Ito Map ideas

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
(Redirected from ITO Map ideas)
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.

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.

  • "For European countries, highway=trunk could be added as they usually default to not allowing cycling on them". (comment on twitter)
  • 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.


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 -> 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.


  • Light green: Correctly tagged baseball pitch edited in past 21 dayses
  • Dark green: Older correctly tagged baseball pitches
  • Red: Incorrectly tagged baseball pitches (Baseball pitches should also be tagged with sport=baseball and also ‘leisure=pitch’, ‘leisure=stadium’ or ‘leisure=sports_centre’)


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.



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)

way 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:

  • green: n<1000
  • blue: n=1000
  • purple: 1000<v<1435
  • red: 1435 or standard
  • yellow: n>1435
  • off yellow: any other gauge value
  • grey: no gauge tag


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:

  • n < 1000
  • n = 1000
  • 1000<n<1435
  • n = 1435/standard
  • n > 1435
  • dual gauge (those values with semicolon)
  • (no gauge tag)

--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)

Might be interesting to split out Russian gauge (1520≤n≤1524) from the rest of broad gauge, since it's the second most common gauge in the world. Sabik (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2014 (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.


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:

  • bright green: HGV = yes or designated
  • orange: HGV = agricultural / delivery / destination / forestry / local / permissive
  • red: HGV=no
  • light blue: HGV=lane
  • dark green: Hazmat = yes or designated
  • light purple: Hazmat = destination
  • dark purple: Hazmat=no
  • off yellow: Any other HGV or Hazmat value

HGV=private is not displayed.


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: 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 86184 and relation 86185 (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

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.

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.

  • canals with a boat length of more than 38 m = 125 ft would be CEMT I,
  • according to British standards, canals with a boat length between 17 m = 56 ft (narrowboat) and 38 m = 125 ft would be CEMT=0
  • according to German standards, canals with a boat length between 20 m = 70 ft and 38 m = 125 ft would be CEMT=0
  • Motorized vessels with a length of less than 50 ft (< 15 m) are considered motorboat=yes.

--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 would prefer _DARK_ yellow (like 765kV lines) for commercial Eurovessels (CEMT=IV, CEMT=Va, CEMT=Vb, CEMT=V1a, CEMT=V1b, CEMT=V1c, CEMT=VII)
  • The difference between CEMT=0 (which includes motorboat=yes) and motorboat=yes is rather organisational: CEMT=0 indicates a public waterway under Federal government (in Germnay). Other waterways may be navigable as well, but subject to local restrictions. E.g. the Danube between Ulm and Regensburg. Motorboat owners may apply once a year for a special permit from the local navigation agency. How do we tag it? motorboat=private? --FK270673 21:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Yes, I would like an additional recreational boating orientated map! Kannix 2012-12-06
  • Good! See below for a new 'Recreational boating' map. Can't promise to get it fixed up immediately, but it is on our 'to-do' list. PeterIto 14:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
yellow cemt=0
dark_magenta cemt=I
magenta..... cemt=II
blue........ cemt=III
light_green. cemt=IV
green....... cemt=Va
cyan........ cemt=Vb
brown....... cemt=VIa
light_grey.. cemt=VIb
orange...... cemt=VIc
?........... cemt=VII
Sorry, but these colours are accidental and not even comparable to Belgian waterway mapping (
ItoMaps are usually based on a thermal scale (yellow > orange > red > cyan > blue > light blue > green) which allows to distinguish various tags with intuition. --FK270673 20:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
A discussion moved here from another section

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)
  • For now I am sure that it would make a lot of sense to tag based on any applicable local designation and usage may well be the appropriate one for the USA. Possibly we should be using 'navigation=usage_ship and 'navigation=usage_deep_draft' or possibly beet using 'navigation:usage=deep_draft'. If we chose the latter approach then we should possibly migrate 'cemt=xx' to 'navigation:cemt=xx'. You may have other suggestions for the 'navigation' prefix. PeterIto 18:25, 11 June 2012 (BST)
  • OK, I have looked at your proposal above again NE2, and have pretty much implemented it as you suggested. It probably will make sense to have a broader review of inland navigation tagging at some point, but lets leave that for now. PeterIto 01:27, 23 June 2012 (BST)

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. way 70515190). --NE2 08:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you NE2, I have now added tunnel. PeterIto 09:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
This new 'temporary' map seems to have now disappeared. PeterIto 02:02, 23 June 2012 (BST)
voltage=350000 is listed as showing up as peachy red in the index, but in reality is showing up as "unknown voltage" (murky yellow) on e.g. way 93713108, way 93713109 way 24988347. Also, is it possible to make the peachy red for 300-399kV darker - it tend to clash with the orange 400-599kV, especially in the Sydney, Australia area Lcmortensen 05:35, 3 July 2012 (BST)
Done. I have fixed 350kv and darkened the peachy red a small amount which seems to help. Thanks for pointing it out. PeterIto 08:17, 3 July 2012 (BST)
Now the red is clashing with purple 200-299kV slightly - may need to experiment a bit to get the right shade. But thanks for fixing that 350kv problem. Lcmortensen 21:29, 3 July 2012 (BST)
Agreed. Try now. PeterIto 04:59, 6 July 2012 (BST)

Could you please add some extra voltages as "recognised"? Both in The Netherlands and in Denmark 50 kV is widely used. I suggest to include this voltage in the group 60-90 kV (light blue). Many power lines having two different voltages are not recognised either. Some examples in NL and DK: 380/150kV, 400/132kV, 220/150kV, 132/50kV. Would it be possible to simply render such lines according to the first voltage in the voltage tag value (before the semicolon)? Finally, I'm still missing rendering of underground cables tagged with power=cable, either using a casing or as a broken line. --polderrunner 21:53, 6 July 2012 (BST)

Thanks. I have added the additional voltages and voltage combinations as requested (as well as a few more combinations that I have just spotted). We will add styling such as casing or dotted lines for underground cables in due course (our styling options are pretty limited at present) and will also add some more general methods of dealing with multiple key values. PeterIto 05:44, 7 July 2012 (BST)

The new style is very nice. I in particular like the zoom-level dependent rendering of voltage levels. And that cables are now rendered using a dashed style! But it seems that only cables tagged as power=underground_cable are rendered as dashed. Would it be possible to also render cables tagged as power=cable like that? According to Taginfo power=cable is used more often than power=underground_cable. --polderrunner 20:59, 25 October 2012 (BST)

Thanks, I am glad you like it. To be clear, I was intending dashed lines to indicate that it was underground. Are you referring to power=cable which is underground? or ones in the air? PeterIto 17:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Cables are normally located underground (there may be exceptions at low voltage using insulated cables hanging in poles but high voltage cables are always underground AFAIK). It is possible to indicate the location the location of the cable using location=underground/sea according to Tag:power=cable. "overground" should also be a possible value for those rare occasions of overground cables. power=underground_cable is not officially deprecated but I would like it to see it go away ("underground" is not very appropriate for offshore cables). BTW, I'm requesting another voltage to be added to the map: 130 kV is widely used in Sweden as the third voltage below 400 kV and 220 kV. Could you please add this voltage polderrunner 20:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense. I have added 'cable' to the list of types rendered using a dashed line except where it is also tagged location=overground. In addition, I have done some tidy-up work on the relevant wiki pages for cable and location. PeterIto 01:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, looks good, thanks! Did you also add 130 kV to the list? --polderrunner 14:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Missed that one, added 130kv now. Glad you like it. PeterIto 16:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Is it possible to show the power poles when there is no line drawn?

Can we please add 240kV, which is used widely in Alberta, Canada? Lcmortensen (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


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:

  • Dark green fill: Coniferous wood or forest with wood=coniferous
  • Dark red fill: Deciduous wood or forest with wood=deciduous
  • Purple fill: Mixed wood or forest with wood=mixed
  • Blue fill: Palm wood or forest with wood=palm
  • Muddy yellow fill: Any other value in wood=*
  • Dark grey fill: Wood or forest with no (landuse=forest tag
  • Thin red line: non-closed wood for forest. Note however that this is not an error where there is a relation creating the outline.

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)


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.


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)
Building=roof is included at present. Should we remove it? Personally I think we should probably remove it and also cabin, shed and hut and any other ones that almost certainly imply a one story building. PeterIto 19:15, 11 June 2012 (BST)

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)

Makes a lot of sense. Do we need to include nodes in this map for starters? As you may be aware we are missing nodes from our model at present. Is it reasonable to encourage the use of the 'traffic_calming' tag on ways to indicate that there are suitable physical measures to limit the speed of vehicles to the speed limit, and then optionally add details as nodes about exactly what the traffic calming measures are and where they are precisely? PeterIto 19:08, 11 June 2012 (BST)


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)


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)
OK, it was a matter of precedence and you were of course right. foot=no now overrides sidewalk=none etc and thereby creates blue for any highway with foot=no regardless of the presence of sidewalk. Thanks again NE2 for your feedback and in this case your patience which I have failed to respond to your comments! I guess there is a delinquent case of foot=no and sidewalk=yes which we don't highlight yet. PeterIto 18:40, 11 June 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)

OK, try this one. The range of itemised surfaces is still a bit limited but I think it is a useful starting point. If you sign-in you can then click on ways and get more information about them. Notice however that although the username and password are the same as for OSM Mapper it does currently require a separate physical sign-in. PeterIto 20:51, 11 June 2012 (BST)
Looks good, however Taginfo shows surface=bricks to be more common than brick. --NE2 22:58, 11 June 2012 (BST)
Still no support for surface=bricks. --NE2 12:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Missed that one. Try now. PeterIto 16:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Can anybody tell me what brick or bricks is? I can't find it on surface=*. Is that something like cobblestone? Perhaps replace brick(s) with cobblestone. Even in tagwatch brick(s) get only 0.03% usage (cobblestone get 1.59%) --Nobelium (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
"Brick" normally means clinker bricks which are bricks fired at particular high temperatures making them very tough, see [6]. They are often used as pavement on residential streets in The Netherlands. Cobblestones on the other hand are rounded stones, see [7]. They are not widely used as surface nowadays as they provide very poor driving comfort. What is tagged as "cobblestone" in OSM is in fact often either sett (flat quarried granite) or concrete paving stones. --polderrunner (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
What a great idea to look at wikipedia (template). Unfortunately as a wikipedia user I haven't thought about it... . Anyway, thank you. Now I have to look at the streets again and perhaps edit in the advance mode of potlatch ;-) --Nobelium (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Same for cobblestone, which is often used in old cities (at least in germany). --Zuse 08:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Any chance of putting asphalt under other colors? It's the most common paved surface, and covers up more rare concrete/brick/etc. --NE2 07:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Historic railways (26)

Currently railway=abandoned highway=track is shown as "Re-purposed as path/cycle-path etc". However, most ways so tagged are actually old grades where the tracks have been removed but the grade still exists and is still passable. If it were repurposed, at the very least it would have foot=yes/designated or bicycle=yes/designated tags. --NE2 15:15, 4 June 2012 (BST)

I am not sure that I understand your use of the term 'grade'. Are you saying that some old lines have become tracks merely by still existing and may not have any official designation? Possibly that is more common in the USA than in the UK where land is more precious and there will be few usable but unofficial old railways. PeterIto
Yes. The tracks are removed and the land either remains with the railroad or reverts to adjacent owners (which may be public, e.g. a forest). Intersecting waterways may be impassable. Here's an example: This to me isn't repurposed, unless an organization is actively maintaining it. --NE2 19:04, 11 June 2012 (BST)
There are also cases where the grade has become a public unpaved road, rather than an upnaved trail. --NE2 19:14, 11 June 2012 (BST)
OK, but surely if it is not passable then it shouldn't be tagged using highway=track/path/footway etc. If a bridge over a waterway is missing then sure there shouldn't be a highway=track tag for the section in question? I have no problem with showing if information about the legal access rights, but that seems to be over and above the basic 'is it a track/path/cycleway' question which is based only on observation of what is on the ground and how it is used. PeterIto 20:57, 11 June 2012 (BST)
My point is that a track is generally not the same class of linear feature as a path/footway/etc., since it's intended to be traversed by motor vehicles (and is probably not maintained to the same smoothness as your typical path). I suggest either putting it in "re-purposed as road" or making a new category for tracks. --NE2 22:56, 11 June 2012 (BST)
OK. I think I have made some suitable changes. I have distinguished the following distinct groups of highway value: 'public road (from motorway=unclassified)', 'service', 'track' and then also 'path/cycleway/footway/bridleway' in addition to any other motorised road values. I have also added clickthroughs if you are signed in. PeterIto 05:47, 12 June 2012 (BST)
Thanks - looks good. I like how proposed cycleway is now other highway type rather than the same as cycleway. However way 42467346 should be shown as a busway. --NE2 08:24, 12 June 2012 (BST)
Good idea. I have now added 'highway=xxx;access=no;bus=yes' as an alternative to highway=bus_guideway. Incidentally... I have adjusted the tagging for the route of the wikipedia:Orange Line (Los Angeles Metro) in OSM so that it will soon show up as a former railway that is now a busway in ITO Map. PeterIto 11:14, 12 June 2012 (BST)
Ah - a bus guideway is more of a railway for buses than a road. You might want to add access=no bus=designated and access=no psv=yes/designated to the logic. --NE2 17:05, 12 June 2012 (BST)
Done. I think I have got it right although the logic is getting pretty involved now. PeterIto 18:01, 12 June 2012 (BST)

Railway speeds

I have created a new railway speed limit map showing use of maxspeed=* and design_line_speed=* for railway lines (design_line_speed is used for the HS2 route in the UK). The map still needs some work and the colour could probably be improved in due course. The map is clickable if you are logged-in to ITO Map. PeterIto 09:28, 22 June 2012 (BST)


I have just updated the speed banks and added a key. PeterIto 10:10, 22 June 2012 (BST)

Presumably this is the maximum speed listed in employee timetables? --NE2 03:05, 23 June 2012 (BST)
I am not an expert and would follow the recommendations of people who know more on the subject. I do however sometimes spot speed limit signs along the side of the track particularly on the approach the level crossings. Network Rail so also produce diagrammatic maps with speeds indicated in bands on page 3 of this docn for example (bands are 0-35mph 40-75mph, 80-105mph and 110-125mph). Then one can also derive operational speeds from the published timetables. One problem, particularly for quad-track lines, will be where some through-tracks have higher operational speeds than on lines used by stopping service. The critical message from this thread for me seems to be that it is important to also populate the source:maxspeed=* tag with some agreed text for the source of the speed data. What I would expect is that we may start with the quicker and less accurate methods, (possibly often based on timetables for single and dual track lines) and then fill in later with much more detailed information on a meter by meter basis as the real experts get stuck in! PeterIto 10:09, 23 June 2012 (BST)
There are also, at least in the U.S., different maxspeeds for passenger and freight. --NE2 07:11, 24 June 2012 (BST)
Possibly we use the maxspeed tag itself for the highest speed allowed and then use maxspeed:freight or whatever for specifics by category. Should this conversation be moved to talk:Railways? PeterIto 21:40, 24 June 2012 (BST)
In Switzerland maxspeed depends on the train characteristics (weight, braking system, supervision system [ETCS], tilting coaches, etc.) For mapping I use the highest value I can find. Nzara 09:14, 13 September 2012 (BST)

Speed ranges -- I like to give some substantiation

  • up to 40 km/h: train operation is on-sight: often used for tram, industrial, spur, yard, shunting
  • 45 to 80 km/h: signaling and train supervision systems become necessary. Typical speed range for light_rail, narrow_gauge, freight lines, branch lines
  • 85 to 120 km/h: old style main lines
  • 125 to 160 km/h: what they called high speed formerly (up to 1960)
  • 165 to 250 km/h: high speed 1st generation. Advanced signaling and train supervision systems are necessary (ETCS L2, LZB, TVM,...)
  • above 250 km/h: high speed 2nd generation.

Nzara 09:14, 13 September 2012 (BST)

Thanks. Apologies for the delay. I believe I have now updated the map to reflect your suggestions. PeterIto 18:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This map should not show a gray line (indicating unkown maxspeed) for railways with disused=yes, abandoned=yes, planed=yes, construction=yes. For me even railway=funicular and maxspeed is discussable. Nzara 10:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Try now. I think I have made all your suggested changes, including removing funicular. Let me know if there are still problems because I can't readily find places where the above tags are used. PeterIto 03:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The map is not displaying speeds written in miles per hour correctly, e.g. 90 mph is shown as yellow when it should be orange (=145 km/h), while 125 mph is shown as the unrecognised "murky yellow".Lcmortensen (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Cycling England DfT data

A number of new maps to compare cycling data for the UK released as Open Data by the DfT.


Some new maps to highlight some of the data in the Cycling England DfT data set, that may already be mapped, as suggested on talk-gb: Smsm1 16:17, 18 July 2012 (BST)

Random colour maps

A bunch of 'random colour' maps to identify the values to various parameters:

  • Highway refs. Useful for seeing where the reference changes, and where the reference doesn't exist.
  • Railway names. Good for showing where the railway names unexpectedly change.
  • Waterway names. Useful for spotting unnamed waterways or unexpected changes in their names.
  • Maxweight, which also shows the location of all bridges.

I have made available some random colour maps, which highlight where there is a change in the value of a particular property.

  • Highway refs. Useful for seeing where the reference changes, and where the reference doesn't exist. [8]
  • Railway names. Good for showing where the railway names unexpectedly change. [9]
  • Waterway names. Useful for spotting unnamed waterways or unexpected changes in their names. [10]

Smsm1 17:28, 13 September 2012 (BST)

This really helps to spot unexpected changes. However, when mapping railways on the track level, the name of the line belongs not to an individual track but to some relation of tracks (Therefore it is and it should be empty very often). On the other side individual tracks often have ref=* and operator=*. A random colored map on these will be helpful also. Nzara 07:45, 23 September 2012 (BST)
Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you. Thanks for your idea. I have created the Railway refs random map: [11] and a railway operators map: [12] Smsm1 11:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It'd be useful to have a similar map based upon maxweight values to spot gaps in the maxweight tagging. --Gregoryw 17:52, 23 September 2012 (BST)
Sorry for the delay, here's a map that I've created for maxweight tagging]. Smsm1 17:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Nice map! PeterIto 10:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Natural England datasets

I have uploaded the Natural England datasets as hosted by the Environment Agency and made them available in this map: [13] Smsm1 21:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Recreational boating

Following on from a discussion above in the navigable waterways section, we will now look to create a map focused on leisure boating, canoeing etc. We will post an update here in due course. PeterIto 14:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Layers for mobile device apps

OpenMaps (iDevice) and OsmAnd (android) both have some ability to bring in data from outside. it'd be really nice if ITO map layers could be added to the ones available. it'd probably require a bit of collaboration to get it going, but it'd be really helpful for on-road mapping activities.Nfgusedautoparts 20:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain a bit more how this would work? Are you suggesting that the data would be provided in a vector format? PeterIto 17:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure yet. i'm aware that they can do these imports, but don't know the details yet. i'm still researching. i'm kind of looking for that perfect world where you get to your destination (say, site of a fire) and don't have to change apps to get a display of the nearby hydrants. Nfgusedautoparts 17:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Emergency Response

A map which shows items from the emergency equipment category Key:emergency, as well as fire, police, and ambulance stations. Probably the most important are emergency=fire_hydrant, amenity=fire_station, amenity=police. Nfgusedautoparts 20:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

the following tags might be nice to display in the dialog that pops up when you click on something: fire_hydrant:type=*, colour=*, description=*. Nfgusedautoparts 14:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


Is it possible to create something showing where amenity=place_of_worship is used where religion & denomination tags are missing (neither used), incomplete (one or otherused, but not both) and complete (both used). --DaCor 18:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

We've made a new map for you which shows where the religion and denomination are not fully tagged [14] Rachel.jones1917 (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Great map! Thanks!--Geogast (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
One more idea for that map: In a lot of cases, it is possible to deduce the religion (and sometimes the denomination) of a place of worship by the name. So it would be very helpful to show those places of worship without religion but with name tag in a different colour than red.--Geogast (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Geogast. We're displaying the place of worship's name at and above zoom level 14, and you can also click on it to get the name, religion and denomination. Hope that helps! --Wizrares (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Just realised I never said thanks, so, thank you :) This map is most useful --DaCor (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Map of toll highways

What about map of toll roads (toll=yes, toll:hgv=yes etc.)? It would be very interesting. --M9 (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We already have the highway priority map which highlights amongst other things toll roads through the tags toll=* and fee=*, both of which ignore the cases where there is no toll. I've added toll:hgv=* which will show up shortly on Map 246. Smsm1 (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, thanks, I didn't notice that. It is very good. However, that was not a good idea to put toll:hgv=* into the same category as toll=* and mark them with the same color, since HGV is a minority of road users and it would be misleading for the majority. If they would be colored differently it would be great. --M9 (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

railway edits

I like the map #161 that shows recent edits on railway elements a lot. Is it possible to have deletions somehow especially highlighted? In countries with few mappers it is a matter of luck to notice that someone deleted something by mistake (or vandalism). And it would be great to show these deletions of railways for longer than 30 days.--Geogast (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


Can you add a new map or enhance number 7 to show parking lane attributes? Maybe similar to (which is on a small server and ofter out of date) --Trublu (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

relations: route=railway

AFAIK there is no map rendering route=railway relations (this is the route of a railway, the infrastructure (eg the Channel Tunnel); not to be confused with the route of a train service). There are ~4600 of these relations containing a lot of information that most of the times is not tagged in the ways. It would be great to have an ITO map showing the name (and ref?) of the route=railway relation along the correspondent ways.--Geogast (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

underworld's map

I would love a map rendering anything with "layer=-x" tags. different colours for different layer-tags can show in which order different subway lines, tunneled streets, railway lines or streams are constructed under ground.--Geogast (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Pipelines without a type=* tag

There are a lot of pipelines that have been traced in and tagged man_made=pipeline, but have not been assigned a type=*, so they are not showing up on the ITO Pipelines map.

Please could you make it so that all the pipelines without a type=* also show up on the ITO Pipelines map.

Quite a lot of them are well known pipelines, or missing sections of pipelines with a known content. It will help with cleaning up the data to have them all visible. Thanks. --Martin2014 (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

grey would be a good color for pipelines of unknown type, but that is already in use for sewage. maybe use brown for sewage?
btw, type=* for pipelines has been changed to substance=* --Rfuegen (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Is it possible to show the tag pipeline:marker when the pipeline itself is not drawn?

Electric power networks

There was once a ITO map for electric power transmission and distribution infrastructure, but is no longer viewable. I like to have the "Electric power distribution" map be returned back, but with additions and modifications to power line colors:

  • Red : 400 - 699 kV (400 kV in most of mainland Europe, United Kingdom, Ireland, and other Commonwealth countries and some former British colonies; 500 kV in the United States, Canada, Japan, Southeast Asia, and Australia)
  • Yellow : 700 kV+ (e.g. 735 kV in Quebec, Canada, 750 kV in Russia and former USSR, 765 kV in the United States, 1150 kV in Russia and Kazakhstan)

--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Railway frequency

A map rendering the frequency of electrified railways would be useful, in the same way as the map Railway Electrification shows the voltage of the railways. Both voltage and frequency are essential when describing the electrification.

(User:Tomasmarklund) 08:30, 23 november 2018 (UTC)