Re: [OSM-talk] contours on main map

[Robin Paulson]

2008/5/8 Shaun McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Tag some cycleway network routes in your part of the world, then you can
> request a higher zoom to be rendered.

if it weren't so sad, the cycling situation in nz would be comedy.

for all the 'clean green' image, this is a country with the highest
car-ownership rate in the world (more than one per driver in
auckland). on the other hand, the number of cycle routes in auckland,
a city of >1.3 million people, is in single digits...

political rant over

maybe i'll do it myself; some transparent png laid over the top of the
osm tiles can't be so difficult

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

Re: [OSM-talk] contours on main map

[Michael Collinson]

At 04:32 AM 5/8/2008, Robin Paulson wrote:
>is there any intention to include contours on the main map at any
>point? would it be possible to have them as a static layer (i.e. they
>not be re-rendered every week like the mapnik images, to save
>processing time), with a transparent background?
>
>alternatively, are there any world wide maps out there with contours
>and osm data, that update regularly?

Nick's http://www.free-map.org.uk uses OSM data and NASA's SRTM 
elevations, which are available on a global basis.  As I recall 
though, the contours cause a massive increase in the average size of 
map tiles - making it difficult to serve a single small country (the 
UK) let alone the world.  Even Scotland could not be supported due 
its mountainous terrain (mere pimples on a global scale - sorry Scotland).

It would be nice though. I especially like the look of Andy's UK 
cycle map. Quite apart from their practical use, contours can 
heighten the graphics appeal of a map.

Mike


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

Re: [OSM-talk] contours on main map

[Steve Hill]

On Thu, 8 May 2008, Robin Paulson wrote:

> alternatively, are there any world wide maps out there with contours
> and osm data, that update regularly?

The cycle map and the piste map both have contours for selected areas.
I'm generally doing monthly updates to the piste map data.  As far as I 
know, no one is serving contours for the whole planet - there are a couple 
of reasons:

1. The SRTM3 dataset for the whole planet is pretty huge once it has been 
processed into contour lines and put into PostGIS (probably about half a 
terabyte).
2. It isn't as simple as just rendering the same contour lines everywhere 
- for example, the piste map uses much wider spaced contour lines than the 
cycle map because the terrain is (generally) more mountainous.  To make a 
global contour map you would need to make the renderer vary the number of 
contour lines used depending on how mountainous the terrain is.

Also, whilst having the ability to turn on contour lines would be useful, 
I certainly wouldn't recommend having them on by default since the tiles 
are usually quite large compared to the average contourless tile (so a 
bigger bandwidth bill, more disk space needed for the tile cache, slower 
navigation around the map, 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

[OSM-talk] OSM XAPI - help!

[elvin ibbotson]

I am making this request here because I am not sure who looks after  
the xapi code. I have posted a question on the xapi talk page on the  
wiki but it may not get noticed.


I am using my limited skills as a PHP novice to access subsets of  
data via xapi for conversion to a compact binary format, but the  
query format (eg. osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.5/way 
[highway=motorway|trunk][bbox=] delivers the data as an  
attachment (data.osm) and I do not know how to access this using PHP.  
My script is derived from those by Adam Boardman and Paul Fox for the  
binary data proposal which use the OSM API and expect the XML data to  
be in the body of the HTML rather than as an attached file. But the  
standard API is limited to 0.25 degrees and does not allow the  
content filtering offered by xapi. I would appreciate some advice  
from the xapi expert(s) on how to...


get the data bundled into the body or...

tell xapi where to save the data file attachment or...

save/open/read the data file using PHP

elvin ibbotson




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

Re: [OSM-talk] contours on main map

[Steve Hill]

On Thu, 8 May 2008, Robin Paulson wrote:

> maybe i'll do it myself; some transparent png laid over the top of the
> osm tiles can't be so difficult

Have a look at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Contours
This tells you how contour rendering has been implemented on the piste map 
and cycle map.

  - 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] Overhaul of voting process (was: Road crossings proposal - status?)

[Celso González]

On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 08:42:55AM +1200, Robin Paulson wrote:
> 2008/5/8 Christoph Eckert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >  > For those who think the RFC/vote process represents the
> >  >   consensus on how things should be done, what needs to happen to
> >  >   change that process?
> >
> >  IMO map features should be built on top of tagwatch. This way tagging
> >  recommendations would be built on top what's actually used. Much more
> >  democratic than the current process IMO :) .

I agree with that, i think we still need the Proposed_Features just as a
reference to clarify ideas and when a tag reaches a significant amount
of use in Tagwatch move it to Map_Features.

-- 
Celso González (PerroVerd)
http://mitago.net

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

Re: [OSM-talk] contours on main map

[elvin ibbotson]

I too would like to see SRTM elevational data in OSM - possibly  
optional in the UI - and preferably using colours rather than just  
contours. I posted an initial proposal in the wiki some weeks ago. I  
don't have much data, but I suspect contours add a big data load, but  
producing coloured bitmaps from SRTM sources is not difficult and  
these could be used as backgrounds to the rendered OSM data.


elvin ibbotson




On 8 May 2008, at 10:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



From: "Robin Paulson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 8 May 2008 03:32:42 BDT
To: "osm Talk" 
Subject: [OSM-talk] contours on main map


is there any intention to include contours on the main map at any
point? would it be possible to have them as a static layer (i.e. they
not be re-rendered every week like the mapnik images, to save
processing time), with a transparent background?

alternatively, are there any world wide maps out there with contours
and osm data, that update regularly?


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

Re: [OSM-talk] contours on main map

[Sebastian Spaeth]

Robin Paulson wrote:
> is there any intention to include contours on the main map at any
> point? would it be possible to have them as a static layer (i.e. they
> not be re-rendered every week like the mapnik images, to save
> processing time), with a transparent background?
> 
> alternatively, are there any world wide maps out there with contours
> and osm data, that update regularly?

You might want to look at http://www.maps-for-free.com/ which offers
colored relief tiles which can be included as an OpenLayers layer. You
would need transparent tiles with OSM data as an overlay then.

Sebastian

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

Re: [OSM-talk] golf course marking

[Erik Johansson]

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Shaun McDonald
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  If you don't think that brownfield and greenfield are good tags then don't
> use them.

Brownfield is a field that is brown, that means brown grass. So large
areas of grass that are brown most of the year. That's the first think
 I thought of apparently I'm not alone in this. Therefore I think you
should rethink its usage (just ~350 ways), and especially its
inclusion in Potlatch auto complete dictionary.


> > why we're not using right_of_way=motorway|primary|cycleway|footway|

What does highway mean? To me it  used to mean a big motorway with
lots of cars, now my definition of highway is "tag used by OSM to
describe ways". So even Blackadder saved us from the class and type
tags, it's not the most easy tag name to understand, even though it's
one tag most people have used.


Furthermore, it is my opinion that brownfields must be destroyed
/Cato

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM XAPI - help!

[Steven te Brinke]

Delivering data as an attachment is just adding one header to tell the 
browser that it should present it as an attachment to the user. Thus the 
content is the same as if it wasn't an attachment. The php function 
file() works fine, as should any other function.


Steven


elvin ibbotson schreef:
I am making this request here because I am not sure who looks after 
the xapi code. I have posted a question on the _xapi talk page_ 
 on the wiki but 
it may not get noticed.


I am using my limited skills as a PHP novice to access subsets of data 
via xapi for conversion to a compact binary format, but the query 
format (eg. 
osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.5/way[highway=motorway|trunk][bbox=] 
delivers the data as an attachment (data.osm) and I do not know how to 
access this using PHP. My script is derived from those by Adam 
Boardman and Paul Fox for the binary data proposal which use the OSM 
API and expect the XML data to be in the body of the HTML rather than 
as an attached file. But the standard API is limited to 0.25 degrees 
and does not allow the content filtering offered by xapi. I would 
appreciate some advice from the xapi expert(s) on how to...


get the data bundled into the body or...

tell xapi where to save the data file attachment or...

save/open/read the data file using PHP

elvin ibbotson






___
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] golf course marking

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Robin Paulson wrote:
>Sent: 07 May 2008 9:35 PM
>To: Erik Johansson
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] golf course marking
>
>2008/5/7 Erik Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>  True, But I think  landuse=brownfield should be banned, and all 300
>>  ways tagged as such should be renamed to landuse=development &
>>  demolition.
>
>it's pretty uk-centric i agree; along with a lot of the tags in osm
>
>actually, i think the whole landuse category is a lazy bodge; every
>tag there can easily be replaced with something far more descriptive,
>consistent and useful
>
>>  It's very badly name if you aren't a native English speaker,
>>  especially since it's included in the Potlatch auto complete feature.
>>  Then again highway is also a strange tag name.
>
>yes, it is a strange choice. it leads to irrationalities like
>highway=footway and highway=cycleway
>why we're not using right_of_way=motorway|primary|cycleway|footway|
>and so on, i don't know

It's entirely my fault that we have highway=

The reasoning at the time was that I wanted to group similar features and
where possible use "way" at the end as that was the common denominator for
all of the generic "types" I was thinking about. If I had picked "roadway" I
felt using it to describe a footpath might be less than intuitive for
instance. So highway it became (very much thinking of highways and byways at
the time).

As Richard has pointed out, the Right of Way over a particular route is an
entirely different matter and one that is best avoided unless we truly do
know the legal situation.

Cheers

Andy

>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.10/1421 - Release Date:
>07/05/2008 5:23 PM


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

Re: [OSM-talk] golf course marking

[David Earl]

On 08/05/2008 11:43, Erik Johansson wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Shaun McDonald
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>  If you don't think that brownfield and greenfield are good tags then don't
>> use them.
> 
> Brownfield is a field that is brown, that means brown grass. So large
> areas of grass that are brown most of the year. That's the first think
>  I thought of apparently I'm not alone in this. Therefore I think you
> should rethink its usage (just ~350 ways), and especially its
> inclusion in Potlatch auto complete dictionary.
> 
> 
>>> why we're not using right_of_way=motorway|primary|cycleway|footway|
> 
> What does highway mean? To me it  used to mean a big motorway with
> lots of cars, now my definition of highway is "tag used by OSM to
> describe ways". So even Blackadder saved us from the class and type
> tags, it's not the most easy tag name to understand, even though it's
> one tag most people have used.

It really, really doesn't matter what the names of tags are for how the 
system works. They might as well be wibble=wobble for the difference it 
makes. They are useful as memory joggers, but really no more. So long as 
the meaning is understood (i.e. written down), just use it as defined 
and stop worrying about it.

However, FWIW, brownfield and greenfield arose because they are widely 
used terms in the UK to describe land that is a target for builders to 
build on, either previous developed or undeveloped land respectively. 
They're in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownfield_land and 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenfield_land

And one of the Oxford English Dictionary definitions of highway is "Any 
track well-beaten or regularly traversed by animals or things" which 
sums it up pretty well IMO. (Another is "especially a main or principal 
road ...").

Personally I think the attempts to group tags causes more arguments than 
it is worth. If we had just objects with a type (e.g. "school" or 
"secondary_road") which then had properties (ref=B1302, name=High 
Street), we'd spend less time arguing about it an more getting on with 
the job. Not that I'm proposing we change it now, BTW.

I think you just need to accept this is the wording people have come up 
with and get on with the job, and stop agonising about it.

I'm sure in due course we'll get language specific ways of adding data, 
in which case the underlying name of the tag will be irrelevant anyway.

David

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

Re: [OSM-talk] contours on main map

[Andy Allan]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Robin Paulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/5/8 maning sambale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Please check out Andy's Cycle Map:
>  >  http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/osm/
>
>  yeah, i had a look at that first; i should have said i was after
>  worldwide coverage or at least nz. unfortunately, i don't live in
>  western europe

There's contours available elsewhere on the cycle map - parts of the
US, Canada, the Philippines and Sydney all have contours at the time
of writing - not just Western Europe. When cycle stuff appears
elsewhere it gets rendered and gets contours, but (thankfully) only a
small fraction of the world's surface gets rendered for the cycle map
at the moment otherwise everything would grind to a halt.

If you've got somewhere in particular that you want to see, let me
know. I won't be adding all of NZ if there's no cycle stuff there, but
if it's just your local area send me some links.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] golf course marking

[Erik Johansson]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:02 PM, David Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  I'm sure in due course we'll get language specific ways of adding data, in
> which case the underlying name of the tag will be irrelevant anyway.

I think we are stuck with highway forever, because everyone want
renderable maps now. So the first who adopt will always now how we did
it before, and hence want to use the same scheme, so they will use
highway=* and landuse=brownfield forever (another 7 years?).

Can this be solved be using the Wikipedia way with redirects, and
disambiguation's, if we had that I could[1] do this:
landuse=brownfield
#redirect[[landuse=Development & Demolition area]]

but I can't, because it  impossible to implement without a lot of
discussion and agonising.

[1] 
http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2008/04/in-soviet-russia-features-request-you.html


>  It really, really doesn't matter what the names of tags are for how the
> system works. They might as well be wibble=wobble for the difference it
> makes. They are useful as memory joggers, but really no more. So long as the
> meaning is understood (i.e. written down), just use it as defined and stop
> worrying about it.
> [...]
>  However, FWIW, brownfield and greenfield arose because they are widely used
> terms in the UK to describe land that is a target for builders to build on,
> [...]
>  And one of the Oxford English Dictionary definitions of highway is "Any
> track well-beaten or regularly traversed by animals or things" which sums it
> up pretty well IMO. (Another is "especially a main or principal road ...").
> [...]
>  I think you just need to accept this is the wording people have come up
> with and get on with the job, and stop agonising about it.

This is my agonising part, which you are free to ignore if you don't
agree with me to some part at least.

Try not to fall in the trap of being Commonwealth centric. Tags,
words, language are only what people think they are, the definition is
only secondary. You wont start thinking northen cyprus is Turkish just
because all street names have been such in the last 30 years. Do you
understand why people (as in I) can misunderstand things?


> Personally I think the attempts to group tags causes more arguments
> than it is worth

It's wonderful when you are mapping, do you have any better idea on
how to learn while you are tagging?


[1] 
http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2008/04/in-soviet-russia-features-request-you.html

/Erik

PS Andy there is no better alternative to highway, and it was a lot
better than what we had. DS

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

Re: [OSM-talk] golf course marking

[Robin Paulson]

2008/5/8 David Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It really, really doesn't matter what the names of tags are for how the
> system works. They might as well be wibble=wobble for the difference it
> makes. They are useful as memory joggers, but really no more. So long as
> the meaning is understood (i.e. written down), just use it as defined
> and stop worrying about it.

no, it does matter. if all we want is pretty pictures, it doesn't
matter. however, if we want to encourage using osm for something more
innovative than just finding the shortest way from A to B (i would
hope we do, and hope that most mappers here have more imagination than
just wanting that), then grouping the tags in a hierarchy makes
extracting data so much easier

for example:
a geographer may want to compare areas of water in certain
countries/provinces/whatever.
great, they can do that with osm. extract all the water areas in a
given bounding box and away you go. but no, not so obvious, because
water isn't grouped under one tag, it's under several, so they have to
trawl through hundreds of tags to find all those that relate to water;
waterway=*
landuse=reservoir
natural=water
not all of which are particularly intuitive to find
(landuse=reservoir, who would think of looking for that?)

or someone wants to find the length of all roads in a given area:
as it is, this is pretty easy; they just need to find the length of
all ways tagged highway=*

now imagine they're not grouped hierarchically, but are called wibble.
and bugrit. and cabbage. and a heap of other random names (but all
well documented!). not so easy/intuitive now, is it? again, we expect
them to sift through hundreds of tags to find the ones related to what
they want, because no-one thought of logically grouping them

yes, data should be as easy as possible to enter - mappers are the key
element to osm. but there's no reason we can't make the data easy to
extract/use as well, and if we make the data hard to use, no-one will
want to use it

> However, FWIW, brownfield and greenfield arose because they are widely
> used terms in the UK to describe land that is a target for builders to
> build on, either previous developed or undeveloped land respectively.
> They're in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownfield_land and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenfield_land
>
> And one of the Oxford English Dictionary definitions of highway is "Any
> track well-beaten or regularly traversed by animals or things" which
> sums it up pretty well IMO. (Another is "especially a main or principal
> road ...").
>
> Personally I think the attempts to group tags causes more arguments than
> it is worth. If we had just objects with a type (e.g. "school" or
> "secondary_road") which then had properties (ref=B1302, name=High
> Street), we'd spend less time arguing about it an more getting on with
> the job. Not that I'm proposing we change it now, BTW.
>
> I think you just need to accept this is the wording people have come up
> with and get on with the job, and stop agonising about it.

accept? you mean, 'inertia rules'? nothing should change? i think
you're in the wrong place - osm was created precisely to change
things, to not accept the status quo.

i have a point, i'm going to argue it, until someone convinces me
otherwise, or accepts what i'm saying

and i don't "just need to accept" anything; don't be so damn arrogant

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

Re: [OSM-talk] golf course marking

[David Earl]

On 08/05/2008 12:52, Erik Johansson wrote:
> Try not to fall in the trap of being Commonwealth centric. Tags,
> words, language are only what people think they are, the definition is
> only secondary. You wont start thinking northen cyprus is Turkish just
> because all street names have been such in the last 30 years. Do you
> understand why people (as in I) can misunderstand things?
> 
> 
>> Personally I think the attempts to group tags causes more arguments
>> than it is worth
> 
> It's wonderful when you are mapping, do you have any better idea on
> how to learn while you are tagging?

I appreciate there are language difficulties, and that the tagging 
scheme is not language (or culture) neutral. If it was up to me and we 
weren't starting from where we are now, I think I would make the 
properties numeric and have a level of indirection so that the human 
readable versions can be translated and set according to your language, 
culture and whim. But we are where we are, and it would be a massive 
distraction to change the method now. (We could build translations on 
top of what's there now though).

However, if you think about them like you might a barcode, for example, 
that is just as an identifier which has no particular intrinsic meaning, 
and use the definitions on the Map_features page for the meaning, then 
you should stand a better change of getting it right (OK, I'll sidestep 
the issue of what "right" is in our anarchic world as that's a different 
discussion).

If you want to apply tags, you really, really must read the Map_features 
page: you wouldn't try to do other complicated activities before 
learning how to first. Ignore the tag-name words, just think of them as 
meaningless identifiers until you learn the associations of the 
identifiers with the meaning. If the definition itself isn't clear, then 
we should correct it.

If it bothers you so much that an identifier has an intrinsic meaning 
for you rather than just as a memory jogger, then why not help by 
contributing a method for translation rather than try to change a 
specific identifiers from one language and culturally slanted form to 
another.

David


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

[OSM-talk] Large river proposal open for voting was rendering of large rivers

[David Groom]

There has not been any recent discussion of the proposal for large rivers, 
so I have asked for voting on the proposal as outlined at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Large_rivers

David



- Original Message - 
From: "Chris Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] rendering of large rivers


>I have tagged the rivers Trent and Ouse which merge into the Humber estuary 
>to get it to render and be consistently tagged.  I tried a few schemes and 
>got advice from others, especially David Groom.  I broke up the river into 
>chunks.  I tagged the banks of these chunks as waterway=riverbank and 
>natural=water.  I tagged the islands in the same way.  I then created a 
>multipolygon relation to place the islands in the river.  I had to get the 
>direction of the way right to persuade the multipolygon relation to work. 
>Near the mouth of the river a chunk of coastline extends into the river.
>
> You can see the result at 
> http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=53.70&lon=-0.599&zoom=12
>
> cheers, Chris
>
>
>>
>> What is the best way to get large rivers rendered properly for now?
>>
>> Thanks for your help ...
>> Ulf
>>
>> -- 
>> Ulf Mehlig
>> ---
>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>  __
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
> A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
>
>
> ___
> 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 of jogging tracks

[Inge Wallin]

How should I tag a track in the woods that are designated for exercise like 
walking or jogging?  I tried to read the page Map_Features in the wiki, but 
didn't really get much help.

All the values for the 'sport' key are just applied to nodes and areas, not 
ways. The same goes for the 'leisure' tag. 

A combination that I can imagine is:
  highway=footway
  leisure=jogging
but how would that be rendered?  Another option is highway=track.

The area in question is 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=58.5098&lon=15.5168&zoom=14&layers=B0FT , 
i.e. the exercise area northeast of Ljungsbro in Sweden.  These things are 
quite common here in Sweden, so I imagine that I won't be alone in my 
question about how to tag this.

-Inge


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

Re: [OSM-talk] golf course marking

[elvin ibbotson]

IMO highway is fine. In Britain, at least, the term highway includes  
much more than just roads as I found out to my cost when I advised a  
client that his extension would not need planning permission, not  
being close to a highway. I was thinking highway=road but  
highway=footway is also true in British law and he did need  
permission :-(




From: "Andy Robinson \(blackadder-lists\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 8 May 2008 11:56:25 BDT
To: "'Robin Paulson'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Erik Johansson'"  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] golf course marking


Robin Paulson wrote:

...
yes, it is a strange choice. it leads to irrationalities like
highway=footway and highway=cycleway
why we're not using right_of_way=motorway|primary|cycleway|footway|
and so on, i don't know


It's entirely my fault that we have highway=

The reasoning at the time was that I wanted to group similar  
features and
where possible use "way" at the end as that was the common  
denominator for
all of the generic "types" I was thinking about. If I had picked  
"roadway" I

felt using it to describe a footpath might be less than intuitive for
instance. So highway it became (very much thinking of highways and  
byways at

the time).

As Richard has pointed out, the Right of Way over a particular  
route is an
entirely different matter and one that is best avoided unless we  
truly do

know the legal situation.

Cheers

Andy



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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.10/1421 - Release Date:
07/05/2008 5:23 PM






___
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 of jogging tracks

[Andy Allan]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Inge Wallin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How should I tag a track in the woods that are designated for exercise like
>  walking or jogging?  I tried to read the page Map_Features in the wiki, but
>  didn't really get much help.
>
>  All the values for the 'sport' key are just applied to nodes and areas, not
>  ways. The same goes for the 'leisure' tag.
>
>  A combination that I can imagine is:
>   highway=footway
>   leisure=jogging
>  but how would that be rendered?  Another option is highway=track.

I would say highway = footway, sport = jogging - don't worry about the
sport key only being for nodes and areas - think of it more as "only
nodes and areas until now" !

But really, anything that makes sense to you, and that's similar to
stuff there already should be fine.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] golf course marking

[Erik Johansson]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM, David Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But we are where we are,
> and it would be a massive distraction to change the method
> now. (We could build translations on top of what's there now though).
[..]
>  If you want to apply tags, you really, really must read the Map_features
> page: you wouldn't try to do other complicated activities before learning
> how to first. Ignore the tag-name words, just think of them as meaningless
> identifiers until you learn the associations of the identifiers with the
> meaning. If the definition itself isn't clear, then we should correct it.

So just have the server give an error on
landuse=brownfield
and return multiple suggestions
* landuse=Vast areas of grass
* landuse=Development & Demolition

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

Re: [OSM-talk] golf course marking

[David Earl]

On 08/05/2008 13:04, Robin Paulson wrote:
> 2008/5/8 David Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> It really, really doesn't matter what the names of tags are for how the
>> system works. They might as well be wibble=wobble for the difference it
>> makes. They are useful as memory joggers, but really no more. So long as
>> the meaning is understood (i.e. written down), just use it as defined
>> and stop worrying about it.
> 
> no, it does matter. if all we want is pretty pictures, it doesn't
> matter. however, if we want to encourage using osm for something more
> innovative than just finding the shortest way from A to B (i would
> hope we do, and hope that most mappers here have more imagination than
> just wanting that), then grouping the tags in a hierarchy makes
> extracting data so much easier

I think you missed my point, which was that the actual _words_ we use 
for the tags don't matter, not that they aren't consistent.

However, the endless arguments about which category something should go 
in make what you're saying unlikely to be effective IMO, especially 
where categories collide (ford and level crossing being two obvious 
examples).

If we're serious about categorisation for this kind of use (and I quite 
agree that it is a good use of data), then the categories to which 
something belongs ought to be properties, as something will often belong 
to more than one category. For example, the building outline of a 
railway station may well want to belong to the "significant building" 
and "railway infrastructure" groupings. Maybe also to the "listed 
buildings" category.

>> I think you just need to accept this is the wording people have come up
>> with and get on with the job, and stop agonising about it.
> 
> accept? you mean, 'inertia rules'? nothing should change? i think
> you're in the wrong place - osm was created precisely to change
> things, to not accept the status quo.
> 
> i have a point, i'm going to argue it, until someone convinces me
> otherwise, or accepts what i'm saying

This debate has been going on for the whole two years I've been mapping. 
We go round and round. Empirical evidence suggests that arguing about it 
isn't going to change anything, only actually doing it.

> and i don't "just need to accept" anything; don't be so damn arrogant

Sigh. Let me be more explicit: "accept it until the system is changed to 
to use some other mechanism". I'd love to see the system changed to be 
more neutral as I have said several times in this discussion, but it 
isn't going to happen any time soon because we have a huge investment in 
what is already there and it would all have to change at once.

David

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM XAPI - help!

[elvin ibbotson]

From: Steven te Brinke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 8 May 2008 11:31:43 BDT
To: elvin ibbotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM XAPI - help!


Delivering data as an attachment is just adding one header to tell  
the browser that it should present it as an attachment to the user.  
Thus the content is the same as if it wasn't an attachment. The php  
function file() works fine, as should any other function.


This doesn't seem to be what's happening here. There is a header  
indicating the data is included in an attachment:

Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=data.osm
The html file itself does not include the OSM data, just some stuff  
about the parameters of the call, copyright, etc.
If I call the xapi script using a browser it downloads the data.osm  
file but if it is called from my own PHP script (on my server) I just  
get the html file and not the data file.


elvin





Steven


elvin ibbotson schreef:


I am making this request here because I am not sure who looks  
after the xapi code. I have posted a question on the xapi talk  
page on the wiki but it may not get noticed.


I am using my limited skills as a PHP novice to access subsets of  
data via xapi for conversion to a compact binary format, but the  
query format (eg. osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.5/way 
[highway=motorway|trunk][bbox=] delivers the data as an  
attachment (data.osm) and I do not know how to access this using  
PHP. My script is derived from those by Adam Boardman and Paul Fox  
for the binary data proposal which use the OSM API and expect the  
XML data to be in the body of the HTML rather than as an attached  
file. But the standard API is limited to 0.25 degrees and does not  
allow the content filtering offered by xapi. I would appreciate  
some advice from the xapi expert(s) on how to...


get the data bundled into the body or...

tell xapi where to save the data file attachment or...

save/open/read the data file using PHP

elvin ibbotson



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of jogging tracks

[Michael Collinson]

At 02:23 PM 5/8/2008, Inge Wallin wrote:
>How should I tag a track in the woods that are designated for exercise like
>walking or jogging?  I tried to read the page Map_Features in the wiki, but
>didn't really get much help.
>
>All the values for the 'sport' key are just applied to nodes and areas, not
>ways. The same goes for the 'leisure' tag.
>
>A combination that I can imagine is:
>   highway=footway
>   leisure=jogging
>but how would that be rendered?  Another option is highway=track.
>
>The area in question is
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=58.5098&lon=15.5168&zoom=14&layers=B0FT ,
>i.e. the exercise area northeast of Ljungsbro in Sweden.  These things are
>quite common here in Sweden, so I imagine that I won't be alone in my
>question about how to tag this.

This is a "Motionspår" area with several short to 
medium length tracks aimed individually at 
joggers/runners, health walkers, mountain bikers 
and sometimes cross-country skiers, often with 
way-markers showing the sport?  There is really 
nothing similar in the UK so it needs a bit of new creativity.

I suggest extending the sport= tag to ways as you 
describe (that is what I do now):

highway=footway
sport=jogging

To show up on the map right now, I do this:

highway=footway
sport=jogging
name=jogging track

(Sorry, my Swedish does not yet extend to 
"jogging track"!).  I leave the name in lower 
case to distinguish it from "real" names.

Else, you need to propose a specific set of 
Motionspår sport names and how they'd be rendered 
when encountered. May be a bit complicated for now?

Mike






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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of jogging tracks

[Inge Wallin]

On Thursday 08 May 2008 15:17:31 Michael Collinson wrote:
> At 02:23 PM 5/8/2008, Inge Wallin wrote:

> This is a "Motionspår" area with several short to
> medium length tracks aimed individually at
> joggers/runners, health walkers, mountain bikers
> and sometimes cross-country skiers, often with
> way-markers showing the sport?  There is really
> nothing similar in the UK so it needs a bit of new creativity.

Yes, that is indeed what it is. I haven't tracked it yet, but there is also a 
mountain bike track in that area.  I suppose that should be tagged:

  highway=cycleway
  sport=mountainbike

Except...  these are not really ways at all, but narrow tracks through the 
woods that are not suitable for anything really, except mountainbiking. In 
fact, they are narrower and worse than the highway=footway that I have 
tracked so far, because they are also full of roots and stones.

> I suggest extending the sport= tag to ways as you
> describe (that is what I do now):
>
> highway=footway
> sport=jogging
>
> To show up on the map right now, I do this:
>
> highway=footway
> sport=jogging
> name=jogging track

And moreover, there is a standardized color coding for the length of a track 
so that red=2.5km, yellow=5km, and so on.  On the rendered map, I'd really 
love to have a red square rotated 45 degrees so that it's standing on one of 
the corners to mark the short track and a yellow one for the 5 km (shown on 
the map in the link right now).

Sometimes they use common segments, so that a tagging like

  length=2.5km;5km could be used.

Map renderer developers: pleeease??  :-)

> (Sorry, my Swedish does not yet extend to
> "jogging track"!).  I leave the name in lower
> case to distinguish it from "real" names.
>
> Else, you need to propose a specific set of
> Motionspår sport names and how they'd be rendered
> when encountered. May be a bit complicated for now?

I think sport=jogging and/or sport=mtb or moutainbike is good enough for now.  
It's just that the map renderers need to be enhanced too, otherway the tags 
are useless.

Thanks for the input

-Inge

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM XAPI - help!

[Christopher Schmidt]

On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 02:15:44PM +0100, elvin ibbotson wrote:
> 
> 
> >From: Steven te Brinke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Date: 8 May 2008 11:31:43 BDT
> >To: elvin ibbotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM XAPI - help!
> >
> >
> >Delivering data as an attachment is just adding one header to tell  
> >the browser that it should present it as an attachment to the user.  
> >Thus the content is the same as if it wasn't an attachment. The php  
> >function file() works fine, as should any other function.
> 
> This doesn't seem to be what's happening here. There is a header  
> indicating the data is included in an attachment:
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=data.osm

That's just a header. It doesn't mean anything.

> The html file itself does not include the OSM data, just some stuff  
> about the parameters of the call, copyright, etc.
> If I call the xapi script using a browser it downloads the data.osm  
> file but if it is called from my own PHP script (on my server) I just  
> get the html file and not the data file.

There is no "HTML file". What you're probably getting is the XML header,
which is delivered immediately, and your connection is timing out before
you load the rest of the data: osmxapi delivers a header immediately,
and then delivers the rest of the data as it becomes available.

I would investigate the timeouts on the connection mechanism you're
using. 

Regards,
-- 
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta

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

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

[Alex L. Mauer]

Steve Hill wrote:
> It seems to me that instead of referring to a crossing by name, we should 
> just list its properties.  e.g. something like:
> 
> highway=crossing
> crossing=uncontrolled|traffic_signals
> island=yes|no
> bicycle=yes|no
> foot=yes|no
> horse=yes|no

+1.  This is almost exactly what the over-ridden proposal says

-- 
Bad - You get pulled over for doing 90 in a school zone and you're drunk
off your ass again at three in the afternoon.
Worse - The cop is drunk too, and he's a mean drunk.
FUCK! - A mean drunk that's actually a swarm of semi-sentient
flesh-eating beetles.
OpenPGP key id: 51192FF2 @ subkeys.pgp.net



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

Re: [OSM-talk] tagging suitability for use by race bikes to roads

[Ari Torhamo]

ke, 2008-05-07 kello 22:35 +0100, Chris Hill kirjoitti:

> The options suggested were Excellent, Good, Poor and Avoid, so Good
> and Poor are adjacent options and so if a road is not quite "Good" it
> must be "Poor". 

OK, sorry, I missed that one. But as you too seem to indicate, "poor"
and "good" are perhaps too far away from each other to be used as
adjacent grades. Also, although my English may fail me, a road that
would be tagged as "poor" for racing bicycles, would be "avoided" by
most riders.
 
> > Grading
> > probably works better, when its mostly done by people who know the
> > subject well - as I guess would be the case here. Anyway, for grading to
> > work, good guidelines would be a must.
> >   
> My measure of a good tagging system is that it is described well
> enough that you don't need to be an expert to tag correctly. 

I think saying "tag correctly" in context of gradings is... well, a
nice idea. The probelm is easy to see when you look at the tagging
instructions for "tracktype"; my grade2 might be your grade3, or your
grade4 might be my grade5.

People who would do the tagging for racing bikes would be those who
ride, or have ridden such a bike themselves (those would be the
experts), or who are otherwise involved, like who go to see
competitions, have a friend or family member who rides a racing bicycle,
etc. (those would be the people who know the subject well). I really
can't see other people being interested. There might be a warning
"Don't do this unless you know what you are doing" in the tagging
instructions to give us the final peace of mind.

When I think of it, why categorically restrict grading only to features
that everybody can grade (relatively) "correctly" after just having a
look at the tagging description? Quickly thinking this seems to me like
an unnecessary limitation to OSM. If a tag that requires more knowledge
would be usefull for a certaing group of users, why not let it to be
used? Everybody doesn't *have to* tag anything. Again, an appropriate
warning of the required level of knowledge might be used in the
instruction. Or maybe I have missed something :-)

Cheers,

Ari Torhamo


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

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

[Brian Quinion]

>  > highway=crossing
>  > crossing=uncontrolled|traffic_signals
>  > island=yes|no
>  > bicycle=yes|no
>  > foot=yes|no
>  > horse=yes|no
>  +1.  This is almost exactly what the over-ridden proposal says

I like this - but would suggest a small change:

highway=crossing
crossing=zebra|toucan|pelican|...
crossingcontrol=no|uncontrolled|traffic_signals
island=yes|no
bicycle=yes|no
foot=yes|no
horse=yes|no

Where crossing=zebra is explicitly defined (on the wiki?) as a short cut for:

highway=crossing
crossingcontrol=uncontrolled
foot=yes
horse=no

(and any other usage of crossing= is similarly defined).  The short
cut is overridden by any of the more specific properties so:

crossing=zebra
horse=yes

Would be a normal zebra crossing which horses are allowed to use.

My feeling is this leaves lots of room for future expansion without
breaking backwards compatibility with most of the existing data.
What do people think?

--
 Brian

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM XAPI - help!

[elvin ibbotson]

Thanks, Christopher!

A quick test with a longer timeout indicates that it should work. I'm  
now able to read at least some data :-)


elvin ibbotson

On 8 May 2008, at 14:30, Christopher Schmidt wrote:


On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 02:15:44PM +0100, elvin ibbotson wrote:




From: Steven te Brinke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 8 May 2008 11:31:43 BDT
To: elvin ibbotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM XAPI - help!


Delivering data as an attachment is just adding one header to tell
the browser that it should present it as an attachment to the user.
Thus the content is the same as if it wasn't an attachment. The php
function file() works fine, as should any other function.


This doesn't seem to be what's happening here. There is a header
indicating the data is included in an attachment:
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=data.osm


That's just a header. It doesn't mean anything.


The html file itself does not include the OSM data, just some stuff
about the parameters of the call, copyright, etc.
If I call the xapi script using a browser it downloads the data.osm
file but if it is called from my own PHP script (on my server) I just
get the html file and not the data file.


There is no "HTML file". What you're probably getting is the XML  
header,
which is delivered immediately, and your connection is timing out  
before

you load the rest of the data: osmxapi delivers a header immediately,
and then delivers the rest of the data as it becomes available.

I would investigate the timeouts on the connection mechanism you're
using.

Regards,
--
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Overhaul of voting process

[Alex Mauer]

Stephen Gower wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:01:33AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>   That sounds eminently sensible, and in general I agree with your
>   proposals.  For those who think the RFC/vote process represents the
>   consensus on how things should be done, what needs to happen to
>   change that process?

I agree as well.  To change the process (IMO):
1. Tagwatch must cover the entire planet.
2. A method must be found for the wiki to remain up-to-date with
tagwatch (that is, a Key:* page with an == heading of "Values", and one
=== heading within it for each value in Tagwatch.)
3. For tags which require context (i.e. another tag on the item in 
question) to make sense, it should be possible to link to their specific 
meaning from Tagwatch.

 From this, a new tagging guide (How to tag: Roads, paths/trails, 
waterways, railroads, buildings, ski areas) can be built, presumably 
using categories.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of jogging tracks

[Alex Mauer]

Inge Wallin wrote:
> 
> Yes, that is indeed what it is. I haven't tracked it yet, but there is also a 
> mountain bike track in that area.  I suppose that should be tagged:
> 
>   highway=cycleway
>   sport=mountainbike
> 
> Except...  these are not really ways at all, but narrow tracks through the 
> woods that are not suitable for anything really, except mountainbiking. In 
> fact, they are narrower and worse than the highway=footway that I have 
> tracked so far, because they are also full of roots and stones.

I see no reason that mountain bike trails should not be mapped.  It's OK 
if they're not rendered on the main map, or not differentiated from 
cycleways suitable for road bikes.

> And moreover, there is a standardized color coding for the length of a track 
> so that red=2.5km, yellow=5km, and so on.  On the rendered map, I'd really 
> love to have a red square rotated 45 degrees so that it's standing on one of 
> the corners to mark the short track and a yellow one for the 5 km (shown on 
> the map in the link right now).
> 
> Map renderer developers: pleeease??  :-)

IMO these specialized track categories don't need to have more detail on 
the main map.  Someone creating a map of that exercise area perhaps 
could do that though, so tagging the color codes would probably be good.

> I think sport=jogging and/or sport=mtb or moutainbike is good enough for now. 
>  
> It's just that the map renderers need to be enhanced too, otherway the tags 
> are useless.

Adding highway=cycleway would be good as well.  The tags aren't useless 
though, even if they're not rendered on the main map.   A map such as 
the OSM cyclemap (http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/osm/) might need to have 
the differentiation between a mountain bike cycleway and a 
general-purpose/road bike cycleway.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Large river proposal open for voting was rendering of large rivers

[Ari Torhamo]

to, 2008-05-08 kello 13:23 +0100, David Groom kirjoitti:
> There has not been any recent discussion of the proposal for large rivers, 
> so I have asked for voting on the proposal as outlined at 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Large_rivers
> 
> David

How about using the word "island" for islands, instead of "inner". It
would be easier for non-techie people to understand and remember, and it
probably would be the same for the system (?). Perhaps there would be no
need for the "outer" at all, because "waterway=riverbank" implies this
already. Newbie-thoughts...

Ari Torhamo

P.S. Didn't want comment the proposal directly, because my suggestion
may be complitely unusable.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Overhaul of voting process

[Gervase Markham]

Christoph Eckert wrote:
> IMO map features should be built on top of tagwatch. This way tagging 
> recommendations would be built on top what's actually used. Much more 
> democratic than the current process IMO :) .

Tagwatch tells you what is. It cannot by itself tell you what should be. 
It could be that everyone is using a particular tag for some feature, 
but that tag nevertheless has problems. It may also, as Robin points 
out, show you that 50% of people are using one tag, and 50% are using 
another. What then?

Lastly, it cannot tell you if 50% of people are using foo=bar to mean 
one thing, and the other 50% are using it to mean something else. Tags 
do not contain all of their semantics in their names.

Gerv


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

[OSM-talk] TIGER mapping party

[SteveC]

I and others have been doing a lot of fixing of TIGER data all over  
the US. There is still a lot to do and Richard has added some really  
useful features to potlatch to speed it up.

I was thinking of running a TIGER mapping party. Basically just all  
sit in a room fixing up TIGER and chatting, maybe beer and pizza  
provided. People could also participate remotely.

Thoughts?

Best

Steve


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Overhaul of voting process

[Alex Mauer]

Gervase Markham wrote:
> Lastly, it cannot tell you if 50% of people are using foo=bar to mean 
> one thing, and the other 50% are using it to mean something else. Tags 
> do not contain all of their semantics in their names.

It also can't tell you when different tags mean the same thing.  If 50% 
are tagging "leisure=foo" and the other 50% are using "sport=foo", 
tagwatch can't provide any indication of that.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Large river proposal open for voting was rendering of large rivers

[Chris Hill]

The names 'inner' and 'outer' are part of the multipolygon relation which can 
be used for any area within another area.  Maybe 'island' is a useful alias for 
the inner polygon.

 cheers, Chris


- Original Message 
> From: Ari Torhamo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Sent: Thursday, 8 May, 2008 5:05:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Large river proposal open for voting was rendering of 
> large rivers
> 
> to, 2008-05-08 kello 13:23 +0100, David Groom kirjoitti:
> > There has not been any recent discussion of the proposal for large rivers, 
> > so I have asked for voting on the proposal as outlined at 
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Large_rivers
> > 
> > David
> 
> How about using the word "island" for islands, instead of "inner". It
> would be easier for non-techie people to understand and remember, and it
> probably would be the same for the system (?). Perhaps there would be no
> need for the "outer" at all, because "waterway=riverbank" implies this
> already. Newbie-thoughts...
> 
> Ari Torhamo
> 
> P.S. Didn't want comment the proposal directly, because my suggestion
> may be complitely unusable.
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk



  __
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html


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

[OSM-talk] Legend (was: Re: Tagging of jogging tracks)

[Guilhem Bonnefille]

2008/5/8 Inge Wallin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The area in question is
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=58.5098&lon=15.5168&zoom=14&layers=B0FT ,

Looking at this area, I have a question: is it planned to add a legend
on the "View" tab?
The legend can be really simple, but it is needed now:
- what mean blue dotted line?
- what mean red dotted line?
- ...

-- 
Guilhem BONNEFILLE
-=- #UIN: 15146515 JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-=- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-=- http://nathguil.free.fr/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Legend (was: Re: Tagging of jogging tracks)

[Dirk-Lüder Kreie]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Guilhem Bonnefille schrieb:
> 2008/5/8 Inge Wallin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The area in question is
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=58.5098&lon=15.5168&zoom=14&layers=B0FT ,
> 
> Looking at this area, I have a question: is it planned to add a legend
> on the "View" tab?
> The legend can be really simple, but it is needed now:
> - what mean blue dotted line?
> - what mean red dotted line?
> - ...
> 
you mean a map key? (which is already there, but I'm not sure how complete)

- --

Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie
Bremen - 53.0952°N 8.8652°E

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFII0F2FUbODdpRVDwRAmugAJsHHHyMit9/Cjf3v9DXxU/9FW8g1QCfRIIv
YZkSwJqV2ubXopIynuQFh4o=
=48FO
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] tagging suitability for use by race bikes to roads

[gr_osm]

OJ W wrote:
> How about this discussion...
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Routing_profiles
>
>
> I tried some bike routing with pyroute and it seemed fairly happy
> choosing residential roads around town.  The only real change for
> fragile bikes would be that it's difficult to tell whether
> "highway=cycleway" is a suitable route.
>
> Perhaps we could start by saying that highway=cycleway is only
> routeable by road bikes if it also contains surface=sealed or
> surface=tarmac.
>   

Oh, i missed that discussion on routing profiles ...

The remark of Sven Anders shows that you can't simply derive the cycle 
quality from given structural properties of the road. However, the 
heuristics you propose will produce good results in many cases, but there 
is no way to tweak it, when it does not.
 
The cycle quality of a road is highly subjective. And racing bike quality 
maybe something else than commuter bike quality.

But if you ask a racing bike user, he can certainly tell you, if a street 
he rode was good or even excellent, or if he didn't liked it (=poor) or if 
he feared for his life (=avoid).


I belive that there is no need for a finer grade scale. If you plan a route 
you will try to use good or excellent roads. Poor road will only be used to 
get from one good road to another good one.


In the other mails in this thread it is discussed, if tagging racing bike 
quality can be done by everyone. (so far as i understood the mails).


I belive that only people who are aware of the special needs of road racers 
can tag racing bike quality "correctly". But those people will also be the 
only users of that information!

Ari wrote:
> When I think of it, why categorically restrict grading only to features
> that everybody can grade (relatively) "correctly" after just having a
> look at the tagging description? Quickly thinking this seems to me like
> an unnecessary limitation to OSM. If a tag that requires more knowledge
> would be usefull for a certaing group of users, why not let it to be
> used? Everybody doesn't *have to* tag anything. Again, an appropriate
> warning of the required level of knowledge might be used in the
> instruction.

Will tagging the special needs of a small group of users be ok for the osm 
community, or will my racing bike tags be removed by someone else?

Regards
  Gerriet

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of jogging tracks

[Karl Eichwalder]

Alex Mauer schrieb:

> Adding highway=cycleway would be good as well.

I do not know what you actually want to do, but this sounds kind
of dangerous.  By all means, do not misuse keywords introduced
and well established for different purposes.  Always try to tag
in a backwards compatible manner.

highway=cycleway is in use for... cycleways.

> The tags aren't useless
> though, even if they're not rendered on the main map.   A map such as
> the OSM cyclemap (http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/osm/) might need to have
> the differentiation between a mountain bike cycleway and a
> general-purpose/road bike cycleway.

highway=cycleway is already rendered, though.  If you use the same
tagging for a mountain bike "cycleway", confusion is guaranteed ;)
Avoid hijacking ;)

-- 
Karl Eichwalder


___
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?

[Axel von Matern]

If you could do this, OSM would truely shine! It would be extremely  
powerful mapping tool! I know I would use it alot!

- The possibility to be able to choose what data renders at any zoom  
level would be my number one feature!
-  Saving your settings would be very important. Possibly multple  
settings for different projects.
- A live rendering feature (like the map featuer illustrations) would  
be great too. Perhaps the possibility to choose from an dummy map with  
all features or an area of the real map...?

/Axel


25 apr 2008 kl. 13.03 skrev Nick Whitelegg:

> Hello everyone,
>
> One of the OSM projects I'm hoping to work on is a Mapnik GUI  
> renderer for
> .osm files (and live API data, cached locally, and PostGIS databases),
> based on the Mapnik viewer. However what would be good is to get  
> some user
> interface suggestions from people. The aim is to try and make it as  
> easy
> as possible for people to render, and print, custom Mapnik maps.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> ___
> 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 of jogging tracks

[Alex Mauer]

Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> Alex Mauer schrieb:
> 
> I do not know what you actually want to do, but this sounds kind
> of dangerous.  By all means, do not misuse keywords introduced
> and well established for different purposes.  Always try to tag
> in a backwards compatible manner.

> highway=cycleway is in use for... cycleways.

Yes, and?  A cycleway is a way intended for [bi]cycles.  Nothing about 
what type of bicycle.  From the wiki, 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway :

No two cyclists will ever agree what constitutes a good cycle route. 
Cyclists can seek out anything from only off-road routes to the quickest 
route on a multi-lane highway.

That sounds like a good description to me; and following it as I 
suggested on "short to medium length tracks aimed ... at ... mountain 
bikers ...often with way-markers showing the sport" only makes sense.

How you get "dangerous" or "not backwards-compatible" from that is 
beyond me.

> highway=cycleway is already rendered, though.  If you use the same
> tagging for a mountain bike "cycleway", confusion is guaranteed ;)
> Avoid hijacking ;)

It's not hijacking to use a tag as described.  No confusion should 
result.  The simple fact is that not all cycleways are created equal.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"


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

[OSM-talk] street directory from OSM data

[Stefan Zeller]

Hello,

I'm quite curious if there is already a possibility to generate a street
directory for a part of the OSM data in order to have a useful street
map of a city. Is it? I've looked a bit but I didn't find something.

If there is no such a program I'll going to program it. My idea is to
define a grid on a rectangle part of the OSM data (a city for example).
Then, with giving every box in the grid a tag (like on chess board),
just parse the OSM data and assign streets which are lying
geographically in a certain box to the tag of that box. As an
application, this directory could be printed next to a map. On that map,
sure, a layer with the grid must be printed.

What do you think?

cheers,
Stefan


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

Re: [OSM-talk] street directory from OSM data

[David Earl]

On 08/05/2008 20:47, Stefan Zeller wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm quite curious if there is already a possibility to generate a street
> directory for a part of the OSM data in order to have a useful street
> map of a city. Is it? I've looked a bit but I didn't find something.
> 
> If there is no such a program I'll going to program it. My idea is to
> define a grid on a rectangle part of the OSM data (a city for example).
> Then, with giving every box in the grid a tag (like on chess board),
> just parse the OSM data and assign streets which are lying
> geographically in a certain box to the tag of that box. As an
> application, this directory could be printed next to a map. On that map,
> sure, a layer with the grid must be printed.
> 
> What do you think?

My next intended step with namefinder is kind of like this. I plan to 
expose the names in the namefinder database in gazetteer pages. It would 
be a simple further step to limit the results to a bounding box.

Many of the problems you'd encounter in doing this would be the same 
ones I have already addressed, like the very large number of duplicate 
names.

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of jogging tracks

[Karl Eichwalder]

Inge Wallin schrieb:

> Yes, that is indeed what it is. I haven't tracked it yet, but there is
> also a
> mountain bike track in that area.  I suppose that should be tagged:
>
>   highway=cycleway
>   sport=mountainbike
>
> Except...  these are not really ways at all, but narrow tracks through the
> woods that are not suitable for anything really, except mountainbiking.

So go for highway=mtb_track, please.  Do not expect old renderers or routers
to know about the sport=mountainbike restriction with a sudden.

That's what I mean if I talk about tagging in a backwards compatible
manner.

-- 
Karl Eichwalder


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

Re: [OSM-talk] street directory from OSM data

[Florian Lohoff]

On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 09:10:04PM +0100, David Earl wrote:
> My next intended step with namefinder is kind of like this. I plan to 
> expose the names in the namefinder database in gazetteer pages. It would 
> be a simple further step to limit the results to a bounding box.
> 
> Many of the problems you'd encounter in doing this would be the same 
> ones I have already addressed, like the very large number of duplicate 
> names.

How would the link from Street to ZIP Code/City Name work? From what i
read there is currently no such link possible and its just a matter of
what is the nearest village/city/town.

How is this stored in other map databases e.g. commercial ones? Does
every path have an is_in equivalent link?

I mean every TomTom handheld device known which subset of streets to
search when entering a city name ...

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 of jogging tracks

[Simon Ward]

On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 10:24:43PM +0200, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> > mountain bike track in that area.  I suppose that should be tagged:
> >
> >   highway=cycleway
> >   sport=mountainbike
> >
> > Except...  these are not really ways at all, but narrow tracks through the
> > woods that are not suitable for anything really, except mountainbiking.
> 
> So go for highway=mtb_track, please.  Do not expect old renderers or routers
> to know about the sport=mountainbike restriction with a sudden.

Good parts of the national cycle network (often, but not always,
alternate routes) in the UK are tracks hardly suitable for road bikes.
They are still meant for bicycles.  The terrain or surface is what
changes, not whether it’s a designated cycle route, and routers and
renderers should be using the relevant tags to distinguish them and not
overloading the single highway key with a gazillion variants.

Routers and renderers written for OSM should also take into account that
by its very nature there is likely to be variance in the way things are
tagged, new ways of tagging things, old ways falling out of use.
Routing profiles and rendering styles can be customised, and updated as
OSM evolves.  The suggestion to avoid problems with old renderers or
routers is just another variant of tagging for the renderer.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


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

[OSM-talk] [tagging] vote requested - tag: opening_hours

[sergio sevillano]

voting is open
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Opening_Hours

thanks


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

Re: [OSM-talk] TIGER mapping party

[Richard Fairhurst]

SteveC wrote:

> I and others have been doing a lot of fixing of TIGER data all over
> the US.

Here's a very good example with before and after shots:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Bridger/diary/1550

cheers
Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of jogging tracks

[Alex Mauer]

Simon Ward wrote:
> Good parts of the national cycle network (often, but not always,
> alternate routes) in the UK are tracks hardly suitable for road bikes.
> They are still meant for bicycles.  

+1.  The same can be said for designated cycle routes in countries which 
don't even have a national cycle network.  Just because a route is not 
suitable for all bicycles doesn't mean it's not a designated cycle route.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of jogging tracks

[Karl Eichwalder]

Simon Ward schrieb:
> On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 10:24:43PM +0200, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
>> > mountain bike track in that area.  I suppose that should be tagged:
>> >
>> >   highway=cycleway
>> >   sport=mountainbike
>> >
>> > Except...  these are not really ways at all, but narrow tracks through
>> the
>> > woods that are not suitable for anything really, except
>> mountainbiking.
>>
>> So go for highway=mtb_track, please.  Do not expect old renderers or
>> routers
>> to know about the sport=mountainbike restriction with a sudden.
>
> Good parts of the national cycle network (often, but not always,
> alternate routes) in the UK are tracks hardly suitable for road bikes.
> They are still meant for bicycles.

Yes, I do not want to argue about it.  But this does not mean that
highway=cycleway is right tagging for all these different ways
that are parts of the cycle network.

Better use highway=track and the additional attributes listed by you.

> The suggestion to avoid problems with old renderers or
> routers is just another variant of tagging for the renderer.

No, not necessarily.

-- 
Karl Eichwalder


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of jogging tracks

[Martin Simon]

Am Donnerstag, 8. Mai 2008 23:15:17 schrieb Alex Mauer:
> Simon Ward wrote:
> > Good parts of the national cycle network (often, but not always,
> > alternate routes) in the UK are tracks hardly suitable for road bikes.
> > They are still meant for bicycles.
>
> +1.  The same can be said for designated cycle routes in countries which
> don't even have a national cycle network.  Just because a route is not
> suitable for all bicycles doesn't mean it's not a designated cycle route.
>
> -Alex Mauer "hawke"

I think there is some important difference between a designated cycleway and a 
cycle route.

Cycle routes often use residential roads, agricultural tracks, 
primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified roads and even footpaths.

But this does'nt make these ways designated cycleways(highway=cycleway).
Marking of *routes* is provided by e.g. Andy's Cycle Map, this has nothing to 
do with the type of the ways used by cycle routes, its what we have the route 
tags for.

Otherwise I would have had to retag about 10km of primary and secondary 
highways of a designated cycle route I tracked last weekend 
as "highway=cycleway"... ;-)

-Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] TIGER mapping party

[Jeffrey Martin]

Why are there so many problems with the TIGER data?

Where do the extra roads come from? Are they planned roads?

Will they be releasing new data? What happens then?

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 6:13 AM, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> SteveC wrote:
>
> > I and others have been doing a lot of fixing of TIGER data all over
> > the US.
>
> Here's a very good example with before and after shots:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Bridger/diary/1550
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of jogging tracks

[Alex Mauer]

Martin Simon wrote:
> Cycle routes often use residential roads, agricultural tracks, 
> primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified roads and even footpaths.

Of course.  Obviously not all designated cycle routes are primarily 
designed for bicycles.  My point was that poor physical condition of the 
surface of the route (possibly intentional in the case of a mountain 
biking route) cannot take away its designation as a route for bicycles.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Overhaul of voting process (was: Road crossings proposal - status?)

[Stephen Hope]

But what is a significant amount of use?  You can't just go on
numbers.  Based on the posts a month or so back about badly formed
tags, there are probably more misspelled versions of the main highway
tags than legitimate versions of many other tags.

I would, in fact, think that a well thought out tag that covers some
obscure feature that only occurs maybe a thousand times world wide,
and is currently only mapped 10 times is equally as valid in Map
Features as something that is found every few miles.  I want to go to
Map Features to look for that odd thing I've found, not have to hunt
through Map Features, then try the Proposed Tags as well.

Though I'd be happier to do that if somebody could come up with a
decent search on the wiki that only looked at the tags pages, not
everywhere else that something may have been mentioned, when I'm
trying to find what odd tags are being used for whatever I'm looking
for.

Stephen

2008/5/8 Celso González <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I agree with that, i think we still need the Proposed_Features just as a
> reference to clarify ideas and when a tag reaches a significant amount
> of use in Tagwatch move it to Map_Features.
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of jogging tracks

[Karl Eichwalder]

Alex Mauer schrieb:

> Of course.  Obviously not all designated cycle routes are primarily
> designed for bicycles.  My point was that poor physical condition of the
> surface of the route (possibly intentional in the case of a mountain
> biking route) cannot take away its designation as a route for bicycles.

Thanks good to hear, but different what you proposed in the beginning.
In the beginning you proposed to tag those highway=cycleway, where
obviously "highway=footway bicycle=yes" or "highway=track" would be
more appropriate.

Then put all these way into a cycle route relation and you are done.
The results will be nicely visible on Andy's cyclemap.

-- 
Karl Eichwalder


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Converting Polish/.MP to OSM?

[Simon Wood]

Well I've had a stab at this, probably the worlds worst python script but it 
does work

I included 'name', 'attribution', 'catmp-RoadRef', 'Garmin-Type' and 
'Garmin-RouteParam' tags where they exist in an attempt to make the nodes/ways 
trackable/managable with future updates. Is there anything else I should 
include before uploading any of this?

Attached is a small sample (if not email if you're interested in reviewing),
Cheers,
Mungewell.


On Mon, 5 May 2008 22:20:04 -0600
Simon Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi all,
> Is anyone working on any tools to facilitate the conversion of '.mp' to 
> '.osm'?
> 
> I have permission to import some footpaths/trails from this site:
> http://www.calgarycachers.net/trailmaps/maps.htm
> 
> I found this, but it seems limited to places and POI's.
> http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/utils/import/mp2osm/
> 


out.osm.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk