[Talk-GB] OSM Hi-vis
Hi all, OSM UK are now taking orders for high-vis vests. Show your support for OpenStreetMap by ordering one or more today at: https://osmuk.org/product/osm-uk-hi-vis-vest/ Because we're running this on a volunteer basis at cost, I will collate a few orders and send them to our supplier in bulk. I'll send the first order at the end of the month for delivery in early February. For now we are restricting shipping to the UK, Isle of Man and Channel Islands and order will be fulfilled by Elite Industrial Suppliers Ltd (or similar if the need arises to change supplier). Best regards, *Rob* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.
On 07/01/2019 17:38, Paul Berry wrote: I'd say the analogue to a ford is a level crossing: The iD editor lets you set ford=level_crossing (as opposed to stepping_stones, etc.). Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.
I'd say the analogue to a ford is a level crossing: two ways of different types, usually vertically separated but instead intersecting at the same level, notionally at a point (though you could define an area if you want that level of detail). Coincidentally, some fords local to me (one which remains elusive and not mapped) are on my radar. I'll wait for a consensus to emerge here before seeking them out for mapping. Regards, *Paul* On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 15:42, Edward Catmur wrote: > > > On Mon, 7 Jan 2019, 13:56 David Woolley >> On 07/01/2019 12:37, Mike Baggaley wrote: >> > I think that if an intersecting highway and waterway are mapped just as >> lines, then these represent the full width of the highway and waterway and >> it is illogical to use a line or area to represent the ford. If either the >> highway or waterway is mapped as an area then I would expect the ford to be >> mapped both as a line across the area and also as a node at the >> intersection of the centre line. Only if both highway and waterway are >> mapped as areas would expect the ford to be mapped as an area (and also as >> a node at the intersection of the centre lines). >> >> I would say that it should not be mapped as a node on the centre line. >> If data consumers want that, they can infer it from the more detailed >> mapping. >> >> I would say that fords are conceptually quite similar to bridges and >> tunnels, and people don't generally map those as points. >> > > However there is an intersection between two lines on the same level (the > centreline and the thalweg) which is suitable for tagging as a node. It's a > bit like mapping highway crossings. Or maybe railway level crossings - but > do we map those as a way or area yet? > > > ___ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.
On Mon, 7 Jan 2019, 13:56 David Woolley On 07/01/2019 12:37, Mike Baggaley wrote: > > I think that if an intersecting highway and waterway are mapped just as > lines, then these represent the full width of the highway and waterway and > it is illogical to use a line or area to represent the ford. If either the > highway or waterway is mapped as an area then I would expect the ford to be > mapped both as a line across the area and also as a node at the > intersection of the centre line. Only if both highway and waterway are > mapped as areas would expect the ford to be mapped as an area (and also as > a node at the intersection of the centre lines). > > I would say that it should not be mapped as a node on the centre line. > If data consumers want that, they can infer it from the more detailed > mapping. > > I would say that fords are conceptually quite similar to bridges and > tunnels, and people don't generally map those as points. > However there is an intersection between two lines on the same level (the centreline and the thalweg) which is suitable for tagging as a node. It's a bit like mapping highway crossings. Or maybe railway level crossings - but do we map those as a way or area yet? ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.
On 07/01/2019 12:37, Mike Baggaley wrote: I think that if an intersecting highway and waterway are mapped just as lines, then these represent the full width of the highway and waterway and it is illogical to use a line or area to represent the ford. If either the highway or waterway is mapped as an area then I would expect the ford to be mapped both as a line across the area and also as a node at the intersection of the centre line. Only if both highway and waterway are mapped as areas would expect the ford to be mapped as an area (and also as a node at the intersection of the centre lines). I spent a bit of time looking at how people mapped fords when I updated the rendering on https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html to support fords mapped as ways. There were examples were people had mapped the way perpendicular to the water (e.g. https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=21&lat=52.6509984&lon=-1.2567927 ) and also "long fords" where the two are one and the same (e.g. https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=20&lat=53.1373688&lon=-1.468014 ). I didn't find much (any?) area usage. Both types of mapping are pretty logical, though, as is "just add it as a node at the intersection". Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.
On 07/01/2019 12:37, Mike Baggaley wrote: I think that if an intersecting highway and waterway are mapped just as lines, then these represent the full width of the highway and waterway and it is illogical to use a line or area to represent the ford. If either the highway or waterway is mapped as an area then I would expect the ford to be mapped both as a line across the area and also as a node at the intersection of the centre line. Only if both highway and waterway are mapped as areas would expect the ford to be mapped as an area (and also as a node at the intersection of the centre lines). I would say that it should not be mapped as a node on the centre line. If data consumers want that, they can infer it from the more detailed mapping. I would say that fords are conceptually quite similar to bridges and tunnels, and people don't generally map those as points. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.
I think that if an intersecting highway and waterway are mapped just as lines, then these represent the full width of the highway and waterway and it is illogical to use a line or area to represent the ford. If either the highway or waterway is mapped as an area then I would expect the ford to be mapped both as a line across the area and also as a node at the intersection of the centre line. Only if both highway and waterway are mapped as areas would expect the ford to be mapped as an area (and also as a node at the intersection of the centre lines). Regards, Mike On 06/01/2019 16:44, Martin Wynne wrote: > For example I have just been updating a local ford well-known to me, > over the River Rea at Neen Savage: > > https://goo.gl/maps/NetZQD1UVfE2 > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.39462/-2.47891 > > That section of the river is mapped as an area, so I have added an > area of it as landuse=ford where it is also an area of road. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] weeklyOSM #441 2018-12-25-2018-12-31
The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 441, is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/11264/ Enjoy! weeklyOSM? who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages where?: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] weeklyOSM #441 2018-12-25-2018-12-31
The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 441, is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/11264/ Enjoy! weeklyOSM? who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages where?: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
