Re: [talk-au] Project of the Week / Month
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 12:33 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote: Like putting a way down the middle of each lane and then tieing that back to the road, or like just adding a lane:n:feature = value to the existing road way? Then you could do something like lane:0:restriction = rightturnonly. The problem with lane:n:feature, is say youre approaching traffic lights and you have a right-turn light with a long slip lane and a short left turn lane to avoid the lights, how do you tag this? When you go from lanes=2 to lanes=3, how does a renderer know which side the extra lane is on? If you have a 3-into-2 merge, how do you indicate which lane merges easily? Sometimes you might have a single slip-lane which joins a 2-lane road and becomes 3-lane. Another possibility for this tag, is an extra lane for pick-up/set-down at transport hubs or pull-in bus-stop lane, which doesnt have a barrier to the main way. In which case the lane might have psv tag or something. These are the sort of situations I think were being referred to as not having a standard tagging method yet. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Project of the Week / Month
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 10:55 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote: On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:37 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: One question.. lit=yes is fine for ways where you want to indicate that a way is lit, but how does one tag individual lights that arent on a way, for example wanting to tag lights around a park, shopping area or parking area. What about adding lit=yes to the node/way/relation that has the leisure=park, amenity=parking,... tag? A parking area may have lit/unlit parts, and most of these areas are too large to simply tag the whole area as lit/unlit. Ive had a look through wiki and there doesnt seem to be anything documented, and a few searches have only turned up a few dozen or so various uses such as street_lamp or lamp as various values/keys or the like. With aerial imagery, its quite possible to accurately tag the exact location of the light itself, and even a lot of street lamps have unique ref codes which could be tagged also. Id be quite happy to start tagging street lamps if there was an agreed upon tag. One thought, is that often street lights can share the same pole as power lines, so maybe utilising the existing pole/pylon/tower tags could be used in some way? David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Project of the Week / Month
On 5 November 2010 00:26, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: A parking area may have lit/unlit parts, and most of these areas are too large to simply tag the whole area as lit/unlit. Ive had a look through You could have 2 parking areas and mark one as lit and one that isn't... One thought, is that often street lights can share the same pole as power lines, so maybe utilising the existing pole/pylon/tower tags could be used in some way? You'd be better off spending your time making ref numbers along section of highways, since these may be used by cars that break down along various highways... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Project of the Week / Month
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:26 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 10:55 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote: On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:37 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: One question.. lit=yes is fine for ways where you want to indicate that a way is lit, but how does one tag individual lights that arent on a way, for example wanting to tag lights around a park, shopping area or parking area. What about adding lit=yes to the node/way/relation that has the leisure=park, amenity=parking,... tag? A parking area may have lit/unlit parts, and most of these areas are too large to simply tag the whole area as lit/unlit. Ive had a look through wiki and there doesnt seem to be anything documented, and a few searches have only turned up a few dozen or so various uses such as street_lamp or lamp as various values/keys or the like. On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:16 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: You could have 2 parking areas and mark one as lit and one that isn't... From a mapping perspective it would be good if there was one agreed upon method that was documented on the Editing_Standards_and_Conventions wiki page for doing this, because this is how I see the situation. The two parking areas issue is the same issue as needing to split a highway in order to tag different segments with different maxspeeds. For example if we have (best read with a monospaced font), A B C D |- asphalt -|--concrete blocks--| - surface |- 80 --| 100 --| - maxspeed |===| - road One way to do this is to split the road at A,B,C,D where AB has highway=road,maxspeed=80,surface=asphalt BC has highway=road,maxspeed=100,surface=asphalt CD has highway=road,maxspeed=100,surface=concrete_blocks Although another way is to again split the road at A,B,C,D but use relations so, AB,BC are in a relation tagged surface=asphalt CD is in a relation tagged surface=concrete_blocks AB is in a relation tagged maxspeed=80 BC,CD are in a relation tagged maxspeed=100 AB,BC,CD are in a relation tagged highway=road I think the first approach is probably better as it's simpler, except where we omit the highway tag and other tags that don't vary along the whole section of the road (like name). These tags should be put into a relation that contains all the smaller segments. The problem is this is a very generic thing, basically any map feature could potentially need to be split in order to do more detailed mapping, yet a lot of the proposals focus on just one feature. That relation that groups everything together could be type=multipolygon where the road segments or parking lot segments are of role=outer. Or for the road it could be type=collection (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways). Or I guess you could just leave out the type and roles (is this allowed?) altogether. I did this with http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1253061 so I could tag different parts of the outline of a park with different tags (in this case different barrier tags, but the tags could be anything). Although as this is the same as putting segments of a street together into a relation, why should a different approach be used when we are doing the same thing? So for the parking lot, when you split the parking lot to tag different parts with different surfaces or different lighting I think the amenity=parking, name=Joe's Parking Lot, capacity=1234 should all get shifted to the relation. This it avoids duplication of things so if someone changes the name it doesn't need to be changed on each individual way, it saves space and should lead to less errors. But it also seems like the cleaner solution. With aerial imagery, its quite possible to accurately tag the exact location of the light itself, and even a lot of street lamps have unique ref codes which could be tagged also. Id be quite happy to start tagging street lamps if there was an agreed upon tag. One thought, is that often street lights can share the same pole as power lines, so maybe utilising the existing pole/pylon/tower tags could be used in some way? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dstreet_lamp They use man_made tags I think, so there shouldn't be a conflict. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Project of the Week / Month
On 5 November 2010 10:54, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: The two parking areas issue is the same issue as needing to split a highway in order to tag different segments with different maxspeeds. For example if we have (best read with a monospaced font), Most either can't do anything about it, or don't care about doing anything about it as the current solution is good enough. It'd also be nice to be able to tag individual lanes, but again anyone that could do something about it doesn't seem motivated or interested enough to do something about it. At this stage the best solution I know of for joining the same sections of road together is to use a route relation, this is useful for when the road number and road name split, eg Bruce Highway is M1 and then it becomes the A1, but the M1 is also the Gateway Motorway and the Pacific Highway etc etc etc... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Project of the Week / Month
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:08 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Most either can't do anything about it, or don't care about doing anything about it as the current solution is good enough. It'd also be nice to be able to tag individual lanes, but again anyone that could do something about it doesn't seem motivated or interested enough to do something about it. Like putting a way down the middle of each lane and then tieing that back to the road, or like just adding a lane:n:feature = value to the existing road way? Then you could do something like lane:0:restriction = rightturnonly. At this stage the best solution I know of for joining the same sections of road together is to use a route relation, this is useful for when the road number and road name split, eg Bruce Highway is M1 and then it becomes the A1, but the M1 is also the Gateway Motorway and the Pacific Highway etc etc etc... That might be good for those cases, but I was thinking on a smaller scale where you have a 50m road that for the first 20m has maxspeed 20 and the last 80m as maxspeed 30. This doesn't really seem like a route to me. Becides the point I was trying to make was anything can be split ...roads, parks, rivers... in order to apply these secondary tags (like surface) to shorter segments. Since in all these cases you are doing the same thing the same approach should be used, hence the relation used to join the road segments shouldn't be any different to the relation used to join park or parking lot segments. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Project of the Week / Month
On 5 November 2010 11:33, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: Like putting a way down the middle of each lane and then tieing that back to the road, or like just adding a lane:n:feature = value to the existing road way? Then you could do something like lane:0:restriction = rightturnonly. There is lots of things that can effect different lanes differently, eg going under a bridge that angles upwards on one side with have greater clearance on one side compared to the other. Some places have diff maxspeed depending on which lane, etc etc etc. At this stage the best solution I know of for joining the same sections of road together is to use a route relation, this is useful for when the road number and road name split, eg Bruce Highway is M1 and then it becomes the A1, but the M1 is also the Gateway Motorway and the Pacific Highway etc etc etc... That might be good for those cases, but I was thinking on a smaller scale where you have a 50m road that for the first 20m has maxspeed 20 and the last 80m as maxspeed 30. This doesn't really seem like a route to me. Becides the point I was trying to make was anything can I could go into a rhetorical discussion about what a route is, but bus routes occur on small residential streets etc, so a route is just a way that has common segments. In this case you'd tag the name and any ref against the route relation and tag any variations between segments against the segments of way. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Project of the Week / Month
On 2010-11-04 10:26 PM, David Murn wrote: With aerial imagery, its quite possible to accurately tag the exact location of the light itself, and even a lot of street lamps have unique ref codes which could be tagged also. Id be quite happy to start tagging street lamps if there was an agreed upon tag. One thought, is that often street lights can share the same pole as power lines, so maybe utilising the existing pole/pylon/tower tags could be used in some way? Actually, streetlights (at least WA ones) have separate ID numbers to the poles they're on. And they're generally not written on the streetlight! So better off marking the pole its ref=xxx plus something to indicate the presence of the streetlight. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Project of the Week / Month
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 10:33:36 -0400 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: There are lit roads in a lot of places. Where there are few lit roads it might be even more interesting to have data on where the lights exist. Only if the roads twinkle on the glittermap http://ivan.sanchezortega.es/glittermap/ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Project of the Week / Month
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 10:33 -0400, Richard Weait wrote: I had a look at the PotW proposals[2] today and saw one for lit=yes. Now we haven't had a project for lit before, and it strikes me as fitting the goals. There are lit roads in a lot of places. Where there are few lit roads it might be even more interesting to have data on where the lights exist. One question.. lit=yes is fine for ways where you want to indicate that a way is lit, but how does one tag individual lights that arent on a way, for example wanting to tag lights around a park, shopping area or parking area. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Project of the Week / Month
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:33 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Hi talk-au, My name is Richard and I'm an OpenStreetMap enthusiast. I've been maintaining the Project of the Week [1] for a while. It's supposed to be a way for mappers to share the things about mapping that excite them with other mappers. A way to encourage folks to map things they might not otherwise consider mapping. And a way to educate new mappers as to the best practices in mapping their neighbourhood. I intend for PotW to be inclusive and interesting and entertaining. For now, I am concerned about inclusion. I had a look at the PotW proposals[2] today and saw one for lit=yes. Now we haven't had a project for lit before, and it strikes me as fitting the goals. There are lit roads in a lot of places. Where there are few lit roads it might be even more interesting to have data on where the lights exist. And then I thought, and the days are getting shorter, so this is a perfect tie-in for my introductory paragraph. And then I thought of you and felt bad. I don't want you to feel excluded from Project of the Week just because it is written by an insensitive northerner. So I'd like to invite you to participate in Project of the Week and I'd like to invite you to contribute to Project of the Week by by offering suggestions or even guest projects for consideration. I think it would be great to have projects that reflect your perspective as well. It doesn't matter that our hours of light are longer this time of year. We can still tag lit. On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:37 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 10:33 -0400, Richard Weait wrote: One question.. lit=yes is fine for ways where you want to indicate that a way is lit, but how does one tag individual lights that arent on a way, for example wanting to tag lights around a park, shopping area or parking area. What about adding lit=yes to the node/way/relation that has the leisure=park, amenity=parking,... tag? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
