Gleb,
On 11/21/2017 12:02 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Of course multipolygonizing couple of buildings that touch coastline in
> Monterey was wrong. Sorry, I was in a multipolygonizing rage as I was
> going through the coastline. :)
We have a general (unwritten) convention in OSM and that is "don't
Briefly (thanks for the reminder, again, Ian!):
If the reltoolbox plug-in as as powerful as I am beginning to understand it may
be (I appreciate the introduction, Gleb), and given my agreement that certain
use cases (especially landuse) benefit greatly from multipolygonized boundaries
(they do)
This thread is tedious, but I will soldier on.
Gleb Smirnoff writes:
> Looks like the acception of multipolygons here is not as bad as I initially
> read in this email thread. So, we agree that at some level they are easier
> to maintain that shared nodes. Do we?
I cannot offer you an absolute Y
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 6:15 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea
wrote:
> Please, ENTER data using shared ways where it makes sense to do so. Nobody
> is saying "don't do that." ALSO, please be aware that existing
> NON-multipolygon data (especially imports and other "curated" data) may very
> well suff
Hi everybody!
Please remember to stay on topic and friendly. This thread seems to be
drifting off into a discussion about the merits of OSM editors.
Also remember that long replies tend to result in people talking past one
another. Short, sweet, and to the point helps a conversation stay on topic
On 20/11/2017 19:36, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
Come on, JOSM itself is difficult, but everyone
who groked JOSM, never returns to Potlach.
Untrue. Each of the OSM editors has strengths and weaknesses - it's
simply a case of finding the best tool for the job. In some cases that
might be JOSM; in s
Kevin and others: please do not misunderstand me. There ARE times when shared
ways between multipolygons is an elegant and THE correct solution, as you, I
and many others have found to be true and edited into existence many times. By
no means do I advocate that where such beauty has been comp
Kevin,
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 04:29:56PM -0500, Kevin Kenny wrote:
K> (3) Ease of editing (for better-informed or better-tooled users). At
K> least for me, working in JOSM, I find updating a mesh of multipolygons
K> with shared ways to be fairly straightforward. Split the ways at any
K> new cor
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 02:13:44PM -0800, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
O> Plug-ins that offer "power tools" beyond that? Well, caveat usor.
Note that a large part of current JOSM base functionality before was
in plugins. So, doesn't make sense to diminish some tool because it
isn't in base. Whethe
Steve,
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:23:53PM -0800, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
O> I did quote (in several place) your original words, so I'm not sure what
your point is here, apologies for my confusion.
O>
O> We must use SOME language to communicate, and while this is talk-us, (and
the USA has
Thank you, Kevin for your thoughtful and rather complete reply!
Mark Wagner wrote:
> Of course, this only works for ordinary relations. If the way you
> clicked on is shared by two or more relations, you need to go
> through the far more complicated method of playing with the
> relation-editor d
I'm somewhat relieved to hear Gleb and Frederik injecting a voice
indicating that 'shared ways' separating regions might be an
acceptable approach, because I've adopted it myself. Well, to some
extent, any way.
I'm generally against sharing ways EXCEPT when topology demands it -as
it often does. I
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:43:34AM -0800, Mark Wagner wrote:
M> > (I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to add a way to a
M> > relation!)
M>
M> Select a way currently part of the relation. Shift-click on the way
M> you want to add. Select "Update multipolygon" from the "Tools" menu,
M>
On Nov 20, 2017, at 11:32 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> that was a long rant, I enjoyed reading it.
Thank you, but I'd call it "moderate length" for me, I can and do (infamously)
rant MUCH longer, as many will attest.
> Your retelling of my
> words is way better than my original text,
A longer version (I'll try). I assume we all agree that overlapping
or not reaching polygons where there is adjacency on the ground is
wrong. So how can we properly express adjacency? The simple way is
to run two polygons through the same subset of nodes. The advanced
is to separate this subset
On 11/20/2017 2:36 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
In the simple way you need to follow
all nodes your predessor had drawn, clicking all the nodes, be it
25 nodes or 100. In the advanced way, you don't. You instantly
reuse his line for your new polygon. This was a most typical example
of benefits that a
Hi Steve,
that was a long rant, I enjoyed reading it. Your retelling of my
words is way better than my original text, which you could quote.
I regret that I yet can't produce such a good text in English.
That's why often for me it is easier to yield rather than argue
and stand my position.
TL;D
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:15:01 -0800
Evin Fairchild wrote:
> (I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to add a way to a
> relation!)
Select a way currently part of the relation. Shift-click on the way
you want to add. Select "Update multipolygon" from the "Tools" menu,
or hit Ctrl+Shift+B.
On 20/11/2017 17:58, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
... Glebius is right in my backyard and I've found his coastal "restructurings" (e.g.
http://www.osm.org/changeset/46756097) to be bizarre and unnecessary, often overwriting correct official (county GIS
imported) data simply to not "share some n
Yeah, using multipolygons for everything is quite overkill, and it
certainly does overcomplicate things, and not just for new users, but for
experienced users as well. I mean, if it requires some plugin that I've
never heard of in JOSM to easily edit it, then it's too complicated. I
typically prefe
I very much agree with Douglas and Rihards that glebius' mapping is (around
here) unusual, "terrible" and difficult to parse, even for experienced mappers
who have been mapping for most of the history of OSM, like me. Glebius is
right in my backyard and I've found his coastal "restructurings" (
Hi,
On 11/19/2017 11:48 PM, Douglas Hembry wrote:
> glebius believes that this approach (with the help of the reltoolbox
> JOSM plugin) is easier and less error-prone than having multiple simple
> closed ways (eg, a building footprint and an adjacent pedestrian area)
> sharing a set of nodes on
On 11/19/2017 5:48 PM, Douglas Hembry wrote:
I told glebius that I wanted to find out what the
community thought. Is this just one more valid optional way of mapping?
To be recommended for adoption if possible? Or to be avoided? Thoughts?
I have this situation locally where much of the adjac
23 matches
Mail list logo
