[OSM-talk] An OSM logo for translation projects
Hi, Some time ago, the OSM community in Spain had a discussion [1] to add a country template and choose a new image for our wiki page on the OSM Wiki [2]. The OSM community in Spain has been using an OSM logo with the letters "ES" [3]. This logo was the same one that we were using in the WikiProject Spanish translation [4]. The Spanish-speaking OSM community in the world is not limited to Spain. Therefore, to avoid confusion between OSM Spain and OSM "in Spanish", we have changed the logo for this one [5], a simple and more generic logo which can be used in your OSM translation projects and wikiprojects. Greetings from Spain. [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES_talk:Espa%C3%B1a#A.C3.B1adir_plantilla_de_lugar (in Spanish) [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Espa%C3%B1a (in Spanish) [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm_es.svg [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Wikiproyecto_Traducci%C3%B3n_en_espa%C3%B1ol (in Spanish) [5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:OSM_translation.svg P.S.: Sorry if this message is published twice. I forgot to subscribe to the list before sending it. - Daniel Capilla OSM user: dcapillae -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
On 24/02/18 20:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Every country may have different peculiarities, but the general concept is the same: a road usually restricted to motorized traffic, typically grade separated and distinct carriageways. We’re normally using British English in tagging but this doesn’t mean we couldn’t map things that don’t occur in the UK or for what they don’t have a word. I think the main problem is that there are well established guidelines for various areas on mapping data at both country and region level but in may cases even those rules do not harmonize. We need the several levels of highway that are currently accurately mapping UK roads, but other areas of the world do not need that degree of classifications ... so they just don't use the ones that are not appropriate ... ( And I am battling getting my computer working again as it was such as getting email replies properly handled on different lists :( ) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > can you please point to some examples? Are you sure about the other maps? > They often don’t show many different road classes on first sight (but they > have them and you can see it as you zoom in and out that there must be more > properties or classes than you can distinguish by color or width) Sure. Let's begin with Matej's example: route 7 on Sulec, Czechia. It's not continuous in OSM, but it is in Google Maps, Here.com and Waze: - https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/50.3083/13.8837 - https://www.google.com.br/maps/@50.30831134,13.88367320,14z - https://wego.here.com/?map=50.30828,13.88449,14,normal In Germany, there are many small stretches of trunk in the area between Berlin, Hamburg and Hannover. On the route Hamburg - Uelzen - Braunschweig, it happens twice along route B4: - in Uelzen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/52.9611/10.5890 - in Gifhorn: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/52.4694/10.5244 No such changes in Google Maps, Here.com or Waze. In Openstreetmap.de, this leads to the interesting effect of knowing where the road is divided. However, that does not translate well elsewhere - for example, in England, on route A40 between Oxford and Gloucester, which is not divided: https://www.openstreetmap.de/karte.html?zoom=18&lat=51.80304&lon=-1.63750&layers=B000TT In Italy, on route SS12 between Verona and Modena, it also happens twice: - in Isolda della Scala: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/45.2730/11.0218 - in Mirandola: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/44.8679/11.0485 As in the other example, no such changes in Google Maps, Here.com or Waze. -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 "Nullius in verba." ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
sent from a phone > On 24. Feb 2018, at 13:02, Lester Caine wrote: > > Since the classification initiated from the UK, that is still the base and a > motorway has restrictions that do not apply to a trunk route such as 'no > learners'. what are “learners”? I don’t think we are required to map the whole world according to the UK jurisdiction. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
sent from a phone > On 24. Feb 2018, at 11:16, Matej Lieskovský > wrote: > > One last observation: > Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia > all use a similar system where highway=trunk is "motorway-like", with trunk > either implying motorroad status, or being a prerequisite for it. add Italy to this list, although motorroad is somehow orthogonal to trunk, in Germany and Italy at least. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
sent from a phone > On 24. Feb 2018, at 03:47, Fernando Trebien > wrote: > > None of the > commercial alternatives to OSM have such artifacts. can you please point to some examples? Are you sure about the other maps? They often don’t show many different road classes on first sight (but they have them and you can see it as you zoom in and out that there must be more properties or classes than you can distinguish by color or width) Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
sent from a phone On 24. Feb 2018, at 03:47, Fernando Trebien wrote: >> drawn as a trunk road hints at all >> these changes. > > > You could also map it with lanes=4+foot=no+bicycle=no+agricultural=no > and let the renderer decide whether these things are worthy of special > representation or not. there’s more to it, e.g. absence of traffic lights or level crossings (i.e. only ramps), separate carriageways, etc. You can’t see the absence of traffic lights reliably in OSM, for example, and I imagine checking automatically for the type of crossings is also rather complex, just to be able to draw the road. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
sent from a phone > On 23. Feb 2018, at 19:31, Fernando Trebien > wrote: > > Assuming the map is correctly classified in Europe, I'm seeing many > fragments of motorways and trunks all over the map. Is this an > artifact of local definitions it is because motorroads are defined legally (signs) and trunks typically according to physical status (e.g. motorway like), and in reality the networks often aren’t complete, which is reflected correctly on the map (in general) by showing those “gaps” cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
sent from a phone > On 23. Feb 2018, at 19:29, djakk djakk wrote: > > Don’t worry, when the official system is good, lik in Czechia, it matches > Fernando’s suggestion :) usually you’ll find several “classes” for roads by the public administration, according to the purpose/point of view, at least in Germany and Italy that’s the case. There can be classes according to the importance of connection, frequency of use, and maybe correlated with this size (number and width of lanes) and typology, setting, intensity of maintenance, etc. (some of these classes might only be known to the engineers who design the road / network, or organize the maintenance). The only “class” you can often easily see is about _who_ does the maintenance (e.g. national/regional/municipality/etc), which is a property we do map as operator. It can occur that there is a strong relationship between the hierarchy of the operators and the importance of the road, but it is generally unlikely that there aren’t any exceptions at all (e.g. because the public administration is usually slow and it will take some time for them to adopt to changed conditions) Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
In addition of the « traffic » tag, there could be the « importance » tag (already use for railways - regional or national), with 5 values : neighbourhood, city, regional, national, continental. The example of the trunk road around Island : traffic=low, importance=national :) djakk Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 14:22, djakk djakk a écrit : > Yes, we should be able to tag secondary motorway or secondary motorroads. ( > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/48.8719/2.4496 - https > ://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/48.57211/-2.82279) > > djakk > >> >> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
Yes, we should be able to tag secondary motorway or secondary motorroads. ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/48.8719/2.4496 - https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/48.57211/-2.82279) djakk Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 13:34, Fernando Trebien a écrit : > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 7:16 AM, Matej Lieskovský > wrote: > > One last observation: > > Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Poland and > Slovakia > > all use a similar system where highway=trunk is "motorway-like", with > trunk > > either implying motorroad status, or being a prerequisite for it. > > In Brazil, the highways that would most closely correspond to the idea > of a motorroad are actually considered inferior because they lack > shoulders and are, thus, less safe for travel. They are usually built > like that to cut costs, not as an ultimately desirable design, so they > tend to be minor, not major routes. > > TagInfo [1] also tells me that there are many motorroads in OSM that > are primary, not trunk. Probably not in the countries you mentioned, > but they seem to exist in the UK and in Norway (where there may even > be some motorroads classified as secondary) [2]. > > [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/motorroad=yes#combinations > [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorroad > > > On 24 February 2018 at 11:08, Matej Lieskovský < > lieskovsky.ma...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> 1) > >> Trunk in Czechia is "motorway-like". > >> Feel free to document local conventions here: > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_classes > >> Also, see this: > >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk#International_equivalence > >> > >> 2) > >> Highway classification is not really a measurable thing. I'd compare it > to > >> how admin_level works. There is some equivalence, but everyone > understands > >> that admin_level=4 means something slightly different in Czechia and in > the > >> US. > >> > >> I'd be very careful about global definitions as we might easily end up > >> with entire countries without even a highway=primary. I mean, how can > Brazil > >> have unpaved trunk roads? Does Iceland get to keep its trunk road when > it > >> has only one city of more than 35000 inhabitants? Do we get to keep > trunk > >> roads when there are several cities in China with more people than the > >> entire Czech Republic? By similar logic the outer border of Czech > Republic > >> should be approximately admin_level=4 (to match US states) and trust me > that > >> EU integration is not yet at the point where that would be acceptable. > :) > >> > >> Let's get the wiki filled in, we might be wiser afterwards. > >> > >> @djakk: Thanks for making the discussion a little more organized. > >> > >> On 24 February 2018 at 10:30, djakk djakk > wrote: > >>> > >>> There is 2 « independant » things in the debate : > >>> 1) trunk definition - what is a trunk, a motorway-like road - based on > >>> physical characteristics- or a super-primary road - based on the > importance > >>> ? > >>> 2) wordwilde trunk definition ? - should we have the same definition > all > >>> over the world of what is highway= trunk ? (value that are > country-dependant > >>> are not that common, aren’t they ?) > >>> > >>> djakk > >>> > >>> > >>> Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 10:07, Matej Lieskovský > >>> a écrit : > > 1) If you want to look at a professional map of Czechia, I'd recommend > www.mapy.cz over google maps as that is the most used and far more > detailed > map. > 2) I agree that the discontinuities are ugly, but they reflect the > state > on the ground. That section around Sulec is a trunk instead of a > primary due > to the fact that it is a section of future motorway built to motorway > standard. While your system heavily preferences "importance" of > roads, our > local system reflects reality. Declaring the entire road from Pilsen > to > České Budějovice as trunk due to its importance loses the information > that > there is a section that was built as a motorway link to Písek. I can > already > tell that the road is important because it links Pilsen and České > Budějovice > (by looking at the map), but I also want to know that it was built as > a > primary road and not as a trunk - that means that I'm going to expect > more > single-level junctions and only two lanes for most of the way. > > I agree, our trunk roads are a little fuzzy on their definition, but > elevating random primary roads to trunk is a loss of data for us. > Touching > anything else than reclassifying primary to trunk et vice versa will > certainly be considered as vandalism in Czechia. > > You are demonstrating that you can guess the road class from other > data. > I think it's cute, but does not match on-the-ground data in countries > where > road classification is well-defined. > > Look, I've spent a lot of time on this and I ha
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 7:16 AM, Matej Lieskovský wrote: > One last observation: > Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia > all use a similar system where highway=trunk is "motorway-like", with trunk > either implying motorroad status, or being a prerequisite for it. In Brazil, the highways that would most closely correspond to the idea of a motorroad are actually considered inferior because they lack shoulders and are, thus, less safe for travel. They are usually built like that to cut costs, not as an ultimately desirable design, so they tend to be minor, not major routes. TagInfo [1] also tells me that there are many motorroads in OSM that are primary, not trunk. Probably not in the countries you mentioned, but they seem to exist in the UK and in Norway (where there may even be some motorroads classified as secondary) [2]. [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/motorroad=yes#combinations [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorroad > On 24 February 2018 at 11:08, Matej Lieskovský > wrote: >> >> 1) >> Trunk in Czechia is "motorway-like". >> Feel free to document local conventions here: >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_classes >> Also, see this: >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk#International_equivalence >> >> 2) >> Highway classification is not really a measurable thing. I'd compare it to >> how admin_level works. There is some equivalence, but everyone understands >> that admin_level=4 means something slightly different in Czechia and in the >> US. >> >> I'd be very careful about global definitions as we might easily end up >> with entire countries without even a highway=primary. I mean, how can Brazil >> have unpaved trunk roads? Does Iceland get to keep its trunk road when it >> has only one city of more than 35000 inhabitants? Do we get to keep trunk >> roads when there are several cities in China with more people than the >> entire Czech Republic? By similar logic the outer border of Czech Republic >> should be approximately admin_level=4 (to match US states) and trust me that >> EU integration is not yet at the point where that would be acceptable. :) >> >> Let's get the wiki filled in, we might be wiser afterwards. >> >> @djakk: Thanks for making the discussion a little more organized. >> >> On 24 February 2018 at 10:30, djakk djakk wrote: >>> >>> There is 2 « independant » things in the debate : >>> 1) trunk definition - what is a trunk, a motorway-like road - based on >>> physical characteristics- or a super-primary road - based on the importance >>> ? >>> 2) wordwilde trunk definition ? - should we have the same definition all >>> over the world of what is highway= trunk ? (value that are country-dependant >>> are not that common, aren’t they ?) >>> >>> djakk >>> >>> >>> Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 10:07, Matej Lieskovský >>> a écrit : 1) If you want to look at a professional map of Czechia, I'd recommend www.mapy.cz over google maps as that is the most used and far more detailed map. 2) I agree that the discontinuities are ugly, but they reflect the state on the ground. That section around Sulec is a trunk instead of a primary due to the fact that it is a section of future motorway built to motorway standard. While your system heavily preferences "importance" of roads, our local system reflects reality. Declaring the entire road from Pilsen to České Budějovice as trunk due to its importance loses the information that there is a section that was built as a motorway link to Písek. I can already tell that the road is important because it links Pilsen and České Budějovice (by looking at the map), but I also want to know that it was built as a primary road and not as a trunk - that means that I'm going to expect more single-level junctions and only two lanes for most of the way. I agree, our trunk roads are a little fuzzy on their definition, but elevating random primary roads to trunk is a loss of data for us. Touching anything else than reclassifying primary to trunk et vice versa will certainly be considered as vandalism in Czechia. You are demonstrating that you can guess the road class from other data. I think it's cute, but does not match on-the-ground data in countries where road classification is well-defined. Look, I've spent a lot of time on this and I have better things to do. Fill in the info for your regions on the wiki and then we can see what we can do. Until then, bear in mind that "harmonising" European roads will likely get you banned. I don't want to sound like I'm threatening you, but I've probably spent all the time I'm willing to spend on arguing with some random person who wants to break our local road classification system "because it will look nicer". On 24 February 2018 at 07:59, djakk djakk wrot
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Matej Lieskovský wrote: > I mean, how can Brazil have > unpaved trunk roads? Does Iceland get to keep its trunk road when it has > only one city of more than 35000 inhabitants? Do we get to keep trunk roads > when there are several cities in China with more people than the entire > Czech Republic? By similar logic the outer border of Czech Republic should > be approximately admin_level=4 (to match US states) and trust me that EU > integration is not yet at the point where that would be acceptable. :) Unpaved trunk roads are not so unexpected [1][2]. place=* is defined differently in many countries to compensate for differences in population density. That would solve the problems you just mentioned. For example, in Russia [3], they define it this way: - place=city: settlement of 100k people, or provincial capital with 40k people - place=town: urban settlement of 5k people, rural settlement of 8k people, or municipal district of 2k (if urban) or 4k (if not urban) people I didn't find the definition for Iceland, but currently the capital is mapped as place=city and all settlements with 1k people or more are place=town. All of those settlements are connected by highway=primary, which is the level that would connect them according to my proposal. Even though the Ring Road is entirely mapped as a trunk, its structure is not the same everywhere; it is even unpaved in some sections [4][5], but the classification doesn't change as a result of those changes in structure. And the local community could have voted to make the Ring Road an explicit exception to the general rule. But it would also be interesting to discuss what makes the Ring Road important, perhaps the reasons would apply elsewhere. The most populous settlement that is not connected by the Ring Road is Ísafjörður, with 3.7k inhabitants and the 13th most populous in Iceland. This may indicate an interesting idea: the Ring Road may be important because it connects the majority of people in the country [6], regardless of whether these people are concentrated in few large settlements or spread over a vast area. How about Czechia? Looking at the population distribution [7], the map that I generated seems to closely follow population distribution (probably a result of planning), and I could say that it makes sense to add other regional capitals to the same set of cities (such as Karlovy Vary and Zlín). mapy.cz uses OSM data, so I believe it does not count in this discussion as an alternative approach to highway classification. [1] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110 [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Trunk [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:place [4] https://www.google.com.br/maps/@64.7966139,-14.5148196,3a,75y,96.06h,87.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8fD89Ax72Y9lqw9RkXcyUg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_1_(Iceland) [6] http://i.imgur.com/uFFiPsz.png [7] https://www.mapmania.org/map/64667/czech_republic_czechia_population_density_2007 > On 24 February 2018 at 10:30, djakk djakk wrote: >> >> There is 2 « independant » things in the debate : >> 1) trunk definition - what is a trunk, a motorway-like road - based on >> physical characteristics- or a super-primary road - based on the importance >> ? >> 2) wordwilde trunk definition ? - should we have the same definition all >> over the world of what is highway= trunk ? (value that are country-dependant >> are not that common, aren’t they ?) >> >> djakk >> >> >> Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 10:07, Matej Lieskovský >> a écrit : >>> >>> 1) If you want to look at a professional map of Czechia, I'd recommend >>> www.mapy.cz over google maps as that is the most used and far more detailed >>> map. >>> 2) I agree that the discontinuities are ugly, but they reflect the state >>> on the ground. That section around Sulec is a trunk instead of a primary due >>> to the fact that it is a section of future motorway built to motorway >>> standard. While your system heavily preferences "importance" of roads, our >>> local system reflects reality. Declaring the entire road from Pilsen to >>> České Budějovice as trunk due to its importance loses the information that >>> there is a section that was built as a motorway link to Písek. I can already >>> tell that the road is important because it links Pilsen and České Budějovice >>> (by looking at the map), but I also want to know that it was built as a >>> primary road and not as a trunk - that means that I'm going to expect more >>> single-level junctions and only two lanes for most of the way. >>> >>> I agree, our trunk roads are a little fuzzy on their definition, but >>> elevating random primary roads to trunk is a loss of data for us. Touching >>> anything else than reclassifying primary to trunk et vice versa will >>> certainly be considered as vandalism in Czechia. >>> >>> You are demonstrating that you can guess the road class from other data. >>>
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
On 24/02/18 09:30, djakk djakk wrote: There is 2 « independant » things in the debate : 1) trunk definition - what is a trunk, a motorway-like road - based on physical characteristics- or a super-primary road - based on the importance ? Since the classification initiated from the UK, that is still the base and a motorway has restrictions that do not apply to a trunk route such as 'no learners'. In addition they were maintained 'nationally' while primary roads are a local responsibility. That was been muddied much as the idea that trunk routes are faster. For the UK the road structure is well defined and it would be nice to get back a rendering with the proper colours ( and a selection for that on OSMAND ) ... 2) wordwilde trunk definition ? - should we have the same definition all over the world of what is highway= trunk ? (value that are country-dependant are not that common, aren’t they ?) Since there are no distinctions in many countries there is no need to include truck if there are no such roads in a country, and perhaps for 'world wide' trunk gets rendered the same as motorway or primary? Only local rendering actually benefits from the distinction? Do any countries not have motorways at all? Certainly the current default rendering is useless for many of us anyway so we have to ue an alternate anyway ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
On 2018-02-24 at 11:16:22 +0100, Matej Lieskovský wrote: > One last observation: > Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia > all use a similar system where highway=trunk is "motorway-like", with trunk > either implying motorroad status, or being a prerequisite for it. and Italy too -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
One last observation: Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia all use a similar system where highway=trunk is "motorway-like", with trunk either implying motorroad status, or being a prerequisite for it. On 24 February 2018 at 11:08, Matej Lieskovský wrote: > 1) > Trunk in Czechia is "motorway-like". > Feel free to document local conventions here: https://wiki. > openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_classes > Also, see this: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag: > highway%3Dtrunk#International_equivalence > > 2) > Highway classification is not really a measurable thing. I'd compare it to > how admin_level works. There is some equivalence, but everyone understands > that admin_level=4 means something slightly different in Czechia and in the > US. > > I'd be very careful about global definitions as we might easily end up > with entire countries without even a highway=primary. I mean, how can > Brazil have unpaved trunk roads? Does Iceland get to keep its trunk road > when it has only one city of more than 35000 inhabitants? Do we get to keep > trunk roads when there are several cities in China with more people than > the entire Czech Republic? By similar logic the outer border of Czech > Republic should be approximately admin_level=4 (to match US states) and > trust me that EU integration is not yet at the point where that would be > acceptable. :) > > Let's get the wiki filled in, we might be wiser afterwards. > > @djakk: Thanks for making the discussion a little more organized. > > On 24 February 2018 at 10:30, djakk djakk wrote: > >> There is 2 « independant » things in the debate : >> 1) trunk definition - what is a trunk, a motorway-like road - based on >> physical characteristics- or a super-primary road - based on the importance >> ? >> 2) wordwilde trunk definition ? - should we have the same definition all >> over the world of what is highway= trunk ? (value that are >> country-dependant are not that common, aren’t they ?) >> >> djakk >> >> >> Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 10:07, Matej Lieskovský < >> lieskovsky.ma...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >>> 1) If you want to look at a professional map of Czechia, I'd recommend >>> www.mapy.cz over google maps as that is the most used and far more >>> detailed map. >>> 2) I agree that the discontinuities are ugly, but they reflect the state >>> on the ground. That section around Sulec is a trunk instead of a primary >>> due to the fact that it is a section of future motorway built to motorway >>> standard. While your system heavily preferences "importance" of roads, our >>> local system reflects reality. Declaring the entire road from Pilsen to >>> České Budějovice as trunk due to its importance loses the information that >>> there is a section that was built as a motorway link to Písek. I can >>> already tell that the road is important because it links Pilsen and České >>> Budějovice (by looking at the map), but I also want to know that it was >>> built as a primary road and not as a trunk - that means that I'm going to >>> expect more single-level junctions and only two lanes for most of the way. >>> >>> I agree, our trunk roads are a little fuzzy on their definition, but >>> elevating random primary roads to trunk is a loss of data for us. Touching >>> anything else than reclassifying primary to trunk et vice versa will >>> certainly be considered as vandalism in Czechia. >>> >>> You are demonstrating that you can guess the road class from other data. >>> I think it's cute, but does not match on-the-ground data in countries where >>> road classification is well-defined. >>> >>> Look, I've spent a lot of time on this and I have better things to do. >>> Fill in the info for your regions on the wiki and then we can see what we >>> can do. Until then, bear in mind that "harmonising" European roads will >>> likely get you banned. I don't want to sound like I'm threatening you, but >>> I've probably spent all the time I'm willing to spend on arguing with some >>> random person who wants to break our local road classification system >>> "because it will look nicer". >>> >>> On 24 February 2018 at 07:59, djakk djakk wrote: >>> Yes, but this rendering does not change when a road crosses a border ^^ djakk Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 05:43, JB a écrit : > There is something I don't get. > Draw primary the same color as trunk and you have no more « > discontinuity »? > In France, some commercial map (the most sold, I think) use a different > rendering for trunk and primary, because you drive faster on trunks. I > like it, I think they like it, because they have been using this > rendering for decades. > JB. > > Le 24/02/2018 à 04:45, Fernando Trebien a écrit : > > As an exercise (and I'm curious about your thoughts on this), I found > > the main routes between place=city within Czechia (didn't have time > to > > include cities in adjacent countries, bea
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
1) Trunk in Czechia is "motorway-like". Feel free to document local conventions here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_classes Also, see this: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk#International_equivalence 2) Highway classification is not really a measurable thing. I'd compare it to how admin_level works. There is some equivalence, but everyone understands that admin_level=4 means something slightly different in Czechia and in the US. I'd be very careful about global definitions as we might easily end up with entire countries without even a highway=primary. I mean, how can Brazil have unpaved trunk roads? Does Iceland get to keep its trunk road when it has only one city of more than 35000 inhabitants? Do we get to keep trunk roads when there are several cities in China with more people than the entire Czech Republic? By similar logic the outer border of Czech Republic should be approximately admin_level=4 (to match US states) and trust me that EU integration is not yet at the point where that would be acceptable. :) Let's get the wiki filled in, we might be wiser afterwards. @djakk: Thanks for making the discussion a little more organized. On 24 February 2018 at 10:30, djakk djakk wrote: > There is 2 « independant » things in the debate : > 1) trunk definition - what is a trunk, a motorway-like road - based on > physical characteristics- or a super-primary road - based on the importance > ? > 2) wordwilde trunk definition ? - should we have the same definition all > over the world of what is highway= trunk ? (value that are > country-dependant are not that common, aren’t they ?) > > djakk > > > Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 10:07, Matej Lieskovský < > lieskovsky.ma...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >> 1) If you want to look at a professional map of Czechia, I'd recommend >> www.mapy.cz over google maps as that is the most used and far more >> detailed map. >> 2) I agree that the discontinuities are ugly, but they reflect the state >> on the ground. That section around Sulec is a trunk instead of a primary >> due to the fact that it is a section of future motorway built to motorway >> standard. While your system heavily preferences "importance" of roads, our >> local system reflects reality. Declaring the entire road from Pilsen to >> České Budějovice as trunk due to its importance loses the information that >> there is a section that was built as a motorway link to Písek. I can >> already tell that the road is important because it links Pilsen and České >> Budějovice (by looking at the map), but I also want to know that it was >> built as a primary road and not as a trunk - that means that I'm going to >> expect more single-level junctions and only two lanes for most of the way. >> >> I agree, our trunk roads are a little fuzzy on their definition, but >> elevating random primary roads to trunk is a loss of data for us. Touching >> anything else than reclassifying primary to trunk et vice versa will >> certainly be considered as vandalism in Czechia. >> >> You are demonstrating that you can guess the road class from other data. >> I think it's cute, but does not match on-the-ground data in countries where >> road classification is well-defined. >> >> Look, I've spent a lot of time on this and I have better things to do. >> Fill in the info for your regions on the wiki and then we can see what we >> can do. Until then, bear in mind that "harmonising" European roads will >> likely get you banned. I don't want to sound like I'm threatening you, but >> I've probably spent all the time I'm willing to spend on arguing with some >> random person who wants to break our local road classification system >> "because it will look nicer". >> >> On 24 February 2018 at 07:59, djakk djakk wrote: >> >>> Yes, but this rendering does not change when a road crosses a border ^^ >>> >>> djakk >>> >>> >>> Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 05:43, JB a écrit : >>> There is something I don't get. Draw primary the same color as trunk and you have no more « discontinuity »? In France, some commercial map (the most sold, I think) use a different rendering for trunk and primary, because you drive faster on trunks. I like it, I think they like it, because they have been using this rendering for decades. JB. Le 24/02/2018 à 04:45, Fernando Trebien a écrit : > As an exercise (and I'm curious about your thoughts on this), I found > the main routes between place=city within Czechia (didn't have time to > include cities in adjacent countries, bear that in mind). > > Here's the result [1] using the old colour scheme (motorway=blue, > trunk=green, primary=red; with a little mistake: secondary=yellow). > Top image uses the current classifications, and bottom image is the > result if city-city routes are classified as trunks. Looks very > similar to most other maps. Just by looking at it, it's quite obvious > which is the main route
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
Matej, you don’t have to answer quickly, you can answer one time per week if you prefer, the strong arguments will still weight well :) djakk Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 10:30, djakk djakk a écrit : > There is 2 « independant » things in the debate : > 1) trunk definition - what is a trunk, a motorway-like road - based on > physical characteristics- or a super-primary road - based on the importance > ? > 2) wordwilde trunk definition ? - should we have the same definition all > over the world of what is highway= trunk ? (value that are > country-dependant are not that common, aren’t they ?) > > djakk > > > Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 10:07, Matej Lieskovský < > lieskovsky.ma...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >> 1) If you want to look at a professional map of Czechia, I'd recommend >> www.mapy.cz over google maps as that is the most used and far more >> detailed map. >> 2) I agree that the discontinuities are ugly, but they reflect the state >> on the ground. That section around Sulec is a trunk instead of a primary >> due to the fact that it is a section of future motorway built to motorway >> standard. While your system heavily preferences "importance" of roads, our >> local system reflects reality. Declaring the entire road from Pilsen to >> České Budějovice as trunk due to its importance loses the information that >> there is a section that was built as a motorway link to Písek. I can >> already tell that the road is important because it links Pilsen and České >> Budějovice (by looking at the map), but I also want to know that it was >> built as a primary road and not as a trunk - that means that I'm going to >> expect more single-level junctions and only two lanes for most of the way. >> >> I agree, our trunk roads are a little fuzzy on their definition, but >> elevating random primary roads to trunk is a loss of data for us. Touching >> anything else than reclassifying primary to trunk et vice versa will >> certainly be considered as vandalism in Czechia. >> >> You are demonstrating that you can guess the road class from other data. >> I think it's cute, but does not match on-the-ground data in countries where >> road classification is well-defined. >> >> Look, I've spent a lot of time on this and I have better things to do. >> Fill in the info for your regions on the wiki and then we can see what we >> can do. Until then, bear in mind that "harmonising" European roads will >> likely get you banned. I don't want to sound like I'm threatening you, but >> I've probably spent all the time I'm willing to spend on arguing with some >> random person who wants to break our local road classification system >> "because it will look nicer". >> >> On 24 February 2018 at 07:59, djakk djakk wrote: >> >>> Yes, but this rendering does not change when a road crosses a border ^^ >>> >>> djakk >>> >>> >>> Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 05:43, JB a écrit : >>> There is something I don't get. Draw primary the same color as trunk and you have no more « discontinuity »? In France, some commercial map (the most sold, I think) use a different rendering for trunk and primary, because you drive faster on trunks. I like it, I think they like it, because they have been using this rendering for decades. JB. Le 24/02/2018 à 04:45, Fernando Trebien a écrit : > As an exercise (and I'm curious about your thoughts on this), I found > the main routes between place=city within Czechia (didn't have time to > include cities in adjacent countries, bear that in mind). > > Here's the result [1] using the old colour scheme (motorway=blue, > trunk=green, primary=red; with a little mistake: secondary=yellow). > Top image uses the current classifications, and bottom image is the > result if city-city routes are classified as trunks. Looks very > similar to most other maps. Just by looking at it, it's quite obvious > which is the main route between each pair of cities. As expected, the > method also found out the best ways through and around Praha when > going across it. This could also be slightly improved - for example, > with little extra time, it is easier to recommend going through route > 6 and then Karlovarská than through route 5 and Bucharova. > > I've checked the three small secondary segments using Street View. > Their physical structure is quite good. If still considered > undersirable, there are alternative main ways that increase the total > time of travel very slightly. Not all routers agreed on taking them > anyway. > > [1] https://i.imgur.com/qFGSveX.jpg > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
There is 2 « independant » things in the debate : 1) trunk definition - what is a trunk, a motorway-like road - based on physical characteristics- or a super-primary road - based on the importance ? 2) wordwilde trunk definition ? - should we have the same definition all over the world of what is highway= trunk ? (value that are country-dependant are not that common, aren’t they ?) djakk Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 10:07, Matej Lieskovský a écrit : > 1) If you want to look at a professional map of Czechia, I'd recommend > www.mapy.cz over google maps as that is the most used and far more > detailed map. > 2) I agree that the discontinuities are ugly, but they reflect the state > on the ground. That section around Sulec is a trunk instead of a primary > due to the fact that it is a section of future motorway built to motorway > standard. While your system heavily preferences "importance" of roads, our > local system reflects reality. Declaring the entire road from Pilsen to > České Budějovice as trunk due to its importance loses the information that > there is a section that was built as a motorway link to Písek. I can > already tell that the road is important because it links Pilsen and České > Budějovice (by looking at the map), but I also want to know that it was > built as a primary road and not as a trunk - that means that I'm going to > expect more single-level junctions and only two lanes for most of the way. > > I agree, our trunk roads are a little fuzzy on their definition, but > elevating random primary roads to trunk is a loss of data for us. Touching > anything else than reclassifying primary to trunk et vice versa will > certainly be considered as vandalism in Czechia. > > You are demonstrating that you can guess the road class from other data. I > think it's cute, but does not match on-the-ground data in countries where > road classification is well-defined. > > Look, I've spent a lot of time on this and I have better things to do. > Fill in the info for your regions on the wiki and then we can see what we > can do. Until then, bear in mind that "harmonising" European roads will > likely get you banned. I don't want to sound like I'm threatening you, but > I've probably spent all the time I'm willing to spend on arguing with some > random person who wants to break our local road classification system > "because it will look nicer". > > On 24 February 2018 at 07:59, djakk djakk wrote: > >> Yes, but this rendering does not change when a road crosses a border ^^ >> >> djakk >> >> >> Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 05:43, JB a écrit : >> >>> There is something I don't get. >>> Draw primary the same color as trunk and you have no more « >>> discontinuity »? >>> In France, some commercial map (the most sold, I think) use a different >>> rendering for trunk and primary, because you drive faster on trunks. I >>> like it, I think they like it, because they have been using this >>> rendering for decades. >>> JB. >>> >>> Le 24/02/2018 à 04:45, Fernando Trebien a écrit : >>> > As an exercise (and I'm curious about your thoughts on this), I found >>> > the main routes between place=city within Czechia (didn't have time to >>> > include cities in adjacent countries, bear that in mind). >>> > >>> > Here's the result [1] using the old colour scheme (motorway=blue, >>> > trunk=green, primary=red; with a little mistake: secondary=yellow). >>> > Top image uses the current classifications, and bottom image is the >>> > result if city-city routes are classified as trunks. Looks very >>> > similar to most other maps. Just by looking at it, it's quite obvious >>> > which is the main route between each pair of cities. As expected, the >>> > method also found out the best ways through and around Praha when >>> > going across it. This could also be slightly improved - for example, >>> > with little extra time, it is easier to recommend going through route >>> > 6 and then Karlovarská than through route 5 and Bucharova. >>> > >>> > I've checked the three small secondary segments using Street View. >>> > Their physical structure is quite good. If still considered >>> > undersirable, there are alternative main ways that increase the total >>> > time of travel very slightly. Not all routers agreed on taking them >>> > anyway. >>> > >>> > [1] https://i.imgur.com/qFGSveX.jpg >>> > >>> > ___ >>> > talk mailing list >>> > talk@openstreetmap.org >>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> talk mailing list >>> talk@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>> >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> >> > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
1) If you want to look at a professional map of Czechia, I'd recommend www.mapy.cz over google maps as that is the most used and far more detailed map. 2) I agree that the discontinuities are ugly, but they reflect the state on the ground. That section around Sulec is a trunk instead of a primary due to the fact that it is a section of future motorway built to motorway standard. While your system heavily preferences "importance" of roads, our local system reflects reality. Declaring the entire road from Pilsen to České Budějovice as trunk due to its importance loses the information that there is a section that was built as a motorway link to Písek. I can already tell that the road is important because it links Pilsen and České Budějovice (by looking at the map), but I also want to know that it was built as a primary road and not as a trunk - that means that I'm going to expect more single-level junctions and only two lanes for most of the way. I agree, our trunk roads are a little fuzzy on their definition, but elevating random primary roads to trunk is a loss of data for us. Touching anything else than reclassifying primary to trunk et vice versa will certainly be considered as vandalism in Czechia. You are demonstrating that you can guess the road class from other data. I think it's cute, but does not match on-the-ground data in countries where road classification is well-defined. Look, I've spent a lot of time on this and I have better things to do. Fill in the info for your regions on the wiki and then we can see what we can do. Until then, bear in mind that "harmonising" European roads will likely get you banned. I don't want to sound like I'm threatening you, but I've probably spent all the time I'm willing to spend on arguing with some random person who wants to break our local road classification system "because it will look nicer". On 24 February 2018 at 07:59, djakk djakk wrote: > Yes, but this rendering does not change when a road crosses a border ^^ > > djakk > > > Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 05:43, JB a écrit : > >> There is something I don't get. >> Draw primary the same color as trunk and you have no more « >> discontinuity »? >> In France, some commercial map (the most sold, I think) use a different >> rendering for trunk and primary, because you drive faster on trunks. I >> like it, I think they like it, because they have been using this >> rendering for decades. >> JB. >> >> Le 24/02/2018 à 04:45, Fernando Trebien a écrit : >> > As an exercise (and I'm curious about your thoughts on this), I found >> > the main routes between place=city within Czechia (didn't have time to >> > include cities in adjacent countries, bear that in mind). >> > >> > Here's the result [1] using the old colour scheme (motorway=blue, >> > trunk=green, primary=red; with a little mistake: secondary=yellow). >> > Top image uses the current classifications, and bottom image is the >> > result if city-city routes are classified as trunks. Looks very >> > similar to most other maps. Just by looking at it, it's quite obvious >> > which is the main route between each pair of cities. As expected, the >> > method also found out the best ways through and around Praha when >> > going across it. This could also be slightly improved - for example, >> > with little extra time, it is easier to recommend going through route >> > 6 and then Karlovarská than through route 5 and Bucharova. >> > >> > I've checked the three small secondary segments using Street View. >> > Their physical structure is quite good. If still considered >> > undersirable, there are alternative main ways that increase the total >> > time of travel very slightly. Not all routers agreed on taking them >> > anyway. >> > >> > [1] https://i.imgur.com/qFGSveX.jpg >> > >> > ___ >> > talk mailing list >> > talk@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Is this legal to what philly.com is doing?
sent from a phone > On 23. Feb 2018, at 15:40, Paul Norman wrote: > > Yes. They need to either be attributing OSM, or if the image is taken from an > osm.org render, attributing OSM and licensing it CC BY-SA. indeed they can sell the images, but they have to attribute and mention the license (and can’t claim copyright over osm cartography), which they apparently don’t do correctly at the moment (on the linked page there’s their copyright but not osm’s). Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
