Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.17.0
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 10:57:47 +0100 From: Johannes Singler To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.17.0 Hi Daniel, many thanks for maintaining Carto. It's great to see such constant progress there. Johannes Am 23.11.2018 um 01:55 schrieb Daniel Koć: Dear all, Today, v4.17.0 of the OpenStreetMap Carto stylesheet (the default stylesheet on the OSM website) has been released. Once changes are deployed on the openstreetmap.org it will take couple of days before all tiles show the new rendering. Changes include - Showing natural areas from z5 - Cleaning up medium zoom rendering, including: - Making societal amenities look like residential on z10-z12 - Rendering motorway junction names from z13 instead of z12 - Dropping buildings up to z13 instead of z13 - Correctly dropping minor waterways from z13 - Rendering intermittent streams/ditches/drains from z15 - Reducing lightening of tramways - Rendering religious landuse and place of worship lighter - Adding text-repeat-distance for highway names - Rendering dots for gastronomy objects on z17 - Adding icons for memorial subtags - Rendering man_made=telescope - Rendering amenity=internet_cafe - Adding icon for amenity=public_bookcase - Adding icons for barrier=cattle_grid and barrier=stile - Adding icon for leisure=fishing - Rendering entrance for underground parking - Rendering basin=detention/infiltration as intermittent water - Tweaking outline of swimming pools and rendering it from z17 - Moving danger_area into landuse-overlay - Buildings code rewrite Thanks to all the contributors for this release including jeisenbe, a new contributor. For a full list of commits, see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/compare/v4.16.0...v4.17.0 As always, we welcome any bug reports at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues Ditto! Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Problem with JOSM imagery
Recently I started having a problem getting imagery to display in JOSM. Bing and the standard OpenStreetMap layer display fine, but none of the other layers in the default list will display. They produce the following error: Error downloading tiles: Java.net.SocketTimeoutException: Connect timed out All these layers used to display. I recently switched from basic to OAuth authentication. Could the problem be related to this? Note that I can display the USGS topo tiles okay in my browser ( tile.openstreetmap.us/usgs_scanned_topos). My machine is located in a corporate office environment. Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject
Russ is a railfan. I am a railfan. We are a group of people for whom railroads hold a lot of interest and nostalgia. Being able to see locations of abandoned railways in OSM is very desirable for us. (Not to mention that some of them will eventually be converted to rail trails, and so their location is important from that aspect.) I guess we're asking that an exception to the "verifiable features only" rule be made for these features. Simply confining abandoned railroad features to OHM is not a good solution, because without being able to view them in the context of existing features, they lose a lot of their value. A long time ago someone decided that administrative boundaries would be granted an exception. We are also mapping cycle routes. Is it too much to ask for abandoned railroads to be granted an exception too? I know the classic argument against this is that it would open the floodgates for all kinds of other historic objects to be mapped, thereby cluttering the map. But are there really that many people that would clamor for feature type "x" to also be included? I've not heard anything on this mailing list from anyone advocating passionately for any other type of historic feature. One thing that differentiates abandoned railroads from other features is that they are few enough in number compared to other features that they don't add that many more elements to the map. All things considered, I wouldn't think that keeping abandoned railroads in OSM would cause that much harm. We cater to cyclists (of which I am one as well), why not railway enthusiasts? Mark Bradley ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Tagging POI's - nodes vs. areas
Thanks to everyone who contributed on this subject. I think I've got a better understanding now of tagging buildings vs. tagging amenities. And sorry if I should've posted to the tagging list instead. There are so many lists. I think I'm subscribed to four of them already. How many more...? Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Tagging POI's - Nodes vs. areas
I want to know how to tag buildings which are also amenities or shops. I have consulted the wiki and I cannot find a clear explanation of this. Say you have a building which is a hospital. One way to tag the polygon would be "building = hospital." Another way would be "amenity = hospital." Another way would be to simply tag the building as "building = yes" and then place a node inside the building polygon and tag the node as "amenity = hospital." I'm thinking in terms of how the hospital will show up in the various renderers. Do most renderers require the "amenity" tag in order to display a hospital symbol at that location? (In other words, what happens if I just use the "building = hospital" tag on the polygon and no amenity tag?) And what about the hospital name? Do I include it with the building polygon or the node? Or both? This is very confusing. It seems there is a certain amount of overlap when it comes to the application of building, amenity, and shop tags. Mark Bradley ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
