<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue-Light, Helvetica Neue Light, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div><span></span></div><div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18357"> I agree...very "wonky" indeed, especially cartographically.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18357">I believe the area taken by the Park should be mapped as</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18357" dir="ltr">such; instead of pedestrian_street it should be footway and</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18357" dir="ltr">bridge = viaduct. Not only would this look better, it would reduce</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18357" dir="ltr">visual confusion, especially since a pedestrian street is really an</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18357" dir="ltr">actual city street this is closed to motor vehicles (and sometimes</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18357" dir="ltr">bicycles as well). And the "building" makes no sense.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18357" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18357" dir="ltr">Be seeing you,</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18357" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18357" dir="ltr">David</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18357" dir="ltr"><br></div><div class="signature" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18230"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18229"><br></div></div> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Light, Helvetica Neue Light, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18259"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18258"> <div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18266"> <hr size="1"> <font size="2" face="Arial" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18265"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> "talk-us-request@openstreetmap.org" <talk-us-request@openstreetmap.org><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> talk-us@openstreetmap.org <br> <b id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18270"><span style="font-weight: bold;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18269">Sent:</span></b> Monday, May 11, 2015 9:50 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Talk-us Digest, Vol 90, Issue 7<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18257"><br><br>Message: 5<br>Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 03:32:14 +0000<br>From: Elliott Plack <<a ymailto="mailto:elliott.plack@gmail.com" href="mailto:elliott.plack@gmail.com">elliott.plack@gmail.com</a>><br>To: "<a ymailto="mailto:talk-us-newyork@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-us-newyork@openstreetmap.org" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18738">talk-us-newyork@openstreetmap.org</a>"<br> <<a ymailto="mailto:talk-us-newyork@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-us-newyork@openstreetmap.org">talk-us-newyork@openstreetmap.org</a>>, "<a ymailto="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>"<br> <<a ymailto="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18740">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>Subject: [Talk-us] NYC High Line is Wonky on OSM<br>Message-ID:<br> <CAMni_Re33hLoHT4_hVpYupvh+FKg6eXwZ-0ov1+<a ymailto="mailto:-STNO30vrKg@mail.gmail.com" href="mailto:-STNO30vrKg@mail.gmail.com">-STNO30vrKg@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br>Friends,<br><br>I was attempting to do some pedestrian routing on the High Line (the<br>elevated park in NYC, see Wikipedia for background) and noticed some<br>oddities about how it was mapped on OSM. Quickly, this is a former elevated<br>train viaduct that has been converted into a popular park in Manhattan.<br>Since this is a popular area, I thought I'd ask the community first. Things<br>I've noticed:<br><br>1. There is a 'building=yes' way for the entire elevated portion, including<br>many of the supports that hold the platform up. This is pretty cool, and<br>probably looks neat in 3D. There are some building overlaps, where the line<br>goes through some buildings. <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37054313" target="_blank" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1431463534712_18354">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37054313</a><br>1a. The building also has the park tagging, which doesn't show up on the<br>map when tagged to the same way (apparently).<br>2. There are two parallel ways on the northern part of the park, one for<br>the former railway, another for the path. I believe that these should be<br>merged or at least share points. The former railway IS the pedestrian path,<br>so no need for parallel ways, right?<br><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46481094" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46481094</a><br>2a. <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305761607" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305761607</a><br>3. Stairs like this should connect to the street.<br><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305761606" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305761606</a><br>4. The 'highway=pedestrian' portion is not tagged as a bridge, which it is,<br>arguably. But then, if the viaduct is a 'building', is it actually a<br>bridge? I think it should be tagged as a bridge for cartography purposes.<br>4a. The 'highway=pedestrian' way does not have a name. The building does,<br>but that doesn't render well. Named ways should be named, right?<br>5. There are several 'highway=pedestrian' areas like this one. Is there a<br>better tag for open space like this?<br><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277945794" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277945794</a><br>6. Things get really crazy with the building passages.<br><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277885773" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277885773</a><br>7. There are a few oddities about the paths extending out from this node,<br>all these crossing ways are hard to comprehend.<br><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2823299563" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2823299563</a><br><br>Local mappers have clearly spent a lot of time on this, anyone have any<br>feedback about how this could be mapped better, if at all?<br><br><br>Best,<br><br>Elliott<br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150512/8abfcaa9/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150512/8abfcaa9/attachment-0001.html</a>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 6<br>Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 22:50:36 -0500<br>From: Brad Neuhauser <<a ymailto="mailto:brad.neuhauser@gmail.com" href="mailto:brad.neuhauser@gmail.com">brad.neuhauser@gmail.com</a>><br>To: Elliott Plack <<a ymailto="mailto:elliott.plack@gmail.com" href="mailto:elliott.plack@gmail.com">elliott.plack@gmail.com</a>><br>Cc: "<a ymailto="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>" <<a ymailto="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>>,<br> "<a ymailto="mailto:talk-us-newyork@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-us-newyork@openstreetmap.org">talk-us-newyork@openstreetmap.org</a>"<br> <<a ymailto="mailto:talk-us-newyork@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-us-newyork@openstreetmap.org">talk-us-newyork@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [Talk-us] NYC High Line is Wonky on OSM<br>Message-ID:<br> <CAJA6SWYMx=<a ymailto="mailto:jfDhPq2wpcDaiww9kGVXk-RGVbF6Le0e87miZEWw@mail.gmail.com" href="mailto:jfDhPq2wpcDaiww9kGVXk-RGVbF6Le0e87miZEWw@mail.gmail.com">jfDhPq2wpcDaiww9kGVXk-RGVbF6Le0e87miZEWw@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br>Seems like it might be better to tag it as man_made=bridge rather than<br>building=*<br><br><a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge</a><br><br>On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Elliott Plack <<a ymailto="mailto:elliott.plack@gmail.com" href="mailto:elliott.plack@gmail.com">elliott.plack@gmail.com</a>><br>wrote:<br><br>> Friends,<br>><br>> I was attempting to do some pedestrian routing on the High Line (the<br>> elevated park in NYC, see Wikipedia for background) and noticed some<br>> oddities about how it was mapped on OSM. Quickly, this is a former elevated<br>> train viaduct that has been converted into a popular park in Manhattan.<br>> Since this is a popular area, I thought I'd ask the community first. Things<br>> I've noticed:<br>><br>> 1. There is a 'building=yes' way for the entire elevated portion,<br>> including many of the supports that hold the platform up. This is pretty<br>> cool, and probably looks neat in 3D. There are some building overlaps,<br>> where the line goes through some buildings.<br>> <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37054313" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37054313</a><br>> 1a. The building also has the park tagging, which doesn't show up on the<br>> map when tagged to the same way (apparently).<br>> 2. There are two parallel ways on the northern part of the park, one for<br>> the former railway, another for the path. I believe that these should be<br>> merged or at least share points. The former railway IS the pedestrian path,<br>> so no need for parallel ways, right?<br>> <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46481094" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46481094</a><br>> 2a. <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305761607" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305761607</a><br>> 3. Stairs like this should connect to the street.<br>> <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305761606" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305761606</a><br>> 4. The 'highway=pedestrian' portion is not tagged as a bridge, which it<br>> is, arguably. But then, if the viaduct is a 'building', is it actually a<br>> bridge? I think it should be tagged as a bridge for cartography purposes.<br>> 4a. The 'highway=pedestrian' way does not have a name. The building does,<br>> but that doesn't render well. Named ways should be named, right?<br>> 5. There are several 'highway=pedestrian' areas like this one. Is there a<br>> better tag for open space like this?<br>> <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277945794" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277945794</a><br>> 6. Things get really crazy with the building passages.<br>> <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277885773" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277885773</a><br>> 7. There are a few oddities about the paths extending out from this node,<br>> all these crossing ways are hard to comprehend.<br>> <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2823299563" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2823299563</a><br>><br>> Local mappers have clearly spent a lot of time on this, anyone have any<br>> feedback about how this could be mapped better, if at all?<br>><br>><br>> Best,<br>><br>> Elliott<br>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Talk-us mailing list<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>><br>><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150511/04fb4ee5/attachment.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150511/04fb4ee5/attachment.html</a>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Subject: Digest Footer<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Talk-us mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 90, Issue 7<br>**************************************<br><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></body></html>