[OSM-talk] Problems with Osmarender
80n80n at gmail.com
Tue Sep 26 09:52:49 BST 2006
See answers below.
On 9/26/06, Ben Robbins <ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've been busy removing all the capital letters, and making ways, and i
> got an area round me rendered off succsefully. its very much W.I.P, and
> paths end randomly at the second. I have a few problems and a few
> observations though. I not very good at keepin up with the mailing lists
> cause they drive me nuts, so if this has been discussed and resolved
> could I have a link (or if there is a wiki page on the matter).
> current render:
> (Render Area = min lat:52.066378479668366 min lon:1.1123367258727554 max
> lat:52.15469186349886 max lon:0.9464273343426719)
> 1) The woods...the green area renders very strangly on the larger areas.
To sucessfully render an area you need to have all the segments pointing in
the same direction and you need the segments to be in the correct order in
In JOSM there is a tool to flip the direction of ways.
To get all the segments in the correct order (using JOSM), select the way,
remove all the segments from the way except the one that you want to be the
first one. Then re-add each of the segments to the way following the
direction of the arrows.
2) (hard to make out from render) A small peice of the trunk road west of
> towcester seems to have a gap in it where the layby is. Im not shore why
> its doing this.
Somehow, there were *three* ways defined for this piece of road. Tho had
highway=Trunk and were not being rendered (capital T), and the other had
highway=trunk, but had a couple of gaps in it. I've seen this happen a
couple of times, but don't know what causes it. Anyway I have managed to
delete the Trunk ones and repair the gaps.
3) My dismantled railway seems not to be visable (railway=abandoned)
There is no rule for this yet. An opportunity for you to make one and
contribute it to the project.
4) How can I make a secondary road residential? Or an A road for that
> matter..(e.g. whittlebury)
Add this tag: abutters=residential to any road.
5) My rivers sit behind the woods in places, I need to make them visible
The order of rules needs to be fine tuned a bit. Obviously rivers should be
rendered after woods and fields.... This will be in the next version of the
rules file (hopefully published in a day or two).
> 1) The colour of bridleways is very similar to woods, and they cant be
> over the woods. Footways are relitvely hard to make out also.
In retrospect, green lines for bridleways is not a good choice since most of
them run through woodland :-) Actually, I think the colour choice for woods
is too dark and so there is not enough contrast.
Change line 1210 of osm-map-features.xml from
It should look better.
2) The look of paths and tracks from a distance looks the same. Personally
> i think tracks should be the same as roads, with a lighter border line
> 3) leading on from 2... I said this in email a few days ago, but i really
> really supermegareally think there needs to be different track
> types. I'll
> make a proposal on the proposed tags bit, unless theres a good reason why
> not to. But I think the more majour the track the darker the outline,
> black becomes a unclassified road. there are 5 different sorts of track
> type that I see regually.
> 4) I think this image indicates the need for water=stream and
> water=dry_stream (or something similar)...cause my streams are way way
> bigger than they are in reality.
Definitely agree with the need for waterway=stream, there is a huge variance
in the size of rivers.
5)Places that arnt highway=residential that are in the middle of towns are
> current just left as highway=unclassified. Is there nothing for populated
> areas wich is the business area? highway=buiness for example?
You can tag roads with abutters=retail, abutters=commercial, etc or you can
create areas and tag them with landuse=residential, landuse=retail,
landuse=commercial etc. Personally I think creating landuse areas produces
a nicer result, but it is a but more work. The abutters tag for roads is
quick and easy.
In a reply from andy (I think), it said that the current way in wich taging
> was done was limited to just specifying the overall feature of a way.
> Rather than being able to stick down its phisical, political and used
> statuses seperately and render them seperately. Well would it not be
> easier to make different render colours for the various combinations, so
> that I could put ''highway=track_grade5_bridleway'' for example, and then
> ''highway=track_grade1_footway'' somewhere else. there would be quite a
> combinations to define though.
Andy is working on a new scheme that will have a separation between physical
and administrative attributes.
Finally...I'm still so insainly confused as to why ways are being used.
> When i scan down the features list and imagin a 'complete' highstreet, I
> only imagin a street made up of hundreds and hundreds of tiny ways, each
> being 1 segment long. I'm shore i'm missing something here.
> I don't wish to sound like im getting frustrated or anything. In fact
> has been awesum.. Its the first time Ive actually rendered a map, and its
> sweet as hell.
It's great to see people getting nice results from OSM. Looks like you'll
be getting to Silverstone racing circuit soon ;-)
Oh yeah...finally finally.... There is a page on the wiki where OS faults
> can be put, but i havnt put any, cause there are just soooo many round me.
> There are many many missing lakes, paths in the wrong spots/wrong sides of
> buiuldings, missing cops/woods, misshaped woods, woodland trails that are
> missing/wrong/insianly worng, misasing tracks, tracks that arnt where the
> map says, missing sections of tracks...etcetc... Im not shore how much is
> intentional, but I don't think its worth sticking every mistake into the
> wiki, so I'll just point it out in here, that OS got south-Northants wrong
> in gerneral, or so it would seem.
Someone said that the OS has admitted that they don't have the resources
anymore to be able to survey non-urban areas - so this doesn't suprise me.
If you find any really blatant errors or anything amusing or anecdotal then
it might be worth adding them to the wiki page. One of the arguments that
people might have for not using OSM data is that it may not be accurate.
The Catalog of Errors page on the wiki is a place where we can show that
other maps have errors as well.
Right I'm Done...
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk