Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Evan Sebire wrote: > A complicated solution would be to have user options similar to non-web > applications. Tick-box to emphasise paths that have bicycle = yes tag. The > current cycle map is good but tick-boxes for other properties such as fuel, > bbq, motel etc. The rendering is good but the user preferences are > limited. With a fuel station, it would be useful to be able to mark lpg=yes, diesel=yes, e10=yes ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:30:02 +0200 Evan Sebire wrote: > Maybe slightly off-topic but does the current rendering engine obey the width > parameter? I wanted to fix up a river that is in some parts 10m wide and > others 100m. Would setting the width be the correct way to make it render > better? No. Use waterway=riverbank to define the actual river banks then it will render nicer. Has to be a closed area. Here's an example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-19.2929&lon=146.8142&zoom=14&layers=B000FTF The river is defined using waterway=riverbank upto about Rosslea then waterway=river after that. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
On Thursday 06 Aug 2009 10:13:47 John Smith wrote: > --- On Thu, 6/8/09, Evan Sebire wrote: > > A complicated solution would be to have user options > > similar to non-web > > applications. Tick-box to emphasise paths that have > > bicycle = yes tag. The > > current cycle map is good but tick-boxes for other > > properties such as fuel, > > bbq, motel etc. The rendering is good but the user > > preferences are limited. > > This would be best dealt with as a layer option, and this layer highlights > stuff over the top of a base map layer, which is rendered in a general type > of way. > > What we're currently doing is working out the kinks on the base layer, from > there we can work on these specalised layers that are shown when the user > ticks the box. > > It can be done, I can only assume cyclestreets.net does this for showing > cycle routes, I doubt they would render individual tiles for each search > query. Maybe slightly off-topic but does the current rendering engine obey the width parameter? I wanted to fix up a river that is in some parts 10m wide and others 100m. Would setting the width be the correct way to make it render better? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Evan Sebire wrote: > A complicated solution would be to have user options > similar to non-web > applications. Tick-box to emphasise paths that have > bicycle = yes tag. The > current cycle map is good but tick-boxes for other > properties such as fuel, > bbq, motel etc. The rendering is good but the user > preferences are limited. This would be best dealt with as a layer option, and this layer highlights stuff over the top of a base map layer, which is rendered in a general type of way. What we're currently doing is working out the kinks on the base layer, from there we can work on these specalised layers that are shown when the user ticks the box. It can be done, I can only assume cyclestreets.net does this for showing cycle routes, I doubt they would render individual tiles for each search query. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
On Thursday 06 Aug 2009 09:21:59 John Smith wrote: > --- On Thu, 6/8/09, Evan Sebire wrote: > > I'm just still not sure if we should categorise paths so > > they display > > correctly with the current limitations of a rendering > > algorithm. > > What limitation? :) > > We're currently in the process of defining how things render how we choose, > we just need to be able to describe it in terms mapnik understands though. A complicated solution would be to have user options similar to non-web applications. Tick-box to emphasise paths that have bicycle = yes tag. The current cycle map is good but tick-boxes for other properties such as fuel, bbq, motel etc. The rendering is good but the user preferences are limited. I think a lot of data is entered and tagged a specific way so it displays on the main map the way an individual would like to see. I recently came across a series of rural roads that were labelled as cycleways because they are part of a cycle tour. (Switzerland) Probably the best solution for now it to have a separate domain for each kind of map and focus on getting the data correctly entered and let Marble worry about user tick-boxes. http://edu.kde.org/marble just some random thoughts. I think the quality of the data is generally excellent, and just like wikipedia there will be users who don't think things through and enter something as they initially think. I'm guilty of this as- well. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Evan Sebire wrote: > I'm just still not sure if we should categorise paths so > they display > correctly with the current limitations of a rendering > algorithm. What limitation? :) We're currently in the process of defining how things render how we choose, we just need to be able to describe it in terms mapnik understands though. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
I'm just still not sure if we should categorise paths so they display correctly with the current limitations of a rendering algorithm. When reading the main wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Cycleway ) I understand the definition of cycleway to mean bicycle only paths or paths created specifically for bicycles. So rail-trails don't really fall into this category. http://www.railtrails.org.au/trails/ Railtrails were not designed predominantly for bicycles, and most sections near urban centres would predominantly be used by pedestrians. I lived near a disused track and saw it develop into a rail-trail. I personally don't care as I often ride a bike, but I think the map should be consistant and the only way to achieve this is to use path and then describe the properties. Opencyclemap / openhikingmap / openhorsemap etc can then render the appropriate map. Here is an example of why it is best to use the path tag for shared use paths http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=-37.81133383418217&lon=145.39752250272988&zoom=15&layers=BF000F track 10 is really a fire-access track (DSE) with the majority of traffic being foot. This has been categorised as a bike path because I assume it was surveyed that way. regards, Evan On Wednesday 05 Aug 2009 22:34:07 j...@talk21.com wrote: > Noted. > > As far as I'm aware, all railtrails are designed predominantly for bicycle > use. This is a reflection of both the distances usually involved and the > users they attract. I do see the occasional walker on a railtrail, and > these, horse riders and wheelchair users are also encouraged to use them. > > Another advantage of highway=cycleway is that this causes the cycleway to > be immediately obvious to those likely to use the facility (cyclists). Not > only do they appear distinctively blue on the main osm.org map, but they > show on the specific Garmin cycle maps available at > http://www.osmaustralia.org/garmincycle.php > > John > > --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Evan Sebire wrote: > I would have thought that the tag highway=path would be more appropriate. > After that follow what is in the wiki guidelines. I don't think we should > necessarily appeal to the majority/minority on a particular path, but > describe its properties. > I was labelling many hiking paths as footway but have now seen it is better > to use path and add properties such as horse, bicycle and sac_scale. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
Noted. As far as I'm aware, all railtrails are designed predominantly for bicycle use. This is a reflection of both the distances usually involved and the users they attract. I do see the occasional walker on a railtrail, and these, horse riders and wheelchair users are also encouraged to use them. Another advantage of highway=cycleway is that this causes the cycleway to be immediately obvious to those likely to use the facility (cyclists). Not only do they appear distinctively blue on the main osm.org map, but they show on the specific Garmin cycle maps available at http://www.osmaustralia.org/garmincycle.php John --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Evan Sebire wrote: I would have thought that the tag highway=path would be more appropriate. After that follow what is in the wiki guidelines. I don't think we should necessarily appeal to the majority/minority on a particular path, but describe its properties. I was labelling many hiking paths as footway but have now seen it is better to use path and add properties such as horse, bicycle and sac_scale. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
I would have thought that the tag highway=path would be more appropriate. After that follow what is in the wiki guidelines. I don't think we should necessarily appeal to the majority/minority on a particular path, but describe its properties. I was labelling many hiking paths as footway but have now seen it is better to use path and add properties such as horse, bicycle and sac_scale. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale Evan On Wednesday 05 Aug 2009 11:32:34 Liz wrote: > On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, John Henderson wrote: > > I expect to be mapping some of these sooner or later. I note that > > there's no > > > > highway= > > > > tag given at > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Rail_Tra > >il s > > > > Is this intentional? Or an oversight? > > > > I'd expect them to be "highway=cycleway", making the "bicycle=yes" tag > > redundant. > > > > John > > i'd say it needs updating to reflect newer tags. > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, John Henderson wrote: > I expect to be mapping some of these sooner or later. I note that > there's no > > highway= > > tag given at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Rail_Trail >s > > Is this intentional? Or an oversight? > > I'd expect them to be "highway=cycleway", making the "bicycle=yes" tag > redundant. > > John > i'd say it needs updating to reflect newer tags. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, John Henderson wrote: > Is this intentional? Or an oversight? That's only a guide for specific things, the main map features should be checked first. > I'd expect them to be "highway=cycleway", making the > "bicycle=yes" tag > redundant. If you mean what I think you mean I'd use railway=abandoned, highway=cycleway ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
