Re: [Talk-transit] pay_scale_area
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 02:57:29PM +0100, Dave F. wrote: The pay_scale_area gas just been added around my home town. The boundary, thankfully, doesn't show up, but unfortunately the name label does in Mapnik. Can this be amended to it _doesn't_ display? Thats a long-standing problem with the current Mapnik style sheet. If it doesn't know what it is, it doesn't render the feature but it renders the name. :-( Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Trolley bus overhead wires
Frankie Roberto wrote: Maybe this calls for a Trolleybus project? :-) Washington's King County Metro runs trolley buses as a major portion* of their Public Transit infrastructure within Seattle. Plus, they run dual-power buses (part of the route is run with diesel power, part with overhead electric power). (* Could be as much as a fifth of their routes) (from their website: Metro operates a fleet of about 1,300 vehicles -- including standard and articulated coaches, electric trolleys, dual-powered buses, hybrid diesel-electric buses and streetcars[..] http://transit.metrokc.gov/am/metro.html ) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Parking garage entrances
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Andrew MacKinnonandrew...@gmail.com wrote: I am wondering about how pedestrian and car entrances to parking garages should be tagged. highway=footway if you're talking about a path for people to walk on Each is located underneath an outdoor playing field use layer=* to show if something is underneath something else and has several pedestrian entrances (the new one has six; two of them have elevators and the others just stairs down) use highway=steps for stairs, and highway=elevator (proposed feature) for elevators as well as one entrance/exit for cars (the new one has a combined entrance/exit, the old one has separate entrances and exits for cars). I'd use highway=service for entrances/exits, with foot=yes if designed for pedestrians also. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Status of the Local Chapter working group
On 13 Aug 2009, at 22:07, Liz wrote: On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Nick Black wrote: I'm proposing having an open call on Monday 17th August at 6pm BST at which anyone interested can talk through their comments or concerns, as we did in Amsterdam during SOTM. I know that this is short notice and that 6pm BST doesn't work for a lot of people (eg people in Australia or the Far East). I can't even decide if I don't know BST so could you tell us in UTC too? For every timezone in the world: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=17month=8year=2009hour=17min=0sec=0p1=136 Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tag proposal surface=gravel; concrete; dirt; grass
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:31:38AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: ... and it is NOT assumed surface=paved. .. we don't ASSUME :) .. instead we have If no other values of surface is listed, the default value is surface=paved ... but actually, it should be surface=undefined, as the default value if none are listed. no, I think for roads we always had the default: paved and I would stick to this and tag the exceptions. We should have sensible default for most of the tags on highway type of ways - I see a lot of bloat coming when people start tagging access = yes bicycle = yes foot = yes layer = 0 maxspeed = 30 motorcar = yes motorcycle = yes surface = paved lit = no And yes - this happends and it happens more and more ... These should more or less all be default and a validator should. I see the problem that there are other regions of the world where a paved road is an exception e.g. Madagaskar (CIA Factbook): total: 65,663 km paved: 7,617 km unpaved: 58,046 km (2003) But than make the most common usage the default - this will save gigabytes of storage once we have the World Domination ... Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org Es ist ein grobes Missverständnis und eine Fehlwahrnehmung, dem Staat im Internet Zensur- und Überwachungsabsichten zu unterstellen. - - Bundesminister Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble -- 10. Juli in Berlin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Status of the Local Chapter working group
Hi! I don't mind if anybody wants to have a phone conversation on things. Just keep in mind that most interested people will not be on that phone call and that all the discussions have to be repeated on this list or on the wiki for the benefit of those of us not on the call. Jochen On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 03:47:44PM +0100, Nick Black wrote: Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:47:44 +0100 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Status of the Local Chapter working group From: Nick Black nickbla...@gmail.com To: Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org Cc: Nick Black n...@blacksworld.net, OSM talk talk@openstreetmap.org, Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de Hi Guys, Its time to jump-start the Local Chapters working group. Jochen has kindly revamped the wiki page ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters) so if you have interest in a local chapter, please read it and add your details to the relevant section. I'm proposing having an open call on Monday 17th August at 6pm BST at which anyone interested can talk through their comments or concerns, as we did in Amsterdam during SOTM. I know that this is short notice and that 6pm BST doesn't work for a lot of people (eg people in Australia or the Far East). If you would like to attend, but can't because of any reason, please add you name to the relevant section below, along with some contact details and we'll get a time set up for another call in which you can participate. Meeting Objectives * Give potential Local Chapter leaders and other community members the change to discuss the proposed agreement * Clarify some next steps for the license process The page with details and sign up is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/Meetings/August-2009 Hope to talk to many interested Local Chapter people next week. -- Nick On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Nick Black nickbla...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, taken out the OSM-F list. Thanks for updating the wiki - I'm going to take a look over it tomorrow and make sure all the info the community needs is on there. From there I will propose a set of steps towards getting Local Chapters set up, along with any remaining questions. The community will be able to comment on the process and see what is going on and what needs to be done to set up local chapters. -- Nick On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: Hi! Lets use the mailing lists and the wiki. Thats much more inclusive for a diverse group like this. Especially for this issue where there are people from many countries in different time zones involved and where many will not speak English well enough to feel comfortable voicing their opinions in a phone call. And as a bonus everything is already documented for eveybody else and we don't need to wait for meeting minutes etc. Jochen On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 08:30:06AM +0200, Nick Black wrote: Cc: Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de, osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org, OSM talk talk@openstreetmap.org From: Nick Black n...@blacksworld.net To: Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] Status of the Local Chapter working group Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:30:06 +0200 Hi Jochen, Thanks for updating the page. We should try and pick things up again regarding Local Chapters, especially after the progress we made at SOTM. How about we set up a call for late next week or early the week after with all of the interested parties? I'm out of the office today, but if this sounds good I'll get it set up tomorrow. (BTW - Agree wrt using OSM-Talk, but I don't have access to my osm-talk email account when I'm offline). -- Nick On 9 Aug 2009, at 19:45, Jochen Topf wrote: Hi! On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 05:29:23PM +0200, Michael Kugelmann wrote: looking at the foundation web site and the wiki, there is very few information on the local chapter working group - only a draft of the federation agreement is linked withought an information on the version or date it was created! Additionally there are no meeting minutes available at all. (or at least I didn't find iformation and minutes). On the Saturday eving at the SOTM09 there was a meeting relatetd to to local chapters. So please could: A) somebody from the working group give the current status (and maybe add a version information to the draft!) B) somebody joining the SOTM meeting provide information what was discussed and potential results C) somebody from the working group providing information on next steps... I am not a member of the working group, but to get the ball rolling again I have brought the wiki page at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters up to date and added all the stuff that I remember from our meeting at SOTM. I have tried to bring
Re: [OSM-talk] Status of the Local Chapter working group
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 07:56:11PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Stefan de Konink wrote: For this legal reason Stichting Vrijschrift or Stichting OpenGeo could never apply. Hence there are no 30 members and even with 30 contributors their is no democratic saying on anything. I think this only shows that we must not carve any rules in stone - everything that we put up should only be guidelines but if in one country it is unusual to have an organisation like that - and those who draw up the guidelines cannot know what is usual in a country - then other solutions must be possible. Well, there might be things we want to carve in stone. Basically it comes down to: Do we just tell the board of directors of OSMF: Anything goes. You negotiate with other groups, you decide. If you want to awards a candy story in outer Mongolia with the title of local chapter, you probably have your reasons for this, so thats ok. Or do we want to have some sort of minimal rules. We might well decide that a democratic organisation is a must. Which means the Dutch have to come up with a different solution if they want to have a local chapter. (This can be done, Wikimedia has the same rule and there is a Dutch Wikimedia local chapter.) Or we might decide that we are happy with such a Stichting. But thats the necessary process we have to go through. And this comes back to the first question we should have answered and have never really answered, namely what should those chapters be. What should they stand for. If we feel that they are representatives of the OSM community, it might be important for us that they are democratic. If we see them more as just the places where sponsored money can be funnelled through, maybe its not as important. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Country-specific defaults/values (was: R e: Proliferation of path vs. footway)
Roy Wallace waldo00 at gmail.com writes: On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Tobias Knerrosm at tobias-knerr.de wrote: David Earl wrote: If cycleway does mean something different in Germany than it means in UK, why do we try to use the same tag/value in the first place? Why don't we use, e.g., Radweg for Germany? (Or differentiate with prefixes or something like that where different nations use the same language?) Differentiate with prefixes? Messy... If cycleway means A in Germany and B somewhere else, then cycleway is not a good tag. Instead, we should explicitly tag A where it applies and tag B where it applies. First of all we need to get rid of all the fuzzy traffic signs broadcasted all over the world, like this http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiedosto:Py%C3%B6r%C3%A4tie_422.svg and this http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiedosto:Yhdistetty_py%C3%B6r%C3%A4tie_ja_jalkak%C3%A4yt%C3%A4v%C3%A4_423.svg They may attract people to believe that the road is cycleway or cycleway, walking allowed, and if they do not know in which country they are they may behave all wrong. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Status of the Local Chapter working group
--- On Fri, 14/8/09, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: I don't mind if anybody wants to have a phone conversation on things. Just keep in mind that most interested people will not be on that phone call and that all the discussions have to be repeated on this list or on the wiki for the benefit of those of us not on the call. I'm not sure how the call is taking place, but it could be recorded and uploaded somewhere as an ogg or mp3 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcemen: Multilingual Country-List
Erik Lundin schrieb: I think there's a good point of having the redundancy of name:xx tags even when it is the same as the name tag, because that makes the translated names more safe. For the Swedish translations I saw several names that were marked as OK even though they weren't translated. It's too easy to read through the names and mark them as OK without thinking too much. /Erik Peter Körner skrev: No, just mark it as ok. If there's an existing one with an identical name you may also delete the needless translation. I'll add some highlight to those needless translations, soon. If the base name is changed, all rows relying on this translation are marked as not-ok. So if the basename changes in all languages someone will have to click mark ok again. I know that it is easy (and it is so by intention!). I believe in the iteligence of the crowd. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcemen: Multilingual Country-List
Micha Ruh schrieb: Hallo Peter! Ich habe ein paar Übersetzungen mit Hilfe deines sehr gelungenen Tools und Wikipedia erstellt. Dabei ist mir bei der Sprache der traditionellen chinesischen Schriftzeichen eine Inkonsistenz zwischen Deinem Tool und Wikipedia aufgefallen: Es werden verschiedene Countrycodes verwendet: zh-classical vs. zh-classic http://zh-classical.wikipedia.org/ http://cassini.toolserver.org/~mazder/multilingual-country-list/?lang=zh-classic Ich wollte nur Nachfragen ob das so korrekt ist. For the english ones: he's reporting that my tool took zh-classic as lang-code, while the wikipedia uses zh-classical. The problem is the length of my languagecode-column in mysql -- it's only 10 chars long. I changed this to 20 chars and also changed all occurencies of zh-classic to zh-classical. I hope that does not bereak too much of the tagging.. in deutsch: Die Spalte der MySQL-Tabelle, welche den Sprachcode aufnimmt, war nur mit 10 Zeichen dimensionert. Daher wurde der Rest abgeschnitten. Ich habe das Limit jetzt auf 20 erhöht und alle Stellen, an denen zh-classic stand auf zh-classical geändert. Ich hoffe, dass das nicht zu viel kaputt macht.. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Roy writes: If footway/cycleway is fuzzy in terms of current usage (and I believe it is), then +1. But I would personally prefer that designated mean signed. This stays true to mapping what is on the ground, and separates legal issues from geographical/physical features, as others have suggested. I think this is in line with the current usage of designated (correct me if I'm wrong). But have you seen? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated Which has solved a host of problems and ambiguities for me at least. This is a very clear - not 'fuzzy' - definition and the loss of it would be very damaging to the right-of-way mapping projects in the UK at least. It saves a lot of argument about subjective judgements of what tag best describes what is on the ground. No objection adding an extra tag for signpost if that's wanted - but it leaves ambiguities as to whether the signpost has any legal implication or whether an unsigned path (many of them!) carries legal rights of access. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com] Sent: 13 August 2009 23:06 To: Nop Cc: talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Nopekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: First of all, we would need to agree that there actually is a problem and that we need to (re)define something to clarify it. There have again been many mails along the line It is easy and can all be done following existing definitions - if it is done my way. But this is simply not true, the wiki _is_ contradicting itself. +1 Proposal #1: Unjoin designated Get rid of the idea that cycleway is the same thing as bicycle=designated. Accept that foot/cycleway is fuzzy. Redefine designated to be only used for legally dedicated ways. Likewise seperate foot=designated from footway. If footway/cycleway is fuzzy in terms of current usage (and I believe it is), then +1. But I would personally prefer that designated mean signed. This stays true to mapping what is on the ground, and separates legal issues from geographical/physical features, as others have suggested. I think this is in line with the current usage of designated (correct me if I'm wrong). For example, in Australia you may be legally allowed to ride a bicycle on a footpath, but I don't think anyone would ever tag such a footpath as bicycle=designated. You can often legally ride a bike on an Australian road, but again, I would never tag such a road with bicycle=designated. This way, foot/cycleway can be used for the lenient use cases like today, but designated can be used to tag the strict use cases. I'd recommend highway=path with *=yes for the lenient use cases (which would make footway/cycleway redundant). But I've been told that highway=path has already been voted against in the past :( Proposal #2: Introduce offical dedication Leave old tags as they are and accept that foot/cycleway and designated are as fuzzy as described above. Clarify that these tags only give information on possible use, but not about the legal situation. Introduce a new tag biclyce/foot=official to tag the strict use case of road-signed ways or corresponding legal dedication. I don't really see the advantage of having a fuzzy definition of designated. I would recommend using yes to indicate a fuzzy recommendation or suitability. And if you don't think suitability should be tagged, you could feel free to ignore the *=yes tags. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
The problem is that some of us follow the wiki advice re designated= which was developed after a lot of discussion in this group! http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated Designated= does not mean signed. Signed= could of course be an additional tag - so long as we know what the sign means e.g. for routing or even for simple access. We would have to distinguish between signed= 'public footpath', signed= 'permissive path' path - and even signed= 'private'. But we already have tags and a working system that does all of this. If it ain't broke don't fix it? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com] Sent: 13 August 2009 23:15 To: Jukka Rahkonen Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Jukka Rahkonenjukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi wrote: Hi, What might be an unambiguous way to tell that some cycleway is NOT designated? In theory if bicycle=designated means what it says then bicycle=yes might mean that yes, it is a cycleway, but no, it is not a designated cycleway. However, I feel that bicycle=yes means more often that nobody has bothered to save the designation info at all. Well, first you have to decide what cycleway means to you, and what designated means to you. To me, cycleway means path, designated means signed, and bicycle=yes means it's suitable for bikes. So if you have a path that is suitable for a bicycle but does not have a sign with a bicycle, I would use highway=path (or cycleway, if you insist); designated=no; bicycle=yes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Fwd: Re: Proliferation of path vs. footway]
Not that I would suggest that we emulate the Ordnance Survey (;) - but in England and Wales the OS map is currently the only readily accessible map that tells normal walkers, cyclists and riders where they may go. Bear in mind we have no 'jokamiehenoikeus'/'allmannsrät' in this country, i.e. in the countryside the public only has the right to walk/cycle/ride where this right exists - the default is NO rights (except on access land since the CROW Act) - the opposite of Germany, Scandinavia, etc. Signage does not reliably give this information either - for example, some landowners seem to have a magic potion that makes signs disappear at regular intervals! So wouldn't it be nice if this (publicly available and non-copyright, possible - but not always easy - to find without using an OS map) information were also available on OSM? It's one of the reasons I started working as an off-road mapper in the OSM community in the UK. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: 13 August 2009 23:26 To: Roy Wallace Cc: osm Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Fwd: Re: Proliferation of path vs. footway] 2009/8/14 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: Absolutely true: explicit in the wiki ;-) We have a database, let's populate it. The wiki is to help instruct people how to best populate the database - it should not be a part of the database itself. but this is not real map-information but it is legal information you could also get from different sources. If a way is legally a cycleway, all the laws and implications in that county apply automatically. You just need the info: it is a cycleway (and not simply a way where you can cycle, but one designated as such). That's why I would _not_ put foot=no, motorcar=no, hgv=no, psv=no, goods=no, horse=no, motorcycle=no, moped=no, airplanes=no, llamas=no on every single cycleway. It is implied. I would put foot=yes if they are allowed. The proposed wiki-table would just be for the comfort of the mappers (summarize the legal situation and document it in a OSM-focused way), but it would not be required to read the map (if you know the local laws). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM status POIs?
Good idea - but can we do it simply by adding the stub of a way at the relevant point? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Morten Kjeldgaard [mailto:m...@bioxray.au.dk] Sent: 13 August 2009 23:34 To: Talk Openstreetmap Subject: [OSM-talk] OSM status POIs? I realized when mapping today that it would be very useful to have a set of OSM status POIs that you could use to mark the status of the mapping at certain places. I find I sometimes have to skip roads, tracks or paths, because I am too tired, don't have time, or that I'm going at good speed downhill and don't want to stop. I've tried to make mental notes to return and map those missing roads at a later time but as time goes by, you tend to forget. It would be very useful to have a POI saying for example unmapped highway/path etc. starts here. Then you could check out and select those points in your area, and they would serve as a reminder to you (or others coming along) that there's something here not yet mapped. These POIs would also serve as bite-size mapping projects if you're looking for quick things to do in your area. I guess there are other instances where an OSM status POIs would be useful. Cheers, Morten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
+1 Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Nop [mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de] Sent: 13 August 2009 23:43 To: Roy Wallace Cc: talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway Hi! Roy Wallace schrieb: If footway/cycleway is fuzzy in terms of current usage (and I believe it is), then +1. But I would personally prefer that designated mean signed. This stays true to mapping what is on the ground, and separates legal issues from geographical/physical features, as others have suggested. I think this is in line with the current usage of designated (correct me if I'm wrong). For example, in Australia you may be legally allowed to ride a bicycle on a footpath, but I don't think anyone would ever tag such a footpath as bicycle=designated. You can often legally ride a bike on an Australian road, but again, I would never tag such a road with bicycle=designated. Clarification: What I meant is: Designated only for ways legally dedicated to one mode of travel. Usually that means individually road-signed, but it could also be done for a whole area like a nature reserve with a declaration for all ways inside. You could also say: Designated means designated by the government. But in this approach, ways that are just waymarked as a route are _not_ designated. A cycle route often runs on a tertiary highway, but that doesn't make the highway a designated cycleway. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
... That is current practice - there is no implication of exclusivity only that a legal right of use exists for a class of users. A restricted byway in England and Wales is for example, foot=designated, horse=designated, bicycle=designated (as there are legal rights for all non-motorised traffic); it is also motorcar=no, motorcycle=no; the condition can be described with either a surface= or a tracktype= tag. It should be signed (and mostly is at the moment at each end as it is a very new legal category and the signs have yet to be wrecked) but I wouldn't bother to add signed= as it does not give the user much in the way of additional information once they know it is a restricted byway. The question that is currently the main subject of debate in this thread seems to be the primary one as to the type of highway. Should it be highway=restricted_byway, highway=byway, highway=track, highway=path ... I would currently use the first of these as being the most specific (and, yes, it is documented on the wiki) - but I appreciate that there are ambiguities that are being discussed in the thread. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com] Sent: 13 August 2009 23:54 To: Nop Cc: talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Nopekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Clarification: What I meant is: Designated only for ways legally dedicated to one mode of travel. Usually that means individually road-signed, but it could also be done for a whole area like a nature reserve with a declaration for all ways inside. You could also say: Designated means designated by the government. I would prefer that designated does not infer exclusively designated, so that it's possible to have bicycle=designated as well as foot=designated on a shared pathway (signed with a picture of a person and a picture of a bicycle). Designated != Dedicated ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Fwd: Re: Proliferation of path vs. footway]
'gewidmet' does best translate as 'dedicated' - but in English law that is something different to 'designated' (at least as 'designated' is defined on the wiki). In practice, 'dedicated' can mean the process by which something becomes 'designated' (in this context) OR it can mean a path that a landowner allows to be used by the public (i.e. a 'permissive path) because he has voluntarily 'dedicated' it in that way - as well as a public right of way. I would tend to steer clear of 'dedicated' in English because it is potentially ambiguous. I would tend to translate 'designated' as 'bestimmt' or 'bezeichnet' but am unsure which is better! (it doesn't imply anything about signage per se - although there are certain legal obligations on the authority to erect signs at certain types of points). .. And this is just the ambiguity arising between a single language pair! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: 14 August 2009 02:51 To: Roy Wallace Cc: osm Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Fwd: Re: Proliferation of path vs. footway] 2009/8/14 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/14 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: but this is not real map-information but it is legal information you could also get from different sources. If a way is legally a cycleway, all the laws and implications in that county apply automatically. highway=cycleway (and footway) has inconsistent implications. This is the problem, and this occurs even within areas with the same law. I think this makes cycleway an inherently bad tag (as currently used). in Italy (and probably in Germany more or less as well) we use highway=cycleway if there is a cycleway-sign (blue with white bike). Other ways are not cycleways, but could get bicycle=yes. You suggest we use the wiki to supplement the database - that's fine, Yes. This is somehow already done by defining possible meanings of the tags. I wrote that legal implications within a certain country could be documented in the wiki, so it's not necessary to tag them all explicitly (like motorcar=no, foot=no on cycleways). This is actually already done, e.g. in the German wiki pages. It's theoretically no problem to tell in which country a way is, just by the map data, as long as we have precise borders (might require some preprocessing though). BUT within the database highway=cycleway must mean the same thing as highway=cycleway. That's called consistency. Putting extra stuff in the wiki *cannot* give the database consistency. the problem is, that real world is not consistent across borders. If you say: all ways that are marked as cycleways (sign or painted on the street) are to tag as cycleways, this will mean different implicit access-tags in different countries. I can't see a real problem here though. It would be nice to have for the main features a per-country-list the transcripts local legislation in OSM (define default-presets). Cases not according to those presets would be tagged explicitly. You make the point that we should be entering real map-information in the database. I agree, and interpret this as meaning the database should represent the situation on the ground (and not necessarily aim to capture also the situation in the law books - unless this can be done in a separate namespace, e.g. law:*=*, as others have suggested). well, I'm not a pure on the ground-guy, I think what ever information you figure out and could potentially be useful I encourage to put into the database. But tagging the default law-situation for every single way seems exaggerated to me - hence we use classification and xy=designated to describe with one or two tags a series of implications for ways. Maybe there is a slight language problem though: many of the tags are proposed by non-native speakers. I rember the discussion about path on the German ML and someone said gewidmet (I think in Engl. dedicated, it is in this context the process of legally assigning a road class to a way) translates to designated and maybe therefore it's like this now. If you look in a common Engl-German dictionary you'll find several not congruent translations: http://dict.leo.org/?lp=endefrom=fx3search=designated cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag official_name ? (was Multilingual Country-List)
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:56:03 +0200, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:08 AM, andrzej zaborowskibalr...@gmail.com wrote: The instructions at the top of the pages could also mention the official_name:* tags - I don't know if these are approved in any way but I found they were on some of the nodes and I thought it was a good idea to propagate these too where the full name differs from the normal name the country is known by (which could otherwise be placed in loc_name, but it should probably be the one displayed by default) What is this mess about official_name, name and loc_name ? Is someone shifting what was earlier name/loc_name to something new like official_name/name ? Where is it discussed/described on this ML or the wiki ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk official_name could be added without changing the meaning of name. For example, official_name=Kongeriket Norge, name=Norge, name:nb=Norge, name:nn=Noreg, name:en=Norway. Kongeriket Norge is the official name of Norway, though it is commonly known only as Norge and Noreg depending on which form of the Norwegian language you speak. Some cities also have the same. One could also add nick_name to the list, for example the city name=Fredrikstad have nick_name=Plankebyen. In my opinion name should be what you expect printed on a map sold in that country. All other *name* tags and name:* tags should be available for multilingual searches and common aliases. If I search for Kongeriket Norge I expect to find Norway, but would I find Fredrikstad by searching for Plankebyen? -- Brgds Aun Johnsen via Webmail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: highway=footway (not suitable) bicycle=dedicated (signed) A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me. why not? In Germany: sign footway + additional sign: Fahrräder frei That's yes, not designated. Silly question, maybe: but, what does yes actually mean? Everyone seems to use it differently; it was intended originally for a legal right but in practice has been used in a range of scenarios. In this particular case (Fahrräder frei marked footways), do cyclists have a *legal* right to use the footway, or is it an unoffical, revokable right? If the former, designated would seem appropriate; if the latter permissive would seem the most appropriate. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Fwd: Re: Proliferation of path vs. footway]
You seem to be implying that increasing the amount of data in OSM is a bad thing??? Increasing the amount of _implicit_ data surely is. There are good reasons, why putting implicit data into databases is usually avoided. Of course, llama access restrictions probably aren't a top priority, but it IS a GOOD THING to have llama restrictions in the database. The core issue here (that I believe we agree on) is that if tags have inconsistent implications, they must be made explicit. But in most cases they are locally consistent, thus it makes sense to simply assume different defaults for different countries/jurisdictions. Regards, Marc -- GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Fwd: Re: Proliferation of path vs. footway]
The core issue here (that I believe we agree on) is that if tags have inconsistent implications, they must be made explicit. Absolutely true: explicit in the wiki ;-) I don't think the wiki is a good place for that. Keep in mind that these defaults would be nice to have in a machine-readable format. They could be stored in the DB, too. Maybe this would be an extension for API 0.7: a way to express the defaults (and implications) for various tags depending on the country. Regards, Marc -- Neu: GMX Doppel-FLAT mit Internet-Flatrate + Telefon-Flatrate für nur 19,99 Euro/mtl.!* http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] designated shared cyclepath
http://twitpic.com/djyxb This is Ash Kyd's photo, and I'm not sure if he's on this list. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
I would prefer that designated does not infer exclusively designated, so that it's possible to have bicycle=designated as well as foot=designated on a shared pathway (signed with a picture of a person and a picture of a bicycle). Agree here. UK bridleways for instance should have foot=designated; horse=designated; bicycle=designated as all three have equal right. It would be a mistake to assume the horse rights are greater than foot/bicycle; they are not. I would similarly guess the shared foot/cycleways in Germany would be similar, i.e. foot=designated; bicycle=designated. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcemen: Multilingual Country-List
Marc Schütz schrieb: What is the opinion for translations that are the same in other languages? For instance: Andorra is Andorra in a lot of languages. Do you add a translation even though the translation is the same as the original name? Maarten No, just mark it as ok. If there's an existing one with an identical name you may also delete the needless translation. I'll add some highlight to those needless translations, soon. No, please don't! If you remove them (and I see that you already did that for some countries), there is no way of telling whether the translation is the same as the default name, or is simply missing. But there is no translation of Deutschland to German. So I don't see how it could be missing :) My Tool offers the OK-State do make a difference between not yet checked and checked, that is independent of the existance of a translation. I understand your concerns when looking at the country-level, but what should we do on the city-level? add the name of all cities in all languages as a translation? Or: what should we do with the languages that are not covered by wikimedia? In my eyes name is the tag for the name of this country in it's native language (just as it is with cities). name:xx is a language *overlay* for a specific language and for a localized map - nothing more. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Nick Whitelegg schrieb: I would prefer that designated does not infer exclusively designated, so that it's possible to have bicycle=designated as well as foot=designated on a shared pathway (signed with a picture of a person and a picture of a bicycle). Agree here. UK bridleways for instance should have foot=designated; horse=designated; bicycle=designated as all three have equal right. It would be a mistake to assume the horse rights are greater than foot/bicycle; they are not. I would similarly guess the shared foot/cycleways in Germany would be similar, i.e. foot=designated; bicycle=designated. Yes, this would work out. And a German bridleway would be horse=dsignated, foot=no, bicycle=no. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
2009/8/14 Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com: The problem is that some of us follow the wiki advice re designated= which was developed after a lot of discussion in this group! http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated If it ain't broke don't fix it? IMHO it IS BROKEN. The cited page has contradictions on it. E.g. it defines To indicate an exclusive access use access=official and then suggests to tag bicycle=official AND foot=official to the same way (combined). This is not what I understand from exclusive. Another example: a cycleway (dedicated) could according to this page be tagged: bicycle=designated and foot=yes/no depending on country and horse=no why is horse not depending on country? why does official not need specification depending on country (according to the page)? There is more like this on the page, and there is other pages that probably suggest different tagging, so there is a problem that IMHO should be solved by unifying and a general proposal, whether we should tag legal implications explicitly or handle them country specifically (and probably document the implications countrywise in the wiki). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcemen: Multilingual Country-List
Am 14. August 2009 13:34 schrieb Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de: I understand your concerns when looking at the country-level, but what should we do on the city-level? add the name of all cities in all languages as a translation? Or: what should we do with the languages that are not covered by wikimedia? yes, as long as there is a translation of a city-name (or other feature, think about colosseo, Kolosseum, etc.) different to the name in the local language, we should add the tags in these languages. There is probably also different alt_names for the same feature in different languages (e.g. flavisches Amphitheater) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcemen: Multilingual Country-List
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: Am 14. August 2009 13:34 schrieb Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de: I understand your concerns when looking at the country-level, but what should we do on the city-level? add the name of all cities in all languages as a translation? Or: what should we do with the languages that are not covered by wikimedia? yes, as long as there is a translation of a city-name (or other feature, think about colosseo, Kolosseum, etc.) different to the name in the local language, we should add the tags in these languages. There is probably also different alt_names for the same feature in different languages (e.g. flavisches Amphitheater) But this implicates that if there is no different name, no name:xx-tag should be set (even if it's not *bad* to have one, its also not *necessary*). Do you agree with that, Marc? This is my opinion and i'm always willing to change it, if there are good arguments to do so. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Status of the Local Chapter working group
2009/8/14 Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org: Hi! I don't mind if anybody wants to have a phone conversation on things. Just keep in mind that most interested people will not be on that phone call and that all the discussions have to be repeated on this list or on the wiki for the benefit of those of us not on the call. yes. I think to discuss in a written form has a lot of advantage respect to a phone-conference. (searchable, re-readable, not dependant on specific temporal availability of contributors and time-zones, less ad-hoc and therefore (sometimes) more reflected, less band-width-dependant, less dependant on language-skills, ...), so in a global project I'd prefer a written discussion. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcemen: Multilingual Country-List
2009/8/14 Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de: Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: Am 14. August 2009 13:34 schrieb Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de: I understand your concerns when looking at the country-level, but what should we do on the city-level? add the name of all cities in all languages as a translation? Or: what should we do with the languages that are not covered by wikimedia? yes, as long as there is a translation of a city-name (or other feature, think about colosseo, Kolosseum, etc.) different to the name in the local language, we should add the tags in these languages. There is probably also different alt_names for the same feature in different languages (e.g. flavisches Amphitheater) But this implicates that if there is no different name, no name:xx-tag should be set (even if it's not *bad* to have one, its also not *necessary*). Do you agree with that, Marc? don't know about Marc, but I agree: if there is no different name/spelling, don't put it. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
2009/8/14 Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk: Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: highway=footway (not suitable) bicycle=dedicated (signed) A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me. why not? In Germany: sign footway + additional sign: Fahrräder frei That's yes, not designated. Silly question, maybe: but, what does yes actually mean? Everyone seems to use it differently; it was intended originally for a legal right but in practice has been used in a range of scenarios. In this particular case (Fahrräder frei marked footways), do cyclists have a *legal* right to use the footway, or is it an unoffical, revokable right? they have the right, but it is less strong than on a cycleway, the pedestrians have the right-of-way over the cyclists, and cyclists must not drive faster than x km/h and be more cautious than on a cycleway. It is a different implication than a cycleway. (btw: these are fine details and probably not only regarding Germany, but other countries as well, but it might not be general knowledge and is therefore probably sometimes ignored by the mappers). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM status POIs?
2009/8/14 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com: Alternatively we could mark places already mapped, using stickers in annoying colours that you'd carry in rolls. That's really a cool idea. On the sticker there could be some advertising for the project (this street has been mapped in openstreetmaps.org, the free wiki world-map. Feel free to visit us online and add more details or something similar). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
Tend to agree in part - I think the 'official' bit is actually redundant? Would this improve the page? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: 14 August 2009 12:54 To: Mike Harris Cc: Jukka Rahkonen; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing 2009/8/14 Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com: The problem is that some of us follow the wiki advice re designated= which was developed after a lot of discussion in this group! http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated If it ain't broke don't fix it? IMHO it IS BROKEN. The cited page has contradictions on it. E.g. it defines To indicate an exclusive access use access=official and then suggests to tag bicycle=official AND foot=official to the same way (combined). This is not what I understand from exclusive. Another example: a cycleway (dedicated) could according to this page be tagged: bicycle=designated and foot=yes/no depending on country and horse=no why is horse not depending on country? why does official not need specification depending on country (according to the page)? There is more like this on the page, and there is other pages that probably suggest different tagging, so there is a problem that IMHO should be solved by unifying and a general proposal, whether we should tag legal implications explicitly or handle them country specifically (and probably document the implications countrywise in the wiki). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Country-specific defaults/values (was: Re: Proliferation of path vs. footway)
2009/8/14 Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi: First of all we need to get rid of all the fuzzy traffic signs broadcasted all over the world, like this http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiedosto:Py%C3%B6r%C3%A4tie_422.svg and this http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiedosto:Yhdistetty_py%C3%B6r%C3%A4tie_ja_jalkak%C3%A4yt%C3%A4v%C3%A4_423.svg They may attract people to believe that the road is cycleway or cycleway, walking allowed, and if they do not know in which country they are they may behave all wrong. is this a joke? The signs are the best and most unambiguous way to communicate about legal dedication and implicit rules. Of course they depend on the country they are in, but it is like this in the world. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tag proposal surface=gravel; concrete; dirt; grass
On Friday 14 August 2009 00:31:38 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/8/13 Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com: surface earth Probably the same as surface=ground should be change to the same as surface=dirt yes, clean up a little bit: dirt, mud, earth, ground seem all the same to me (I personally prefer ground). ... and it is NOT assumed surface=paved. .. we don't ASSUME :) .. instead we have If no other values of surface is listed, the default value is surface=paved ... but actually, it should be surface=undefined, as the default value if none are listed. no, I think for roads we always had the default: paved and I would stick to this and tag the exceptions. I usually tag paved road segment adjacent to unpaved road segment as paved. Otherwise it is all too easy to combine road segments without any warning from editor. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM status POIs?
Mappers have in the past put in stubs with a few nodes tailing off, to state that there is something here that needs to be surveyed further. Shaun On 14 Aug 2009, at 09:52, Mike Harris wrote: Good idea - but can we do it simply by adding the stub of a way at the relevant point? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Morten Kjeldgaard [mailto:m...@bioxray.au.dk] Sent: 13 August 2009 23:34 To: Talk Openstreetmap Subject: [OSM-talk] OSM status POIs? I realized when mapping today that it would be very useful to have a set of OSM status POIs that you could use to mark the status of the mapping at certain places. I find I sometimes have to skip roads, tracks or paths, because I am too tired, don't have time, or that I'm going at good speed downhill and don't want to stop. I've tried to make mental notes to return and map those missing roads at a later time but as time goes by, you tend to forget. It would be very useful to have a POI saying for example unmapped highway/path etc. starts here. Then you could check out and select those points in your area, and they would serve as a reminder to you (or others coming along) that there's something here not yet mapped. These POIs would also serve as bite-size mapping projects if you're looking for quick things to do in your area. I guess there are other instances where an OSM status POIs would be useful. Cheers, Morten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tag proposal surface=gravel; concrete; dirt; grass
2009/8/14 Blaž Lorger blaz.lor...@triera.net: I usually tag paved road segment adjacent to unpaved road segment as paved. Otherwise it is all too easy to combine road segments without any warning from editor. I often do the same, if I got the impression that it is not completely clear from the contest (on tracks, on small streets adjacent to unpaved ones, ...), but IMHO it is an error in the editors not to warn you, if tags are added in a combine-action (not only on contradictory tags should warn). I already filed a trac-ticket for JOSM some time ago. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tag proposal surface=gravel; concrete; dirt; grass
2009/8/14 Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org: On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:31:38AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: type of ways - I see a lot of bloat coming when people start tagging access = yes bicycle = yes foot = yes layer = 0 maxspeed = 30 motorcar = yes motorcycle = yes surface = paved lit = no And yes - this happends and it happens more and more ... These should more or less all be default and a validator should. I see the problem that there are other regions of the world where a paved road is an exception e.g. Madagaskar (CIA Factbook): total: 65,663 km paved: 7,617 km unpaved: 58,046 km (2003) But than make the most common usage the default +1 Usage implying the state of the maps as of now, or the (expected) end result? - this will save gigabytes of storage once we have the World Domination ... +1 (it's been some time I heard Germans talking about World Domination ;-) - sorry- couldn't resist). Actually looking at the total of road kilometres in the whole world, I wouldn't be too sure that paved is the default (in the so far mapped OSM-World it definitely is). For motorways the situation should be more clear even worldwide. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Server Down Time - 22nd to 23rd August 2009
OSM, Next weekend, 22nd/23rd August OpenStreetMap's main servers will be unavailable due to electrical maintenance works at University College London. www.openstreetmap.org [1] and the API will be unavailable during this period from approximately 5am GMT Saturday August 22nd until 10pm GMT Sunday August 23rd. The wiki and mailing lists will continue to be available during this period. Arrangements are under way to keep http://tile.openstreetmap.org/ available, but as yet we are unable to confirm. The sysadmin team are not taking a break; we are using this opportunity to reorganise the server hardware and are installing a large set of hardware upgrades recently approved by the OpenStreetMap Foundation. [2] Please pass this message onto the local OSM lists. 1: www.openstreetmap.org will be replaced by a simple notice website during this period. 2: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Servers/Upgrades/082009 Grant on behalf of OpenStreetMap Sysadmin Team. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM status POIs
When I have seen unmapped roads, I've put a small stub and on the end node of that stub I've put todo=continues as a tag. What would be great was if this tag (or another one like it) could be rendered on the map with ellipsis or whatever. That helps both the mapper, who then knows where to start mapping, and a user, who then knows that there is a road there that at least leads somewhere. Another good tag would be todo=estimated for roads that are not properly surveyed, but only estimated. I'm hesitant to put these kinds of roads in because it could be confusing, but if they would be clearly marked as estimated then they have a potential value. A road user does not necessarily need to know exactly how a road curves, most of the time it's sufficient to see where the road leads. The tag names are just examples, I'm don't care what the actual tag name would be. /Martin Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:34:24 +0200 From: Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.au.dk Subject: [OSM-talk] OSM status POIs? To: Talk Openstreetmap talk@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: 04d7ddd0-fd04-4eb8-940e-85335690c...@bioxray.au.dk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes I realized when mapping today that it would be very useful to have a set of OSM status POIs that you could use to mark the status of the mapping at certain places. I find I sometimes have to skip roads, tracks or paths, because I am too tired, don't have time, or that I'm going at good speed downhill and don't want to stop. I've tried to make mental notes to return and map those missing roads at a later time but as time goes by, you tend to forget. It would be very useful to have a POI saying for example unmapped highway/path etc. starts here. Then you could check out and select those points in your area, and they would serve as a reminder to you (or others coming along) that there's something here not yet mapped. These POIs would also serve as bite-size mapping projects if you're looking for quick things to do in your area. I guess there are other instances where an OSM status POIs would be useful. Cheers, Morten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM status POIs
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Martin Norbäck wrote: Another good tag would be todo=estimated for roads that are not properly surveyed, but only estimated. How about source=estimated? -- - Joseph Scanlan +1-702-455-3679 http://www.n7xsd.us/ j...@co.clark.nv.us (work) (not work) n7...@arrl.net - So he went inside there to take on what he found. But he never escaped them, for who can escape what he desires? --Tony Banks of Genesis in The Lady Lies___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
2009/8/14 Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk: On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 13:08 +0200, Nick Whitelegg wrote: [In Norway you can legally cycle on footways; in England you can't] Using the designated value appropriately would work with both. In England, tag with highway=path (or track); foot=designated. In Norway, tag with highway=path (or track); foot=designated; bicycle=designated. This doesn't sound quite right to me. If it is signed as a footway in Norway (picture of a pedestrian only, no bike [1]), it is sometimes allowed to cycle there, but only if there are not too many pedestrians and only at walking speed. Sorry, my comment was based on someone saying that in Norway, bikes could use footpaths, and me assuming it was a full legal right. This does make things a bit more difficult as I have not come across these sorts of in between rights before. However I'm not sure that highway=footway is the answer. Someone should ideally not need knowledge of local laws: as someone from the UK I can instantly tell that I'm not supposed to walk on German bridleways (see another message) if they are tagged with the generic, international tags of foot=no; horse=designated; bicycle=no. Likewise someone from Germany, say, can instantly tell that they can walk, or cycle, on a UK bridleway. yes, if you would tag foot=yes, but I guess you usually never did this, because you thought everybody would know that you could walk there. so it comes down to the general observation, that different countries have different defaults, and how to deal with it. There are 2 main possibilities: 1. tag on every single way all worldwide thinkable keys 2. document the implicit defaults somewhere in a standardized form, be it wiki or database of course, there would also be 3. don't document and refer to local legislation. Therefore it should be clear how to express local traffic signs in an unambigous way into tags. and 4. do 2 in an non-standardized form but 3 and 4 are not very reliable and practical, e.g. if you wanted to make a router that works worldwide it would be too timeconsuming to get all the rules. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tag proposal surface=gravel; concrete; dirt; grass
Le vendredi 14 août 2009 à 15:02, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : but IMHO it is an error in the editors not to warn you, if tags are added in a combine-action (not only on contradictory tags should warn). I already filed a trac-ticket for JOSM some time ago. +1 I've had the problem some month ago (in Namur, Belgium) that someone had joined many way making one long railway that was both a tunnel and a bridge. I had a hard time splitting it again at the correct nodes (I was lucky that at the time mapnik didn't update so frequently and I was able to look where the bridges/tunnels were) potlatch should also have such a warning, as beginners generally start with potlatch and are more likely to make such a mistake. (If it already does ignore this comment, I rarely use potlatch) -- Renaud Michel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] (reply/forward) Server Down Time - 22nd to 23rd August 2009
www.openstreetmap.org [1] and the API will be unavailable during this period from approximately 5am GMT Saturday August 22nd until 10pm GMT Sunday August 23rd. Please pass this message onto the local OSM lists. 1: www.openstreetmap.org will be replaced by a simple notice website during this period. 2: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Servers/Upgrades/082009 I would like the EU Commision gives some funds/PHD grants to the project. Or the prj should look for itself: http://cordis.lu to look for partners etc. If the US Army gives away detail maps and vector maps, do we want an EU Army?? http://libremap.org/ Give us back our crown jewels: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/mar/09/education.epublic Marc -- Shortwave transmissions in English, Francais, Deutsch, Suid-Afrikaans, Urdu, Cantonese, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, ... http://users.fulladsl.be/spb13810/radio/swlist/ Stations list: http://users.fulladsl.be/spb13810/radio/txlist/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM status POIs?
I'm using highway=road stubs with a fixme=continuation tag. Both show up in validators so they get attention if anyone is there mapping. See e.g. http://osm.org/go/0eHp_Ibf-?layers=0B00FTF Konrad ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Cyclelane on left/right
Are there any progress on the left/right situation on cycleway=lane/track that are only on one side of the street? I've seen the proposal of e.g. cycleway:left, but as far as I know it's only a proposal and I can see the problem of using such sub-keys. Is there a system that is rendered? Konrad ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] DraganFly RC helicopters
I know RC helicopters as potential aerial photo source has been discussed before, but today I read about some helicopter from DraganFly and didn't find anything about them on the lists. They seem to be very interesting for our purposes. http://www.draganfly.com/ /Erik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cyclelane on left/right
2009/8/14 Konrad Skeri kon...@skeri.com: Are there any progress on the left/right situation on cycleway=lane/track that are only on one side of the street? yes, there is a solution for cycleway=track. Map it separately and tag highway=cycleway. track can be considered deprecated ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] DraganFly RC helicopters
Erik Lundin schreef: I know RC helicopters as potential aerial photo source has been discussed before, but today I read about some helicopter from DraganFly and didn't find anything about them on the lists. They seem to be very interesting for our purposes. http://www.draganfly.com/ They are far to expensive. Currently we (openstreetphoto) are looking at big Electroglyders. Shortly we will have some snapshots from a smaller one. The one that is in the progres to be build will have a spawn of around 3 meters and could potentially carry a digital reflex camera. If you want to go Quadcopter I strongly suggest to go for a real open source project. Because you will not realise how much it will annoy you if you have to change something but can't do it because the platform is closed. Stefan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cyclelane on left/right
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/8/14 Konrad Skeri kon...@skeri.com: Are there any progress on the left/right situation on cycleway=lane/track that are only on one side of the street? yes, there is a solution for cycleway=track. Map it separately and tag highway=cycleway. track can be considered deprecated ;-) But don't forget to connect the cycleway to the road wherever it is possible to change from one to the other. Norbert ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] DraganFly RC helicopters
Stefan de Cronin wrote Erik Lundin schreef: I know RC helicopters as potential aerial photo source has been discussed before, but today I read about some helicopter from DraganFly and didn't find anything about them on the lists. They seem to be very interesting for our purposes. http://www.draganfly.com/ They are far to expensive. Currently we (openstreetphoto) are looking at big Electroglyders. Shortly we will have some snapshots from a smaller one. The one that is in the progres to be build will have a spawn of around 3 meters and could potentially carry a digital reflex camera. If you want to go Quadcopter I strongly suggest to go for a real open source project. Because you will not realise how much it will annoy you if you have to change something but can't do it because the platform is closed. This won't happen if you develop your own one ;) Draganfly is a little bit expensive (as it is designed commercially for professional users), there are cheaper microcopter projects. regards ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] DraganFly RC helicopters
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SLXViper schreef: This won't happen if you develop your own one ;) We started with two and half Mikrokopter; the arrogance that we have faced in that project. Unbelievable. Now we are facing something real; Quadcopters are relatively great for in the city as long as they are stable, but you cannot make great lengths with them. So for now we put our money in electroglyders, which we have seen that actually can produce stuff that is useful. Draganfly is a little bit expensive (as it is designed commercially for professional users), there are cheaper microcopter projects. My suggestion is after the mikrokopter farce only go for real opensource, documented. Not a bit open. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEAREKAAYFAkqF5eIACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0QaACbBs6Igte2x3go0jL0RONHXe/y TeIAnRWa9DHjnkOqzF8nKvhNMkfmz7hc =Pirl -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Nick Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Silly question, maybe: but, what does yes actually mean? Everyone seems to use it differently; it was intended originally for a legal right but in practice has been used in a range of scenarios. In this particular case (Fahrräder frei marked footways), do cyclists have a *legal* right to use the footway, or is it an unoffical, revokable right? If the former, designated would seem appropriate; if the latter permissive would seem the most appropriate. This is a good question. To quote from the wiki: yes: The public have official, legally-enshrined right of access, i.e. it's a right of way. no: Access by this transport mode is not permitted, they don't have a right of way. designated: The route is marked as being a preferred route, usually for a specific vehicle type or types. Thankfully, no is the opposite of yes. I would prefer that designated was used for signed, and yes/no was discouraged, but used for fuzzy judgements where useful e.g. suitability, preferred-ness, etc. As for how it's used in practice, hopefully everyone follows the wiki, right? :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] DraganFly RC helicopters
Stefan de Konink wrote: SLXViper schreef: This won't happen if you develop your own one ;) We started with two and half Mikrokopter; the arrogance that we have faced in that project. Unbelievable. Additionally, mikrokopter has quite a lot of design flaws. Rather low-power brushless motors and very sensitive controllers, chaotic software and documentation, a not-so-good flight control, etc. The concept of a microcopter can be improved a lot as Draganfly shows... The main problem is that devoloping such a complex system is neither easy nor cheap. regards ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote: To me, cycleway means path, designated means signed, and bicycle=yes means it's suitable for bikes. So if you have a path that is suitable for a bicycle but does not have a sign with a bicycle, I would use highway=path (or cycleway, if you insist); designated=no; bicycle=yes. I made a mistake. designated is not a key, it's a value. So yeah, you'd just use bicycle=yes to infer that it isn't designated. In other words, maybe we should clarify in the wiki that bicycle=designated implies bicycle=yes and absence of bicycle=designated implies not designated. Hmm... to avoid this situation you would have to change to something more like bicycle:designated=no and bicycle=yes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Mike Harrismik...@googlemail.com wrote: Tend to agree in part - I think the 'official' bit is actually redundant? Would this improve the page? I'm not sure you'd be successful in removing 'official' altogether, but I think it could do with some clarification, as Martin points out. The access=designated wiki page says 'official' means exclusive access, but the access=official page says In most cases, [ it's exclusive ]. This needs to be fixed. There is a lot of overlap between designated and official, but I don't think 'official' is redundant, given their different definitions on the wiki. Of course, hopefully everyone actually uses them according to their wiki definitions... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] DraganFly RC helicopters
I don't really understand what you mean by open source here. If you buy an RC helicopter, aren't you free to do whatever you want with it? /Erik Stefan de Konink skrev: If you want to go Quadcopter I strongly suggest to go for a real open source project. Because you will not realise how much it will annoy you if you have to change something but can't do it because the platform is closed. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Mike Harrismik...@googlemail.com wrote: The problem is that some of us follow the wiki advice re designated= which was developed after a lot of discussion in this group! http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated Designated= does not mean signed. Signed= could of course be an additional tag - so long as we know what the sign means e.g. for routing or even for simple access. We would have to distinguish between signed= 'public footpath', signed= 'permissive path' path - and even signed= 'private'. But we already have tags and a working system that does all of this. If it ain't broke don't fix it? I'm a little concerned that there's no way to indicate signed. You said designated does not mean signed. Also, according to the wiki, Offical is only for ways marked with a legal traffic sign. What is a legal traffic sign? Is a legal traffic sign just a traffic sign? Could the definition of official be simplified to signed?? If not, what would be the difference between bicycle=official and bicycle=signed? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] DraganFly RC helicopters
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SLXViper schreef: Stefan de Konink wrote: SLXViper schreef: This won't happen if you develop your own one ;) We started with two and half Mikrokopter; the arrogance that we have faced in that project. Unbelievable. Additionally, mikrokopter has quite a lot of design flaws. - - Electrical markup that is not documented because people could copy it - - 5V / 12V overflows resulting into broken lanes with standard design (elaborating how difficult it is to find a 'cut' if you don't have the layout is not required I guess) - - Recently I found out the compass provided is far to easy to influence Rather low-power brushless motors That is up to the builder, there are a dozen motors to choose from. and very sensitive controllers, chaotic software The major problem is not the software, it is C for embedded stuff, trust me the typical 8051 software on a creditcard is worse ;) The problem is that they actually do not provide the full software package, aka; the most important stuff regarding to secure flying the GPS aid is not provided in code because they seem to be afraid the other 'commercial' guys copy there code... and documentation, a not-so-good flight control, etc. etc. lack of active debugging. Ignoring serious development request... The concept of a microcopter can be improved a lot as Draganfly shows... The main problem is that devoloping such a complex system is neither easy nor cheap. Thankfully we always have people like Adam Williams of Cinelerra fame building http://vicacopter.com/ and a lot of other open source project exist where people actually build stuff. But somewhere deep down inside thought that if someone actually 'sells' stuff it would be at least 1.0... Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEAREKAAYFAkqF9N8ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1xpwCeKxDK2SBVnaTB81XZLPQfGmvx AusAn2O/f2TA3SbnWzKzKFrHFHLq4O/s =OmsK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM-Postal an idea to extend Walking-Papers to not connected people
It is really an excellent idea. I was planning to organize a walking paper mail out in my home town in a few months to see how it could work out. I was planning in my case to contact the mayor office to see if I could coordinate with them if they were interested. The idea of postcard is very good. If you need help, let me know I will see what I could do. I printed out two copies each of six areas in Liverpool and left them in two cafés. On the other side of the paper I put some text briefly describing the project and asking that people either hand it in to one of the cafés or scan it in and email it to me - didn't have much space and I was hoping people realised they could post it back if they wanted. So far I don't know if anyone has completed an area, I'm not aware of them being handed in and haven't received an email, but I know a few have been taken and they even got me in touch with a Slovakian person with an interest in OSM who happened to be in Liverpool! If you're interested this is what I put on the reverse side, if I do it again I'll add a title saying what area is covered though in my case it should have been guessable from the existing coverage: http://johnmckerrell.com/files/osm-walking-papers-cover.pdf Cool! I made the mistake of ignoring my OSM-talk mail for a few days, I'm really happy to see that people are thinking of ways to work with Walking Papers. I've been building up some steam to work on another set of change requests, now's the time to ask if you have a pet feature you'd like to see added. =) -mike. michal migurski- m...@stamen.com 415.558.1610 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Agree here. UK bridleways for instance should have foot=designated; horse=designated; bicycle=designated as all three have equal right. It would be a mistake to assume the horse rights are greater than foot/bicycle; they are not. I would similarly guess the shared foot/cycleways in Germany would be similar, i.e. foot=designated; bicycle=designated. Nick After looking at the British Ramblers Association website today it does not appear cyclists have equal rights on Bridelways. This website give advice on access rights to footpaths etc in the UK, and it says Pedal cyclists have a right to use bridleways, restricted byways and byways open to all traffic, but on bridleways they must give way to walkers and riders. Like horse riders, they have no right to use footpaths and if they do so they are committing a trespass against the owner of the land, unless use is by permission (see Q26http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/footpathlaw/footpathlaw2.htm#trespass). As with horse-riding (see Q10http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/footpathlaw/footpathlaw.htm#horses), use of any right of way by cyclists can be controlled by traffic regulation orders and byelaws imposed by local authorities. Infringement of byelaws or orders is a criminal offence. Under the Highways Act 1835, it is an offence to ride a bicycle on the pavement at the side of a road, and under the Fixed Penalty Offences Order 1999 a person who rides on a pavement can be fined on the spot by a police officer. Jason jamicu http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] DraganFly RC helicopters
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Erik Lundin schreef: I don't really understand what you mean by open source here. If you buy an RC helicopter, aren't you free to do whatever you want with it? Typically an RC helicopter is not really what you want when you are flying to make photos. A quadcopter has no such thing as full manual operation basically because you would be to slow to compensate for rotation on all axis, so you would need some software and sensors for you to do this. So only for getting the thing in the air there is software that tries to keep it leveled and allows your input to artificially bring it out of balance to control it. If this software is not perfect so you might want to toy with it right? So the Mikrokopter also has a navigation board. You can hookup extra censors like a compass and a GPS. Now for some reason this software is not fully disclosed. Cutting a long story short, we wrote two independent open source flashers (Linux / .NET) for the Mikrokopter. We have hacked in assembly to try to get the baudrate artificially lower to connect wireless RS232 (we failed miserably). And that kind of reverse engineering frustrations just make you thing... why didn't we design it from scratch... Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEAREKAAYFAkqF+SEACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn3Q+QCeNlwTUxqz52B7YBF6VxYfoTiW twAAn1WqN3wJ/kce6m05JoxE0R0dGBa3 =3Ukx -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] designated shared cyclepath
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote: http://twitpic.com/djyxb This is Ash Kyd's photo, and I'm not sure if he's on this list. highway=path; bicycle=designated; foot=designated; surface=ground. Not sure about width=* :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
2009/8/15 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: Could the definition of official be simplified to signed?? If not, what would be the difference between bicycle=official and bicycle=signed? As I have understood, official is intended to tag the formal dedication (usually of the local administration who decided to build the way). In some cases there might be missing the sign, but it still would be officially dedicated to be a xy-way. Bicycle=signed is IMHO not the best idea, because what do you do for official or designated _and_ signed ways? Also I didn't get the difference of designated and official. Maybe you can explain? I thought it was intended for the same situation. There is people already using tags like this: traffic_sign=DE:237 to tag signs. If you put this on a way it would be clear that and how a way is signed. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] mijn.openstreetmap.nl: snel en simpel een kaart op je website
Mooi Roeland! Dit soort dingen is idd prachtig om osm aan de man te brengen :-) Nog een opmerking: - je zou in de tekst over zoomen even kunnen vertellen dat je met de muisknop OF met een shift-muis-drag kunt inzoomen - je zou de zoombar alleen kunnen opnemen/tonen in het 'aanmaken deel', en het niet (of optioneel) uitgenereren in je uiteindelijke html... Dit in aanvulling van de opmerking om een schaalbar/zoombar toe te voegen. Meeste mensen schat ik in willen een kaal kaartje, maar zijn gewend om via de zoombar op de juiste plaats op de kaart te komen (is mijn ervaring). Groet, Richard Duivenvoorde Roeland Douma wrote: Frank, Dank je wel :) Over de schaalbar/zoombar zat ik ook nog te denken. Maar dan zou ik dus een appart voorbeeld iets moeten hebben. Want die zitten er nu nog niet op standaard (omdat de meeste mensen gewoon een kaartje willen van hier zit ik op het industrieterrein o.i.d.) De initiele hoogte komt inderdaad niet overheen. Hier moet ik nog even iets aan doen (wat javascript magic) maar staat op het lijstje dus! Denk dat dat probleem meer bij IE7 ligt. Maar ik zal kijken of ik hier iets over kan vinden. Maar als het in basis wel werkt dan is de nood iets minder hoog. Groet, --Roeland On Thursday 13 August 2009 19:09:41 you wrote: Hallo Roeland, Erg leuk idee :) Wat commentaarpuntjes: * Schaalbalkje + pijltjes voor navigatie. Niet iedereen gebruikt automatisch de muis, evt. i.c.m. shift om snel in te zoomen. * Initiele breedte / hoogte in de textboxen komt niet overeen met de kaart. Dus ook al verander je daar niets, dan nog wordt de afmeting van de kaart aangepast. Ik heb ook getest in IE 7: * Als ik in de kaart klik om te pannen, verschijnt de marker al, of wordt hij verplaatst. Verder werkt het wel. Groeten, Frank Quoting Roeland Douma u...@rullzer.com: Howdy, Vandaag live gegaan. De eerste (alpha) release van mijn.openstreetmap.nl (voor meer info zie [1]). Hier is het mogelijk om snel en eenvoudig je eigen kaart te maken voor op je website. Ik heb getracht het geheel een beetje gebruikersvriendelijk te maken, wat redelijk gelukt is, al zeg ik het zelf. Maar het geheel ziet er niet uit, als iemand daar mee wil klooien dan staat de source in git [2]. Hij is getest in FireFox, IE8 en konqueror. Gaarne hoor ik of het ook in andere browsers goed werk. Of dat het niet werkt. En uiteraard is al het overige commentaar/tips welkom! Groet, --Roeland [1] http://blog.openstreetmap.nl/index.php/2009/08/13/osm-kaartjes-op-je- website-appeltje-eitje/ [2] http://git.openstreetmap.nl/index.cgi/mijn-osm.git/ ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [talk-au] Australian_Road_Tagging - unclassified
--- On Fri, 14/8/09, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: then we could have an editing fight, and I'm not going to do that I ended up reverting the sections on residential/unclassified for the same reason. the urban use notice has changed considerably by the placing of unclassified above residential when we were using them as of equal value The problem is some/all routing software doesn't treat residential as through roads, but do treat unclassified as through roads. Effectively highway=residential means highway=[residential|unclassified] and access=destination. I realise we're not supposed to tag for the renderer, but this isn't quite the same thing, as they've coded to a specific definition of residential/unclassified that they interrupted it as. We can either align ourselves with this definition or have routing go screwy on us. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] based on osm...
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/08/0812_data_visualization_heroes/3.htm
--
_
Jim Croft ~ jim.cr...@gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ...
... 'All is leaf' ('Alles ist Blatt') - Goethe
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Found this neat tile layer...
http://matt.sandbox.cloudmade.com/?lon=-0.09465layers=B0lat=-27.475989lng=153.091049zoom=12layer=3 Shows the progress of adding street addressing. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Victoria Corryong Airport has only one runway
Hi All, Corryong Airport has only one runway, OSM has two. The correct runway is running about 80 degrees 240 degrees. The north west - south east one does not exist. Graeme Wilson VK1RE 0400 447 429 _ Use Windows Live Messenger from your Hotmail inbox Web IM has arrived! http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=823454___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Victoria Khancoban Duplication of Snowy Valley Hwy off in the mountains.
Hi All, Check the Snowy Valley Hwy around Khancoban. There are two of them. Graeme Wilson VK1RE 0400 447 429 _ Looking for a place to rent, share or buy this winter? Find your next place with Ninemsn property http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Edomain%2Ecom%2Eau%2F%3Fs%5Fcid%3DFDMedia%3ANineMSN%5FHotmail%5FTagline_t=774152450_r=Domain_tagline_m=EXT___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Victoria Corryong Airport has only one runway
--- On Fri, 14/8/09, Graeme Wilson wandere...@live.com.au wrote: Corryong Airport has only one runway, OSM has two. The correct runway is running about 80 degrees 240 degrees. The north west - south east one does not exist. I just had a look, the erronus runway is sourced as yahoo aerial photos, but I can't see it on yahoo sat imagery, looks like they confused the road with it or something. Do you need help fixing it or are you asking permission to fix it? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Victoria Khancoban Duplication of Snowy Valley Hwy off in the mountains.
--- On Fri, 14/8/09, Graeme Wilson wandere...@live.com.au wrote: Check the Snowy Valley Hwy around Khancoban. There are two of them. I'm not familiar with the that part of the country, can you give me a rough lat/lon or can you copy and paste the permalink from openstreetmap.org? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Fw: [OSM-dev] Server Down Time - 22nd to 23rd August 2009
--- On Sat, 15/8/09, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: From: Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com Subject: [OSM-dev] Server Down Time - 22nd to 23rd August 2009 To: Talk Openstreetmap t...@openstreetmap.org, osmdev d...@openstreetmap.org Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 12:33 AM OSM, Next weekend, 22nd/23rd August OpenStreetMap's main servers will be unavailable due to electrical maintenance works at University College London. www.openstreetmap.org [1] and the API will be unavailable during this period from approximately 5am GMT Saturday August 22nd until 10pm GMT Sunday August 23rd. The wiki and mailing lists will continue to be available during this period. Arrangements are under way to keep http://tile.openstreetmap.org/ available, but as yet we are unable to confirm. The sysadmin team are not taking a break; we are using this opportunity to reorganise the server hardware and are installing a large set of hardware upgrades recently approved by the OpenStreetMap Foundation. [2] Please pass this message onto the local OSM lists. 1: www.openstreetmap.org will be replaced by a simple notice website during this period. 2: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Servers/Upgrades/082009 Grant on behalf of OpenStreetMap Sysadmin Team. ___ dev mailing list d...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OSM representation in Australia
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Hugh Barnes wrote: On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:14:40 +1000 Hugh Barnes list@hughbris.com wrote: I've never found a list of members anywhere. I never received any acknowledgement except in receipt for the payment I made. Not particularly complaining, just wonder why. Odd way to respond to people who show you support. I've now caught up with the rest of the world and see I'm not the only one to notice this: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-August/000137.html you should be on a particular mailing list too osmf-talk ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OSM representation in Australia
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Matt Whitemattwh...@iinet.com.au wrote: Liz wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Matt White wrote: Hey, out of interest, how many people on this list are OSMF members? me I probably should have kicked it off and said I am a member as well ... me too. G. -- Gordon Smith http://las.new-england.net.au/ http://blog.macalba.net/ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian_Road_Tagging - unclassified
On 14/08/2009, at 7:26 PM, John Smith wrote: The problem is some/all routing software doesn't treat residential as through roads, but do treat unclassified as through roads. Effectively highway=residential means highway=[residential| unclassified] and access=destination. I realise we're not supposed to tag for the renderer, but this isn't quite the same thing I see it as exactly the same thing, you're tagging it so that it works better with certain pieces of software, due to that making incorrect assumptions. Although it may practically do so in some parts of europe, highway=residential doesn't imply access=destination. as they've coded to a specific definition of residential/ unclassified that they interrupted it as. We can either align ourselves with this definition or have routing go screwy on us. We could fix the routing software, or the conversion from OSM data to whatever format the router uses so that it doesn't treat them as such. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] nambour mapping party today 1pm
At least one group of people coming up from bris may be running a little late ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian_Road_Tagging - unclassified
--- On Sat, 15/8/09, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: I see it as exactly the same thing, you're tagging it so that it works better with certain pieces of software, due to that making incorrect assumptions. Although it may practically do so in some parts of europe, highway=residential doesn't imply access=destination. This isn't an incorrect assumption problem, this is a problem with the information on the main map features page being ambiguous enough that you can take it either way. Who ever wrote the Australia Tagging Guidelines assumed one thing and other people have assumed another and both are correct. We could fix the routing software, or the conversion from OSM data to whatever format the router uses so that it doesn't treat them as such. Yes but the bigger issue is at present people have interrupted things differently leaving OSM data in an inconsistent state which is bad in general. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
Personally I like Ref=56 Network=au_nh Over Ref=NH56 Because the ref really is 56. -Ben. -Original Message- From: John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com Sent: 14 August 2009 22:26 To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this http://www.weait.com/content/badges-badges Specifically they have network=us_i for example, US Interstate Is this something we should be doing too, eg network=au_nh I'll probably get booed because this is border line tagging for the renderer but this would then be easy for anyone rendering map tiles and routing software etc etc etc to be preloaded with information about various highway designations in various countries. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[Talk-br] Manutenção do servidor - 22 e 23 de agosto de 2009
No próximo final de semana, 22 e 23 agosto, os servidores principais do OpenStreetMap serão desligados devido à manutenção elétrica na Universidade College in Londres. www.openstreetmap.org [1] e a API estarão indisponíveis durante esse período desde aproximadamente 2h da manhã de sábado até às 7h da noite de domingo. O wiki e as listas de email continuarão disponíveis durante este período. Os admins estão trabalhando para manter o http://tile.openstreetmap.org/ disponível durante o período, mas ainda não podem confirmar. A equipa de administradores não estão parados; estamos usando esta oportunidade para reorganizar os servidores e instalar servidores novos recentemente aprovados pela Fundação OpenStreetMap. [2] 1: www.openstreetmap.org será trocada por uma mensagem durante este período 2: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Servers/Upgrades/082009 Grant Equipe de Administradores de Sistema do OpenStreetMap. -- Forwarded message -- From: Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com Date: 2009/8/14 Subject: [OSM-talk] Server Down Time - 22nd to 23rd August 2009 To: Talk Openstreetmap t...@openstreetmap.org, osmdev d...@openstreetmap.org OSM, Next weekend, 22nd/23rd August OpenStreetMap's main servers will be unavailable due to electrical maintenance works at University College London. www.openstreetmap.org [1] and the API will be unavailable during this period from approximately 5am GMT Saturday August 22nd until 10pm GMT Sunday August 23rd. The wiki and mailing lists will continue to be available during this period. Arrangements are under way to keep http://tile.openstreetmap.org/ available, but as yet we are unable to confirm. The sysadmin team are not taking a break; we are using this opportunity to reorganise the server hardware and are installing a large set of hardware upgrades recently approved by the OpenStreetMap Foundation. [2] Please pass this message onto the local OSM lists. 1: www.openstreetmap.org will be replaced by a simple notice website during this period. 2: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Servers/Upgrades/082009 Grant on behalf of OpenStreetMap Sysadmin Team. ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Arlindo Saraiva Pereira Jr. Bacharelando em Sistemas de Informação - UNIRIO - uniriotec.br Consultor de Software Livre da Uniriotec Consultoria - uniriotec.com Acadêmico: arlindo.pere...@uniriotec.br Profissional: arlindo.pere...@uniriotec.com Geral: cont...@arlindopereira.com Tel.: +5521 92504072 Jabber/Google Talk: nig...@nighto.net Skype: nighto_sumomo Chave pública: BD065DEC ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
[Talk-de] Worldfile vom 12.08.09
Hallo, die neuen daten vom 12.08.09 liegen wie immer zum Download bereit auf: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Computerteddy -- Viele Gruesse Computerteddy ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Hausnummerntool?
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 06:08:47PM +0200, Holger s...@der wrote: Dabei ist mir die Frage gekommen, ob es ein Tool gibt, dass die bereits erfassten Hausnummern auflisten kann, um zu sehen, ob eventuell eine Hausnummer vergessen wurde. http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresseslon=8.37641lat=49.01979zoom=11 Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] maxwidth/width/Fahrbahnbreiten
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:30:46PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 13. August 2009 22:06 schrieb Thomas Reincke m...@thomas-reincke.de: Was ich daran schwierig finde. Es können auch deutlich breitere Fahrzeuge auf solch einer Fahrbahn fahren. Auf einem 1,80 m Weg sollte ein 2,50 m breiter Lkw (mit Spiegeln gemessen noch breiter) problemlos fahren können. Ach ja, Lkw/Busse dürfen seit 1965 2,55 breit sein, mit Kühlaufbau sogar 2,6m. Eine flott geschätzte Maßangabe 2,50 m sperrt da schnell Fahrzeuge aus, die eigentlich fahren könnten. ja, auch nicht zu vergessen: die Breite muss über die volle Höhe (also in der Regel 4,50 m) eingehalten werden. Es hilft dem LKW nämlich nicht, wenn er unten zwar die entsprechende Breite hat (z.B. 3,5 m), aber oben diese eingeengt wird (z.B. überstehende Bäume). So weit ich mich erinnere muss unter 4,30 (Fahrzeuge duerfen IMHO maximal 4m hoch sein) etwas an der engstelle (Bruecke) dran stehen. Nur bei tracks im Wald rechnet keiner damit das jemand versucht mit seinem Bus im Rueckeweg zu fahren ... Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org Es ist ein grobes Missverständnis und eine Fehlwahrnehmung, dem Staat im Internet Zensur- und Überwachungsabsichten zu unterstellen. - - Bundesminister Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble -- 10. Juli in Berlin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] existiert Spezialkarte mit Anzeige von lit=yes|no ?
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 14. August 2009 00:00 schrieb Dirk Stöcker openstreet...@dstoecker.de: Wenn es irgendwann mal mehr Stile gibt, wird auch die Nutzung einfacher. Nur sehe ich momentan eben nicht, dass sich ausser den JOSM-Entwicklern jemand die Mühe macht solche Stile zu entwickeln. Und wenn das Feature nicht genutzt wird, lohnt es sich nicht, es zu verbessern. Zwei Fragen zu den Styles: kann man in den Stilen zwischen selektiert und nicht unterscheiden? Also, dass z.B. ausgewählte Straßen anders gezeichnet werden als normale? Sind die Strichstärken zoomabhängig (möglich)? Nein. Bis jetzt nicht. Generell gibt es gute Gründe einen Teil der Farbauswahl (z.B. Hintergrundfarbe) und andere Parameter auch in den Stilen zu definieren. Andererseits gibt es auch gute Gründe das nicht zu machen. Ich denke da wird es in Zukunft noch einige Änderungen geben. Vernünftige und fundierte Verbesserungsvorschläge wie immer als Trac-Report im JOSM-Tracker ablegen. Ciao -- http://www.dstoecker.eu/ (PGP key available)___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Hausnummern im JOSM-Stil
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Ulf Lamping wrote: - Die StartUp-Seite wird, genau wie die Hilfe-Seite vom Server geladen und (unverändert) angezeigt. Solange wir generell Online-Zugriff gestatten (und der Trend geht ja auch in anderen Bereichen in diese Richtung) sind die entsprechenden Sicherheitsprobleme bekannt. Wenn ich aber josm.openstreetmap.de nicht trauen kann, dann kann ich JOSM selbst auch nicht trauen. Solange wir OpenSource entwickeln besteht immer die Möglichkeit Schindluder zu treiben. Da Java bei der momentanen Anzeige keine aktiven Inhalte unterstützt (und das Wiki selbst auch nicht) sind die Risiken der Wiki-Anzeige allerdings überschaubar. - Die zugehörigen Informationen für Stile, Vorlagen und Plugins werden nicht aus den Wikiseiten gelesen (die Tabellen dort sind nur für die Webseite gedacht). Die Links in den Wikiseiten dienen nur als Möglichkeit für die Nutzer ihre Plugins überhaupt bekannt zu machen. Wenn wir die Links woanders unterbringen, wird es noch komplizierter für mögliche Entwickler die richtige Stelle zu finden. Sorry, ich dachte ich hätte eine Ahnung was eigentlich passiert, aber jetzt bin ich komplett ausgestiegen. Die zugehörigen Informationen für ... werden nicht aus den Wikiseiten gelesen ... Woher kommen Sie denn dann?!? http://josm.openstreetmap.de/plugin http://josm.openstreetmap.de/styles http://josm.openstreetmap.de/presets Generell läuft das etwa so: - In den 3 zugehörigen Wiki-Seiten kann der Nutzer in die Liste URLs eintragen - Ein Skript auf dem Server extrahiert diese URLs, prüft auf geänderte Dateien, Verfügbarkeit, ... und sammelt alles zusammen - Aus den Dateien werden alle relevanten Metainformationen extrahiert und mit einer Reihe von Zusatzinformationen vereinigt - Diese Ergebnisdatei bildet die Basis für die obigen Links und die Wiki-Tabellen Die Wiki-Seite dient also nur als Lieferant der URL-Liste (wobei die SVN-Plugins automatisch gehandhabt werden). Theoretisch könnten wir also auch irgendwo eine Textdatei mit den Links pflegen, aber ich denke das Wiki ist noch am verständlichsten. Nötig wurde dieses Vorgehen hauptsächlich um das Übersetzungsproblem und das automatische Update in den Griff zu bekommen. Allerdings hat es noch eine ganze Reihe anderer Vorteile (z.B. die aktuelle Lösung, um ältere Plugins an ältere JOSM-Versionen auszuliefern). Und außerdem kann jederzeit auf ein beliebiges anderes Verfahren umgestellt werden (z.B. eine Datenbank), ohne das JOSM angepasst werden muss. Ciao -- http://www.dstoecker.eu/ (PGP key available)___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Problem bei Aktualisierungen der öpnvk arte.de? (war: Re: ÖPNV-Karte - Relationen in Berlin gelöscht)
Hi! Fips Schneider schrieb: ÖPNV-Karte hat ein Problem, der fehlen einfach Daten. In ganz Deutschland wird kein ÖPNV mehr dargestellt auf neugerenderten Karten, teilweise fehlen sogar Straßen oder Schienenverbindungen (und ja, ich habe meine Gegenden darauf überprüft, Daten sind in Ordnung, ÖPNV-Karte nicht (mehr)). Problem also bei der Karte, nicht in den Daten. Gibt's hierzu schon was neues? Habe in den letzten Tagen mal versucht, das Metro-Netz von Barcelona zu erfassen und warte jetzt gespannt auf eine Aktualisierung der Karte. Unter der Karte heißt es Datenstand: 13.08., aber es scheint so, als wäre da seit vielen Tagen nicht neu gerendert worden. Oder mache ich etwas grundfalsch beim taggen? -- Gernot ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Doppelte Wege
Und der aktuelle JOSM Bug, dass die Layer-Reihenfolge nicht mehr beachtet wird machts auch nicht gerade leichter. So muss ich immer den Datenlayer temporär unsichtbar schalten um das GPX File mit den Fehlerwegen zu sehen. Ist in der latest (1979) gefixed. Danke! Chris ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Hausnummerntool?
Holger s...@der (hs69...@web.de)schrieb: Dabei ist mir die Frage gekommen, ob es ein Tool gibt, dass die bereits erfassten Hausnummern auflisten kann, um zu sehen, ob eventuell eine Hausnummer vergessen wurde. Es sollte auch anzeigen, ob das Haus mit der fehlenden Hausnummer vergessen zu taggen, abgerissen oder noch nicht gebaut wurde. :) Gruß malenki ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Tag für Alleen
Johannes Huesing (johan...@huesing.name)schrieb: malenki o...@malenki.ch [Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 05:07:45PM CEST]: [...] Teilweise zusätzlich natural:tree:type=$Baumsorte, wenn die Allee aus einer Art Bäumen bestand. für natural=tree existiert name:botanical, kannst Du das nicht übernehmen? Ich schrieb auch: Zur Zeit habe ich daheim kein Internet Wenn ich wieder dauerverbunden bin, werde ich das nachbessern. Nichts ist lästiger, als eine Sammlung von mehreren tausend Bildern mehrmals durchzuarbeiten, nur weil man nicht weiß, was es an irgendwo im Wiki dokumentierten Tags gibt. Gruß malenki ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Hausnummerntool?
Am 14. August 2009 14:47 schrieb malenki o...@malenki.ch: Holger s...@der (hs69...@web.de)schrieb: Dabei ist mir die Frage gekommen, ob es ein Tool gibt, dass die bereits erfassten Hausnummern auflisten kann, um zu sehen, ob eventuell eine Hausnummer vergessen wurde. Es sollte auch anzeigen, ob das Haus mit der fehlenden Hausnummer vergessen zu taggen, abgerissen oder noch nicht gebaut wurde. :) wieso? Sind ja schließlich keine Hausnummern sondern Grundstücksnummern. Von daher spielt das keine Rolle. Gruß Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] maxwidth/width/Fahrbahnbreiten
Am 14. August 2009 09:30 schrieb Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org: On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:30:46PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 13. August 2009 22:06 schrieb Thomas Reincke m...@thomas-reincke.de: ja, auch nicht zu vergessen: die Breite muss über die volle Höhe (also in der Regel 4,50 m) eingehalten werden. Es hilft dem LKW nämlich nicht, wenn er unten zwar die entsprechende Breite hat (z.B. 3,5 m), aber oben diese eingeengt wird (z.B. überstehende Bäume). So weit ich mich erinnere muss unter 4,30 (Fahrzeuge duerfen IMHO maximal 4m hoch sein) etwas an der engstelle (Bruecke) dran stehen. ich habe nur Wikipedia als Quelle, aber da steht im Text 4,50 und im Schaubild 4,20: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fenquerschnitt#Grundma.C3.9Fe Wenn man Stoßdämpfer, Erhebungen und lange Fahrzeuge berücksichtigt, kommt mir 50 cm als Sicherheit vernünftig vor ;-) Gruß Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] [Fwd: [OSM-talk] Server Down Time - 22nd to 23rd August 2009]
Hallo, am 22./23.8. werden die OSM-Server (www.openstreetmap.org und API) nicht erreichbar sein. Der Tile-Server wird vielleicht irgendwie weiterlaufen koennen, das ist noch unklar. Grund sind Wartungsarbeiten am Stromnetz der Uni, die die Server beherbergt. Bye Frederik Original Message Subject: [OSM-talk] Server Down Time - 22nd to 23rd August 2009 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:33:50 +0100 From: Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com To: Talk Openstreetmap t...@openstreetmap.org, osmdev d...@openstreetmap.org OSM, Next weekend, 22nd/23rd August OpenStreetMap's main servers will be unavailable due to electrical maintenance works at University College London. www.openstreetmap.org [1] and the API will be unavailable during this period from approximately 5am GMT Saturday August 22nd until 10pm GMT Sunday August 23rd. The wiki and mailing lists will continue to be available during this period. Arrangements are under way to keep http://tile.openstreetmap.org/ available, but as yet we are unable to confirm. The sysadmin team are not taking a break; we are using this opportunity to reorganise the server hardware and are installing a large set of hardware upgrades recently approved by the OpenStreetMap Foundation. [2] Please pass this message onto the local OSM lists. 1: www.openstreetmap.org will be replaced by a simple notice website during this period. 2: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Servers/Upgrades/082009 Grant on behalf of OpenStreetMap Sysadmin Team. ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Server offline am 22. und 23. August [Fwd: [OSM-talk] Server Down Time - 22nd to 23rd August 2009]
Hi, wie hier zu lesen werden die OpenStreetMap-Server am nächsten Wochenende, am 22. und 23. August, nicht verfügbar sein, weil elektrische Arbeiten im UCL, wo die Server stehen, durchgeführt werden. Währenddessen werden auch neue OSM-Server installiert. osm.org und die API sind während dieser Zeit nicht verfügbar, das Wiki und die Mailingliste sind aber online. Mehr weiter unten in der englischen E-Mail. Gruß Jonas Original-Nachricht Betreff:[OSM-talk] Server Down Time - 22nd to 23rd August 2009 Datum: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:33:50 +0100 Von:Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com An: Talk Openstreetmap t...@openstreetmap.org, osmdev d...@openstreetmap.org OSM, Next weekend, 22nd/23rd August OpenStreetMap's main servers will be unavailable due to electrical maintenance works at University College London. www.openstreetmap.org [1] and the API will be unavailable during this period from approximately 5am GMT Saturday August 22nd until 10pm GMT Sunday August 23rd. The wiki and mailing lists will continue to be available during this period. Arrangements are under way to keep http://tile.openstreetmap.org/ available, but as yet we are unable to confirm. The sysadmin team are not taking a break; we are using this opportunity to reorganise the server hardware and are installing a large set of hardware upgrades recently approved by the OpenStreetMap Foundation. [2] Please pass this message onto the local OSM lists. 1: www.openstreetmap.org will be replaced by a simple notice website during this period. 2: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Servers/Upgrades/082009 Grant on behalf of OpenStreetMap Sysadmin Team. ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] maxwidth/width/Fahrbahnbreiten
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 04:56:14PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: ich habe nur Wikipedia als Quelle, aber da steht im Text 4,50 und im Schaubild 4,20: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fenquerschnitt#Grundma.C3.9Fe StVZO http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvzo/__32.html (2) Bei Kraftfahrzeugen und Anhängern einschließlich mitgeführter austauschbarer Ladungsträger (§ 42 Abs. 3) darf die höchstzulässige Höhe über alles folgendes Maß nicht überschreiten: 4,00 m. Die Fahrzeughöhe ist nach der ISO-Norm 612-1978, Definition Nummer 6.3 zu ermitteln. Abweichend von dieser Norm sind bei der Messung der Fahrzeughöhe die folgenden Einrichtungen nicht zu berücksichtigen: Wenn man Stoßdämpfer, Erhebungen und lange Fahrzeuge berücksichtigt, kommt mir 50 cm als Sicherheit vernünftig vor ;-) Und fuer die Kennzeichnung muesste man dann das hier haben: Richtlinie für die Kennzeichnung von Ingenieurbauwerken mit beschränkter Durchfahrtshöhe über Straßen, Ausgabe 2000 vom 21. Juli 2000 was sich aber bei unserer Internetausdruckerregierung nicht online finden laesst ... Es lassen sich zitate finden die eben sagen = 4,20 muss markiert werden - die hoehe soll 4,50 betragen ... *Grmpf* Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org Es ist ein grobes Missverständnis und eine Fehlwahrnehmung, dem Staat im Internet Zensur- und Überwachungsabsichten zu unterstellen. - - Bundesminister Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble -- 10. Juli in Berlin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] maxwidth/width/Fahrbahnbreiten
Am 14. August 2009 17:21 schrieb Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org: Es lassen sich zitate finden die eben sagen = 4,20 muss markiert werden - die hoehe soll 4,50 betragen ... *Grmpf* Flo ja, in proprietären Quellen, habe auch noch mal ein bisschen recherchiert ;-) Gruß Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] [Fwd: [OSM-talk] Server Down Time - 22nd to 23rd August 2009]
2009/8/14 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Hallo, am 22./23.8. werden die OSM-Server (www.openstreetmap.org und API) nicht erreichbar sein. Der Tile-Server wird vielleicht irgendwie weiterlaufen koennen, das ist noch unklar. Grund sind Wartungsarbeiten am Stromnetz der Uni, die die Server beherbergt. wird für diese Zeit die Domain umgeleitet, so dass man einen Hinweis zeigen kann? Weiss jemand, wie die derzeitige Serverkonfiguration ist, bzw. wieviel größer/besser die neuen Server bzw. Upgrades sind? Gruß Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] [Fwd: [OSM-talk] Server Down Time - 22nd to 23rd August 2009]
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: 2009/8/14 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Hallo, am 22./23.8. werden die OSM-Server (www.openstreetmap.org und API) nicht erreichbar sein. Der Tile-Server wird vielleicht irgendwie weiterlaufen koennen, das ist noch unklar. Grund sind Wartungsarbeiten am Stromnetz der Uni, die die Server beherbergt. wird für diese Zeit die Domain umgeleitet, so dass man einen Hinweis zeigen kann? Weiss jemand, wie die derzeitige Serverkonfiguration ist, bzw. wieviel größer/besser die neuen Server bzw. Upgrades sind? Gruß Martin Steht am Ende der englischen Mail: 1: www.openstreetmap.org will be replaced by a simple notice website during this period. 2: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Servers/Upgrades/082009 ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] [Fwd: [OSM-talk] Server Down Time - 22nd to 23rd August 2009]
Am 14. August 2009 17:41 schrieb Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de: Weiss jemand, wie die derzeitige Serverkonfiguration ist, bzw. wieviel größer/besser die neuen Server bzw. Upgrades sind? Steht am Ende der englischen Mail: 2: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Servers/Upgrades/082009 danke, hatte das übersehen mit der Replacenachricht :) Diese Upgrade-Liste sagt mir allerdings nichts, weil ich nicht weiss, was bisher da steht. Gruß Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] [Fwd: [OSM-talk] Server Down Time - 22nd to 23rd August 2009]
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: Am 14. August 2009 17:41 schrieb Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de: Weiss jemand, wie die derzeitige Serverkonfiguration ist, bzw. wieviel größer/besser die neuen Server bzw. Upgrades sind? Steht am Ende der englischen Mail: 2: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Servers/Upgrades/082009 danke, hatte das übersehen mit der Replacenachricht :) Diese Upgrade-Liste sagt mir allerdings nichts, weil ich nicht weiss, was bisher da steht. Augen auf, Freund :) Oben auf der Wiki-Seite ist ein Link zu Servers [1] und dort kannst du die Namen der Server anklicken. Peter [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Servers ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
