add-poi-to-areas: What, if there is already a poi?
Hi! I debugged the zoo in Munich: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.09736&lon=11.55587&zoom=16&layers=B000F... in its way there are two entrances tagged with tourism=zoo. These seem to prevent --add-poi-to-areas from creating a poi called "Tierpark Hellabrunn". But when I search in my Garmin for the nearest zoo, I will now just find "Isareingang" and "Flamingoeingang" but not "Tierpark Hellabrunn". This is not so good for a tourist that knows just the name of the zoo. I looked further for other POIs that where not created because there was already one and found e.g. this one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.062073&lon=11.682696&zoom=18&layers=B00... Here "Hallenbad Riemerling" is tagged twice: one time in the building, second time a separate POI. Would something be against it, to create just no new POI if there is already a POI with this type AND with this name? Dani
Daniela Duerbeck (daniela.duerbeck@gmx.de) wrote:
Hi!
I debugged the zoo in Munich: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.09736&lon=11.55587&zoom=16&layers=B000F... in its way there are two entrances tagged with tourism=zoo. These seem to prevent --add-poi-to-areas from creating a poi called "Tierpark Hellabrunn". But when I search in my Garmin for the nearest zoo, I will now just find "Isareingang" and "Flamingoeingang" but not "Tierpark Hellabrunn". This is not so good for a tourist that knows just the name of the zoo.
I looked further for other POIs that where not created because there was already one and found e.g. this one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.062073&lon=11.682696&zoom=18&layers=B00... Here "Hallenbad Riemerling" is tagged twice: one time in the building, second time a separate POI.
Would something be against it, to create just no new POI if there is already a POI with this type AND with this name?
Dani
In my view the --add-pois-to-areas option would benefit from some improvements. As it becomes ever more common to create buildings in OSM, rather than simple POIs, the number of useful POIs (shops, schools, supermarkets, fuel stations etc) created without the --add-pois-to-areas option enabled will shrink proportionately. The problem with the --add-pois-to-areas option at the moment, as many have pointed out, is that there is no easy way to set exactly which areas get POIs, so you end up with lots of pointless POIs for forests, graveyards, parks etc. A new {create_POI} action rule for the polygon style file would be very handy. Even better would be {create_POI:0x6400} etc. Unfortunately I'm java illiterate so all I can do is waffle... -- Charlie
charlie@cferrero.net wrote:
areas get POIs, so you end up with lots of pointless POIs for forests, graveyards, parks etc. A new {create_POI} action rule for the polygon style file would be very handy. Even better would be {create_POI:0x6400} etc.
I do not think that they are pointless. If a forest has a name, why shouldn't it get a POI? But I do not understand, is why e.g. I do not get a POI for: <tag k='area' v='yes'/> <tag k='name' v='Wisent'/> <tag k='tourism' v='attraction'/> but one for: <tag k='building' v='yes'/> <tag k='name' v='Villa Dracula'/> <tag k='tourism' v='attraction'/> I thought that area=yes should make --add-poi-to-areas to attach a camera (in this case) to "Wisent". (I am still in my zoo ... :-))) (In Villa Dracula, you can watch bats) Dani
Daniela Duerbeck (daniela.duerbeck@gmx.de) wrote:
charlie@cferrero.net wrote:
I do not think that they are pointless. If a forest has a name, why shouldn't it get a POI?
Because it already gets a polygon with a name - I can't believe that many people think "Hmmm, I wonder where the nearest forest/pond is - I'll do a POI search?". On the other hand, they'll often think "I wonder where the nearest supermarket is" and if the supermarket is an area and the map wasn't compiled with --add-pois-to-areas, they won't find the supermarket. This is happening increasingly as POIs are converted to areas in OSM. In any case, if you could control which polygons also got POIs, then people who like searching for the nearest graveyard or field can do that. And those that don't, don't have to have their maps littered with POI icons that they don't want in order to get the POIs they do want.
But I do not understand, is why e.g. I do not get a POI for: <tag k='area' v='yes'/> <tag k='name' v='Wisent'/> <tag k='tourism' v='attraction'/>
but one for: <tag k='building' v='yes'/> <tag k='name' v='Villa Dracula'/> <tag k='tourism' v='attraction'/>
It may be because you don't have an area=yes rule in your polygons style file, but you do have a building=yes rule.
I thought that area=yes should make --add-poi-to-areas to attach a camera (in this case) to "Wisent". (I am still in my zoo ... :-))) (In Villa Dracula, you can watch bats)
Dani
-- Charlie
On 09.04.2010 13:00, charlie@cferrero.net wrote:
Daniela Duerbeck (daniela.duerbeck@gmx.de) wrote:
charlie@cferrero.net wrote:
I do not think that they are pointless. If a forest has a name, why shouldn't it get a POI?
Because it already gets a polygon with a name - I can't believe that many people think "Hmmm, I wonder where the nearest forest/pond is - I'll do a POI search?". On the other hand, they'll often think "I wonder where the nearest supermarket is" and if the supermarket is an area and the map wasn't compiled with --add-pois-to-areas, they won't find the supermarket. This is happening increasingly as POIs are converted to areas in OSM.
In any case, if you could control which polygons also got POIs, then people who like searching for the nearest graveyard or field can do that. And those that don't, don't have to have their maps littered with POI icons that they don't want in order to get the POIs they do want.
But I do not understand, is why e.g. I do not get a POI for: <tag k='area' v='yes'/> <tag k='name' v='Wisent'/> <tag k='tourism' v='attraction'/>
but one for: <tag k='building' v='yes'/> <tag k='name' v='Villa Dracula'/> <tag k='tourism' v='attraction'/>
It may be because you don't have an area=yes rule in your polygons style file, but you do have a building=yes rule.
I thought that area=yes should make --add-poi-to-areas to attach a camera (in this case) to "Wisent". (I am still in my zoo ... :-))) (In Villa Dracula, you can watch bats)
Dani
I agree that currently it is a mess when, or when not you get POI for areas. IMHO the cleanest would be to have it's own config file in the style. Alternatives would be the possibility to specify either inside the polygons or inside the POI file whether a matching POI for Polygon should get a POI or not. I think a config file to do nothing else but specify which POI to place for given areas would be by far the best. Additionally I think we would need a tag for areas inside OSM to clarify whether a searchability for area should or should not be created. Also I would like to see area POI to be at different resolution from normal POI for the same tag. This can only be done by having a new "polygons_poi" file in the style-file (if you find a more suitable name for this, don't feel bound by "polygons_poi"). Another reason for seperate config is, that maybe for some areas you want to have a POI but nor area polygon. The current --add-pois-to-areas switch, is simply not configurable and will never be intelligent enough....
The matter of not creating several POI for the same thing, is a completly different topic, but I don't see any way how one can solve this well except by adding additional tags to OSM itself.
charlie@cferrero.net wrote:
It may be because you don't have an area=yes rule in your polygons style file, but you do have a building=yes rule.
Now I have building=* [0x13 resolution 22] area=* [0x2a resolution 22] but no attraction POI for Wisent. :-((( Dani
charlie@cferrero.net wrote:
Unfortunately I'm java illiterate so all I can do is waffle...
I think that this is a good point to start learning Java. Nowadays most employers want Java, so it is good to know it. Since I also have no idea, I started to compile my own mkgmap and succeeded.(I downloaded jdk for Windows and ant, I had just to define some environment variables) Then I added some logging and that worked, too. But now I am at a point to need to understand the inheritance of classes and this is a bit tricky.I did C over many years, for embedded systems, so I am also new to object oriented programming. But I will try hard. Dani
participants (3)
-
charlie＠cferrero.net -
Daniela Duerbeck -
Felix Hartmann