Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-30 Thread Gaurav Thapa
@Dave F Here is an example of where idependent buildings have been built as connected in OSM (https://osm.org/go/zrViz5k4A--?layers=D=). Here is an area where we have a great difficulty tracing using satellite imagery alone and where mapping historically has not been clear regarding this rule (

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-28 Thread Tomas Straupis
2017-10-25 16:40 GMT+03:00 Stefan Keller wrote: > 1. My ceterum-censeo is, that we really need a polygon type in OSM. > This would make mapping, and many written and unwritten(!) rules much > easier (not to forget software). What exactly are we missing on this polygon topic? Because

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Oct 2017, at 23:48, Daniel Koć wrote: > > If you mean standard tile layer (osm-carto), landcover=* tag is far from > being accepted: > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2548#issuecomment-330002296 most prominent

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-26 Thread Daniel Koć
W dniu 26.10.2017 o 23:36, Warin pisze: While natural=wood renders, I also tag them as landcover=trees as that is more truthful of what is there. So these tree areas get two tags from me until such time as landcover is rendered then I will remove the natural tag. If you mean standard tile

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-26 Thread Warin
On 27-Oct-17 12:00 AM, Joseph Reeves wrote: A problem i find is with landuse=forest. Formally, those are zones that are used for growing trees. But practically in OSM, that tag is used for any land that is covered with trees. So formally, landuse=forest shouldn't overlap with

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-26 Thread Richard
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:50:40PM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote: > Hello > > For a long time I wanted to hear opinion on the topic of topology rules. > > By "topology rules" here I mean just simple rules such as: > * polygon X should not overlap polygon Y > * polygon X should always be

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-26 Thread Joseph Reeves
A problem i find is with landuse=forest. Formally, those are zones that are used for growing trees. But practically in OSM, that tag is used for any land that is covered with trees. So formally, landuse=forest shouldn't overlap with other zones, but practically, until a new tag (landcover=trees)

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-26 Thread Janko Mihelić
I like the idea of formalizing OSM topology! An example: power lines should share nodes with nothing except power towers, portals and buildings (substation buildings). A problem i find is with landuse=forest. Formally, those are zones that are used for growing trees. But practically in OSM, that

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Oct 2017, at 17:36, Gaurav Thapa wrote: > > In Nepal we have been trying to make sure that each constructed building has > its own footprint and is not connected to a neighbouring structure via a > shared wall. We do this as in reality this

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-25 Thread Dave F
Could you link to an example? DaveF On 25/10/2017 16:36, Gaurav Thapa wrote: "2. Buildings. If 2 buildings share a wall or are constructed one aside the other (double wall), you should have them connected in OSM as well." In Nepal we have been trying to make sure that each constructed

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-25 Thread Gaurav Thapa
"2. Buildings. If 2 buildings share a wall or are constructed one aside the other (double wall), you should have them connected in OSM as well." In Nepal we have been trying to make sure that each constructed building has its own footprint and is not connected to a neighbouring structure via a

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Oct 2017, at 15:40, Stefan Keller wrote: > > want to point to network topology > which is important for navigation. +1, also: which objects should be connected to highways or not (e.g. platforms, piers, parkings, runways, ...) cheers, Martin

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-25 Thread Stefan Keller
Hi Tomas Two comments on this: 1. My ceterum-censeo is, that we really need a polygon type in OSM. This would make mapping, and many written and unwritten(!) rules much easier (not to forget software). 2. I'd like to support Martin and want to point to network topology which is important for

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-25 Thread Tomas Straupis
2017-10-25 14:03 GMT+03:00 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> For a long time I wanted to hear opinion on the topic of topology rules. > most important is IMHO: when do you share nodes, and when not. > <...> Thank you for notes about the rules, I will think about it at least for local rules.

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2017-10-25 11:50 GMT+02:00 Tomas Straupis : > Hello > > For a long time I wanted to hear opinion on the topic of topology rules. > > By "topology rules" here I mean just simple rules such as: > * polygon X should not overlap polygon Y > * polygon X should always

[OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-25 Thread Tomas Straupis
Hello For a long time I wanted to hear opinion on the topic of topology rules. By "topology rules" here I mean just simple rules such as: * polygon X should not overlap polygon Y * polygon X should always be above polygon Y * point X should be not further from line Y than D etc.