Re: [Talk-us] Rendering of State Boundaries
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Scott Atwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Adam Schreiber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Scott Atwood >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Do any of the renderer support the notion of rendering the same tag >> > differently in different regions of the world? >> >> I don't believe so. This has been brought up in the past in regards >> to highway color schemes. >> >> > Or would it be necessary to >> > add some other tag to US state boundaries in order to allow the >> > renderers to >> > render them more prominently? >> >> I'm not sure that's the way to go. > > I think the best option would be for the renderers to support distinctive > rendering in different regions without requiring any additional > disambiguation. Even though U.S. states are the "same" as French régions, > Swiss cantons, or German Länder, in that they are all first-order > administrative sub-divisions, the prominence and independence of those > administrative sub-divisions clearly varies dramatically from one country to > another. > I really don't mean to suggest that a tag should be added to the border to > indicate that the border should be rendered a particular way. But if the > renderers can't or won't support distinctive regional renderings, the > perhaps it would be appropriate to suggest a a tag that indicates how > important a particular administrative subdivision is? > -Scott Scott, I understand your desire to see state borders, but when you go look at Europe in OSM, you'll see that there are no country borders either. Which seems more like a political statement than a simple rendering rule. Anyone on the European side of the pond have any comments about that? jessica (who apparently *really* doesn't want to do any real work today) > -- > Scott Atwood > > Cycle tracks will abound in Utopia. ~H.G. Wells > > > > ___ > 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
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging and Rendering Cycle Ways
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Russ Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jessica Forbess writes: > > whatever they're called. Frustrating to follow one, only to find it's > > closed because it's the "rainy" season. Easy information to gather, > > but difficult to map. > > It's just a question of the tags that you put on it. I'd say this: > > access=seasonal > seasonal=date-date if the date is known, or just leave the tag out if > you don't know. I meant difficult to render, actually. And easy to tag. jessica > -- > --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com | Delegislation is a slippery > Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | slope to prosperity. > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | Fewer laws, more freedom. > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | (Not a GOP supporter). > > ___ > 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
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging and Rendering Cycle Ways
Bicycle Boulevards are based on european concepts, right? How do they
map things like this in the Netherlands? Or do they just take their
traffic-calmed, bicycle-friendly roads for granted over there?
I agree that mapping streets to indicate bicycles have pass-through
and cars don't is useful but tricky. Berkeley has a bunch of these
streets as well.
Of course, the other difficult thing about the Santa Clara bikepaths
is the season-dependent gates next to the cement-lined creeks,
whatever they're called. Frustrating to follow one, only to find it's
closed because it's the "rainy" season. Easy information to gather,
but difficult to map.
jessica
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Scott Atwood
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A route of network type unlcn sounds like it would be a pretty good fit for
> the use cases of Class III bike routes, and perhaps also MUPs and their
> on-street detours.
> I'm not quite sure what to do about Bicycle Boulevards. To me, it feels
> like they merit a unique attribution of some type. Has anyone from
> Portland, OR begun tagging the Bicycle Boulevards up there? If so, do you
> have any suggestions?
> As for the Santa Clara County expressways, they are a bit of a mixed bag.
> Some, like Foothill Expressway, have very wide shoulders and are some of
> the most pleasant on-street cycling routes in the area. Foothill is almost
> always swarming with cyclists. Others, like parts of Lawrence Expressway,
> have very little shoulder and can be quite a harrowing cycling experience.
> Perhaps Jessica's suggestion to somehow tag the expressways to indicate the
> presence or absence of a wide shoulder is the best we can do. Whether or
> not riding on the expressways is a pleasant cycling experience is a very
> subjective determination, so perhaps the best we can do is tag them
> appropriately so cyclists can make an appropriate informed decision.
> -Scott
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Alan Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> My inclination would be to want an extra class of routes or two supported
>> with different network type (perhaps "unlcn" for "unnumbered local
>> network"?) for the lowliest of bike routes. I'm not what I'd want done for
>> expressways. Perhaps there could be a way to tag a road as treacherous for
>> bicyclists, that's still legal to ride on - or add a warning POI. I'm not
>> sure if that sort of information belongs in OSM, as it's subjective, but it
>> would be helpful.
>>
>> -Alan
>>
>>
>> From: Scott Atwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:21:20 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Tagging and Rendering Cycle Ways
>>
>> One other thing I'd like to add:
>> Expressways. Here in Santa Clara County, we have a quirky system of roads
>> called "Expressways", which lie somewhere between normal arterials and
>> freeways. They tend to have few or no frontage driveways and a limited
>> intersections. There are some freeway style interchanges. Pedestrians are
>> prohibited for the most part, but bicycles are permitted on all of them.
>> Most of them have wide shoulders, and a few even have bike lanes on the
>> shoulders. Some of these expressways are excellent routes for moderately
>> confident cyclists. I have no idea how these expressways should be tagged
>> for cyclists, and any suggestions are welcome.
>> -Scott
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Scott Atwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am an avid cyclist in the San Francisco Bay Area and I have recently
>>> started editing my local area in OSM. I would like to map all the local
>>> bike routes and facilities, but I'm not sure of the best way to tag them in
>>> OSM. Here are the different kinds of facilities I have encountered, and my
>>> best guess at how to tag them.
>>>
>>> Bike Lanes (a.k.a. Class II). This one is pretty easy. I just tag
>>> these as {cycleway=lane}, and they render quite nicely in the Cycle Map
>>> layer. The one problem I've encountered so far is that the existing tagging
>>> scheme doesn't seem to handle bike lanes that are only one side of a two-way
>>> street. This is not a common situation, but it does happen. A similar
>>> problem would apply to sidewalks and on-street parking that are only on wide
>>> side of the street. Has anyone proposed a solution to this class of
>>> problem?
>>> Multi-Use Paths (a.k.a. Class I). This one is also pretty easy. I tag
>>> these as {highway=cycleway, cycleway=track, foot=yes}. However, one wrinkle
>>> is that these MUPs sometimes have have sections with an on-street alignment.
>>> In that case, I added a relation to the entire MUP, both the off-street
>>> trail portions, and the on-street alignments, that was tagged like
>>> {route=bicycle, type=route, name=_name_of_the_MUP_}. I intentionally left
>>> off the network tag from the relation, since this isn't part of a formal
>>> route network per se, but if anything, it w
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging and Rendering Cycle Ways
For expressways, I'd think the most valuable objective attribute would
be shoulder width. It's what I think about and look for when planning
cross country routes on state and county highways. And then the
renderer will have to create some rules for indicating helpful biking
widths.
I'm not sure how easily OSM can collect that kind of info, though. But
people collect a lot of info for OSM.
jessica
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Alan Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My inclination would be to want an extra class of routes or two supported
> with different network type (perhaps "unlcn" for "unnumbered local
> network"?) for the lowliest of bike routes. I'm not what I'd want done for
> expressways. Perhaps there could be a way to tag a road as treacherous for
> bicyclists, that's still legal to ride on - or add a warning POI. I'm not
> sure if that sort of information belongs in OSM, as it's subjective, but it
> would be helpful.
>
> -Alan
>
>
> From: Scott Atwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:21:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Tagging and Rendering Cycle Ways
>
> One other thing I'd like to add:
> Expressways. Here in Santa Clara County, we have a quirky system of roads
> called "Expressways", which lie somewhere between normal arterials and
> freeways. They tend to have few or no frontage driveways and a limited
> intersections. There are some freeway style interchanges. Pedestrians are
> prohibited for the most part, but bicycles are permitted on all of them.
> Most of them have wide shoulders, and a few even have bike lanes on the
> shoulders. Some of these expressways are excellent routes for moderately
> confident cyclists. I have no idea how these expressways should be tagged
> for cyclists, and any suggestions are welcome.
> -Scott
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Scott Atwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> I am an avid cyclist in the San Francisco Bay Area and I have recently
>> started editing my local area in OSM. I would like to map all the local
>> bike routes and facilities, but I'm not sure of the best way to tag them in
>> OSM. Here are the different kinds of facilities I have encountered, and my
>> best guess at how to tag them.
>>
>> Bike Lanes (a.k.a. Class II). This one is pretty easy. I just tag these
>> as {cycleway=lane}, and they render quite nicely in the Cycle Map layer.
>> The one problem I've encountered so far is that the existing tagging scheme
>> doesn't seem to handle bike lanes that are only one side of a two-way
>> street. This is not a common situation, but it does happen. A similar
>> problem would apply to sidewalks and on-street parking that are only on wide
>> side of the street. Has anyone proposed a solution to this class of
>> problem?
>> Multi-Use Paths (a.k.a. Class I). This one is also pretty easy. I tag
>> these as {highway=cycleway, cycleway=track, foot=yes}. However, one wrinkle
>> is that these MUPs sometimes have have sections with an on-street alignment.
>> In that case, I added a relation to the entire MUP, both the off-street
>> trail portions, and the on-street alignments, that was tagged like
>> {route=bicycle, type=route, name=_name_of_the_MUP_}. I intentionally left
>> off the network tag from the relation, since this isn't part of a formal
>> route network per se, but if anything, it would be {network=lcn}
>> Bike Routes (a.k.a. Class III). This one, I'm a little bit more confused
>> about. These are just streets that have "Bicycle Route" signs on them, and
>> nothing more. Often, they overlap with Bike Lanes. They have no names or
>> numbers associated with them. I've never seen any formal map that shows
>> bike lanes. I've only ever stumbled across them while out on rides. They
>> tend to have approximately the quality of cycling conditions as Bike Lanes,
>> without the stripe, of course. But they are distinctly at the lowest tier
>> of cycle facility. I have typically been tagging these as
>> {bicycle=designated}. One of the other local cycle mappers has been tagging
>> them with a relation like {route=bicycle, type=route, network=lcn}. I'm
>> not sure which is a better approach. My tagging scheme feels more in line
>> with the spirit of this type of facility, but I suspect that to date no one
>> is giving this a distinct rendering. The latter scheme seems OK too, but
>> perhaps implies a bit more status to these routes that feels appropriate.
>> Also, I suspect they may render even more prominently than Bike Lanes,
>> which doesn't seem quite right.
>> Local Numbered Cycle Routes. In my local area, there is only a single
>> numbered local bike route, San Jose Crosstown Bike Route 11, which I
>> implemented as a relation like {network=lcn, ref=11, route=bicycle,
>> type=route}. This tagging feels about right, and renders the way I'd expect
>> in the Cycle Map.
>> Bicycle Boulevards. To the best of my k
[Talk-us] intertwined ways in Austin TX
Hey, I'm in Austin TX right now, and while looking for stuff to correct, I noticed all of the boulevard streets have the two ways intertwined at each intersection, messing up the oneway settings, and generally not being right. SteveC mentioned someone out there has a script to correct this specific problem? thanks, jess ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-us
