Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
Bryce Nesbitt wrote: What's unacceptable is taking an area where someone carefully and deliberately mapped polygons, and wantonly gluing them, damaging what was done. Is this happening often these days? There were many instances in the past where 'new mappers' were tiding up their local area based on the 'macro' view of things, but in general we have got past that now haven't we? Dave's original post was about a user who was doing this to his work, and as far as I am concerned the offending user needed to be handled as a 'vandal' ! Much of the discussion on the thread drifted off from the original question, although a general consensus on perhaps starting with the macro view and then creating fine detail later by pulling things apart seemed to be agreed. I've found a nice shortcut (G) in josm that certainly helps with that, but anybody reverting such additional data simply needs blocking until such time that they do accept it is vandalism? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 04/03/2014, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote That's not a good time to be mad. There's rarely a good time for that :) If glued polygons are a valid mapping technique, they must be valid mapping technique at any time (initial entry or data maintenance). What's unacceptable is taking an area where someone carefully and deliberately mapped polygons, and wantonly gluing them, damaging what was done. That's where we disagree after all :/ One of the driving idea behind osm is continuous improvement. Highly detailed areas that have been touched by a single mapper are probably the minority. Glueing landuse nodes to highway nodes is only valid the same way that drawing a generic squarre where you know there is a building of some shape is valid. As an end result (fsvo end), glueing nodes is *not* valid, as should be painfully obvious when checking against highres imagery. I've repeated myself many times in this thread; more text would probably not change entrenched opinions, so this is my last reply on the subject. Go contribute instead. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 04/03/2014, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/03/2014, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote If glued polygons are a valid mapping technique, they must be valid mapping technique at any time (initial entry or data maintenance). What's unacceptable is taking an area where someone carefully and deliberately mapped polygons, and wantonly gluing them, damaging what was done. That's where we disagree after all :/ And... reading Lester's response, I realised I read too fast, we agree after all. Sorry for the noise. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 04/03/2014 08:56, Lester Caine wrote: Bryce Nesbitt wrote: What's unacceptable is taking an area where someone carefully and deliberately mapped polygons, and wantonly gluing them, damaging what was done. Is this happening often these days? There were many instances in the past where 'new mappers' were tiding up their local area based on the 'macro' view of things, but in general we have got past that now haven't we? Dave's original post was about a user who was doing this to his work, and as far as I am concerned the offending user needed to be handled as a 'vandal' ! Much of the discussion on the thread drifted off from the original question, Show me a thread that doesn't. :-) although a general consensus on perhaps starting with the macro view and then creating fine detail later by pulling things apart seemed to be agreed. I've found a nice shortcut (G) in josm that certainly helps with that, but anybody reverting such additional data simply needs blocking until such time that they do accept it is vandalism? Personally I'd like to as I've had disagreements with him in the past. However for now it's probably best if the changeset is just reversed. As I've said I've not used JOSM much or its revert tool. Is there someone with more experience willing to do it? Feel free to name check me (DaveF) maybe a link to this thread (is there a public, read only version?) Changeset http://tinyurl.com/ndjzpkm Thanks Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 28/02/2014 00:41, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: Once again : sharing nodes is fine, nobody should give out to you if you initially share nodes between a highway and a park. But it's just an approximation/simplification; not sharing nodes (and giving the park its actual shape) is better. And people are entitled to give out if you glue road to a park that was previously accurately mapped. Could you clarify what you mean by give out? To me, it appears in the first part of your comment you're saying once it's been mapped as shared nodes it shouldn't be improved by separating them. Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 03/03/2014, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 28/02/2014 00:41, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: Once again : sharing nodes is fine, nobody should give out to you if you initially share nodes between a highway and a park. But it's just an approximation/simplification; not sharing nodes (and giving the park its actual shape) is better. And people are entitled to give out if you glue road to a park that was previously accurately mapped. Could you clarify what you mean by give out? Complain to the contributor. Say you're doing it wrong. Angrily and immediately correct the mistake. To me, it appears in the first part of your comment you're saying once it's been mapped as shared nodes it shouldn't be improved by separating them. The disambiguating word is initially. I explicitly say that separating nodes is an improvement. I'm trying to make it clear that glued vs separate is a good vs better issue, not a wrong vs right one. That type of node sharing is not an error like, say, self-intersecting ways is an error. That shouldn't stop you from advocating separate nodes; just don't do that self-righteously proclaiming that yours is the only way, as there are obviously contributors who prefer to share nodes, and it's their right to do so... Initially :p ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
2014-03-03 13:19 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: The disambiguating word is initially. I explicitly say that separating nodes is an improvement. I'm trying to make it clear that glued vs separate is a good vs better issue, not a wrong vs right one. So if someone starts gluing separated nodes, she is making the data worse, and we can be mad? Janko ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 03/03/2014, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-03 13:19 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: The disambiguating word is initially. I explicitly say that separating nodes is an improvement. I'm trying to make it clear that glued vs separate is a good vs better issue, not a wrong vs right one. So if someone starts gluing separated nodes, she is making the data worse, Yes, that's my thoroughly-convinced POV. For the reccord, we're only talking about a specific kind of node-sharing here, not node-sharing in general (read the archives if in doubt). and we can be mad? As always in any community, discuss the issue before you get mad. I do get annoyed at other contributors sometimes, but only after 1) repeated offense after the initial contact and 2) lack of dialog despite my best efforts (which sadly is more frequent than I'd have expected). Speaking of discussion and getting mad, are we done with this thread yet ? Seems like everything has been said... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
2014-03-03 13:19 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: The disambiguating word is initially. I explicitly say that separating nodes is an improvement. I'm trying to make it clear that glued vs separate is a good vs better issue, not a wrong vs right one. Some users will say that good tagging does not need to be improved. For newbies glueing polygons to roads will very likely not be good, since they might experience problems improving the roads and therefore leave the project. So I would prefer to say that glueing polygons to roads versus separating is a mediocre versus preferred issue 2014-03-03 15:08 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: On 03/03/2014, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-03 13:19 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: The disambiguating word is initially. I explicitly say that separating nodes is an improvement. I'm trying to make it clear that glued vs separate is a good vs better issue, not a wrong vs right one. So if someone starts gluing separated nodes, she is making the data worse, Yes, that's my thoroughly-convinced POV. For the reccord, we're only talking about a specific kind of node-sharing here, not node-sharing in general (read the archives if in doubt). and we can be mad? As always in any community, discuss the issue before you get mad. I do get annoyed at other contributors sometimes, but only after 1) repeated offense after the initial contact and 2) lack of dialog despite my best efforts (which sadly is more frequent than I'd have expected). Speaking of discussion and getting mad, are we done with this thread yet ? Seems like everything has been said... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-03 13:19 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: The disambiguating word is initially. I explicitly say that separating nodes is an improvement. I'm trying to make it clear that glued vs separate is a good vs better issue, not a wrong vs right one. So if someone starts gluing separated nodes, she is making the data worse, and we can be mad? That's not a good time to be mad. If glued polygons are a valid mapping technique, they must be valid mapping technique at any time (initial entry or data maintenance). What's unacceptable is taking an area where someone carefully and deliberately mapped polygons, and wantonly gluing them, damaging what was done. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
Instead of a rule, promote this as a best-practice or a guideline... that's more in the OSM open spirit. 2014-02-27 19:57 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: I think we can divide features to virtual and physical features. Virtual: highway centerlines, waterway centerlines, administrative borders, industrial and residental landuse, parks Physical: riverbanks, buildings, meadows, forests, farm fields Can we make a rule to never share points between these two groups? Janko ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France Conférence State Of The Map France du 4 au 6 avril à Parishttp://openstreetmap.fr/sotmfr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
2014-02-28 9:42 GMT+01:00 Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr: Instead of a rule, promote this as a best-practice or a guideline... that's more in the OSM open spirit. Something like Validation layer in JOSM. Janko ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 26/02/2014 01:02, Mike Thompson wrote It would be pretty silly to have a municiple boundary splitting the centre of a road so different administrations were responsible for maintaining the left the right. And yet: exactly that is done. Commonly there's a maintenance arrangement, but I could hop on a bicycle and in a few moments take a photo of a street paved in halves for exactly this reason. Even if legal boundary is one edge of the road the customary boundary is likely 'the road', and nobody short of a land surveyor really need care. Roads in OSM are a funny beast since they're drawn with zero dimension, but rendered and processed with width depending on the emphasis of the result. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
And sometimes it matters, and sometimes it doesn't. For boundaries between higher-level administrations with highways responsibility, it matters. District Councils and Civil Parishes (in the UK) for example don't usually have highways responsiblities, so won't matter *in this case* whether the boundary is the centre line or an edge or some random wiggle between two points. A County boundary on the other hand would be significant. Colin On 2014-02-27 09:07, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 26/02/2014 01:02, Mike Thompson wrote It would be pretty silly to have a municiple boundary splitting the centre of a road so different administrations were responsible for maintaining the left the right. And yet: exactly that is done. Commonly there's a maintenance arrangement, but I could hop on a bicycle and in a few moments take a photo of a street paved in halves for exactly this reason. Even if legal boundary is one edge of the road the customary boundary is likely 'the road', and nobody short of a land surveyor really need care. Roads in OSM are a funny beast since they're drawn with zero dimension, but rendered and processed with width depending on the emphasis of the result. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
Part of the border of Davidson County in Tennessee, USA runs down the centerline of a road. On February 26, 2014 12:42:00 PM CST, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: On 26/02/2014, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 26/02/2014 11:16, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2014-02-26 11:42, Dave F. wrote: It would be pretty silly to have a municiple boundary splitting the centre of a road so different administrations were responsible for maintaining the left the right. Like here [1]. The border is in the middle of the road, Actually in the /middle/ of the road? I see no evidence of that. I'm not suggesting Google Maps are definitive, but they show it to one side. I don't have a link to share, but there is such a road in my hometown in France. It caused no end of grief from the residents, because either both municipalities would decide to do no road improvement at all, or they'd work on only half the road. If you thought municipalities and road administrations never do silly things, think again. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 10:28 -0600, John F. Eldredge wrote: Part of the border of Davidson County in Tennessee, USA runs down the centerline of a road. The village of Llanymynech straddles the England (Shropshire)/Wales (Powis) border, the border runs up the middle of the main street (A483) http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.7811/-3.0902 The bi-lingual Slow/Araf markers painted on the road suggest that Powis look after it. Phil (trigpoint) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
I think we can divide features to virtual and physical features. Virtual: highway centerlines, waterway centerlines, administrative borders, industrial and residental landuse, parks Physical: riverbanks, buildings, meadows, forests, farm fields Can we make a rule to never share points between these two groups? Janko ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: I think we can divide features to virtual and physical features. Virtual: highway centerlines, waterway centerlines, administrative borders, industrial and residental landuse, parks Physical: riverbanks, buildings, meadows, forests, farm fields Can we make a rule to never share points between these two groups? +1 But we need developer buyin to code this into editors, otherwise new users are going to continue to connect these features. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: I think we can divide features to virtual and physical features. Virtual: highway centerlines, waterway centerlines, administrative borders, industrial and residental landuse, parks Physical: riverbanks, buildings, meadows, forests, farm fields Can we make a rule to never share points between these two groups? -1. I don't think that grouping is correct. First, centerlines model a physical feature. Second, what you list as physical features are in fact mostly human land uses. Meadows/forests and even riverbanks are constructed and constrained by man. -- Forests and farm field typically abut roads (you may have forest on one side, farm on the other, at the moment). If the road is ever expanded, it will take land from the abutting use. Similarly for a residential land use with a retail land use across the street: there's a dividing line and it's the street. If the road department ever moves the street a few meters, the street will still be the dividing line. Until you get to a level of micromapping that currently covers less than 1% of the planet, the road serves remarkably well as the dividing line. There is no gap on the ground between the forest and the road: at a first level of mapping they abut. --- Perhaps if the editors rendered centerlines with width people would get less uptight about using them as boundaries. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
I suspect that part of the border line is based on rather old and generalised information, most likely traced from the old NPE maps. When I look at the recent boundary information from OS Boundary Line the border is clearly to the east of the road, which would explain why the road markings are bilingual. I will update the boundary in OSM when I get a minute. Colin On 2014-02-27 19:19, Philip Barnes wrote: On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 10:28 -0600, John F. Eldredge wrote: Part of the border of Davidson County in Tennessee, USA runs down the centerline of a road. The village of Llanymynech straddles the England (Shropshire)/Wales (Powis) border, the border runs up the middle of the main street (A483) http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.7811/-3.0902 [1] The bi-lingual Slow/Araf markers painted on the road suggest that Powis look after it. Phil (trigpoint) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [2] Links: -- [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.7811/-3.0902 [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
Am 27/feb/2014 um 19:57 schrieb Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: Virtual: highway centerlines, waterway centerlines, administrative borders, industrial and residental landuse, parks Physical: riverbanks, buildings, meadows, forests, farm fields Can we make a rule to never share points between these two groups? When there is a building or a meadow directly attached to a park or a landuse like industrial, they should better have common nodes (to ensure topology), for example, so I think the rule should not be like this. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 27/02/2014, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: I think we can divide features to virtual and physical features. Virtual: highway centerlines, waterway centerlines, administrative borders, industrial and residental landuse, parks Physical: riverbanks, buildings, meadows, forests, farm fields Can we make a rule to never share points between these two groups? -1. I don't think that grouping is correct. First, centerlines model a physical feature. Second, what you list as physical features are in fact mostly human land uses. Meadows/forests and even riverbanks are constructed and constrained by man. That grouping makes sense, except that the terms virtual/physical are really badly chosen. I tend to think of them as 1D/2D or line/area or even simplified/precise. A line can sometimes share nodes with an area, for example a barrier=wall enclosing a natural=wood (assuming the wall is thin enough to be considered as 1D), or a boundary=administrative running along a landuse=meadow. And sometimes it shouldn't, such as a highway=residential along a leisure=park. The rule of thumb is that if a 1D is used as a simplified representation of a 2D object, then it shouldn't share nodes with 2D objects. Editor support for this is tempting, except that it would be fairly complex (lots of rules to figure out 1D from 2D, problems when tags change but not geometry, etc), and that node sharing is not wrong per se, just inaccurate. Once again : sharing nodes is fine, nobody should give out to you if you initially share nodes between a highway and a park. But it's just an approximation/simplification; not sharing nodes (and giving the park its actual shape) is better. And people are entitled to give out if you glue road to a park that was previously accurately mapped. Until you get to a level of micromapping that currently covers less than 1% of the planet, the road serves remarkably well as the dividing line. There is no gap on the ground between the forest and the road: at a first level of mapping they abut. Funny that we generaly agree (there is room for both techniques), but end up marketing opposed viewpoints :) I prefer to only defend and suggest the don't share approach, because it is the one that is ultimately better. If somebody is undecided, I'd rather give him the only technique he'll ever need, rather than giving him two techniques and explaining the subtleties of when to use which. I don't feel that mapping the actual park boundary is micromapping, and your damned li^W^Wstatistics aren't an interesting argument : when I map somewhere, I only care about the desired level of detail, not the current level. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 28/02/2014, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: On 27/02/2014, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: Virtual: highway centerlines, waterway centerlines, administrative borders, industrial and residental landuse, parks Physical: riverbanks, buildings, meadows, forests, farm fields That grouping makes sense, except that the terms virtual/physical are really badly chosen. I tend to think of them as 1D/2D or line/area or even simplified/precise. Actually, re-reading the groupings, I'd place landuse for example in the 2nd group, so I retract my the grouping makes sense and propose a different grouping altogether :p ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
Clifford Snow wrote: When editing, it is time consuming to make changes to one when the two are connected. Leaving the two connect can lead to problems if the editor doesn't see that they inadvertently moved the other. Roads are not a special case here ... any way elements that co-exist with other polygon boundary ways can be equally problematic. Bundling relations into this adds another layer of problems which make them as difficult to manage as simple polygons. I have said this before, but it does really need to be looked at a lot closer ... What we need here is to add a 'polygon' which consists of a combination of ways in much the same way as 'nodes' get combined. This is essentially a relation rather than an area, but I will repeat the example I've given before. There is a substantial amount of micro mapping going on now, so for example a field or property polygon may well have one boundary as a road, two as fences and the fourth as a hedge. Since the way making up the polygon can't be used for the boundary elements one ends up having to trace them, creating multiple elements overlapping. Directly related to this thread, the next step may be to add 'say' the dry stone wall that in reality divides the field from the road! Pulling the boundary ways and polygon apart to add the extra detail is currently painful? If however the 'field' simply consisted of 4 closed ways, one could postulate that selecting the road element of the field/property would allow the option to 'parallel' but maintain the other boundary elements to remain with the separated field rather than having to be broken out individually. Going on from this editing operation ... the new way will probably have an access point which could not previously be mapped ON the road, but can now be identified as a link off the road. The remaining problems pulling this element apart from the originally linked components is perhaps 'landuse=agricultural' polygon which may well be overlaying the field polygon as well! Should the landuse polygon remain using the road way as it's boundary or should it switch to the separated field way boundary? That would be allowed by maintaining the landuse detail with one or other of the new separate ways. I see this as a stepping stone maintaining the integrity of the larger area polygons that are currently handled as 'relations' but are more accurately closed way polygons and the same new tools that would manage fine detail polygons could also be used to maintain the integrity of larger 'polygons' such as administrative boundaries or larger landuse areas that are currently created from a large number of conventional polygons? It is not unusual these days to find several ways all overlaying one another, and that can probably be simply extracted from the data? They are using the same nodes but often the real reason for the 'boundary' is not easily identified and adding that data currently requires an additional way for say 'fence', where simply adding that tag to a single multiply used way would be a lot more accurate? There will still be situations where a simple polygon is appropriate, such as perhaps dropping buildings within a property boundary, and 'semi-detached' properties would have a common element with the boundary polygon, and additional tools may be required to insert these fine details into the larger elements, but that simply ensures that the data integrity is maintained? Deleting or modifying elements that ARE being used by higher level areas should be easier to identify? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: 5m,10m... and there is no reason to virtualy extend them and falsify the real world. +1 omg. In the real world, a highway is not a thin polyline... Wouldn't it be nice if the editors wouldn't allow polygon to connect to highways. I understand that it hard to implement, but when you need to make changes to either object, it is a pain. Think that, in some parts of the world, you don't have high res. images and you cannot count the amout of lanes or see the shoulders or the limit between the road and next landuse. Or that the person adding landuse is working at a municipality level, not at a fence level. It was always like this in OSM, the first contributor adds a node for a townhall, the second draws or import the building footprint and move the tags from the node to the way, etc. The crowd is not mapping at the same map scale. Assuming you start to map fences and walls, you have to adapt the existing data to your level of contributions. But you shouldn't forbid other contributions if they are not at your expectations. Again, it's an iterative concept. New contributions increase the quality. What is not acceptable is that new contributions decrease the level of the mapping (excepted in some cases I could develop) Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 26/02/2014 01:02, Mike Thompson wrote: Wouldn't it be nice if the editors wouldn't allow polygon to connect to highways. The edges of some polygons are truly coincident with road centerlines. For example, many municipal boundaries. I'm not convinced this is usually true. It maybe UK specific, but municipal boundaries were more likely to originally be placed on physical boundaries to farms estates such as walls, fences etc. before tracks/roads were developed. Roads subsequently evolved along those boundaries afterwards. It would be pretty silly to have a municiple boundary splitting the centre of a road so different administrations were responsible for maintaining the left the right. Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
Inthe UK the boundaries were there long before road maintenance was thought of. A couple of real life examples http://osm.org/go/eu5Dsjb0--?layers =N The border between Leicestershire and Warwickshire has been split to either side of Watling Street to solve the problem of maintenance. The boundary original used the Roman road to define the border between The Danelaw and Saxon Mercia. http://osm.org/go/euehosUf--?layers=N The English Welsh border runs along the centre of the main street. I assume shropshire and powis have an arrangement. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 26/02/2014 10:42 Dave F. wrote: On 26/02/2014 01:02, Mike Thompson wrote: Wouldn't it be nice if the editors wouldn't allow polygon to connect to highways. The edges of some polygons are truly coincident with road centerlines. For example, many municipal boundaries. I'm not convinced this is usually true. It maybe UK specific, but municipal boundaries were more likely to originally be placed on physical boundaries to farms estates such as walls, fences etc. before tracks/roads were developed. Roads subsequently evolved along those boundaries afterwards. It would be pretty silly to have a municiple boundary splitting the centre of a road so different administrations were responsible for maintaining the left the right. Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 26/02/2014 10:27, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: 5m,10m... and there is no reason to virtualy extend them and falsify the real world. +1 omg. In the real world, a highway is not a thin polyline... Yes, that why he's saying don't attach it to the centreline in the belief it's the edge. Wouldn't it be nice if the editors wouldn't allow polygon to connect to highways. I understand that it hard to implement, but when you need to make changes to either object, it is a pain. Think that, in some parts of the world, you don't have high res. images and you cannot count the amout of lanes or see the shoulders or the limit between the road and next landuse. If there's no imagery to work from the person has never seen the area before then they really shouldn't be mapping it. If a visual survey has been performed a bit of 'guesstimating' the distance to the centreline from the boundary edge is *still* more accurate than attaching it the the way of the road. Or that the person adding landuse is working at a municipality level, not at a fence level. It was always like this in OSM, the first contributor adds a node for a townhall, the second draws or import the building footprint and move the tags from the node to the way, etc. The crowd is not mapping at the same map scale. Assuming you start to map fences and walls, you have to adapt the existing data to your level of contributions. Agree But you shouldn't forbid other contributions if they are not at your expectations. Not sure how you 'forbid' data, but if the contributions are to existing data reduce the information or accuracy, then they should be reverted. Again, it's an iterative concept. New contributions increase the quality. What is not acceptable is that new contributions decrease the level of the mapping (excepted in some cases I could develop) Unfortunately, that's what's happened in my case. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 2014-02-26 11:42, Dave F. wrote: On 26/02/2014 01:02, Mike Thompson wrote: Wouldn't it be nice if the editors wouldn't allow polygon to connect to highways. The edges of some polygons are truly coincident with road centerlines. For example, many municipal boundaries. I'm not convinced this is usually true. It maybe UK specific, but municipal boundaries were more likely to originally be placed on physical boundaries to farms estates such as walls, fences etc. before tracks/roads were developed. Roads subsequently evolved along those boundaries afterwards. It would be pretty silly to have a municiple boundary splitting the centre of a road so different administrations were responsible for maintaining the left the right. Like here [1]. The border is in the middle of the road, the roadlayout and signage is Dutch, but the sign on the building to the left is German (and is on German ground). But the same is true for border rivers. Then there also has to be agreement in procedures. [1] https://maps.google.nl/?ll=50.860225,6.077156spn=0.006014,0.032873t=mz=15layer=ccbll=50.860226,6.077161panoid=SQRceC4dd39DbQRqRCy1zgcbp=11,195.8,,0,3.32 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 26/02/2014 11:16, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2014-02-26 11:42, Dave F. wrote: I'm not convinced this is usually true. It maybe UK specific, but municipal boundaries were more likely to originally be placed on physical boundaries to farms estates such as walls, fences etc. before tracks/roads were developed. Roads subsequently evolved along those boundaries afterwards. It would be pretty silly to have a municiple boundary splitting the centre of a road so different administrations were responsible for maintaining the left the right. Like here [1]. The border is in the middle of the road, Actually in the /middle/ of the road? I see no evidence of that. I'm not suggesting Google Maps are definitive, but they show it to one side. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 2014-02-26 12:31, Dave F. wrote: On 26/02/2014 11:16, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2014-02-26 11:42, Dave F. wrote: I'm not convinced this is usually true. It maybe UK specific, but municipal boundaries were more likely to originally be placed on physical boundaries to farms estates such as walls, fences etc. before tracks/roads were developed. Roads subsequently evolved along those boundaries afterwards. It would be pretty silly to have a municiple boundary splitting the centre of a road so different administrations were responsible for maintaining the left the right. Like here [1]. The border is in the middle of the road, Actually in the /middle/ of the road? I see no evidence of that. I'm not suggesting Google Maps are definitive, but they show it to one side. Yes. In the middle of the road. See [1], In het midden van de rotonde stond gp230, translated: in the middle of the roundabout was gp230 located. The roundabout on the photo is located a bit more to the south where there is not streetview. That part was actually physically separated with a stone ridge, see the next photo. Now it is a joint road. GP231 is located when you take my SV link, turn around and go to the next roundabout. [1] http://www.grenspalen.nl/archief-denl/gp-depruis-nl-228-238.html Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: I'm not convinced this is usually true. It maybe UK specific, but municipal boundaries were more likely to originally be placed on physical boundaries to farms estates such as walls, fences etc. before tracks/roads were developed. Roads subsequently evolved along those boundaries afterwards. It would be pretty silly to have a municiple boundary splitting the centre of a road so different administrations were responsible for maintaining the left the right. This is usually true in my country. For example, here's the legal definition of a district in the capital Manila: Malate. - Beginning at the intersection of west face of the sea wall on Dewey Boulevard and the center line of Calle Cuarteles; thence along the center line of Calle Cuarteles, M. H. del Pilar and Herran, and Esteros de Paco, and Tripa de Gallina, to the city boundary line; thence westerly along said boundary line to high-water line on Manila Bay; and thence northerly along said high-water line and the west face of said sea wall to the point of beginning.[1] Hence, the relation for the Malate district[2] contains rivers and roads (and coastlines) as members. [1] http://philippinelaw.info/statutes/ra409-revised-charter-of-the-city-of-manila.html [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/103704 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 02/26/2014 12:11 PM, Dave F. wrote: On 26/02/2014 10:27, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: 5m,10m... and there is no reason to virtualy extend them and falsify the real world. +1 omg. In the real world, a highway is not a thin polyline... Yes, that why he's saying don't attach it to the centreline in the belief it's the edge. Yes, that's what I'm saying. Don't attach landuse and other real world representing polygons to the road centerline. We should not attach landuse=park,grass,cemetary,... to highway=road,primary,secundary, ... Administrative borders are completely another case, they are MOSTLY imaginary lines that divide world to political regions... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
2014-02-26 14:50 GMT+01:00 hbogner hbog...@gmail.com: Yes, that's what I'm saying. Don't attach landuse and other real world representing polygons to the road centerline. We should not attach landuse=park,grass,cemetary,... to highway=road,primary,secundary, ... I am going even further by saying ideally a landuse=residential/industrial/commercial/retail polygon should not incorporate any public road at all. I agree that this way of mapping means significantly more work initially, but it leads to better (less forgotten / overlooked different landuses) and more detailed data afterwards and it is much easier to edit and more clear what is going on. Atomic mapping (smaller patches instead of huge polygons) also leads to fewer version numbers and to a clearer history, and to faster rendering/processing times for high zoom levels (you only have to look at the actually interesting data and not the data out of sight but in the same polygon). a wider acceptance / mapping of landuse=highway for the legal highway (or in other words, the gap between the above mentioned landuses in built-up areas) would sure help getting this done earlier. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 26/02/2014 15:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I am going even further by saying ideally a landuse=residential/industrial/commercial/retail polygon should not incorporate any public road at all. But then how do you tag named industrial or commercial zones ? In France there are ZI Zone Industrielle or ZA 'Zone d'Activité) which include public ways. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 26/02/2014, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 26/02/2014 11:16, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2014-02-26 11:42, Dave F. wrote: It would be pretty silly to have a municiple boundary splitting the centre of a road so different administrations were responsible for maintaining the left the right. Like here [1]. The border is in the middle of the road, Actually in the /middle/ of the road? I see no evidence of that. I'm not suggesting Google Maps are definitive, but they show it to one side. I don't have a link to share, but there is such a road in my hometown in France. It caused no end of grief from the residents, because either both municipalities would decide to do no road improvement at all, or they'd work on only half the road. If you thought municipalities and road administrations never do silly things, think again. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 26/02/2014, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 26/02/2014 10:27, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us Think that, in some parts of the world, you don't have high res. images and you cannot count the amout of lanes or see the shoulders or the limit between the road and next landuse. If there's no imagery to work from the person has never seen the area before then they really shouldn't be mapping it. If a visual survey has been performed a bit of 'guesstimating' the distance to the centreline from the boundary edge is *still* more accurate than attaching it the the way of the road. That guesstimate is often way off when you have no imagery and little data, because your sense of scale has no reference. I've made the mistake many times only to think silly me when revisiting an area once imagery became available. In that context, I agree that glueing the poly to the street may be just as good as separating it. At least then it's obvious that the data is just a schematic model and not an accurate-ish representation. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
Jean-Marc Liotier jm at liotier.org writes: On 26/02/2014 15:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I am going even further by saying ideally a landuse=residential/industrial/ commercial/retail polygon should not incorporate any public road at all. But then how do you tag named industrial or commercial zones ? In France there are ZI Zone Industrielle or ZA 'Zone d'Activité) which include public ways. Use multipolygons. -- Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 26/02/2014 18:34, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: On 26/02/2014, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 26/02/2014 10:27, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us Think that, in some parts of the world, you don't have high res. images and you cannot count the amout of lanes or see the shoulders or the limit between the road and next landuse. If there's no imagery to work from the person has never seen the area before then they really shouldn't be mapping it. If a visual survey has been performed a bit of 'guesstimating' the distance to the centreline from the boundary edge is *still* more accurate than attaching it the the way of the road. That guesstimate is often way off when you have no imagery and little data, because your sense of scale has no reference. I've made the mistake many times only to think silly me when revisiting an area once imagery became available. In that context, I agree that glueing the poly to the street may be just as good as separating it. At least then it's obvious that the data is just a schematic model and not an accurate-ish representation. As I see it, a separate poly would be inaccurate, a joined poly to way would be wrong, so ironically the inaccurate would be the more accurate. Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 26/02/2014 18:42, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: On 26/02/2014, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 26/02/2014 11:16, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2014-02-26 11:42, Dave F. wrote: It would be pretty silly to have a municiple boundary splitting the centre of a road so different administrations were responsible for maintaining the left the right. Like here [1]. The border is in the middle of the road, Actually in the /middle/ of the road? I see no evidence of that. I'm not suggesting Google Maps are definitive, but they show it to one side. I don't have a link to share, but there is such a road in my hometown in France. It caused no end of grief from the residents, because either both municipalities would decide to do no road improvement at all, or they'd work on only half the road. If you thought municipalities and road administrations never do silly things, think again. I stand corrected. There are silly people. Thanks for all you examples. Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
2014-02-26 15:56 GMT+01:00 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org: But then how do you tag named industrial or commercial zones ? In France there are ZI Zone Industrielle or ZA 'Zone d'Activité) which include public ways. I would do this with name and place tags. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
2014-02-26 19:43 GMT+01:00 Andrew Hain andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk: Jean-Marc Liotier jm at liotier.org writes: On 26/02/2014 15:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I am going even further by saying ideally a landuse=residential/industrial/ commercial/retail polygon should not incorporate any public road at all. But then how do you tag named industrial or commercial zones ? In France there are ZI Zone Industrielle or ZA 'Zone d'Activité) which include public ways. Use multipolygons. I wouldn't do this because here you would need the roads to be part of the zone (as well as other landuses that are inside this zone). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
This is the changeset: http://tinyurl.com/ndjzpkm Notice in particular the attachment of the cemetery (that in reality has a wall boundary) to the middle of a roundabout. As we increasing map to a finer detail, especially in urban areas, His reversal to a 'blanket' style coverage is a step backwards. My edits are based on visual survey (bike ride) backed up with Bing imagery. If someone could please revert this changeset I'd much appreciate it. I would do it myself I'm not conversant with JOSM it's reversal tool - I don't wish to make matters worse. Thanks Dave F. On 20/02/2014 22:12, Serge Wroclawski wrote: What's the username? Changesets? - Serge On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Hi There's a general consensus that attaching polygons to ways that represent roads was a bad idea. For example if a farm field was mapped this way then any barrier for it, such as hedge, gate etc, would appear to be on the road as well. I have a user who's repeatedly doing this. I've tried sending messages, but no reply I gave a detailed description in my amending changesets, but he just reverts them back. Are there any wiki pages explaining it clearly that might convince him otherwise? Cheers Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
It looks utterly wrong to me when a wall is being put in the middle of a normal road (I've only seen this in Berlin in the mid 80's, but that was an actual groundtruth situation at the time). Not to mention that attaching polygons to roads is very unfriendly to newcomers who will not be able to select a road in iD in a normal way to update e.g. maxspeeds. 2014-02-25 18:10 GMT+01:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: This is the changeset: http://tinyurl.com/ndjzpkm Notice in particular the attachment of the cemetery (that in reality has a wall boundary) to the middle of a roundabout. As we increasing map to a finer detail, especially in urban areas, His reversal to a 'blanket' style coverage is a step backwards. My edits are based on visual survey (bike ride) backed up with Bing imagery. If someone could please revert this changeset I'd much appreciate it. I would do it myself I'm not conversant with JOSM it's reversal tool - I don't wish to make matters worse. Thanks Dave F. On 20/02/2014 22:12, Serge Wroclawski wrote: What's the username? Changesets? - Serge On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Hi There's a general consensus that attaching polygons to ways that represent roads was a bad idea. For example if a farm field was mapped this way then any barrier for it, such as hedge, gate etc, would appear to be on the road as well. I have a user who's repeatedly doing this. I've tried sending messages, but no reply I gave a detailed description in my amending changesets, but he just reverts them back. Are there any wiki pages explaining it clearly that might convince him otherwise? Cheers Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 02/25/2014 07:54 PM, Johan C wrote: It looks utterly wrong to me when a wall is being put in the middle of a normal road (I've only seen this in Berlin in the mid 80's, but that was an actual groundtruth situation at the time). Not to mention that attaching polygons to roads is very unfriendly to newcomers who will not be able to select a road in iD in a normal way to update e.g. maxspeeds. I'll always make polygon separate from the road. One of the reasons is that we mark road only with it's centerline and not whole dimensions, shape and width. And if we connect the polygon to that centerline we create false data. Those fileds end at the certain distance from road centerline, 1m, 2m, 5m,10m... and there is no reason to virtualy extend them and falsify the real world. Regards. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
For example if a farm field was mapped this way then any barrier for it, such as hedge, gate etc, would appear to be on the road as well. So, for a polygon, the boundary can be tagged for a barrier that completely encircles the polygon? Is this all that common? In my experience the barrier is dependant upon the neighbouring polygon. Often a residential property will have fences on the rear and two sides, but no fence to the front. I guess in this case each side would have to be a separate line object? nick *** WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print or copy this email without appropriate authority. If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake, please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not waived or destroyed by that mistake. It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with your computer system). Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure. *** ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:15 AM, hbogner hbog...@gmail.com wrote: I'll always make polygon separate from the road. One of the reasons is that we mark road only with it's centerline and not whole dimensions, shape and width. And if we connect the polygon to that centerline we create false data. Those fileds end at the certain distance from road centerline, 1m, 2m, 5m,10m... and there is no reason to virtualy extend them and falsify the real world. +1 Wouldn't it be nice if the editors wouldn't allow polygon to connect to highways. I understand that it hard to implement, but when you need to make changes to either object, it is a pain. -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
Wouldn't it be nice if the editors wouldn't allow polygon to connect to highways. The edges of some polygons are truly coincident with road centerlines. For example, many municipal boundaries. Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com wrote: The edges of some polygons are truly coincident with road centerlines. For example, many municipal boundaries. That may be true, but it doesn't mean we need to connect roads with polygons. As was stated in a post from a time past, roads and landuse/borders polygons are only representations of the object. One object can sit on top of another without connecting. The render map will appear the same. The only problem I can see is trying to query what is inside of a polygon. A road with its geometry just outside of the polygon would show up even though it appears to be directly under the polygon. But that seems pretty obscure. When editing, it is time consuming to make changes to one when the two are connected. Leaving the two connect can lead to problems if the editor doesn't see that they inadvertently moved the other. -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
Am 23/feb/2014 um 00:44 schrieb Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us: A residential subdivision here will often place a decorative fence or hedge along the road, with a sidewalk in front of it, but the subdivision maintains everything up to the curb, where the pavement ends (and still owns half the land under the pavement). In other words, the subdivision doesn't end at the fence or the sidewalk. Accurately ungluing the area from the roadway means mapping the curb. Is the road publicly owned, generally accessible, or is it private land and the access is or could be regulated on an individual basis if the owner wishes so? Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 01:36 2014-02-23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 23/feb/2014 um 00:44 schrieb Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us: A residential subdivision here will often place a decorative fence or hedge along the road, with a sidewalk in front of it, but the subdivision maintains everything up to the curb, where the pavement ends (and still owns half the land under the pavement). In other words, the subdivision doesn't end at the fence or the sidewalk. Accurately ungluing the area from the roadway means mapping the curb. Is the road publicly owned, generally accessible, or is it private land and the access is or could be regulated on an individual basis if the owner wishes so? The pavement itself is publicly owned and accessible, as part of an easement. The landowner still has certain rights, but not the right to regulate public use of the roadway. Still, mapping to the centerline in this case does meet the what you see on the ground rule of thumb: when a piece of private property fronting the road changes ownership, the public notice typically references the centerline (i.e., lane markings) or a particular spike embedded somewhere on the roadway. This is admittedly a very technical distinction, but I think it shows that joining landuse areas to the centerline is perfectly valid in certain circumstances. -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
Am 21/feb/2014 um 22:29 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: That's the crux of it. Separating the area from the road *is* an improvement in itself (at least if you've got high-res imagery to place the polygon more precisely). If that changeset gets reverted to re-glue the area to the line (especially without engaging in conversation with the orther contributor), it's a step backward +1 cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:02:19PM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: To say that the park occupies the space between these four streets is a very reasonable first approximation model. It's the micro-mapping that brings up hard to process situations. Imagine that same area micromapped: road centerline, cycle tracks, power poles, fence, hedge, imported legal property boundary of the park. To render that well for various needs you've got to start shoving and pushing element. To render the highway fat you need to push out the cycle track and fence lines. Should you also shove over the hedge or just bury it under the roadway? It's unclear what's best. not the only problem. Attaching areas to ways is making a special class of mapping mistakes happen easy. If the four areas are attached to highways that have a grade separated crossing many times people accidentaly make a node connecting the highways right into the middle of the bridge where the four areas join. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 16:02 2014-02-21, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:29 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com mailto:molto...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with the matter of taste argument insofar as I dont complain to mappers who initially glue areas to lines. It's just data that can be improved like any other, and if it tastes easyer to that mapper, it's fine. You really shouldn't force anybody to be more accurate than they care to be. I think it's important to consider that what we put into OSM is a model of the real world. Roads for example are generally not straight, yet we model them with line segments. A model. To say that the park occupies the space between these four streets is a very reasonable first approximation model. You can go pretty far with the model: the street has cycle tracks left right, the utilities are on poles overhead, the park edge is fenced. All the important data is present and can be conveniently rendered at any scale or with any emphasis. This is very flexible. Cartography rules often render road width not based on physical width, but logical width. The 25' wide highway at one edge of the park is more important than 30' wide residential street on the other three sides. The model handles this just fine: whatever width is not used by the road is used by the polygon. Nobody cares that the park just lost a little space, the map looks great and communicates clearly to the viewer. Flip to a cycling map, and the 30' bicycle-friendly street may be more important than the highway: it still renders fine. --- It's the micro-mapping that brings up hard to process situations. Imagine that same area micromapped: road centerline, cycle tracks, power poles, fence, hedge, imported legal property boundary of the park. To render that well for various needs you've got to start shoving and pushing element. To render the highway fat you need to push out the cycle track and fence lines. Should you also shove over the hedge or just bury it under the roadway? It's unclear what's best. Very often the actual legal boundary does not correspond to the landscaped boundary. The park may be landscaped right to the edge of the tarmac, but the highway department actually owns a wider swath of land. The fence might be within the legal boundary of the park, or outside it. Which one you map depends on your aim: the assessors office wants the legal boundary, the soccer team will play right to the edge of the fence regardless, they only care if the fence is permeable to soccer balls. --- There's no one solution here: in micromapped areas road centerlines are not enough. In many areas (I might hazard 99% of the surface of the planet), the /model/ may serve the need better. I think that strong tool support for sharing nodes is good, appropriate, and a great for first efforts at mapping modelling an area. The node sharing is particularly useful for administrative and other areas that do in fact follow a road centerline by fact or convention. Just realize that there's disagreement on this point in part because of valid differences in scale, scope and aim. And that we model reality because models are often more useful than a direct representation. Any difficulty in editing is a tool issue. Bryce's entire message resonates with me due to mapping and remapping the same suburban areas many times over, each time with increasing granularity. In most of my mapping area, city limits, subdivision boundaries, and individual residential lots all extend to the road centerline by default, except perhaps when the road is a divided highway, in which case landuse=highway is appropriate anyways. A residential subdivision here will often place a decorative fence or hedge along the road, with a sidewalk in front of it, but the subdivision maintains everything up to the curb, where the pavement ends (and still owns half the land under the pavement). In other words, the subdivision doesn't end at the fence or the sidewalk. Accurately ungluing the area from the roadway means mapping the curb. I'm not opposed to curb-mapping -- it's probably quite useful in urban areas, for wheelchair accessibility -- but in my area, we're just very, very far away from the point where we can ask mappers to worry about that level of detail. Plus, Potlatch makes it very easy to draw an area that follows a windy stretch of road: press F repeatedly. -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
Hi Frederik, I agree - but only in parts. If the other mapper shares nodes between the road and the field, and the field is surrounded (and tagged as such) with a fence, so the field is e.g. landuse=farmland, barrier=fence, then this is an error in the map as it states that the fence is in the middle of the street or it's not possible to decide where relative to the street the fence is. In this case dividing them without adding new features IMHO is fixing a bug in the map data, and joining a fence with a way along several nodes in a line is an error - if not vandalism when doing it repeatingly while igoring personal messages according to the same issue. Nevertheless of course you're right: Changing the way of mapping without adding value/improvement (!) is not okay. regards Peter Am 20.02.2014 23:40, schrieb Frederik Ramm: Hi, On 20.02.2014 23:04, Dave F. wrote: There's a general consensus that attaching polygons to ways that represent roads was a bad idea. Not really. There is not a consensus but a ceasefire. Everyone is free to map this as they like, and to change it if there's a need - e.g. someone else has connected the field to the road, now you want to map the fence, so you need to split it apart. That's ok. Similarly, someone re-doing the whole area from better imagery or whatever has every right to map as he pleases - if they thing they can be more efficient by joining boundaries, more power to them. What is *not* ok is one person cleaning up after the other without actually adding any other improvement. I.e. if the other guy has connected the fields and the roads and you have been *only* pulling them apart without contributing anything else to the area in question, then you should have let them be; on the other hand, if the other guy has merged fields and roads that previously were separate, then they shouldn't have done that. This whole question is essentially a matter of taste, and you are allowed to map according to your taste, and discouraged from enforcing your taste for others. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote: If the other mapper shares nodes between the road and the field, and the field is surrounded (and tagged as such) with a fence, so the field is e.g. landuse=farmland, barrier=fence, then this is an error in the map as it states that the fence is in the middle of the street or it's not possible to decide where relative to the street the fence is. That's maybe an original issue with landuse polygons. Once you go to this level of details (fence), the border line between landuse's is not a clear sharp line. As suggested by Shaun, once you add fences and detach the farmland, you should also fill the gap created and make the landuse=highway. People detaching landuse from road lines are most of the time doing half of the job. Changing the way of mapping without adding value/improvement (!) is not okay. At least, new contributions shouldn't decrease the quality. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
Am 21.02.2014 10:44, schrieb Pieren: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote: If the other mapper shares nodes between the road and the field, and the field is surrounded (and tagged as such) with a fence, so the field is e.g. landuse=farmland, barrier=fence, then this is an error in the map as it states that the fence is in the middle of the street or it's not possible to decide where relative to the street the fence is. That's maybe an original issue with landuse polygons. Once you go to this level of details (fence), the border line between landuse's is not a clear sharp line. As suggested by Shaun, once you add fences and detach the farmland, you should also fill the gap created and make the landuse=highway. People detaching landuse from road lines are most of the time doing half of the job. I may agree here, but in OSM I think doing half the job is better than mapping wrong stuff. OSM is a database, not (only) a map, and there isn't something like once you go to this level of details. Let's extend the example slightly: Let there be from left to right a field, a fence, a street, a hedge and a park. Let the fence in addition be not around the field, but only at the borderline to the street (so it's not a tag on the field polygon any more, while the hedge surrounds the park (where entrances are mapped as such on nodes). Now Mapper A starts mapping with low detail from aerial imagery: he draws a polygon for the field, another polygon for the park, and a way for the street, and tags it as landuse, leisure and highway respectively. He omits the fence and the wall. As you said, this is perfectly valid (although it's a little bit ugly to detect that it's not a park directly beside a field, because you would have to create the corresponding buffer for the highway for that; it's not possible to calculate the exact area of the field, as we're wrong by 6 meters for half the street width.) Mapper B is on the ground a while later and recognizes that there's a fence and a hedge. Adding the hedge seems to be easy: she adds the barrier=hedge-tag to the park. Adding the fence is easy, too, but how to do this? She definitively has to draw a new way as there's no geometry matching the fence. But where? By the rules applied in this scenario up to now it would be fine to add the fence as a way sharing the nodes that are already shared by park, highway, hedge and field. But what happens when doing this? There is a set of nodes that is hedge and fence. Might be possible: I would interpret this as a fence inside a hedge, which is possible and well known in the wild. But what's the matter with the highway? well... then the highway must be in between the hedge with fence and the field with the wall... Well - wait... it could be a fence on top of a wall instead - now the fence is on the other side of the way... Or it could be a fence in the middle of the street - strange... In fact the map says, there's a fence, a wall and a street's center line at the same position. Independent of the level of detail I would assume for the application this is simply wrong, and keep in mind: the coordinates are in a level of detail of 10cm or better, with no way to see what level of detail is ment by any particular mapper with any particular object. Let's invite Mapper C. He - as you suggests would like to clean up the mess produced by A and B, and it's going to be hard work. Without being on the ground it seems to be possible to detach the park with the hedge from the way on the first glance, but damn it - what to do with the wall? Isn't it wrong to detatch the fence if it might be possible that in fact the fence is on top of the wall? If so it would be necessary to detatch the fence, too and let fence and wall share nodes. If not, this would create a different but completely wrong situation. So nothing can be made better without being on the ground. C decides to take his bike and and ride a whole day to that place as unfortunately there's no active mapper any more (A and B stopped mapping months ago). Now he knows what's the situation on the ground and has to detatch lines from each other, stumbling over several ugly issues in the osm editor software available: - How to select one of many ways sharing the same nodes? - how to minimize breaking object history - but remapping everything would be more simple to do. If A and B would have drawn lines in parallel, leaving a gap for the highway in between it would be much easier. Changing the way of mapping without adding value/improvement (!) is not okay. At least, new contributions shouldn't decrease the quality. +10, but filling the map without empty gaps isn't a good measurement of quality. regards Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 20/02/2014 22:40, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 20.02.2014 23:04, Dave F. wrote: There's a general consensus that attaching polygons to ways that represent roads was a bad idea. Not really. There is not a consensus but a ceasefire. Everyone is free to map this as they like, and to change it if there's a need - e.g. someone else has connected the field to the road, now you want to map the fence, so you need to split it apart. That's ok. Similarly, someone re-doing the whole area from better imagery or whatever has every right to map as he pleases - if they thing they can be more efficient by joining boundaries, more power to them. What is *not* ok is one person cleaning up after the other without actually adding any other improvement. I.e. if the other guy has connected the fields and the roads and you have been *only* pulling them apart without contributing anything else to the area in question, then you should have let them be; This bit I disagree with. Field or cemetery boundaries etc don't go to the centreline of the road. Pulling them apart placing them where they are in reality is improving OSM by making it more accurate. Even if not boundary is added. on the other hand, if the other guy has merged fields and roads that previously were separate, then they shouldn't have done that. This whole question is essentially a matter of taste, and you are allowed to map according to your taste, and discouraged from enforcing your taste for others. Disagree again, I'm afraid. Improving OSM's accuracy supersedes taste. To clarify I'm only referring to instances of polygons attached to roads. Differing landuse areas abutting each other, fields to residential, for example, is OK. However on saying that it does often make selecting a polygon difficult if attached on all sides. Cheers Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
Agreed. If you have a property that is 20m x 100m = 2,000m², you could be adding, for example, 5m x 100m = 500m² to it by attaching it to the road, resulting in 2500m², i.e., a *25% increase in area*. A really big accuracy error, in my opinion. On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 20/02/2014 22:40, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 20.02.2014 23:04, Dave F. wrote: There's a general consensus that attaching polygons to ways that represent roads was a bad idea. Not really. There is not a consensus but a ceasefire. Everyone is free to map this as they like, and to change it if there's a need - e.g. someone else has connected the field to the road, now you want to map the fence, so you need to split it apart. That's ok. Similarly, someone re-doing the whole area from better imagery or whatever has every right to map as he pleases - if they thing they can be more efficient by joining boundaries, more power to them. What is *not* ok is one person cleaning up after the other without actually adding any other improvement. I.e. if the other guy has connected the fields and the roads and you have been *only* pulling them apart without contributing anything else to the area in question, then you should have let them be; This bit I disagree with. Field or cemetery boundaries etc don't go to the centreline of the road. Pulling them apart placing them where they are in reality is improving OSM by making it more accurate. Even if not boundary is added. on the other hand, if the other guy has merged fields and roads that previously were separate, then they shouldn't have done that. This whole question is essentially a matter of taste, and you are allowed to map according to your taste, and discouraged from enforcing your taste for others. Disagree again, I'm afraid. Improving OSM's accuracy supersedes taste. To clarify I'm only referring to instances of polygons attached to roads. Differing landuse areas abutting each other, fields to residential, for example, is OK. However on saying that it does often make selecting a polygon difficult if attached on all sides. Cheers Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
Dave F. wrote: This whole question is essentially a matter of taste, and you are allowed to map according to your taste, and discouraged from enforcing your taste for others. Disagree again, I'm afraid. Improving OSM's accuracy supersedes taste. To clarify I'm only referring to instances of polygons attached to roads. Differing landuse areas abutting each other, fields to residential, for example, is OK. However on saying that it does often make selecting a polygon difficult if attached on all sides. A lot of my own time when I do get to run some data in is pulling apart these very 'matter of taste' mapping choices. The tools make it all to easy to 'default' to a macro mapping view, which may be fine in areas where there is no data, but where we are now adding the fine detail, such as dropping in the footpath down the side of a road, having to pull apart the field boundary first reduces productivity? This is an area where the simplistic approach to polygons does not help. If I need to add the dry stone wall to one side of the field and fences or hedges to the other boundaries then we end up with additional ways overlaying the base polygon, and which are then even more difficult to see and manage? It is about time we started to look at combining ways in the same way we currently do with nodes? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On 21/02/2014, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 20/02/2014 22:40, Frederik Ramm wrote: On 20.02.2014 23:04, Dave F. wrote: What is *not* ok is one person cleaning up after the other without actually adding any other improvement. In cases that can be likened to a change code indentation commit I agree, but... I.e. if the other guy has connected the fields and the roads and you have been *only* pulling them apart without contributing anything else to the area in question, then you should have let them be; This bit I disagree with. Field or cemetery boundaries etc don't go to the centreline of the road. Pulling them apart placing them where they are in reality is improving OSM by making it more accurate. Even if not boundary is added. That's the crux of it. Separating the area from the road *is* an improvement in itself (at least if you've got high-res imagery to place the polygon more precisely). If that changeset gets reverted to re-glue the area to the line (especially without engaging in conversation with the orther contributor), it's a step backward. This whole question is essentially a matter of taste, and you are allowed to map according to your taste, and discouraged from enforcing your taste for others. Disagree again, I'm afraid. Improving OSM's accuracy supersedes taste. I agree with the matter of taste argument insofar as I dont complain to mappers who initially glue areas to lines. It's just data that can be improved like any other, and if it tastes easyer to that mapper, it's fine. You really shouldn't force anybody to be more accurate than they care to be. But again, if a mapper reduces accuracynfor taste reasons, it's bad. If he ignores communication aboutnit, it's aggravating. There are many mapping alternatives that are a matter of taste or up for debate. But I do think that this particular issue is matematically clear-cut, it's basic geometry. See https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/17501/when-mapping-polygons-surrounded-by-streets-should-they-share-nodes-or-be-traced-separately/17505 for another writeup of my views on the subject. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
There are many mapping alternatives that are a matter of taste or up for debate. But I do think that this particular issue is matematically clear-cut, it's basic geometry. See https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/17501/when-mapping-polygons-surrounded-by-streets-should-they-share-nodes-or-be-traced-separately/17505 for another writeup of my views on the subject. What is good with the QA is that you can vote. -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:29 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.comwrote: I agree with the matter of taste argument insofar as I dont complain to mappers who initially glue areas to lines. It's just data that can be improved like any other, and if it tastes easyer to that mapper, it's fine. You really shouldn't force anybody to be more accurate than they care to be. I think it's important to consider that what we put into OSM is a model of the real world. Roads for example are generally not straight, yet we model them with line segments. A model. To say that the park occupies the space between these four streets is a very reasonable first approximation model. You can go pretty far with the model: the street has cycle tracks left right, the utilities are on poles overhead, the park edge is fenced. All the important data is present and can be conveniently rendered at any scale or with any emphasis. This is very flexible. Cartography rules often render road width not based on physical width, but logical width. The 25' wide highway at one edge of the park is more important than 30' wide residential street on the other three sides. The model handles this just fine: whatever width is not used by the road is used by the polygon. Nobody cares that the park just lost a little space, the map looks great and communicates clearly to the viewer. Flip to a cycling map, and the 30' bicycle-friendly street may be more important than the highway: it still renders fine. --- It's the micro-mapping that brings up hard to process situations. Imagine that same area micromapped: road centerline, cycle tracks, power poles, fence, hedge, imported legal property boundary of the park. To render that well for various needs you've got to start shoving and pushing element. To render the highway fat you need to push out the cycle track and fence lines. Should you also shove over the hedge or just bury it under the roadway? It's unclear what's best. Very often the actual legal boundary does not correspond to the landscaped boundary. The park may be landscaped right to the edge of the tarmac, but the highway department actually owns a wider swath of land. The fence might be within the legal boundary of the park, or outside it. Which one you map depends on your aim: the assessors office wants the legal boundary, the soccer team will play right to the edge of the fence regardless, they only care if the fence is permeable to soccer balls. --- There's no one solution here: in micromapped areas road centerlines are not enough. In many areas (I might hazard 99% of the surface of the planet), the *model* may serve the need better. I think that strong tool support for sharing nodes is good, appropriate, and a great for first efforts at mapping modelling an area. The node sharing is particularly useful for administrative and other areas that do in fact follow a road centerline by fact or convention. Just realize that there's disagreement on this point in part because of valid differences in scale, scope and aim. And that we model reality because models are often more useful than a direct representation. Any difficulty in editing is a tool issue. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
How about this? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Areas_and_Ways_Sharing_Nodes On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Hi There's a general consensus that attaching polygons to ways that represent roads was a bad idea. For example if a farm field was mapped this way then any barrier for it, such as hedge, gate etc, would appear to be on the road as well. I have a user who's repeatedly doing this. I've tried sending messages, but no reply I gave a detailed description in my amending changesets, but he just reverts them back. Are there any wiki pages explaining it clearly that might convince him otherwise? Cheers Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
What's the username? Changesets? - Serge On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Hi There's a general consensus that attaching polygons to ways that represent roads was a bad idea. For example if a farm field was mapped this way then any barrier for it, such as hedge, gate etc, would appear to be on the road as well. I have a user who's repeatedly doing this. I've tried sending messages, but no reply I gave a detailed description in my amending changesets, but he just reverts them back. Are there any wiki pages explaining it clearly that might convince him otherwise? Cheers Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
Hi, On 20.02.2014 23:04, Dave F. wrote: There's a general consensus that attaching polygons to ways that represent roads was a bad idea. Not really. There is not a consensus but a ceasefire. Everyone is free to map this as they like, and to change it if there's a need - e.g. someone else has connected the field to the road, now you want to map the fence, so you need to split it apart. That's ok. Similarly, someone re-doing the whole area from better imagery or whatever has every right to map as he pleases - if they thing they can be more efficient by joining boundaries, more power to them. What is *not* ok is one person cleaning up after the other without actually adding any other improvement. I.e. if the other guy has connected the fields and the roads and you have been *only* pulling them apart without contributing anything else to the area in question, then you should have let them be; on the other hand, if the other guy has merged fields and roads that previously were separate, then they shouldn't have done that. This whole question is essentially a matter of taste, and you are allowed to map according to your taste, and discouraged from enforcing your taste for others. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads
It would be so much simpler if people would just map the area of the road as landuse=highway, in as similar fashion to landuse=railway. Shaun On 20 Feb 2014, at 22:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 20.02.2014 23:04, Dave F. wrote: There's a general consensus that attaching polygons to ways that represent roads was a bad idea. Not really. There is not a consensus but a ceasefire. Everyone is free to map this as they like, and to change it if there's a need - e.g. someone else has connected the field to the road, now you want to map the fence, so you need to split it apart. That's ok. Similarly, someone re-doing the whole area from better imagery or whatever has every right to map as he pleases - if they thing they can be more efficient by joining boundaries, more power to them. What is *not* ok is one person cleaning up after the other without actually adding any other improvement. I.e. if the other guy has connected the fields and the roads and you have been *only* pulling them apart without contributing anything else to the area in question, then you should have let them be; on the other hand, if the other guy has merged fields and roads that previously were separate, then they shouldn't have done that. This whole question is essentially a matter of taste, and you are allowed to map according to your taste, and discouraged from enforcing your taste for others. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
