Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering of disused railway stations

[Andrew]

Richard Fairhurst  writes:

> 
> It's not so much a rendering bug, more a tagging 
discrepancy. The railway
> stations in question are those tagged as
> 
> railway=station; disused=yes
> 
> There are those who say (and I can see their point) 
that this is a really
> dumb way of tagging things. It's effectively saying 
"This is a railway
> station; OH NO IT'S NOT". It means every single client 
using OSM data has to
> know about "disused=yes" and add an extra 
processing rule. If you're writing
> a Mapnik stylesheet, that's an extra condition on 
pretty much every single
> rule - disused pubs, disused stations, disused roads, 
and so on. OSM tagging
> doesn't, and shouldn't, usually work like that.
> 
> So the better approach is to tag it differently.

Should we file a bug against the style sheet complaining 
that it encourages dubious tagging?

--
Andrew


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering of disused railway stations

[Richard Fairhurst]

Bogus Zaba wrote:
> Anybody know where should this be reported as a rendering bug?

It's not so much a rendering bug, more a tagging discrepancy. The railway
stations in question are those tagged as

railway=station; disused=yes

There are those who say (and I can see their point) that this is a really
dumb way of tagging things. It's effectively saying "This is a railway
station; OH NO IT'S NOT". It means every single client using OSM data has to
know about "disused=yes" and add an extra processing rule. If you're writing
a Mapnik stylesheet, that's an extra condition on pretty much every single
rule - disused pubs, disused stations, disused roads, and so on. OSM tagging
doesn't, and shouldn't, usually work like that.

So the better approach is to tag it differently. Unfortunately there isn't
really an agreed, simple way of doing this. Sometimes you'll see something
like

railway=disused; disused=station

which (IMHO) is ugly, and means nothing can be two disused things at once
(which would be a problem if Stalybridge station and its pub were to close
;) ).

And, of course, this is OSM so there are always people who think the
solution is namespacing, aka liberal use of colons.
railway:historic=station_site seems mildly popular, but heck, that's
unwieldy.

Personally I like these simple variants reported by taginfo:

railway=disused_station
railway=abandoned_station
or even
historic=station

cheers
Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Rendering-of-disused-railway-stations-tp5745223p5745232.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering of disused railway stations

[Derick Rethans]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Bogus Zaba wrote:

> Has anybody else noticed / been annoyed by the way that disused railway
> stations are rendered just like regular railway stations on the cycle map,
> transport map and MapQuest open views of OSM?

I think disused railways and raillines that are not visible on the 
ground shouldn't be in the data base. If the structure and/or tracks are 
still there, they should be rendered differently. However, because it's 
no longer a station, railway=station seems inappropriate.

cheers,
Derick

-- 
http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering of disused railway stations

[Richard Mann]

One in London has had disused: put in front of the tags

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1528661184


On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Bogus Zaba  wrote:

> Has anybody else noticed / been annoyed by the way that disused railway
> stations are rendered just like regular railway stations on the cycle map,
> transport map and MapQuest open views of OSM?
>
> Mapnik seems to know the difference and renders the disused stations with
> a smaller symbol and grey label, but viewing the other three layers leads
> you to the conclusion that these are all regular stations.
>
> For an example see this (http://www.openstreetmap.org/**
> ?lat=53.43943&lon=-2.96918&**zoom=15&layers=C)
> in North Liverpool where I was cycling using the cycle map recently. Bank
> Hall and Kirkdale are regular stations which are both useful landmarks for
> a cyclist and offer a potential ride home whereas Spellow and Walton &
> Anfield do not exist.
>
> I understand that there are enthusiasts out there who are interested in
> historic maps, but the features which are important for that type of
> mapping can just get in the way of useful everyday find-your-way-around
> maps.
>
> Anybody know where should this be reported as a rendering bug?
>
> Thanks
>
> Bogus Zaba
>
> __**_
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Rendering of disused railway stations

[Bogus Zaba]

Has anybody else noticed / been annoyed by the way that disused railway 
stations are rendered just like regular railway stations on the cycle 
map, transport map and MapQuest open views of OSM?


Mapnik seems to know the difference and renders the disused stations 
with a smaller symbol and grey label, but viewing the other three layers 
leads you to the conclusion that these are all regular stations.


For an example see this 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.43943&lon=-2.96918&zoom=15&layers=C) 
in North Liverpool where I was cycling using the cycle map recently. 
Bank Hall and Kirkdale are regular stations which are both useful 
landmarks for a cyclist and offer a potential ride home whereas Spellow 
and Walton & Anfield do not exist.


I understand that there are enthusiasts out there who are interested in 
historic maps, but the features which are important for that type of 
mapping can just get in the way of useful everyday find-your-way-around 
maps.


Anybody know where should this be reported as a rendering bug?

Thanks

Bogus Zaba

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb