[Talk-us] Abandoned Railroads
Eric Christensen wrote: The existing maps show abandoned railroad tracks in the area. That must have been some time ago as there are no traces of these tracks left. At what point do we remove those from the maps or should we keep them there indefinitely? railway=abandoned is, like old_ref and others, a tag that doesn't always have any current on the ground relevance; it simply shows that there once was a railway along the way. If there's something still there, other tags like railway=disused (if tracks still exist; this should really be rendered differently from railway=abandoned), highway=cycleway, or embankment/cutting=yes can be added, or a linear strip of green may appear between two landuse polygons. railway=abandoned basically adds extra information that this linear artifact was a railway, while that one was something else (maybe land set aside for a never-built highway, or a park corridor), and provides interesting historical data (even for the non-railfans, it can be interesting to know how the area was served by railways, and where the rights-of-way have not been preserved). It could be argued that we should not render railway=abandoned, but only the related features that still give evidence of such, but I think the historical interest is enough to show them (differently from railway=disused, though). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Changeset to revert (or defend?)
I have found the changes in a particular changeset to be rather unhelpful and in fact quite annoying: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4363590 Belongs to: NE2 Tags: comment = Removing negative layers from ground-level features. created_by = JOSM/1.5 (3081 en) Some examples of the ground-level features that were stripped of their negative layer tags: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/26497642 A section of 8-Mile Rd in a volleyball interchange in Detroit. This is a 3-level interchange between two major city avenues, where the middle level is at ground level and in fact provides access to properties and side-streets adjacent to the interchange. Setting layer=-1 on the lowest level makes perfect sense. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/29687558 A section of the Scioto River in downtown Columbus. While technically the ground is the riverbed itself, this river is certainly lower than anything else around. Most bridges that cross it are tagged layer=0 because they are generally not higher than the rest of the streets they carry. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/29314498 A section of the South Innerbelt, also in downtown Columbus. This freeway is in a trench, easily 20 to 30 feet below the streets. Were it covered, it could legitimately be tagged as a tunnel. (Eventually, portions of it could be.) All three of these examples, and presumably the vast majority of ways in the changeset, have other features crossing over them that are tagged with layer=0. NE2 did not change those to layer=1. As far as I can tell, he didn't even check for their possible existence. I believe this changeset was done simply to satisfy some arbitrary (and not widely-accepted) restriction on use of the layer tag, putting some academic idea of correct tagging over practical realities. Would anyone like to defend these changes? Of those who would defend it, how many are willing to fix the semantic problems they caused, by increasing the layer on all of the affected bridges (and any bridges over them, and so on)? I think reverting the changeset would just be easier. Unfortunately, I'm a Windows user with no easy way to do that. -- David Smith a.k.a. Vid the Kid a.k.a. Bír'd'in Does this font make me look fat? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Changeset to revert (or defend?)
I'll repeat what I told him through the OSM messaging system: First of all, how did you determine that these features were in fact ground-level? Many times when I set layer=-1 on something it's at least a few feet below the surrounding terrain, if not more. That's still ground-level. Look at the contour lines on a topo map; they'll dip down to follow manmade cuts. Negative layers are for tunnels that are underneath ground level (layer 0). Secondly, it is apparent that you didn't check the layer tags of all features (such as bridges) that pass over these ground-level features. Now there are many instances of layer-0 bridges crossing over roads that do not have any layer tags. Sounds like the problem is tagging the bridges as layer=0. A bridge is, by definition, usually above the immediate ground level. If you wish, I can go looking for bridges tagged as layer=0 and change them to layer=1. By the way, the immediate impetus for removing said negative layers was the large number of highways tagged layer=-1 in areas far from any bridges. So you'd have the main street through a town supposedly underneath any intersecting features (rendered as such and logically such in the underlying data). You may have noticed many residential/unclassified highways rendering above these more major layer=-1 roads. This is probably one of the initial reasons for giving bridges positive layers; they're already split from the longer ways. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Changeset to revert (or defend?)
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: I'll repeat what I told him through the OSM messaging system: I responded to those arguments already, in that same system. Rather than rapid-fire replying in two places, I'll wait to see what other people say. -- David Smith a.k.a. Vid the Kid a.k.a. Bír'd'in Does this font make me look fat? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Proper Consistent Spelling (was: Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe)
[cross-posted to talk-us and newbies; original thread on talk-us] On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Katie Filbert filbe...@gmail.com wrote: * COSI (restaurant or cafe?) What's that one? Around here, COSI (formerly an acronym, still all-caps) is a science museum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COSI_Columbus We do, however, have several locations of the restaurant Così. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cos%C3%AC_%28restaurant%29 That's a word, not an acronym. I don't know why, but it seems it's rather often written COSI. Just like how a lot of stores get a phantom 's' added on the end, or sometimes removed: Meijers, Krogers, Aldi's, Walgreen. I've seen these incorrect names in the OSM data, too. We should get the word out to new users: Make sure you know the correct name of a place when you add it to OSM. (Or, is misspelled data better than no data?) Maybe this just annoys me because I can't understand how people get these things wrong in the first place... -- David Smith a.k.a. Vid the Kid a.k.a. Bír'd'in Does this font make me look fat? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Changeset to revert (or defend?)
i think i have issues with both sides of this argument: as far as putting layer on a river, there's explicit language about that here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer as far as Nathan's editing goes, i think Nathan needs to back off a little and be more cooperative when local mappers have different positions from his. this edit first, discuss later stuff is getting old. i'm really, really not happy with his propensity to take advantage of other mappers reluctance to get involved in edit wars, the result is he gets the last word in because we don't want to be *ssh*l*s. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Changeset to revert (or defend?)
Well said. Zeke On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote: i think i have issues with both sides of this argument: as far as putting layer on a river, there's explicit language about that here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer as far as Nathan's editing goes, i think Nathan needs to back off a little and be more cooperative when local mappers have different positions from his. this edit first, discuss later stuff is getting old. i'm really, really not happy with his propensity to take advantage of other mappers reluctance to get involved in edit wars, the result is he gets the last word in because we don't want to be *ssh*l*s. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
