[Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
ricoz.osm at gmail.com
Fri Mar 14 20:12:19 UTC 2014
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:55:39PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> I don't think you should be required to check the river's layer tag.
> Validators should do this job for you, it's quite easy to write a rule
> for that.
validators can check for many errors but if you want to change
anything you have to understand the whole situation.
Imagine you want to add a new bridge to a complex freeway intersection
with junctions and overpasses.. the validator will only prevent the
most obvious errors but will give you no clue how to fix them
> Given two ways that cross internally (excluding connections at
> endpoints), and considering the "layer value" defined explicitly in a
> tag or implicitly 0 when the tag is missing, have the validator issue
> a warning in the following situations:
there is no difference between connections in endpoints or in a crossing
point as far as I can tell.
> 1. The ways have the same layer value and are unconnected. (They
> should be connected, or else something is surely missing. This could
> actually be considered an "error".)
except for aerial ways and similar exceptions
> 1.1. Also warn if if one way is a waterway and the other is a highway
> and the connection is not explicitly a ford. (It should be, for
> clarity. If it's not, it's also possibly not a ford, therefore the
> connection is wrong.)
there is also the odd case of highways across dams, those are connected
with the waterway
> 2. The ways have different layer values and both are missing a tunnel
> or a bridge tag. (One of them must be either a bridge or a tunnel.
> They can both be tunnels or bridges, but they can't be "none of those
> two" simultaneously in the real world.)
or one of covered,location,indoor,steps,lift or level, maybe more.
> 2.1. Additionally, if one of them is a bridge and the other is a
> tunnel or is neither a tunnel nor a bridge: the bridge should have a
> greater layer value.
> 2.2. Similarly, if one is a tunnel, its layer value should be lower if
> the other is a bridge or has neither tag.
except for indoor mapping and maybe other weird cases.
> These rules apply to any arbitrary combination of stacked waterways
> and highways that I can think of right now.
> A few examples using two
> overlapping ways:
> a. The ways are connected and do not have a layer tag: everything is
> ok, no rules issue a warning.
> b. The ways are not connected and do not have a layer tag: rule 1
> issues a warning. They must either be connected or lie at different
> layer levels.
> c. The ways are not connected, both have the same layer (say layer=3
> or layer=-4), and have no other tags: rule 1 issues a warning. Similar
> to situation "b".
> d. The ways are not connected and one of them has a layer=-1 tag and
> no other tags: rule 2 issues a warning.
more general: not connected, different layer values and not one of
bridge,tunnel,covered,location,indoor,steps,lift, no level tag and
a few more things to take into account.
I am not sure it is so easy to catch all that.
> e. The ways are not connected and one of them has a layer=1 tag and no
> other tags: rule 2 issues a warning too.
identical to d?
> f. The ways are not connected, one of them is a bridge with layer=2
> and the other is a tunnel with layer=5: rule 2.1 issues a warning.
unless indoor or other strange cases
> g. The ways are not connected, one of them is a tunnel with layer=1
> and the other is neither a bridge nor has a layer tag (layer=0 is
> assumed): rule 2.2 issues a warning.
> Actually, situation "d" is what would discourage people from using
> layer=-1 to work around today's validator warnings. With this ruleset,
> it's impossible to eliminate the warning without actually taking
> action on bridges.
It is a lot easier saying that every bridge and tunnel must have a layer
tag and enforce that than catching all the situations mentioned in
With some luck, you can restrict "d" to waterways and it becomes "easy"
More information about the Tagging