[OSM-talk] The Highway tags and other junk Wars

Ben Robbins ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com
Tue Dec 19 00:51:42 GMT 2006


>Maps are all symbols, else they would be pictures or photgraphs.

By symbol I don't mean lines that are symbolic.  the recycling sign is a 
Symbol for example.

>You are neglecting the information that renders and navigation software can 
>glean from the connecting segments and ways which will all give you 3, 4, 
>5, and 6. 7 is unnecessary as the renderer plots the width appropriate to 
>the rendering of the way, however a width property tag can be used to hold 
>the information if required.

For 3-7 I would need to add the following tags to then node.  This would 
take much longer, and be less easy for others who come to edit that area to 
see/and work with.

3) A grid reference relative to the direction of the segment
4) A list of all the fences and nodes that come off it.  please note a set 
of gates in a square, wich exsist in sheering pens would have to have the 4 
nodes joint by segments.
5) again if the node is not connected to the way, a tag would need to say 
that the gate servs highway=x
6) No, if I tried to put that threw a 3d modeeling engine, It would inport 
as a node.  If the data is in the tags there must be some way of writing a 
program that can be translated into the things the 3d engine needs to read, 
but i imagin this would be very hard/time consuming.
7) preveneted by the lack of the others.

>You tag it as a track, so that it renders as such and add a restriction tag 
>indicating the it is permissive on foot.

Its not a permiisive footway though.  Its a pulic right of way (this is  UK 
example!!)

>When rendered the gate will not adjust its width to that of the way passing 
>through it, and thus you have increased the data in the dataset for 
>protentaily less rendered detail.

If a rendering program has the abilty to take all this information from 1 
node, then I think it would be posible for it to extrude the ends of the 
segment an additional amount realtive to the width of the rendered way wich 
it crosses.

>You add a note tag and record the information and request an appropriate 
>tag such as liable_flooding or laible_rutting, and when approved you update 
>the node/segment and remove the note.

So people are either 1) going to have to scan threw pages of notes to use a 
map.  which defeate the purpose of a map wich is a visual representation, 
not a book.  or 2) they look at the render and cant see the notes at all.  
or 3) the notes are placed on the map, wich looks a complete mess.

>>4) How do I add all that information about the bridge example?
>>Anwser, I can't

>you create a way the length of the viaduct with the following tags:...

Information has been lost, this is retreading trod ground.

>If you have a narrow guage railway adjacent to the track then you add a 
>second way adjacent to the first, just as you would with a dual-carriage 
>way. Whilst this is not pefect as it creates two adjacent bridges rather 
>than a single bridge, it is the best that can be done until a method is 
>found to join the two ways. On the other hand multideck bridges are easily 
>solved by laying the ways on top of each other and giving them appropriate 
>layer numbers

Yes, this is correct, layering isnt a concern.

>I have no idea what you mean by style, but when looking for something 
>whilst ....

I mean the things you step over.  stile?*  You reply was true though.  90% 
cant be seen.

Question 6 Ill just ignore.

>The current bridge tag does its job well, apart from the adjacent ways in 
>the same layer on the same bridge issue, it is the renderers which don't 
>currently render bridges in a recgonisable fashion. It can be improved as 
>can other ways with the addition of further property tags.

If a rendered makes bridges render as clear as in the example I linked to 
earlier, then I will happily use that tag.   I dought bridges will be 
customizable, to the extent that is posible when there created by additonal 
segments, but I would be happy if this is proved wrong.

So in conclusion to this post, It would seem Your against absolutly 
everything I have proposed, and are not willing to compramize.   Therefore 
this is pointless.  I shall, ignore the standadised methods where I have 
tried and tested them and found they are limiting and instead use my own 
method wich I have built up the other way round, wich is around what I have 
mapped.  If anyone is heading towards south northamptonshire, there will be 
problems.  As blackadder said, my tags have as much value as the next mans.  
The only difference is how long I will argue about it for.

I sadly, after wasting a day on the mailling list have nothing to map this 
evening, although it would seem I don't have a clue about mapping anyway.  I 
shall therefore stop sending these pointless emails, and Work on something 
more productive.

Blackadder:  I did read you email, but I have nothing to respond to/add.  I 
didnt ignore it though.  My views on standadisation are actually more for 
having 1 standard way, but with the freedom to add your own if other tags 
are not avaliable.   This entire debate would probly make it seem otherwise 
though, but given flexibily and comprimise I think a standadised way could 
adapt to be able to cater for all.  Maybe there'll be a revival of these 
points when more users arive who are in, and mapping, rural areas.

_________________________________________________________________
It's Hotmail's 10th Birthday! Come and play Pass the Parcel  
http://www.msnpasstheparcel.com





More information about the talk mailing list