in JOSM: >> >> Shift-D: add bridge=yes, layer=1 >> Shift-C: add tunnel=culvert, layer=-1 > > nice.. but still need to select or add two nodes, split the > ways, and select the correct segment before hitting s-d/s-c. I agree, I always intended to add that to make it easier... so this evening I took the time to figure it out, and it works great: You can select a way, or multiple ways, or a way and two nodes, or just two nodes. I'll write up a diary post soon with my new powerful script. :) -Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?
On Tue, 31 May 2016 23:08:22 +0200, Richard wrote: > I found plenty of places where people have done everything > correctly but accidentally applied the bridge/culvert/layer > to the wrong way segment or one of the nodes - any way to > automate that even more? And how will you get this people not to apply ford=no to the waterway instead of the highway or to the wrong highway or to some node or ford=yes to all of the highway? I never saw so much energy wasted like in this discussion /not/ to map certain things. How many bridges, fords, culverts or even nothing you and all the other people involved could have mapped instead of replying to this thread. Oh my goodness! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?
On 6/1/2016 7:18 AM, Richard wrote: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:01:07PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2016-05-31 15:03 GMT+02:00 Richard : often enough I get messages from people saying that drawing a bridge or culvert for every minor highway/waterway crossing causes more trouble than use and I tend to agree. If you and they don't 'like' them .. don't enter them and don't render them. There are a few things in OSM that I have no interest in .. but I don't advocate there demotion. I disagree. Either there is a bridge / culvert in reality, and in this case why wouldn't we want it in OSM, or there isn't and then it is a simple error waiting to be corrected. so what do you do if you drove along a track know there is not a single ford but don't have enough information to know whether there is a bridge or culvert in most places? There are some notable bridges but everything that is notable probably deserves at least a man_made=bridge anyway while the rest ist just I don't get wet feet here. If you don't know if there are bridges/culverts then you don't map them ... Which trouble do these elements cause? I realize they make it harder to apply modifications to long (i.e. probably more pieces) ways, but on the other hand, casual mistakes also don't extend very far. I have seen many examples of culverts applied to the wrong segment of the way.. theese seem to go easily unnoticed for long periods of time. Any entry is prone to error. Even ford=no! Introducing a new tag/value just introduces more possible errors if you want to look at it that way. You are looking for a solution to a problem, but your proposed solution just adds yet another potential problem. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:01:07PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2016-05-31 15:03 GMT+02:00 Richard : > > > often enough I get messages from people saying that drawing a bridge > > or culvert for every minor highway/waterway crossing causes more > > trouble than use and I tend to agree. > > > > > I disagree. Either there is a bridge / culvert in reality, and in this case > why wouldn't we want it in OSM, or there isn't and then it is a simple > error waiting to be corrected. so what do you do if you drove along a track know there is not a single ford but don't have enough information to know whether there is a bridge or culvert in most places? There are some notable bridges but everything that is notable probably deserves at least a man_made=bridge anyway while the rest ist just I don't get wet feet here. > Which trouble do these elements cause? I realize they make it harder to > apply modifications to long (i.e. probably more pieces) ways, but on the > other hand, casual mistakes also don't extend very far. I have seen many examples of culverts applied to the wrong segment of the way.. theese seem to go easily unnoticed for long periods of time. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:13:36AM -0700, Ben Discoe wrote: > FWIW, I simply set the following key mapping in JOSM: > > Shift-D: add bridge=yes, layer=1 > Shift-C: add tunnel=culvert, layer=-1 nice.. but still need to select or add two nodes, split the ways, and select the correct segment before hitting s-d/s-c. I found plenty of places where people have done everything correctly but accidentally applied the bridge/culvert/layer to the wrong way segment or one of the nodes - any way to automate that even more? Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?
FWIW, I simply set the following key mapping in JOSM: Shift-D: add bridge=yes, layer=1 Shift-C: add tunnel=culvert, layer=-1 Making bridges/culverts is then very quick and easy. On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2016-05-31 15:03 GMT+02:00 Richard : >> >> often enough I get messages from people saying that drawing a bridge >> or culvert for every minor highway/waterway crossing causes more >> trouble than use and I tend to agree. > > > > I disagree. Either there is a bridge / culvert in reality, and in this case > why wouldn't we want it in OSM, or there isn't and then it is a simple error > waiting to be corrected. > Which trouble do these elements cause? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?
2016-05-31 15:03 GMT+02:00 Richard : > often enough I get messages from people saying that drawing a bridge > or culvert for every minor highway/waterway crossing causes more > trouble than use and I tend to agree. > I disagree. Either there is a bridge / culvert in reality, and in this case why wouldn't we want it in OSM, or there isn't and then it is a simple error waiting to be corrected. Which trouble do these elements cause? I realize they make it harder to apply modifications to long (i.e. probably more pieces) ways, but on the other hand, casual mistakes also don't extend very far. Think how much work it is to construct a culvert or a bridge, those will last typically for a long time (also because they are there for a reason), and compare to how much work it is to put them into OSM (2 nodes, split, add one tag). Is this still a real problem? If you are not interested in mapping them, don't do it, but please do not invent a tag that encourages not to map them. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?
Hi, often enough I get messages from people saying that drawing a bridge or culvert for every minor highway/waterway crossing causes more trouble than use and I tend to agree. Splitting the ways and applying a bunch of tags for every single tunnel/bridge is work and has a non-zero chance to introduce some errors for zero gain. So I was wondering - if we know that a long segment of a highway has no fords - could it be marked with ford=no? Or other similar attribute? For some classes of roads like freeways this could be also declared to be the implicit default. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk