Re: [OSM-talk-be] samenvoegen van stukken weg

[André Pirard]

On 2015-01-03 08:27, Marc Gemis wrote : I once read your proposal on the wiki. The main drawback that I see is that one will get an awful lot of "layers" (or whatever you want to call them). For each property you add to a street a need to create a new layer. After verifying of course that there isn't already a layer with that property. In that case you have to split the layer at the right place. No. There is not a "layer" for each property but for each segment of the road that has a different sets of properties. Take a bridge as an example.  With the present scheme, the road is split in three parts. With my scheme, it has only two parts: the road and the patch for the bridge. And the patch for the bridge very clearly contains all the tags that relate to the bridge only, for example a special speed limit and a name. Presently, if two paths arriving at a main road are 50 m apart like this and a walk uses the paths               | ------------------------                    | then the road must be split as shown and the red part becomes part of the walk. With patches, the road remains intact and the patch is in the walk that is self contained. I try to imaging how a UI to edit that would look like. Or software that uses that data. I wonder whether it would much easier to work with such a structure. hard to tell. You are probably to much ahead of your time with this proposal. The UI would make very clear what the bridge is and the user would have a very clear view of what its particular tags are instead of being mixed with the tags of the road.  For the walk, the user dealing with the main street would have very little concern with it. The users would not have to compare the tags of different splits and wonder to what they relate. It's pure simplicity. I have now devised a much more simpler way to do patches than what I explained before. But, as you almost say, I would lose my time explaining that. Unfortunately, this means that OSM will remain very complicated, mapping restricted to gurus and subject to many mistakes.  For example, tagging a simple turn restriction is NOT for Mr Everybody and when I make a simple GPS trip nearby, it goes through a track through the meadows instead of the main road.  That's probably because the definition of a service road is fuzzy and does not say if it's an access restrictions or not. The mapper and GPS writer probably had different points of view about that.  And that happens in several places. Cheers André. regards m PS, it is indeed pretty confusing that something with one 'l' in one language has two in the other, and has another meaning in the second language with one l. On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 2:34 AM, André Pirard <a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2015-01-02 19:01, Marc Gemis wrote : 2015-01-02 17:11 GMT+01:00 André Pirard <a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com>: J'ai un jour écrit un article décrivant une méthode pour ne plus devoir découper les chemins mais ça n'a intéressé personne. I've read somewhere that navigation software will split all ways at a crossing in order to be able to calculate all possible routes. So the merging is only needed for rendering (in order not to show the name over and over again). Obviously. With my method, there is no merging necessary because there is no splitting. If a part of a way has different tags, a sort of "patch" dummy way is created that overlays that part of the way and that contains the tags that are different. Difficult to explain in 2 lines. --------------------------------------------------- real highway  with common tags                   -------------                     dummy way (patch) with bridge=yes If the consumer wants that, it can split the real highway, merge the tags and get the current situation.  But it doesn't have to.  In a further step, with slight software changes, the patch could be the element of a relation and relations would stop splitting the ways everywhere. Also, a turning restriction and other things could be done with very simple patches instead of complicated relations. All in all very powerful and easy to use, but, alas, it needs software changes. Nothing complicated but in the essential parts. Nominatim only shows the same way when the classification is different, see [1] for a split street showing multiple results, and [2] for one showing only one segment If you click on (details) of [2] you see that it's only a split of Molenstraat and if you click on Search for more results you get another split and it's not very clear at all how that street is split, it looks like Nominatim is only showing parts of the splits. It would obviously work better if there were no splits but patches. André. PS: Oops, I first thought that "molen" were moles and I wondered if they were under the street and drinking a cup of coffee ;-)    They are in fact mills like this water mill that I just mapped and that's probably the best known in Belgium.

_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be