Nodes v. Ways when adding amenities

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

Nodes v. Ways when adding amenities

Tac Tacelosky
I'm about to add a few shops in a shopping center.  Is it better to add them as ways so that the renderer has some idea about the footprint and relative size?  Or as nodes, which seems to be the more common approach?

The tiny nail salon is right next to a large supermarket, and the gas station on the corner is in between those two as far as size, while I can't do an exact outline, I can draw a box to indicate relative sizes.

Are both approaches correct, or is one way better?

Tac

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

Re: Nodes v. Ways when adding amenities

Gerhardus Geldenhuis
My personal opinion is that nodes at this stage is probably better. Until we have better resolution in OSM and in data/imagery... Just a node makes the map rendering less cluttered BUT we should not map to please the map rendering engine but rather for the sake of accurate data.

Regards


On 9 May 2013 11:42, Tac Tacelosky <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm about to add a few shops in a shopping center.  Is it better to add them as ways so that the renderer has some idea about the footprint and relative size?  Or as nodes, which seems to be the more common approach?

The tiny nail salon is right next to a large supermarket, and the gas station on the corner is in between those two as far as size, while I can't do an exact outline, I can draw a box to indicate relative sizes.

Are both approaches correct, or is one way better?

Tac

_______________________________________________
newbies mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies




--
Gerhardus Geldenhuis

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

Re: Nodes v. Ways when adding amenities

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Tac Tacelosky
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Tac Tacelosky <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm about to add a few shops in a shopping center.  Is it better to add them as ways so that the renderer has some idea about the footprint and relative size?  Or as nodes, which seems to be the more common approach?

The tiny nail salon is right next to a large supermarket, and the gas station on the corner is in between those two as far as size, while I can't do an exact outline, I can draw a box to indicate relative sizes.

Are both approaches correct, or is one way better?

Both approaches are correct. In theory, using areas is better, because it gives more information, but if as you say "you can't do an exact outline", I would choose a node instead: Better to have no information than incorrect information.
 
--
André Engels, [hidden email]

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

Re: Nodes v. Ways when adding amenities

Dave F.
In reply to this post by Tac Tacelosky
On 09/05/2013 11:42, Tac Tacelosky wrote:

> I'm about to add a few shops in a shopping center.  Is it better to
> add them as ways so that the renderer has some idea about the
> footprint and relative size?  Or as nodes, which seems to be the more
> common approach?
>
> The tiny nail salon is right next to a large supermarket, and the gas
> station on the corner is in between those two as far as size, while I
> can't do an exact outline, I can draw a box to indicate relative sizes.
>
> Are both approaches correct, or is one way better?

Both are correct. It depends on you really; whether you have the time or
patience to draw a full outline or simply add a node. Many areas now
have fairly accurate aerial imagery that can be traced. As renderers are
allowing greater zoom levels I've been upgrading POI's to polygon areas.
A problem you may run into however is multi-storey shopping centres.
There's never been a satisfactory way to map/render these as area & you
may want to keep them as POI's.

Dave F.

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

Re: Nodes v. Ways when adding amenities

Tac Tacelosky
Better no outline than an inaccurate one.   Hmm.  How about if there were a tag to indicate that the outline is an estimate and needs further review?  

I recently added a new grocery store that opened in my neighborhood:


It's a mid-sized store, and takes up most of the building on that corner, it replaced the Safeway that used to be there, which is reflected in that building's history:


I'd like to associate the new market with the building.  Should I simply name the building and add the tag shop=supermarket?  

Even with great aerial photography, it's often difficult to determine where one store ends.  DC is fortunate to have the footprints of many of our buildings in OSM because the data was made available.  But I'm working on a section in New Jersey now where there is no data beyond the TIGER import.  I have geocoded photos (that I took) of a few dozen shops, and I'd like add them to OSM, but it feels like adding them as a bunch of points (nodes) will be worse than looking at the size of the storefront and drawing a series of little boxes that reflect the relative sizes.   I don't have building information at all, so I don't know the address.

Maybe it'd be better to add  these unknown shapes as circles?  Then it would be obvious that this is a just a big node with some relative size information?  

Thanks for the suggestions.

Tac

Tac



On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Dave F. <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 09/05/2013 11:42, Tac Tacelosky wrote:
I'm about to add a few shops in a shopping center.  Is it better to add them as ways so that the renderer has some idea about the footprint and relative size?  Or as nodes, which seems to be the more common approach?

The tiny nail salon is right next to a large supermarket, and the gas station on the corner is in between those two as far as size, while I can't do an exact outline, I can draw a box to indicate relative sizes.

Are both approaches correct, or is one way better?

Both are correct. It depends on you really; whether you have the time or patience to draw a full outline or simply add a node. Many areas now have fairly accurate aerial imagery that can be traced. As renderers are allowing greater zoom levels I've been upgrading POI's to polygon areas. A problem you may run into however is multi-storey shopping centres. There's never been a satisfactory way to map/render these as area & you may want to keep them as POI's.

Dave F.


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

Re: Nodes v. Ways when adding amenities

Mike Thompson
> Maybe it'd be better to add  these unknown shapes as circles?  Then it would be obvious that this is a just a big node with some relative size information?  

A circle would imply a circular building.  If the building isn't circular, I don't think it should be represented in the data that way.


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Tac Tacelosky <[hidden email]> wrote:
Better no outline than an inaccurate one.   Hmm.  How about if there were a tag to indicate that the outline is an estimate and needs further review?  

I recently added a new grocery store that opened in my neighborhood:


It's a mid-sized store, and takes up most of the building on that corner, it replaced the Safeway that used to be there, which is reflected in that building's history:


I'd like to associate the new market with the building.  Should I simply name the building and add the tag shop=supermarket?  

Even with great aerial photography, it's often difficult to determine where one store ends.  DC is fortunate to have the footprints of many of our buildings in OSM because the data was made available.  But I'm working on a section in New Jersey now where there is no data beyond the TIGER import.  I have geocoded photos (that I took) of a few dozen shops, and I'd like add them to OSM, but it feels like adding them as a bunch of points (nodes) will be worse than looking at the size of the storefront and drawing a series of little boxes that reflect the relative sizes.   I don't have building information at all, so I don't know the address.

Maybe it'd be better to add  these unknown shapes as circles?  Then it would be obvious that this is a just a big node with some relative size information?  

Thanks for the suggestions.

Tac

Tac



On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Dave F. <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 09/05/2013 11:42, Tac Tacelosky wrote:
I'm about to add a few shops in a shopping center.  Is it better to add them as ways so that the renderer has some idea about the footprint and relative size?  Or as nodes, which seems to be the more common approach?

The tiny nail salon is right next to a large supermarket, and the gas station on the corner is in between those two as far as size, while I can't do an exact outline, I can draw a box to indicate relative sizes.

Are both approaches correct, or is one way better?

Both are correct. It depends on you really; whether you have the time or patience to draw a full outline or simply add a node. Many areas now have fairly accurate aerial imagery that can be traced. As renderers are allowing greater zoom levels I've been upgrading POI's to polygon areas. A problem you may run into however is multi-storey shopping centres. There's never been a satisfactory way to map/render these as area & you may want to keep them as POI's.

Dave F.


_______________________________________________
newbies mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies



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

Re: Nodes v. Ways when adding amenities

Tac Tacelosky
"A circle would imply a circular building."  

Only if it were tagged with building, right?  Suppose it was only tagged with non-physical attributes, like shop=grocery?  Would square be any better / worse?

On a related note, when creating ways for businesses, my gut feeling is to surround the entire property, not just the building.  This is especially relevant for gas stations, where the building itself is often tiny, and for that matter the building is often a convenience shop with sells candy and maps, and will take your cash if you didn't pay at the pump.  But the "gas station" to me seems like the whole property.  

Tac



On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Mike Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Maybe it'd be better to add  these unknown shapes as circles?  Then it would be obvious that this is a just a big node with some relative size information?  

A circle would imply a circular building.  If the building isn't circular, I don't think it should be represented in the data that way.


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Tac Tacelosky <[hidden email]> wrote:
Better no outline than an inaccurate one.   Hmm.  How about if there were a tag to indicate that the outline is an estimate and needs further review?  

I recently added a new grocery store that opened in my neighborhood:


It's a mid-sized store, and takes up most of the building on that corner, it replaced the Safeway that used to be there, which is reflected in that building's history:


I'd like to associate the new market with the building.  Should I simply name the building and add the tag shop=supermarket?  

Even with great aerial photography, it's often difficult to determine where one store ends.  DC is fortunate to have the footprints of many of our buildings in OSM because the data was made available.  But I'm working on a section in New Jersey now where there is no data beyond the TIGER import.  I have geocoded photos (that I took) of a few dozen shops, and I'd like add them to OSM, but it feels like adding them as a bunch of points (nodes) will be worse than looking at the size of the storefront and drawing a series of little boxes that reflect the relative sizes.   I don't have building information at all, so I don't know the address.

Maybe it'd be better to add  these unknown shapes as circles?  Then it would be obvious that this is a just a big node with some relative size information?  

Thanks for the suggestions.

Tac

Tac



On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Dave F. <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 09/05/2013 11:42, Tac Tacelosky wrote:
I'm about to add a few shops in a shopping center.  Is it better to add them as ways so that the renderer has some idea about the footprint and relative size?  Or as nodes, which seems to be the more common approach?

The tiny nail salon is right next to a large supermarket, and the gas station on the corner is in between those two as far as size, while I can't do an exact outline, I can draw a box to indicate relative sizes.

Are both approaches correct, or is one way better?

Both are correct. It depends on you really; whether you have the time or patience to draw a full outline or simply add a node. Many areas now have fairly accurate aerial imagery that can be traced. As renderers are allowing greater zoom levels I've been upgrading POI's to polygon areas. A problem you may run into however is multi-storey shopping centres. There's never been a satisfactory way to map/render these as area & you may want to keep them as POI's.

Dave F.


_______________________________________________
newbies mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies



_______________________________________________
newbies mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies



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

Re: Nodes v. Ways when adding amenities

Serge Wroclawski-2

A closed way (ie a polygon) should represent an area, such as a building or lake.

If the building contains only one store, then the ideal tagging for it would be to tag the building either building=yes or building=shop and then the details of the shop.

In the absence of building footprint or in the case of a multi use building, a node with the shop is what people do.
A circle as you describe should only be there to represent the building.

As for detail, partial detail, such as a rough building online can be fine, as long as it's inclusions adds detail about the feature, such as the rough shape and size, along with the shop details and address. If you drew a circle and the shop wasn't a circle, it would be wrong, and not add any useful detail, so it wouldn't be a good thing to add.

-Serge

On May 9, 2013 10:20 AM, "Tac Tacelosky" <[hidden email]> wrote:
"A circle would imply a circular building."  

Only if it were tagged with building, right?  Suppose it was only tagged with non-physical attributes, like shop=grocery?  Would square be any better / worse?

On a related note, when creating ways for businesses, my gut feeling is to surround the entire property, not just the building.  This is especially relevant for gas stations, where the building itself is often tiny, and for that matter the building is often a convenience shop with sells candy and maps, and will take your cash if you didn't pay at the pump.  But the "gas station" to me seems like the whole property.  

Tac



On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Mike Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Maybe it'd be better to add  these unknown shapes as circles?  Then it would be obvious that this is a just a big node with some relative size information?  

A circle would imply a circular building.  If the building isn't circular, I don't think it should be represented in the data that way.


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Tac Tacelosky <[hidden email]> wrote:
Better no outline than an inaccurate one.   Hmm.  How about if there were a tag to indicate that the outline is an estimate and needs further review?  

I recently added a new grocery store that opened in my neighborhood:


It's a mid-sized store, and takes up most of the building on that corner, it replaced the Safeway that used to be there, which is reflected in that building's history:


I'd like to associate the new market with the building.  Should I simply name the building and add the tag shop=supermarket?  

Even with great aerial photography, it's often difficult to determine where one store ends.  DC is fortunate to have the footprints of many of our buildings in OSM because the data was made available.  But I'm working on a section in New Jersey now where there is no data beyond the TIGER import.  I have geocoded photos (that I took) of a few dozen shops, and I'd like add them to OSM, but it feels like adding them as a bunch of points (nodes) will be worse than looking at the size of the storefront and drawing a series of little boxes that reflect the relative sizes.   I don't have building information at all, so I don't know the address.

Maybe it'd be better to add  these unknown shapes as circles?  Then it would be obvious that this is a just a big node with some relative size information?  

Thanks for the suggestions.

Tac

Tac



On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Dave F. <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 09/05/2013 11:42, Tac Tacelosky wrote:
I'm about to add a few shops in a shopping center.  Is it better to add them as ways so that the renderer has some idea about the footprint and relative size?  Or as nodes, which seems to be the more common approach?

The tiny nail salon is right next to a large supermarket, and the gas station on the corner is in between those two as far as size, while I can't do an exact outline, I can draw a box to indicate relative sizes.

Are both approaches correct, or is one way better?

Both are correct. It depends on you really; whether you have the time or patience to draw a full outline or simply add a node. Many areas now have fairly accurate aerial imagery that can be traced. As renderers are allowing greater zoom levels I've been upgrading POI's to polygon areas. A problem you may run into however is multi-storey shopping centres. There's never been a satisfactory way to map/render these as area & you may want to keep them as POI's.

Dave F.


_______________________________________________
newbies mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies



_______________________________________________
newbies mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies



_______________________________________________
newbies mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies


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

Re: Nodes v. Ways when adding amenities

James Ewen
I think the basis of the issue that is being opposed is that you are
hoping to imply a basic size or level of importance with an arbitrary
shape/size.

Most people would not have a problem with you putting a square or
other polygon even if it is just a rough approximation of the building
outline into the database.

The square may not exactly define the building, but it is at least an
attempt at defining the building rather than a circle that does not
even approximate the building.

A major hospital in Edmonton was roughly drawn, crooked walls, hanging
out onto the street, etc. I wanted a better building outline, so I
spent the time to drawn the outline with few hundred points rather
than the couple dozen used before.

Is mine millimeter accurate? Nope, but it is better than what was
there before. If someone comes along and makes my model better, then
we all win.

So don't just dropa big circle to suggest a big building. Draw an
approximate outline to the best of your ability. If you don't have
time, or can't be bothered, then just put a node on the map, and mark
it up as appropriate, someone else will come along later and add the
outline.


On 5/9/13, Serge Wroclawski <[hidden email]> wrote:

> A closed way (ie a polygon) should represent an area, such as a building or
> lake.
>
> If the building contains only one store, then the ideal tagging for it
> would be to tag the building either building=yes or building=shop and then
> the details of the shop.
>
> In the absence of building footprint or in the case of a multi use
> building, a node with the shop is what people do.
> A circle as you describe should only be there to represent the building.
>
> As for detail, partial detail, such as a rough building online can be fine,
> as long as it's inclusions adds detail about the feature, such as the rough
> shape and size, along with the shop details and address. If you drew a
> circle and the shop wasn't a circle, it would be wrong, and not add any
> useful detail, so it wouldn't be a good thing to add.
>
> -Serge
> On May 9, 2013 10:20 AM, "Tac Tacelosky" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> "A circle would imply a circular building."
>>
>> Only if it were tagged with building, right?  Suppose it was only tagged
>> with non-physical attributes, like shop=grocery?  Would square be any
>> better / worse?
>>
>> On a related note, when creating ways for businesses, my gut feeling is
>> to
>> surround the entire property, not just the building.  This is especially
>> relevant for gas stations, where the building itself is often tiny, and
>> for
>> that matter the building is often a convenience shop with sells candy and
>> maps, and will take your cash if you didn't pay at the pump.  But the
>> "gas
>> station" to me seems like the whole property.
>>
>> Tac
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Mike Thompson
>> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>
>>> > Maybe it'd be better to add  these unknown shapes as circles?  Then it
>>> would be obvious that this is a just a big node with some relative size
>>> information?
>>>
>>> A circle would imply a circular building.  If the building isn't
>>> circular, I don't think it should be represented in the data that way.
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Tac Tacelosky <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Better no outline than an inaccurate one.   Hmm.  How about if there
>>>> were a tag to indicate that the outline is an estimate and needs
>>>> further
>>>> review?
>>>>
>>>> I recently added a new grocery store that opened in my neighborhood:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/807746578
>>>>
>>>> It's a mid-sized store, and takes up most of the building on that
>>>> corner, it replaced the Safeway that used to be there, which is
>>>> reflected
>>>> in that building's history:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/66834804
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to associate the new market with the building.  Should I
>>>> simply
>>>> name the building and add the tag shop=supermarket?
>>>>
>>>> Even with great aerial photography, it's often difficult to determine
>>>> where one store ends.  DC is fortunate to have the footprints of many
>>>> of
>>>> our buildings in OSM because the data was made available.  But I'm
>>>> working
>>>> on a section in New Jersey now where there is no data beyond the TIGER
>>>> import.  I have geocoded photos (that I took) of a few dozen shops, and
>>>> I'd
>>>> like add them to OSM, but it feels like adding them as a bunch of
>>>> points
>>>> (nodes) will be worse than looking at the size of the storefront and
>>>> drawing a series of little boxes that reflect the relative sizes.   I
>>>> don't
>>>> have building information at all, so I don't know the address.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it'd be better to add  these unknown shapes as circles?  Then it
>>>> would be obvious that this is a just a big node with some relative size
>>>> information?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the suggestions.
>>>>
>>>> Tac
>>>>
>>>> Tac
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Dave F. <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 09/05/2013 11:42, Tac Tacelosky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm about to add a few shops in a shopping center.  Is it better to
>>>>>> add them as ways so that the renderer has some idea about the
>>>>>> footprint and
>>>>>> relative size?  Or as nodes, which seems to be the more common
>>>>>> approach?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The tiny nail salon is right next to a large supermarket, and the gas
>>>>>> station on the corner is in between those two as far as size, while I
>>>>>> can't
>>>>>> do an exact outline, I can draw a box to indicate relative sizes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are both approaches correct, or is one way better?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Both are correct. It depends on you really; whether you have the time
>>>>> or patience to draw a full outline or simply add a node. Many areas
>>>>> now
>>>>> have fairly accurate aerial imagery that can be traced. As renderers
>>>>> are
>>>>> allowing greater zoom levels I've been upgrading POI's to polygon
>>>>> areas. A
>>>>> problem you may run into however is multi-storey shopping centres.
>>>>> There's
>>>>> never been a satisfactory way to map/render these as area & you may
>>>>> want to
>>>>> keep them as POI's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave F.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> newbies mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> newbies mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> newbies mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
>>
>>
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

James
VE6SRV

_______________________________________________
newbies mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies