Re: [OSM-talk] golf course marking

[Erik Johansson]

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  I am a newbie to OSM, and am trying to mark up a golf course. I have
>  gone through (and added some remarks to) the proposal here: http://
>  wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Golf_course, but
>  could not understand exactly how to implement it. So I tried with
>  using existing keys:
>
>  For the course: leisure=golf_course

Yeah I too  had a hard time understanding how to tag golf courses, of
course I know nothing about golf terms. I like your concept a lot ,
but I do think you should have features on a scale from very rough
information to fine grained info.. e.g.

first:
leisure=golf_course

second:
golf=hole
number=18

third level:
golf=green/fairway/rough/bunker


The first two levels I can relate to, but on the third I have no idea
what is what on a golf course. So please post this on the wiki, and
put a bit of help on it as well since I'm sure there are people who
like me have no idea what is what on a golf course.


http://www.hasselbygolf.se/banan/
http://openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=59.38747&lon=17.79541&zoom=16


>  For bunkers:
>  landuse=brownfield

brownfield suggests more of a flat wasteground that hasn't yet begun
development, whereas this tag suggests active construction.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Building_site

Perhaps natural=beach (only if near water).. ;-)

-- 
/emj

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] golf course marking

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Hi,

I am a newbie to OSM, and am trying to mark up a golf course. I have  
gone through (and added some remarks to) the proposal here: http:// 
wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Golf_course, but  
could not understand exactly how to implement it. So I tried with  
using existing keys:

For the course: leisure=golf_course
For putting greens:

landuse=greenfield
hole=holenumber
golf=green

For tee boxes:
landuse=greenfield
hole=holenumber
golf=tee
colour=black/white/red

For bunkers:
landuse=brownfield
hole=holenumber
golf=bunker

For closely mown areas:
landuse=greenfield
hole=holenumber
golf=fairway

For rough:
landuse=forest
golf=rough

For GUR:
landuse=brownfield
golf=gur

For hazard:
landuse=forest/water depending on what is in the hazard
golf=hazard/lateral_hazard

I don't know if this is the correct way of doing this, but the area  
is starting to look like a golf course:
http://openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=11.39&lon=76.7225&zoom=13


-- 
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/code/





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] tracking down the 'owner' of a track

[Florian Lohoff]

On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 11:06:13PM +0100, Shaun McDonald wrote:
> On 5 May 2008, at 22:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > Is there a method of tracking down the 'owner' of a GPS track?
> >
> 
> There is a trac ticket for this:
> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/274

"Opened 2 years ago" :)

No priority it seems - I'd like to see that feature too. Living on the
countryside means not a lot gps tracks and sometimes it would be
interesting to see others.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff  [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-171-2280134
Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little 
  security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Alex Mauer]

Dave Stubbs wrote:
> Some more stats for you on the end of the mail.

looking at your stats, I count the same 478 tags following Andy's 
original mailing list post consisting exclusively of the animal-based 
system. (+refuge, but that was apparently never used at all.)

And I count 157 following the "road crossings" proposal.

To say that Andy's mailing list method is in such widespread use that to 
change it is an unreasonable move is disingenuous at best.

And to then vote against the proposal giving that as the reason, while 
at the same time rewriting the original mailing list idea as if it were 
"current use", and such that it fits exactly with the documented 
proposal, is an insult to the effort put in by those working on it.

That said, I have no problem with the currently-documented page at 
[[Key:crossing]] since it's basically the same as the proposal.  I just 
have a problem with the way it was created.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Dave Stubbs]

>  Fair enough; I missed that because I didn't read below your signoff
>  (which happened to be at the break in my mailreader).  So, OK, there's
>  another 60 beyond what I found in tagwatch.  Who wants to bet they're
>  all in the UK, and those 60 were added since tagwatch was updated on 12
>  April?
>
>  Even with the additional 60, it's not "widespread" even within the UK.
>  (478 crossings out of however many hundreds of thousands total, in the
>  UK alone -- let alone the world)
>

Some more stats for you on the end of the mail.
In summary:
 - there are 3909 highway=crossing entered in the DB, 665 crossing=*
and a combined total of 4348 (216 share the tags)
 - toucan, zebra, pelican, puffin are used exclusively in the UK, bar
2 toucans in Germany
 - there are 141 uses of the crossing key outside of the UK -- most of
these are traffic_signals or uncontrolled
 - bicycle=yes is used in the crossing context 18 times, 10 of those
in the UK, and 2 with crossing=toucan
 - horse=yes isn't used at all in this context, but then there aren't
any pegasus crossings either, pity.

By my calculation that's just 10 bicycle crossings marked outside of
the UK using either tagging scheme at the current time.

Dave


caveat: country is calculated using the world boundaries which are
used on the main mapnik layer middle-zoom levels to render land. It's
not exactly entirely accurate.

select highway,crossing,country,count(*) as c from (select
find_cntry(way) as country, * from planet_osm_point where
highway='crossing' or crossing is not null) as crossings group by
highway,crossing,country order by c desc;

 highway |crossing |country |  c
-+-++-
 crossing| | United Kingdom | 803
 crossing| | Germany| 709
 crossing| || 583
 crossing| | Czech Republic | 271
 crossing| | Sweden | 222
 crossing| | France | 181
 crossing| | Norway | 139
 crossing| | Australia  | 139
 crossing| | Spain  | 106
 traffic_signals | pelican | United Kingdom |  97
 crossing| zebra   | United Kingdom |  90
 crossing| | Canada |  80
 crossing| | Iran   |  73
 | toucan  | United Kingdom |  70
 crossing| toucan  | United Kingdom |  61
 crossing| | Italy  |  48
 traffic_signals | toucan  | United Kingdom |  45
 traffic_signals | traffic_signals | Germany|  45
 crossing| | United States  |  44
 | pelican | United Kingdom |  43
 crossing| | Russia |  42
 crossing| | Switzerland|  42
 crossing| pelican | United Kingdom |  36
 crossing| | Ireland|  36
 | uncontrolled| Byelarus   |  34
 | zebra   | United Kingdom |  32
 crossing| | Austria|  32
 crossing| | Romania|  31
 crossing| | Byelarus   |  23
 | traffic_signals | Byelarus   |  23
 crossing| | Philippines|  14
 crossing| | Poland |  14
 | traffic_signals | Germany|  13
 crossing| traffic_signals | United Kingdom |  12
 crossing| | Belgium|  11
 crossing| | Denmark|  10
 | uncontrolled| Germany|   9
 crossing| | Japan  |   9
 crossing| | Netherlands|   8
 | island  | United Kingdom |   7
 traffic_signals | traffic_signals | United Kingdom |   6
 crossing| uncontrolled| Germany|   6
 crossing| | Hungary|   4
crossing| | India  |   4
 crossing| | Luxembourg |   4
 crossing| | Turkey |   3
 crossing| uncontrolled| United Kingdom |   3
 crossing| traffic_lights  | United Kingdom |   3
 | yes | United Kingdom |   3
 crossing

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] spur railways?

[Alex Mauer]

Robin Paulson wrote:
> of the two no votes, i suspect one (Hawke/Alex Mauer) is an objection
> based on 'namespacing'. as this still has not been widely accepted,
> would you consider changing your vote to a yes, alex?

Namespacing aside, I still think 'service=' is too vague.  However, as I 
don't want to hold up this proposal because of that, I have changed my 
vote.  If the service tag ends up causing problems, we can burn that 
bridge when we get to it.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Against source=survey

[Andy Robinson (blackadder)]

Karl Newman wrote:
>Sent: 06 May 2008 8:58 PM
>To: Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Against source=survey
>
>Why not go all the way and say source=cesium? In all seriousness, though,
>what's wrong with source=GPS as an alternative? Survey, to me, implies a
>crew out with tripods and such.

I use source=GPS but see no reason why source=survey wouldn't be valid. The
Ordnance Survey use GPS for their work nowadays and in reality don't
normally operate as a crew, the one man survey is the way they work. In
other words, very little difference to the way that OSMers gather data. The
principal difference is that we don't work at the +/- 3cm tolerance and a
large portion of our surveying is done kinetically.

Cheers

Andy



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] spur railways?

[Robin Paulson]

2008/5/6 Peter Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I notice that 'railway=spur' is used a lot in the tiger data. Here is an
> example (where the railway continues north out of Davis as a 'spur').
>
> http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.57568&lon=-121.74505&zoom=16
>
>
> However it doesn't render in Mapnik or Osmarender and is only a proposed
> tag. Voting is open at it was approved by a number of people in Feb 08 (with
> a few criticisms as well):
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Service)
>
> Can we get this agreed and into the rendering soon.

ok, this is a proposal i worked on ages back, i should really finish
it off one way or the other

voting has been extended for two weeks until 2008-05-21

at the moment there are 10 yes votes, 2 no votes and one that can be
ignored as it doesn't appear to relate to railway tracks at all

of the two no votes, i suspect one (Hawke/Alex Mauer) is an objection
based on 'namespacing'. as this still has not been widely accepted,
would you consider changing your vote to a yes, alex?
alastairj - the terminology has been discussed above the vote, and i
think fairly well settled on. yes, there are discrepancies between
what us and uk people call the items, but as long as it's well
documented, there's no problem

alternatively, could some more of you vote, please?

thanks

p.s., please include [tagging] in the subject of e-mails relating to
tagging - it enables frederik and others not interested in tagging, to
filter out these e-mails

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Against source=survey

[Karl Newman]

Why not go all the way and say source=cesium? In all seriousness, though,
what's wrong with source=GPS as an alternative? Survey, to me, implies a
crew out with tripods and such.

Karl

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  The tag source=survey hides the fact that those coordinates were derived
> from the signal provided by a particular infrastructure: the US satellites.
> Maybe those ways derived from GPS tracks should be tagged source=NASA or
> source=Pentagon, instead of source=survey, which does not cite the true
> source. Just to prevent people from believing that cartography consists in
> switching the on/off button of a toy called Garmin...
>
>  Lucas
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] [tagging] Against source=survey

[Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio]

The tag source=survey hides the fact that those coordinates were derived from 
the signal provided by a particular infrastructure: the US satellites. Maybe 
those ways derived from GPS tracks should be tagged source=NASA or 
source=Pentagon, instead of source=survey, which does not cite the true source. 
Just to prevent people from believing that cartography consists in switching 
the on/off button of a toy called Garmin...
 
Lucas
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain

[Thomas Wood]

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Nathan Vander Wilt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 6, 2008, at 9:44 AM, Nathan Vander Wilt wrote:
>> [blah, blah, blah]
>
> I hope that I did make my concerns clear without offending anyone too
> greatly. Regardless, it would probably be more helpful to say what I
> hope could be done to address my concerns, instead of just more-or-
> less complaining.
>
>
> I really would like to see a license as simple as the following:
>
> For data users -
> 0. Open Street Map collects and creates public domain map data.
> 1. Attribution of Open Street Map is expected. We make it easy.
> 2. Contributing back or freely sharing modifications is strongly
> encouraged.
>
> For map editors -
> 1. Only add essentially uncopyrighted map data.
> 2. You are welcome join the list of contributors.
>
>
>
> This is pretty much how the Public Domain Data Licence with Community
> Norms works, right? (See 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License#Criticism
>  ) Set up community norms to say "BY-SA" and it seems like a perfect
> fit for the data and (hopefully) most contributors' wishes.
>
> I see a lot of benefits to this, certainly over the current license,
> but even over the proposed set of new licenses:
> - Easy for contributors large and small to understand.
> - Much easier to check existing datasets for compatibility.
> - Doesn't change much for data users in the open source community.
> - Enables commercial use by small companies who want to do the right
> thing, but can't just ignore grey areas that leave them or their
> customers liable.
> - It wouldn't change much as far as abuse by large corporations, as
> I'm sure their lawyers are earning more than our lawyers anyway. It
> actually seems like a clearer license with more indemnity could
> encourage a bigger company that is still somewhat concerned with it's
> PR credibility to use the data as intended. Wouldn't the resulting
> publicity do much more for OSM than a viral license?
>
> Right now the current and proposed licenses only seems to hurt small
> businesses, who can afford neither proprietary data nor the
> liabilities of the remaining grey areas. (I hope that precluding any
> sort of commercial use of the data is not the intent of most
> contributors.) If the data is in the public domain, sure some bad guys
> might abuse it, but please don't disregard the benefit that companies
> willing to follow the spirit of the community norms could bring to the
> project.
>
> thanks,
> -natevw
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>

Please continue this sort of discussion on legal-talk@
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

-- 
Regards,
Thomas Wood
(Edgemaster)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain

[Nathan Vander Wilt]

On May 6, 2008, at 9:44 AM, Nathan Vander Wilt wrote:
> [blah, blah, blah]

I hope that I did make my concerns clear without offending anyone too  
greatly. Regardless, it would probably be more helpful to say what I  
hope could be done to address my concerns, instead of just more-or- 
less complaining.


I really would like to see a license as simple as the following:

For data users -
0. Open Street Map collects and creates public domain map data.
1. Attribution of Open Street Map is expected. We make it easy.
2. Contributing back or freely sharing modifications is strongly  
encouraged.

For map editors -
1. Only add essentially uncopyrighted map data.
2. You are welcome join the list of contributors.



This is pretty much how the Public Domain Data Licence with Community  
Norms works, right? (See 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License#Criticism 
  ) Set up community norms to say "BY-SA" and it seems like a perfect  
fit for the data and (hopefully) most contributors' wishes.

I see a lot of benefits to this, certainly over the current license,  
but even over the proposed set of new licenses:
- Easy for contributors large and small to understand.
- Much easier to check existing datasets for compatibility.
- Doesn't change much for data users in the open source community.
- Enables commercial use by small companies who want to do the right  
thing, but can't just ignore grey areas that leave them or their  
customers liable.
- It wouldn't change much as far as abuse by large corporations, as  
I'm sure their lawyers are earning more than our lawyers anyway. It  
actually seems like a clearer license with more indemnity could  
encourage a bigger company that is still somewhat concerned with it's  
PR credibility to use the data as intended. Wouldn't the resulting  
publicity do much more for OSM than a viral license?

Right now the current and proposed licenses only seems to hurt small  
businesses, who can afford neither proprietary data nor the  
liabilities of the remaining grey areas. (I hope that precluding any  
sort of commercial use of the data is not the intent of most  
contributors.) If the data is in the public domain, sure some bad guys  
might abuse it, but please don't disregard the benefit that companies  
willing to follow the spirit of the community norms could bring to the  
project.

thanks,
-natevw


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Alex Mauer]

Andy Allan wrote:
> least if you're making
> proposals on how to tag pedestrian crossings, the first piece of
> research should be how they are *already* being tagged. If you're not
> aware of it, that's no excuse for ignoring it.

Umm, OK.  I'll keep that in mind if I ever make a proposal for how to 
tag pedestrian crossings.  Newsflash: I am not the creator of that proposal.

In any case, if I were to create a proposal for that, my first source of 
information on how they are currently tagged would have been the wiki. 
And until today, I would have found only the proposal, and not your 
scheme even if I had happened to choose the word "crossing" for my search.

So don't give me any crap about how *anyone* should have known that the 
tag "crossing" was already in use, given that your usage of it was 
totally undocumented.

> I gave the figures for the whole planet earlier. I'm not wasting my
> time posting them a second time just because you're skim reading.

Fair enough; I missed that because I didn't read below your signoff 
(which happened to be at the break in my mailreader).  So, OK, there's 
another 60 beyond what I found in tagwatch.  Who wants to bet they're 
all in the UK, and those 60 were added since tagwatch was updated on 12 
April?

Even with the additional 60, it's not "widespread" even within the UK. 
(478 crossings out of however many hundreds of thousands total, in the 
UK alone -- let alone the world)

-Alex Mauer "hawke"


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Dave Stubbs]

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andy Allan wrote:
>  > On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  >>  Hmm, I see it differently.  As I recall:
>  >>  *Some people said "this is the way it will be".  Since they have dev
>  >>  access, they also added their method to the rendering system,
>  >
>  > Let me be blunt: I don't have dev access, and I don't have SVN access
>  > either. So stop with the moaning, and get your facts straight.
>
>  I didn't say you personally did that.  But if the group of people using
>  this crossing scheme were tagging *and rendering* crossings, someone had
>  to have done the rendering bit -- and they would have needed access to
>  modify the rendering system.


I believe the only map rendering crossings at present is the cyclemap.

If you're referring to the cycle map's rendering system, then yes,
andy has access and I have access.
If you were just responding to andy saying it was being rendered, then
you need to be a little less openstreetmap.org-centric in your
thinking.


Dave

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andy Allan wrote:

>  > Let me be blunt: I don't have dev access, and I don't have SVN access
>  > either. So stop with the moaning, and get your facts straight.
>
>  I didn't say you personally did that.  But if the group of people using
>  this crossing scheme were tagging *and rendering* crossings, someone had
>  to have done the rendering bit -- and they would have needed access to
>  modify the rendering system.

The "someone" doing the rendering is me, but I don't have access to
SVN. If you can't figure out how that works, you need to do some more
research.

>  > Oh noes! Since it seems that you'll moan about it not being documented
>  > 12 hours ago, and then moan when I actually do, whilst not raising a
>  > finger to help either way, then you must be out to moan rather than
>  > help.
>
>  I'm not interested in tagging animal crossings.  Naturally I'm not going
>  to try to document the intricacies of british naming conventions for
>  their road crossings when: I will never have occasion to use them as I
>  don't live or map in Britain; I am unfamiliar with names for these
>  specialised crossings for the same reason; I am more interested in
>  having something usable by the world.

So you're unwilling to find out how things are tagged in OpenStreetMap
already, but happy to spout off your thoughts on the matter onto the
wiki. Can I make the suggestion that it's best to concentrate on
what's going on already rather than making up new ways to tackle the
same situation? I know it's completely impossible to be aware of
everything that goes on in OSM, but at least if you're making
proposals on how to tag pedestrian crossings, the first piece of
research should be how they are *already* being tagged. If you're not
aware of it, that's no excuse for ignoring it.

And I know you're aware of it. So there's no excuse.

>  > And for the record, you're the one on the wiki quoting stats from a UK
>  > excerpt, whereas I'm concentrating on figures for the whole planet.
>
>  I'm quoting stats from a UK excerpt because that's the only place where
>  they're used that I could find in tagwatch.  Now perhaps they're in
>  widespread use someplace else that I missed, or perhaps I should be
>  using something other than tagwatch.  Do you have usage figures for the
>  whole planet?

I gave the figures for the whole planet earlier. I'm not wasting my
time posting them a second time just because you're skim reading.

Cheers,
Andy

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Alex Mauer]

Andy Allan wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>>  Hmm, I see it differently.  As I recall:
>>  *Some people said "this is the way it will be".  Since they have dev
>>  access, they also added their method to the rendering system,
> 
> Let me be blunt: I don't have dev access, and I don't have SVN access
> either. So stop with the moaning, and get your facts straight.

I didn't say you personally did that.  But if the group of people using 
this crossing scheme were tagging *and rendering* crossings, someone had 
to have done the rendering bit -- and they would have needed access to 
modify the rendering system.

> Oh noes! Since it seems that you'll moan about it not being documented
> 12 hours ago, and then moan when I actually do, whilst not raising a
> finger to help either way, then you must be out to moan rather than
> help.

I'm not interested in tagging animal crossings.  Naturally I'm not going 
to try to document the intricacies of british naming conventions for 
their road crossings when: I will never have occasion to use them as I 
don't live or map in Britain; I am unfamiliar with names for these 
specialised crossings for the same reason; I am more interested in 
having something usable by the world.


> And for the record, you're the one on the wiki quoting stats from a UK
> excerpt, whereas I'm concentrating on figures for the whole planet. 

I'm quoting stats from a UK excerpt because that's the only place where 
they're used that I could find in tagwatch.  Now perhaps they're in 
widespread use someplace else that I missed, or perhaps I should be 
using something other than tagwatch.  Do you have usage figures for the 
whole planet?

-Alex Mauer "hawke"


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain

[Nathan Vander Wilt]

On May 3, 2008, at 2:39 PM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:

> For me, it seems ironic that a project spawned from licensing issues
> over map data has found itself in a situation where licensing issues
> are still a problem, and hopefully the license update will resolve
> these and make using OSM data easier. Why else are we contributing
> this data if not for people to *use* it?

This mirrors my feelings exactly. When I found out about this project,  
I was really excited. I am writing a geotagging program that could  
greatly benefit from a worldwide feature set, and it seemed like OSM  
would be a great match. Now I'm not too sure. I live in the US, and  
have seen the benefits of (and perhaps come to take for granted) a  
significant body of Public Domain, free-as-in-WTFPL geographic  
datasets. Obviously on the other side of the Atlantic, you have seen  
the opposite: an overbearing monopoly that wants to keep this data  
under lock and key.

Now what has been done to remedy that situation? I read things like  
"but aha! that pub's location might be a derivative work of a  
ShareAlike street!" and it sounds an awful lot how the OS claims  
copyright in everything from the Soviet topo maps to random tourist  
brochures. Except instead of insisting on big fees for use, it seems  
some parts of the community instead insist on big "freedoms" resulting  
from use.

How is that better? I'm worried that if my users geotag their photos  
against OSM data, someone will come out of the woodwork insisting that  
the photos "could be considered a derivative of their work", and I can  
either hire a lawyer versed in International IP law [implying that  
they wouldn't mind me ignoring what they really want done with their  
data, provided it looked like I could get away with it]. Or I could  
just play it safe and pass the virus to my (fleeing) users.

It doesn't hurt the US Census Bureau when someone takes their public  
domain TIGER data and turns it into a proprietary product, or one with  
an arguably more restrictive (or "more libre") licence. However, think  
of how much less useful the TIGER data would have been to both these  
"evil corporations" AND the open source community if data sets like  
that had to be used under a particular license instead of public  
domain (with attribution often requested).

I understand that some feel the cause would be hurt if their data  
could ALSO be used in proprietary datasets. Obviously I have a  
different opinion on this matter, as do several others. What bothers  
me is that those in favor of viral licenses are able to even trump  
those who would rather have their data in the public domain -- and  
this by the same sort of "derivative work" FUD that makes a free set  
of map data so important in the first place.

thanks,
-natevw


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Hmm, I see it differently.  As I recall:
>  *Some people said "this is the way it will be".  Since they have dev
>  access, they also added their method to the rendering system,

Let me be blunt: I don't have dev access, and I don't have SVN access
either. So stop with the moaning, and get your facts straight.

>  *Once the proposal got to voting, the creators of the One True Way
>  started bitching about how "this tag is already in 'widespread' use" (at
>  least in their corner of the UK), and suddenly got round to documenting
>  their usage of the tag.

Oh noes! Since it seems that you'll moan about it not being documented
12 hours ago, and then moan when I actually do, whilst not raising a
finger to help either way, then you must be out to moan rather than
help.

And for the record, you're the one on the wiki quoting stats from a UK
excerpt, whereas I'm concentrating on figures for the whole planet. So
you're making yourself look even more daft by trying to throw mud
about it being some Massive UK Conspiracy Just To Annoy You Using My
Non-Existant Powers when it really isn't.

Cheers,
Andy

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Alex Mauer]

Andy Allan wrote:
> * Some people started tagging *and rendering* crossings, using a
> particular tagging scheme.
> * Some other people, who weren't actually out doing the work, started
> complaining about what was going on [1]
> * This second group made an extremely detailed (or overcomplicated,
> depending on your point of view) proposal to address their perceived
> issues with the scheme [2]
> * The proposal petered out, and meanwhile the people actually tagging
> stuff have carried on doing so quite successfully.
> * Now all the complainers are piping up again. Sigh.

Hmm, I see it differently.  As I recall:
*Some people said "this is the way it will be".  Since they have dev 
access, they also added their method to the rendering system, ensuring 
that their method would be the One True Way(tm), but didn't bother 
documenting it anywhere.
*Some other people (myself among them) said "that's ridiculously 
UK-centric and not really compatible with the rest of the world".  One 
of them came up with a sensible tagging scheme that will work in places 
other than the UK.
*Another person took the ideas from that discussion and made a proposal.
*Once the proposal got to voting, the creators of the One True Way 
started bitching about how "this tag is already in 'widespread' use" (at 
least in their corner of the UK), and suddenly got round to documenting 
their usage of the tag.

-Alex Mauer "hawke


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Sorting out rivers and islands

[David Groom]

Web site copy directionIn DC

a)  I'd make a relation combining the outer bank and the inner island
b) tag both as natural = water ,rather waterway = riverbank, as I believe 
rendering of waterway = riverbank is not supported by mapnik, as that tag is 
still a proposed tag.

For the Oregon island:

The island is within water which is defined as sea, as the boundary of the 
"riverbank" water is tagged as natural=coastline.  The river island itself is 
tagged waterway = riverbank.  Change the island to natural = coastline and all 
should render OK 


David
  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter Miller 
  To: talk@openstreetmap.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 10:23 AM
  Subject: [OSM-talk] Sorting out rivers and islands


  I have real problems with rivers and islands. I have been giving Washington 
DC a bit of a spring clean over the weekend but I can't get parts of the river 
to work properly. There is a large island that hasn't rendered, and a part of 
the river north of the George Washington Memorial Parkway is not right. I am 
sure it is something simple, but I can't see it. I am using riverbank, because 
that is what was being used before, however I see it is a proposed feature and 
that Mapnik doesn't seem to render it correctly. Could someone sort it and tell 
me what was wrong?

  http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.90382&lon=-77.08439&zoom=15&layers=0BFT

   

  I also added an island in Portland, Oregon which failed to appear.

  http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.5739&lon=-122.4038&zoom=14&layers=0BFT

   

   

   

   

   

  Regards,

   

   

   

  Peter

   



--


  ___
  talk mailing list
  talk@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Steve Hill]

On Tue, 6 May 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:

>>  Chris Jones (who runs the Welsh language OSM) has been working on an AJAX
>>  thing to make fixing road names easy without having to understand the
>>  editors - I see this as a really good thing since it gets more people
>>  contributing to the project, but it does require that the roads themselves
>>  are in the database.
>
> It requires they're in the database correctly. While in theory this
> seems like a great idea, I don't think it's that simple in practice.
> I'd be interested to see what he comes up with though.

Ok, this is a good point.  I guess he's trying to aim at a slightly 
different problem - he is trying to make it easy for people to put in 
Welsh language names for objects, so the assumption is probably that they 
already have English names (and thus the objects themselves are already 
quite sane in terms of their structure, connectifity, etc.).

> Tracing has other problems... there's a possibility it actually
> reduces new mapping as people mistakenly think an area is complete and
> we're having to invest time and effort now in coming up with ways of
> figuring out what's not really been mapped ie:
> http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/

I can see your point, although MapLint _should_ help with this (but 
generally I find that it just clutters up the map with lots of 
not-in-map-features warnings for stuff that _is_ in Map_Features).  It 
would be nicer to be able to turn certain LINT warnings on/off, but this 
would obviously be a lot more heavy-weight in terms of CPU and storage 
since you'd need many layers.

> PS. Please note I'm talking about tracing with no intention of
> surveying yourself to collect on-the-ground data. The aerial imagery
> is an incredibly useful tool in editing the map.

Indeed - I'm constantly wishing that there were decent Yahoo photos for 
Swansea since it would be extremely useful for tracing park boundaries 
private drives, etc.

  - Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.nexusuk.org/

  Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Andy Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  My advice would be to document the predominant use of the tag first,

Putting my wiki skills where my mouth is:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:crossing - hopefully
useful to show what's in the db as we debate the proposal. For those
interested in the nitty gritty, some SQL follows.

Cheers,
Andy

gis=> select crossing, count(*) from planet_osm_point where crossing
is not null group by crossing order by count(*) desc;
crossing | count
-+---
 toucan  |   180
 pelican |   176
 zebra   |   122
 traffic_signals |   101
 uncontrolled|54
 island  | 7
 traffic_lights  | 5
 yes | 3
 none| 2
 puffin  | 1
 underpass   | 1
 no  | 1
 Zebra   | 1
 unclassified| 1
(14 rows)

gis=> select count(*) from planet_osm_point where crossing is not null;
 count
---
   655
(1 row)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Dave Stubbs]

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> I totally agree. A map is basically a drawing, so the most important thing
> is the shape of the ways themselves. I would sooner say that the trivial
> part is adding the place-names.
>


No. Quite simply No.

The trivial part is clicking points on a photo to make a line.

The non-trivial part is the one where you get on your bike, go the
place you're mapping, find street signs, note where the road actually
starts and stops (looking out for changes of name half way down
streets), and noting down whether one road actually connects with
another. Or even frigging exists -- I've deleted at least one "road"
in the last week that was actually a row of gardens with 2m high
fences and a large electricity substation at one end -- although it
looks like Google made the same mistake (only they went a step further
and gave it a name).

Dave

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Fixing unnamed ways & places (was: [t*gg*ng] Road crossings proposal - status?)

[Andrew Chadwick (email lists)]

Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio wrote:

> I totally agree. A map is basically a drawing, so the most important
> thing is the shape of the ways themselves. I would sooner say that
> the trivial part is adding the place-names.

It's also easy enough to actively seek out and tag unnamed ways, though
harder for places, using Maplint output. Personally, I plot various
classes of maplint badness to a colour PS file using gnuplot and carry
the printout with me for doing targeted fixups.


I propose the addition of an maplint_excuse=* tag which can be used to
suppress maplint error and warning output when it's known that the data
cannot be gathered. For example, if the sign has been stolen from a
highway=residential, and the council haven't got round to replacing it.


-- 
Andrew Chadwick

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  2. If the road is on the map it becomes much easier for people who are
> familiar with the area to fill in the details such as the name - no
> equipment is needed (such as GPS), they don't need to get off their backside
> and go out to walk/drive the road and there is next to no effort in putting
> a name on a road if you know the area.

Maybe you misunderstood me. I've no problem with people who are
familar with an area tracing over the Yahoo! imagery. As I see it,
there are the following steps, with arbitary "difficulty" values

* Tracing a road from the imagery (0.1)
* Getting the connectivity right (15)
* Naming the streets right (30)
* Putting in some POIs (30)

I think the difference in difficulty between tracing a road from
yahoo, and fixing the connectivity when someone has ballsed it up,
means that it's a waste of time tracing when you've got no intention
of fixing the connectivity (for routing) or names (for maps) or POIs
(the added special sauce that makes OSM megauseful).

Now we have different results for areas, which are genuinely useful
when taken from imagery, and very hard to mess up. But for roads it's
just not worth it.

I'm also of the belief that missing roads doesn't hinder the "drop in
mappers" from tracing two roads and naming them, whereas vast swathes
of traced roads has had a noticeable impact on our ability to finish
off large cities like london, by getting in the way of serious mappers
and giving the false impression that it's mostly done already.

Cheers,
Andy

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Dave Stubbs]

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2008, Andy Allan wrote:
>
>  > [2] Another brilliant example of how people make themselves feel
>  > useful by doing the trivially easy bit, c.f. tracing from Yahoo with
>  > no intention of naming the roads.
>
>  I'm just going to voice an opinion (feel free to ignore it :) - putting
>  roads on the map by any means (e.g. wandering with a GPS, tracing Yahoo,
>  etc) is always very useful, even if one doesn't name the roads:
>
>  1. If you're doing something like route planning, you don't need to know
>  all the names of the roads - just knowing that you can get from A to B via
>  this road is useful (although some information about the quality of the
>  road is required so you don't direct HGVs up a tiny 1-track lane :)
>
>  2. If the road is on the map it becomes much easier for people who are
>  familiar with the area to fill in the details such as the name - no
>  equipment is needed (such as GPS), they don't need to get off their
>  backside and go out to walk/drive the road and there is next to no effort
>  in putting a name on a road if you know the area.  I can see that in many
>  cases, _users_ (i.e. people who just want a map and would otherwise
>  just be using Google) might be happy to add names when using the map
>  themselves, but aren't going to spend the time and effort tracing roads
>  from Yahoo themselves (for one thing this involves somewhat more
>  experience with how OSM works than just adding a name).

In my experience this isn't true -- the traced roads are rarely
entirely correct, rarely complete, and frequently don't split/join in
the correct way. So to name these roads you have to move roads, add
roads, split roads and combine roads. In general I find the tracing
rarely helps in editing an area after a survey, and you end up needing
a fair few skills to properly repair things. It's not unusual for me
to just delete all the tracing in an area I've surveyed and start
again from scratch.

Frankly any one can trace a road it's really simple -- editing is
a more involved process (at least with our present tools).


>
>  Chris Jones (who runs the Welsh language OSM) has been working on an AJAX
>  thing to make fixing road names easy without having to understand the
>  editors - I see this as a really good thing since it gets more people
>  contributing to the project, but it does require that the roads themselves
>  are in the database.


It requires they're in the database correctly. While in theory this
seems like a great idea, I don't think it's that simple in practice.
I'd be interested to see what he comes up with though.

Tracing has other problems... there's a possibility it actually
reduces new mapping as people mistakenly think an area is complete and
we're having to invest time and effort now in coming up with ways of
figuring out what's not really been mapped ie:
http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/

Notice how that really hasn't changed much from the map of what was
mapped before people started tracing. It doesn't really seem to be
acting as a stimulus as you might imagine.

Dave

PS. Please note I'm talking about tracing with no intention of
surveying yourself to collect on-the-ground data. The aerial imagery
is an incredibly useful tool in editing the map.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Track offsets

[Steve Hill]

On Tue, 6 May 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:

> Converting the track within GPSUtility before then saving as a gpx I think
> finally fixed the problem, but it was too long ago now to be sure exactly
> what I did.

Hmm, ok - thanks, I might see if that helps correct the error.  The thing 
is that I'd be very surprised if gpsd and Kismet were smart enough to do 
anything with the NMEA data other than copy the lat/lon from one place to 
another, but similarly I'd be very surprised if Garmin had screwed up 
something as fundamental as the NMEA output. :-/

  - Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.nexusuk.org/

  Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Andrew Chadwick (email lists)]

Andy Allan wrote:
> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Andrew Chadwick (mailing lists)
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>   * been discussed on this list back in August 2007[]; (hmm, does that
>>  count as a proper RFC?),
> 
> We didn't "discuss the proposal" in that thread. What actually happened was:

OK. Is it consensus that this proposal needs to formally be rewinded to
the RFC stage and re-announced? More comments are emerging now, as Robin
Paulson predicted...

-- 
Andrew Chadwick

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Track offsets

[Andy Robinson (blackadder)]

Steve,

I've seen this problem a long time ago when I was using some software to
convert a track I had previously made from live data, I think using
UPSUtility. I got a similar 50 to 100m parallel error. I think it turned out
to be a conversion error between the OSGB or possibly UTM format that
UPSUtility was set up to use at the time and the WGS84 of the final output
required for the gpx file. The track predated OSM (one was from the opening
day of the M6Toll) so had been saved in GPSUtilities format.

Converting the track within GPSUtility before then saving as a gpx I think
finally fixed the problem, but it was too long ago now to be sure exactly
what I did.

Cheers

Andy

>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:talk-
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Hill
>Sent: 06 May 2008 10:41 AM
>To: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: [OSM-talk] Track offsets
>
>
>I've come across a problem with one of my methods of collecting tracks -
>I'm hoping someone might have some input:
>
>I've got a computer in my car which connects to my (old style) eTrex
>Venture GPS via a serial cable.  The computer runs gpsd to talk to the
>GPS.  It also runs Kismet which does things like logging 802.11 networks,
>but most importantly Kismet talks to gpsd and logs the GPS track.  I then
>process the .gps file Kismet produces into a GPX file to use with OSM.
>
>Now the problem - I recently compared the track downloaded from the GPS
>itself (using gpsbabel) with the track produced by Kismet and found they
>were fairly consistently offset from eachother by 100m or so.  I haven't
>worked out where this error is being introduced yet, but the GPS is set to
>WGS84 so I would expect the NMEA stream and the GPS's tracklog to match.
>
>My next step is to look at the NMEA stream itself and see if that is
>correct, but has anyone else here had any similar problems that could
>shead some light onto what is going on?
>
>  - Steve
>xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.nexusuk.org/
>
>  Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence
>
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio]

I totally agree. A map is basically a drawing, so the most important thing is 
the shape of the ways themselves. I would sooner say that the trivial part is 
adding the place-names.
 
Lucas



De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] en nombre de Steve Hill
Enviado el: mar 06/05/2008 11:28
Para: Andy Allan
CC: osm Talk
Asunto: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?



On Tue, 6 May 2008, Andy Allan wrote:

> [2] Another brilliant example of how people make themselves feel
> useful by doing the trivially easy bit, c.f. tracing from Yahoo with
> no intention of naming the roads.

I'm just going to voice an opinion (feel free to ignore it :) - putting
roads on the map by any means (e.g. wandering with a GPS, tracing Yahoo,
etc) is always very useful, even if one doesn't name the roads:

1. If you're doing something like route planning, you don't need to know
all the names of the roads - just knowing that you can get from A to B via
this road is useful (although some information about the quality of the
road is required so you don't direct HGVs up a tiny 1-track lane :)

2. If the road is on the map it becomes much easier for people who are
familiar with the area to fill in the details such as the name - no
equipment is needed (such as GPS), they don't need to get off their
backside and go out to walk/drive the road and there is next to no effort
in putting a name on a road if you know the area.  I can see that in many
cases, _users_ (i.e. people who just want a map and would otherwise
just be using Google) might be happy to add names when using the map
themselves, but aren't going to spend the time and effort tracing roads
from Yahoo themselves (for one thing this involves somewhat more
experience with how OSM works than just adding a name).

Chris Jones (who runs the Welsh language OSM) has been working on an AJAX
thing to make fixing road names easy without having to understand the
editors - I see this as a really good thing since it gets more people
contributing to the project, but it does require that the roads themselves
are in the database.

  - Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.nexusuk.org/

  Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] spur railways?

[Peter Miller]

I notice that 'railway=spur' is used a lot in the tiger data. Here is an
example (where the railway continues north out of Davis as a 'spur').

http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.57568

&lon=-121.74505&zoom=16

 

 

However it doesn't render in Mapnik or Osmarender and is only a proposed
tag. Voting is open at it was approved by a number of people in Feb 08 (with
a few criticisms as well):
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Service)

 

 

Can we get this agreed and into the rendering soon.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

Peter Miller

 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Track offsets

[Steve Hill]

I've come across a problem with one of my methods of collecting tracks - 
I'm hoping someone might have some input:

I've got a computer in my car which connects to my (old style) eTrex 
Venture GPS via a serial cable.  The computer runs gpsd to talk to the 
GPS.  It also runs Kismet which does things like logging 802.11 networks, 
but most importantly Kismet talks to gpsd and logs the GPS track.  I then 
process the .gps file Kismet produces into a GPX file to use with OSM.

Now the problem - I recently compared the track downloaded from the GPS 
itself (using gpsbabel) with the track produced by Kismet and found they 
were fairly consistently offset from eachother by 100m or so.  I haven't 
worked out where this error is being introduced yet, but the GPS is set to 
WGS84 so I would expect the NMEA stream and the GPS's tracklog to match.

My next step is to look at the NMEA stream itself and see if that is 
correct, but has anyone else here had any similar problems that could 
shead some light onto what is going on?

  - Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.nexusuk.org/

  Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Chris Hill]

Frederik Ramm wrote:

  Hi,

  
  
* Some people started tagging *and rendering* crossings, using a
particular tagging scheme.
* Some other people, who weren't actually out doing the work, started
complaining about what was going on [1]

  
  
May I take this as a cue to suggest a complete overhaul of the whole  
RfC/vote/etc. process.

My suggestion would be.

Rule 1:

We never debate anything that has no practical relevance. If you do  
not have recorded the position of a shipwreck, then don't discuss how  
one would tag shipwrecks if there were any (for example). In fact, if  
you have no shipwrecks to tag and have never tagged any then it might  
be a good idea to take a very low-key position in a discussion about  
shipwreck tagging, if not to keep quiet altogehter.

Rule 2:
...
Rule 3:
...
Rule 4:
...

Frederik,
Since you are well known for not liking the voting system, maybe your
rule 1 excludes you from this debate?

You forgot rules 5 and 6

Rule 5:
There are no rules.

Rule 6:
There is no rule 6.  

;-)  Cheers, Chris



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Steve Hill]

On Tue, 6 May 2008, Andy Allan wrote:

> [2] Another brilliant example of how people make themselves feel
> useful by doing the trivially easy bit, c.f. tracing from Yahoo with
> no intention of naming the roads.

I'm just going to voice an opinion (feel free to ignore it :) - putting 
roads on the map by any means (e.g. wandering with a GPS, tracing Yahoo, 
etc) is always very useful, even if one doesn't name the roads:

1. If you're doing something like route planning, you don't need to know 
all the names of the roads - just knowing that you can get from A to B via 
this road is useful (although some information about the quality of the 
road is required so you don't direct HGVs up a tiny 1-track lane :)

2. If the road is on the map it becomes much easier for people who are 
familiar with the area to fill in the details such as the name - no 
equipment is needed (such as GPS), they don't need to get off their 
backside and go out to walk/drive the road and there is next to no effort 
in putting a name on a road if you know the area.  I can see that in many 
cases, _users_ (i.e. people who just want a map and would otherwise 
just be using Google) might be happy to add names when using the map 
themselves, but aren't going to spend the time and effort tracing roads 
from Yahoo themselves (for one thing this involves somewhat more 
experience with how OSM works than just adding a name).

Chris Jones (who runs the Welsh language OSM) has been working on an AJAX 
thing to make fixing road names easy without having to understand the 
editors - I see this as a really good thing since it gets more people 
contributing to the project, but it does require that the roads themselves 
are in the database.

  - Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.nexusuk.org/

  Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Sorting out rivers and islands

[Peter Miller]

I have real problems with rivers and islands. I have been giving Washington
DC a bit of a spring clean over the weekend but I can't get parts of the
river to work properly. There is a large island that hasn't rendered, and a
part of the river north of the George Washington Memorial Parkway is not
right. I am sure it is something simple, but I can't see it. I am using
riverbank, because that is what was being used before, however I see it is a
proposed feature and that Mapnik doesn't seem to render it correctly. Could
someone sort it and tell me what was wrong?

http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.90382

&lon=-77.08439&zoom=15&layers=0BFT

 

I also added an island in Portland, Oregon which failed to appear.

http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.5739

&lon=-122.4038&zoom=14&layers=0BFT

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Peter

 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

> * Some people started tagging *and rendering* crossings, using a
> particular tagging scheme.
> * Some other people, who weren't actually out doing the work, started
> complaining about what was going on [1]

May I take this as a cue to suggest a complete overhaul of the whole  
RfC/vote/etc. process.

My suggestion would be.

Rule 1:

We never debate anything that has no practical relevance. If you do  
not have recorded the position of a shipwreck, then don't discuss how  
one would tag shipwrecks if there were any (for example). In fact, if  
you have no shipwrecks to tag and have never tagged any then it might  
be a good idea to take a very low-key position in a discussion about  
shipwreck tagging, if not to keep quiet altogehter.

Rule 2:

If you want to tag something and believe there is no suitable tag in  
use already (or just can't find it in the documentation), send your  
question/suggestion to the "osm-tagging" mailing list (to be created)  
and ask people how they are tagging these things or whether they  
think an existing tag might be suitable for this. (DO NOT make a  
complex proposal that includes 35 other things related to the one  
that you want to tag - if you have a shipwreck to tag then stick with  
the shipwreck and don't talk about how one could also tag buoys or  
fish farms.)

Rule 3:

If the list comes up with a suggestion (maybe an existing tag you  
overlooked) and you find that suitable, use it. If the list does not,  
within about a week after your initial question, come up with  
something that you find suitable, or if there's a lot of discussion  
and no results that are actually useful to you, then just select the  
option that makes most sense to you, or invent something new,  
document it on the "Map Features" wiki page, and go ahead using the  
new tag. You are the one who had something to tag, so you are the one  
who decides how it gets tagged - it is worthwile to listen to the  
others on the list, but don't let them take the decision from you.  
You are the mapper. Write to the list and tell them how you have  
resolved the issue.

Rule 4:

There is no voting, because the person bringing up a topic ultimately  
decides.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

[Andy Allan]

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Andrew Chadwick (mailing lists)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Road crossings proposal[0], appears to be in limbo, and I'm
>  wondering if the correct procedure as described on
>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features has been
>  followed. It appears to have:
>
>   * been discussed on this list back in August 2007[1]; (hmm, does that
>  count as a proper RFC?),

We didn't "discuss the proposal" in that thread. What actually happened was:

* Some people started tagging *and rendering* crossings, using a
particular tagging scheme.
* Some other people, who weren't actually out doing the work, started
complaining about what was going on [1]
* This second group made an extremely detailed (or overcomplicated,
depending on your point of view) proposal to address their perceived
issues with the scheme [2]
* The proposal petered out, and meanwhile the people actually tagging
stuff have carried on doing so quite successfully.
* Now all the complainers are piping up again. Sigh.

My advice would be to document the predominant use of the tag first,
note the minor use of it second, and forget about the RFC process in
this case.

Cheers,
Andy

[1] The most galling bit of this for me is that they were completely
unaware and uninvolved in the situation before they started whinging
and moaning about it.
[2] Another brilliant example of how people make themselves feel
useful by doing the trivially easy bit, c.f. tracing from Yahoo with
no intention of naming the roads.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik viewer for OSM data - UI suggestions?

[Nick Whitelegg]

On Sunday 04 May 2008 22:44, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> > My idea is to try and shield the user from the XML file altogether.
> > Rather than get a user to open an XML file, I'd like users to be able to
> > simply open an OSM file, download data from the API, or retrieve data
> > from a PostGIS database, and then use the UI to define styles for OSM
> > key/value combinations.
>
> Right - but which styles? E.g. for roads, do you want to allow them to
> define colour, border colour, width, ...? For pubs, do you want them to
> be able to choose their own icon, select from a list?
>
> > I'd also like the users to be able to define, and order, layers for their
> > map.
>
> So they have to be able to decide what features go on which layer?
>
> Gerv

Yes, all of these things.

Nick

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk