Re: [Tagging] Off Topic: alignment point help
On 11/06/2015 6:14 PM, johnw wrote: On Jun 11, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: offsets are an approximation to reduce the inherent problems of some aerial layers, they won't solve problems like distortions. JOSM isn't more precise to find a proper offset than any other tool, I suggest you simply move the layer till it visually seems ok. Unless you do high precision measurements in the field you won't know for sure what is right and what is wrong, or in other words: more or less accurate. IMHO, relative precision (eg alignment, angles, straight vs curves etc) is more important than positional precision. I know the precision isn’t so important, but I want everything to be the same relative location. The relative position is very important to me. I know distortion can skew that, for hills and the like. I was also under the impression there was a plugin for JSOM that offered automatic imagery offset correction, something which I don’t have access to in iD I think that JOSM offset is simply from someone sending in their offset. I don't trust it. If you want to pick an OSM node/way to align to, I'd chose one that is close to the imagery alignment and has a tag with source:location= gps/survey .. and preferably one that has not been moved since that tag was added. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=student and entrance=inter-building: comments?
On 08.06.2015 08:52, johnw wrote: A month or so ago, new entrance=types came up, and I thought I had a couple new values for entrance. I’ve been thinking about them, and had these two ideas. Please comment on both. 1) Access=student - access designated for students of a school/facility, similar to customers of a shop or visitors of a facility. Does not imply age or gender, though it is used at mostly at K-12 facilities. For use with entrance=* or possibly with certain school amenities (Locker rooms, bathrooms, bicycle parking). Why not a more generic value like access=attendee? This could also be used for parking places designated for conference, sports or church attendees. We are also still missing a value representing a superset of delivery/guests/employees/customers/students/etc. I mean all that are involved in the facility in some way. In German speaking countries, many roads are designated for Anliegerverkehr or Anrainerverkehr, which means all persons who intend contact to abutters. This differs from access=destination, which also includes people who intend to just walk around, and on the other hand excludes owners driving through. 2) entrance=inter-building - an entrance that is designated for only moving between buildings in a facility, even if physically accessible from outside. Usually on the ends of an outdoor walkway considered “indoors because of cultural custom rather than physical access restriction (IE: indoor shoes required). Not to be used on normal outdoor pathway entrances. The term inter-building seems too narrow to me. I guess you could also use the entrance to have a cigarette, then return to the same building. Some smoking areas or terraces are not connected to another building at all. We could think about some access=* tag like access=checked-in, but this would get us to mapping processes instead of geographical data. I think that specifying one entrance=main is sufficient for everyday needs. Those who are familiar with the facility already know which entrance when to use, and those who are not should head to the main entrance. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Off Topic: alignment point help
2015-06-11 10:14 GMT+02:00 johnw jo...@mac.com: I know the precision isn’t so important, but I want everything to be the same relative location. The relative position is very important to me. I know distortion can skew that, for hills and the like. yes, I have seen it a lot, Bing has a lot of distortions, you align one building edge and the neighbour is out of alignment. Initially you don't know which aerial imagery to trust more, but with the time and adding GPS traces to the game, I have concluded for my area that Bing is inferior compared to the official imagery (but has a bit higher resolution). Sometimes you can even see this within Bing (different zoom levels don't align). I was also under the impression there was a plugin for JSOM that offered automatic imagery offset correction, something which I don’t have access to in iD the offsets are not automatically created, it is still mappers who do it, but they are centrally stored and you can access the offsets other people have uploaded. More info here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Imagery_Offset_Database I also deal with places where the tracings/imports are 2-5 years old, nowhere near aligned to the imagery, has several 20m shifts every few KM, so who knows what is right yes, that's the main problem, decide what is right ;-) Do you have GPS traces in this area? They might help in the decision. Mappers using JSOM to come in and start moving all major roads over 1 lane width and leave all the residential and alleys alone - effectively ruining their relative positions and distorting all the intersections. This happened *all the time* until I started requesting an alignment point from JSOM users. yes, happens with users of other editors as well (e.g. PL, iD), actually in my area it happens more often by users of the latter, because these editors are not capable of displaying the better official imagery (distributed via WMS) and are forced to use Bing. I sometime micromap very tiny places, which means the space between the roads, and when mapping towns/areas I include every single possible road (alleyways and residental) - and having someone come through and move only the trunk road over 2 meters throughout 20 sq km of residential roads I just meticulously aligned is a PITA. It is impossible for me to select and shift 100,000 points 2 meters over. yes, that's easier in JOSM to do. Shifting literally 100,000 points will create you problems in any case (changeset limits), but that would be a quite big area anyway. and now I’m starting to map landuse polygons and buildings (correcting horribly sloppy work) - but if I lay down all of these objects, someone coming in and shifting the road 2m Southeast makes everything look bad. 2m is something you hardly notice, I guess we are talking a bit more (5-10-20 m)? If I have someone using JSOM align a polygon that is easy for me to align my map to each time I start iD, it is much less likely to occur. you may find one offset here and 20 meters far from that (that's not more than a single building) a different offset Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Airport Pet Relief Areas (toilet and watering spot for pet and service animals)
How many people will understand this use of sterile? It may be a term of art in the security field, but in ordinary use it refers to biological sterility, as in sterilized bandages. In biological terms, an area to be used for pets to urinate/defecate is the opposite of sterile. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Martin Luther King, Jr. On June 11, 2015 1:37:15 AM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: The 'sterile' I think is redundant. The sterile is *not* redundant, it's a grouping classifier. Very important, given the blizzard of motley tags that may follow it. aeroway_security=sida:xx aeroway_security=sterile:xx Otherwise you have to know about all the possible secure values to figure out which ones are for passengers and which ones are for airport employees: international international_departure international_arrival domestic domestic_arrival domestic_departure yes (as in there is security . but unknown or variable type/classification) no (as in no security) I do not understand 'aeroway_security=landside' ... ? landside is within the airport security zone, outside terminal security. Anyone can access this zone typically, but airport security rules apply such as no lasers or guns. Other security zones include Air Operations Area and baggage_handling for micromappers. A fuel station for example is likely in the AOA security zone and inaccessible for example to caravans (That's one of the reasons amenity=fuel is such a bad choice for such fuel stations). Alternatively free text, unparsable, has merits also. It displays far better in a popup window on a mobile device: security_zone=International Arrivals security_zone=General Aviation AOA security_zone=Bag Make-Up Room security_zone=International Departures Yes, in some airports General Aviation is it's own security zone, something GA pilots must contend with. It's neither SIDA nor sterile as objects may be introduced from an unregulated airport. http://picpaste.com/Selection_235-UxmuLt8r.png So what colour should we paint the bike shed? -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Draft tag for Airport Security Zones | Non-voting procedure
See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/security_zone Now I'm not going to run a regular vote on this. The wiki vote process attracts a small number of non-representative and rather argumentative mappers. Discussion about the tag is welcome. But instead of voting I challenge mappers to tag these features in real airports, perhaps using this tag style. As multiple mappers converge on a tagging that works, this proposal page can be revisited. If this is a good tag, that will show up in taginfo after a while, and the feature can be documented as defacto. Tagging votes accepted via JOSM, Potlatch or iD. For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3539479319/history ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging hand operated bicycle pumps (compressed_air)
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: repair station with tools=no seems a misnamer. like tagging a water sink as toilet, with toilet_bowl=no squat_toilet=no, hole_in_the_ground=no ;-) Thus your proposal is? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] README tag with editor support
this is a summary of previous discussion on newbies talk-us we have an ongoing, persistent problem with armchair mappers correcting the map to match out of date aerial imagery. i just had to repair the map in Rensselaer, NY; the street named Broadway was reconfigured in late 2012, and bing imagery is out of date. a couple of months ago someone realigned my edits to match the out of date bing imagery. others can and have described similar situations. i have started using the unofficial tag README whenever i make edits that differ from current bing imagery; i usually place the date of the note in ISO format at the beginning of the text. for example, here is the note i placed on the road in Rensselaer: 2013-01-15 - reconfiguration of road not yet fully reflected in aerial imagery. do not conform this road to current imagery. this has mostly worked, but in this specific case the armchair mapper chose not to read the note, or read it and dismissed it. so i have two things in mind here: 1) formalize the README tag as a way to caution future mappers 2) request editor support, when someone goes to change a README tagged entity, it would be nice if editors would popup a dialog saying something along the lines of Warning: read the following before making any changes to this object README text follows other suggestions that have been made have included trying to make the dates on which imagery was collected more obvious, adding warnings when edits are newer than available imagery (or newer than the imagery layer currently being displayed), and pressing to get more current imagery into place. does anyone have any thoughts on how to approach this? richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] README tag with editor support
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: 1) formalize the README tag as a way to caution future mappers 2) request editor support, when someone goes to change a README tagged entity, it would be nice if editors would popup a dialog saying something along the lines of Warning: read the following before making any changes to this object README text follows other suggestions that have been made have included trying to make the dates on which imagery was collected more obvious, adding warnings when edits are newer than available imagery (or newer than the imagery layer currently being displayed), and pressing to get more current imagery into place. does anyone have any thoughts on how to approach this? This certainly needs an editor fix. iD doesn't pick up a readme=* tag so the user isn't even aware someone wrote a warning message. The readme tag is more of a bandaid. A better way might be to capture the image date as a tag. The editor could then issue a warning message if the image date is older than the feature being modified. Not sure how this would work when different zoom levels have different dates. For example, if I see a road at zoom 14, but not at 19, I might use a little of both zoom levels to draw the feature. In any event, we need a way to warn the editor. -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=student and entrance=inter-building: comments?
I think we should focus on the shoes, and not on the students and inter-buildings. Maybe there are some international suuchools in Japan where you can walk in shoes, and have an entrance for students. How would you tag that? You need a tag like access:shoes=no for inter-building passages and/or doors, and access:shoes=locker for entrances where there is a locker on the other side. čet, 11. lip 2015. 12:06 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at je napisao: On 08.06.2015 08:52, johnw wrote: A month or so ago, new entrance=types came up, and I thought I had a couple new values for entrance. I’ve been thinking about them, and had these two ideas. Please comment on both. 1) Access=student - access designated for students of a school/facility, similar to customers of a shop or visitors of a facility. Does not imply age or gender, though it is used at mostly at K-12 facilities. For use with entrance=* or possibly with certain school amenities (Locker rooms, bathrooms, bicycle parking). Why not a more generic value like access=attendee? This could also be used for parking places designated for conference, sports or church attendees. We are also still missing a value representing a superset of delivery/guests/employees/customers/students/etc. I mean all that are involved in the facility in some way. In German speaking countries, many roads are designated for Anliegerverkehr or Anrainerverkehr, which means all persons who intend contact to abutters. This differs from access=destination, which also includes people who intend to just walk around, and on the other hand excludes owners driving through. 2) entrance=inter-building - an entrance that is designated for only moving between buildings in a facility, even if physically accessible from outside. Usually on the ends of an outdoor walkway considered “indoors because of cultural custom rather than physical access restriction (IE: indoor shoes required). Not to be used on normal outdoor pathway entrances. The term inter-building seems too narrow to me. I guess you could also use the entrance to have a cigarette, then return to the same building. Some smoking areas or terraces are not connected to another building at all. We could think about some access=* tag like access=checked-in, but this would get us to mapping processes instead of geographical data. I think that specifying one entrance=main is sufficient for everyday needs. Those who are familiar with the facility already know which entrance when to use, and those who are not should head to the main entrance. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Airport Security Zones (from pet relief area thread)
Sent from my iPhone On Jun 11, 2015, at 8:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:52 AM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: I would hate for a gas station icon to pop up somewhere where I couldn’t access it with normal transportation or not really be a “gas station” Devil's advocate: For quite a few people (particularly in the pacific northwest, the arctic, and other exceedingly rural and vast locales), flight would be normal transportation. Rural airstrips, particularly those without a fenced perimeter, may have a fuel station that could very well also serve up fuels for ground transportation. There's a little bit of a legacy of that around metro Tulsa; the oldest gas station adjacent to what is now Tulsa International Raceway (but formerly the main airport) has large warning labels on the pumps reading NOT SUITABLE FOR AIRCRAFT USE. The avgas pumps now sell racing fuel. Thats super interesting! I suppose having those rural and vehecle acessible fuel stations labeled gas station is good (maybe both tags, as they are in different keyspaces?) But the jet fuel stations in the center of an international airport certainly don't a gas station tag - as it mihht lead to some pretty confused tourists with retnal cars takig a. Wrong turn into a cargo terminal looking for a sration close to the rental car return ^_^ If you cant buy gas, it really isn't a gas station. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=student and entrance=inter-building: comments?
2015-06-11 14:36 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: I think we should focus on the shoes, and not on the students and inter-buildings. Maybe there are some international suuchools in Japan where you can walk in shoes, and have an entrance for students. How would you tag that? You need a tag like access:shoes=no for inter-building passages and/or doors, and access:shoes=locker for entrances where there is a locker on the other side. +1, shoe access is important in other context as well (e.g. mosques) Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Off Topic: alignment point help
Sent from my iPhone On Jun 11, 2015, at 5:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-06-11 10:14 GMT+02:00 johnw jo...@mac.com: I know the precision isn’t so important, but I want everything to be the same relative location. The relative position is very important to me. I know distortion can skew that, for hills and the like. yes, I have seen it a lot, Bing has a lot of distortions, you align one building edge and the neighbour is out of alignment. Initially you don't know which aerial imagery to trust more, but with the time and adding GPS traces to the game, I have concluded for my area that Bing is inferior compared to the official imagery (but has a bit higher resolution). Sometimes you can even see this within Bing (different zoom levels don't align). Yea, there is a lot of distortions in the older imagery. Bing recently added a 6x6km chunk of brand new imagery (seemingly a single source picture or mosaic) of the largest town in my area, with much greater resolution (10cm?) - so i mapped every single road in that town - doubled the number or residential roads, added about the same number of alleys. The newest bing imagery is as good as google's The old bing imagery looks like it was taken by a ballon camera in 1883. I know bing is buying imagery, and our different places probably have different sources - maybe its the luck of the draw. I was also under the impression there was a plugin for JSOM that offered automatic imagery offset correction, something which I don’t have access to in iD the offsets are not automatically created, it is still mappers who do it, but they are centrally stored and you can access the offsets other people have uploaded. More info here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Imagery_Offset_Database I will read up how to use it. I also deal with places where the tracings/imports are 2-5 years old, nowhere near aligned to the imagery, has several 20m shifts every few KM, so who knows what is right yes, that's the main problem, decide what is right ;-) Do you have GPS traces in this area? They might help in the decision. I was stupid and forgot to check the gps layer - usually user mfuji helps me with alignment points - and my iphone gps traces are not nearly accurate enough for my area so i stopped looking for them - but yea - i bet there are a ton of traces near the international airport. Mappers using JSOM to come in and start moving all major roads over 1 lane width and leave all the residential and alleys alone - effectively ruining their relative positions and distorting all the intersections. This happened *all the time* until I started requesting an alignment point from JSOM users. yes, happens with users of other editors as well (e.g. PL, iD), actually in my area it happens more often by users of the latter, because these editors are not capable of displaying the better official imagery (distributed via WMS) and are forced to use Bing. What is this wms you speak of? I didn't know there was another imagery source JSOM was able to use over iD I sometime micromap very tiny places, which means the space between the roads, and when mapping towns/areas I include every single possible road (alleyways and residental) - and having someone come through and move only the trunk road over 2 meters throughout 20 sq km of residential roads I just meticulously aligned is a PITA. It is impossible for me to select and shift 100,000 points 2 meters over. yes, that's easier in JOSM to do. Shifting literally 100,000 points will create you problems in any case (changeset limits), but that would be a quite big area anyway. and now I’m starting to map landuse polygons and buildings (correcting horribly sloppy work) - but if I lay down all of these objects, someone coming in and shifting the road 2m Southeast makes everything look bad. 2m is something you hardly notice, I guess we are talking a bit more (5-10-20 m)? When I am mapping crosswalks and trees into the pedestrial area around a train station, moving the main intersection's trunk road from the center of the road to the southeast corner of the road (at a large intersection) is rather ugly. - so I do mean 2-4m. 20m means my align point was really off the mark. If I have someone using JSOM align a polygon that is easy for me to align my map to each time I start iD, it is much less likely to occur. you may find one offset here and 20 meters far from that (that's not more than a single building) a different offset Thanks for all the thoughtful replies! Javbw___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] README tag with editor support
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: The readme tag is more of a bandaid. A better way might be to capture the image date as a tag. The editor could then issue a warning message if the image date is older than the feature being modified. The readme is more flexible. Out of date imagery is an important cause of an armchair mapper undoing a local mapper's work, but not the only cause. The image date will often be older than the feature, when using Bing imagery. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] README tag with editor support
On 6/11/2015 6:17 PM, David wrote: Perhaps more emphasis is needed on good manners when editing existing data too. I believe these are mostly honest mistakes with good intentions. If someone traces imagery or works a fixup challenge while watching TV, 99.99% of edits might be to verify and match to the imagery. The .001% is something that takes awareness and a more detailed look to properly resolve. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging hand operated bicycle pumps (compressed_air)
Why not amenity=compressed_air + access:motor_vehicle=no ? I don't understand what's the problem with that tag. What do you mean by hand operated? You mean pumps where you compress air manualy? Maybe manual_compress=yes is enough. čet, 11. lip 2015. 19:08 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com je napisao: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: repair station with tools=no seems a misnamer. like tagging a water sink as toilet, with toilet_bowl=no squat_toilet=no, hole_in_the_ground=no ;-) Thus your proposal is? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] README tag with editor support
I like the idea. Editors show the message prominently the first time you touch the object. It doesn't have to be imagery, it can be various messages to subsequent mappers. pet, 12. lip 2015. 00:20 David dban...@internode.on.net je napisao: Formalising readme is a good and have editing tools display it. But i would like to see the readme tag used very selectively. It could contain far more data than the rest if the object's tag. Bad if people saw it like comments in source code. Perhaps more emphasis is needed on good manners when editing existing data too. David . Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: this is a summary of previous discussion on newbies talk-us we have an ongoing, persistent problem with armchair mappers correcting the map to match out of date aerial imagery. i just had to repair the map in Rensselaer, NY; the street named Broadway was reconfigured in late 2012, and bing imagery is out of date. a couple of months ago someone realigned my edits to match the out of date bing imagery. others can and have described similar situations. i have started using the unofficial tag README whenever i make edits that differ from current bing imagery; i usually place the date of the note in ISO format at the beginning of the text. for example, here is the note i placed on the road in Rensselaer: 2013-01-15 - reconfiguration of road not yet fully reflected in aerial imagery. do not conform this road to current imagery. this has mostly worked, but in this specific case the armchair mapper chose not to read the note, or read it and dismissed it. so i have two things in mind here: 1) formalize the README tag as a way to caution future mappers 2) request editor support, when someone goes to change a README tagged entity, it would be nice if editors would popup a dialog saying something along the lines of Warning: read the following before making any changes to this object README text follows other suggestions that have been made have included trying to make the dates on which imagery was collected more obvious, adding warnings when edits are newer than available imagery (or newer than the imagery layer currently being displayed), and pressing to get more current imagery into place. does anyone have any thoughts on how to approach this? richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] README tag with editor support
Formalising readme is a good and have editing tools display it. But i would like to see the readme tag used very selectively. It could contain far more data than the rest if the object's tag. Bad if people saw it like comments in source code. Perhaps more emphasis is needed on good manners when editing existing data too. David . Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: this is a summary of previous discussion on newbies talk-us we have an ongoing, persistent problem with armchair mappers correcting the map to match out of date aerial imagery. i just had to repair the map in Rensselaer, NY; the street named Broadway was reconfigured in late 2012, and bing imagery is out of date. a couple of months ago someone realigned my edits to match the out of date bing imagery. others can and have described similar situations. i have started using the unofficial tag README whenever i make edits that differ from current bing imagery; i usually place the date of the note in ISO format at the beginning of the text. for example, here is the note i placed on the road in Rensselaer: 2013-01-15 - reconfiguration of road not yet fully reflected in aerial imagery. do not conform this road to current imagery. this has mostly worked, but in this specific case the armchair mapper chose not to read the note, or read it and dismissed it. so i have two things in mind here: 1) formalize the README tag as a way to caution future mappers 2) request editor support, when someone goes to change a README tagged entity, it would be nice if editors would popup a dialog saying something along the lines of Warning: read the following before making any changes to this object README text follows other suggestions that have been made have included trying to make the dates on which imagery was collected more obvious, adding warnings when edits are newer than available imagery (or newer than the imagery layer currently being displayed), and pressing to get more current imagery into place. does anyone have any thoughts on how to approach this? richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Off Topic: alignment point help
On Jun 11, 2015, at 5:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I also deal with places where the tracings/imports are 2-5 years old, nowhere near aligned to the imagery, has several 20m shifts every few KM, so who knows what is right yes, that's the main problem, decide what is right ;-) Do you have GPS traces in this area? They might help in the decision. Decisions decisions! (heavily JPEGed to be allowed on the mailing list) it looks like people riding bikes were also doing traces. There are a lot of traces that follow crosswalks and go into the airport terminals, so I assume people are tracing with their phones. Only a few of the traces follow car paths. Looking over the imagery, it looks like the imagery is pretty well set already. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Off Topic: alignment point help
sent from a phone Am 11.06.2015 um 00:40 schrieb johnw jo...@mac.com: Since there is an imagery offset, many mappers over many years have used different offset points, so I don’t know which one is the most correct for this imagery. Would someone who uses JSOM with a proper imagery offset please go in and move these lines to their exact position on the imagery and save the edit, offsets are an approximation to reduce the inherent problems of some aerial layers, they won't solve problems like distortions. JOSM isn't more precise to find a proper offset than any other tool, I suggest you simply move the layer till it visually seems ok. Unless you do high precision measurements in the field you won't know for sure what is right and what is wrong, or in other words: more or less accurate. IMHO, relative precision (eg alignment, angles, straight vs curves etc) is more important than positional precision. cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Airport Security Zones (from pet relief area thread)
On Jun 11, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: The 'sterile' I think is redundant. The sterile is not redundant, it's a grouping classifier. Very important, given the blizzard of motley tags that may follow it. aeroway_security=sida:xx aeroway_security=sterile:xx so sterile is inside the terminal that deals with passengers (the TSA theatre) and sida is for security of the plane airport operations, right? Otherwise you have to know about all the possible secure values to figure out which ones are for passengers and which ones are for airport employees: international international_departure international_arrival domestic domestic_arrival domestic_departure yes (as in there is security . but unknown or variable type/classification) no (as in no security) I do not understand 'aeroway_security=landside' ... ? landside is within the airport security zone, outside terminal security. Anyone can access this zone typically, but airport security rules apply such as no lasers or guns. so this is like where the terminal cargo trucks come in or other vehecles can be on airport property? or like the access to the tower? or is it just the area inside the fence, and something assumed with the airport’s area polygon? Other security zones include Air Operations Area and baggage_handling for micromappers. Is this something that can be tagged as a line boundary or an area? isn’t baggage handling indoors - or is that the name for the staging area outside? security_zone=Bag Make-Up Room Where bags are packed into cargo? Or do they put makeup on the bags to make them cuter? Yes, in some airports General Aviation is it's own security zone, something GA pilots must contend whats the deal with this? A fuel station for example is likely in the AOA security zone and inaccessible for example to caravans (That's one of the reasons amenity=fuel is such a bad choice for such fuel stations). isn’t AOA assumed on the taxiways, runways, apron? I guess the apron is cut up a bit… Would it be bast to Have Aeroway=fuel_station and then use the fuel subtag to describe all the fuels? I would hate for a gas station icon to pop up somewhere where I couldn’t access it with normal transportation or not really be a “gas station”. Maybe the local airport has an accessible gas station for getting 50gal of avgas in your pickup truck, but the gas truck station refilling with jetA for the airliners isn’t really accessible nor a gas station. I wanted to start cleaning up Narita International in Japan - great tags for that. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Airport Pet Relief Areas (toilet and watering spot for pet and service animals)
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: The 'sterile' I think is redundant. The sterile is *not* redundant, it's a grouping classifier. Very important, given the blizzard of motley tags that may follow it. aeroway_security=sida:xx aeroway_security=sterile:xx Otherwise you have to know about all the possible secure values to figure out which ones are for passengers and which ones are for airport employees: international international_departure international_arrival domestic domestic_arrival domestic_departure yes (as in there is security . but unknown or variable type/classification) no (as in no security) I do not understand 'aeroway_security=landside' ... ? landside is within the airport security zone, outside terminal security. Anyone can access this zone typically, but airport security rules apply such as no lasers or guns. Other security zones include Air Operations Area and baggage_handling for micromappers. A fuel station for example is likely in the AOA security zone and inaccessible for example to caravans (That's one of the reasons amenity=fuel is such a bad choice for such fuel stations). Alternatively free text, unparsable, has merits also. It displays far better in a popup window on a mobile device: security_zone=International Arrivals security_zone=General Aviation AOA security_zone=Bag Make-Up Room security_zone=International Departures Yes, in some airports General Aviation is it's own security zone, something GA pilots must contend with. It's neither SIDA nor sterile as objects may be introduced from an unregulated airport. http://picpaste.com/Selection_235-UxmuLt8r.png So what colour should we paint the bike shed? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] README tag with editor support
Well, I don't see a need to reinvent this tag anyway. The key note=* is well-established as far as I'm aware. If the editor interface isn't satisfactory, we should be talking with the developers. I'm not sure if it's possible, but placing the note closer to the top of the presets seems like a good idea. Cheers, João -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/README-tag-with-editor-support-tp5847911p5847946.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging hand operated bicycle pumps (compressed_air)
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: Why not amenity=compressed_air + access:motor_vehicle=no ? I don't understand what's the problem with that tag. probably better: access=no access:bicycle=yes (otherwise everything other than a motor vehicle is assumed yes). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] README tag with editor support
This tag already exists and has editor support (at least in iD) for a considerable time. It's called note=*. Cheers, João -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/README-tag-with-editor-support-tp5847911p5847943.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] README tag with editor support
On Jun 12, 2015, at 9:55 AM, jgpacker john.pack...@gmail.com wrote: This tag already exists and has editor support (at least in iD) for a considerable time. It's called note=*. Cheers, João Note doesn’t appear in a modal window when selecting an object, just on the list on the left (and offscreen, way down at the bottom of the list) Maybe it is a good idea to make it a modal dialog box the first time you select an object with a note=* tag or have the note field appear directly under the tag name in the sidebar, if there is an existing note=* tag on the object. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (US:DMV)
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: that's why I suggested to use a multi tag approach. One tag to say it is a government office, one to say at which level (admin level) and then tags for the stuff you can do there (property list) or about the general classification (e.g. tax office, ministry of education, torture agency, ...) +1 I prefer this approach. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Off Topic: alignment point help
On Jun 11, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: offsets are an approximation to reduce the inherent problems of some aerial layers, they won't solve problems like distortions. JOSM isn't more precise to find a proper offset than any other tool, I suggest you simply move the layer till it visually seems ok. Unless you do high precision measurements in the field you won't know for sure what is right and what is wrong, or in other words: more or less accurate. IMHO, relative precision (eg alignment, angles, straight vs curves etc) is more important than positional precision. I know the precision isn’t so important, but I want everything to be the same relative location. The relative position is very important to me. I know distortion can skew that, for hills and the like. I was also under the impression there was a plugin for JSOM that offered automatic imagery offset correction, something which I don’t have access to in iD I also deal with places where the tracings/imports are 2-5 years old, nowhere near aligned to the imagery, has several 20m shifts every few KM, so who knows what is right, and the trunk roads/motorways have more recent edits of several different users aligning to past imagery with and without an offset, so there is no place whatsoever where I can choose a dominant alignment. even inside Narita Airport there is a 5m or so diffference betweent the buildings and the runway mapping. and the taxiway mapping is old. So I don’t know what to trust And I don’t want to make one up because... Mappers using JSOM to come in and start moving all major roads over 1 lane width and leave all the residential and alleys alone - effectively ruining their relative positions and distorting all the intersections. This happened *all the time* until I started requesting an alignment point from JSOM users. I sometime micromap very tiny places, which means the space between the roads, and when mapping towns/areas I include every single possible road (alleyways and residental) - and having someone come through and move only the trunk road over 2 meters throughout 20 sq km of residential roads I just meticulously aligned is a PITA. It is impossible for me to select and shift 100,000 points 2 meters over. and now I’m starting to map landuse polygons and buildings (correcting horribly sloppy work) - but if I lay down all of these objects, someone coming in and shifting the road 2m Southeast makes everything look bad. If I have someone using JSOM align a polygon that is easy for me to align my map to each time I start iD, it is much less likely to occur. So here I am, hat in hand, asking for that aligned point. http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/35.74840/140.38510 http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/35.74840/140.38510 Javbw___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
