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=52.6509984=-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=53.1373688=-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
Re: [Talk-GB] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.
On 06/01/2019 19:52, Michael Booth wrote: Replying to this message as for some reason Dave's emails never come through to my inbox. I agree these should be updated to the new tag, but not simply with a automated edit - it would be much better to check each individual instance first before retagging. I've just looked at some of the highway=ford nodes, and a number of them could do fixing/improving other things as well. For example there's a ford tag but the roads visible on bing haven't been added, with some the road and waterway aren't connected, and on others there's a ford tag on a road but no waterway running through it. So let's get the tag updated but not as a find/replace exercise - do it as a UK project, maproulette or whatever so that these other issues can be fixed as well. Just to be clear to everybody, my proposed edit will not create or solve any issues. It's a simple transference from one tag to another. I fail to see how "other existing issues" make it a reason not to perform the edit. Indeed, performing the edit will make it *easier* to do what Michael proposes as *all* fords will have the same tag. (And they'll be rendered on the 'standard' map) DaveF ___ 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 06/01/2019 20:47, Edward Catmur wrote: But what does "a bit much" mean in relation to mapping what you find on the ground? Either a thing is there or it isn't. You can leave it out, or make a reasonable stab at drawing what you actually see in front of your nose. To me the issue is one of consistency - it feels a bit odd to map one feature in detail if features around it aren't similarly mapped. OTOH when adding detail you have to stop somewhere. So on second thoughts go ahead - it's great that you're doing this. Just bear in mind that it's better to map something - even if it's just a node ford with no width, length or depth - than nothing at all. Well you can't detail everything in one go, you have to start somewhere. I try to go back to the map and add as much detail as I can from time to time, from photos, notes, etc. If you just want something - anything will do, I don't see the point in bothering. There are plenty of other maps with that -- Google, Bing, OS. The whole point of OSM is that you can build up a proper detailed record of an area, and each mapper can add their own expertise. If I add all the river banks, someone else can add all the telegraph poles. >> Which raises another question -- what is the correct temporary tagging for "this is where I've got to, I will come back and do some more soon, I know it's not finished"? >> > > Possibly fixme=continue? It's often used as a suggestion to other mappers, but there's nothing to stop you using it as a reminder to yourself. Thanks, but "fixme" sounds like a request for help, which is not what I'm saying. I know what's wanted and I intend to do it in due course -- I may have some relevant photos or notes. Which is not to prevent anyone else doing it first of course. cheers, 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.
Replying to this message as for some reason Dave's emails never come through to my inbox. I agree these should be updated to the new tag, but not simply with a automated edit - it would be much better to check each individual instance first before retagging. I've just looked at some of the highway=ford nodes, and a number of them could do fixing/improving other things as well. For example there's a ford tag but the roads visible on bing haven't been added, with some the road and waterway aren't connected, and on others there's a ford tag on a road but no waterway running through it. So let's get the tag updated but not as a find/replace exercise - do it as a UK project, maproulette or whatever so that these other issues can be fixed as well. On 06/01/2019 09:32, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 1/5/19 9:49 PM, Dave F wrote: I'm about to do a GB wide edit changing highway=ford (545) to ford=yes (4814). I know a few contributors like to get upset about wide area edits, even when they been discussed, so I thought I'd give you a heads up. It sounds as if you are belittling those who "like to get upset" but at the same time you're writing your message in a combative and uncooperative tone that is increasing the likelihood of someone getting upset! Yes, it has been discussed a couple of times on Tagging, & once on OSM-carto when deciding on the icon to use. It would be good if you could link to these discussions instead of just claiming they were had, for the benefit of those who joined between "a few years ago" and now. Bye Frederik ___ 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 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. The ford is only the highway across the river. That's mapped correctly as a way with a ford=yes tag: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/660938519 I'd delete your area & the ford=yes node. I'd also add a weir tag to the downstream side to indicate the sudden drop in water level. I have been mapping local waterways as areas, where both banks are shown as such on OS OpenData. It is a tedious process because river banks are usually so wiggly. So I do a bit at a time as my time permits. To your natural=water I'd add the complimentary tag water=river to make it easier for data consumers to find just rivers. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water gives a variety of options. DaveF ___ 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 06/01/2019 15:50, Edward Catmur wrote: > It would seem a bit much to map the ford as an area unless both the river and the highway away from the ford are mapped as areas. For the same reason I wouldn't usually map a ford as a way unless the river is mapped as an area. Thanks Edward. But what does "a bit much" mean in relation to mapping what you find on the ground? Either a thing is there or it isn't. You can leave it out, or make a reasonable stab at drawing what you actually see in front of your nose. 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. I have been mapping local waterways as areas, where both banks are shown as such on OS OpenData. It is a tedious process because river banks are usually so wiggly. So I do a bit at a time as my time permits. Which raises another question -- what is the correct temporary tagging for "this is where I've got to, I will come back and do some more soon, I know it's not finished"? cheers, 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.
On 06/01/2019 15:50, Edward Catmur wrote: It would seem a bit much to map the ford as an area unless both the river and the highway away from the ford are mapped as areas. For the same reason I wouldn't usually map a ford as a way unless the river is mapped as an area. Apropos of not much, I wonder whether the ford is relevant for water-based routing along the river. Perhaps to canoes and hovercraft... There are quite a few highways that have streams of water running along them, used by walkers, bike riders as well as motor vehicles. This is where ford=yes as a way is appropriate, as indicated on the wiki. In any case the point where the highway intersects the thalweg should be tagged with something to indicate that it is not in error. That is, where a highway and a river cross there should either be a node tagged as a ford, or either the river or the highway should be tagged as bridge or tunnel (and there should be no node at the intersection). With regard to the automated edit, I'd like to know: - does this fix or solve anything (ie for data consumers), or is it just to make data consistent? Both. The 'standard' map doesn't render highway=ford. Constancy avoids confusion, making things easier to comprehend, & reduces errors. - what are you doing to nodes that have both highway=ford and ford=*? removing highway=ford, as they're all nodes. - what are you going to do to prevent more highway=ford nodes being created in future? Nothing, other than what's already in place. I've not checked all editors but highway=ford default was removed from Potlatch & never included in iD (I believe). JOSM flags it as a 'deprecated tag' error message on upload. And wiki is clear. However, contributors (especially newbies) copy tags they see others have already added, assuming it's correct practice. Removing abandoned tags will greatly reduce the likelihood of them returning. DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.
It would seem a bit much to map the ford as an area unless both the river and the highway away from the ford are mapped as areas. For the same reason I wouldn't usually map a ford as a way unless the river is mapped as an area. Apropos of not much, I wonder whether the ford is relevant for water-based routing along the river. Perhaps to canoes and hovercraft... In any case the point where the highway intersects the thalweg should be tagged with something to indicate that it is not in error. That is, where a highway and a river cross there should either be a node tagged as a ford, or either the river or the highway should be tagged as bridge or tunnel (and there should be no node at the intersection). With regard to the automated edit, I'd like to know: - does this fix or solve anything (ie for data consumers), or is it just to make data consistent? - what are you doing to nodes that have both highway=ford and ford=*? - what are you going to do to prevent more highway=ford nodes being created in future? On Sun, 6 Jan 2019, 14:25 Martin Wynne >> the same time you're writing your message in a combative and > >> uncooperative tone that is increasing the likelihood of someone getting > >> upset! > > > > Well, yes, I suppose I am. I'm gradually becoming irritated by the > > increasing reluctance (verging on paranoia) to correcting erroneous > > data. > > Well that depends on who decides it's erroneous? > > From this page: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct > > "Note also that documentation of tagging on the Wiki is not the final > arbiter of 'correct' tagging." > > Treating a ford as a single node strikes me as a bit daft when if you > zoom in on the map it clearly occupies a mappable area between the > various property boundaries and the entry and exit points on the highway. > > We are instructed to "map what we see", and the fords in this area are > definitely bigger than a single point such as a lamp-post or postbox. Is > landuse=ford acceptable? > > cheers, > > Martin. > > ___ > 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.
the same time you're writing your message in a combative and uncooperative tone that is increasing the likelihood of someone getting upset! Well, yes, I suppose I am. I'm gradually becoming irritated by the increasing reluctance (verging on paranoia) to correcting erroneous data. Well that depends on who decides it's erroneous? From this page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct "Note also that documentation of tagging on the Wiki is not the final arbiter of 'correct' tagging." Treating a ford as a single node strikes me as a bit daft when if you zoom in on the map it clearly occupies a mappable area between the various property boundaries and the entry and exit points on the highway. We are instructed to "map what we see", and the fords in this area are definitely bigger than a single point such as a lamp-post or postbox. Is landuse=ford acceptable? cheers, 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.
On 06/01/2019 09:32, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 1/5/19 9:49 PM, Dave F wrote: I'm about to do a GB wide edit changing highway=ford (545) to ford=yes (4814). I know a few contributors like to get upset about wide area edits, even when they been discussed, so I thought I'd give you a heads up. It sounds as if you are belittling those who "like to get upset" but at the same time you're writing your message in a combative and uncooperative tone that is increasing the likelihood of someone getting upset! Well, yes, I suppose I am. I'm gradually becoming irritated by the increasing reluctance (verging on paranoia) to correcting erroneous data. It started as a concern over mass 'bot' edits, but has now spread to any kind of amendments over a certain area. There's more concern over an edit's geographical size than what's actually being edited. That can't be right. Claims (I'm paraphrasing, but only slightly) such as 'I didn't know about discussions', 'I wasn't involved in those discussions' & 'I want OSM to remain the same as when I first started' are not valid arguments. Yes, it has been discussed a couple of times on Tagging, & once on OSM-carto when deciding on the icon to use. It would be good if you could link to these discussions instead of just claiming they were had, for the benefit of those who joined between "a few years ago" and now. I disagree. I provided evidence of the conclusions of those discussions & indication of which was more popular in Britain. Anyone who has concerns over that could perform their own research. Of course, an easy way to search the archives would be beneficial. Bye Frederik ___ 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 should have clarified the 545 highway=ford tags to be changed are all nodes. 92 of those also have the ford=yes tag (Red) http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/F0z Check out Duddon Sands PROWs. That looks far too risky http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/F0C Cheers DaveF On 06/01/2019 09:51, Neil Matthews wrote: Presumably only those ways that have a consistent highway value for ways joined at both ends? If there's a different highway value at ways joined at each end, then you should at minimum add a fixme to the ford section, or a note for local mappers to check? Cheers, Neil On 05/01/2019 20:49, Dave F wrote: Hi I'm about to do a GB wide edit changing highway=ford (545) to ford=yes (4814). I know a few contributors like to get upset about wide area edits, even when they been discussed, so I thought I'd give you a heads up. ___ 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.
Hi Martin, It's a bit of a do-ocracy - you can take the initiative yourself, but you should follow the code of conduct, which includes discussing it with the right local groups and giving time for comments on the edit you want to make. See the instructions here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct Cheers Dan Op zo 6 jan. 2019 om 11:24 schreef Martin Wynne : > > On 05/01/2019 20:49, Dave F wrote: > > I'm about to do a GB wide edit > > As a recent mapper I'm interested to know - if a GB-wide edit is needed, > how does it get decided who should do it? > > cheers, > > Martin. > > ___ > 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 05/01/2019 20:49, Dave F wrote: I'm about to do a GB wide edit As a recent mapper I'm interested to know - if a GB-wide edit is needed, how does it get decided who should do it? cheers, 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.
Presumably only those ways that have a consistent highway value for ways joined at both ends? If there's a different highway value at ways joined at each end, then you should at minimum add a fixme to the ford section, or a note for local mappers to check? Cheers, Neil On 05/01/2019 20:49, Dave F wrote: > Hi > I'm about to do a GB wide edit changing highway=ford (545) to ford=yes > (4814). I know a few contributors like to get upset about wide area > edits, even when they been discussed, so I thought I'd give you a > heads up. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.
Hi, On 1/5/19 9:49 PM, Dave F wrote: > I'm about to do a GB wide edit changing highway=ford (545) to ford=yes > (4814). I know a few contributors like to get upset about wide area > edits, even when they been discussed, so I thought I'd give you a heads up. It sounds as if you are belittling those who "like to get upset" but at the same time you're writing your message in a combative and uncooperative tone that is increasing the likelihood of someone getting upset! > Yes, it has been discussed a couple of times on Tagging, & once on > OSM-carto when deciding on the icon to use. It would be good if you could link to these discussions instead of just claiming they were had, for the benefit of those who joined between "a few years ago" and now. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.
Hi I'm about to do a GB wide edit changing highway=ford (545) to ford=yes (4814). I know a few contributors like to get upset about wide area edits, even when they been discussed, so I thought I'd give you a heads up. Please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=ford for the reasons. Yes, it has been discussed a couple of times on Tagging, & once on OSM-carto when deciding on the icon to use. That those discussions happened a few years ago, & you may not have been involved, does not negate the reasons for the swap. Cheers DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
