Re: [OSM-talk] Why do you use Google Maps instead of OSM? Because of buildings...
On Saturday 07 Nov 2009 2:30:54 pm Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > Likewise setting up your own rendering takes half a day at best if > you're not already familiar with the rendering tools involved. > OSM reflects changes within minutes -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Project Officer NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch, dual carriageways, and a broken changeset
Michal Migurski wrote: > For live mode, clearly an undo feature would introduce more > trouble than it's worth, for everyone involved in editing a > particular area. Spot on. Potlatch's undo does function in live mode - it predates save mode, in fact - but it's not trivial and I wouldn't want to bet my life on it working in all circumstances. I try not to introduce differences between live and save mode (other than the obvious). Vector map editing is unfamiliar enough for most people; having an extra set of subtle differences in the UI depending on which mode you're in would, I think, be too confusing. Fortunately I figured a more obvious way to flag up that a way is locked (and how to unlock it) and coded it earlier; it'll be committed in the next couple of days when I've finished a few more changes. cheers Richard (Incidentally, Potlatch 2 doesn't have a live mode and I'm not anticipating that it will. Mind you, it doesn't have undo yet either. ;) ) -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Potlatch%2C-dual-carriageways%2C-and-a-broken-changeset-tp26239769p26249655.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal -Voting- (man_made=mineshaft)
> What negative result do you fear would occur if somebody used[1] an > unapproved feature? > > [1] That is, they tagged something as documented in the wiki, even if > the documentation is to be found in Proposed Features? I'm not a big > fan of chaotic mapping, where people apply tags randomly without > understanding how they're documented in the wiki, or apply tags > without documenting their meaning in the wiki. > > IMHO, everything underneath Proposed_features should be moved into the > "real" wiki > (e.g. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:stop > should be moved to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stop) and > the feature should be labelled with 1) its current level of usage and > 2) a measure of its controversiality (red / yellow / green). > > That would make it easier for OSM editors to point people to > documentation. I do not fear anything. I have nothing against another system of "approving". But at the moment approving by voting is described as the way to go. If there would be a consensus about another procedure I would be quite happy about that. But at the moment only some guys on talk said voting is silly, but that is not enough. If you think voting is silly, why do you not change the procedure of approving new features in the wiki? But it is not enough to say, that you want to abolish voting. Based on what facts a feature will be approved then. Or do you want to abolish proposed features completely? BTW the role of talk is too important. Why should new features be discussed on talk, IMO they should be discussed in the forum, a place which is much more accessible and modern and not so outdated like a mailing list. Some of the people here can not even handle it. Most discussion get completely off topic after 3 posts. A moderated forum with an integrated voting mechanism would be the best to introduce new features. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why do you use Google Maps instead of OSM? Because of buildings...
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Shaun McDonald wrote: > > On 7 Nov 2009, at 13:32, Anthony wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason >> wrote: >>> >>> Yes, we know that everyone could probably use OSM maps for their >>> business website if they spent a week surveying their surrounding area >>> / creating custom renderings. But that's not very helpful when they >>> can just embed Google instantly and get the same results. >> >> If they spent a week surveying their surrounding area they could >> probably get much better results than Google. >> >> If what they want is exactly what Google provides, there's really no >> way to compete against that. > > Maybe we need some method for companies/organisations to be able to say that > an area isn't surveyed to a level they want and that they would like a > particular area to be surveyed to a higher degree for a specific purpose. Along with a donation of time and/or money and/or data and/or resources for the purpose of fulfilling that request :). I hope that unlike Wikipedia, OSM allows and encourages such "paid editing". ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why do you use Google Maps instead of OSM? Because of buildings...
2009/11/7 Shaun McDonald > Maybe we need some method for companies/organisations to be able to > say that an area isn't surveyed to a level they want and that they > would like a particular area to be surveyed to a higher degree for a > specific purpose. OpenStreetBugs is more for point errors, rather than > larger problems. Maybe OSB needs to be exposed more? I think Mappa Mercia, whose template I coped for the Sutton Green Map, is pretty instructive here. The menu along the top very clearly exposes OSB, provides a fairly plain English guide to contributing, and helps people understand how they can use the map: http://mappa-mercia.org/ I don't know what's happening to the oft-floated redesign, but this thread does again show up some basic shortcomings. Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why do you use Google Maps instead of OSM? Because of buildings...
On 7 Nov 2009, at 13:32, Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > wrote: >> Yes, we know that everyone could probably use OSM maps for their >> business website if they spent a week surveying their surrounding >> area >> / creating custom renderings. But that's not very helpful when they >> can just embed Google instantly and get the same results. > > If they spent a week surveying their surrounding area they could > probably get much better results than Google. > > If what they want is exactly what Google provides, there's really no > way to compete against that. Maybe we need some method for companies/organisations to be able to say that an area isn't surveyed to a level they want and that they would like a particular area to be surveyed to a higher degree for a specific purpose. OpenStreetBugs is more for point errors, rather than larger problems. Maybe OSB needs to be exposed more? Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal -Voting - (man_made=mineshaft)
Lesi writes: > I do not know which discussion you mean? > According to the wiki voting is still neccessary to approve a new feature. What negative result do you fear would occur if somebody used[1] an unapproved feature? [1] That is, they tagged something as documented in the wiki, even if the documentation is to be found in Proposed Features? I'm not a big fan of chaotic mapping, where people apply tags randomly without understanding how they're documented in the wiki, or apply tags without documenting their meaning in the wiki. IMHO, everything underneath Proposed_features should be moved into the "real" wiki (e.g. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:stop should be moved to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stop) and the feature should be labelled with 1) its current level of usage and 2) a measure of its controversiality (red / yellow / green). That would make it easier for OSM editors to point people to documentation. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch, dual carriageways, and a broken changeset
On Nov 6, 2009, at 6:38 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > Michal Migurski writes: >> instead make sure that multi-level undo is completely bulletproof. > > To make life more interesting, OSM editing goes on concurrently, and > yet nearly everyone who is editing is editing a chunk locally. So OSM > is episodically being synched with chunks of data we call a > "changeset", but which also includes the concept of an "edit conflict" > meaning that two chunks have been edited at the same time. > > Simultaneous editing of geodata is currently not a solved problem. > Even less solved is the concept of multi-level undo, much less > single-level undo. Within an editing session? Sure. Within your > chunk of data? Sure. But not outside that. I think this further underscores the difference between save mode and edit mode. Save mode is more like traditional desktop document editing, and the undo history need only be consistent with what you're doing in your own session. In this case, it should be possible to ditch the locked ways and instead make sure that the local document is fully self-consistent and undo-able. For live mode, clearly an undo feature would introduce more trouble than it's worth, for everyone involved in editing a particular area. There the presence of locked or ghosted ways as in the current Potlatch does make sense, but I do think the terminology and visual presentation could be tweaked a bit. I know what you mean about this not being a solved problem, and given how much time I spend with SVN, Git, etc. I'm pretty aware of how hard it can be to merge concurrent edits on the same resource. -mike. michal migurski- m...@stamen.com 415.558.1610 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why do you use Google Maps instead of OSM? Because of buildings...
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > Yes, we know that everyone could probably use OSM maps for their > business website if they spent a week surveying their surrounding area > / creating custom renderings. But that's not very helpful when they > can just embed Google instantly and get the same results. If they spent a week surveying their surrounding area they could probably get much better results than Google. If what they want is exactly what Google provides, there's really no way to compete against that. Anthony ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Logo Competition
SteveC wrote: > > We'd love to have a logo that better reflects the foundation... For confirmation, is this a logo just for the foundation, or for the wider project? Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why do you use Google Maps instead of OSM? Because of buildings...
Liz wrote: > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, Dave F. wrote: > >>> I asked an NGO based in London why they use Google Maps instead of OSM on >>> their 'contact us' page >>> >> To all the people who posted earlier than me: >> >> Yes, you all stated how it could be done & how to correct it, but... >> >> You haven't answered the problem of why they went with G. instead of >> OSM. in the first place. >> > > some see problems and some see opportunities To take an opportunity / find a solution, you first have to be aware of & acknowledge a problem. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Logo Competition
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 06:56, SteveC wrote: > The OSMF recently launched a new mediawiki powered site at > http://www.osmfoundationorg/ > with a basic logo. ouch...typo: http://www.osmfoundation.org/ -- -S ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why do you use Google Maps instead of OSM? Because of buildings...
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Andrew Errington wrote: > What the web person *should* have done is looked at OSM in their new > location and fixed the underlying data (if it was wrong or incomplete) or > made their own map based on the data, but omitting the features they > didn't like. The web person in question probably has a lot of tasks on his hands. It takes 5 minutes to embed a Google Maps map instead of an OSM map but tracing a 10-block radius as in this case is going to take half a day at best, assuming quality aerial imagery. Likewise setting up your own rendering takes half a day at best if you're not already familiar with the rendering tools involved. > Of course, we all know this. Yes, we know that everyone could probably use OSM maps for their business website if they spent a week surveying their surrounding area / creating custom renderings. But that's not very helpful when they can just embed Google instantly and get the same results. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
