[Talk-us] NYC High Line is Wonky on OSM

[Brad Neuhauser]

Seems like it might be better to tag it as man_made=bridge rather than
building=*

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Elliott Plack <elliott.plack at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Friends,
>
> I was attempting to do some pedestrian routing on the High Line (the
> elevated park in NYC, see Wikipedia for background) and noticed some
> oddities about how it was mapped on OSM. Quickly, this is a former elevated
> train viaduct that has been converted into a popular park in Manhattan.
> Since this is a popular area, I thought I'd ask the community first. Things
> I've noticed:
>
> 1. There is a 'building=yes' way for the entire elevated portion,
> including many of the supports that hold the platform up. This is pretty
> cool, and probably looks neat in 3D. There are some building overlaps,
> where the line goes through some buildings.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37054313
> 1a. The building also has the park tagging, which doesn't show up on the
> map when tagged to the same way (apparently).
> 2. There are two parallel ways on the northern part of the park, one for
> the former railway, another for the path. I believe that these should be
> merged or at least share points. The former railway IS the pedestrian path,
> so no need for parallel ways, right?
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46481094
> 2a. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305761607
> 3. Stairs like this should connect to the street.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305761606
> 4. The 'highway=pedestrian' portion is not tagged as a bridge, which it
> is, arguably. But then, if the viaduct is a 'building', is it actually a
> bridge? I think it should be tagged as a bridge for cartography purposes.
> 4a. The 'highway=pedestrian' way does not have a name. The building does,
> but that doesn't render well. Named ways should be named, right?
> 5. There are several 'highway=pedestrian' areas like this one. Is there a
> better tag for open space like this?
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277945794
> 6. Things get really crazy with the building passages.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277885773
> 7. There are a few oddities about the paths extending out from this node,
> all these crossing ways are hard to comprehend.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2823299563
>
> Local mappers have clearly spent a lot of time on this, anyone have any
> feedback about how this could be mapped better, if at all?
>
>
> Best,
>
> Elliott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150511/04fb4ee5/attachment-0001.html>