Re: [talk-au] Bridges in the ACT
On 14 August 2010 14:46, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: What would be the best way to get a publically accessable web map of the ACT showing the OSM data but with the bridges highlighted? Also bridges that have not had their bridge_number tagged could be highlighted in red and those whose number has been tagged could be highlighted in green. Are you asking about a custom mapnik style sheet? Why are you using bridge_number=* instead of ref=* or bridge:ref=* ? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Bridges in the ACT
Are you asking about a custom mapnik style sheet? Yes Why are you using bridge_number=* instead of ref=* or bridge:ref=* ? My understanding is that ref or bridge:ref would be the ref of the road over the bridge. These are numbers relating specifically to the bridge structure itself and therefore bridge_number would be of a similar nature to the proposed tag bridge_name. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bridges in the ACT
On 14 August 2010 17:50, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: Are you asking about a custom mapnik style sheet? Yes Do you plan to host it locally on your own computer, or just want someone else to do it all? Why are you using bridge_number=* instead of ref=* or bridge:ref=* ? My understanding is that ref or bridge:ref would be the ref of the road over the bridge. These are numbers relating specifically to the bridge structure itself and therefore bridge_number would be of a similar nature to the proposed tag bridge_name. name=* should be the bridge name, not the road name, which is why you shouldn't use name=* on roundabouts unless the roundabout actually has a name. same with ref=* or at the very least I would do bridge:ref=* since you are referring to some kind of reference number for that bridge. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Bridges in the Act
Do you plan to host it locally on your own computer, I don't plan to host this locally on my own computer. or just want someone else to do it all? Consider my question withdrawn. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bridges in the ACT
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:54 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: name=* should be the bridge name, not the road name Not necessarily, according to the wiki. It seems that this is still ambiguous. ... at the very least I would do bridge:ref=* since you are referring to some kind of reference number for that bridge. This sounds right to me. But if you propose bridge:ref=* then you should probably also use bridge:name=* rather than the already proposed bridge_name=*. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bridges in the ACT
On 14 August 2010 14:46, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: What would be the best way to get a publically accessable web map of the ACT showing the OSM data but with the bridges highlighted? I assumed you meant the bridge casing... http://maps.bigtincan.com/?z=17ll=-35.293,149.128layer=BFFFT or did you mean something else? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bridges in the ACT
On 14 August 2010 18:19, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: This sounds right to me. But if you propose bridge:ref=* then you should probably also use bridge:name=* rather than the already proposed bridge_name=*. I still think it should be just name=*, after all what's the point of the road name being rendered when you expect the bridge name to be? If you want to do name/ref for the way this is when you need to think about route relations, in which case you only need the bridge to be tagged with ref=* ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bridges in the ACT
On 15/08/2010, at 1:28 AM, John Smith wrote: On 14 August 2010 18:19, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: This sounds right to me. But if you propose bridge:ref=* then you should probably also use bridge:name=* rather than the already proposed bridge_name=*. I still think it should be just name=*, after all what's the point of the road name being rendered when you expect the bridge name to be? The big problem is that you can't tell what the name=* refers to, and what if the road and bridge name are both important? The unambiguous way to do it is to use a bridge relation - you put the name/ref on the relation, have the road, cycleway, footway on the bridge be a member with a 'across' roles, and the river or other road be a member with the 'under' role. Which also lets you say that the road and cycleway are part of the same bridge, not two separate ones. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
