Re: [OSM-talk] area topology

[Lester Caine]

Stephen Hope wrote:
> Says who?  The boundary of the forest IS the road.  :)
> 
> This is one of religious discussions - both sides KNOW they are right,
> and no amount of discussion is going to change things.  Unless we have
> a central decision making force of some sort lay down the law, (in OSM
> - hah!) you'll continue to see things mapped both ways.

>>  the "boundary of the forrest run in parallel to the road" is actually
>>  the correct way to do it.

Yep - BOTH statements are right - but it depends on your context. UNTIL roads 
actually have width, then the "boundary of the forest runs in parallel to the 
road" is correct since the road has width beyond it's way, and since around 
here woodland areas have differing widths of grass verge between the dry stone 
wall or other boundary and the road surface, then the woodland boundary needs 
to be a different way to the 'nominal' centre of the road provided by the 
route way. So even the nodes are not common?

With the increasing use of the data FOR micro-mapping - and I include the 
cycleway maps in that - some means of identifying the real geometry of the 
road surface is becoming more essential. Forest is going to be in a different 
position adjacent to a 6 line motorway as against a two lane one, and when 
laying out pathways inside the forest, a 20 foot wide bridal way/fire break is 
different to an 18 inch wide footpath. And for orienteering maps THAT detail 
can be critical - and OSM may be the only way of producing up to date maps for 
those types of sport?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Converting Polish/.MP to OSM?

[Karl Newman]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:36 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> > Hey, I haven't had a chance to look at this yet, but I just opened up
> the
> > input file in a text editor and saw:
> > Copyright=THIS MAP CANNOT BE SOLD
> > I think this is incompatible with our license (commercial use is okay).
> Is
> > the author/maintainer that gave you permission aware of this?
>
> I did make it clear that the OSM stuff is CC-SA which allows commerical
> reproduction, he was happy enough to give permission.
>
> Full email exchange is here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/User:Catmp
>
> Simon
>
>
Cool, glad you checked that. I assume the maintainer you're working with
goes by the user name Ibycus on the Groundspeak forums (I try to do my part
to promote OSM there). Or maybe it's Red90? Anyway, I hope I can get my
OSM-to-Routable Garmin map converter going soon so we can get these guys to
put their efforts into OSM instead! (Geocachers are crazy about free maps.)
I'll try to take a look at your file to see if anything else can be added to
round it out.

Karl
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] area topology

[Stephen Hope]

Says who?  The boundary of the forest IS the road.  :)

This is one of religious discussions - both sides KNOW they are right,
and no amount of discussion is going to change things.  Unless we have
a central decision making force of some sort lay down the law, (in OSM
- hah!) you'll continue to see things mapped both ways.

Stephen

2008/5/14 Raphaël Jacquot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>  the "boundary of the forrest run in parallel to the road" is actually
>  the correct way to do it.
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Converting Polish/.MP to OSM?

[simon]

> Hey, I haven't had a chance to look at this yet, but I just opened up the
> input file in a text editor and saw:
> Copyright=THIS MAP CANNOT BE SOLD
> I think this is incompatible with our license (commercial use is okay). Is
> the author/maintainer that gave you permission aware of this?

I did make it clear that the OSM stuff is CC-SA which allows commerical
reproduction, he was happy enough to give permission.

Full email exchange is here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/User:Catmp

Simon


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Aware, the state of the current pheromones

[François Schnell]

Thanks Tim for your feedback, I appreciate.

Concerning "World Wind" it looks like you can visualize KML with placemarks
since version 1.3.4. I just had a quick try, it seems to work fine for
placemarks (but it doesn't seem to show the extrusion for lines in my "v2"
KMLs, just the top):
http://flickr.com/photos/frenchy/2490757820/

I've also heard Microsft's "Virtual Earth"  supports KMLs now (but haven't
tried it).
It looks like KMLs are now spreading quickly since its 'Open Standard'
adoption:

"""
The KML 2.2 specification has been submitted to the Open Geospatial
Consortium to assure its status as an open standard for all geobrowsers. As
of November 2007, the OGC has a new KML 2.2 Standards Working Group.
Comments were sought on the proposed standard until January 4, 2008,[1] and
it became an industry standard on April 14, 2008.[2]
"""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyhole_Markup_Language

That said I could try other formats like GeoRss and GML.

""" as an overlay over existing osm maps? """

Yes that certainly would be nice :)
I'll look at it when I'll have some time for it (OpenLayers, SlippyMap,...)

Thanks

francois

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:13 AM, tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> just thought this was a lovely, brilliant visualisation of osm usage.
> Well done, good work!
>
> Would love to see some of this in non-kml formats, somehow (google
> earth doesn't work well for me). Or on the web.
> (GeoRSS? GML? Worldwind? etc)
>
> as an overlay over existing osm maps?
>
> tim
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] area topology

[Raphaël Jacquot]

Christoph Eckert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> The issue is especially contended when it comes to linear features  
>> straddling areas, like a road that forms the forest boundary for a  
>> bit. I would re-use the same nodes here, but there are people who say  
>> that this would indicate the forest stretching up to the road  
>> centreline which of course isn't true, and they would rather have the  
>> road and the forest boundary run in parallel and use their own nodes.
>
> the main issue might be that it's very difficult to maintain/edit such roads.
> 
> Best regards,
>

the "boundary of the forrest run in parallel to the road" is actually 
the correct way to do it.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Converting Polish/.MP to OSM?

[Karl Newman]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Simon Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Fri, 9 May 2008 00:24:11 -0600
> Simon Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well I've had a stab at this, probably the worlds worst python script
> but it does work
>
> Cleaned up version added to SVN, browsable here:
>
> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/applications/utils/import/mp2osm/mp2osm_catmp.py
>
> Supports POI, POLYLINE and POLYGON. Can parse the CATMP stuff without
> error, but have not uploaded resultant data to OSM yet. Doesn't do anything
> with the 'Nod[1..]' bits as I couldn't see how to re-open an element in
> ElementTree to modify it/add the appropriate tag.
>
> Cheers,
> Mungewell.
>

Hey, I haven't had a chance to look at this yet, but I just opened up the
input file in a text editor and saw:
Copyright=THIS MAP CANNOT BE SOLD
I think this is incompatible with our license (commercial use is okay). Is
the author/maintainer that gave you permission aware of this?

The Nod[1...] bits define the routing nodes--i.e., which points in the Data0
linestring connect to other ways. The first and last points of a way always
have these, and more if there are any intersecting points in the middle. For
this map, though, it's probably safe to say if  the points are at the same
spot, they're routing nodes (i.e., it should be represented by only one node
in OSM, shared between the intersecting ways).

Karl
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] area topology

[Christoph Eckert]

Hi,

> The issue is especially contended when it comes to linear features  
> straddling areas, like a road that forms the forest boundary for a  
> bit. I would re-use the same nodes here, but there are people who say  
> that this would indicate the forest stretching up to the road  
> centreline which of course isn't true, and they would rather have the  
> road and the forest boundary run in parallel and use their own nodes.

the main issue might be that it's very difficult to maintain/edit such roads.

Best regards,

ce


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide "completeness" tools

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

David Earl wrote:
>Sent: 13 May 2008 6:48 PM
>To: Sebastian Spaeth
>Cc: OSM
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide
>"completeness" tools
>
>On 13/05/2008 15:35, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
>> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>> Once we have a few applications in place that get viewed by *many*
>>> people, we could just have a button somewhere along the margin of the
>>> page that says: "I know the area and what I see here looks correct".
>>
>> Given that this will be the default very soon ( :-) ), I'd rather have
>> the notes API where people can click and say: "there are streets missing
>> here, I know that". No warm fuzzy feeling, but more helpful in
>> identifying weak spots.
>
>My main motivation in wanting this kind of facility is not so much to
>help _us_ identify what areas need attention, rather to help our
>_consumers_ know whether they can have any confidence in what they are
>looking at. That's why I think there needs to be a very straightforward,
>not overly onerous, but useful, metric, even if this has more levels
>accessible to those in the know. It also means that wiki solutions just
>don't cut it (I've been updating completeness pages for the areas I;ve
>been doing since I started, but it doesn't help someone looking at the
>map).
>
>Often anyone of reasonable intelligence can tell somewhere is not
>complete because only the main streets are there, but I have come across
>quite a number of places where a reasonable number of apparently random
>residential streets have been done, and whose density would suggest to
>someone who doesn't know the area that it is os plausible, when in fact
>it may only be 30% complete (for roads and names) or less.

I get this same view. All too often I look at a place and think wow, that
looks complete, but when I drum down into the data a bit it its clear that
there are general gaps and the density of streets is not what you would
expect. That's why I was testing out a completeness metrics method. But I
agree with you, what we are really after hear is a simple way to convey a
level of map usefulness and relevance to the user.

Cheers

Andy

>
>David
>
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1430 - Release Date:
>13/05/2008 7:31 AM


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] GPSBabel 1.3.5

[Joerg Ostertag (OSM Munich/Germany)]

Great !!

On Dienstag 13 Mai 2008, Tom Hughes wrote:
> GPSBabel 1.3.5 was released a few days ago, and for those of you using
> the popular NaviGPS units I am pleased to be able to say that the new
> release of GPSBabel includes native support for the NaviGPS.
>
> This includes both direct access to stored tracks, routes and
> waypoints via the USB cable as well as the ability to decode waypoints
> and tracks copied to the SD card if you are using a recent release of
> the NaviGPS firmware that supports that.
>
> The code has been tested with my GT-11 unit but should work with the
> BGT-11 as well, and will hopefully work with the new GT-31 and BGT-31
> units when they arrive - please let me know if you manage to test with
> one of those.
>
> The name for the new driver is "navilink", so to recover waypoints
> over the USB cable on linux you would do something like:
>
>   gpsbabel -w -f navilink -i /dev/ttyUSB0 -F gpx -o waypoints.gpx
>
> Any problems, give me a shout...
>
> Tom



-- 
Jörg (Germany, Tettnang)

http://www.ostertag.name/
irc://irc.oftc.net/#osm
Tel.: +49 89 420950304
Skype: JoergOstertag

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide "completeness" tools

[David Earl]

On 13/05/2008 15:35, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Once we have a few applications in place that get viewed by *many*
>> people, we could just have a button somewhere along the margin of the
>> page that says: "I know the area and what I see here looks correct".
> 
> Given that this will be the default very soon ( :-) ), I'd rather have
> the notes API where people can click and say: "there are streets missing
> here, I know that". No warm fuzzy feeling, but more helpful in
> identifying weak spots.

My main motivation in wanting this kind of facility is not so much to 
help _us_ identify what areas need attention, rather to help our 
_consumers_ know whether they can have any confidence in what they are 
looking at. That's why I think there needs to be a very straightforward, 
not overly onerous, but useful, metric, even if this has more levels 
accessible to those in the know. It also means that wiki solutions just 
don't cut it (I've been updating completeness pages for the areas I;ve 
been doing since I started, but it doesn't help someone looking at the map).

Often anyone of reasonable intelligence can tell somewhere is not 
complete because only the main streets are there, but I have come across 
quite a number of places where a reasonable number of apparently random 
residential streets have been done, and whose density would suggest to 
someone who doesn't know the area that it is os plausible, when in fact 
it may only be 30% complete (for roads and names) or less.

David


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attempt to make a map of a building floorplan

[Patrick Weber]

You will probably have more luck with the following application, which 
does the tile cutting you need:


http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/software/googlemapimagecutter.asp

Mapnik is not meant as a tile cutter, but renders data from a XML file, 
so I think it wouldnt be off much use for you.


Cheers
Patrick

Alexander Schwartz wrote:


Hello!

I’m trying to accomplish something and I was hoping someone could 
assist me on this. Basically I have created an isometric 3d render of 
the floor plan of my company’s building. I would like to make a map 
with multiple layers on which users can identify key points, like the 
big conference rooms and bathrooms, etc.


I have this openlayers map set up here - 
http://gtproductions.net/solidworks/TileCache-2.0/


I would like to make it so that I can split the 4096 x 4096 png 
(rendered out from a 3d package) into small blocks so that the map 
doesn’t have to load all the images at once.


I was reading here: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Deploying_your_own_Slippy_Map 
that you can use mapnik to do this, but I’m having trouble doing it. I 
am using Windows XP and have tried going through the *“Creating tiles 
using Mapnik and generate_tiles.py” *section but am getting stuck.


I installed postgreSQL and PostGIS in windows using their installers 
and have set up databases. I’m not sure if they’re working because I 
can’t get a test started. One line says “When everything works, use 
generate_tiles.py to create 1000s of tiles in a special hierarchy of 
folders” but it is very vague and I keep getting errors in my 
generate_tiles.py , for example this one:


C:\mapnik-0_5_1\demo\python>c:\Python25\python.exe generate_tiles.py

Traceback (most recent call last):

File "generate_tiles.py", line 108, in 

home = os.environ['C:/map']

File "C:\Python25\lib\os.py", line 435, in __getitem__

return self.data[key.upper()]

KeyError: 'C:/MAP'

I have tried using C:\map and C:/map and there are basically no 
tutorials on how to get this thing going in Windows.


I won’t lie, I’m an artist and not a programmer at all, so this is all 
pretty daunting to me. I would like to just get this thing up and 
running, but would like some advice on how to go about it. I have 
looked into tilecache, openlayers, mapnik, and have gotten mapnik to 
build and run on this windows machine here, but am stuck on how to 
make it split my image up.


If you can offer any assistance or hand-holding, I would greatly 
appreciate it.


-Alex



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
  
begin:vcard
fn:Patrick Weber
n:Weber;Patrick
org:University College London
adr:;;Gower Street;London;;WC1E 6BT;United Kingdom
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Engineering Doctorate Student
tel;work:02077185430
tel;cell:07854840450
url:http://www.ucl.ac.uk/cemi
version:2.1
end:vcard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] area topology

[Stephen Gower]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:31:32PM +0100, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote:
> 
> I subscribe to the view that areas should correspond to the real area on
> the ground and mostly be kept clear of roadways. Placing an Area's Nodes
> near the adjacent Way's nodes helps make the map easier to maintain. I
> will often abut adjacent areas that are separated only by something thin
> and make their nodes share, however.

  Putting the other side of the argument, as Andrew I'm sure knew I
  would:
  
  A road is represented by a single way.  Although the way has zero
  width in the database, it represents the whole width of the
  carriageway (pavement) and well as the pavement (sidewalk).  If a
  minor road meets a more important way at a T-junction, we do not
  put the last node where the minor road ends, instead we extend it
  to the centre of the more important one.  In the same way, if an
  area comes right up to the edge of a road (including its pavement,
  etc), we should extend the area to use the same defining nodes.
  
  If we do not do this, we have an undefined space between the area
  and the road.  This undefined space is of variable width and,
  without knowing how every renderer is going to treat the highway,
  there is no way of knowing if it will appear or not, unless it is
  arterially small (aka 0!).
  
  There is some merit to the argument that seperation would help with
  routing. We could have a convention that if an area is accessible
  from any point on the highway they should share segments, but if
  that's not the case (there's a fence between, for example) they
  should be seperated. While I can see how this would work, it feels
  like an ugly hack.  It's not my itch, but there's got to be a
  better way of expressing the boundary between highway and area - I
  guess with a relation.

> Rectilinear buildings in particular should be kept rectilinear: there's
> no excuse for trapezoidal buildings with the new extrusion stuff now in
> JOSM :)

  I agree with that as a potential stumbling block, and was concerned
  about this until I actually started mapping buildings.  In
  practice, the resolution of accuracy in OSM is such that you can
  make a fair representation of the shape of the building and still
  share nodes with the highway it abuts.
 
> However, rivers are Interesting: quite often an Area whose edge is
> defined by a river may change over time as the river meanders... In that
> case, it probably does make sense to abut a Way to an Area.

  It should be noted that roads also change position sometimes,
  affecting the areas that are defined by them!.
  
  s

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Mapping China

[Jonas Svensson]

"After text, pictures, and videos, China starts regulating Internet map
publishing (here is the google translation.) The government believes that
Internet maps can represent the state's sovereignty and its political and
diplomatic positions in the international community . and consequently,
inaccurate maps could harm national interests and dignity, produce bad
political influences, reveal national secrets and harm national security,
in addition to harming consumer interests."

See
,
is this news or just the old stuff?

/Jonas S



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Attempt to make a map of a building floorplan

[Alexander Schwartz]

Hello!

 

I'm trying to accomplish something and I was hoping someone could assist
me on this.  Basically I have created an isometric 3d render of the
floor plan of my company's building. I would like to make a map with
multiple layers on which users can identify key points, like the big
conference rooms and bathrooms, etc.

 

I have this openlayers map set up here -
http://gtproductions.net/solidworks/TileCache-2.0/

 

I would like to make it so that I can split the 4096 x 4096 png
(rendered out from a 3d package) into small blocks so that the map
doesn't have to load all the images at once.  

 

I was reading here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Deploying_your_own_Slippy_Map
that you can use mapnik to do this, but I'm having trouble doing it. I
am using Windows XP and have tried going through the "Creating tiles
using Mapnik and generate_tiles.py" section but am getting stuck.

 

I installed postgreSQL and PostGIS in windows using their installers and
have set up databases. I'm not sure if they're working because I can't
get a test started. One line says "When everything works, use
generate_tiles.py to create 1000s of tiles in a special hierarchy of
folders" but it is very vague and I keep getting errors in my
generate_tiles.py , for example this one: 

 

C:\mapnik-0_5_1\demo\python>c:\Python25\python.exe generate_tiles.py

Traceback (most recent call last):

  File "generate_tiles.py", line 108, in 

home = os.environ['C:/map']

  File "C:\Python25\lib\os.py", line 435, in __getitem__

return self.data[key.upper()]

KeyError: 'C:/MAP'

 

 

I have tried using C:\map and C:/map and there are basically no
tutorials on how to get this thing going in Windows.

 

I won't lie, I'm an artist and not a programmer at all, so this is all
pretty daunting to me. I would like to just get this thing up and
running, but would like some advice on how to go about it. I have looked
into tilecache, openlayers, mapnik, and have gotten mapnik to build and
run on this windows machine here, but am stuck on how to make it split
my image up.

 

If you can offer any assistance or hand-holding, I would greatly
appreciate it.

 

-Alex

 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide "completeness" tools

[Sebastian Spaeth]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Once we have a few applications in place that get viewed by *many*
> people, we could just have a button somewhere along the margin of the
> page that says: "I know the area and what I see here looks correct".

Given that this will be the default very soon ( :-) ), I'd rather have
the notes API where people can click and say: "there are streets missing
here, I know that". No warm fuzzy feeling, but more helpful in
identifying weak spots.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] area topology

[Sebastian Spaeth]

Shaun McDonald wrote:
> If you have a road and stream running parallel they would be entered  
> as 2 ways that are parallel. The same happens for the carriageways of  
> a motorway that are separated by a barrier.

Well, let's say that this is also controversial and we had that 
discussion before. Personally I use sharing nodes when I have a forest 
that borders on a motorway, for example.

So, there might not be the one solution for all. Either parallel ways 
that are next to each other or share nodes...

spaetz

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] API: how to retrieve all tracks of a certain user?

[Tom Hughes]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Danilo Abbate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> i'm new in this list (i write in the italian mailing list) but i
> thought it would be better to write my doubts here. I'm having a look
> at OSM APIs and i'm not able to find out how to download all my gpx
> traces i've uploaded so far. I can only find how to retrieve all
> trackpoints in a bounding box [1] or how to retrieve a track by its id
> [2]. Isn't there a way i can download all the tracks belonging to me,
> or at least, download only my trackpoints in a bounding box?
> Otherwise, how could i find out the whole list of gpx tracks belonging
> to me? I thought the rss feed would list me all of my traces... but it
> only shows me the last 20 i've uploaded so far.

To put it simply, no, there is currently no way to do this.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.compton.nu/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] API: how to retrieve all tracks of a certain user?

[Danilo Abbate]

Hi,
i'm new in this list (i write in the italian mailing list) but i
thought it would be better to write my doubts here. I'm having a look
at OSM APIs and i'm not able to find out how to download all my gpx
traces i've uploaded so far. I can only find how to retrieve all
trackpoints in a bounding box [1] or how to retrieve a track by its id
[2]. Isn't there a way i can download all the tracks belonging to me,
or at least, download only my trackpoints in a bounding box?
Otherwise, how could i find out the whole list of gpx tracks belonging
to me? I thought the rss feed would list me all of my traces... but it
only shows me the last 20 i've uploaded so far.

I googled for a while, but didn't find much of interest. Moreover, i'm
wondering if [3] is the best place where to get infos about API v0.5,
or if there's a better (and more complete) place on the net.

I hope i'm not posting a useless messege ;)

Ciao,
Danilo


[1] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OSM_Protocol_Version_0.5#Retrieving_GPS_tracks
[2] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OSM_Protocol_Version_0.5#Methods_for_GPX_Traces
[3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OSM_Protocol_Version_0.5

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] area topology

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

> Am I right in assuming that OSM ways always belong
> to one single area?

Yes and no.

Normally we don't map the borders between areas - we map tha areas  
themselves. So you would have one way that encloses the forest, and  
one way that encloses the adjacent farmland, and they would "meet"  
somewhere.

There are exceptions to this rule when it comes to very large  
entities like counties or countries; in these cases we tend to  
actually map the border line and tag it with something like "left:  
France, right: Germany", and there will be no single polygon named  
"France" or "Germany". Coastline is another exception.

> If this is so, do I have to duplicate ways along the
> common border? JOSM informs about double ways when it validates  
> data so
> I had the slight impression that they are not really wanted.

There is no 100% consensus on how to deal with these things but most  
people, including me, suggest to duplicate ways (not nodes) along the  
common border, i.e. you will have two ways sharing the same nodes.

The issue is especially contended when it comes to linear features  
straddling areas, like a road that forms the forest boundary for a  
bit. I would re-use the same nodes here, but there are people who say  
that this would indicate the forest stretching up to the road  
centreline which of course isn't true, and they would rather have the  
road and the forest boundary run in parallel and use their own nodes.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] area topology

[Shaun McDonald]

On 13 May 2008, at 14:06, Ulf Mehlig wrote:

> Please excuse me if this is a FAQ, I just didn't find an answer in the
> wiki (possibly because it is obvious) ...
>
> In topological GISses like grass, borders are shared between adjacent
> (vector) areas. However, I wonder how adjacent areas should be  
> digitized
> in OSM (let's say, forests and farmland, or riverbanks and the
> associated wetlands). Am I right in assuming that OSM ways always  
> belong
> to one single area? If this is so, do I have to duplicate ways along  
> the
> common border? JOSM informs about double ways when it validates data  
> so
> I had the slight impression that they are not really wanted.
>
> I see a similar problem with line data (e.g. roads, streams) which may
> happen to be an area border. From reading
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Tagging_Areas
>
> I think that using a street as a border of a plaza (or a block of
> buildings) is not wanted. Does one digitize double ways, leading along
> the same nodes, or does one make a separate area in a small distance  
> to
> the existing line (street/stream), which might be topologically
> incorrect and is more difficult to maintain?
>

If you have a road and stream running parallel they would be entered  
as 2 ways that are parallel. The same happens for the carriageways of  
a motorway that are separated by a barrier.

The way that I look at it, is if there is a barrier, such as a fence  
of wall, then the node in the way should not be shared. Otherwise the  
sharing of nodes isn't a problem, and can produce better results,  
especially for routing.

Shaun


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] area topology

[Andrew Chadwick (email lists)]

Ulf Mehlig wrote:

> I think that using a street as a border of a plaza (or a block of
> buildings) is not wanted. Does one digitize double ways, leading along
> the same nodes, or does one make a separate area in a small distance to
> the existing line (street/stream), which might be topologically
> incorrect and is more difficult to maintain?

There are arguments both ways, and it's come up in discussion locally:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Talk:Oxford#How_much_separation_is_right.3F

I subscribe to the view that areas should correspond to the real area on
the ground and mostly be kept clear of roadways. Placing an Area's Nodes
near the adjacent Way's nodes helps make the map easier to maintain. I
will often abut adjacent areas that are separated only by something thin
and make their nodes share, however.

Rectilinear buildings in particular should be kept rectilinear: there's
no excuse for trapezoidal buildings with the new extrusion stuff now in
JOSM :)

However, rivers are Interesting: quite often an Area whose edge is
defined by a river may change over time as the river meanders... In that
case, it probably does make sense to abut a Way to an Area.

-- 
Andrew Chadwick

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Crossing access types

[Andrew Chadwick (email lists)]

Steve Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote:
> 
>> * If two ways cross at a crossing Node, access keys would logically
>>   apply to both. Declaring that crossings are somehow special and that
>>   access tags on them apply only to the crossing traffic is worse.
> 
> Ok, sounds like we would need a relation for this so you can specify
> which way it applies to.

Sometimes you won't have a crossing Way at all. I should probably have
been clearer about that. For example the case where the crossing merely
goes from one sidewalk of a busy road to the opposite sidewalk.
Sidewalks are considered part of the Way in OSM, yet you still might
want to declare non-default crossing types. cycleway=track ->
toucan-style crossing -> cycleway=opposite_track is probably  the corner
case here.

A Relation between a) a single crossing and b) the Way(s) it crosses
might make more sense. But it might also be too fiddly to apply, and
relying on it would not be backwards-compatible.

>> * The access tag is not documented as being applicable to Nodes. Most
>>   crossings will be Nodes.
> 
> It probably should be applicable to nodes so that you can apply it to
> things like gates

I believe it's being talked abut in the Barrier proposal. Barriers/gates
don't have the complication of being more applicable to one highway
which joins another at them than the other, typically. I think that
sentence will parse.

-- 
Andrew Chadwick

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] area topology

[Ulf Mehlig]

Please excuse me if this is a FAQ, I just didn't find an answer in the
wiki (possibly because it is obvious) ... 

In topological GISses like grass, borders are shared between adjacent
(vector) areas. However, I wonder how adjacent areas should be digitized
in OSM (let's say, forests and farmland, or riverbanks and the
associated wetlands). Am I right in assuming that OSM ways always belong
to one single area? If this is so, do I have to duplicate ways along the
common border? JOSM informs about double ways when it validates data so
I had the slight impression that they are not really wanted.

I see a similar problem with line data (e.g. roads, streams) which may
happen to be an area border. From reading

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Tagging_Areas

I think that using a street as a border of a plaza (or a block of
buildings) is not wanted. Does one digitize double ways, leading along
the same nodes, or does one make a separate area in a small distance to
the existing line (street/stream), which might be topologically
incorrect and is more difficult to maintain?

Thanks for your advice!
Ulf

-- 
 Ulf Mehlig<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Crossing access types (was: Road crossings proposal - status?)

[Steve Hill]

On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote:

> * If two ways cross at a crossing Node, access keys would logically
>   apply to both. Declaring that crossings are somehow special and that
>   access tags on them apply only to the crossing traffic is worse.

Ok, sounds like we would need a relation for this so you can specify which 
way it applies to.

> * The access tag is not documented as being applicable to Nodes. Most
>   crossings will be Nodes.

It probably should be applicable to nodes so that you can apply it to 
things like gates

  - Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.nexusuk.org/

  Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Bridge proposal

[Mike Collinson]

At 11:11 AM 13/05/2008, Raphael Studer wrote:
>> I've formally written up my Bridge proposal, as mentioned here a week or
>>  two ago:
>>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Bridge
>
>Does someone care about this proposal?
>
>Regards
>Rapahel

It seems so:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Talk:Proposed_features/Bridge

... or is this a very polite request that the proposer might proceed to voting? 
;-)

Mike



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] [tagging] Crossing access types (was: Road crossings proposal - status?)

[Andrew Chadwick (email lists)]

Steve Hill wrote:
> bicycle=yes|no
> foot=yes|no
> horse=yes|no

Doing this for crossings is not right, IMO. It's a bad usage of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:access , or more
specifically its 'helper' tags like foot=yes|no or bicycle=*. Consider:

 * If two ways cross at a crossing Node, access keys would logically
   apply to both. Declaring that crossings are somehow special and that
   access tags on them apply only to the crossing traffic is worse.

 * The access tag is not documented as being applicable to Nodes. Most
   crossings will be Nodes.

 * In some jurisdictions, crossing traffic may have right of way at all
   times even on button-and-light-controlled crossings. Pushing the
   button merely stops road traffic and gives a safer period for
   crossing. So what we're talking about isn't always an access
   restriction or even an access permission.


To keep things simple, and for the sake of the data, I would prefer
something more like:

  crossing_traffic=

Where  would be a semicolon-separated list of the tag-names from
the [[Key:access]] page. For example:

  crossing_traffic=foot;bicycle

Presence of a value would indicate a) what sort of crossing traffic a
motorist may expect, and b) what sorts of crossing traffic may use the
crossing. To keep things simple, one would assume a default value of
crossing_traffic=foot anywhere there's a crossing=* or a highway=crossing.

Does that make sense to you guys?


-- 
Andrew Chadwick

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Andrew Chadwick (email lists)]

Brian Quinion wrote:
> island=yes|no

I like the idea of marking this, but may I suggest traffic_island or
pedestrian_refuge instead? Does this mean any pedestrian refuge in the
road, or just those with some other crossing stuff like traffic signals
or zebra striping?

I'd love to be able to re-use highway=traffic_signals. Does anyone think
that we should be deprecating highway=crossing in favour of crossing=*?
What are the behaviours of current editor and renderer software when
highway=traffic_signals;crossing is used?

-- 
Andrew Chadwick

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways

[Richard Fairhurst]

Steve Hill wrote:

> I'm left wondering why they haven't removed the A-road designation if
> they put bollards in...  Anyway, I'm going a bit off topic now. :)

We had a thread about it on talk-gb which I think concluded it would  
have been better designated as the WTF420.

> horse=yes seems as descriptive as designation=bridleway.

It's not quite a 1:1 mapping - a UK bridleway also means "cycles  
permitted by right" and a whole host of other stuff, so it's a  
valuable piece of information in itself.

By all means tag the individual users (horse=yes, bicycle=yes, etc.),  
but I'd consider the official bridleway status a useful, taggable fact  
in itself.

cheers
Richard


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways

[Steve Hill]

On Tue, 13 May 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> (The High Street in Oxford is nominally the A420, so we tag
> ref=A420, but it's no good as a through-route - the bollards are a bit
> of a giveaway - so we tag highway=tertiary.)

I'm left wondering why they haven't removed the A-road designation if they 
put bollards in...  Anyway, I'm going a bit off topic now. :)

> Skimming the thread, your road sounds like highway=unclassified;
> designation=bridleway. Or something - finding a consensus for
> designation= is left as an exercise for the reader.

horse=yes seems as descriptive as designation=bridleway.  I think I will 
settle on "highway=unclassified, access=private, foot=yes, horse=yes, 
bicycle=permissive, motorcar=permissive".  I don't actually know the 
status of bike and car access, but the fact that it has been signed as a 
bridleway indicates to me that pedestrians and horses have a legal right 
of way along there.

Thanks for the input folks.

  - Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.nexusuk.org/

  Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways

[Richard Fairhurst]

Steve Hill wrote:

> On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
>
>> This is an example of confusing the physical space with the legal
>> administrative description.
>
> Yes, but sadly the highway tag is defined in Map Features to encompass
> that confusing mixture of physical and legal descriptions. :)
>
> (It is something we should probably try to move away from, but that's
> another discussion).

Apologies to those who've heard me blether on about this before, but  
in my mind the highway tag indicates "purpose". In other words: what's  
the way there for?

In the UK, at least, the administrative category (M, A-primary, A, B  
etc.) usually correlates pretty well to the purpose (in fact, one  
influences the other).

But occasionally there's a really glaring discrepancy between purpose  
and category. In which case, we follow the "Oxford High Street Rule":  
tag for purpose, but make sure the administrative category is still  
recorded. (The High Street in Oxford is nominally the A420, so we tag  
ref=A420, but it's no good as a through-route - the bollards are a bit  
of a giveaway - so we tag highway=tertiary.)

Skimming the thread, your road sounds like highway=unclassified;  
designation=bridleway. Or something - finding a consensus for  
designation= is left as an exercise for the reader.

cheers
Richard


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Steve Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Sent: 13 May 2008 10:31 AM
>To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
>
>On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
>
>> This is an example of confusing the physical space with the legal
>> administrative description.
>
>Yes, but sadly the highway tag is defined in Map Features to encompass
>that confusing mixture of physical and legal descriptions. :)

Yes it is, that's the one thing I wish I had thought of when I produced the
original list back when the dinosaurs were still roaming the land ;-)

>
>(It is something we should probably try to move away from, but that's
>another discussion).
>
>> Just because it's a bridleway does not necessarily mean car=no.
>
>The wiki indicates that OSM considers highway=bridleway to be a footpath
>which horses are permitted on (I would think highway=footway, horse=yes
>would be better and am in favour of getting rid of highway=bridleway
>entirely.  However, I also want to be consistent with what other people
>are doing.)

The wiki is not very cleverly worded then. Probably because its trying to
combine the physical description with the legal access situation.

>
>> The landowner will almost certainly have access over the route. Since
>> it's a bridleway however the public probably do not (unless its
>> permissive).
>
>In this case, I imagine the highway belongs to the National Grid, since it
>provides access to the Swansea North substation and some of their offices.
>However, at the west end of the highway there is no "private", "no cars",
>etc signs, just a "No through road" sign (which makes sense since there is
>a gate at the other end... probably to prevent people rat-running).  Also,
>there are currently some roadworks on the highway, which are signed as you
>would expect them to be if they were on a public road (the normal
>red-triangle "roadworks" and blue-circle-with-white-arrow "keep right"
>signs).

Maintenance of signs is often slapdash. Often signage is only added if the
way is being abused and the landowner wants to put a stop to it. A gate at
each end and a padlock usually gets over most issues, but in this case they
would need to leave access for bikes/horses/walkers if they did that.

Cheers

Andy

>
>  - Steve
>xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.nexusuk.org/
>
>  Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence
>


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways

[Steve Hill]

On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:

> This is an example of confusing the physical space with the legal
> administrative description.

Yes, but sadly the highway tag is defined in Map Features to encompass 
that confusing mixture of physical and legal descriptions. :)

(It is something we should probably try to move away from, but that's 
another discussion).

> Just because it's a bridleway does not necessarily mean car=no.

The wiki indicates that OSM considers highway=bridleway to be a footpath 
which horses are permitted on (I would think highway=footway, horse=yes 
would be better and am in favour of getting rid of highway=bridleway 
entirely.  However, I also want to be consistent with what other people 
are doing.)

> The landowner will almost certainly have access over the route. Since 
> it's a bridleway however the public probably do not (unless its 
> permissive).

In this case, I imagine the highway belongs to the National Grid, since it 
provides access to the Swansea North substation and some of their offices. 
However, at the west end of the highway there is no "private", "no cars", 
etc signs, just a "No through road" sign (which makes sense since there is 
a gate at the other end... probably to prevent people rat-running).  Also, 
there are currently some roadworks on the highway, which are signed as you 
would expect them to be if they were on a public road (the normal 
red-triangle "roadworks" and blue-circle-with-white-arrow "keep right" 
signs).

  - Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.nexusuk.org/

  Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to helpprovide "completeness" tools

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Sent: 12 May 2008 10:10 PM
>To: Jeffrey Martin
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to helpprovide
>"completeness" tools
>
>Hi,
>
>> I'm very far from this in Korea, but I would guess in time some
>> parts of the UK will need to be rechecked at some point. How can we
>> make a system for rechecking an area? Maybe the completeness should
>> be retired after a period of time.
>
>Once we have a few applications in place that get viewed by *many*
>people, we could just have a button somewhere along the margin of the
>page that says: "I know the area and what I see here looks correct".
>That would not give us any safety but if, when looking at a part of
>the map, you knew that within the last 6 months 178 people had clicked
>on "this looks correct" then that would perhaps give you at least a
>warm fuzzy feeling ;-)

The more we can crowdsource the solution to "completeness" or "correctness"
then the more in tune the process will be with the rest of the project. We
all know bits of lots of places. If it looks correct then why do we care if
in actuality it's just slightly wrong in some way. Someone with the detailed
knowledge about the subtitles of a small area would eventually come along
and tweak/correct/improve it anyway.

So perhaps we don’t need a tool to say how complete an area is, we just need
users to say if they think it looks good enough/is good enough for their
intended use.

Cheers

Andy

>
>Bye
>Frederik
>
>--
>Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1427 - Release Date:
>11/05/2008 1:08 PM


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] GPSBabel 1.3.5

[Tom Hughes]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The name for the new driver is "navilink", so to recover waypoints
> over the USB cable on linux you would do something like:
>
>   gpsbabel -w -f navilink -i /dev/ttyUSB0 -F gpx -o waypoints.gpx

or even:

   gpsbabel -w -i navilink -f /dev/ttyUSB0 -o gpx -F waypoints.gpx

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.compton.nu/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] GPSBabel 1.3.5

[Tom Hughes]

GPSBabel 1.3.5 was released a few days ago, and for those of you using
the popular NaviGPS units I am pleased to be able to say that the new
release of GPSBabel includes native support for the NaviGPS.

This includes both direct access to stored tracks, routes and
waypoints via the USB cable as well as the ability to decode waypoints
and tracks copied to the SD card if you are using a recent release of
the NaviGPS firmware that supports that.

The code has been tested with my GT-11 unit but should work with the
BGT-11 as well, and will hopefully work with the new GT-31 and BGT-31
units when they arrive - please let me know if you manage to test with
one of those.

The name for the new driver is "navilink", so to recover waypoints
over the USB cable on linux you would do something like:

  gpsbabel -w -f navilink -i /dev/ttyUSB0 -F gpx -o waypoints.gpx

Any problems, give me a shout...

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.compton.nu/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Bridge proposal

[Raphael Studer]

> I've formally written up my Bridge proposal, as mentioned here a week or
>  two ago:
>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Bridge

Does someone care about this proposal?

Regards
Rapahel

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Steve Hill wrote:
>Sent: 13 May 2008 9:47 AM
>To: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
>
>
>I've come across a problematic way near me: It is a reasonably wide
>road, but the signs at each end say it is a bridleway.  It has a gate
>across the east end end so you can't drive along it from the east, but you
>can drive along it from the west end.  The west end has no restrictions
>other than a sign saying "No Though Road".  There are a couple of
>buildings down there, so someone might have legitimate reason for driving
>along it even though they can't get out at the other end.
>
>So I'm a bit unsure how to tag it - any suggestions?  Thoughts that spring
>to mind are either "highway=bridleway, motorcar=yes" or
>"highway=unclassified".  Presumably with a "highway=gate, motorcar=no"
>node on the gated end, or maybe "highway=gate, horse=yes, foot=yes".
>

This is an example of confusing the physical space with the legal
administrative description.

If it's a paved road from the end then unclassified, residential, or service
would be the appropriate tag for the physical. On top of that its horse=yes.
To add the bridleway specifically I would add bridleway=true as a tag as
well.

Just because it's a bridleway does not necessarily mean car=no. The
landowner will almost certainly have access over the route. Since it's a
bridleway however the public probably do not (unless its permissive).

Cheers

Andy


>  - Steve
>xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.nexusuk.org/
>
>  Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence
>
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1430 - Release Date:
>13/05/2008 7:31 AM


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide "completeness" tools

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Some of us map out an area completely in one go rather than doing it
>  piecemeal. Even if I come across some existing roads in a new area I ignore
>  them and do a new survey so that the whole area makes logical sence to me.
>  That way I can work out where the landuse areas are behind the houses and
>  the extent of school areas etc etc. So for me a reasonable level of
>  completeness is easy to decide and annotate.

That's how I work too. So when I mark the area that's complete on the
new system, I'll mark everywhere that I did as complete. That's a
no-brainer.

But let's scale this further, since what you, me and David have done,
while interesting, is still a small amount of what's there. I would
guess that only a proportion of the mappers will use this system,
let's say a similar proportion to those who map in
landuse=residential. But the key is that not everyone will use it.

So how do we scale the efforts of this subset of people who *do* want
to use the completeness system to provide measurements of the rest of
the data? How do you, me and David (say) work out which areas of
Glasgow and St. Louis are complete? Maybe we can look at the road
density and guess. But that could be automated. My original point was
that we can look at areas that we don't know particularly well and
it's much easier to spot the problems than confirm which bits are
done.

With the proposed system, it'll take me 15 minutes to mark everywhere
I thoroughly mapped, and then I want to do something useful. So I can
mark 20-something square kilometres of London as complete (to the
"95th percentile of completeness"), and *much more* as definitely
incomplete (i.e. Dave's renderings of unnamed roads) and much of it
'unassessed' where it could be anything from the 60th to 95th
percentile.

Anyway, that's just my take on it.

Cheers,
Andy

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways

[Steve Hill]

I've come across a problematic way near me: It is a reasonably wide 
road, but the signs at each end say it is a bridleway.  It has a gate 
across the east end end so you can't drive along it from the east, but you 
can drive along it from the west end.  The west end has no restrictions 
other than a sign saying "No Though Road".  There are a couple of 
buildings down there, so someone might have legitimate reason for driving 
along it even though they can't get out at the other end.

So I'm a bit unsure how to tag it - any suggestions?  Thoughts that spring 
to mind are either "highway=bridleway, motorcar=yes" or 
"highway=unclassified".  Presumably with a "highway=gate, motorcar=no" 
node on the gated end, or maybe "highway=gate, horse=yes, foot=yes".

  - Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.nexusuk.org/

  Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide"completeness" tools

[Chris Morley]

Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
> Verification is a whole new ballgame.

I think throughout this discussion there is tendency to get hung up on 
the word "complete", which has been used as a shorthand but is being 
interpreted differently. In everyday use it has an implication of 
perfection and that there is nothing more to be said.

I think what we should be talking about is an area being "filled in", 
without implying perfection or immutability. You should expect as high a 
proportion of mistakes in a filled-in area as in an incomplete one, but 
fewer omissions. However, if there is a blank space on the map, you can 
assume that it really is empty in a filled-in area, but you would not 
know if it was in an incomplete area.

Measures of quality and guarantees of correctness require filled-inness, 
but I think should be regarded as more advanced concepts. I agree with 
Andy, we should walk before we run - start with an implemention of 
filled-inness - verification, etc. can come later.

Chris


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Unknown road classifications

[Steve Hill]

On Mon, 12 May 2008, Alex Mauer wrote:

> IMO if it's sufficiently unknown that it will have to be revisited
> anyway for more accurate classification, marking it as a road rather
> than a complete unknown isn't really going to be helpful to anyone.

Sure it is - I know I can drive down a road, I don't know that I can drive 
down any arbitrary highway feature.

> I don't think it's a good idea for the highway tag to be used for so
> many non-road things -- but that's probably a discussion for another time.

Yes, I dislike the current overloading of tags, but I don't think 
that is going to change soon.  Andy Allan asked me to put together a wiki 
page with respect to the namespacing discussion, which I haven't had time 
to do yet, but overloading tags like "highway" is one of the things I'd 
like to address on that page when I get chance.

  - Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.nexusuk.org/

  Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide"completeness" tools

[Lester Caine]

Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
> This demonstrates that really there is no one method that fits all. I map
> urban areas out completely in one go, including the cycleways and footways
> because just about all are accessible by bike. Occasionally I have a footway
> I have to go back and do on foot but these are few and far between and they
> nag at me if I leave them for very long.

And of cause you have visited all the pubs and restaurants and tested their 
wares in the name of research so you could log them ;)

I think that some secondary means for users ( who do not have the ability to 
fix a problem themselves ) to report problems? While a 'This looks OK' sounds 
a good idea - it only looks OK for what the user is looking for. But a 'So and 
so is missing' would at least provide prompts to help fill in the gaps.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] tagging and rendering

[Lester Caine]

elvin ibbotson wrote:
>> Typos in real words are easier to detect than a mistake in entering a 
>> number.
>>
> In the scenario I was suggesting numbers would only replace words for 
> type tags and users would never see the numbers but would just see words 
> (in their own language) mapped to/from numbers in the database by the 
> editor/viewer software. This somewhere between the ID numbers (set 
> purely by software) and latitude/longitude (which users do not enter 
> directly) and all the other tags, most of which (like name=) require 
> user direct input.

Some considerable time ago I tried to push the idea of using numeric types for 
the key map data so that translation is easy and since then I've been 
reconsidering how it could be done if I was going to run something locally.

highway, cycleway, waterway, railway, leisure and the like provide a top level 
  number and the 'approved' values provide sub-numbers. So that 'key' 101 
- for example - would be a highway:motorway. Just storing a single number for 
that data. We can maintain the free format by using 100 to indicate that 
there IS a string element to go with the tag.
All the 'way' tags would be 1xx, so 101 = cycleway, 102 = waterway etc.
Leisure/amenity/shop would become a 2xx series and so on.

0xx tags would then be used for additional data such as note, name, 
description, source ( with sub tags for approved sources ).

Reserving say 9xx for private tags that would only be used with perhaps a 
particular user ID so people could potentially use 900 for private notes .

Tools would then simply pick up a language file for their own translations of 
those numbers and create new tags or edit existing tags based on the list 
provided in their particular language set. If free form text is added then 
perhaps a warning could be posted about non-rendered data being added? Or even 
a switch to prevent free form data if not appropriate.

I am still looking at this from an internal storage point of view, and 
nowadays who actually TYPES the text for the main key entries - you just copy 
an existing item, or select from the list? The debate really is do we need to 
maintain a full 'XML' view of the data at all? By switching to a much more 
compact storage mechanism, data can be output as a full XML extract - perhaps 
even with a language switch for extracts in the target countries language - if 
required? But a compact - language agnostic - format would improve performance 
in a number of areas?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide "completeness" tools

[Freek]

On Monday 12 May 2008, Skywave wrote:
> Freek recently created this image which shows how much of the AND data is
> untouched:
> http://www.vanwal.nl/osm/author_density_nl_20080502_full.png(warning 3 MB
> image).

(Blue is untouched AND, green and red have relatively more changes by the 
community.)

I also did an image showing the number of different (last) authors per area 
for a large part of Europe (untouched AND is not so interesting outside the 
Netherlands...):
http://www.vanwal.nl/osm/density/europe_1000_080513_num_authors.png (6 MB)
(Red is one author for all nodes covered by a pixel, green to blue depict an 
increasing number of authors, up to around 17.)
Central London clearly has the largest number of contributions from different 
people.

Secondly, I thought the average data age might show some interesting patterns 
(min. data age turned out to give rather noisy pictures).
http://www.vanwal.nl/osm/density/western_europe_500_080502_avg_age_value.png
("Lava" colour map: black = old --> red --> yellow --> white = latest 
contributions, compare to the dark-red AND import for a reference, this was 
September 2007. Also note that dark colours have a second meaning: they 
depict low node density.)
Now, London gets quite dark at some spots... More remarkably, this picture 
shows that data imports dramatically decrease mapping activity (or so it 
seems): not only the Netherlands show relatively little activity, also 
Osnabrück looks quiet (compare for example to the Ruhr area or the area 
between Brussels and Antwerp). Still, in my opinion, these imported areas are 
far from complete.

I think pictures like these can give at least some impression of the current 
state of affairs, but a human-maintained measure for completeness is still 
necessary.

-- 
Freek

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Converting Polish/.MP to OSM?

[Simon Wood]

On Fri, 9 May 2008 00:24:11 -0600
Simon Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Well I've had a stab at this, probably the worlds worst python script but it 
> does work

Cleaned up version added to SVN, browsable here:
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/applications/utils/import/mp2osm/mp2osm_catmp.py

Supports POI, POLYLINE and POLYGON. Can parse the CATMP stuff without error, 
but have not uploaded resultant data to OSM yet. Doesn't do anything with the 
'Nod[1..]' bits as I couldn't see how to re-open an element in ElementTree to 
modify it/add the appropriate tag.

Cheers,
Mungewell.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk