[OSM-talk] Proposed feature for noname

Dave Stubbs osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk
Tue Sep 23 09:58:49 BST 2008


On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk> wrote:
> Christoph Böhme wrote:
>> "Elena of Valhalla" <elena.valhalla at gmail.com> schrieb:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Christoph Böhme <christoph at b3e.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Marking of farm tracks which have generally have no names was never
>>>> planned, I think. Just roads that usually should have a name like
>>>> residential streets and for which this fact is tested.
>>> such farm tracks are usually very useful for hitchers and possibly
>>> cyclists, so in certain places there is a strong case for adding them
>>> and i believe that people have already started doing so
>>
>> Sorry, I might have been unclear. Farm tracks (and all other ways)
>> should of course be put on the map. I only meant that there was no
>> intension of marking them with a no-name tag.
>
> BUT they are currently being highlighted as HAVING no name so what needs
> changing so that they do not get highlighting?


NOTHING. It does not matter.

The original idea was to simply highlight unnamed roads to direct
mapping in London. We have lots of traced roads with no names which
makes it hard to see where the most effort is needed otherwise. These
tracings are half and half highway=residential, highway=unclassified.
My original idea was to only highlight highway=unclassified if they
were shorter than 2km or so... but decided it really wasn't necessary
for the purpose.

Since then the map has been expanded to cover everywhere (thanks to
CloudMade), which is useful because the tracing problem exists in many
other places. But it's also completely irrelevant in some areas. And
frankly, if it's completely irrelevant in your area then you should
just ignore it.

The no names map is an advisory tool, orange does not necessarily mean
anything is wrong, it just means that there is a residential or
unclassified road without a name. There are occasions where it is
useful to have the nonames map not highlight a particular road (mostly
to stop people constantly going to check if it has a name and being
unable to find one) -- this is only a very useful feature in areas
where unnamed residential/unclassified are unusual (and so usually
errors) ie: in London and other cities/towns with similar ideas about
roads.


>
> And how small is small for a roundabout? we are talking 60mts or so across
> with islands on the approach for the ones I'm looking at. Some bits with names
> which need removing so are not highlighted - other bits highlighted because
> they have no name ...
>
> The bottom line is WHAT set of highway= tags should be flagged automatically
> as no-name and therefore require an additional tag to flag them as really
> having no name.


Simple answer: there should be no requirement at all. Sometimes you
might want to do it if it makes the nonames map more useful or avoids
some confusion.

I reckon green for the roof, and a neutral grey for the walls.

Dave


More information about the talk mailing list