[OSM-talk] [Spam] Re: Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com
Tue Apr 1 04:51:31 BST 2008


I have updated the Mottram area to reflect the 'proposed' tagging. Part of
the route is a proposed trunk road and part is a proposed primary road. I
have wrapped the new roads up as a relationship and include a wikipedia
link. I am also possibly testing the outer limits of rendering by including
a proposed tunnel which forms part of the scheme (something which certainly
wasn't possible using the dirty hack!) It isn't re-rendered in mapnik yet
but will be here.
http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.4656&lon=-2.002&zoom=13&layers=B0FT

I have also added information for the A14 Haughley Bends scheme including It
some proposed 'trunk_link' sections and details of the demotion of parts of
the existing carriageways to a tertiary road and a bridleway. It isn't
rendered in mapnik yet.
http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.21342&lon=0.95612&zoom=15&layers=B0FT




Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Burgess [mailto:jburgess777 at googlemail.com]
> Sent: 31 March 2008 23:31
> To: Peter Miller
> Cc: 'Steve Chilton'; 'Dave Stubbs'; 'Talk Openstreetmap'
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed
> bypass
> 
> I have deployed Steve's changes and one example which has rendered
> already is the current alterations to M1 J8:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.75704&lon=-
> 0.41518&zoom=16&layers=B0FT
> 
> In the current Mapnik osm.xml file a road will render in the same dashed
> style if it has highway={proposed,construction} regardless of the
> proposed= or construction= tag. In both cases the name= tag will be used
> for the text.
> 
> This construction has recently moved the position of the entry/exit
> roads on the Eastern side of the junction. Someone corrected this data
> earlier this week and the updates are shown already on the Osmarender
> layer.
> 
> 	Jon
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 21:48 +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
> > Excellent. Thanks Steve.
> >
> > So how should a proposed road be tagged? Should it be highway=proposed
> > Proposed=trunk Name=foo bypass?
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Steve Chilton [mailto:S.L.Chilton at mdx.ac.uk]
> > > Sent: 31 March 2008 20:53
> > > To: Dave Stubbs; Peter Miller
> > > Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
> > > Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass
> > >
> > > In an attempt to avoid this kind of "false tagging for rendering" I
> have a
> > > submitted an addition to the mapnik style tonight.
> > > It will render highway=construction or highway=proposed from z12
> upwards.
> > > It will also render a text label (based on name=) for z13 upwards.
> > > Jamie's more sophisticated suggestions make sense but are not easily
> to
> > > render at the moment. Perhaps we can work towards that time-based
> approach
> > > later.
> > > For now it would make a lot of sense for people to revisit roads under
> > > construction they have tagged and follow this suggested scheme:
> > > highway=construction
> > > construction=foo (motorway, trunk, primary or whatever - if known)
> > > name=Foo bypass, due to open Dec 08 (or whatever)
> > >
> > > PS: I haven't looked at the file but hope this doesn't throw
> osmarender
> > > rules out, which I know picks something up to render construction
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > STEVE
> > >
> > > 	-----Original Message-----
> > > 	From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org on behalf of Dave Stubbs
> > > 	Sent: Mon 3/31/2008 6:03 PM
> > > 	To: Peter Miller
> > > 	Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
> > > 	Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed
> > > bypass
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 	On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Peter Miller
> > > 	<peter.miller at itoworld.com> wrote:
> > > 	>
> > > 	>  Thanks for that Robert. A few other questions:
> > > 	>
> > > 	>  1) How does one tag something that is being considered seriously
> > > (such as
> > > 	>  the Mottram Tintwistle bypass), but which may well never get
> > > built? I think
> > > 	>  I will just put the estimated build date given by the highways
> > > agency for
> > > 	>  now. (I will also continue to use the tunnel trick to get it to
> > > render in
> > > 	>  the mean time).
> > >
> > >
> > > 	By "tunnel trick" I presume that you mean tag it as a tunnel so that
> > > 	it turns up dotted, despite not being a tunnel, nor ever will be a
> > > 	tunnel?
> > >
> > > 	That's not a trick, that's a dirty, dirty hack and should be stomped
> > > on hard.
> > >
> > > 	If you want proposed roads to show up dotted then fix the renderer,
> > > 	don't engage in phantom tagging.
> > >
> > > 	_______________________________________________
> > > 	talk mailing list
> > > 	talk at openstreetmap.org
> > > 	http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > talk mailing list
> > talk at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk





More information about the talk mailing list