[OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

Hi I have a bridge carrying a cycle lane, dual carriage way (with central reservtion) & footpath. As far as I can see is they each need there own bridge & the result gets a bit crowded. Is there a way to simplify this? If the bright was independent it could also mean that the ways wouldn't need

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/19 d f : > Hi > > I have a bridge carrying a cycle lane, dual carriage way (with central > reservtion) & footpath. As far as I can see is they each need there own > bridge & the result gets a bit crowded. > > Is there a way to simplify this? > If the bright was independent it could also mean

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer : > I would recommend a relation to unify "several bridges" in one (which > gets also the name). Not really more simple to map, but resulting more > accurate and probably could also render nicer. That seems like such a nasty way to do it, this is why I've suggested a

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

Am 19.09.2009 14:39, Martin Koppenhoefer: > 2009/9/19 d f: >> Hi >> >> I have a bridge carrying a cycle lane, dual carriage way (with central >> reservtion)& footpath. As far as I can see is they each need there own >> bridge& the result gets a bit crowded. >> >> Is there a way to simplify this?

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/19 John Smith : > 2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer : > >> I would recommend a relation to unify "several bridges" in one (which >> gets also the name). Not really more simple to map, but resulting more >> accurate and probably could also render nicer. > > That seems like such a nasty way to do

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer : > don't get you. Isn't "mapping lanes" just the same like what I > suggested? I'm in favour of mapping all lanes and ways as well, but > you DO need relations to combine them into streets (indicating kind of > separation and / or possibility to change lanes). I was i

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

Hi, John Smith wrote: >> I would recommend a relation to unify "several bridges" in one (which >> gets also the name). Not really more simple to map, but resulting more >> accurate and probably could also render nicer. > > That seems like such a nasty way to do it, this is why I've suggested > al

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/19 John Smith : > 2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer : >> don't get you. Isn't "mapping lanes" just the same like what I >> suggested? I'm in favour of mapping all lanes and ways as well, but >> you DO need relations to combine them into streets (indicating kind of >> separation and / or possibil

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/19 Frederik Ramm : > Hi, > > John Smith wrote: >>> >>> I would recommend a relation to unify "several bridges" in one (which >>> gets also the name). Not really more simple to map, but resulting more >>> accurate and probably could also render nicer. >> >> That seems like such a nasty way to

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer : > what do you mean? We are already doing this: lanes=3 That only says how many lanes, it doesn't describe restrictions or properties of individual lanes. > In simple cases you don't need it, and when it get's complex, IMHO > explicit mapping is the only transparen

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/9/19 John Smith : >> 2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer : >>> don't get you. Isn't "mapping lanes" just the same like what I >>> suggested? I'm in favour of mapping all lanes and ways as well, but >>> you DO need relations to combine them into streets (indicating kind o

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

creating two consecutive >bridges. This is basically only a rendering problem but I wonder whether >anyone has any thoughts? Mike Harris _ From: d f [mailto:fac63te...@yahoo.com] Sent: 19 September 2009 13:30 To: Talk OSM Subject: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of t

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

009 14:12 > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways? > > Am 19.09.2009 14:39, Martin Koppenhoefer: > > 2009/9/19 d f: > >> Hi > >> > >> I have a bridge carrying a cycle lane, dual carriage way (wit

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/20 Mike Harris : > Claudius - I think you may have answered the question I just asked - thanks > - I must admit that I hadn't seen this proposal before. Once again, > relations prove powerful! Yes except they get abused when we should be looking towards micromapping techniques, not hacks to

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/19 John Smith : > 2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer : > >> what do you mean? We are already doing this: lanes=3 > > That only says how many lanes, it doesn't describe restrictions or > properties of individual lanes. > >> In simple cases you don't need it, and when it get's complex, IMHO >> expl

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/20 Martin Koppenhoefer : > yes, but that's not the problem: straight parallel ways. The problem > arises when they change (become one more or less), on intersections, > etc. Try to imagine a situation like the one I posted above in a > geometrically reduced system: it will get way too confu

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

El Sábado, 19 de Septiembre de 2009, John Smith escribió: > I don't see the problem, you just need to be able to tag which lanes > merge into which, or which diverge, this is a lane issue and needs to > be solved on a lane basis, not on a way basis. Per-lane speed limits, per-lane traffic access r

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

this is a lane issue and needs to > be solved on a lane basis, not on a way basis. +1, that's what I say. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:24 AM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > don't get you. Isn't "mapping lanes" just the same like what I > > suggested? I'm in favour of mapping all lanes and ways as well, but > > you DO need relations to combine them into streets (indicating kind of

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > yes, but that's not the problem: straight parallel ways. The problem > arises when they change (become one more or less), on intersections, > etc. Try to imagine a situation like the one I posted above in a >

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Anthony wrote: > Perhaps there could be some sort of special designation for a way with 3 > lanes at the beginning and 2 lanes at the end, which designates whether the > right or left lane ends, if you really want to get into the fine detail. > To clarify, at the

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > yes, but that's not the problem: straight parallel ways. The problem > arises when they change (become one more or less), on intersections, > etc. Try to imagine a situation like the one I posted above in a > geometrically reduced sys

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > There is indeed a problem with bridges (in cases like yours it looks > like several bridges where in reality there is just one, then there > are bridge-names that can differ from the streetname, etc.) > I wonder if this perhaps isn't

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/20 Anthony : > This can be done without resorting to mapping each lane separately.  If you > have a three lane road with no lane change restrictions or physical > barriers, you map it as one way, with three lanes, with the position as the > center of the three lanes.  When the road goes to t

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:37 PM, John Smith wrote: > > I wasn't suggesting to map each lane separately, however an editor > could display lanes and it would be so much better to display them as > parallel ways which could be edited if they needed to be. John, do you concede that there are some si

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:37 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/20 Anthony : > > This can be done without resorting to mapping each lane separately. If > you > > have a three lane road with no lane change restrictions or physical > > barriers, you map it as one way, with three lanes, with the positi

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/20 Anthony : > That's an editor issue.  If the editor wants to display lanes in a single > way as parallel ways, and let you edit them if need be, it can do that. It's also a DB/framework issue, I don't think relations should be abused for this purpose, instead the DB needs to be extended

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:49 AM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/20 Anthony : > > > That's an editor issue. If the editor wants to display lanes in a single > > way as parallel ways, and let you edit them if need be, it can do that. > > It's also a DB/framework issue, I don't think relations should b

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/20 Anthony : > In most cases I don't think a relation is the only solution either.  I don't > see it as an abuse, though.  It is clearly being used to show a relation Lanes aren't physically seperated so they shouldn't be split nor need a relation to show they are physically joined, I call

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:10 AM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/20 Anthony : > > > In most cases I don't think a relation is the only solution either. I > don't > > see it as an abuse, though. It is clearly being used to show a relation > > Lanes aren't physically seperated > Yes they are. If they

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:10 AM, John Smith wrote: > >> If it's a single physical section, ie a bridge with all the lanes >> physically connected then it should only be one way and we should be >> able to tag the individual lanes. >> > > Everythin

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/20 Anthony : > Yes they are.  If they weren't physically separated, people would be driving > on top of each other.  If they weren't physically separated, they wouldn't > be called multiple lanes - they'd be called one lane. Pretty sure I left an "if" out, if the lanes are on top of the sa

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/20 Anthony : > > > Yes they are. If they weren't physically separated, people would be > driving > > on top of each other. If they weren't physically separated, they > wouldn't > > be called multiple lanes - they'd be called one lane.

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Anthony : > So this is a single way? > http://bikelaneblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/pulaski-bridge-walkway.jpg?w=324&h=241 > > That's nutty. And abusing relations to do the same thing isn't? > As long as you are free to change lanes, I disagree.  The maxheight of a way > is the maxi

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/21 Anthony : > > > So this is a single way? > > > http://bikelaneblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/pulaski-bridge-walkway.jpg?w=324&h=241 > > > > That's nutty. > > And abusing relations to do the same thing isn't? > Irrelevant. I never

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Anthony : > Irrelevant.  I never said you had to use relations.  In fact, I said you > don't. Others have suggested otherwise, to "group" ways that are on the same physical bridge. > I wouldn't call the use of relations "nutty", though. I was referring to a specific use case. > Fine.

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:57 AM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/21 Anthony : > > Fine. You can add "maximum height" along with "maximum speed" to your > list > > of lane-specific data. > > > > I don't find it very important, but if you want to allow for this, > without > > messing up anyone else, fe

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Anthony : > I'd love for you to be able to do it.  Come up with a way to do it that > doesn't require rewriting all the editors, all the routing software, and > combining multiple ways into single ways, and we can both be happy. So you are telling me that the editors, the OSM protocol a

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:39 AM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/21 Anthony : > > > I'd love for you to be able to do it. Come up with a way to do it that > > doesn't require rewriting all the editors, all the routing software, and > > combining multiple ways into single ways, and we can both be happ

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Anthony wrote: > The middle way should be reversible based on time - I'm not sure if this is > possible to do now or not. > Proposed solution is of the format "oneway:time{0:00-4:00;12:00-24:00} = yes" and "oneway:time{4:00-12:00} = -1".

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Anthony : > I'm going to focus on the 8 traffic lanes.  The rest should be separate > ways, if they are separate lanes (whether the 2 railway lines are 2 ways or > 1 I really don't know or care), and if we care to bother mapping them > correctly.  Currently, I'd represent the traffic lane

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, John Smith wrote: > That isn't tagging reality, the bridge doesn't have multiple ways > You clearly define "way" differently than I do, and differently than the current definition. The bridge most certainly has multiple ways in OSM today. > there isn't even ph

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Anthony : > You clearly define "way" differently than I do, and differently than the > current definition.  The bridge most certainly has multiple ways in OSM > today. However that doesn't reflect reality and we should just accept "that's just the way it is" because that's how things wor

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/21 Anthony : > > You clearly define "way" differently than I do, and differently than the > > current definition. The bridge most certainly has multiple ways in OSM > > today. > > However that doesn't reflect reality It does reflect re

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Anthony : > True.  But it is the best way to do it. Says who? > But there are multiple ways in reality.  A "way" is a path of travel, not a > piece of asphalt. Why is it? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetm

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Anthony : > But there are multiple ways in reality.  A "way" is a path of travel, not a > piece of asphalt. If that's the case why are most "ways" a lane in each direction? Surely if what you are saying is true we should plot each direction as an individual way. __

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:20 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/21 Anthony : > > > True. But it is the best way to do it. > > Says who? > Says the person who made the statement. > > But there are multiple ways in reality. A "way" is a path of travel, not > a > > piece of asphalt. > > Why is it? >

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Anthony : > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:20 PM, John Smith > wrote: >> >> 2009/9/21 Anthony : >> >> > True.  But it is the best way to do it. >> >> Says who? > > Says the person who made the statement. That doesn't justify anything, using that logic I could say anything and it would be tru

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:24 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/21 Anthony : > > > But there are multiple ways in reality. A "way" is a path of travel, not > a > > piece of asphalt. > > If that's the case why are most "ways" a lane in each direction? > I'm not sure that is even the case. > Surely

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Anthony : > Not if you are free to cross the center line, for instance to make a left > turn across oncoming traffic to turn into a driveway. I didn't know you can u-turn on most trunk roads legally so why aren't we showing those as 2 seperate ways? > My justification was in the fifty m

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:52 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/21 Anthony : > > Not if you are free to cross the center line, for instance to make a left > > turn across oncoming traffic to turn into a driveway. > > I didn't know you can u-turn on most trunk roads legally so why aren't > we showing t

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Anthony : > Using 2 separate ways implies that you can't U-turn, except in places where > the two ways are connected. Then why aren't we using multiple ways to indicate this for all teritary, secondary, primary, trunk etc? > Are you suggesting that we should never express our opinions

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:52 PM, John Smith wrote: > >> 2009/9/21 Anthony : >> > Not if you are free to cross the center line, for instance to make a >> left >> > turn across oncoming traffic to turn into a driveway. >> >> I didn't know you can u-

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Anthony : > I reread the question and realize I didn't answer it.  U-turn laws vary > greatly by jurisdiction.  Here in Florida you are allowed to U-turn on any > road which isn't separated by a barrier or painted median, unless it is > unsafe to do so or doing so obstructs other traffic.

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 2:19 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/21 Anthony : > > In general, the more important question than whether or not you can > U-turn > > is whether or not you can cross the center line in order to make a left > > (right if you drive on the other side) turn. I believe the law

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Anthony : > Mapping ways should follow the legal paths of travel, not the existence or > non-existence of concrete.  If concrete is the only form of legal barrier, > then fine, concrete can determine how we map.  But if a painted median is Where do you draw the line over painted median s

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 2:39 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/21 Anthony : > > Mapping ways should follow the legal paths of travel, not the existence > or > > non-existence of concrete. If concrete is the only form of legal > barrier, > > then fine, concrete can determine how we map. But if a pai

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Anthony : > If you're allowed to cross it, for instance to make a turn, it should be > represented as one way.  If you aren't, it shouldn't.  In Florida and I As I point out below, you can't turn depending on the centre line not being solid. Should we create multiple ways for intermitten

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:03 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/21 Anthony : > > If you're allowed to cross it, for instance to make a turn, it should be > > represented as one way. If you aren't, it shouldn't. In Florida and I > > As I point out below, you can't turn depending on the centre line no

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:03 PM, John Smith wrote: > >> 2009/9/21 Anthony : >> > > I'm not talking about where passing is allowed, I'm talking about where >> > turning is allowed. In any case, once again there appear to be no >> > intersections o

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:19 AM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/21 Anthony : > > > Even if there is a concrete barrier or other form of barrier that would > > prevent a car crossing? Why are bridges different? > > Usually because bridges narrow things to make it cheaper to cross a > river etc, howe

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Anthony wrote: > > Because that's the primary purpose for which maps are created.  To inform us > how to get from place to place. Be careful...big assumption. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.op

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:27 AM, John Smith wrote: > > it simply isn't treated that way in all > situation or each residential street would be 2 parallel ways, instead > we use a single way to indication a pair of lanes, so which is it > going to be do we need to split residential streets or do we

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:09 AM, John Smith wrote: > > If we are tagging lanes not ways then we need to do so en masse, not > have 2 different systems that exists at present. First things first - 1) propose a way to tag lanes, 2) start using it in parallel to the current system, and see if it wor

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Anthony wrote: > Because that's the primary purpose for which maps are created. To inform > us how to get from place to place. No, a map is a statement about the world, and a person's view of that world. That's why I mentally marked up > > However that doesn't reflect real

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Anthony wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 2:09 PM, John Smith > wrote: >> >> 2009/9/21 Anthony : >> > Define "physically separated". >> >> The road base finishes or there is a concreate barrier or other form >> of barrier that would prevent a car crossing, legall

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Anthony wrote: > > > > Because that's the primary purpose for which maps are created. To inform > us > > how to get from place to place. > > Be careful...big assumption. > You're right, I'm assuming too much

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Anthony : > Okay, I looked up the law.  A double white continuous line is equivalent to > our double double yellow line.  You may not pass across it, and you may not > enter or leave the road across it (such as at a driveway).  So I would > represent that as a dual carriageway, at least

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Anthony : > If it doesn't affect any routing information, then we shouldn't, because > it's a waste of time, but I don't mind if you do. It is a waste of time, I'm just trying to show that ways are treated differently depending on the type of way, which doesn't reflect reality and we sh

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Roy Wallace > wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Anthony > wrote: > > > > Because that's the primary purpose for which maps are created. > To inform us > >

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

If we were just gathering data for routers, we would map every lane as a separate way, with relations for moving between each pair of adjacent lanes. If we were just gathering data for rendering a single-scale street map, we'd add tags to a single way, and probably not bother with lane info. I thi

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Richard Mann : > If we were just gathering data for routers, we would map every lane as a > separate way, with relations for moving between each pair of adjacent lanes. > If we were just gathering data for rendering a single-scale street map, we'd > add tags to a single way, and probably

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

Richard Mann wrote: > If we were just gathering data for routers, we would map every lane as a > separate way, with relations for moving between each pair of adjacent > lanes. If we were just gathering data for rendering a single-scale > street map, we'd add tags to a single way, and probably no

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/20 John Smith : > 2009/9/21 Anthony : > >> Irrelevant.  I never said you had to use relations.  In fact, I said you >> don't. > > Others have suggested otherwise, to "group" ways that are on the same > physical bridge. why should that be "abusing" relations? There are several proposals whic

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Lester Caine : > Simple answer to that BULLSHIT. I agree even if maybe I would have put it in less harsh words ;-) > The only way to produce fine detail maps is with the correct > information. Adding a footpath at the side of a road which along the > length of the road meandering from o

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

Problem is rather simple with this actually right on target aproach - current practice and "it is too damn boring and difficult" or is also known as "death by thousand paper cuts". I like micromapping - I hate current quality of routing software and I think there is whole posibility to have it mor

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

My Lord! What happened to my question?!? You lot don't half go on. :-) Back to basics: Are we all agreed that, in principle, it would be better to be able to have a single bridge to carry multiple ways? http://osm.org/go/eukOONRtk-- http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=51.380995,-2.350388&s

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

Oh dear, I, of course, meant banned not band. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

d f wrote: > My Lord! What happened to my question?!? > You lot don't half go on. :-) It's the same problem ;) micro mapping requires detail macro model requires everything linked to the ways > Back to basics: > Are we all agreed that, in principle, it would be better to be able to > have a singl

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Richard Mann < richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > If we were just gathering data for routers, we would map every lane as a > separate way, with relations for moving between each pair of adjacent lanes. > I disagree with that. Dealing with relations

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 8:21 AM, d f wrote: > It was more an off the top of my head comment really. > Would having it independent make it easier for the renderers? > I think the important question is, does it add information? Probably so. A bridge really is more than just a collection of ways.

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On 09/21/2009 09:20 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 8:21 AM, d f wrote: > amenity=bridge (or would it be landuse=bridge?), to be attached to a way or > polygon. manmade=bridge? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ t

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

From: Anthony To: d f Cc: OSM Talk Sent: Monday, 21 September, 2009 15:20:43 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways? I think the important question is, does it add information? Probably so. A bridge really is more than just

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Richard Mann < > richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> If we were just gathering data for rendering a single-scale street map, >> we'd add tags to a single way, and probably not bother with lane info

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Anthony wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Richard Mann < >> richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> If we were just gathering data for rendering a single-scale street map, >>> we'd add tag

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

Dave F. wrote: > Anthony wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Anthony > > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Anthony > > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Richard Mann >> >

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Lester Caine wrote: > > > Can I check? Are there people here who are suggesting that, in my case, > > they want to draw all four ways (yes, I know the footpath hasn't been > > mapped yet) as  a single way & specify the differences with lane tags? > > Camp one is -

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Anthony wrote: > > John seems to combine everything into a single way and treat the individual > "lanes" (some of the substructures aren't even really lanes) as > substructures.  Some people want to break every lane into a separate way, > and combine them into sup

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Anthony wrote: > > A bridge should probably have its > own geometry.  And if a bridge has its own geometry (polygon or line and > width) and a layer tag you don't even need the relation, do you?  Anything > in the area of the bridge with the same layer is located

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

> Camp three: multiple ways representing paths of travel, grouped with a > "bridge" relation to indicate they share a common bridge. This could > probably be seen as a compromise, and is (I think) a good interim > solution, if not a very-long-term solution. > I can suggest to add bridge's physical

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: >> Camp three: multiple ways representing paths of travel, grouped with a >> "bridge" relation to indicate they share a common bridge. This could >> probably be seen as a compromise, and is (I think) a good interim >> solution, if not a ver

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

Roy > Therefore, a > "bridge" relation would still be useful to indicate that multiple ways > share a bridge, for when the bridge geometry is unknown. > > 1. Why do the ways need to indicate they share a bridge? 2. if the bridge is independent, the size (width) can be drawn to suit) Cheers Dav

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

Hi Peter > I can suggest to add bridge's physical form to this. Otherwise yeah, > why not. It would also help to indicate where bridge actually starts > and ends to help routing software logic. > > Why would routing software need to know the extent of a bridge? Cheers Dave F. _

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Anthony : > Osmarender does a pretty good job of those bridges: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=27.95907&lon=-82.53907&zoom=17&layers=0B00FTF > Notice how it combines the two ways heading south into one bridge even > without any additional information besides the fact that the two way

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Dave F. wrote: > Hi Peter >> I can suggest to add bridge's physical form to this. Otherwise yeah, >> why not. It would also help to indicate where bridge actually starts >> and ends to help routing software logic. >> >> > Why would routing software need to know the

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Anthony wrote: > > > > John seems to combine everything into a single way and treat the > individual > > "lanes" (some of the substructures aren't even really lanes) as > > substructures. Some people want to

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Dave F. wrote: > Roy >>  Therefore, a >> "bridge" relation would still be useful to indicate that multiple ways >> share a bridge, for when the bridge geometry is unknown. >> >> > 1. Why do the ways need to indicate they share a bridge? No particular reason other

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/9/21 Anthony : > > Osmarender does a pretty good job of those bridges: > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=27.95907&lon=-82.53907&zoom=17&layers=0B00FTF > > Notice how it combines the two ways heading south into one bridge eve

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

2009/9/21 Anthony : > Right now, like it or not, ways are being used essentially in the manner I'm > suggesting we keep using them.  We don't combine everything that crosses a > bridge into a single way, and we don't break apart every lane into a > separate way.  Those saying that we should do one

Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

Roy Wallace wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Dave F. wrote: > >> Hi Peter >> >>> I can suggest to add bridge's physical form to this. Otherwise yeah, >>> why not. It would also help to indicate where bridge actually starts >>> and ends to help routing software logic. >>> >>> >>>

  1   2   >