Hi
I've written an issue request on openstreetmap-carto regarding the too
thick canal rendering:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3354
Regards
Markus
On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 18:20, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> On Thursday 16 August 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > >
On 19/08/18 04:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 17. Aug 2018, at 13:43, Christoph Hormann wrote:
If you want to map the river width tag width=*, if you don't want to map
the width then don't create classes based on width thresholds.
river size is not about width alone,
sent from a phone
> On 17. Aug 2018, at 13:43, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> If you want to map the river width tag width=*, if you don't want to map
> the width then don't create classes based on width thresholds.
river size is not about width alone, the most generic approach to measure
Without getting into scientific, expert or philosophic discussions, I think it
would not hurt to have a standardized way of recording say a bandwidth for
dimensions like width and ele. The example in this case was width=3 m - 6 m or
so, with the assumpion this notation would not be usable to
On 18/08/18 18:44, Christoph Hormann wrote:
On Saturday 18 August 2018, Peter Elderson wrote:
Sure. But is there a standard method to indicate this uncertainty in
OSM, which can be processed by data consumers?
This is outside the scope of of OSM IMO and not practical for mappers to
determine
On Saturday 18 August 2018, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Sure. But is there a standard method to indicate this uncertainty in
> OSM, which can be processed by data consumers?
This is outside the scope of of OSM IMO and not practical for mappers to
determine in a meaningful way. You can specify the
How are data consumers going to use the data ???
Not much point in it for them I'd think.
For mappers that come along later it may be a usefull guide for
comparison with their measurements.
But few mappers will be bothered entering it so I again don't see much
point.
I'd think tagging like
Sure. But is there a standard method to indicate this uncertainty in OSM, which
can be processed by data consumers?
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 18 aug. 2018 om 01:35 heeft Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> What you are trying to refer to is 'measurement uncertainty'.
>
What you are trying to refer to is 'measurement uncertainty'.
For a non professional rough guide;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_uncertainty
Naturally formed water way widths may have a great deal of variation
along their widths .. and so the uncertainty will be very high unless
It would not be that hard to add a precision to a measurement. Any measurement.
Maybe there already is a standard method for that?
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 17 aug. 2018 om 20:50 heeft SelfishSeahorse
> het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On Friday, August 17, 2018, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>> On
On Friday 17 August 2018, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
> [...] You can't measure its width on site (because you don't have the
> equipment or because the soil at its sides is marshy), but you know
> (estimate) that it's wider than 1 metre, but less wide than 3 metres.
If you know it is wider than 1m
On Friday, August 17, 2018, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Friday 17 August 2018, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
>
> > Of course we could just use width=*, but it's not always easily
> > possible to measure the width (e.g. in a forest) and sometimes it
> > changes often.
>
> I would translate this into
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Philip Barnes
wrote:
> Creek is certainly used in Essex.
>
I didn't say it wasn't used. Or even that it wasn't used to denote a wide
stream. However, it also has other meanings.
Such as a wide tidal bay to a marsh on an estuary. Like one near me. It's
as
Creek is certainly used in Essex.
Phil (trigpoint)
On 17 August 2018 12:40:38 BST, Paul Allen wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 12:16 PM, SelfishSeahorse
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, it's only drain that doesn't seem to make sense
>> semantically, but ditch seems to be fine for smaller canals
A brook is bigger than a stream. A beck, or Clough, is the same as a brook,
just a different regional dialect.
But true a stream will turn into a brook will turn into a river.
Phil (trigpoint)
On 17 August 2018 12:40:38 BST, Paul Allen wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 12:16 PM,
On Friday 17 August 2018, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
> >
> > Yes, that was the obvious attempt to expand the narrow scheme to
> > other parts of the world in a superficial way oriented at the
> > standard style rendering but not at the actual semantics.
>
> Actually, it's only drain that doesn't seem
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 12:16 PM, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
>
> Actually, it's only drain that doesn't seem to make sense
> semantically, but ditch seems to be fine for smaller canals used for
> drainage and irrigation, at least according to the definitions by
> Wikipedia[^1] and the Cambridge
On Friday 17 August 2018, Javier Sánchez Portero wrote:
> This kind of man-made structure for water transportation is very
> frequent in Azores, Madeira, Canary Islands and Mediterranean
> countries. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levada
Yes, levadas are a good example for the kind of
On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 18:20, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> On Thursday 16 August 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > The canal definition was changed in March 2018, before it said to use
> > canal only for „the largest waterways created for irrigation
> > purposes“
>
> Yes, that was the
This kind of man-made structure for water transportation is very frequent
in Azores, Madeira, Canary Islands and Mediterranean countries. Please see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levada
Now most of them are tagged with waterway=ditch.
As long as I now, they could be used not only for irrigation
On Thursday 16 August 2018, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> I started using the service=irrigation tag a
> couple of years ago when I discovered it in the Wiki somewhere. I
> also noticed today that there is a "usage=irrigation" that applies to
> waterway=canal. It's all a bit confusing.
Yes, it is.
On Thursday 16 August 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > All of this together has its origin in the fact that in the UK and
> > other early OSM countries large artificial waterways are almost
> > always for navigation and small artificial waterways are almost
> > always for transporting away
There are thousands of kilometers of irrigation waterways scattered around
Thailand. Many but not all of these are concrete lined and may be from 1 to
5 meters across. The Thai word used in names for the larger ones is "klong",
which means "canal" in English.
The tagging practice of mappers
sent from a phone
> On 16. Aug 2018, at 16:14, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> All of this together has its origin in the fact that in the UK and other
> early OSM countries large artificial waterways are almost always for
> navigation and small artificial waterways are almost always for
>
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 16/08/2018 08:49, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
>
> It seems to me that waterway=ditch +
>> usage=headrace/tailrace/irrigation fits best, but the wiki defines
>> waterway=ditch as 'a small man-made draining waterway, often found
>> along
On Thursday 16 August 2018, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
> Hello
>
> What is the usual (or sensible) way to tag small canals like mill
> races (example: [^1]) or small irrigation channels (example: [^2]),
> i.e. the small equivalent of waterway=canal?
A bit of information on current meaning of
sent from a phone
> On 16. Aug 2018, at 16:02, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> Personally I'd probably use "drain" for those two, and "ditch" maybe for some
> smaller ones.
me too, on a pragmatic level and because there are no alternatives, just that
it doesn’t make sense on a semantic level and
sent from a phone
> On 16. Aug 2018, at 15:36, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> In British English usage we have regional names for the category between a
> stream and a river. Where I come from they are called Brooks, but I am aware
> of Burns and Becks being used in the North.
there are a lot
On 16/08/2018 08:49, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
What is the usual (or sensible) way to tag small canals like mill
races (example: [^1]) or small irrigation channels (example: [^2]),
i.e. the small equivalent of waterway=canal?
[^1]:
On 16 August 2018 14:15:23 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>There isn’t a universal definition of river, but locally people usually
>know whether a waterway is considered a river or not (in my home area,
>a 3-5 m waterway is usually not considered a river, but you cannot jump
>over it
sent from a phone
> On 16. Aug 2018, at 09:49, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
>
> It seems to me that waterway=ditch +
> usage=headrace/tailrace/irrigation fits best, but the wiki defines
> waterway=ditch as 'a small man-made draining waterway, often found
> along roads'.
yes, waterway tagging is
Hello
What is the usual (or sensible) way to tag small canals like mill
races (example: [^1]) or small irrigation channels (example: [^2]),
i.e. the small equivalent of waterway=canal?
[^1]:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:15-19-077,_mingus_creek_-_panoramio.jpg
[^2]:
32 matches
Mail list logo
