There are some people who prefer to work on itineraries (route relations) like you and me, but there are also people who want to micromap all those details. Have a look at the northern side of Leuven to see what I mean.
Then there are people who totally dislike reusing nodes from the vectors we use to represent the streets and the landuse. That's what the discussion in the German forum and mailing list is about. One solution for that problem is to represent streets like we represent (larger) rivers. A vector for routing and an area (closed way or Multipolygon) for the 'surface'. This area can then be connected to the surrounding landuse. In a way this would be cleaner. But you are right, it's an incredible amount of work. Something we certainly didn't consider a few years ago. Hence the glueing of landuses to highways where the highways forms the 'border' between 2 landuses. In Germany it seems like they have a community which is starting to become large enough to consider doing it. Or they may simply disconnect the ways from the landuse and make the landuse a bit smaller, not minding the artefacts this will create when rendering at higher zoom levels. The other alternative is to keep the landuse connected, but detach the ways from it and have the ways independent from the landuse. This might also look strange when rendered if the way crisscrosses over the landuse, but I guess they will probably keep it on one side as much as possible. If we decide to start adding the ways as areas, I'd like to see a specific tag for those bus bays... At the moment I'm not sure how to tag them, so I tag their outline as some sort of negative by drawing a platform way around them. This only works when there is an actual platform though. Cheers, Jo 2015-07-15 9:42 GMT+02:00 Matthieu Gaillet <mgwebm...@fastmail.fm>: > > * I mean « fixing it and *maintaining *it » of course :-) > > > On 15 Jul 2015, at 09:38, Matthieu Gaillet <mgwebm...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > > May I ask a question : *why* ? Why investing so much time and energy into > this ? > > In my view there are things incredibly more useful to do to make > Openstreetmap more complete and relevant. We are talking about cartography, > not about the size of a road. Especially the bridge example looks like a > « mapping for the renderer » mistake. > > This may be a bit biased but for instance I discovered yesterday that the > whole french « Véloroutes » network is a mess : 90% of the relations are > broken if I’m not mistaken. Fixing it and painting it : that’s something I > call useful :-) I know that it isn’t mutually exclusive but still, ... > > > On 14 Jul 2015, at 22:56, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: > > De bedoeling is inderdaad om de hele straat oppervlakte in kaart te > brengen. Een beetje zoals de GRB kaarten van AGIV al te zien is. Ik heb nog > een 7-tal vragen/opmerkingen op de forum thread geplaatst omdat de > specificatie me ook niet helemaal duidelijk is en er volgens mij ook wat > fouten in staan. > > Marek komt uit de 3D rendering wereld, voor hen is de echte breedte van > een straat belangrijk, dus vandaar zijn vraag (vermoed ik). Als je een > realistisch beeld wil weergeven moet je weten waar de straat eindigt, waar > de stoep ligt enz. In zijn proposal legt hij dit ook uit en ook waarom > width niet altijd voldoet of bruikbaar is. > > Verder is er op de Duitse mailing list een hele discussie aan de gang ivm > met landuse/landcover polygonen die vastliggen aan de "ways" van de > straten. Daar is deze proposal (area:highway feitelijk) ook weer aan bod > gekomen (om de gaten tussen 2 landuses op te vullen). Mogelijks is zijn > post daar ook een gevolg van. > > Hopelijk verduidelijkt dit een en ander. Niemand moet zich natuurlijk > verplicht voelen om dit te gaan mappen. Ik speel dit enkel maar door in de > hoop dat er iemand ergens iets van opsteekt. > > mvg > > m > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Jakka <vdmfrank...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Marc Gemis schreef op 14/07/2015 om 21:48: >> >>> Recently there were 2 interesting posts about "mapping projects". One >>> was about 3D mapping, the other about highway areas. Since not a lot of >>> people read the forum, I take the liberty to cross post them here: >>> (note that many links will be broken due to the copy, read the forum >>> thread to get the correct links) >>> >>> On 3D >>> >>> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=31791 >>> >>> Dear friends, >>> >>> I realize, there is no one 3D model in your capitol: >>> http://demo.f4map.com/#lat=50.8475882&l … 48&zoom=17 >>> >>> Specification hotw to use is here: >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings >>> >>> Nice examples see: e.g. Nuremberg, New York, Warszawa. >>> Maybe you could try it? >>> >>> With best regards, >>> Marek >>> >>> >>> On Highway areas: >>> >>> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=31896 >>> >>> Dear OSM Friends from Belgium, >>> >>> it is surprise for me but my proposal: >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Prop … treet_area >>> is already over 15.000 times used in the map and in 5 languages >>> avaiable. See: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search … %3Ahighway >>> >>> The russian OSM community did more and has already prepared a special >>> map which shows streets as areas in highest zoom level: >>> http://openstreetmap.ru/#map=18/55.7722 … 69&layer=K >>> >>> >>> I discuss with some guys responsible for mapnik about implementation of >>> this feature on the main OSM page. Of course, you can map it only, if >>> you have aerial images in very good resolution. An example cold be this: >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/360455846 >>> >>> With summer regards, >>> Marek >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-be mailing list >>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >>> >>> >> >> Wat betekent dat is mensentaal? >> "On Highway areas" >> Is dat van toepassing dat randen van wegen in multipolygoon moeten komen? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
