Now that the arguments on both sides have been repeated
a couple of times, I'd like to offer my solution; me and some
nearby have been using this for some years already.
First, I believe, why the points mentioned are incompatible:
There's two ways to look at the keys (not just this key):
1) any
2015-03-11 8:24 GMT+01:00 Richard Fairhurst :
> Please
> let's not adopt deletionism as well.
>
+1, seriously.
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
2015-03-11 11:10 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo :
> Again : the osm-carto dev agree that all bridges should be rendered.
> It's two longstanding bugs, it takes time to fix. Not rendering
> abandoned railways (wether or not on top of a bridge which should
> itself be rendered) is a separate issue (thi
On 11/03/2015, johnw wrote:
> Actual physical bridges - which may offer the only way across a ravine, or a
> landmark to where you are on a river sounds like a similar justification -
> so rendering abandoned, yet physically existing bridges seems like exactly
> the kind of thing that would be inc
On 11/03/2015, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> I'm playing the devil's advocate a bit here
>
> I believe the modern day term for that is "trolling", and it wastes
> everyone's time.
Sorry if looked like trolling. I was genuinely trying to show both
sides of the argument, as
moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> I'm playing the devil's advocate a bit here
I believe the modern day term for that is "trolling", and it wastes
everyone's time.
The whole railway episode has been really disheartening for the casual
disrespect it shows to committed contributors. No-one has a monopoly o
> On Mar 10, 2015, at 12:49 AM, Matthijs Melissen
> wrote:
>
> On 9 March 2015 at 15:26, SomeoneElse wrote:
>> To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue
>> and it was summarily closed:
>>
>> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641
>
>
On 10/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:53 PM, moltonel 3x Combo
> wrote:
> I've also seen the opposite mapping issue, where an abandoned railway was
> deleted from the map,
> when in fact large chunks still exist.
If an osm way represents a railway that is 50% gone, is it
On 10/03/2015, ael wrote:
> In passing, I am a little bemused that so many people seem to have missed
> the hint that I normally regard tagging for the renderer as evil by
> using the word "Blatant" in the title of this thread and that it was
> sort of a confession and plea for help on how to avoi
On 10/03/2015 14:37, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
OSM apparently only cares about railways.
No, no, no! OSM cares _passionately_ about semicolons:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-January/thread.html#21258
Cheers,
Andy
:)
___
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> The core problem is:
> railway=abandoned
> Refers to railway service, and does not describe what's on the ground.
> What's on the ground could range from a bit of residual lead arsenate
> herbicide,
> up through a highly visible gravel trackbe
On 09/03/2015 15:06, ael wrote:
Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on
ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey
and edits. So I am not corrupting other people's data.
You're are corrupting *the* data. which is *everybody's* data.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:50:36AM +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 10/03/2015 1:22 AM, ael wrote:
> >I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
> >on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
> >bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
>
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> 2015-03-09 23:06 GMT+01:00 John F. Eldredge :
>
>>
>> How does it "help mappers see what they have mapped" to not show a large
>> structure which has been mapped and which is physically present?
>>
>
> I didn't say the bridge shouldn't be ren
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:53 PM, moltonel 3x Combo
wrote:
> On 09/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>
> > I know it's a messy dividing line. I see it as important context to
> > current day mapping.
>
> That's a fair point, but I've seen it pushed beyond reason too many
> times.
>
I've also see
On 09/03/2015, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Possible work around?
>
> Use the tag man_made=bridge to tag the bridge area?
>
> Keeps the railway correctly tagged. And places the bridge correctly.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge
>
> Try that and see if it works.
On 09/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> Somehow I come down on the side that railways have enough footprint on the
> current world that
> they belong in OSM proper, unlike say old buildings or former shops.
>
> A abandoned railway slowly evolves from a mappable way, to a series of
> other things, be
On 09/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> Ah thanks, I stand corrected. railway=razed would be the tag to discuss.
>
> The broader point is intact.
>
While there is a pretty strong consensus that osm describes the
present (leaving openhistoricalmap for the past), it seems that some
railway contributo
On 09/03/2015, ael wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:35:19PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>> +1, please tag what is on the ground,
>> and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here:
>> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
>
> Thanks for the link. Inter
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Richard Welty
wrote:
>
> ...wworthwhile to consider OpenHistoricalMap as a resource for
> recording information about spatial entities that no longer exist in the
> modern
> world. this relieves us of the argument about representing them in OSM.
>
Somehow I come d
2015-03-09 23:06 GMT+01:00 John F. Eldredge :
>
> How does it "help mappers see what they have mapped" to not show a large
> structure which has been mapped and which is physically present?
>
I didn't say the bridge shouldn't be rendered. I just said it's not default
layers job to render everythi
How does it "help mappers see what they have mapped" to not show a large
structure which has been mapped and which is physically present?
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot
drive out hate; only love can do that." D
On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 16:18 +, ael wrote:
>
> > The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism.
>
> That sort of comment is unworthy of OSM.
Indeed.
> Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work
> to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contr
On 10/03/2015 1:22 AM, ael wrote:
I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard
On 3/9/15 4:58 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>
> The broader point is intact.
>
> When making sense of abandoned bridges and oddly rounded buildings in
> various places, it is super helpful
> to see the context of the prior railroad grade. It helps in mapping
> from the air and on the ground.
>
> A giv
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 1:37 PM, SomeoneElse wrote:
> "railway=abandoned" has been used from almost year 0 in OSM to indicate
> "where the rails have been removed but the route is still visible in some
> way". See http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned .
>
> And yes, if it's a "highway=
If the bridges are still present, the map should render them even if the
rails and railbeds on either side of the bridge have been removed. After
all, we are supposed to map the ground truth, and if the bridge is still
present, that is the ground truth.
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.c
On 09/03/2015 20:03, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
The core problem is:
*railway=abandoned*
Refers to railway service, and does not describe what's on the ground.
No.
"railway=abandoned" has been used from almost year 0 in OSM to indicate
"where the rails have been removed but the route is still visib
The core problem is:
*railway=abandoned*
Refers to railway service, and does not describe what's on the ground.
What's on the ground could range from a bit of residual lead arsenate
herbicide,
up through a highly visible gravel trackbed with bridges and culverts and
bits of railway artifact scatter
On 09/03/2015 18:07, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
That is handled in a separate issue:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320
Before commenting in this issue please carefully read existing comments,
especially the first two.
I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would ma
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:18 AM, ael wrote:
> Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work
> to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contribute.
>
Please ignore these types of comments. While we all generally agree that
tagging for the renderer isn't appropriate
"case made there very clearly for (just) rendering the bridges"
That is handled in a separate issue:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320
Before commenting in this issue please carefully read existing comments,
especially the first two.
"I don't like tagging for the re
2015-03-09 16:18 GMT+00:00 ael :
>> The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism.
>
> That sort of comment is unworthy of OSM. I did the surveys. Very
> carefully. I tagged corectly as far as I knew at the time.
>[...]
> Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of sol
You should show them RichardF's cycle.travel site as a different way of
rendering OSM, and it shows old railways.
Phil (trigpoint )
On Mon Mar 9 16:18:39 2015 GMT, ael wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:14:58PM +0100, Michael Reichert wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am 2015-03-09 um 16:06 schrieb ael:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:35:19PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> +1, please tag what is on the ground,
> and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here:
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. Obviously I support
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:14:58PM +0100, Michael Reichert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 2015-03-09 um 16:06 schrieb ael:
> > Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on
> > ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey
> > and edits. So I am not corrupti
On Mon Mar 9 15:49:01 2015 GMT, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> On 9 March 2015 at 15:26, SomeoneElse wrote:
> > To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue
> > and it was summarily closed:
> >
> > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641
>
> That
On 9 March 2015 at 15:26, SomeoneElse wrote:
> To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue
> and it was summarily closed:
>
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641
That was not a pull request, but a bug report, and it happened to be a
dupli
On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 15:29 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
> An example using a local uk map is http://binged.it/1x8GAHx
Try again http://binged.it/1x8Hhki
Phil (trigpoint )
>
> On Mon Mar 9 15:16:54 2015 GMT, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> > On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael wrote:
> > > I have ju
An example using a local uk map is http://binged.it/1x8GAHx
Phil (trigpoint )
On Mon Mar 9 15:16:54 2015 GMT, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael wrote:
> > I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group
> > including Councillors who are impressed with OSM
On 9 March 2015 at 15:15, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> Using the default OSM-Carto layer for a project isn't very professional. The
> job of the default layer isn't to make a map for everyone to use in their
> projects, its main job is to help mappers see what they have mapped, and to
> guide mappers in
On 09/03/2015 15:16, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael wrote:
So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet?
Yes, it was pointed out to you already:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetma
Hi,
Am 2015-03-09 um 16:06 schrieb ael:
> Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on
> ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey
> and edits. So I am not corrupting other people's data.
Wrong! You have corrupted data because you have chang
On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael wrote:
> I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group
> including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering
> using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned
> railways in the area (related to mining) and I think tha
2015-03-09 16:06 GMT+01:00 ael :
>
> I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group
> including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering
> using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned
> railways in the area (related to mining) and I think that
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:27:17PM +0100, Michael Reichert wrote:
> Hi ael,
>
> Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael:
> > I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
> > on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
> > bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are
On 09/03/2015 14:22, ael wrote:
I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard
re
On 09/03/2015, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> +1, please tag what is on the ground,
> and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here:
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
As for the discussion on rendering standalone bridges :
https://github.com/gravitystorm
W dniu 09.03.2015 15:32, fly napisał(a):
Still miss support for man_made=bridge which leads to mapping for the
renderer as user add highway=* + area=yes to the area to get it
rendered.
The ticket is not closed, but I don't know the final decision or what
may be obstacles, however there was n
Michael Reichert wrote on 2015-03-09 15:27:
Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael:
I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
to tall vehicles a
Am 09.03.2015 um 15:27 schrieb Michael Reichert:
> Hi ael,
>
> Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael:
>> I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
>> on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
>> bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of r
Hi ael,
Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael:
> I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
> on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
> bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
> to tall vehicles and boats, so really should sh
I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard
rendering.
According to the wiki r
53 matches
Mail list logo
