ITO Map ideas

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Use this page to discuss ideas for new map layers and adjustments to existing maps in ITO Map. No guarantee that all ideas will be processed, but it is worth dropping ideas down.

Contents

On-road bicycle tagging

The On road cycling map shows tagging on roads about whether it is legal to cycle on them. This layer is useful to checking if roads are correctly tagged with regard to cycling. See the key associated with the map for an explanation of its use.


Discussion
  • OK, so we need to mark trunk roads that don't specify a bicycle tag at all as a thin green line or something? PeterIto 21:27, 19 October 2011 (BST)
  • Done. see below. PeterIto 08:34, 20 October 2011 (BST)
  • Fine. Will do something about that tomorrow.PeterIto 21:27, 19 October 2011 (BST)
  • Done. see below. PeterIto 08:34, 20 October 2011 (BST)

I have just updated the script. All motorway and trunk roads now in dark and light grey respectively if they have no bicycle tag. All motorway and trunk roads with a 'bicycle=yes' are now in dark and light green respectively. All motorways and trunk roads with a 'bicycle=no' tag are now in dark and light purple respectively. I have separately out bicycle=dismount into orange. I changed from red/green to red/purple for the benefit of red/green colourblind mappers. PeterIto 08:34, 20 October 2011 (BST)

I have now added thin blue lines for highway=cycleway/bridleway at the back the rendering stack to make sense of Dutch towns where many urban roads have bicycle bans but no actually have cycle tracks parallel to them.

Display of administrative boundaries with admin_level up to 10

The Administrative boundaries map layer shows ways tagged with boundary information. See key on map for details.


Discussion

In these days administrative boundaries in the raw OSM data become more and more important, because there are already several apps or services that ofer an address lookup based on places that are limited by area via a boundary polygon. In this way apps can better find out e.g. all streets that belong to a certain city, town or village.

There is also a display of boundaries at geofabrik.de -> tools -> OSM-Inspector -> Boundaries ... but it only displays details for levels 1 to 4. Above that there is no good differentiation for levels 5 and higher.

Is it possible to test a more detailed display via ITO, maybe for only one country as a test? --Stephan75 09:19, 20 October 2011 (BST)

We already have an administrative boundaries map layer which shows all map boundaries from two the eleven. Is that what you are were looking for? The main limitation with this map at present is that it only uses tagging on the ways and doesn't pay any attention to relations, so if there is no 'admin_level=* tag then it won't show. We have an upgrade in development that will fix this one and use relations. 14:14, 20 October 2011 (BST)
Oh damn, I really should have had a closer look before writing here ... but indeed: only ways with boundary=administrative are displayed. For example, in Germany many boundaries are using already existing ways that are "only" member of a boundary polygon relation. So I would appreciate very much when boundary relations could be displayed as well, Thanks in advance! --Stephan75 16:43, 20 October 2011 (BST)
Sure, I agree we need to deal with relations. PeterIto 03:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
We have a glitch at present that is blocking zoomed out views for this layer. We are on the case. PeterIto 15:24, 20 October 2011 (BST)
Glitch fixed. Can zoom all the way out now again. PeterIto 15:34, 20 October 2011 (BST)

Baseball map layer

The Baseball map shows baseball pitches around the world. It was designed to support the Big baseball project in October 2011.

Key:


Discussion

Found leisure=sports_centre, which should get tagged green, too :-). This is correct in the new sport layer. Thanks a lot. --Zuse 16:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorted - sports_centre is now part of the test. Thanks. PeterIto 21:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sports fixup

The sports fixup layer highlights sports facilities with missing tagging in red, ways that are not closed properly as areas are shown in orange. Well formed sports facilities are shown in blue/grey. There is an exception list of sports which are not tested and are coloured blue/grey.

The map is not listed on the pull-down list yet until we have agreed the logic and there is a key. Until then users will need to bookmark it on their browser.

Key:


Discussion

Following a suggestion in the previous section of this page I have created a new 'sports fixup' map layer. The details are above. PeterIto 03:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Mf way.png 110909060 is red. perhaps you can put sport=running on the blacklist, too. Or interprete the leisure=track.--Zuse 21:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
To be accurate, the way is orange (because it is unclosed). I have added it to the exception list of sports that are not further tested. PeterIto 05:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Railway Gauge

The railway gauge map shows gauge information for all the main sorts of railway (construction, disused, funicular, heritage, light_rail, miniature, narrow_gauge, preserved, rail, subway and tram).

Colours are as follows:


Discussion

A railway gauge layer would be great: gauge=*! It is really missing between all these other railway layers.

The problem is: There are too many different values. But the most common ones are 1435/standard and 1000. So this could be an idea to use 6 (or 7) different colours:

--Geogast 21:48, 28 October 2011 (BST)

Thanks for the suggestion, good idea. I will try to get something on line within a few days. PeterIto 21:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
So here is a first stab at the railway gauge map. It currently has pretty random colours which are as follows. Note that I am not yet showing dual gauge lines properly. It is not listed on the dropdown until we get the logic, colours and key sorted. PeterIto 03:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I have updated the colours along a thermal scale with hotter colours for larger gauges. I have also moved the description of the layer to the top of this section, created a subsection for the discussion about the layer and adjusted my discussion entries slightly to fit this format. PeterIto 03:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I like it! (Have a look at Buenos Aires and you'll see why I wanted this.) gauge=standard does not work well yet, does it? Here, gauge=standard lines are drawn green.--Geogast 11:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Opps, you were right,'standard' was coming out as <1000. It should be working right now. Thanks for pointing it out. Buenos Aires is certainly pretty interesting! PeterIto
If I had one more wish: Could you add railway=preserved to the list above? --Geogast 11:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. Stupid of me to have missed that one. PeterIto 12:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, this map has now 'graduated' and is now listed on the main ITO Map drop-down to the top-right of the map! Do keep the suggestions coming for improvements to the layer. One piece of unfinished work is represent dual gauge lines properly. We will add something to indicate twin gauges using a dotted line of both colours at some point in the future. I believe dual gauge lines are coded with two values separated by a ';'. PeterIto 14:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

After receiving feedback I have made railway=disused and railway=construction much thinner. PeterIto 11:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Phone numbers/Websites

A layer displaying businesses/amenities (restaurants, bars, offices, banks, post offices, govt buildings etc...) which have website and/or phone numbers which have been populated would be good to see to help with populating this data further Samlarsen1 16:53, 1 November 2011 (GMT)

What about the OpenLinkMap (temporary offline :-)?--Zuse 19:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Samlarsen: I think you are looking for a map where you can click on nodes and see these web/wikipedia/phone tags etc. That isn't something we can do at present, sorry; coming soon, but for now it is not possible. Zuse, is OpenLinksMap a global service and will it be back up soon? Also, how up-to-date is the data when it is working. Thanks. PeterIto 20:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
PeterIto: I am not looking for OpenLinkMap - although it is a good useful map. I am looking for more analysis of that same kind of data i.e. similar to the baseball layer showing POI/Polygons tagged with restaurant,bar,pub,postoffice,bank etc... and indicating which ones have phone numbers and website tags added and which ones don't. This would enable you to clearly identify areas that are well populated with these tags and areas where more work needs to be done. Samlarsen1 10:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Railway electrification

We have updated the railway electrification map. The new key gives details about what is being tested and the colour used. ie, if there is a voltage=25000 tag then we ignore frequency and whether it is a contact_line, but if it is voltage=750 we then check if it is 3rd rail or contact line. Similarly, for some voltages we check for 'frequency=0'. In general, warmer colours are used for higher voltages, cooler ones for lower voltages.


Discussion

After a proposal to provide more details, we have updated the railway electrificiation map to give details of voltages rather than just whether it is overhead or 3rd rail. PeterIto 09:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have adjusted the colour for 750V AC overhead lines. These are now in dark blue. Also... 1000 and 1200V lines are shown in the same colour as 1500v lines.

HVDC powerlines and powerlines not operated with standard frequency - A good idea would be, if it is possible to create a layer for HVDC powerlines, which must be tagged with frequency=0 and for the power supply of electric railways in some countries and which are operated with 16.67 Hz, 16.7 Hz or 25 Hz. So one can get a map of the high voltage grid of the German Railway Company ( Deutsche Bahn AG) used for the power supply of their railways.

It would be also great, if one could so show HVDC powerlines including electrode lines.

-- unsigned comment by User:Ganymed1000

Not sure I understand you. Are you saying that there are some systems where we are not distinguishing properly between DC and AC systems using the same voltage and rail/line feed? I was not intending to insist on frequencies where there is no doubt as to what it should be based on the voltage and the line/rail combination. PeterIto 23:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
HVDC power lines are not relevant to railway electrification but certainly of interest for electricity distribution. I just added a new section below with some wishes for the power lines layer. polderrunner 10:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Electrification is not shown currently for some kind of railway=* / service=* / usage=* combination, is it? For QA I would like to see them all. Nzara 12:50, 7 April 2012 (BST)

HGV routing

A new HGV routing gives details of hgv=* and hazmat=*. It not currently unlisted so you will need to bookmark it. There is currently no key on the map itself while the logic is being developed - details of the current key shown here:

HGV=private is not displayed.


Discussion

Following a suggestion by OSM messaging I have created a new HGV routing map showing tagging of both HGV and Hazmat. Do add comments and suggestions to this section. PeterIto 10:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

One further comment. The map does not current render HGV:forward/backwards, Hazmat:forward/backwards, hazmat:A or hazmat:water etc. Should we now develop the map layer to show some of this additional detail? If so, then any suggestions how to do so without making it very confusing? PeterIto 10:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I have added some more details to the map and adjusted the key accordingly to accommodate more tagging used around the world. PeterIto 10:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the need to render anything other than the standard access values (yes/no/designated/etc). Taginfo shows 7k hazmat=(standard value), 341 hazmat:water=*, and nothing else over 100. The hazmat:A tags are region-specific and not applicable to most of the world, as well as not being used. A similar analysis applies to hgv. Aside from hgv fuel and maxspeed tags, there are no other hgv tags of significance. Fuel might be something worth rendering, but I can't comment on how extensive the tagging is, I've just been doing on-road tagging. I'm running some XAPI queries to see if there is any useful information in the hazmat:water tag Pnorman 20:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts: You can't tell the difference between hgv=yes hazmat=no and hgv=no hazmat=no. You also can't see hgv=no hazmat=yes, but this combination is unlikely to occur in practice. I can't think of a way to display all this information, but it would be useful to distinguish between hgv=yes and hgv=designated. The first says trucks can go here, the second says this route is designated for trucks. It's nice to see my truck tagging efforts pay off. There are the Greater Vancouver truck roads. Pnorman 20:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that in New York City local and destination mean two different things: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/motorist/truckrouting.shtml Local routes are designated for use by trucks going anywhere in the borough (NYC is split into five boroughs). --NE2 23:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

How are what NYC calls local and destination tagged in OSM? Also, since it's one of the more complete examples, do you know if the NYC data was gathered on the ground or comes from a document? Pnorman 07:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If only the world was simple... It's nice that there's a start, and I'm quite certain you won't (easily anyway) find a way to visualize these, but I'll try to give an overview of things that come to mind. The hazmat:A tags are in my home town, but it's not that simple: they're often time limited. At daytime, no hazmat transports are allowed in, and on weekends and at night some (smaller) hazmat transports are allowed. And some city center streets are off limits to all hazmats at all times (at least in one direction) - but the transport is not a hazmat transport if you have only a tiny amount of materials onboard. At the time we collected these in 2009, the most suitable thing floating around in the wiki was the relation with type=access; so they're Relation.png 86184 (XML, check, manage, JOSM, history, view, gpx ) and Relation.png 86185 (XML, check, manage, JOSM, history, view, gpx ) (there could be a separate relation for every such way, but they're easier to handle like that). Another one: I've seen very few instances of the "no hgvs" sign, but there are many signs stating "maxlength=12 (except buses)", which most hgv drivers would need to observe.

In the end a be-all "hgv routing map" would need a) sliders to define the height, width and weight of the vehicle and b) preprocessing that constructs the spanning tree for each isolated area - a length restriction at one point can affect the possible roads for a larger area, so while simple icons at the start of each such restricted road section could be a start, they don't convey the extent of the effect on big road users in, imo, clear way. Alv 08:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That's an impressive load of comments for starters! Possibly the title of the map 'HGV Routing' is too ambitious. I was not intending this to be used by truck drivers themselves, but rather that it would be used by OSM contributors to help them build the data which could then be used within HGV routing engines. We might need to have a number of map views for different aspects of the data to keep it usable and in time some of these will need to be clickable to bring up additional data (such as timing info). Should we start with an attempt at an 'HGV tagging' map and a separate one for hazardous materials to keep it simpler? The HGV tagging one would go into a little more detail about the different hgv tags as mentioned above and could include maxheight, maxwidth, maxweight details and also fuel stops. There could then be another which would be specifically for hazardous materials. We possibly would need to include HGV specific turn restrictions in due course. PeterIto 17:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Any feedback on the above. Shall I just get on and make what I think are sensible adjustments which will focus on HGV tagging in the main? PeterIto 16:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yay, seems very sensible. Alv 16:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


It might be a good idea to distinguish hgv=yes from hgv=designated. In Florida it's somewhat common to have the main route through a town open to all trucks, but a bypass that's marked as a truck route. --NE2 01:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Navigable waterways

Try out the new Navigable waterways map. In time I suggest it replaced the existing version, for now it is unlisted so you will need to bookmark it. It colour codes rivers and canals, lakes, reservoirs and docks. It does not shows water bodies described using multipolygons (that will be coming in a month or so) and is not aware of navigation tagging built into route relations (for example the tagging of the Erie canal) - this will again be coming in a month or so. There is no built-in key (which will be added when we have settled on the logic and colours). here is the current key:

  • yellow = commercial Eurovessels (CEMT=IV, CEMT=Va, CEMT=Vb, CEMT=V1a, CEMT=V1b, CEMT=V1c, CEMT=VII)
  • orange = small vessels (CEMT=III)
  • red = small vessels (CEMT=II)
  • purple = small vessels (CEMT=I)
  • dark blue = CEMT=0
  • light blue = motorboats (boat=yes, motorboat=yes)
  • light blue = electric boats (boat=yes, motorboat=electric)
  • dark green = non-motorised craft only (boat=yes, motorboat=no)
  • thin light green = Whitewater craft only (whitewater:rapid_grade=* where grade>=1 ie there is white water)
  • brown = undifferentiated 'boat=yes' (tagged boat=yes without CEMT or motorboat)
  • grey = no boats (boat=no)
  • black = none of the above
  • muddy yellow = un-recognised CEMT values


Discussion

I have received the following comments from Freimut Kahrs about the Navigable Waterways map (comments which he is s happy for me to publish here). His comment are as follows:

Germany has a strict legislation on navigation. There are
  • CEMT class 4-7 European waterways (navigable by 1350 t Eurovessels and other vessels > 1000 t)
  • CEMT class 1-3 German federal waterways (navigable by commercial vessels > 200 t and by private boats)
  • jetski areas (river segments where jetski turns are allowed)
  • CEMT class 0 waterways with motorboat=yes (navigable by private boats with less than 200 t)
  • lakes with limited motorboat usage (the Starnberger See has a quota of 255 motorboats, so you have to wait 25 years for a license)
  • lakes with electric motorboats only
  • waterways with boat = yes, motorboat=no (canoes only, mainly for environmental reasons, but also some rafting routes)
  • waterways with boat = private / permissive / seasonal
  • whitewater rivers with canoe= yes, boat= yes if you can
  • boat = no (not even canoes, e.g. boat=goddammit no!)
It would be great if the navigable waterway map would be updated. If you intend to do so, I would suggest a colour scheme like
  • yellow = commercial (Euro)vessels
  • orange = small vessels
  • red = motorboats
  • light green = electric boats
  • dark green = canoes / other muscle-driven boats, but no motorboats
  • blue = (whitewater) rafting
  • grey = no boats

Any other comments? I will build a new map layer around this proposal and when it is agreed and working and has a key we will probably replace the existing navigable waterways map with this one.

-- PeterIto 11:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Seems like a good time to progress this one. CEMT usually seems to always be defined using roman numerals.[1] with these being the approved values "I, II, III, IV, Va, Vb, V1a, V1b, V1c, VII".[2]. You also mention CEMT 0 above. Is that shorthand for 'not CEMT', in which case should one use CEMT=no or does it really switch to arabic numerals? PeterIto 05:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

CEMT I to CEMT VII are EU standards. E.g. CEMT I designates a vessel (38,5 m × 5,05 m × 2,50 m) with carries 400 t, the cargo of about 10 lorries. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A9niche

CEMT 0 is an inofficial national designation for vessels which do not fit EU standard, e.g. a vessel with a length between 17 and 38 m. They are 'not CEMT' and thus not economical, but still in use. A river with 30-m-vessels is CEMT=no, but waterway=yes, vessel=yes.

CEMT=0 indicates both: not suitable for boats >38 m, but suitable for boats <38 m.

According to availabe data, I would suggest to use CEMT=0 for vessels with a length between 50 ft (=15 m) and 38 m.

--FK270673 22:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have created a table at the top of this section with the proposed logic as far as I can understand it. The main unknown is how to tag whitewater craft. I note the whitewater:rapid_grade=* proposal, but how does one code that using the craft/vessel tags? I note that whitewater:rapid_grade=A could be used on a mill-pond or a canal with no water movement, so whitewater:rapid_grade is not sufficient to indicate that only whitewater craft can use the section. Also... how does one identify electric motorboats only and it is really electric only? or it just 'not-internal combustion engine' or 'silent' or 'approved "eco" design'. In Cambridge there was a steam powered vessel (a very sophisticated one) which seemed to be allowed on the upper river where most powered boats were not.[3]. Lets tweek the above table and then create the map. PeterIto 02:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's suppose that whitewater:rapid_grade=* >=1 indicates a whitewater and that rivers without that scale are whitewater=no. The canoers will cry if they are not content with the waterway map. It's still a hard work to add (and to display) CEMT classes to all European waterways (Danube, Elbe, Rhine) in order to make them "routable" for vessels. Once we have completeed all Eurovessel-adapted waterways, we can talk about special cases like cold-fusion crafts. --FK270673 11:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I have added the whitewater rule you suggest to the 'key' at the top of this section. I will now implement that set of rules which will be online in about 24 hours. PeterIto 14:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Try the new map. The link is as the top of the section. I suggest we also consider how to indicate berths for different sized ships and showing harbours, but I haven't added that yet. PeterIto 09:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
One thought, we probably need to think about how to tag areas of water within one body of water where different boating rules - for example a lake where part is reserved for wildlife with no boats, part is for sailing and human powered craft and another section is for power boats. I guess we can just create different areas within the lake and tag one area with 'boat=yes,motoboat=yes, another with boat=yes, motorboat=no and another with boat=no and swimming=yes (although... can we use sport=swimming for an official swimming spot off a beach). I suggest that this is mission creep and we don't try to cover all recreational uses of water comprehensively with this map because it would get to crowded. Lets focus on commercial navigation with this one and then consider a different map for swimming/jetski/sailing/motorboats etc as a separate exercise. PeterIto 17:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Tonight I have added classification for German waterways, they should appear with the next update.

  • I have updated with yellow to the dark yellow. The inclusion of CEMT=0 in the 1-III list above was a mistake which I have corrected. CEMT=0 is now light purple. PeterIto 09:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I have adjusted the colours to distinguish CEMT I, II and III better (see key above). Electric motorboats and other motorboats are not current distinguished at all but this map is probably be more about commercial shipping that recreational boating which can be covered by another map. Would people like that? PeterIto 18:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Power lines

I have a couple of wishes for the power lines layer (Electricity distribution). First of all it would be nice to render underground power cables distinct from overhead lines, for example by using a broken line instead of a solid line. Secondly I would like to see HVDC lines (frequency=0) rendered using a distinct color irrespective of the actual voltage. HVDC connections are very different from normal AC power lines and really deserve a special rendering. The voltage is less important to show (it is always fairly high, usually somewhere between 250 kV and 500 kV). polderrunner 10:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. Can you tell me how underground power cables are tagged? I can't see anything about it on the power=* or the Power article. Underground pipelines are tagged using location=underground rather than using layer=-1 which seems like a good idea. PeterIto 16:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I have been using power=underground_cable for underground cables. Now I see that this tag is being deprecated on Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement. However ITO Map is rendering the power=underground_cable tag as power line so the style sheet certainly recognises it. Maybe a good idea to support both the old and the new proposed tagging (power=cable + location=underground/sea) schemes for the time being. polderrunner 17:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
That's good. Hadn't seen that proposal. I have created a new temporary map layer with a view to using it to replace the current map when the representation and logic have been agreed. This is exactly the same as the old one except that: Underground cables now have a black casing. 'minor_underground_cables' and 'cables' with voltage less than 50KV are green with black casing. Other underground cables (both 'underground cable' and 'cable') with higher voltages or no voltage specifified are currently purple with black casing. Let me know what you think. PeterIto 19:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks promising (I assume you are planning to colour the inner line according to the actual voltage). Do you also plan to do something special for HVDC lines and cables, e.g a special colour? Have a look at Denmark. I have mapped quite a few cables there (mostly as straight lines as I only know the end points, not the actual routing). polderrunner 22:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, try this. The colours for underground cables is now the same as for overground line with underground/sea lines having a casing. I am not currently paying attention to the frequency tag, only the voltage, power, layer and location tags. I agreed that dotted lines will be better, and we can switch to them after we do our next code upgrade. PeterIto 08:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
tunnel=yes is also used for underground cables (e.g. Mf way.png 70515190). --NE2 08:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you NE2, I have now added tunnel. PeterIto 09:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Woods

Map style 1 - showing tagging for woods and forests

Try the new Woodland cover map. It is not listed yet so you will need to bookmark it. There is also no key yet because the logic is still up for discussion. Here is the current key:

Map style 2 - showing the type of trees, either coniferous, deciduous, palm, mixed

The new Woodland type map shows the type of trees in woods and forests (tagged natural=wood and no wood=*). It is not listed yet so you will need to bookmark it. There is also no key yet because the logic is still up for discussion. Woodland type is shown as follows:

Discussion

Would be good to have a woodlands layer. Showing natural=wood and landuse=forest. The natural=wood and landuse=forest could be split into wood=*=coniferous, decideous, mixed or palm.

natural=tree would be good, but these are nodes (usually!) - not sure your map deals with nodes? natural=tree could be split into species=*, genus=* and taxon=* width=* etc

Also barrier=hedge again could be split into if these tags are present species=* and taxon=*.

There is a lot of discussion about these tags at the moment - a map would be useful. Also I'm planning a woods/green network mapping party in March [4], this map would be useful for that too. Hawkeyes

Great stuff. I have been working this was well recently, as it happens I started work on a 'tree cover' map this morning. Also, see my article on the difference between Landuse and Landcover and cleanup work on Corine Land Cover over the past weeks. These all suggest that we are missing some important tags - in particular that we need something along the lines of landcover=trees that can be used whereever there is tree cover as distinct from a landuse of 'forestry' which implies that the trees are mainly there to grown timber. Similarly we need landcover=grass for any area covered with grass as distinct from landuse=grazing (an area of land covered with grass used for grazing animals) or landuse=garden (which may or may not be covered with grass). The current tag landuse=grass should in my view be urgently deprecated because grass is not a land use. I will add details about the distinction between decideous wood=mixed, wood=palm to the map and see what it looks like. We are also working hard on adding nodes and relations to ITO Map and hope to have some good news soon on that front. 13:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
For a long time natural=wood used to mean exactly what you people are proposing as landcover=trees. When combined with landuse=forest, it was then "trees used for forestry". (Just as a landuse=forest may be natural=scrub for several years after a full chop.) Sadly someone "ran a bot" sometime in spring/summer 2008 to remove natural=wood from everything tagged as landuse=forest (with a comment along the lines of "it's redundant", when in fact it's not), and changed the wiki and everybody was confused after that. In the end this has lead to meadows being tagged as landuse, when some meadows can be naturally occurring, or just abandoned pastures etc. Straying a bit from the woods, IMO the problem originates from people making semi-random assumptions of implied landuse attributes from natural=* features, and of implied natural attributes from landuse=* features - and then documenting stuff as excluding the use of said tag where the assumption isn't valid. OTOH, requiring newbies to add two tags whenever they add a wood patch, might well be above the "editing comfortability" threshold of any average new contributor. Even with presets. And when just one tag renders fine, people use that. Alv 14:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
OK thanks. I am going to prepare a bunch of proposed changes to tagging into a single proposal covering some of these core use/cover issues. Possibly we try to recover 'wood' for its earlier purpose? Regarding multiple tags, I think it is fine to assume that the landcover for a park is grass and assume that the landover for a forestry area is trees etc, but we need to make a clearer distinction what the primary purpose of the tag is and the default other tag assumptions that come with it but which can be overruled so that we can say 'it is a park and is covered in trees'. Would you suggest we aim for landuse=forest to mean 'these trees are primarily being grown for timber' and natural=wood to mean 'this area of land is covered with trees'? PeterIto 14:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all the work on landcover= I think that is a good idea but would be a big change and I am still getting my head round the semantics of this. I think there are a number of view points on this and wide and visible discussion is needed.
In short, yes, that's how it was originally and as the "Approach 2" describes it at Tag:natural=wood. woodland=virgin has only one use, so that's again somebody's personal idea, but it could work, too. Alv 10:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now published a new 'Woodland cover' map. Details of the map are at the top of this section. Do continue the discussion about how to improve it below here and I will update the description above to match the current operation as we develop it. Would another map showing woodland cover by type (deciduous,mixed, palm) regardless of whether it is a wood or forest be useful? PeterIto

Thanks for that. I would be interested in deciduous, mixed, palm map. These appear the most used tags. Hawkeyes
I have now added another map showing the type of woodland regardless of how it is tagged. See 'map style 2' above. PeterIto 15:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

How are these map layers? I would like to get them to a stage where I can create a key and list them. Lets work on them some more now if required until we get to that point. PeterIto 09:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The link to style 2 doesn't seem to work, it just tells me to select a layer from the list. Style 1 seems informative, and reveals nicely how different active users have used different approaches to tagging (e.g. here - the purple stuff is imported Corine data and IMO of awfully inadequate quality.) Alv 10:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Link for style 2 not working for me either. The style one is great, but the tree nodes weren't showing up. Definitely interesting to see the large variations in tagging approaches.
My mistake, sorry about that. Try now. PeterIto 12:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I like both of these - but its handy to have a map that contains hedges, trees and woods so the first map is better for that. There are lots of discussions about landuse=forest/natural=wood And also the wood= tag has some discussion, with foliage= being suggested. barrier=hedge has been used 100,000 times but barrier=hedge_row has got 3000+ uses. There is also natural=tree_row which has been approved. So let's capture the primary tags first natural= landuse= tree= barrier= and see where we are with those. Then maybe another map or maps breaking down the secondary characteristics some time in the future? Bit off topic but maybe a environment tagging work group meet-up would be useful similar to the 3D tagging group Hawkeyes
Thanks. I have added hedge_row as an alias for hedge, and added tree-row as purple - not clever colours but distinct. I have updated the key. Glad you are having a productive discussion. PeterIto 22:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Roundabouts

I guess just a simple map highlighting junction=roundabout ways and highway=mini_roundabout nodes? Should be interesting to see what areas have many of them. --NE2 18:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

For sure. Can I suggest that this could usefully be developed into a more comprehensive 'traffic management' map which would also highlight traffic signals, speed bumps, signage and the like? PeterIto 14:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Garbage and landfill

A map to show landfill sites.

Discussion

This proposal was initially raised on twitter by @NoelDickover who said:[5] "#osm folks - is there a garbage or lqndfill layer in @openstreetmap? CC @mikel @wonderchook."

Sounds like a good idea, but could this be combined into something wider which would all reprocessing of urban, industrial and human waste. Should it include recycling centres (amenity=waste_transfer_stations) and possibly also incinerators (generator:source=*)? What about man_made=wastewater_plant or is that taking it too wide? PeterIto 14:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Building heights

Something showing heights of buildings might be useful. (I don't know if you can currently process multipolygons, so that might be problematic.) There are several ways of doing this, including height=*, building=roof level=*, and building:levels=*. Obviously higher buildings should be rendered on top of lower ones, so you can quickly see the highest buildings in an area. --NE2 23:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean something like this one? :) . One problem with ITO Map at present is that it is hard to see what is there already now that the list has got a long as it has. We will be making it easier to organise map layers in the next product release. PeterIto 04:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, so it is (though it's only a boolean has height/doesn't have height). Is building=roof level=* supported? (This would cover cases like the high school I went to, which consists of several two-story buildings with an independent roof structure in the middle above everything.) --NE2 19:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Traffic calming

One layer that would be quite useful is something for traffic calming. It’d be useful to see which roads have various traffic calming measures (humps, cushions, etc.) on them, whether applied as a tag on the way, or a tag on one or several of the way’s nodes. I use the latter, since it’s useful to know exactly where the traffic calming measures are (to hopefully take them into account in future cycle journey planning).

What’d also be useful, in the UK, is if all roads with a maxspeed=20 mph or below could also be highlighted in some way. Roads that have a 20mph speed limit tended to need to have traffic calming measures installed as a means to “enforce” the lower speed limit. So being able to visually find roads that are 20mph, but don’t appear to have any accompanying traffic calming measures might be an easy way to seek out where OSM is missing much of the extra traffic calming detail. --Gregoryw 10:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Lanes

What happened to highway lanes (#56)? It now has only primary and up. (Also the description refers to highway=lane rather than lanes=*.) --NE2 01:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies about that, the change must have happened as we moved over to our new platform yesterday. I have corrected the wlink to lanes=*, clarified that this map is for major roads only in the title and description and added an additional map which shows lane information for all roads. Does that work for you? PeterIto 07:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
There already was a major roads only lanes (128). What's the new one (you linked to 56)? --NE2 09:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I have fixed the link to the new map (179) which is a copy of 56 with all roads included if there is lane information for them. I do agree that the logic has changed during the transition and we now have two maps performing the same function. Lets keep working on them over the next 24 hours or so and get it sorted. However I won't be able to do anything for the next few hours. PeterIto 10:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Building detection problem

I see a problem with a few buildings here and here. The buildings have entrance=yes, perhaps this is the source of the problem in ito map. Thanks. --Zuse 16:29, 28 March 2012 (BST)

Checking out the buildings you identify, they all were incorrectly tagged with building=yes as you suggest. Someone has corrected some of these already earlier today and I have corrected the rest to either building=yes or building=retail as appropriate. These should flow through into ITO Map in the next 24-36 hours. PeterIto 19:54, 28 March 2012 (BST)
Thanks a lot. I did not recognized this copy&paste problem of my buildings. :-) --Zuse 08:08, 29 March 2012 (BST)
But this building=chapel should be filled red (not recognised), but not outline red. Or am i missing something again? :-) --Zuse 09:14, 29 March 2012 (BST)
Good point. That was an oversight in script; or rather.. I only added cathedral and chapel to the building typology template in the past few days having spotted it on the 'place of worship' page and had failed to carry it through to this map. Should be fixed now. PeterIto 11:25, 29 March 2012 (BST)

Sidewalks

It would make sense for the sidewalk layer (126) to draw foot=no on top of sidewalk=none, rather than the other way around. Then you could distinguish roads with pedestrians banned (and tagged sidewalk=none) from roads that have no sidewalks but allow pedestrians. It might also be useful to highlight schools. --NE2 00:34, 29 March 2012 (BST)

I have made the adjustment you suggest, and I have also added 'sidewalk=separate' to the key, which was already being rendered, but was just not explained. I do think that this map could do with a bit of a re-think soon. PeterIto 18:12, 1 April 2012 (BST)
Is there any chance of showing which side(s) the sidewalk is on? Or is this beyond the capabilities of the rendering? --NE2 18:55, 1 April 2012 (BST)
It isn't possible to indicate which side the sidewalk is on today, but we are about to implement a load of new styling options, so let's review this map when they are available. PeterIto 19:03, 1 April 2012 (BST)
Are you sure? I'm still seeing motorways tagged foot=no and sidewalk=none as red rather than blue. --NE2 01:30, 15 May 2012 (BST)

Walkable or legible cities?

By the way, for 132, I assume you mean walkable, not legible. --NE2 18:07, 30 March 2012 (BST)

Good point. Legible comes from the style origins with the Legible London project which has been copied in other places now. Walkable cities does however make more sense, and I have changed the title. We do however also need to do work on this map to make it more usable with road labeling and building entrances etc. PeterIto 18:02, 1 April 2012 (BST)

Road surfaces

Is there a map showing common road surfaces (asphalt, concrete, brick, etc.)? --NE2 22:54, 8 April 2012 (BST)

Navigable waterways

Is there a better tag than ship=yes for the general traffic allowed on the Inland waterways of the United States? If not, could that be treated as 'larger vessels' on map 24 if no more specific tags are present? --NE2 01:35, 15 May 2012 (BST)

It looks like the final tagging will be ship=* for 'smaller vessels' and deep_draft=* for 'larger vessels'. These probably don't match the European classifications exactly, but are how the USACE classifies them. --NE2 00:16, 19 May 2012 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ITO_Map_ideas"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
site
Toolbox