Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads

[Kyle Gordon]

Alex Wilson wrote:
> Perhaps a compromise would be to add a new tag: something like 
> 'needs_review=true'. After a revisit of the road, the tag can be 
> removed and the road classification left as is or modified as appropriate.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alex
>
Wouldn't it be better to have a last_reviewed field as well, or 
something similar that's machine readable? Maybe also along with your 
needs_reviewed tag. This way things could be automatically flagged for 
review at a certain date (maybe for example landuse=contruction), or as 
you point out just flagged for review.

Cheers

Kyle

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Is it land or sea: how to map a swamp?

[Mike Collinson]

Thanks for pointing to this one, certainly much more useful and general than 
adding natural=mangrove. 

Mike
Limerick

At 03:27 PM 11/07/2008, Ulf Mehlig wrote:
>There is a "wetland" proposal which includes wetland=mangrove.
>
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Wetland_areas
>
>In the area where I am working at the moment 
>
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-0.85&lon=-46.991&zoom=9&layers=0B0FTF
>
>(almost) all the coastline is drawn along the outer border of mangrove
>forests, so it is considered as "land". I tagged mangroves at
>
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-0.8964&lon=-46.6742&zoom=12&layers=0B0FTF
>
>as natural=wetland tentatively ... I would like to see the wetland tag
>voted/approved/rendered -- it could help to map a not-so-small part of
>tropical coastlines correctly! 
>
>BTW, there is a mangrove island in this area rendered correctly in
>Osmarender but not in Mapnik, in spite of a multipolygon relation which
>is correct in my opinion:
>
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-0.95206&lon=-46.66697&zoom=15&layers=0B0FTF
>
>Ulf
>
>On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 22:21 +0100, Mark Williams wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> natural=marsh?
>> (from Map Features)
>> 
>> I would expect to find coastline on the open-sea border of this.
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>> Mike Collinson wrote:
>> > I agree with Stephen's comments and add that I follow the rule "if in 
>> > doubt, map it as land" since we don't have the luxury of being able to map 
>> > average high water marks or highest spring tide mark that a government 
>> > agency might use.  If it is something that I can walk out and see most of 
>> > the day or year, then I think it should be mapped as land as a navigation 
>> > aid.
>> > 
>> > It might also be worth considering a natural=mangrove area tag.  Our 
>> > current system is biased towards temperate climates.  I've hesitated so 
>> > far as it is often very difficult, either on the ground or from imaging 
>> > data, to map the inland extent.
>> > 
>> > Mike
>> > 
>> > At 03:27 AM 9/07/2008, Stephen Hope wrote:
>> >> The northern coast of Australia has many Mangrove marshes at river
>> >> mouths, some of them extending many kilometres away from the dry shore
>> >> line.  PGS shows these areas as sea, because they are not dry land -
>> >> and that is were the coastlines would have been imported from.  Note
>> >> that "being submerged for half the year" doesn't mean the trees are
>> >> covered with water, just the mud under them.  The tree tops would be
>> >> above water all the time, I suspect.
>> >>
>> >> We've (mostly) tagged them as land, with the coast being on the sea
>> >> side of them.  Technically they may be water covered (or partially
>> >> water covered, usually about 6 inches deep), but if you can't swim or
>> >> boat in them and plants and trees grow there it's land as far as I'm
>> >> concerned.  They certainly are not ocean.  Marshes in the UK are also
>> >> treated as land from the coastline point of view, even were they edge
>> >> an ocean.
>> >>
>> >> See 
>> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-16.9642&lon=145.7843&zoom=13&layers=B00FTF
>> >> for an example near Cairns.  More examples are further up the coast.
>> >>
>> >> Stephen
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2008/7/9 Alan Millar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >>> I came across an interesting area which I don't know how to map or tag.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=22.066&lon=89.047&zoom=9&layers=B00FTF
>> >>>
>> >>> This is the Sundarbans mangrove forest on the border of India and
>> >>> Bangladesh.  The map doesn't look like much, but look at the map with
>> >>> aerial photos like in Potlatch edit mode and it starts to get 
>> >>> interesting.
>> >>>
>> >>> I read that it is submerged for up to half of the year.  The Yahoo aerial
>> >>> photos clearly show the forest areas, so I assume they were taken at a
>> >>> low-water period.  Google Maps shows it as land.
>> >>>
>> >>> Our oceantiles file has it as land, but our coastlines treat it as sea.
>> >>> Our coastlines stop at the farmlands which border it.  During the high
>> >>> water period, I suppose our coastlines make sense.
>> >>>
>> >>> Does anyone have any recommendations of how to treat an area like this?
>> >>> Any similar geography already mapped somewhere?  Thanks
>> >>>
>> >>> - Alan
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>> 
>> iD8DBQFIdSv1JfMmcSPNh94RAty+AJ9voJsnb9ym6eiFMB9dNJFaHg5WpACfUWAO
>> we9MgNpK8v5miRbnCw+4tU4=
>> =tGCg
>> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>-- 
> Ulf Mehlig<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>---
>
>
>

Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads

[Richard Fairhurst]

Steve Hill wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
>> Er, I've driven past that one a handful of times (some friends  
>> used to
>> live in Pontardawe) and if it's the road I'm thinking of - down
>> towards the KFC - it _is_ unclassified. Well, either that or  
>> tertiary;
>
> It can't possibly be unclassified - an unclassified road is a single
> carriage way, usually with no centre line.

I like your confident "can't possibly", but nonetheless, that's not a  
definition I accept and nor (judging by other mails in this thread)  
does everyone else.

And that's fine: you seem to place more of an emphasis on the Gospel  
According To Map Features than I do (though MF doesn't say _anything_  
about dual carriagewayness), and there's nothing wrong with that.  
What _isn't_ fine is going round removing others' work because you  
disagree with it.

>   This road is a dual
> carriageway with two lanes in each direction.  I need to go and  
> survey the
> area to see if it has an A or B number - if it doesn't then it's a
> tertiary, definately not an unclassified.  (and given the size of
> the road I would be *extremely* surprised if it didn't have an A B  
> or C
> number).

Like I say, I have been there. It doesn't have an A or B number, at  
least not one that's signposted.

As for C, that's pretty much immaterial: I've spoken at a public  
inquiry to get a landowner to remove an obstruction on a C "road". I  
say "road", actually it was a foot-wide path from one village to  
another three miles away.

cheers
Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Is it land or sea: how to map a swamp?

[Ulf Mehlig]

There is a "wetland" proposal which includes wetland=mangrove.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Wetland_areas

In the area where I am working at the moment 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-0.85&lon=-46.991&zoom=9&layers=0B0FTF

(almost) all the coastline is drawn along the outer border of mangrove
forests, so it is considered as "land". I tagged mangroves at

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-0.8964&lon=-46.6742&zoom=12&layers=0B0FTF

as natural=wetland tentatively ... I would like to see the wetland tag
voted/approved/rendered -- it could help to map a not-so-small part of
tropical coastlines correctly! 

BTW, there is a mangrove island in this area rendered correctly in
Osmarender but not in Mapnik, in spite of a multipolygon relation which
is correct in my opinion:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-0.95206&lon=-46.66697&zoom=15&layers=0B0FTF

Ulf

On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 22:21 +0100, Mark Williams wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> natural=marsh?
> (from Map Features)
> 
> I would expect to find coastline on the open-sea border of this.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Mike Collinson wrote:
> > I agree with Stephen's comments and add that I follow the rule "if in 
> > doubt, map it as land" since we don't have the luxury of being able to map 
> > average high water marks or highest spring tide mark that a government 
> > agency might use.  If it is something that I can walk out and see most of 
> > the day or year, then I think it should be mapped as land as a navigation 
> > aid.
> > 
> > It might also be worth considering a natural=mangrove area tag.  Our 
> > current system is biased towards temperate climates.  I've hesitated so far 
> > as it is often very difficult, either on the ground or from imaging data, 
> > to map the inland extent.
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > At 03:27 AM 9/07/2008, Stephen Hope wrote:
> >> The northern coast of Australia has many Mangrove marshes at river
> >> mouths, some of them extending many kilometres away from the dry shore
> >> line.  PGS shows these areas as sea, because they are not dry land -
> >> and that is were the coastlines would have been imported from.  Note
> >> that "being submerged for half the year" doesn't mean the trees are
> >> covered with water, just the mud under them.  The tree tops would be
> >> above water all the time, I suspect.
> >>
> >> We've (mostly) tagged them as land, with the coast being on the sea
> >> side of them.  Technically they may be water covered (or partially
> >> water covered, usually about 6 inches deep), but if you can't swim or
> >> boat in them and plants and trees grow there it's land as far as I'm
> >> concerned.  They certainly are not ocean.  Marshes in the UK are also
> >> treated as land from the coastline point of view, even were they edge
> >> an ocean.
> >>
> >> See 
> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-16.9642&lon=145.7843&zoom=13&layers=B00FTF
> >> for an example near Cairns.  More examples are further up the coast.
> >>
> >> Stephen
> >>
> >>
> >> 2008/7/9 Alan Millar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>> I came across an interesting area which I don't know how to map or tag.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=22.066&lon=89.047&zoom=9&layers=B00FTF
> >>>
> >>> This is the Sundarbans mangrove forest on the border of India and
> >>> Bangladesh.  The map doesn't look like much, but look at the map with
> >>> aerial photos like in Potlatch edit mode and it starts to get interesting.
> >>>
> >>> I read that it is submerged for up to half of the year.  The Yahoo aerial
> >>> photos clearly show the forest areas, so I assume they were taken at a
> >>> low-water period.  Google Maps shows it as land.
> >>>
> >>> Our oceantiles file has it as land, but our coastlines treat it as sea.
> >>> Our coastlines stop at the farmlands which border it.  During the high
> >>> water period, I suppose our coastlines make sense.
> >>>
> >>> Does anyone have any recommendations of how to treat an area like this?
> >>> Any similar geography already mapped somewhere?  Thanks
> >>>
> >>> - Alan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFIdSv1JfMmcSPNh94RAty+AJ9voJsnb9ym6eiFMB9dNJFaHg5WpACfUWAO
> we9MgNpK8v5miRbnCw+4tU4=
> =tGCg
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
-- 
 Ulf Mehlig<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Apologies, I missed the link in the previous email:

 

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.50163
 &lon=-1.87931&zoom=17&layers=B00FTF

 

Cheers

 

Andy

 

>-Original Message-

>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:talk-

>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Hill

>Sent: 11 July 2008 2:57 PM

>To: Richard Fairhurst

>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org

>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads

> 

>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> 

>> Er, I've driven past that one a handful of times (some friends used to

>> live in Pontardawe) and if it's the road I'm thinking of - down

>> towards the KFC - it _is_ unclassified. Well, either that or tertiary;

> 

>It can't possibly be unclassified - an unclassified road is a single

>carriage way, usually with no centre line.  This road is a dual

>carriageway with two lanes in each direction.  I need to go and survey the

>area to see if it has an A or B number - if it doesn't then it's a

>tertiary, definately not an unclassified.  (and given the size of

>the road I would be *extremely* surprised if it didn't have an A B or C

>number).

> 

>> Why not just leave them alone until you have the time to properly

>> survey them, rather than assuming you know better than the original

>> mapper?

> 

>Two reasons:

>1. Informing people who are using the map that the classification is

>unknown rather than giving them an almost certainly incorrect

>classification is a Good Thing.

>2. Making it more obvious that the road need surveying means that it can

>be done systematically (possibly by more than just one person too).

> 

>  - 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 - http://www.avg.com

>Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.7/1545 - Release Date: 10/07/2008

>6:43 PM

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads

[Steve Hill]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> Er, I've driven past that one a handful of times (some friends used to
> live in Pontardawe) and if it's the road I'm thinking of - down
> towards the KFC - it _is_ unclassified. Well, either that or tertiary;

It can't possibly be unclassified - an unclassified road is a single 
carriage way, usually with no centre line.  This road is a dual 
carriageway with two lanes in each direction.  I need to go and survey the 
area to see if it has an A or B number - if it doesn't then it's a 
tertiary, definately not an unclassified.  (and given the size of 
the road I would be *extremely* surprised if it didn't have an A B or C 
number).

> Why not just leave them alone until you have the time to properly
> survey them, rather than assuming you know better than the original
> mapper?

Two reasons:
1. Informing people who are using the map that the classification is 
unknown rather than giving them an almost certainly incorrect 
classification is a Good Thing.
2. Making it more obvious that the road need surveying means that it can 
be done systematically (possibly by more than just one person too).

  - 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] Pubs on mapnik layer - can we remove them?

[Artem Pavlenko]

On 11 Jul 2008, at 14:24, Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio wrote:


Yes, I'll send them and email myself.

And in the meantimeTom: you can force the OSM guys to remove  
those awful pint glasses if you prove that that icon is  
copyrighted ;-)


It is copylefted by me and I find those pints quite useful in the UK ;)

Tom, I personally don't mind if my beautiful pint glasses icon will be  
removed for a good cause. Or even better if they can be optional in  
export tab.


Have fun,
Artem



(check the Ordnance Survey website.)

cheers
Lucas


De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] en nombre de Richard Fairhurst
Enviado el: vie 11/07/2008 14:25
Para: OSM Openstreetmap
Asunto: Re: [OSM-talk] Pubs on mapnik layer - can we remove them?

Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio wrote:

> lol, I agree with your colleagues: those pint glasses are
> unacceptably bad taste

Someone should tell the Ordnance Survey - they have them all over
their Explorer maps...

cheers
Richard

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

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pubs on mapnik layer - can we remove them?

[christof.fischer]

Hi Tom,

have a look at:

http://www.lenz-online.de/cgi-bin/osm/osmpoinit.pl?lat=51.161&lon=0.009&zoom=11&layers=B00FTF

It allows you to choose the POIs you are interested in.

Cheers,

christof


Tom Chance schrieb:
> Hello,
>
> I've been promoting OSM in the charity I work for (www.bioregional.com),
> especially now the export facility makes it trivial. We'd like to use OSM
> maps in our publications, but several of my colleagues are reluctant
> because there are pubs all over the maps!
>
> Would it be possible to remove them from the default mapnik layer
> altogether, or to produce Yet Another Layer that is more professional
> looking?
>
> We don't really want to get into running our own Osmarender / mapnik
> set-up, I'm sure lots of other businesses & NGOs would like to use the
> export function. I know we all love our pubs but it does hamper the
> usefulness of OSM in one of those areas where it should beat the
> competition hands down - legal copies of nice, detailed maps.
>
> Kind regards,
> Tom
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>   


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pubs on mapnik layer - can we remove them?

[Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio]

Yes, I'll send them and email myself.
 
And in the meantimeTom: you can force the OSM guys to remove those awful 
pint glasses if you prove that that icon is copyrighted ;-)
(check the Ordnance Survey website.)
 
cheers
Lucas

 


De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] en nombre de Richard Fairhurst
Enviado el: vie 11/07/2008 14:25
Para: OSM Openstreetmap
Asunto: Re: [OSM-talk] Pubs on mapnik layer - can we remove them?



Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio wrote:

> lol, I agree with your colleagues: those pint glasses are 
> unacceptably bad taste

Someone should tell the Ordnance Survey - they have them all over 
their Explorer maps...

cheers
Richard

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pubs on mapnik layer - can we remove them?

[Patrick Weber]

You could have a look at Kosmos, you can there define your own rendering 
rules, and render maps as you wish. as it is a standalone windows 
software, with no dependencies, it really is fast and easy to setup.


cheers
patrick

Tom Chance wrote:

Hello,

I've been promoting OSM in the charity I work for (www.bioregional.com),
especially now the export facility makes it trivial. We'd like to use OSM
maps in our publications, but several of my colleagues are reluctant
because there are pubs all over the maps!

Would it be possible to remove them from the default mapnik layer
altogether, or to produce Yet Another Layer that is more professional
looking?

We don't really want to get into running our own Osmarender / mapnik
set-up, I'm sure lots of other businesses & NGOs would like to use the
export function. I know we all love our pubs but it does hamper the
usefulness of OSM in one of those areas where it should beat the
competition hands down - legal copies of nice, detailed maps.

Kind regards,
Tom


___
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;Department of Managment Science
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/msi
version:2.1
end:vcard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pubs on mapnik layer - can we remove them?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio wrote:

> lol, I agree with your colleagues: those pint glasses are  
> unacceptably bad taste

Someone should tell the Ordnance Survey - they have them all over  
their Explorer maps...

cheers
Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pubs on mapnik layer - can we remove them?

[Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio]

lol, I agree with your colleagues: those pint glasses are unacceptably bad taste
 
(btw, mosques and synagogues are still rendered with a Christian cross in 
Mapnik.)
 
Regards,
Lucas



De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] en nombre de Tom Chance
Enviado el: vie 11/07/2008 13:47
Para: talk@openstreetmap.org
Asunto: [OSM-talk] Pubs on mapnik layer - can we remove them?




Hello,

I've been promoting OSM in the charity I work for (www.bioregional.com),
especially now the export facility makes it trivial. We'd like to use OSM
maps in our publications, but several of my colleagues are reluctant
because there are pubs all over the maps!

Would it be possible to remove them from the default mapnik layer
altogether, or to produce Yet Another Layer that is more professional
looking?

We don't really want to get into running our own Osmarender / mapnik
set-up, I'm sure lots of other businesses & NGOs would like to use the
export function. I know we all love our pubs but it does hamper the
usefulness of OSM in one of those areas where it should beat the
competition hands down - legal copies of nice, detailed maps.

Kind regards,
Tom


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


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

[OSM-talk] Potlatch in Gnash - not far off?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Good news from the Gnash developers:

Begin forwarded message:


From: Sandro Santilli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 July 2008 13:17:18 BDT
Subject: [bug #21756] Potlatch OpenStreetMap editor displays  
heavily offset


Follow-up Comment #21, bug #21756 (project gnash):

Since you got distracted by spam I'll give you a good news:
someone is working on support for remoting these days.
It should be the missing block for potlatch support.


:)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pubs on mapnik layer - can we remove them?

[Mike Collinson]

While it might not help Tom's immediate needs, a Next Big Thing for the slippy 
map would be the introduction of selective rendering on the Export tag for 
either of the main layers.  Particularly POIs.  For example the ability to do a 
SOTM location map with, say, ATMs, eating places and supermarkets explicitly 
requested at whatever zoom.

Perhaps a "No Pubs" option might make an experimental starting point?

Mike
Limerick - currently enjoying some very fine "Dubliner" cheese.

PS I've just had occasion to use the Export tab extensively for getting to SOTM 
maps and for talks.  Really Useful.  My thanks to the author, sorry I missed 
your name.


At 01:47 PM 11/07/2008, Tom Chance wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I've been promoting OSM in the charity I work for (www.bioregional.com),
>especially now the export facility makes it trivial. We'd like to use OSM
>maps in our publications, but several of my colleagues are reluctant
>because there are pubs all over the maps!
>
>Would it be possible to remove them from the default mapnik layer
>altogether, or to produce Yet Another Layer that is more professional
>looking?
>
>We don't really want to get into running our own Osmarender / mapnik
>set-up, I'm sure lots of other businesses & NGOs would like to use the
>export function. I know we all love our pubs but it does hamper the
>usefulness of OSM in one of those areas where it should beat the
>competition hands down - legal copies of nice, detailed maps.
>
>Kind regards,
>Tom



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

[OSM-talk] Pubs on mapnik layer - can we remove them?

[Tom Chance]

Hello,

I've been promoting OSM in the charity I work for (www.bioregional.com),
especially now the export facility makes it trivial. We'd like to use OSM
maps in our publications, but several of my colleagues are reluctant
because there are pubs all over the maps!

Would it be possible to remove them from the default mapnik layer
altogether, or to produce Yet Another Layer that is more professional
looking?

We don't really want to get into running our own Osmarender / mapnik
set-up, I'm sure lots of other businesses & NGOs would like to use the
export function. I know we all love our pubs but it does hamper the
usefulness of OSM in one of those areas where it should beat the
competition hands down - legal copies of nice, detailed maps.

Kind regards,
Tom


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads

[Steve Hill]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote:

> At least the rules governing 20mph areas (not specifically Home Zones) have 
> been relaxed a bit to make them easier to implement (though Cambridgeshire is 
> till very reluctant, places like Hull and Portsmouth have been really 
> progressive on this).

To be honest, I'm very surprised that councils haven't been sued under the 
disability discrimination act for "speed cusions" since they can cause 
people with back problems a lot of pain as the car goes over them. 
(And besides, they are pretty useless since anyone driving a 4x4 has a 
wide enough wheel-base to blast over them at whatever speed they want). 
I've also read that they can cause hidden tyre damage that can lead to 
blow-outs at high speed, so whilst the statistics may show that they 
reduce low-speed accidents on housing estates they probably increase the 
number of very serious high-speed accidents on other roads.

> but have a plate underneath which is a children's drawing all about 
> slowing down (e.g. a snail).

I drove through Neath a few days ago and noticed that they had similar 
signs - certainly an interesting idea (I have no idea how well it works 
though)

> Anyway, this is all rather off topic, sorry.

Indeed - interesting none the less though :)

  - 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] Misclassified roads

[David Earl]

On 11/07/2008 10:26, Steve Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote:
> 
>> The equivalent here, to which the tag would be applied, is known as 
>> "Home Zone", and it has a specific sign:
>> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/general/coll_newroadsignsandmarkingsleaf/dft_roads_022863-16.jpg
>>  
>>
>> (which is taken from this page
>> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/general/newroadsignsandmarkingsleafletb?page=1
>>  
>>
>> )
> 
> Interesting...  I've never come across one of those signs (although the 
> description makes it all sound like common sense - I would think that in 
> any residential area you should expect kids to be playing in the street, 
> no need for a special sign :)

If only.

I had occasion to take a journey driven by a former colleague on a cross 
country route a while back. I was shocked that almost as a matter of 
principle he drove at 38mph through villages where the speed limit was 
30mph (which is too high anyway for residential environments IMO), his 
reasoning being that there was a 10% allowance for incorrect 
speedometers (notwithstanding that that might have worked in the other 
direction) and then plus 5mph because "the police don't bother with less 
than that". No wonder we need speed cameras when there is almost 
institutionalised abuse, let alone Home Zones.

At least the rules governing 20mph areas (not specifically Home Zones) 
have been relaxed a bit to make them easier to implement (though 
Cambridgeshire is till very reluctant, places like Hull and Portsmouth 
have been really progressive on this).

I think the approach off Earlham Road in Norwich (and I've seen it 
elsewhere too) is quite interesting. The 20mph streets are signed with 
the usual 20mph roundel, but have a plate underneath which is a 
children's drawing all about slowing down (e.g. a snail). There's lots 
of different ones. A nice piece of psychology I thought.

Cambourne in Cambridgeshire also has a different approach. They have a 
19mph speed limit. I think the psychology here is to make you do a 
double take on seeing the sign, because it is unusual. It's self 
defeating of course if used widely.

The Home Zone would usually go further than a sign - the street would be 
re-engineered to blur the distinction between road and pavement, to 
integrate movements and parking and so on. There's a whole organisation 
devoted to them:
   http://www.homezones.org/
see also the IHE website http://www.homezones.org.uk/

On the whole I think they're a good idea, but there is a downside that 
it could make people think, at least subconsciously, that these are the 
only residential streets where you have to take such extreme care.

Anyway, this is all rather off topic, sorry.

David

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads

[Steve Hill]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote:

> I don't see the problem in that example:
>
> highway=residential
> maxspeed=50

Yes, in that case.  Although I think tagging roads lined with houses as 
"highway=tertiary, abutters=residential" is better - really the only 
difference between a tertiary road and a residential road is that the 
residential one has houses along it, and you can get houses along primary 
and secondary roads too so it would seem more consistent to move the 
existence of houses along the road off onto a separate tag rather than 
overloading the highway tag.

> (and personally, I use units - maxspeed=40mph - but that's another discussion 
> we've already done to death; and I haven't been as rigorous as I should have 
> been in recording non-default speed limits).

I've certainly not recorded any speed limits to date, although I probably 
should do.  My priority has mainly been to get the roads on the map, since 
the area that I'm in has had very few mappers (although my "other mappers 
in the area" list is now full, which is a nice change :).  The absence of 
any decent aerial photography also slows things down a good deal because 
you have to go out and resurvey things you aren't sure about rather than 
being able to have a quick glance at the photos.

  - 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] Misclassified roads

[Steve Hill]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote:

> The equivalent here, to which the tag would be applied, is known as 
> "Home Zone", and it has a specific sign:
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/general/coll_newroadsignsandmarkingsleaf/dft_roads_022863-16.jpg
> (which is taken from this page
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/general/newroadsignsandmarkingsleafletb?page=1
> )

Interesting...  I've never come across one of those signs (although the 
description makes it all sound like common sense - I would think that in 
any residential area you should expect kids to be playing in the street, 
no need for a special sign :)

  - 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] Misclassified roads

[Steve Hill]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:

> But from the your description here, what do you tag
> roads that are 30mph and don't have a centre line? i.e. the single
> most common type here.

That's a bit of a judgement call depending on the situation I think.  Most 
of the streets on housing estates around the UK are wide 20-30mph and many 
have no centre line.  However, they are wide enough to have a centre line 
- I guess the council don't bother painting the lines because they see it 
as unnecessary on a low-speed, low-traffic road and don't want the extra 
costs involved.  I tag these roads as "residential" if they are lined with 
houses.

If the road is for just for non-residential access (e.g. access to a 
school, or for deliveries to some shops) and it isn't a through road, I 
tag it as "service"

Some housing estates have quite narrow roads (just wide enough for 2 cars 
to pass) and no footways (so it is a shared surface for cars and 
pedestrians) - I'd tag these as residential.

Rural areas are a bit more problematic - they sometimes have fairly 
narrow roads which are most definately not residential but may have fairly 
low speed limits (30mph), especially around village centres.  I guess I'd 
err on the "unclassified" side even though the speed limit is low.

I hit a problem a few days ago of not quite knowing how to handle the 
difference between an unclassified road (high speed limit, just wide 
enough for cars to pass each other but no centre line) and a very narrow 
road (still a high speed limit, but only 1 car wide and with no passing 
places - if you meet someone coming the other way you'll be reversing for 
a couple of miles!).  In the end I settled on tagging them both as 
unclassified, but setting lanes=1 on the narrow one, but I'm still not 
entirely happy with this since it renders the same.  There was some debate 
as to whether it should be marked as a "track" instead, but tracks are 
supposed to be unsurfaced (and also, they render very similar to 
footpaths which gives the impression that you can't drive down them 
unless you look at the map key).

> Ok, as long as you change nothing in NL I don't really mind one way or
> the other :)

:)

  - 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] Misclassified roads

[David Earl]

On 11/07/2008 09:43, Steve Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> 
>> I don't want to be annoying, but what about the ordinary roads, which
>> don't fit in the above classification. With houses on both side but
>> limited to 50km/h for example.
> 
> Well, this is why I don't like the highway=residential tag.

I don't see the problem in that example:

highway=residential
maxspeed=50

(though in the UK, tghat would be 30mph, which is the default anyway, so 
the description is the perfect example of highway=residential).

If the speed limit were higher (or even if it wasn't), that might well 
be because it is a more significant road in the first place, perhaps a 
local distributor which is still residential but has greater local 
significance. As several of us said yesterday, in the absence of visible 
official designation, that's a subjective judgement, but in that case, I 
would use
   highway=tertiary
   abutters=residential
   maxspeed=...
(and personally, I use units - maxspeed=40mph - but that's another 
discussion we've already done to death; and I haven't been as rigorous 
as I should have been in recording non-default speed limits).

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads

[David Earl]

On 11/07/2008 09:43, Steve Hill wrote:
> The definition of living_street is a bit vague in the wiki.  A relevant 
> bit seems to be:
> "Simply tagging them with something like highway=residential, max_speed=7, 
> motorcar=yes, motorcycle=yes, bicycle=yes"
> 
> Which implies to me that the living_street tag almost never applies in the 
> UK - The vast majority of our residential roads have a speed limit of 
> 30mph, with newer ones tending to have a 20mph limit.  Just about the only 
> roads you'll see in the UK with a 5-10mph speed limit are service roads to 
> amenities such as schools.
> 
> I don't know enough about the road systems in other countries to comment - 
> from your description, it sounds like maybe you have living streets (very 
> low speed limit) rather than residential roads (20-30mph speed limits). 
> As I said, I really don't like the residential tag (although I do use it 
> in order to be consistent with the rest of the map).  For roads with speed 
> limits over 30mph I don't tag them with highway=residential, even if they 
> have houses along them.

You are right. Living streets are uncommon in the UK. I believe "Living 
Street" is a translation of the Dutch "Woonerf" where the concept was 
invented. The equivalent here, to which the tag would be applied, is 
known as "Home Zone", and it has a specific sign:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/general/coll_newroadsignsandmarkingsleaf/dft_roads_022863-16.jpg
(which is taken from this page
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/general/newroadsignsandmarkingsleafletb?page=1
)

Like all these things, the details vary from country to country. What 
makes some European Living Streets so much better than those in the UK 
is that they place a default responsibility on the motorist for any crash.

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>
>> I don't want to be annoying, but what about the ordinary roads, which
>> don't fit in the above classification. With houses on both side but
>> limited to 50km/h for example.
>
> Well, this is why I don't like the highway=residential tag.

Agreed, highway=residential was never very well thought out and it
rendered even worse.

>> Inside housing estates sounds like
>> living_street me. Maybe the word 'estate' means something else in the
>> UK than I think.
>
> The definition of living_street is a bit vague in the wiki.  A relevant bit
> seems to be:
> "Simply tagging them with something like highway=residential, max_speed=7,
> motorcar=yes, motorcycle=yes, bicycle=yes"

Oh, I never looked at the wiki, I use it to mark roads with the
appropriate sign in NL (and no, the speed limit isn't 7, I've never
seen that anywhere).

> I don't know enough about the road systems in other countries to comment -
> from your description, it sounds like maybe you have living streets (very
> low speed limit) rather than residential roads (20-30mph speed limits). As I
> said, I really don't like the residential tag (although I do use it in order
> to be consistent with the rest of the map).  For roads with speed limits
> over 30mph I don't tag them with highway=residential, even if they have
> houses along them.

We don't have anything with very low speed limits, not even
living_streets. But from the your description here, what do you tag
roads that are 30mph and don't have a centre line? i.e. the single
most common type here.

> As I've said before, I have no intention of changing any areas I'm not
> involved with - I'm just bringing a problem to the attention of everyone
> else since I suspect that Swansea isn't the only place affected.

Ok, as long as you change nothing in NL I don't really mind one way or
the other :)

>- they are wrong according to the
> definitions in the wiki - things like 50mph 2 lane dual carriageways are
> _not_ unclassified roads by any stretch of the imagination.

Agreed.

Have a nice day,
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads

[Steve Hill]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:

> I don't want to be annoying, but what about the ordinary roads, which
> don't fit in the above classification. With houses on both side but
> limited to 50km/h for example.

Well, this is why I don't like the highway=residential tag.

> Inside housing estates sounds like
> living_street me. Maybe the word 'estate' means something else in the
> UK than I think.

The definition of living_street is a bit vague in the wiki.  A relevant 
bit seems to be:
"Simply tagging them with something like highway=residential, max_speed=7, 
motorcar=yes, motorcycle=yes, bicycle=yes"

Which implies to me that the living_street tag almost never applies in the 
UK - The vast majority of our residential roads have a speed limit of 
30mph, with newer ones tending to have a 20mph limit.  Just about the only 
roads you'll see in the UK with a 5-10mph speed limit are service roads to 
amenities such as schools.

I don't know enough about the road systems in other countries to comment - 
from your description, it sounds like maybe you have living streets (very 
low speed limit) rather than residential roads (20-30mph speed limits). 
As I said, I really don't like the residential tag (although I do use it 
in order to be consistent with the rest of the map).  For roads with speed 
limits over 30mph I don't tag them with highway=residential, even if they 
have houses along them.

> the UK and is totally meaningless elsewhere. So we denoted something
> FTLOG don't go changing them all because you think they're wrong 
> according to some classification you came up with on your own.

As I've said before, I have no intention of changing any areas I'm not 
involved with - I'm just bringing a problem to the attention of everyone 
else since I suspect that Swansea isn't the only place affected.

The roads I am retagging in Swansea are not wrong "according to some 
classification I came up with on my own" - they are wrong according to the 
definitions in the wiki - things like 50mph 2 lane dual carriageways are 
_not_ unclassified roads by any stretch of the imagination.  The problem 
is simply that highway=unclassified has been used by a lot of people as a 
general "I don't know what the classification of this road is" tag because 
up until recently there was no other tag to use for this purpose.

  - 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