[Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

Hello everyone, This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to specify a rendering order. The wiki, however, states that it is wrong to tag a whole river with layer=-1. The reason for that, as far as I could figure, i

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

Re; tagging a (complete or longer segment of a) river with layer=-1 I don't understand why anyone would do this. That's it. Why? Layer= tag clearly (logically) implies that some data is above or below some other data. At least to my logic. And I don't seem to be the only one with this thinking. A

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

"Layer= tag clearly (logically) implies that some data is above or below some other data. At least to my logic." >From this logic, layer=-1 means the object is >rendered< beneath anything that has layer=0 (or, conversely, that anything with layer=0 is rendered on top of anything with layer=-1). It

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com > At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with > dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense That's clearly a bug. Waterways underground is specified by "tunnel=*" > So, again : why tag things with with l

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:51:47AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: > Hello everyone, > > This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my > understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to > specify a rendering order. The wiki, however, states that it is wrong > to tag

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On 14.03.2014 16:36, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com > >> At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with >> dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense > > That's clearly a bug. Waterways underground is specified by "tunnel

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:36:26PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com > > > At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with > > dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense > > That's clearly a bug. Waterways underground

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > in theory yes. However "nearby" is a problem as rivers can be very long. > Many people simply tag rivers with layer=-1 without even thinking about > the fact that the rivers may now collide with tunnels some hundreds of miles > away. In genera

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, fly wrote: > Well, I do not get your problem, as bridge/tunnel always need a layer > tag and you already have to cut the ways to tag the bridge/tunnel, why > not simply add the layer to the bridge/tunnel and leave everything else > untouched ? You don't see the p

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > wiki says that every bridge should have a layer tag. If you are lazy > you can as well omit the layer altogether, it will be still rendered > correctly. It's not a question of laziness. Setting "layer=-1" to the waterway instead of 10 bridges

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On 14.03.2014 16:57, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, fly wrote: > >> Well, I do not get your problem, as bridge/tunnel always need a layer >> tag and you already have to cut the ways to tag the bridge/tunnel, why >> not simply add the layer to the bridge/tunnel and leave everythi

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:01:10PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > > > wiki says that every bridge should have a layer tag. If you are lazy > > you can as well omit the layer altogether, it will be still rendered > > correctly. > > It's not a question

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

Setting the river to layer=-1, and the bridge to layer=0 (or 1) avoids a range of rendering artefacts when roads have casings (which they usually do). Good practice is only applying that to a shortish section of river, obviously. I don't know why the wiki has a statement against it - it always see

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

I think that adding "layer" to every bridge instead of the river alone is a wasteful and inefficient approach (takes more time and uses more database space). IMHO these are much more objective arguments than simply calling something you disagree with "laziness". What's wrong with "removing layer=-

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:20:13PM +, Richard Mann wrote: > Setting the river to layer=-1, and the bridge to layer=0 (or 1) avoids a > range of rendering artefacts when roads have casings (which they usually > do). Good practice is only applying that to a shortish section of river, > obviously.

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > > > in theory yes. However "nearby" is a problem as rivers can be very long. > > Many people simply tag rivers with layer=-1 without even thinking about > > the fact that the rivers may

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

I don't think you should be required to check the river's layer tag. Validators should do this job for you, it's quite easy to write a rule for that. Here's an example: Given two ways that cross internally (excluding connections at endpoints), and considering the "layer value" defined explicitly i

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:36:26PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com > > > At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with > > dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense > > That's clearly a bug. Waterways underground

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:55:39PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: > I don't think you should be required to check the river's layer tag. > Validators should do this job for you, it's quite easy to write a rule > for that. validators can check for many errors but if you want to change anything you

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > > There has been a proposal long ago for bridges to have implicit an layer > and it was not accepted. Was that for bridges being equal to lay

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > There has been a proposal long ago for bridges to have implicit a

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > > > There has b

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:30:30AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > > > > >

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:30:30AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:24:07AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Sat, 15 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > Therefore, everyone needs now to handle those hardly useful layer > > > warnings about trivial cases (and waste their time on "correcting" them). > > > > even worse, people just apply l

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

Hi, I wonder why we make bridges split and split and split the roads. In reality, bridges are pieces of concrete or stonework at level -1 under an uninterrupted foil of tarmac at level 0. Or at level 0 if it's understood that the renderer knows what's a bridge. And the renderer knows, as it draws

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

> Am 14/mar/2014 um 15:51 schrieb Fernando Trebien : > > Do you agree that the river can be tagged with layer=-1 as long as > this value is correct in relation to the layer of other > nearby/crossing ways? I would discourage you to do so. Layer tags should only be applied to ways that actuall

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

> Am 14/mar/2014 um 16:36 schrieb Pieren : > > Real case from real world : a deep ditch where the stream is not > "underground" but below the "ground" level, is crossing a village > where we have 10 bridges. Either you add 10 times "layer=1" on the > bridges or you add 1 time "layer=-1" on the s

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

> Am 14/mar/2014 um 16:35 schrieb Fernando Trebien : > > From this logic, layer=-1 means the object is >rendered< beneath > anything that has layer=0 (or, conversely, that anything with layer=0 > is rendered on top of anything with layer=-1). It does not mean that > it >is< in fact below it (tho

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

> Am 14/mar/2014 um 19:55 schrieb Fernando Trebien : > > I don't think you should be required to check the river's layer tag. > Validators should do this job for you, it's quite easy to write a rule > for that. first you'll have to download all data along this river in order to make this work

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

Hi, I agree partially with you here. Yes, adding bridges in addition to the road is possible and may be a good idea. What we currently map as being a bridge in fact is the property of "the road is on a bridge" instead. Changing the current tagging scheme to "duplicate the corresponding segment of

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

I believe there was a proposal for tagging a bridge separately: man_made=bridge. I think it would be really nice to have the actual outline of the bridge rendered Em 15/03/2014 10:02, "Peter Wendorff" escreveu: > Hi, > > I agree partially with you here. > Yes, adding bridges in addition to the ro

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:25:16PM +0100, André Pirard wrote: > Hi, > > I wonder why we make bridges split and split and split the roads. do not like that too much either. > In reality, bridges are pieces of concrete or stonework at level -1 > under an uninterrupted foil of tarmac at level 0. b

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

Hi John, yes, that's one possibility; knew that already, but thanks for pointing the list to the link. regards Peter Am 15.03.2014 14:16, schrieb John Packer: > I believe there was a proposal for tagging a bridge separately: > man_made=bridge. I think it would be really nice to have the actual ou

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 14/mar/2014 um 15:51 schrieb Fernando Trebien : Do you agree that the river can be tagged with layer=-1 as long as this value is correct in relation to the layer of other nearby/crossing ways? I would discourage you to do so. Layer tags should only be applied to

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

Alright. I see that "applying layer to long ways" is bad for several reasons. Surely this could be turned into a validation warning. But what's the difference between tagging the bridge with layer=1 and tagging the river underneath with layer=-1? Some people seem to think that both are necessary,

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

Fernando Trebien wrote: Alright. I see that "applying layer to long ways" is bad for several reasons. Surely this could be turned into a validation warning. But what's the difference between tagging the bridge with layer=1 and tagging the river underneath with layer=-1? Some people seem to think

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

"the validator will only prevent the most obvious errors but will give you no clue how to fix them correctly" I know. But two or three rounds of trial and error with the validator should be enough to bring a new user to an acceptable representation. "there is no difference between connections in

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

I thought a bit more and this statement I said is incorrect: "Correct, let's add "within the same level" to all of those rules, and assume level=0 when level is not specified in a tag. Then they all work also for indoor mapping." The correct wording of those warning rules, taking indoor mapping i

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

Here are a few arguable reasons to split the waterway and tag it with layer=-1: 1. Bridges may come in pairs for dual carriageways. In this case, it's a single layer tag for the waterway versus 2 layer tags for the bridges. This may happen many times in a row. In this case, it makes sense to split

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 02:06:13PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: > "the validator will only prevent the most obvious errors but will give > you no clue how to fix them correctly" > > I know. But two or three rounds of trial and error with the validator > should be enough to bring a new user to an

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

Am 15.03.2014 19:19, schrieb Fernando Trebien: > Here are a few arguable reasons to split the waterway and tag it with > layer=-1: > 1. Bridges may come in pairs for dual carriageways. In this case, it's > a single layer tag for the waterway versus 2 layer tags for the > bridges. This may happen m

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: > > Situation 1 happens in many other cities across the world, and if you > > tag the bridge as layer=1, you may end up inverting the rendering > > order of highways, leading to this: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138032009 > good point

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 03:19:36PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: > Situation 1 happens in many other cities across the world, and if you > tag the bridge as layer=1, you may end up inverting the rendering > order of highways, leading to this: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138032009 what exa

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

> Am 16/mar/2014 um 01:42 schrieb "Richard Z." : > > Also building=bridge is the wrong tag for this bridge why? Let's be cautious with judgements like "wrong tag" and even more in situations where there is not clearly a generally adopted tagging scheme (like for bridges). cheers, Martin __

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On 14.03.2014 15:51, Fernando Trebien wrote: > This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my > understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to > specify a rendering order. That is a common misconception by people who worked with graphics editing software such as P

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

> Am 24/mar/2014 um 14:27 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann : > > As opposed to that abstract > layer model, we use a pysical layer model in OSM where layer=0 means > ground-level, layer<0 means underground, and layer>0 means above ground-level. AFAIK it is not defined like this, rather it is meant t

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > On 14.03.2014 15:51, Fernando Trebien wrote: >> This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my >> understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to >> specify a rendering order. > > That is a common miscon

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:02:35AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > > On 14.03.2014 15:51, Fernando Trebien wrote: > >> This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my > >> understanding, the layer tag has no specific meani

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On 24.03.2014 20:45, Richard Z. wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:02:35AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: As it might be even hard to define the ground level (we just have a discussion on talk-de@ about houses built on slops), I woul

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On 14/03/2014 15:57, Pieren wrote: You don't see the point where adding one "layer=-1" is easier than adding 10 "layer=1" ? Not when you could have other entities passing under the bridges. I see it as lazy & less accurate. Making OSM more accurate is a primary consideration when editing

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

+1 for Not when you could have other entities passing under the bridges. I see it as lazy & less accurate. Making OSM more accurate is a primary consideration when editing On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Dave F. wrote: > On 14/03/2014 15:57, Pieren wrote: > >> >> You don't see the point where

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:38:08PM +0100, fly wrote: > On 24.03.2014 20:45, Richard Z. wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:02:35AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > > As it might be even hard to define the ground level (we just hav

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

The present situation is that rivers implicitly render below highways in all common renderings. That's not necessarily bad. With some formality to the layering arrangement, it sure would save a lot of tagging hassle and maintenance. The new cloud tag for example, is clearly to be rendered after e

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

I have discovered a bunch of rivers and streams with layer=-1 in my local area. In my opinion this is simply wrong, so I am removing the layer tag from the river and checking for objects which cross the river (to tag them with layer=1. Best wishes, Andrew On 02/04/2014, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

@Andy "I have discovered a bunch of rivers and streams with layer=-1 in my local area. In my opinion this is simply wrong, so I am removing the layer tag from the river and checking for objects which cross the river (to tag them with layer=1." I have done this a bit myself. I came across a river

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Andrew Errington wrote: > I have discovered a bunch of rivers and streams with layer=-1 in my > local area. In my opinion this is simply wrong, It's not wrong. It's just another way to use the tag layer. I't not because other contributors don't share you opinion t

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 10:15:39AM +0200, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Andrew Errington wrote: > > I have discovered a bunch of rivers and streams with layer=-1 in my > > local area. In my opinion this is simply wrong, > > It's not wrong. It's just another way to use the tag l

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

2014-04-02 13:51 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. : > It is not wrong by itself but there are many circumstances where it > is plain wrong > +1, it is not wrong as long as there aren't any crossing / overlapping objects that have a different layer in OSM (e.g. no layer tag in OSM = implicit layer=0) but ar

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

C'mon guys. Tagging an entire river at layer=-1 is simply not the way to do things, unless it is a covered river or one that runs underground. What other possible justification is there other than not wanting to do the work of tagging bridges with a layer=1? If you argue it's okay if there aren't a

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2014-04-02 13:51 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. : > It is not wrong by itself but there are many circumstances > where it > is plain wrong > > +1, it is not wrong as long as there aren't any crossing / overlapping > objects that have a diff

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Dave Swarthout wrote: > C'mon guys. Tagging an entire river at layer=-1 is simply not the way to do > things, unless it is a covered river or one that runs underground. What > other possible justification is there other than not wanting to do the work > of tagging bridges with

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > C'mon guys. It should be done with sensible defaults rather than forcing > mappers to tell such plain obvious things. Rivers tend to pretty > universally go below bridges, don't you agree? Or bridges go above rivers? :-)

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Ilpo Järvinen > wrote: > > C'mon guys. It should be done with sensible defaults rather than forcing > > mappers to tell such plain obvious things. Rivers tend to pretty > > universally go below bridges, don't you

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

2014-04-02 15:10 GMT+02:00 Ilpo Järvinen : > Definately, both :), which was my point. Adding layer in this case is just > to satisfy some lawyer rather than useful "work". > not adding layer tags to objects crossing on different layers is incomplete data. It can still be rendered "correctly" i

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > Rivers tend to pretty universally go below bridges, don't you agree? > > Or bridges go above rivers? :-) ^^ Sounds like the glass being half empty or half full. We will never reconcile the two points of view ;-) Pieren __

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 03:53:25PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > > C'mon guys. Tagging an entire river at layer=-1 is simply not the way to do > > things, unless it is a covered river or one that runs underground. What > > other possible justification

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 11:21:51PM -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > April 1st aside: the number of important implicit assumptions is relatively > small. Rivers under, power lines over, closed ways under except if they're > tagged building, etc. Currently this type of layering is implicit in > vario

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 03:53:25PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > > > > C'mon guys. Tagging an entire river at layer=-1 is simply not the way to > > > do > > > things, unless it is a covered river or one that

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:41:56PM +0200, André Pirard wrote: > Hi, > > Regarding normalized layers. > If I can believe my eyes, bridges/culverts are under (uninterrupted > foil) roads > : > > bridge=roa

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, 5 Apr 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:41:56PM +0200, André Pirard wrote: > > In addition, "key:layer" *is not* rendering layer/order. > > One example, a road is going through a forest, both should have implicit > "key:layer" ==0. > Obviously they still have a defin

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

Hi, On 05.04.2014 21:17, Richard Z. wrote: > If the road (for whichever reason, valid or not) has layer=-1 and the forest > just the implicit layer==0, the road should still be drawn above the forest. I don't think that this idea is universally accepted. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMa

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 11:04:13PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Sat, 5 Apr 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:41:56PM +0200, André Pirard wrote: > > > > In addition, "key:layer" *is not* rendering layer/order. > > > > One example, a road is going through a forest, both

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 10:14:05PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 05.04.2014 21:17, Richard Z. wrote: > > If the road (for whichever reason, valid or not) has layer=-1 and the > > forest > > just the implicit layer==0, the road should still be drawn above the forest. > > I don't think

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

As I said earlier, I fixed a lot of rivers and waterways nearby that were incorrectly tagged as layer=-1. I removed the layer tag (since it is not necessary on a river or stream) and checked all the bridges and tunnels in the area. Some bridges and tunnels did not have a layer tag, which is an

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Andrew Errington wrote: > I am using OSMAND for navigation, so it's important to have clear maps. Now > that I have downloaded the latest data for this area (which includes my > updates) I am much happier with the map I see. Without any additional tags like "tun

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

Mea culpa, except that the layer=* tag is a hint for the renderer. Should I add layer=-1 to all the rivers and streams again? If not, why not? Best wishes, Andrew PS I didn't want to mention the lake that was tagged layer=-2, but I fixed that too. Having visited it I can confirm it is indeed

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:42:34AM +0200, Pieren wrote: > On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Andrew Errington > wrote: > > > I am using OSMAND for navigation, so it's important to have clear maps. Now > > that I have downloaded the latest data for this area (which includes my > > updates) I am mu

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 07:06:16PM +0900, Andrew Errington wrote: > Should I add layer=-1 to all the rivers and streams again? no, see other email. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/ta

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

2014-04-21 20:48 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. : > > Without any additional tags like "tunnel=*" or "covered=*", a > > "layer=-1" river shouldn't be rendered differently than a "layer=1" or > > even in the absence of any "layer" tag. This is a bug in OsmAnd. You > > except for the the very frequent case wh

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On 21/04/14 21:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014-04-21 20:48 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. >: > Without any additional tags like "tunnel=*" or "covered=*", a > "layer=-1" river shouldn't be rendered differently than a "layer=1" or > even in the absence of a

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On 2014-04-21 22:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : > > 2014-04-21 20:48 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. >: > > > Without any additional tags like "tunnel=*" or "covered=*", a > > "layer=-1" river shouldn't be rendered differently than a > "layer=1" or > > even in the

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Chris Hill wrote: > Layer tag is a *hint* to the renderer, nothing more. In the case of a river > (or road) passing through a landuse area the renderer doesn't need a hint > and to say the river is somehow below the landuse does not make sense. +1 Again, without

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:58:35 André Pirard wrote: > The Osmand's (or its renderer's) bug looks much like this. > To say it more precisely than "it looks bad", It uses dotted lines for > -1, -2 and probably below. There is no reason why. > It should be corrected and not be worked around by changing a

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On 21/04/2014 21:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014-04-21 20:48 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. >: > Without any additional tags like "tunnel=*" or "covered=*", a > "layer=-1" river shouldn't be rendered differently than a "layer=1" or > even in the absence of

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Chris Hill wrote: > On 21/04/14 21:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > >2014-04-21 20:48 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. >>: > > > >> Without any additional tags like "tunnel=*" or "covered=*", a > >> "layer=-1" river shouldn't be

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:58:35AM +0200, André Pirard wrote: > On 2014-04-21 22:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : > > > > 2014-04-21 20:48 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. > >: > > > > > Without any additional tags like "tunnel=*" or "covered=*", a > > > "layer=-1" river sho

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > Layer tag is a *hint* to the renderer, nothing more. > > the wiki page says > << > The layer=* tag is one of several methods used to describe vertical > relationships between crossing or overlapping features. > >> > > Not a single word of a "hint to t

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:54:37PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > Layer tag is a *hint* to the renderer, nothing more. > > > > the wiki page says > > << > > The layer=* tag is one of several methods used to describe vertical > > relationships betwee

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:54:37PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > Now what is that key:layer anyway? Given that nobody knows or cares how > > > it > > > works does it do more good than harm? Do we need it

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

> > the problem has more causes. But mainly people got used to use the > layer=-1 as > a cheap trick to hide all kinds of pesky keepright/JOSM warnings about > missing > bridges, incorrect crossings, waterway crossing waterway and a few more. > The problem would also go away if validators would det

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

2014-04-24 0:52 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > If one could simply delete the layer=-1 on a waterway, without getting > yelled at by validators, then human effort could be directed to those true > oddball situations (like canals crossing each other) that really need > detailed tagging. why would y

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

Layer = -1 is not valid data for a waterway that is on the surface, which by definition is layer 0. It is only valid data on an underground waterway. On May 2, 2014 7:16:04 AM CDT, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2014-04-24 0:52 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > > > If one could simply delete the laye

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 4:41 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > Layer = -1 is not valid data for a waterway that is on the surface, which by > definition is layer 0. It is only valid data on an underground waterway. Pfff, Martin, why did you restart this thread ? Water is always below the ground, othe

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

2014-05-02 17:23 GMT+02:00 Pieren : > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 4:41 PM, John F. Eldredge > wrote: > > Layer = -1 is not valid data for a waterway that is on the surface, > which by definition is layer 0. It is only valid data on an underground > waterway. > > Pfff, Martin, why did you restart this