(I originally replied to the talk list, rather than to the tagging list.)
---Original Email---
Subject :RE: Re: [Tagging] Waterway direction
>From :mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com
Date :Wed Sep 01 17:42:37 America/Chicago 2010
Barrier=ditch would be logical for a ditch that is intended
On 01/09/2010 21:42, Anthony wrote:
(While looking at this I also noticed we have barrier=ditch and
waterway=ditch. That also sucks, unless there's some distinction
between the two.
Presumably that's different wiki editors arriving at the same feature
from different angles? I'd say there we
My guess would be that barrier=ditch would be for a ditch that is dry the
majority of the time, and waterway=ditch would be for a ditch that is flooded
most of the time.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] Waterway direction
>From :mailto:o...@inbox.org
Date :Wed Sep 01 15
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:09 PM, SomeoneElse wrote:
> On 01/09/2010 20:53, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> Can you pardon my laziness and tell me whether or not the water in
>> that part of the canal fills the entire tunnel.
>
> It doesn't - there's a narrow footpath to the side (presumably where boats
> wer
On 01/09/2010 20:53, Anthony wrote:
Can you pardon my laziness and tell me whether or not the water in
that part of the canal fills the entire tunnel.
It doesn't - there's a narrow footpath to the side (presumably where
boats were pulled along manually - the horses had to take the path over
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:30 PM, SomeoneElse wrote:
> On 01/09/2010 20:24, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> All the
>> examples of waterways on that wiki page are open.
>
> Well; normally open -
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.327&lon=-1.74192&zoom=14 is an example
> of a bit of canal that isn't
Can y
On 01/09/2010 20:15, John F. Eldredge wrote:
I am not sure whether that would be classified as a type of culvert or
not. Do we have any civil engineers on the mailing list who could
answer that question?
I'm not a civil engineer* but that certainly comes within the range of
things that people
2010/9/1 Anthony :
> examples of waterways on that wiki page are open. A culvert is more
> like man_made=pipeline, type=drain.
yes, but if it is part of a waterway, it would for consistencies sake
IMHO be better to keep it there. Above there was an example given
about a river that goes through a
of the year?
The wiki page for the waterway tag does not say that a body of water must be
navigable in order to be classified as a waterway.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] Waterway direction
From :mailto:o...@inbox.org
Date :Wed Sep 01 14:09:11 America/Chicago 2010
On Wed
On 01/09/2010 20:24, Anthony wrote:
All the
examples of waterways on that wiki page are open.
Well; normally open -
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.327&lon=-1.74192&zoom=14 is an
example of a bit of canal that isn't
In any case, as I said, there's no reason the default has to be the
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/9/1 Anthony :
>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
>> wrote:
>
Ah, I see. But that wouldn't be tagged as a waterway, would it?
>>>
>>> Why shouldn't it?
>>
>> Because it's not navigable, therefore it's not a
On 09/01/2010 02:03 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/9/1 Anthony :
>
>
>>> http://dict.leo.org/?lp=ende&search=d%C3%BCker
>>>
>>> OK, got it (but the article is not mainly fitting):
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_siphon
>>>
>> Ah, I see. But that wouldn't be tagged as a w
2010/9/1 Anthony :
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>>> Ah, I see. But that wouldn't be tagged as a waterway, would it?
>>
>> Why shouldn't it?
>
> Because it's not navigable, therefore it's not a waterway. And
> because the wiki says to use tunnel=culvert, not wat
> Why shouldn't it? Probably depends on the situation, but if the occur
> on an object that we generally tag with waterway, it should be clear.
> This technique was already used in ancient Rome for special parts of
> aqueducts (where they had to bypass an obstacle). Aren't they a kind
> of culvert
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> 2010/9/1 Anthony :
>>
http://dict.leo.org/?lp=ende&search=d%C3%BCker
OK, got it (but the article is not mainly fitting):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_sipho
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/9/1 Anthony :
>
>>> http://dict.leo.org/?lp=ende&search=d%C3%BCker
>>>
>>> OK, got it (but the article is not mainly fitting):
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_siphon
>>
>> Ah, I see. But that wouldn't be tagged as a water
2010/9/1 Anthony :
>> http://dict.leo.org/?lp=ende&search=d%C3%BCker
>>
>> OK, got it (but the article is not mainly fitting):
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_siphon
>
> Ah, I see. But that wouldn't be tagged as a waterway, would it?
Why shouldn't it? Probably depends on the situation,
2010/9/1 Anthony :
> honestly, I can't figure out what that is or how it applies.
I don't know how you call this in English (but probably it is called
culvert), this is a closed tube for water which goes down on one side
of the obstacle (e.g. road), the horizontally under it and up on the
other s
2010/9/1 Anthony :
> Couldn't incline=up/incline=down work for waterways too?
>
> Then incline=down could be default, and incline=unknown could be added
> where the incline is unknown.
This is not always true, think about culverts:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:D%C3%BCker.jpg
http://www.ikt.
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
> On 31.08.2010 20:58, David Earl wrote:
>
> Just to throw something else into this discussion...
> highway=steps
> It doesn't (or at least, isn't documented as) have direction, but _could_
> have in the same way as rivers (direction of way i
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Johansson"
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Waterway direction
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Vincent Pottier
wrote:
On 01/09/2010 04:09, Ant
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Vincent Pottier wrote:
> On 01/09/2010 04:09, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Nathan Edgars II
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't know of any other feature where the direction of the way means
>>> something *without* another tag being added.
>>>
>>
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Claudius Henrichs wrote:
> Did you check the "Water" view in the OSM inspector? It visualizes the
> direction already: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/
Only in Europe...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Am 01.09.2010 08:32, Nathan Edgars II:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
so "flow_direction" ?
How would you know if local waterways have the wrong direction without
specifically checking for the problem? OSM relies on the "enough
eyeballs" principle for finding majo
On 01/09/2010 04:09, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I don't know of any other feature where the direction of the way means
something *without* another tag being added.
natural=cliff, barrier=retaining wall
junction=roundabout
--
FrViPofm
On 01.09.2010 08:32, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
so "flow_direction" ?
How would you know if local waterways have the wrong direction without
specifically checking for the problem? OSM relies on the "enough
eyeballs" principle for findin
On 31.08.2010 20:58, David Earl wrote:
Just to throw something else into this discussion...
highway=steps
It doesn't (or at least, isn't documented as) have direction, but
_could_ have in the same way as rivers (direction of way is down the
steps, say).
To quote the wiki: (http://wiki.opens
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
> so "flow_direction" ?
How would you know if local waterways have the wrong direction without
specifically checking for the problem? OSM relies on the "enough
eyeballs" principle for finding major errors.
__
Nathan Edgars II
wrote:
> >> > A bug... there is few maps (even commercial) that "render" the flow
> >> > direction. I dont see this issue as a bug but perhaps a missing feature
> >> > or a request feature.
> >>
> >> It's a bug given the current tagging standard. All the eyeballs in the
> >> worl
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
> Nathan Edgars II
> wrote:
>
>> > A bug... there is few maps (even commercial) that "render" the flow
>> > direction. I dont see this issue as a bug but perhaps a missing feature
>> > or a request feature.
>>
>> It's a bug given the cur
Nathan Edgars II
wrote:
> > A bug... there is few maps (even commercial) that "render" the flow
> > direction. I dont see this issue as a bug but perhaps a missing feature
> > or a request feature.
>
> It's a bug given the current tagging standard. All the eyeballs in the
> world can't find an e
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
> Nathan Edgars II
> wrote:
>> Anyway, bug filed: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3198
>
> A bug... there is few maps (even commercial) that "render" the flow
> direction. I dont see this issue as a bug but perhaps a missing feature
Nathan Edgars II
wrote:
> > Mmh... It say that you can go on this waterway (on boat) only in this
> > direction. oneway is a restriction, not a direction...
>
> Yes, like oneway=yes on a road means you can only walk that way... oh.
No oneway apply to the main transport vehicule that the way is
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> Perhaps you can explain how I or anyone else will determine the
> direction of this waterway: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?way=73765043
http://www.daftlogic.com/sandbox-google-maps-find-altitude.htm ?
> I don't know of any other feature
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
> Mmh... It say that you can go on this waterway (on boat) only in this
> direction. oneway is a restriction, not a direction...
Yes, like oneway=yes on a road means you can only walk that way... oh.
Anyway, bug filed: http://trac.open
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Fairhurst"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Waterway direction
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Adding a oneway tag explicitly says that it flows that way.
Please please don't do that.
Navigable waterwa
Nathan Edgars II
wrote:
> > Yes and the direction defined by the OSM way is a very old definition on the
> > wiki and a large consensus since years. Adding a oneway tag to solve a
> > Mapnik issue is what you know.
>
> Adding a oneway tag explicitly says that it flows that way.
Mmh... It say t
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> Adding a oneway tag explicitly says that it flows that way.
Please please don't do that.
Navigable waterways do sometimes have oneway sections for boats. For
example, it's common on river bridges for one arch to be devoted to upstream
traffic, another to downstream.
Th
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Nathan Edgars II mailto:nerou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I don't know of any other feature where the direction of the way means
something *without* another tag being added. I've traced a number of
waterways from aerials and never had any idea I was suppose
On 8/31/10 2:14 PM, Michael Barabanov wrote:
How about a kayaker having a hard time going against oneway=yes ? :)
F=ma
it's not just a good idea, it's the law.
richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.
How about a kayaker having a hard time going against oneway=yes ? :)
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:48 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/8/31 Nathan Edgars II :
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> > wrote:
> >> 2010/8/31 Nathan Edgars II :
> >>> A
2010/8/31 Nathan Edgars II :
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> 2010/8/31 Nathan Edgars II :
>>> Adding a oneway tag explicitly says that it flows that way.
>> no, according to the oneway-definition in the wiki it says that
>> traffic is only allowed in this directi
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/8/31 Nathan Edgars II :
>> Adding a oneway tag explicitly says that it flows that way.
> no, according to the oneway-definition in the wiki it says that
> traffic is only allowed in this direction: it is a legal restriction
Gravit
2010/8/31 Nathan Edgars II :
> Adding a oneway tag explicitly says that it flows that way.
no, according to the oneway-definition in the wiki it says that
traffic is only allowed in this direction: it is a legal restriction
> It also makes it possible to see errors - how are
> you going to get e
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Pieren wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Nathan Edgars II
> wrote:
>>Someone else wrote but Pieren removed the attribution:
>>
>> > BTW if you add oneway=yes tag, it renders nicely on mapnik. As an
>> > example,
>> > converted Canadian NHN streams have
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> > BTW if you add oneway=yes tag, it renders nicely on mapnik. As an
> example,
> > converted Canadian NHN streams have oneway=yes.
>
> Yeah - what started this thread was someone objecting to my use of
> oneway=yes on a waterway :)
>
>
Y
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Michael Barabanov
wrote:
> BTW if you add oneway=yes tag, it renders nicely on mapnik. As an example,
> converted Canadian NHN streams have oneway=yes.
Yeah - what started this thread was someone objecting to my use of
oneway=yes on a waterway :)
_
BTW if you add oneway=yes tag, it renders nicely on mapnik. As an example,
converted Canadian NHN streams have oneway=yes.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:25 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> On 31.08.2010 14:40, Peter Wendorff wrote:
> > On 31.08.2010 13:53, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >> Personally I al
Well, chalk it up to "you learn something new every day." It makes a lot of
sense, and from what I've seen, is nearly universally used.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>
> I don't know of any other feature where the direction of the way means
> something *without* anothe
On 31.08.2010 14:40, Peter Wendorff wrote:
> On 31.08.2010 13:53, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> Personally I also map steps in a way that
>> the point from down to up.
> agree - but at steps that's not the common default, so I add
> direction=up always.
I'm using incline=up - which apparently is
On 31.08.2010 13:53, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Personally I also map steps in a way that
the point from down to up.
agree - but at steps that's not the common default, so I add
direction=up always.
regards
Peter
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@op
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:11 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> In the case you posted you could stand on Eastbrook Boulevard and see
> in which direction it flows.
And if it's not moving? Do I drop dye in and wait?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@opens
2010/8/31 Nathan Edgars II :
> Perhaps you can explain how I or anyone else will determine the
> direction of this waterway: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?way=73765043
> Should I ask one of the residents if I can go into their backyard and
> dump food coloring in the water?
If the direction of a
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
>> motorway,motorway_lin
>>
>> In both the direction of the way means something withou another tag being
>> added. However most add oneway=yes to these.
also in junction=roundabout. Personally I also map steps in a way that
the point from
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
> motorway,motorway_link
>
> In both the direction of the way means something withou another tag being
> added. However most add oneway=yes to these.
Hmmm, true. They are however rendered differently on the most common
renderers, which actual
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:10 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
> > a) you will add a note or FIXME to express this to the following
> > mapper. At least you have a 50% chance that it is already right.
>
> Perhaps you can explain how I or anyone else will determine the
> direction of this waterwa
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:10 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> a) you will add a note or FIXME to express this to the following
> mapper. At least you have a 50% chance that it is already right.
Perhaps you can explain how I or anyone else will determine the
direction of this waterway: http://www.
57 matches
Mail list logo
