Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Karl Newman wrote: | On Feb 11, 2008 7:20 AM, Bernd Raichle [EMAIL PROTECTED] | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | Hi, | | | on Sunday, 10 February 2008 08:34:31 -0800, | Karl Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | writes: | On Feb 10, 2008 4:21 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] | mailto:[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
| 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
Re: [OSM-talk] correctly mapping avenues
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Karl Newman wrote: On Feb 9, 2008 12:55 AM, bvh [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
