Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David Earl wrote: On 04/08/2008 11:14, vegard wrote: For naming of streets in cities, where properties change very often and you have to make many small ways, it sometimes gets annoying that the name is duplicated. I was wondering: How good/easy would it be to make a superway-relation to fix that? I.e. group several ways for labeling-intentions? I'm no expert on the inner workings in either of the renderers, but to me it sounds like a quick fix to a small annoyance. If someone that knows the renderers could either agree or disagree, I'd be happy anyways (well, obviously happier if they agree :) See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways AFAIK this isn't rendered at present, so for the time being the names would have to appear on the ways themselves as well if you want to see them, but in principle, a renderer could take note of this, and if it becomes a widespread idiom, no doubt they will. I think that is a chicken and egg scenario. I think the renderers (and namefinder) need to support it before people will start using it. Then very quickly we could move all names (and refs and highway types...) to relationships, and we would have a much cleaner data structure. Lots of wierd cases where part of a road has more than one ref, more than one name, or more than one of any other property go away - the relevant ways just become a member of more than one relationship. Personally, I believe that most tagging should be on relationships not ways. Only small physical things like layer, bridge and tunnel should be specified at a way level. Robert (Jamie) Munro -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkipnI8ACgkQz+aYVHdncI0vyACaA2UTbxDbM1bTSlc8h4jXoEOn dHIAn3e9vZODyzFvpyUW2OuMWHgrvhPV =pA28 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Robert (Jamie) Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David Earl wrote: On 04/08/2008 11:14, vegard wrote: For naming of streets in cities, where properties change very often and you have to make many small ways, it sometimes gets annoying that the name is duplicated. I was wondering: How good/easy would it be to make a superway-relation to fix that? I.e. group several ways for labeling-intentions? I'm no expert on the inner workings in either of the renderers, but to me it sounds like a quick fix to a small annoyance. If someone that knows the renderers could either agree or disagree, I'd be happy anyways (well, obviously happier if they agree :) See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways AFAIK this isn't rendered at present, so for the time being the names would have to appear on the ways themselves as well if you want to see them, but in principle, a renderer could take note of this, and if it becomes a widespread idiom, no doubt they will. I think that is a chicken and egg scenario. I think the renderers (and namefinder) need to support it before people will start using it. Then very quickly we could move all names (and refs and highway types...) to relationships, and we would have a much cleaner data structure. Lots of wierd cases where part of a road has more than one ref, more than one name, or more than one of any other property go away - the relevant ways just become a member of more than one relationship. Personally, I believe that most tagging should be on relationships not ways. Only small physical things like layer, bridge and tunnel should be specified at a way level. Robert (Jamie) Munro I think this is one point where the different data clients or consumers have different preferences. To my mind, you've got it backward. The small physical things like bridges and tunnels are the parts that should go into relations, because they have nothing to do with the physical continuity of the way. A routing app does not care about bridges and tunnels. However, your perspective is probably one of rendering, which would prefer to see the ways chopped up at bridges and tunnels. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Matthias Julius [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Karl Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Matthias Julius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Karl Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sounds like you're looking for this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Segmented_Tag This can not cross way boundaries. If someone splits that way in between to and from there is a problem. Matthias That's exactly the point--that tagging scheme is intended to get away from splitting ways. If this were to be adopted, the need to split ways would be greatly reduced. Splitting ways would probably need to be made non-trivial by the editors and it would take some careful support for copying the relevant tags to new relations and modifying the old ones. Ways need to be split - we can not have the whole world in one single way. If some of the data has to be duplicated the usefulnes of the tagging scheme is allready greatly reduced. Matthias Umm... That's not what I was saying. It's not even possible to have the whole world in a single way. I was just arguing against splitting ways due to attribute changes which have nothing to do with the way itself (i.e., bridges, speed limits, etc.). A reasonable approach would be to split ways only if the name or major (highway) type changes. Obviously for dual carriageways, too... Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
Karl Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Matthias Julius [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Karl Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sounds like you're looking for this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Segmented_Tag This can not cross way boundaries. If someone splits that way in between to and from there is a problem. Matthias That's exactly the point--that tagging scheme is intended to get away from splitting ways. If this were to be adopted, the need to split ways would be greatly reduced. Splitting ways would probably need to be made non-trivial by the editors and it would take some careful support for copying the relevant tags to new relations and modifying the old ones. Ways need to be split - we can not have the whole world in one single way. If some of the data has to be duplicated the usefulnes of the tagging scheme is allready greatly reduced. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
Karl Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sounds like you're looking for this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Segmented_Tag This can not cross way boundaries. If someone splits that way in between to and from there is a problem. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Matthias Julius [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Karl Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sounds like you're looking for this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Segmented_Tag This can not cross way boundaries. If someone splits that way in between to and from there is a problem. Matthias That's exactly the point--that tagging scheme is intended to get away from splitting ways. If this were to be adopted, the need to split ways would be greatly reduced. Splitting ways would probably need to be made non-trivial by the editors and it would take some careful support for copying the relevant tags to new relations and modifying the old ones. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Robin Paulson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/8/6 Ben Laenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tuesday 05 August 2008, Karl Newman wrote: Sounds like you're looking for this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Segmented_ Tag Segmented tags doesn't solve data duplication for dual carriage ways, or a set of roads with lots of cul-de-sacs with the same name, and similar situations. is there any reason why the data model has to have ways which are single direction and linear? by which i mean, why can't a single way be branched in shape? They were in the beginning, but being non linear made it hard to place labels on street on streets and thus screwed up renderers. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
Matthias Julius wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (vegard) writes: On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 11:07:24AM -, m*sh wrote: On Mon, August 4, 2008 10:14, vegard wrote: For naming of streets in cities, where properties change very often and you have to make many small ways, it sometimes gets annoying that the name is duplicated. I was wondering: How good/easy would it be to make a superway-relation to fix that? I.e. group several ways for labeling-intentions? I'm no expert on the inner workings in either of the renderers, but to me it sounds like a quick fix to a small annoyance. If someone that knows the renderers could either agree or disagree, I'd be happy anyways (well, obviously happier if they agree :) Actually there is a 'mantra' on a german mailing list stating that, we are not tagging for the renderer I agree. We're not tagging for the renderer. At least, we're not tagging it *wrongly* for the renderer. But in practise, we might need to give the renderer some hints with some extra tagging. Of that, I personally am a little more inclined to accept that. But others might agree/disagree with me. I think adding a relation like that to help the renderer does in no way destroy the data model. Regardless of the renderers, duplication of data is evil, IMHO. Every time a way is split to allow one of its properties to change all other properties are duplicated. [...] This leads me to another thought: How do editors handle cases where a way is member of a relation and you split it? Would make sense to add both parts to the relation imho. Does somebody know how editors handle that currently? Kind regards, ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 11:20:32AM +0200, Stefan Neufeind wrote: This leads me to another thought: How do editors handle cases where a way is member of a relation and you split it? Would make sense to add both parts to the relation imho. Does somebody know how editors handle that currently? Well, yes and no. One type of relation is for example turn restrictions. It can have exactly two ways, I guess, one from and one to-way. And regardless, it doesn't make much sense having a turn-restriction between two ways that don't connect :) I guess there are a lot of cases where it's not necessarily true. Someone who knows the implementation will have to tell how it's handled today, though. -- - Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:35 AM, vegard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 11:20:32AM +0200, Stefan Neufeind wrote: This leads me to another thought: How do editors handle cases where a way is member of a relation and you split it? Would make sense to add both parts to the relation imho. Does somebody know how editors handle that currently? Well, yes and no. One type of relation is for example turn restrictions. It can have exactly two ways, I guess, one from and one to-way. And regardless, it doesn't make much sense having a turn-restriction between two ways that don't connect :) I guess there are a lot of cases where it's not necessarily true. Someone who knows the implementation will have to tell how it's handled today, though. Potlatch just makes sure both parts are added to the relation which works well for routes. You're right though that ideally it would be slightly more intelligent about it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (vegard) writes: On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 11:07:24AM -, m*sh wrote: On Mon, August 4, 2008 10:14, vegard wrote: For naming of streets in cities, where properties change very often and you have to make many small ways, it sometimes gets annoying that the name is duplicated. I was wondering: How good/easy would it be to make a superway-relation to fix that? I.e. group several ways for labeling-intentions? I'm no expert on the inner workings in either of the renderers, but to me it sounds like a quick fix to a small annoyance. If someone that knows the renderers could either agree or disagree, I'd be happy anyways (well, obviously happier if they agree :) Actually there is a 'mantra' on a german mailing list stating that, we are not tagging for the renderer I agree. We're not tagging for the renderer. At least, we're not tagging it *wrongly* for the renderer. But in practise, we might need to give the renderer some hints with some extra tagging. Of that, I personally am a little more inclined to accept that. But others might agree/disagree with me. I think adding a relation like that to help the renderer does in no way destroy the data model. Regardless of the renderers, duplication of data is evil, IMHO. Every time a way is split to allow one of its properties to change all other properties are duplicated. I would love to have a method of specifying that a way is named xxx from node A to E and named yyy from E to G, is a secondary highway from A to D and tertiary from D to G, is oneway from C to F, B to C is on a bridge, D to F has a speed limit of z, ... Then there are bus, tram and cycle routes ... The more detail is put into database the more reasons people have to split ways. There are probably several ways to implement this. My favourite one is to move all meta-data into relations and to degrade ways essentially into multi-node segments. Better ideas? Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Matthias Julius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (vegard) writes: On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 11:07:24AM -, m*sh wrote: On Mon, August 4, 2008 10:14, vegard wrote: For naming of streets in cities, where properties change very often and you have to make many small ways, it sometimes gets annoying that the name is duplicated. I was wondering: How good/easy would it be to make a superway-relation to fix that? I.e. group several ways for labeling-intentions? I'm no expert on the inner workings in either of the renderers, but to me it sounds like a quick fix to a small annoyance. If someone that knows the renderers could either agree or disagree, I'd be happy anyways (well, obviously happier if they agree :) Actually there is a 'mantra' on a german mailing list stating that, we are not tagging for the renderer I agree. We're not tagging for the renderer. At least, we're not tagging it *wrongly* for the renderer. But in practise, we might need to give the renderer some hints with some extra tagging. Of that, I personally am a little more inclined to accept that. But others might agree/disagree with me. I think adding a relation like that to help the renderer does in no way destroy the data model. Regardless of the renderers, duplication of data is evil, IMHO. Every time a way is split to allow one of its properties to change all other properties are duplicated. I would love to have a method of specifying that a way is named xxx from node A to E and named yyy from E to G, is a secondary highway from A to D and tertiary from D to G, is oneway from C to F, B to C is on a bridge, D to F has a speed limit of z, ... Then there are bus, tram and cycle routes ... The more detail is put into database the more reasons people have to split ways. There are probably several ways to implement this. My favourite one is to move all meta-data into relations and to degrade ways essentially into multi-node segments. Better ideas? The whole splitting ways things is definitely an irritation at the moment, but at least the editors cope quite well with it. Can you demonstrate a working editor interface for the degraded ways idea? Or at least come up with some reasonable ideas as to how such an editor would work? By working I mean: - no need for a degree in the use of modifier keys - no need for an eleven button mouse - the interface makes the segmented data clearly visible - users can comprehend what's going on If you can then it makes it possible, if you can't then it'll just make the data uneditable. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
On Tuesday 05 August 2008, Karl Newman wrote: Sounds like you're looking for this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Segmented_ Tag Segmented tags doesn't solve data duplication for dual carriage ways, or a set of roads with lots of cul-de-sacs with the same name, and similar situations. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways is the better way to do it IMHO. Greetings Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
2008/8/6 Ben Laenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tuesday 05 August 2008, Karl Newman wrote: Sounds like you're looking for this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Segmented_ Tag Segmented tags doesn't solve data duplication for dual carriage ways, or a set of roads with lots of cul-de-sacs with the same name, and similar situations. is there any reason why the data model has to have ways which are single direction and linear? by which i mean, why can't a single way be branched in shape? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
On Mon, August 4, 2008 10:14, vegard wrote: For naming of streets in cities, where properties change very often and you have to make many small ways, it sometimes gets annoying that the name is duplicated. I was wondering: How good/easy would it be to make a superway-relation to fix that? I.e. group several ways for labeling-intentions? I'm no expert on the inner workings in either of the renderers, but to me it sounds like a quick fix to a small annoyance. If someone that knows the renderers could either agree or disagree, I'd be happy anyways (well, obviously happier if they agree :) Actually there is a 'mantra' on a german mailing list stating that, we are not tagging for the renderer But matter of factly a similar idea crosses my mind from time to time. Proposing a tag-combination: label=yes name = Mainstreet (e.g.) displayzoom = 12 label = yes : This would mean that the node has no physical representation name = 'foo': Label to be displayed displayzoom = nn : the zoomfactor (or higher) that will result in displaying the label at a given zoomrate. 'Labelling' like this could also help when there are many labels/captions to be displayed in a given area and avoid interference - IMHO -- -m*sh- ___ |harry w. graner |mail: hy [_at_] sha-mash [_dot_] de |--- [public gpg-key on request] take a look at my blogs: http://sha-mash.blog.de ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
H, m*sh wrote: But matter of factly a similar idea crosses my mind from time to time. Proposing a tag-combination: label=yes name = Mainstreet (e.g.) displayzoom = 12 This is not a similar thought. The original poster talked about combining ways to form relations, thus informing the renderer that the name need only be rendered once for the length of it. You are proposing to sprinkle the map with extra nodes that are not connected to anything, which is of course unacceptable ;-) Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 11:07:24AM -, m*sh wrote: On Mon, August 4, 2008 10:14, vegard wrote: For naming of streets in cities, where properties change very often and you have to make many small ways, it sometimes gets annoying that the name is duplicated. I was wondering: How good/easy would it be to make a superway-relation to fix that? I.e. group several ways for labeling-intentions? I'm no expert on the inner workings in either of the renderers, but to me it sounds like a quick fix to a small annoyance. If someone that knows the renderers could either agree or disagree, I'd be happy anyways (well, obviously happier if they agree :) Actually there is a 'mantra' on a german mailing list stating that, we are not tagging for the renderer I agree. We're not tagging for the renderer. At least, we're not tagging it *wrongly* for the renderer. But in practise, we might need to give the renderer some hints with some extra tagging. Of that, I personally am a little more inclined to accept that. But others might agree/disagree with me. I think adding a relation like that to help the renderer does in no way destroy the data model. But matter of factly a similar idea crosses my mind from time to time. Proposing a tag-combination: label=yes name = Mainstreet (e.g.) displayzoom = 12 label = yes : This would mean that the node has no physical representation name = 'foo': Label to be displayed displayzoom = nn : the zoomfactor (or higher) that will result in displaying the label at a given zoomrate. 'Labelling' like this could also help when there are many labels/captions to be displayed in a given area and avoid interference - IMHO Hmm. Well. I'm more inclined to add an importance-qualifier to a label, and let the renderer sort out how much it can add :) -- - Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] superways as relations ?
On 04/08/2008 11:14, vegard wrote: For naming of streets in cities, where properties change very often and you have to make many small ways, it sometimes gets annoying that the name is duplicated. I was wondering: How good/easy would it be to make a superway-relation to fix that? I.e. group several ways for labeling-intentions? I'm no expert on the inner workings in either of the renderers, but to me it sounds like a quick fix to a small annoyance. If someone that knows the renderers could either agree or disagree, I'd be happy anyways (well, obviously happier if they agree :) See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways AFAIK this isn't rendered at present, so for the time being the names would have to appear on the ways themselves as well if you want to see them, but in principle, a renderer could take note of this, and if it becomes a widespread idiom, no doubt they will. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
