Am 13/mar/2014 um 00:28 schrieb Frank Little frank...@xs4all.nl:
We model bridges and tunnels in a specific way in OSM which means we do not
need to add additional layer tags (but feel free if you do want to).
IMHO we do not yet model explicit bridges or tunnels at all, we only add
On 13.03.2014 00:28, Frank Little wrote:
Tobias Knerr wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/default_layer_for_bridge_and_tunnel
[...]
This is however not the implicit layer tags argument which Richard Z.
gives, which he suggests means:. so every tunnel and bridge should
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:06:41PM -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
Pieren writes:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Frank Little frank...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Richard Z wrote
As mapped, the waterway=stream (Way #138911739) runs underground
(layer=-1),
probably through a culvert given
Richard Z wrote
In practice this rule is broken more often than you would think: Hamburg
is full
of waterways connected with roads on bridges through a tag obstacle.
France is
full of bridges sharing a node with the waterway bellow.
...
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1522876252
I
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Frank Little frank...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Richard Z wrote
As mapped, the waterway=stream (Way #138911739) runs underground (layer=-1),
probably through a culvert given the way the stream left and right are
separately outlined as waterway=riverbank (and without
Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Frank Little frank...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Richard Z wrote
As mapped, the waterway=stream (Way #138911739) runs underground
(layer=-1),
probably through a culvert given the way the stream left and right are
separately outlined as waterway=riverbank
On 12.03.2014 16:53, Frank Little wrote:
But when did this happen as reported by Richard Z.:
QUOTE
The initiative to have implicit layer tags for those feature was voted
down so every tunnel and bridge should
now have one.
UNQUOTE
There was a proposal to set default layer=1 for bridge=yes
Tobias Knerr wrote:
On 12.03.2014 16:53, Frank Little wrote:
But when did this happen as reported by Richard Z.:
QUOTE
The initiative to have implicit layer tags for those feature was voted
down so every tunnel and bridge should
now have one.
UNQUOTE
There was a proposal to set default
Pieren writes:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Frank Little frank...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Richard Z wrote
As mapped, the waterway=stream (Way #138911739) runs underground
(layer=-1),
probably through a culvert given the way the stream left and right are
separately outlined as
Could you give some visual examples, maybe temporarily creating them in
OSM ( deleting them afterwards) to clarify what you mean?
Dave F.
On 09/03/2014 22:26, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
On 9 March 2014 10:30, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
for some time now I have been working on the
Dave F. wrote:
Could you give some visual examples, maybe temporarily creating them
in OSM ( deleting them afterwards)
... or on the dev server:
http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/
Cheers,
Andy
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On 09/03/2014 12:21, Richard Z. wrote:
the same conceptual problem exists with pylons where they are shared by two
bridges
or aerial tramways. Actualy every pylon breaks the rule by definition because it
connects ground with layer=0 with something else at a different level.
How do you want to
On 09/03/2014 14:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-03-09 13:17 GMT+01:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com:
it says which object is above and which below when they cross,
it is not only for rendering
I agree it does say which object is above
2014-03-11 15:52 GMT+01:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
I agree it does say which object is above another. For the benefit of the
renderer. Who else needs that data? Certainly not routers.
well, everybody who tries to understand what this specific part of the map
represents will have to
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 02:51:23PM +, Dave F. wrote:
On 09/03/2014 12:21, Richard Z. wrote:
In practice this rule is broken more often than you would think: Hamburg is
full
of waterways connected with roads on bridges through a tag obstacle. France
is
full of bridges sharing a node
Richard Z. schrieb:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 12:34:31PM +, Dave F. wrote:
On 09/03/2014 12:24, Richard Z. wrote:
it says point, not node the difference probably needs to be emphasized
very strongly. There is a difference between mathematicaly precise and
intuitive formulations:((
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 10:26:59PM +, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
On 9 March 2014 10:30, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
for some time now I have been working on the wiki page to state the rules
as clearly as possible.. hope that most of the improvements are fairly
uncontroversial.
On 11/03/2014, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 09/03/2014 14:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
For instance if you had an area tagged 'park' another area
within it tagged 'lake' you could add a 'layer' tag to 'lake'
to ensure the render displayed it.
[...]
Which
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 02:52:02PM +, Dave F. wrote:
On 09/03/2014 14:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
+1, but adding a layer=1 to a lake in a park isn't clearer or more
accurate, they are both on the same layer, the lake is in the
park, not above (usually).
Which confirms my point
Hi,
for some time now I have been working on the wiki page to state the rules
as clearly as possible.. hope that most of the improvements are fairly
uncontroversial. Some of the changes:
* the vertical ordering established by the layer values is valid exactly only
in the point where the ways
On 09/03/2014 10:30, Richard Z. wrote:
Hi,
for some time now I have been working on the wiki page to state the rules
as clearly as possible.. hope that most of the improvements are fairly
uncontroversial. Some of the changes:
* the vertical ordering established by the layer values is valid
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:47:32AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 09/mar/2014 um 11:30 schrieb Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
* the vertical ordering established by the layer values is valid exactly
only
in the point where the ways cross or objects overlap
actually at
Am 09/mar/2014 um 12:35 schrieb Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
This is not my understanding of the layer tag. It is a tool to help renderers
place objects on top of each other has no real world implication in
differences of height.
it has implications on real world topology: it
Am 09/mar/2014 um 12:43 schrieb Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
It is broken by definition in at least one case: waterways ar supposed to
share a node with the dam they are crossing, which means the highway passing
across the dam will also share a node with the river passing thorugh a
On 09/03/2014 12:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 09/mar/2014 um 12:35 schrieb Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
This is not my understanding of the layer tag. It is a tool to help renderers place
objects on top of each other has no real world implication in differences of
height.
it has
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 01:05:18PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 09/mar/2014 um 12:43 schrieb Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
It is broken by definition in at least one case: waterways ar supposed to
share a node with the dam they are crossing, which means the highway
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:35:20AM +, Dave F. wrote:
On 09/03/2014 10:30, Richard Z. wrote:
Hi,
for some time now I have been working on the wiki page to state the rules
as clearly as possible.. hope that most of the improvements are fairly
uncontroversial. Some of the changes:
* the
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:35:20AM +, Dave F. wrote:
On 09/03/2014 10:30, Richard Z. wrote:
Hi,
for some time now I have been working on the wiki page to state the rules
as clearly as possible.. hope that most of the improvements are fairly
uncontroversial. Some of the changes:
* the
On 09/03/2014 12:24, Richard Z. wrote:
it says point, not node the difference probably needs to be emphasized
very strongly. There is a difference between mathematicaly precise and
intuitive formulations:((
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=node%20definition
a point in a network or diagram at which
On 09.03.2014 13:17, Dave F. wrote:
On 09/03/2014 12:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
it has implications on real world topology: it says which object is
above and which below when they cross, it is not only for rendering
Disagree. A bridge at the top of Everest would be tagged 'layer=1'
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 12:34:31PM +, Dave F. wrote:
On 09/03/2014 12:24, Richard Z. wrote:
it says point, not node the difference probably needs to be emphasized
very strongly. There is a difference between mathematicaly precise and
intuitive formulations:((
On 09.03.2014 13:21, Richard Z. wrote:
the same conceptual problem exists with pylons where they are shared by two
bridges
or aerial tramways. Actualy every pylon breaks the rule by definition because
it
connects ground with layer=0 with something else at a different level.
How do you
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 12:34:31PM +, Dave F. wrote:
On 09/03/2014 12:24, Richard Z. wrote:
it says point, not node the difference probably needs to be emphasized
very strongly. There is a difference between mathematicaly precise and
intuitive formulations:((
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 02:00:36PM +0100, Tobias Knerr wrote:
On 09.03.2014 13:21, Richard Z. wrote:
the same conceptual problem exists with pylons where they are shared by two
bridges
or aerial tramways. Actualy every pylon breaks the rule by definition
because it
connects ground
Not all OSM nodes are also network/diagram nodes, which are points with
(AFAIK) three or more lines in common. Intermediate OSM nodes in the
middle of a way are not topologically significant.
On 2014-03-09 14:00, Richard Z. wrote:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 12:34:31PM +, Dave F. wrote:
2014-03-09 13:17 GMT+01:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
it has implications on real world topology: it says which object is above
and which below when they cross, it is not only for rendering
Disagree. A bridge at the top of Everest would be tagged 'layer=1' exactly
as it would be if in
On 09.03.2014 14:18, Richard Z. wrote:
Pylons must share a node with the waterway bellow
in my opinion. They are a pretty relevant part of it.
Pylons will often be somewhere within the riverbank area - based on
their exact positions in reality -, but I would not insert them into the
waterway
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 04:55:51PM +0100, Tobias Knerr wrote:
On 09.03.2014 14:18, Richard Z. wrote:
Pylons must share a node with the waterway bellow
in my opinion. They are a pretty relevant part of it.
Pylons will often be somewhere within the riverbank area - based on
their exact
On 09/03/2014, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
For instance if you had an area tagged 'park' another area within it
tagged 'lake' you could add a 'layer' tag to 'lake' to ensure the render
displayed it.
-1, you should not add any layer in this case (tagging for the
On 9 March 2014 10:30, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
for some time now I have been working on the wiki page to state the rules
as clearly as possible.. hope that most of the improvements are fairly
uncontroversial.
Thank you for doing this, it's very useful to have this properly
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 10:26:59PM +, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
On 9 March 2014 10:30, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
for some time now I have been working on the wiki page to state the rules
as clearly as possible.. hope that most of the improvements are fairly
uncontroversial.
41 matches
Mail list logo
