-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 823
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Problems with rendering "highway=track; area=yes" (and to a lesser extent other highway types) #1967
Comments
I'd remove residential und and unclassified as well. I never considered area=yes valid for these. What's the difference in area mapping between unclassified and tertiary? |
I'd also agree with removing footway, cycleway, track, and path area rendering. |
2015-11-11 10:30 GMT+01:00 Paul Norman [email protected]:
me too. For footway and path there isn't actually a difference to |
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33197964#map=19/50.78979/6.07294 and |
highway=* + area=yes should only be supported for highway types which often are not linear. If a highway can be somehow represented by a linear way, it's better to use area:highway=* for the area representation instead. It's a proposal but it's gaining support with 35.000 occurences as of now. From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Street_area#Note_on_area.3Dyes
|
2015-11-11 10:47 GMT+01:00 Holger Jeromin [email protected]:
maybe this wiki definition could be improved. A pedestrian area can occur I also wouldn't insist on "hard surface" for pedestrian areas (there are |
I noticed highway=footway + area=yes used for smaller squares - I also added some. Maybe it may be treated as a tagging mistake. See for example http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25463980#map=19/50.05699/19.93507 According to taginfo it is used 28 690 times. |
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Paul Norman [email protected] I'd remove residential und and unclassified as well. I never considered
I'd also agree with removing footway, cycleway, track, and path area
What about the case of free-flowing plazas with no traffic control? These |
2015-11-11 11:45 GMT+01:00 BalooUriza [email protected]:
looking at the pictures, they don't seem to be very "free" flow, cars all Seriously, if these areas abandon the idea that vehicles have to keep on Cheers, |
Highway=pedestrian is not synonym to every "footway area". The tag refers to pedestrian zones and I added the Wikipedia link and the more verbose introduction from wikipedia in the wiki. The examples from HolgerJeromin don't fit highway=pedestrian. |
I would be cautious with dropping pedestrian and footways with area=yes, because many times (much more than in case of vehicle highways) they have complicated forms and routing traces are just a second guess looking at the shape. I like to ultimately adopt area:highway notation, but I also think it's better to make a smooth transition than just drop things. First thing I would like to know before making such changes is when we could have database reload, but currently we have no slightest idea about it. |
shared spaces are IMO perfectly modeled as an pedestrian area and a normal linear car highway (as the cars are mostly using the space linear). |
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:19 AM, dieterdreist [email protected]
That would be the case for a few odd cycleway examples in the Tulsa area |
I suppose this could qualify as highway=cycleway, area=yes: http://www.dichtbij.nl/content/images/Large/13500345_635683343096757352.jpg |
2016-03-07 23:25 GMT+01:00 math1985 [email protected]:
Isn't the usage of the word "path" a clear indication that this isn't an |
I encountered places where highway=track + area=yes would be correct rendering. For example large areas where logging equipment was moving, stored, used to unload/load wood etc. Second case would be places similar to pedestrian squares in function but on highway=track in the forest. Both are rare but it certainly happens. |
Most likely "bike path" is legal term.
I am not sure what would lawyer say but in Poland in similar cases "drive in any direction" is true (these places are not tagged highway=cycleway + area=yes as these are pedestrian areas with allowed cycling, or in some cases cycling is in theory forbidden). |
sent from a phone
I'm sure there is a better tag (to develop) for facilities like this, rather than track area |
These are temporary features, usually only in use for a few months while logging operations are in progress. They are more like a parking lot or industrial area. The current highway=track +area=yes rendering does not work well, because tracks are rendered as a thin brown line, usually dashed, and this does not make much sense when it suddenly widens to large brown area with track-color casing and I am in favor of removing this rendering. For the highway=footway areas, generally highway=pedestrian is more appropriate - a footway should be too narrow for a 2-track motor vehicle to comfortably travel. |
Essentially, the problem is this:
"highway=blah; area=yes" is rendered by OSM carto, and "area:highway=blah" is not. The former is intended for "true" highway areas (pedestrian plazas etc.); the latter for adding the "width" of linear highways (a bit like "waterway=riverbank" is on "waterway=river"). The problem is, as discussed on #180 and the links from there such as #1504 , area:highway can't be supported yet, so people are using "highway=blah; area=yes" on linear features.
In some cases (pedestrian plazas) it's perfectly valid; in others (track, cycleway) it surely isn't. Here's an example I found today:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.23152/-0.48302
(for completeness I tried to explain the problem on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35066497 ).
It's a similar logic to used at #1280 (comment) - if OSM Carto renders something, it is in some sense a "seal of approval"; we all see that mappers shouldn't "tag for the renderer" but we all know that many tag specifically for OSM Carto, and a specific goal of CARTOGRAPHY.md is to provide a "feedback mechanism for mappers to validate their edits".
So, which of the "current highway area values" (which I suspect is the list at
openstreetmap-carto/project.yaml
Line 763 in 982bc27
I'd suggest 'residential', 'unclassified', 'pedestrian', 'service', 'platform' only; can anyone point to a real-world feature that's validly mapped as an area=yes highway (i.e. is not primarily a linear feature) that is 'footway', 'cycleway', 'track', or 'path'?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: