Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
sent from a phone Am 29.06.2015 um 19:52 schrieb Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de: playground != landuse - leisure=playground is part of a landuse=residential imho. could be seen like this for a subset of playgrounds (those close to residences), but they also occur far away from residential areas (eg in commercial areas, in the forest, associated to a restaurant, swimming pool or beach, ) I would not include them in any common landuse (that we use in osm), no need to put explicit landuse objects on every square millimeter, a hospital, playground, school or church already implicitly define the landuse I'd put a area landuse=residential area amenity=school name=University ... on that area -1 I see a huge problem coming with maintenance of the map where people have glued together all different types of object. +1, especially the glueing of objects in incompatible models (highway centre lines and common areas) is a preliminary sin that hopefully will vanish sooner or later (probably when area:highway becomes more popular) The most problematic i see here is landuse (or other area based objects like amenity, leisure etc) and highway. As highway does not have a dimension the landuse reusing the highway nodes means covering half of the street. E.g. for me landuse=forest sharing nodes with the street means that there are trees on one side of the road until the center line. +1 cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
On 30/06/15 11:36, Richard Z. wrote: On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 04:14:07PM +0100, Lester Caine wrote: On 29/06/15 15:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: The step from 2D to 3D would add a lot of complexity on the mappers, narrowing down the mass of contributors potentially willing and able to participate. Everyone would have to deal with this: It's difficult to imagine introducing 3D in parallel (as long as you don't do it completely disconnected, i.e. a fork), because everything is connected and someone not aware of 3D information would damage it inadvertently as soon as he was starting to make 2D edits on 3D data. I'm not so bothered about 3D, but rather making it a little clearer on 2D maps that one HAS to go a particular way when the road other side of the building IS 5 stories below, and the main road is three stories below that. People who have visited Malta will know what I am saying, but following a satnav somewhere you don't know after a long flight ... it would be nice if the map warned you :) In some cases you could use embankment, natural=cliff or building=wall separating the road and the building would that work here? http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/35.95833/14.36246 was where I had the fun at Christmas. Vertically this area is well over 10 stories high which the steps only hint at. We stayed at the Pergola Club Hotel and the osmand took me to the bottom of the Trig Adenau steps while the entrance to the car park was 5 stories above :) Other parts of Malta were just as much fun ... and while around here is not quite so steep, there are a number of places with similar problems when trying to work out just where to drive. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 04:14:07PM +0100, Lester Caine wrote: On 29/06/15 15:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: The step from 2D to 3D would add a lot of complexity on the mappers, narrowing down the mass of contributors potentially willing and able to participate. Everyone would have to deal with this: It's difficult to imagine introducing 3D in parallel (as long as you don't do it completely disconnected, i.e. a fork), because everything is connected and someone not aware of 3D information would damage it inadvertently as soon as he was starting to make 2D edits on 3D data. I'm not so bothered about 3D, but rather making it a little clearer on 2D maps that one HAS to go a particular way when the road other side of the building IS 5 stories below, and the main road is three stories below that. People who have visited Malta will know what I am saying, but following a satnav somewhere you don't know after a long flight ... it would be nice if the map warned you :) In some cases you could use embankment, natural=cliff or building=wall separating the road and the building would that work here? Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
sent from a phone Am 29.06.2015 um 09:45 schrieb Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: Landuse should be a 'virtual' layer, as should all 'political' concepts. +1, it already is like this Keep 'layers' to at least keep the vertical structures sort of working although it is now time that 'height' at least had some place! you can use ele and height tags for 3D, but either you have a very good imagination or you would want editor support for it. (we could even have curves or other parametric geometry by adding curve tension tags to the ways or inventing freaky 3D relations (e.g. lathe, sweep)), but all these would need support to be useful. The step from 2D to 3D would add a lot of complexity on the mappers, narrowing down the mass of contributors potentially willing and able to participate. Everyone would have to deal with this: It's difficult to imagine introducing 3D in parallel (as long as you don't do it completely disconnected, i.e. a fork), because everything is connected and someone not aware of 3D information would damage it inadvertently as soon as he was starting to make 2D edits on 3D data. cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
sent from a phone Am 29.06.2015 um 09:45 schrieb Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: Boundaries and landuse are another 'plane' independent of layer, rather than 'plane' you can see them as pointy volumes you get by slicing a piece of the globe, connecting the centre of the earth with the nodes and cutting along the way ;-) cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
On 29/06/15 10:59, Florian Lohoff wrote: I consider layer=* on landuse as beeing broken. If you need to cut out a part of an landuse thats what a multipolygon is for. For me landuses may not overlap. As a goal for the future, a 'plane' of data that has a single landuse classification for every point would be nice. Other projects are working on that data and just using OSM as a background overlay. but for now, a large residential area with a few small pockets of other areas of activity such as a playground don't need the full multi-polygon treatment. But should the residential road network be inside or outside that polygon? We had the same discussion in relation to 'landuse=university' where the campus area needs an outline, but t5ere are a lot of different 'landuse' activities within that ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
On 29/06/15 15:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: The step from 2D to 3D would add a lot of complexity on the mappers, narrowing down the mass of contributors potentially willing and able to participate. Everyone would have to deal with this: It's difficult to imagine introducing 3D in parallel (as long as you don't do it completely disconnected, i.e. a fork), because everything is connected and someone not aware of 3D information would damage it inadvertently as soon as he was starting to make 2D edits on 3D data. I'm not so bothered about 3D, but rather making it a little clearer on 2D maps that one HAS to go a particular way when the road other side of the building IS 5 stories below, and the main road is three stories below that. People who have visited Malta will know what I am saying, but following a satnav somewhere you don't know after a long flight ... it would be nice if the map warned you :) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:49:21AM +0100, Lester Caine wrote: On 29/06/15 10:59, Florian Lohoff wrote: I consider layer=* on landuse as beeing broken. If you need to cut out a part of an landuse thats what a multipolygon is for. For me landuses may not overlap. As a goal for the future, a 'plane' of data that has a single landuse classification for every point would be nice. Other projects are working on that data and just using OSM as a background overlay. but for now, a large residential area with a few small pockets of other areas of activity such as a playground don't need the full multi-polygon treatment. But should the residential road network be inside or outside that polygon? We had the same discussion in relation to 'landuse=university' where the campus area needs an outline, but t5ere are a lot of different 'landuse' activities within that ... playground != landuse - leisure=playground is part of a landuse=residential imho. I'd put a area landuse=residential area amenity=school name=University ... on that area. I see a huge problem coming with maintenance of the map where people have glued together all different types of object. The most problematic i see here is landuse (or other area based objects like amenity, leisure etc) and highway. As highway does not have a dimension the landuse reusing the highway nodes means covering half of the street. E.g. for me landuse=forest sharing nodes with the street means that there are trees on one side of the road until the center line. In some areas i have given up fixing that or even touching the map. Whatever object you try to fix/move you end up fixing 20 objects in the surrounding. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today! signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 27.06.2015 11:19, michael spreng wrote: This is not a tagging error. It is an error. Only the underground part of the ditch should have layer=-1, and it needs to also have a tunnel tag. As for landuse, such areas are typically non-physical, and as such not easily inserted into the layer hierarchy. However, mappers are using landuse far beyond its original definition, and also map physical things such as pastures and (arguably) fields with it. At that point, the usual layer rules need to apply. If neighbouring fields are farmland and meadow you need to split them. And as we all think about mapping roads as areas e.g. landuse=highway landuses have most likely to stop at roadsides. I consider layer=* on landuse as beeing broken. If you need to cut out a part of an landuse thats what a multipolygon is for. For me landuses may not overlap. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today! signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
On 29/06/15 04:06, Warin wrote: If lower than the 'original ground level' then layer=-1 (or more) layer are tags to map relative local stacking (which object is above which other object where they overlap), it has nothing to do with original ground level. Where objects do not overlap, the tag is meaningless. There should be a reference point, so that what one mapper maps can be verified by another mapper. I use the 'original ground level' as that reference point and call it level 0. If you used level 2 it would work ... but the next mapper could use level -2 .. and it would look rather strange .. especially if the two were linked .. the link would need to go from one level to the other.. other wise the link would not be to teh correct layer/level. If both mappers use the same reference problems are reduced. The problem with all of these is simply that OSM does not do height which is a pity. I have several areas around here which are difficult to map, and certainly can't be navigated too by a router simply because 'original ground level' is a couple of hundred feet difference from one side to the other. Example ... one enters the car park at level 1 ... it goes up in half level steps to level 6 which is 'ground level' for the rest of Evesham. Mellieha in Malta was even worse with entrances to car parks several hundred feet above almost adjacent roads. Landuse should be a 'virtual' layer, as should all 'political' concepts. Keep 'layers' to at least keep the vertical structures sort of working although it is now time that 'height' at least had some place! What is the main problem here is the attempt to use the same way for several unrelated elements. We know that the editors simply can't cope with 'relations' and without a mechanism to provide duplicate ways where one use needs splitting from another we are not going to be able to keep the data consistent. Coastline is a goo example. If that was a set of data on it's own 'PLANE' that could be viewed in isolation, then we could modify the coastline and then simply flag what adjacent detail then needs review ... coastal erosion etc. Boundaries and landuse are another 'plane' independent of layer, although 'mixed' use land may well be augmented by different tags once the layers are better structured? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 10:40:52AM +0200, Ture Pålsson wrote: I recently taught my rendering hack about the ’layer’ tag, and immediately encountered a set of new problems. For example, consider this ditch: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243331898 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243331898 . It has layer=-1, probably to indicate that is passes under the road which it crosses. However, it is entirely covered by a landuse=farmland with no layer tag, which I take to mean an implicit layer=0. This means that my renderer now renders the farmland over the ditch, completely hiding the latter. Meanwhile, Mapnik obviously does what the tagger intended. Is this a tagging error, that I should fix by editing the data, or is it something that my renderer should be able to cope with? it is an error and your renderer should be able to cope with it as it is a pretty common error. Simply ignore any layer tags which are not in combination with bridge,tunnel,covered, steps,indoor or similar - the key:layer wikipage has a longer list of combinations that seem legit. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
-Original Message- From: Florian Lohoff [mailto:f...@zz.de] Sent: Tuesday, 30 June 2015 3:52 AM To: Lester Caine Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:49:21AM +0100, Lester Caine wrote: On 29/06/15 10:59, Florian Lohoff wrote: I consider layer=* on landuse as beeing broken. If you need to cut out a part of an landuse thats what a multipolygon is for. For me landuses may not overlap. As a goal for the future, a 'plane' of data that has a single landuse classification for every point would be nice. This would be useful for the sea / land / coastline issues... Nick *** WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print or copy this email without appropriate authority. If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake, please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not waived or destroyed by that mistake. It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with your computer system). Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure. *** ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
2015-06-28 14:39 GMT+02:00 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: On 27.06.2015 11:19, michael spreng wrote: This is not a tagging error. It is an error. Only the underground part of the ditch should have layer=-1, and it needs to also have a tunnel tag. As for landuse, such areas are typically non-physical, and as such not easily inserted into the layer hierarchy. However, mappers are using landuse far beyond its original definition, and also map physical things such as pastures and (arguably) fields with it. At that point, the usual layer rules need to apply. completely agree. I had written something similar, but accidentally the mail was only sent to Michael and not to this list... Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
On 27.06.2015 11:19, michael spreng wrote: This is not a tagging error. It is an error. Only the underground part of the ditch should have layer=-1, and it needs to also have a tunnel tag. As for landuse, such areas are typically non-physical, and as such not easily inserted into the layer hierarchy. However, mappers are using landuse far beyond its original definition, and also map physical things such as pastures and (arguably) fields with it. At that point, the usual layer rules need to apply. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
On 29/06/2015 1:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-06-28 14:39 GMT+02:00 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de: On 27.06.2015 11 tel:27.06.2015%2011:19, michael spreng wrote: This is not a tagging error. It is an error. Only the underground part of the ditch should have layer=-1, and it needs to also have a tunnel tag. As for landuse, such areas are typically non-physical, and as such not easily inserted into the layer hierarchy. However, mappers are using landuse far beyond its original definition, and also map physical things such as pastures and (arguably) fields with it. At that point, the usual layer rules need to apply. completely agree. I had written something similar, but accidentally the mail was only sent to Michael and not to this list... My take... If lower than the 'original ground level' then layer=-1 (or more) If the 'ditch' is covered then it is a tunnel or a culvert, if there is no 'roof' then it is a cutting. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
sent from a phone Am 29.06.2015 um 00:42 schrieb Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: If lower than the 'original ground level' then layer=-1 (or more) layer are tags to map relative local stacking (which object is above which other object where they overlap), it has nothing to do with original ground level. Where objects do not overlap, the tag is meaningless. cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
On 29/06/2015 9:34 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone Am 29.06.2015 um 00:42 schrieb Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: If lower than the 'original ground level' then layer=-1 (or more) layer are tags to map relative local stacking (which object is above which other object where they overlap), it has nothing to do with original ground level. Where objects do not overlap, the tag is meaningless. There should be a reference point, so that what one mapper maps can be verified by another mapper. I use the 'original ground level' as that reference point and call it level 0. If you used level 2 it would work ... but the next mapper could use level -2 .. and it would look rather strange .. especially if the two were linked .. the link would need to go from one level to the other.. other wise the link would not be to teh correct layer/level. If both mappers use the same reference problems are reduced. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layers and landuse
On 27/06/15 10:40, Ture Pålsson wrote: I recently taught my rendering hack about the ’layer’ tag, and immediately encountered a set of new problems. For example, consider this ditch: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243331898 . It has layer=-1, probably to indicate that is passes under the road which it crosses. However, it is entirely covered by a landuse=farmland with no layer tag, which I take to mean an implicit layer=0. This means that my renderer now renders the farmland over the ditch, completely hiding the latter. Meanwhile, Mapnik obviously does what the tagger intended. Is this a tagging error, that I should fix by editing the data, or is it something that my renderer should be able to cope with? This is not a tagging error. You should have different sets of layers for different things. Usually areas are in a lower set of layers than lines, meaning that all areas are rendered below lines. This makes tunnels visible below a forest and similar things. And also your example is covered by this. Michael ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
