Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA

Kim Hawtin-2
Mornen all,

I've been busy uploading traces and mapping around Mt Barker
and Littlehampton a bit lately. I have a couple of questions
I was hoping folks could clear up;

- Are the rail and road under passes right? I have set them as
  tunnels, because it makes more sense than the freeway being a
  bridge, how ever what do other folks use?

- I've put in a few round'a'bouts ... they are messy critters.
  is it the right thing to draw them out with little link roads
  or should they be put up as where the roads intersect with
  the joining node and tag that node as a round about?
  especially larger ones, like the end of Gawler street near the
  bus interchange?

- I have been seeing lots of roads and other objects get a blue
  halo ... there seems to be an attribute against each of these
  that I didn't mark up, but by my reading, isn't supported by
  the renderer? especially "ref" and "street" ...

- My edits seem to be taking around two weeks to hit the OSM
  normal map ... isn't this normally happening weekly?

cheers,

Kim
--
VK5FNET

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA

Stephen Hope
2008/10/21 Kim Hawtin <[hidden email]>:
> - Are the rail and road under passes right? I have set them as
>  tunnels, because it makes more sense than the freeway being a
>  bridge, how ever what do other folks use?

Without actually looking at what you've done - I've done both.  If the
underpass really does feel like a tunnel, then I've used that, even if
it is actually at the surrounding ground level, and the highway's on
an embankment.

There are some cases where a bridge for the highway is a better
description, though.  Also - if you have roads crossing at only a
small angle, a bridge shows up better on most renderers than a tunnel
does.  We're not supposed to "map for the renderer", but if it could
go either way anyway, you might want to keep this in mind.

> - I've put in a few round'a'bouts ... they are messy critters.
>  is it the right thing to draw them out with little link roads
>  or should they be put up as where the roads intersect with
>  the joining node and tag that node as a round about?
>  especially larger ones, like the end of Gawler street near the
>  bus interchange?

We discussed this on this list a while back - and decided that we
don't actually have many (any?) of the paint only roundabouts in
Australia that are quite common in the UK and are tagged as
mini_roundabouts.  So we would use that tag for any roundabout where
the central island fits inside the road intersection.  This would
cover most suburban roundabouts.  Just connect the roads at a central
node, tag the node mini_roundabout. Don't forget to add the
direction=clockwise tag.

Any bigger roundabout you actually draw a circle (at least four
points), mark it as junction=roundabout, and make sure the way goes
clockwise, because it will be oneway.  Then connect the roads to the
roundabout. The following link has pictures.  And you're right, they
are painful and messy.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:junction%3Droundabout

> - My edits seem to be taking around two weeks to hit the OSM
>  normal map ... isn't this normally happening weekly?

They get new data for the renderer weekly, but then they actually have
to process the data to form maps, which takes a while. This also
explains why sometimes you see a mix of old and new data where one
tile has been rendered, but the one beside hasn't been updated yet.

Stephen

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA

BlueMM
In reply to this post by Kim Hawtin-2
Hi Kim,


----- Original Message ----

> From: Kim Hawtin <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 October, 2008 11:33:25 AM
> Subject: [talk-au] Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA
>
> Mornen all,
>
> I've been busy uploading traces and mapping around Mt Barker
> and Littlehampton a bit lately. I have a couple of questions
> I was hoping folks could clear up;
>
> - Are the rail and road under passes right? I have set them as
>   tunnels, because it makes more sense than the freeway being a
>   bridge, how ever what do other folks use?

Use a tunnel if it is one, or a bridge if that is what is there. I'm sure there are some weird hybrid examples, but if it is a culvit for streams/drains, I use a tunnel. If I'm not sure what is there, I leave it with the ways overlapping without any bridge/tunnel tags (I think the validator in JOSM warns about it), so I or someone else can fix it when visiting it next.

> - I've put in a few round'a'bouts ... they are messy critters.
>   is it the right thing to draw them out with little link roads
>   or should they be put up as where the roads intersect with
>   the joining node and tag that node as a round about?
>   especially larger ones, like the end of Gawler street near the
>   bus interchange?

Bane of my existence!! The OSM wiki says you should only draw the connecting ways as split (which form triangle islands) if it is a large roundabout. A normal suburban roundabout should just be a circle (I use 8 corners) with the 4 ways connected. Merkaartor has a roundabout tool where you click a crossing, select the diameter of the roundabout and it creates a circle with the ways cropped off to it (JOSM might have something similar). Some people mapping Melbourne use mini-roundabout's to save time, but it's only for mini UK style ones with a tiny white painted circle in the middle of the intersection. I'd personally like the junction=roundabout tag to apply to a node, with a eg. junction:width=5m tag, so renderers could draw the circle road & inner island all by themselves without lots of extra effort.

Looking at your B37 & Alexandrina & Flaxley Rd roundabout, you don't need oneway=yes(it's implied), clockwise(just draw it in a clockwise direction), ref(roundabout's don't inherit route numbers, it's for when roundabout's have specific ref numbers [in Europe I think]). The incoming split lanes for B37 should be primary (as it's still the road, not a link, just split into oneway's), as the north ones are, but the south ones are primary_link. Conversely, the East & West split's should be secondary. Split's should have the same tags as the road it splits from, but split's add oneway=yes. Only *_link's and roundabout's don't have ref's or names (except when specifically signposted, UK has examples of this).
The Alexandrina Rd & Fletcher St one is missing the junction=roundabout circle for the roundabout, and missing oneway=yes tags for the split ways.

> - I have been seeing lots of roads and other objects get a blue
>   halo ... there seems to be an attribute against each of these
>   that I didn't mark up, but by my reading, isn't supported by
>   the renderer? especially "ref" and "street" ...

They are "relations" to tie different ways together to form logically-connected ways, eg. routes. They are relatively new to OSM and I haven't played with them much, but others have added them in my area. The only strange thing I can see is that the motorway_link for the B37 & M1 are added to the relations, which I believe is wrong because they are on/offramps, not the actual freeway that the route follows.

> - My edits seem to be taking around two weeks to hit the OSM
>   normal map ... isn't this normally happening weekly?

The main map grabs data on Wednesdays UK time, and then spends a day or two creating new tiles for the map, therefore if you updated OSM on Wednesday our time, it could be a week & a bit before the updates appear. And if you browser (or ISP) has the map tiles cached, you might need to Ctrl+F5 to force a reload from the tile server. Miss match of old & new tiles usually means a caching issue.

> cheers,
>
> Kim

Tags suggestions
----------------
Looking at Mt Barker township, you've done a fantastic job. I noticed a few tagging schemes different to mine:-
* Lots of the area's don't need area=yes, like parking/schools/landuse etc.
* Parking/school doesn't need a separate POI node in the middle, the renderers are now smart enough to stick an icon in the middle.
* Landuse doesn't need to be bounded by streets (cookie cutter'ed), just draw around the outside of the area (landuse is always rendered at the bottom, so no need for layer=-1, which is only used if you can "walk under" something). That should save you tonne's of effort :)
* Similarly, the pitch & parking in the recreation_ground don't need layer=1 (as you can't walk under the parking!!)
* There's streets in the East that are only source=survey, no highway=* tags. If not sure what type of street it is, use the new highway=road tag (basically means, "unknown class").
* I think the highway=traffic_signals on B37 next to Cornerstone College should include crossing=traffic_signals (or just crossing=pelican), as it appears to be a pedestrian crossing, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:crossing.
Also, I'm not sure if you have used the Yahoo layer, but Mt Barker has good coverage down to z17.

Source
------
It's my personal crusade, but since I don't have a GPS, I've been adding source=yahoo to the ways I've traced (or source=landsat for country regions without high zoom Yahoo imagery). I see a lot of source=survey tags, but the OSM "mavens" on Talk mailing list think survey implies professional surveyed equipment, and prefer source=gps. I see a few source:name=survey tags, which is what I do when I go out for a ride and write down street/POI names in a notepad. Maybe source:name=notepad would be better, but source:name=survey is more popular. Ideally all names have a source:name=photo with a Geotagged photo uploaded to OSM for proof of street signs, but until I get a GPS, there's not much point taking photo's.

Cheers, BlueMM


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA

Kim Hawtin-2
hi guys =)

[hidden email] wrote:

>> Kim wrote:
>> I've been busy uploading traces and mapping around Mt Barker
>> and Littlehampton a bit lately. I have a couple of questions
>> I was hoping folks could clear up;
>>
>> - Are the rail and road under passes right? I have set them as
>>   tunnels, because it makes more sense than the freeway being a
>>   bridge, how ever what do other folks use?
>
> Use a tunnel if it is one, or a bridge if that is what is there. I'm sure there are some weird hybrid examples, but if it is a culvit for streams/drains, I use a tunnel. If I'm not sure what is there, I leave it with the ways overlapping without any bridge/tunnel tags (I think the validator in JOSM warns about it), so I or someone else can fix it when visiting it next.

ok, its not a bridge, but a built up embankment with a tunnel in it.
there are a couple of bridges further east, but wasn't sure if there
was a standard or my miss-interpretation

>> - I've put in a few round'a'bouts ... they are messy critters.
>>   is it the right thing to draw them out with little link roads
>>   or should they be put up as where the roads intersect with
>>   the joining node and tag that node as a round about?
>>   especially larger ones, like the end of Gawler street near the
>>   bus interchange?
>
> Bane of my existence!! The OSM wiki says you should only draw the connecting ways as split (which form triangle islands) if it is a large roundabout. A normal suburban roundabout should just be a circle (I use 8 corners) with the 4 ways connected. Merkaartor has a roundabout tool where you click a crossing, select the diameter of the roundabout and it creates a circle with the ways cropped off to it (JOSM might have something similar). Some people mapping Melbourne use mini-roundabout's to save time, but it's only for mini UK style ones with a tiny white painted circle in the middle of the intersection. I'd personally like the junction=roundabout tag to apply to a node, with a eg. junction:width=5m tag, so renderers could draw the circle road & inner island all by themselves without lots of extra effort.
>
> Looking at your B37 & Alexandrina & Flaxley Rd roundabout, you don't need oneway=yes(it's implied), clockwise(just draw it in a clockwise direction), ref(roundabout's don't inherit route numbers, it's for when roundabout's have specific ref numbers [in Europe I think]). The incoming split lanes for B37 should be primary (as it's still the road, not a link, just split into oneway's), as the north ones are, but the south ones are primary_link. Conversely, the East & West split's should be secondary. Split's should have the same tags as the road it splits from, but split's add oneway=yes. Only *_link's and roundabout's don't have ref's or names (except when specifically signposted, UK has examples of this).
> The Alexandrina Rd & Fletcher St one is missing the junction=roundabout circle for the roundabout, and missing oneway=yes tags for the split ways.

part of the problem is I am one of several mappers in the area and
I'm trying to find out which is a good/right/better/consistent way
to do it.

so the Alexandrina & Flaxley Rd roundabout was put in by someone
else after I put the initial roads in.

>> - I have been seeing lots of roads and other objects get a blue
>>   halo ... there seems to be an attribute against each of these
>>   that I didn't mark up, but by my reading, isn't supported by
>>   the renderer? especially "ref" and "street" ...
>
> They are "relations" to tie different ways together to form logically-connected ways, eg. routes. They are relatively new to OSM and I haven't played with them much, but others have added them in my area. The only strange thing I can see is that the motorway_link for the B37 & M1 are added to the relations, which I believe is wrong because they are on/offramps, not the actual freeway that the route follows.

well i'm seeing the halos appear on areas, creeks, isolated bits
of road, and railway that are not connected to other things.
i assumed this was a way in potlatch to flag busted key value pairs.

>> - My edits seem to be taking around two weeks to hit the OSM
>>   normal map ... isn't this normally happening weekly?
>
> The main map grabs data on Wednesdays UK time, and then spends a day or two creating new tiles for the map, therefore if you updated OSM on Wednesday our time, it could be a week & a bit before the updates appear. And if you browser (or ISP) has the map tiles cached, you might need to Ctrl+F5 to force a reload from the tile server. Miss match of old & new tiles usually means a caching issue.

ok, this is cool, its been a bit variable. also have had to go
back and make some edits on ways to make them right, like oneway
sections etc...

> Tags suggestions
> ----------------
> Looking at Mt Barker township, you've done a fantastic job.

=D every little bit helps

> I noticed a few tagging schemes different to mine:-
> * Lots of the area's don't need area=yes, like parking/schools/landuse etc.
> * Parking/school doesn't need a separate POI node in the middle, the renderers are now smart enough to stick an icon in the middle.

well, this is part of the multiple mappers doing different things,
and me trying to figure out which is the right way to do it. i've
been looking at other parts of the state, mostly adelaide trying
to figure out how others have done it... and there being some confusion

> * Landuse doesn't need to be bounded by streets (cookie cutter'ed), just draw around the outside of the area (landuse is always rendered at the bottom, so no need for layer=-1, which is only used if you can "walk under" something). That should save you tonne's of effort :)

good =)

> * Similarly, the pitch & parking in the recreation_ground don't need layer=1 (as you can't walk under the parking!!)
> * There's streets in the East that are only source=survey, no highway=* tags. If not sure what type of street it is, use the new highway=road tag (basically means, "unknown class").

ok, part of that map with gps, draw the way, figure out what it should be classified as later thing...
i'm not done mapping, there is still plenty of little developments/burbs to go =)

> * I think the highway=traffic_signals on B37 next to Cornerstone College should include crossing=traffic_signals (or just crossing=pelican), as it appears to be a pedestrian crossing, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:crossing.

didn't see that, would be nice to catch up with who ever else is mapping in Mt Barker and talk about how to edit stuff =)
i'll check it on the

> Also, I'm not sure if you have used the Yahoo layer, but Mt Barker has good coverage down to z17.

yeah mt barker is right on the edge of high res layer =\
its not much help as the imagery is many years out of date =/

> Source
> ------
> It's my personal crusade, but since I don't have a GPS, I've been adding source=yahoo to the ways I've traced (or source=landsat for country regions without high zoom Yahoo imagery). I see a lot of source=survey tags, but the OSM "mavens" on Talk mailing list think survey implies professional surveyed equipment, and prefer source=gps. I see a few source:name=survey tags, which is what I do when I go out for a ride and write down street/POI names in a notepad. Maybe source:name=notepad would be better, but source:name=survey is more popular. Ideally all names have a source:name=photo with a Geotagged photo uploaded to OSM for proof of street signs, but until I get a GPS, there's not much point taking photo's.

ok, pretty much all my edits since may have been based on gps trail, plus notes on paper for names.

I think I'll be checking in with you guys more on tricky edit questions over the next few months,
now that I have a regular pattern of trailing and map editing going =) i just wanted to get some
data in and massage it a bit later ;)

thanks for your feedback =D

cheers,

Kim
--
VK5FNET

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Liz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA

Liz
In reply to this post by BlueMM
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, [hidden email] wrote:
> . A normal suburban roundabout should just be a circle (I use 8 corners)
> with the 4 ways connected. Merkaartor has a roundabout tool where you click
> a crossing, select the diameter of the roundabout and it creates a circle
> with the ways cropped off to it (JOSM might have something similar). Some
> people mapping Melbourne use mini-roundabout's to save time, but it's only
> for mini UK style ones with a tiny white painted circle in the middle of
> the intersection.

We did decide on this list that for us, in Au, we'd stick with Brent's
definition, that if the roundabout fitted within the width of the road, it
would be a mini-roundabout.
I can't imagine any Austrylyan driver paying any attention to a painted circle
on the road pretending to be a roundabout - they only see concrete barriers.



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA

Ben Kelley-4
In reply to this post by Kim Hawtin-2
Hi.

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Kim Hawtin <[hidden email]> wrote:
- My edits seem to be taking around two weeks to hit the OSM
 normal map ... isn't this normally happening weekly?


You can force an update to the Osmarender layer so you can see if your edits are OK. Updates generally take around an hour, although they can take less for non-complex areas, and they can take more if the render queue is full.

Find the area you edited on http://informationfreeway.org/ and zoom in to zoom level 12. (Zoom level shows in the bottom right.)

At zoom level 12, as you move your mouse over the map it draws a dotted red line around the squares. Ctrl-click the square with your edits in it and it pops up a dialog telling you that it will submit a render request. Click OK to add that square to the render queue.

 - Ben.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA

Darrin Smith
In reply to this post by BlueMM
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
[hidden email] wrote:

> Looking at your B37 & Alexandrina & Flaxley Rd roundabout, you don't
> need oneway=yes(it's implied), clockwise(just draw it in a clockwise
> direction), ref(roundabout's don't inherit route numbers, it's for
> when roundabout's have specific ref numbers [in Europe I think]).

Can you explain why that roundabout wouldn't have a B37, given it's
actually part of the B37 route? If you leave out the B37 then you're
leaving a gap in the B37 ref's, surely that is inconsistent?

> They are "relations" to tie different ways together to form
> logically-connected ways, eg. routes. They are relatively new to OSM
> and I haven't played with them much, but others have added them in my
> area. The only strange thing I can see is that the motorway_link for
> the B37 & M1 are added to the relations, which I believe is wrong
> because they are on/offramps, not the actual freeway that the route
> follows.

Are you sure you're talking about the right relation? Since I created
the M1 in relation in the last few days, and just checked it I can see
I messed up and actually added a point by mistake (now fixed) but the
ramps are part of the Princes Highway and South-East Freeway street
relations (since they are parts of those 'streets').

> * Lots of the area's don't need area=yes, like
> parking/schools/landuse etc.

Is this yet another crazy OSM inconsistency? Surely any of those closed
loops are implicitly areas? In fact I notice mappaint in josm tends to
render closed versions of these as areas without any redundant area=yes
tag, so I'm not alone in my thinking here.

> * I think the highway=traffic_signals on B37 next to Cornerstone
> College should include crossing=traffic_signals (or just
> crossing=pelican), as it appears to be a pedestrian crossing, see
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:crossing.

Perhaps a twig to the map features page with respect to this is need, I
find the reading of it very unclear and had been assuming from how it's
written that highway=traffic_signals is used for all traffic signals
(since they all controll traffic)...

--

=b

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA

Kim Hawtin-2
In reply to this post by Liz
Liz wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, [hidden email] wrote:
>> . A normal suburban roundabout should just be a circle (I use 8 corners)
>> with the 4 ways connected. Merkaartor has a roundabout tool where you click
>> a crossing, select the diameter of the roundabout and it creates a circle
>> with the ways cropped off to it (JOSM might have something similar). Some
>> people mapping Melbourne use mini-roundabout's to save time, but it's only
>> for mini UK style ones with a tiny white painted circle in the middle of
>> the intersection.
>
> We did decide on this list that for us, in Au, we'd stick with Brent's
> definition, that if the roundabout fitted within the width of the road, it
> would be a mini-roundabout.
> I can't imagine any Austrylyan driver paying any attention to a painted circle
> on the road pretending to be a roundabout - they only see concrete barriers.

well, the handful of roundabouts im thinking about are 12-20 meters across.
so that would be a draw in a way for the roundabout by hand and link in the
connecting ways then ... right?

there are a couple of little roundabouts in the burbs, but they are about
3 meters across + 2 times the single lane width. so i should mark them up as
mini roundabouts ... right?

regards,

Kim
--
Operating Systems, Services and Operations
Information Technology Services, The University of Adelaide
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA

Kim Hawtin-2
In reply to this post by Darrin Smith
Darrin Smith wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
> [hidden email] wrote:
>
>> Looking at your B37 & Alexandrina & Flaxley Rd roundabout, you don't
>> need oneway=yes(it's implied), clockwise(just draw it in a clockwise
>> direction), ref(roundabout's don't inherit route numbers, it's for
>> when roundabout's have specific ref numbers [in Europe I think]).
>
> Can you explain why that roundabout wouldn't have a B37, given it's
> actually part of the B37 route? If you leave out the B37 then you're
> leaving a gap in the B37 ref's, surely that is inconsistent?

i didn't put this roundabout in, so when i see stuff like that its
hard to know what is the right thing to do unless we put it to the list.

my focus at the moment is to get gps trails into roads, connect them
up approximately how they look on the ground and get all the attributes
i know about tagged. then after that get some guidance about what stuff
we're missing... thats the beauty about peer review right? =)

and i'm yet to find a decent resource for what roads are named routes.
i suppose i need to make notes from the big green signs huh ? =)

>> They are "relations" to tie different ways together to form
>> logically-connected ways, eg. routes. They are relatively new to OSM
>> and I haven't played with them much, but others have added them in my
>> area. The only strange thing I can see is that the motorway_link for
>> the B37 & M1 are added to the relations, which I believe is wrong
>> because they are on/offramps, not the actual freeway that the route
>> follows.
>
> Are you sure you're talking about the right relation? Since I created
> the M1 in relation in the last few days, and just checked it I can see
> I messed up and actually added a point by mistake (now fixed) but the
> ramps are part of the Princes Highway and South-East Freeway street
> relations (since they are parts of those 'streets').
>
>> * Lots of the area's don't need area=yes, like
>> parking/schools/landuse etc.
>
> Is this yet another crazy OSM inconsistency? Surely any of those closed
> loops are implicitly areas? In fact I notice mappaint in josm tends to
> render closed versions of these as areas without any redundant area=yes
> tag, so I'm not alone in my thinking here.

I've seen areas around adelaide where they specifically have.
it looks a whole lot better to see areas like commercial and schools
marked in, its easier to see and the labels are marked up better.
i don't understand how the renderer works, but putting in the area
attribute helps for the mapper to identify what the thing is for.
well it helps me get a better idea about what im editing anyway. =)

>> * I think the highway=traffic_signals on B37 next to Cornerstone
>> College should include crossing=traffic_signals (or just
>> crossing=pelican), as it appears to be a pedestrian crossing, see
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:crossing.

it is a set of lights for a pedestrian crossing for the school.
i'll mark it up on the weekend =)

> Perhaps a twig to the map features page with respect to this is need, I
> find the reading of it very unclear and had been assuming from how it's
> written that highway=traffic_signals is used for all traffic signals
> (since they all controll traffic)...

Thanks for you feedback =)

regards,

Kim
--
Operating Systems, Services and Operations
Information Technology Services, The University of Adelaide
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA

Darrin Smith
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:40:49 +1030
Kim Hawtin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Darrin Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >> [hidden email] wrote:
> >
> >> Looking at your B37 & Alexandrina & Flaxley Rd roundabout, you
> >> don't need oneway=yes(it's implied), clockwise(just draw it in a
> >> clockwise direction), ref(roundabout's don't inherit route
> >> numbers, it's for when roundabout's have specific ref numbers [in
> >> Europe I think]).
> >
> > Can you explain why that roundabout wouldn't have a B37, given it's
> > actually part of the B37 route? If you leave out the B37 then you're
> > leaving a gap in the B37 ref's, surely that is inconsistent?
>
> i didn't put this roundabout in, so when i see stuff like that its
> hard to know what is the right thing to do unless we put it to the
> list.

It's been there for a while, my question was more directed at
[hidden email] in this case, I personally think the B37
should be there as it is (I'm probably the one who added that tag,
can't be bothered confirming it right now ;) since you have to travel
through it as part of travelling along the B37.

> and i'm yet to find a decent resource for what roads are named routes.
> i suppose i need to make notes from the big green signs huh ? =)

That's how I've generally been finding them, having a little interest
in highway routing I've been looking around for resources and the BGS's
are the most reliable source I can find, even the old copyrighted
sources are a bit lacking in accuracy. Unfortunately there are still
a number of areas where even the BGS's are lacking although I have to
give TransportSA credit, travelling around SA this year I've found a
number of places where brand new signs with routes have been ereceted
in the last couple of years (since I was last there) so I have some
hope that sometime in the future the route system will be pretty
consistent.

> >> * Lots of the area's don't need area=yes, like
> >> parking/schools/landuse etc.
> >
> > Is this yet another crazy OSM inconsistency? Surely any of those
> > closed loops are implicitly areas? In fact I notice mappaint in
> > josm tends to render closed versions of these as areas without any
> > redundant area=yes tag, so I'm not alone in my thinking here.
>
> I've seen areas around adelaide where they specifically have.
> it looks a whole lot better to see areas like commercial and schools
> marked in, its easier to see and the labels are marked up better.
> i don't understand how the renderer works, but putting in the area
> attribute helps for the mapper to identify what the thing is for.
> well it helps me get a better idea about what im editing anyway. =)
]

Oh man!
I feel like a wally :)
I just re-read what bluemm was saying there and he's totally saying the
same thing as me anyway!
Can we just pretend I didn't write my original paragraph? :)

--
Darrin Smith
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA

Kim Hawtin-2
Darrin Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:40:49 +1030
> Kim Hawtin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Darrin Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
>>>
>>>> [hidden email] wrote:
>>>> Looking at your B37 & Alexandrina & Flaxley Rd roundabout, you
>>>> don't need oneway=yes(it's implied), clockwise(just draw it in a
>>>> clockwise direction), ref(roundabout's don't inherit route
>>>> numbers, it's for when roundabout's have specific ref numbers [in
>>>> Europe I think]).
>>> Can you explain why that roundabout wouldn't have a B37, given it's
>>> actually part of the B37 route? If you leave out the B37 then you're
>>> leaving a gap in the B37 ref's, surely that is inconsistent?
>> i didn't put this roundabout in, so when i see stuff like that its
>> hard to know what is the right thing to do unless we put it to the
>> list.
>
> It's been there for a while, my question was more directed at
> [hidden email] in this case, I personally think the B37
> should be there as it is (I'm probably the one who added that tag,
> can't be bothered confirming it right now ;) since you have to travel
> through it as part of travelling along the B37.

Its something i need to do to take more notes.
Having a passenger in the car help lots here =)
Or I'll have to take the dog on much longer walks ;)

>> and i'm yet to find a decent resource for what roads are named routes.
>> i suppose i need to make notes from the big green signs huh ? =)
>
> That's how I've generally been finding them, having a little interest
> in highway routing I've been looking around for resources and the BGS's
> are the most reliable source I can find, even the old copyrighted
> sources are a bit lacking in accuracy. Unfortunately there are still
> a number of areas where even the BGS's are lacking although I have to
> give TransportSA credit, travelling around SA this year I've found a
> number of places where brand new signs with routes have been ereceted
> in the last couple of years (since I was last there) so I have some
> hope that sometime in the future the route system will be pretty
> consistent.

=)

>>>> * Lots of the area's don't need area=yes, like
>>>> parking/schools/landuse etc.
>>> Is this yet another crazy OSM inconsistency? Surely any of those
>>> closed loops are implicitly areas? In fact I notice mappaint in
>>> josm tends to render closed versions of these as areas without any
>>> redundant area=yes tag, so I'm not alone in my thinking here.
>> I've seen areas around adelaide where they specifically have.
>> it looks a whole lot better to see areas like commercial and schools
>> marked in, its easier to see and the labels are marked up better.
>> i don't understand how the renderer works, but putting in the area
>> attribute helps for the mapper to identify what the thing is for.
>> well it helps me get a better idea about what im editing anyway. =)
> ]
>
> Oh man!
> I feel like a wally :)
> I just re-read what bluemm was saying there and he's totally saying the
> same thing as me anyway!
> Can we just pretend I didn't write my original paragraph? :)

Don't worry about it, these things happen =)

cheers,

Kim
--
Operating Systems, Services and Operations
Information Technology Services, The University of Adelaide
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Liz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA

Liz
In reply to this post by Darrin Smith
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Darrin Smith wrote:
> so I have some
> hope that sometime in the future the route system will be pretty
> consistent.

there are drugs for people like you with delusions

:-)

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au