[OSM-talk] Partners sought for cycle routing project
The UK is also setting out on creating data for a cycle journey planner using a mixture of professionally and community collected data. A number of people with OSM experience were involved in setting the data standard and some good ideas from OSM have got into it and it will be reasonably straightforward to convert between the UK standard and the OSM model. Here are the standards docns if anyone is interested... http://kizoom.com/standards/cyclenet/schema/schemas.htm The way these things go is that within 12-24 months a CEN working party will be established to harmonise all the work being done locally across the EU with representation from a bunch of countries. Anyway I am interested in cycle routing and my company may be interested in participating. I also think the Department for Transport in the UK may also be interested in what is being proposed. Can I suggest you let your local people see the UK standards documents. Regards, Peter > Message: 9 > Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:32:39 +0100 > From: Tom Chance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Partners sought for cycle routing project > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Cc: Tom Chance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hi Frederik, > > Just quickly, I am interested and my employer - www.bioregional.com - > could be > a partner on the bid. We're using OSM as part of a municipality > sustainability project so this would be right up our street. I will talk > to > the council about getting them on board too. > > I've copied my work address in - on holiday today - so please reply to > that > address to take it further. > > Kind regards, > Tom > > > > On Sunday 11 May 2008 11:06:37 Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Hi, > > > >I have been approached by the city of Munich, who want to apply for > > an EU grant to set up and operate a good cycle routing platform based > > on OSM data. > > > > What they currently have is a platform that uses only their own data > > which they spent (and spend) a lot of time to create and maintain. > > They have basic road data and have manually added information about > > the safety, suitability, and "green-ness" of routes so that you can > > get a routing that matches your requirements. > > > > What they now intend to do is expand this to encompass the rural areas > > around Munich as well, while at the same time delegating the data > > maintenance to the community. Of course the whole thing will be > > developed in a way that can easily be used for any other place (a > > major selling point for an EU project). They also intend to create > > incentives and processes for citizens improve the data. > > > > This will probably start with finding out (from their previous > > experience) what data you need to do proper bike routing, and then > > analyzing in how far this is already present in OSM, and where not, > > create/improve tools for people to see where the data is missing and > > fix it. Then there'll be the development of the routing platform, > > perhaps based on pgrouting, and then they'll want to set up processes > > for people to work with the data, e.g. also have a feedback loop into > > the planning offices so that they know where bottlenecks are and so > > on. > > > > It is not yet exactly clear what the plan is, but they are really keen > > on not only taking OSM data but also working with the OSM community > > and feeding everything back to OSM. Munich has recently been in the > > press for ditching Windows and switching all of the administration IT > > over to Linux, so they're probably the largest public entity in > > Germany to have "seen the light" of free software (and free data now > > as well). > > > > They're looking at a project duration of up to three years, and want > > to request appropriate funding from the EU under the IEE programme > > which, among others, has funds available for increasing the use of > > cycling. > > > > The project application has all the right keywords to go down well > > with the EU (application deadline is 20th June, but the decision will > > only be made in late 2008), but there's one catch: Any successful EU > > project needs to have a number of partners in different EU countries, > > and that's why I am writing this post: Munich doesn't yet have enough > > partners to get this through. > > > > Possible partners include city or regional administrations, cycle > > associations, even commercial entities like publishers who have an > > interest. Munich would be the "project lead", doing the deals with the > > EU, but since the project isn't that specific yet, partners will > > certainly have a say and their wishes be accommodated. Partners will > > get their share of the money if the project is accepted, and will be > > expected to co-operate in finalizing the proposal. > > > > As an example, a good partner would be a city administration that > > wants to roll out cycle routing locally, o
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide "completeness" tools
>I get this same view. All too often I look at a place and think wow, that >looks complete, but when I drum down into the data a bit it its clear that >there are general gaps and the density of streets is not what you would >expect. That's why I was testing out a completeness metrics method. But I >agree with you, what we are really after hear is a simple way to convey a >level of map usefulness and relevance to the user. A bit of an aside, but I was thinking that a useyourpaths.info type approach might be useful for countryside mapping, to encourage the (it has to be said) rather slow takeup of countryside mappers into OSM. One could almost have a "league table" of counties/parishes/regions where people could be encouraged to map all their parish paths - for OSM/Freemap - and have their parish appear on the top of the league for their county. Comments? Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
>I've come across a problematic way near me: It is a reasonably wide >road, but the signs at each end say it is a bridleway. I would guess this is a service road (i.e. leads to a few private residences/farms etc) over which runs a bridleway. If this is the case I would tag as highway=service; foot=yes; horse=yes; bicycle=yes and maybe add motorcar=private though I don't really consider this essential. This tagging scheme indicates that foot,horse and bike have access over the service road which they don't have over all service roads. This will also allow the Freemap renderer to show the service road with the bridleway symbol (dashed red line) overlaid to indicate that you can walk/ride along the way. More info at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/UK_Countryside_mapping Nick Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
>It's not quite a 1:1 mapping - a UK bridleway also means "cycles >permitted by right" and a whole host of other stuff, so it's a >valuable piece of information in itself. >By all means tag the individual users (horse=yes, bicycle=yes, etc.), >but I'd consider the official bridleway status a useful, taggable fact >in itself. What I'd like to get some idea of is what people as a whole consider highway=bridleway on its own(with no foot/horse/etc tags added) to mean - do people on the whole consider this to be a public bridleway, or a permissive bridleway? On freemap I assume permissive unless foot/horse=yes is added, rather like highway=footway is assumed to be permissive (in view of the large number of permssive footways in towns). Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM Aware, the state of the current pheromones
http://skywave0.googlepages.com/osm-kml2.html?zoom=6&lat=46.43289&lon=1.51207&layers=B0T I hacked (changed one line ;) ) on an example provided by crschmidt. On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:38 PM, François Schnell < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks Tim for your feedback, I appreciate. > > Concerning "World Wind" it looks like you can visualize KML with > placemarks since version 1.3.4. I just had a quick try, it seems to work > fine for placemarks (but it doesn't seem to show the extrusion for lines in > my "v2" KMLs, just the top): > http://flickr.com/photos/frenchy/2490757820/ > > I've also heard Microsft's "Virtual Earth" supports KMLs now (but haven't > tried it). > It looks like KMLs are now spreading quickly since its 'Open Standard' > adoption: > > """ > The KML 2.2 specification has been submitted to the Open Geospatial > Consortium to assure its status as an open standard for all geobrowsers. As > of November 2007, the OGC has a new KML 2.2 Standards Working Group. > Comments were sought on the proposed standard until January 4, 2008,[1] and > it became an industry standard on April 14, 2008.[2] > """ > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyhole_Markup_Language > > That said I could try other formats like GeoRss and GML. > > """ as an overlay over existing osm maps? """ > > Yes that certainly would be nice :) > I'll look at it when I'll have some time for it (OpenLayers, > SlippyMap,...) > > Thanks > > francois > > > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:13 AM, tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > just thought this was a lovely, brilliant visualisation of osm usage. > > Well done, good work! > > > > Would love to see some of this in non-kml formats, somehow (google > > earth doesn't work well for me). Or on the web. > > (GeoRSS? GML? Worldwind? etc) > > > > as an overlay over existing osm maps? > > > > tim > > > > > ___ > 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 bridleways
Nick Whitelegg wrote: >Sent: 14 May 2008 9:40 AM >To: Richard Fairhurst >Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways > >>It's not quite a 1:1 mapping - a UK bridleway also means "cycles >>permitted by right" and a whole host of other stuff, so it's a >>valuable piece of information in itself. > >>By all means tag the individual users (horse=yes, bicycle=yes, etc.), >>but I'd consider the official bridleway status a useful, taggable fact >>in itself. > >What I'd like to get some idea of is what people as a whole consider >highway=bridleway on its own(with no foot/horse/etc tags added) to mean - >do people on the whole consider this to be a public bridleway, or a >permissive bridleway? On freemap I assume permissive unless foot/horse=yes >is added, rather like highway=footway is assumed to be permissive (in view >of the large number of permssive footways in towns). > I generally only use highway=bridleway when the signs at the end of the route say it's a public bridleway. Otherwise how would I know if it is or not. However if there is some indication that it's a route suitable for horse riders (eg an official looking horseshoe symbol) then I'll tag that as bridleway too unless a higher usage is allowed. Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain
Hi, As a not native english speaker, I'm looking for the difference between canal (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:waterway%3Dcanal) and drain (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:waterway%3Ddrain). By looking at the Map Features, there are nearly the same. Canal: An artificial open waterway used for transportation, waterpower, or irrigation Drain: An artificial waterway for carrying storm water or industrial discharge. Thanks for your help. Raphael ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] area topology
Stephen Gower schrieb: On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:31:32PM +0100, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote: I subscribe to the view that areas should correspond to the real area on the ground and mostly be kept clear of roadways. Placing an Area's Nodes near the adjacent Way's nodes helps make the map easier to maintain. I will often abut adjacent areas that are separated only by something thin and make their nodes share, however. Putting the other side of the argument, as Andrew I'm sure knew I would: [...] How about buildings that really are at the edge of a road? (No fence, no space). I'm afraid I can't show you a photo yet. Do they share nodes since the "buildings are the border of the road" or don't they share them since "you can't enter the building from any point of the road"? (The area I talk about is this one: http://informationfreeway.org/?lat=49.971764870557124&lon=9.161737364989326&zoom=17&layers=B000F000F and I know the buildings' shapes aren't correct but there are no Yahoo-Images for the city and I just did a quick run over the campus to get it mapped basically.) In this case I didn't share nodes to be able to edit the buildings without having to change the road every time (and to make the road have less nodes sind it really is 100% straight). Jannis 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] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain
Both are created by man. A canal is normally navigable and a drain is not. A canal is for carrying goods and people, a drain is for transporting water much like a river but the drain has been dug by man rather than nature. Drains can be anything from quite narrow watercourses to very large constructions depending on how much water they carry. Hope this helps. Cheers Andy >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:talk- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raphael Studer >Sent: 14 May 2008 12:01 PM >To: OSM Talk List >Subject: [OSM-talk] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain > >Hi, > >As a not native english speaker, I'm looking for the difference between >canal (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:waterway%3Dcanal) >and >drain (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:waterway%3Ddrain). > >By looking at the Map Features, there are nearly the same. > >Canal: An artificial open waterway used for transportation, >waterpower, or irrigation >Drain: An artificial waterway for carrying storm water or industrial >discharge. > > >Thanks for your help. > >Raphael > >___ >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: 269.23.16/1431 - Release Date: >13/05/2008 7:55 PM ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Fwd: Crowdsourcing
-- Forwarded message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:10 AM Subject: Crowdsourcing To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing Hi Etienne, it occurs to me you guys should be on this page! (Would have added it, but don't have an a/c and in a hurry) John ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain
Andy Robinson \(blackadder-lists\) wrote: > Both are created by man. A canal is normally navigable and a drain is not. A > canal is for carrying goods and people, a drain is for transporting water > much like a river but the drain has been dug by man rather than nature. Indeed. Sometimes drains, though built principally for irrigation/drainage, are later used for navigation as well - in the UK, the Middle Level (Cambridgeshire) and Witham Navigable Drains (Lincolnshire) are probably the two best examples. I'd tag these as waterway=drain, boat=yes. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Partners sought for cycle routing project
Hi, > The UK is also setting out on creating data for a cycle journey > planner > using a mixture of professionally and community collected data. So this is a government-funded project? > A number of people with OSM experience were involved in setting the > data > standard and some good ideas from OSM have got into it and it will be > reasonably straightforward to convert between the UK standard and > the OSM > model. This is interesting but I thought it very impressive of the Munich guys to actually embrace the OSM model and commit themselves to working with that, instead of creating *another* data model. I'd rather encourage them to go the OSM way than to do something else. Unfortunately they have just called me and said they won't make this year's deadline, so any results are even farther away than originally thought. Still, my inquiry has resulted in some very interesting feedback (including your message) and since this information wasn't available on the existing OSM lists before this leads me to think we might have use for an extra cycle-related mailing list? Unless there's a non-OSM list already that can be used? > I also think the Department for Transport in the UK may also be > interested > in what is being proposed. Can I suggest you let your local people > see the > UK standards documents. I'll do that definitely. But what exactly is the plan with the UK standard in relation to OSM data? Is the idea to create a complex model that uses different data sources without creating a "derived database"? 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] Partners sought for cycle routing project
On 14 May 2008, at 12:53, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > >> The UK is also setting out on creating data for a cycle journey >> planner >> using a mixture of professionally and community collected data. > > So this is a government-funded project? Looks like it is the department for Transport who are setting it up. Look at the bottom of the pages and you see "Crown Copyright", which basically means that it is the UK Government or one of their agencies. > > >> A number of people with OSM experience were involved in setting the >> data >> standard and some good ideas from OSM have got into it and it will be >> reasonably straightforward to convert between the UK standard and >> the OSM >> model. > > This is interesting but I thought it very impressive of the Munich > guys to actually embrace the OSM model and commit themselves to > working with that, instead of creating *another* data model. I'd > rather encourage them to go the OSM way than to do something else. > These proposals seems to be a way to represent a route from a to b. They already have "defacto standards" for defining a route on public transport, which is used by the UK journey planners. This basically extends it to cycling. > Unfortunately they have just called me and said they won't make this > year's deadline, so any results are even farther away than originally > thought. > > Still, my inquiry has resulted in some very interesting feedback > (including your message) and since this information wasn't available > on the existing OSM lists before this leads me to think we might have > use for an extra cycle-related mailing list? Unless there's a non-OSM > list already that can be used? > >> I also think the Department for Transport in the UK may also be >> interested >> in what is being proposed. Can I suggest you let your local people >> see the >> UK standards documents. > > I'll do that definitely. But what exactly is the plan with the UK > standard in relation to OSM data? Is the idea to create a complex > model that uses different data sources without creating a "derived > database"? From the site there is nothing that mentions osm. Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
On 14 May 2008, at 09:35, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > > and maybe add motorcar=private though I don't really consider this > essential. > I find it interesting that you use motorcar, as I generally just use car, as that is what I think is on the wiki (unless someone has decided to change it). Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain
> Both are created by man. A canal is normally navigable and a drain is not. A > canal is for carrying goods and people, a drain is for transporting water > much like a river but the drain has been dug by man rather than nature. > Drains can be anything from quite narrow watercourses to very large > constructions depending on how much water they carry. So first criteria would be: a man made waterway, secondary: navigable (so it would be a question of size of canal and/or bridges). If thats correct, I'd like if someone with a good english could add this hint on the Map_Features page. Regards, Raphael ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Bridge proposal
Raphael Studer wrote: > Does someone care about this proposal? Yes, sorry, I'll move it to a vote RSN. Although I'd kind of given up on the whole voting system, given the antipathy towards it (and, in fact, towards any form of authority) in certain quarters. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] area topology
Jannis Achstetter wrote: >Sent: 14 May 2008 8:05 AM >To: talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] area topology > >Stephen Gower schrieb: >> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:31:32PM +0100, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) >wrote: >>> I subscribe to the view that areas should correspond to the real area on >>> the ground and mostly be kept clear of roadways. Placing an Area's Nodes >>> near the adjacent Way's nodes helps make the map easier to maintain. I >>> will often abut adjacent areas that are separated only by something thin >>> and make their nodes share, however. >> >> Putting the other side of the argument, as Andrew I'm sure knew I >> would: >> [...] > >How about buildings that really are at the edge of a road? (No fence, no >space). I'm afraid I can't show you a photo yet. >Do they share nodes since the "buildings are the border of the road" or >don't they share them since "you can't enter the building from any point >of the road"? >(The area I talk about is this one: >http://informationfreeway.org/?lat=49.971764870557124&lon=9.161737364989326 >&zoom=17&layers=B000F000F In this case if highway means the whole of the roadway width including any sidewalk/pavement if applicable (as it generally does in an OSM context) and the house abuts the highway then the two physical objects share the same boundary and hence can be mapped in OSM using common nodes. Where some other physical feature exists between the two objects then they should be separated, unless it's a regular linear feature, in which case the same nodes can also be used for that; a fence for instance. If they are separated by an area, grass for instance, then the highway and building ought not to share nodes. The fact that you cannot enter the building from the highway should be immaterial as we only normally make common paths between common features, although there are one or two logical exceptions to this rule. A slipway into a body of water might be an example. > >and I know the buildings' shapes aren't correct but there are no >Yahoo-Images for the city and I just did a quick run over the campus to >get it mapped basically.) And that is the way it should be. >In this case I didn't share nodes to be able to edit the buildings >without having to change the road every time (and to make the road have >less nodes sind it really is 100% straight). Acceptable. If someone thinks it should be done differently then they are entitled to change to better reflect the physical. Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide "completeness" tools
Frederik Ramm wrote: > Once we have a few applications in place that get viewed by *many* > people, we could just have a button somewhere along the margin of the > page that says: "I know the area and what I see here looks correct". Would it not make more sense to have a button saying "This map is incorrect in some way", and it opens a text box optionally inviting you to say what is wrong. These notes can then be stored, and if someone comes to redo that area of the map, can provide guidance. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide "completeness" tools
Gervase Markham wrote: >Sent: 14 May 2008 2:01 PM >To: talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide >"completeness" tools > >Frederik Ramm wrote: >> Once we have a few applications in place that get viewed by *many* >> people, we could just have a button somewhere along the margin of the >> page that says: "I know the area and what I see here looks correct". > >Would it not make more sense to have a button saying "This map is >incorrect in some way", and it opens a text box optionally inviting you >to say what is wrong. These notes can then be stored, and if someone >comes to redo that area of the map, can provide guidance. > I think we need both. We need a method of communicating to OSMers that they can, for the time being, ignore an area and a separate ability for viewers of the map to "notify" errors and omissions to OSMers exactly as you describe, the latter perhaps being limited to areas that have been marked by the former as "complete". Cheers Andy >Gerv > > >___ >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: 269.23.16/1431 - Release Date: >13/05/2008 7:55 PM ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Partners sought for cycle routing project
As you quite rightly point out the UK initiative has crown (c) all over it, and the core data will be commercial and the core data standards are based on OS standards etc etc, and that it is only the subjective data will be community collected. A number of us pushed for something more open and we thought we were getting somewhere but then the doors started closing. I think the DfT is currently spending £250K collecting data for a few places to enhance the base OS model which is all a bit alloying, but I thought the data standard and attributes were worth circulating to the list. OSM data is not mentioned in the standard explicitly, but the mapping between OSM and their standard is ok. The UK one is much more complex than the OSM one because the roads layer and the footpaths layer and the cycling layer are all distinct in the UK model. It will be interesting to see how long it takes until an authority launches an official cycle journey planner based on OSM data. Regards, Peter > -Original Message- > From: Shaun McDonald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 14 May 2008 13:15 > To: Frederik Ramm > Cc: Peter Miller; talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Partners sought for cycle routing project > > > On 14 May 2008, at 12:53, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > Hi, > > > >> The UK is also setting out on creating data for a cycle journey > >> planner > >> using a mixture of professionally and community collected data. > > > > So this is a government-funded project? > > Looks like it is the department for Transport who are setting it up. > Look at the bottom of the pages and you see "Crown Copyright", which > basically means that it is the UK Government or one of their agencies. > > > > > > >> A number of people with OSM experience were involved in setting the > >> data > >> standard and some good ideas from OSM have got into it and it will be > >> reasonably straightforward to convert between the UK standard and > >> the OSM > >> model. > > > > This is interesting but I thought it very impressive of the Munich > > guys to actually embrace the OSM model and commit themselves to > > working with that, instead of creating *another* data model. I'd > > rather encourage them to go the OSM way than to do something else. > > > > These proposals seems to be a way to represent a route from a to b. > They already have "defacto standards" for defining a route on public > transport, which is used by the UK journey planners. This basically > extends it to cycling. > > > Unfortunately they have just called me and said they won't make this > > year's deadline, so any results are even farther away than originally > > thought. > > > > Still, my inquiry has resulted in some very interesting feedback > > (including your message) and since this information wasn't available > > on the existing OSM lists before this leads me to think we might have > > use for an extra cycle-related mailing list? Unless there's a non-OSM > > list already that can be used? > > > >> I also think the Department for Transport in the UK may also be > >> interested > >> in what is being proposed. Can I suggest you let your local people > >> see the > >> UK standards documents. > > > > I'll do that definitely. But what exactly is the plan with the UK > > standard in relation to OSM data? Is the idea to create a complex > > model that uses different data sources without creating a "derived > > database"? > > From the site there is nothing that mentions osm. > > Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] area topology
Stephen Gower wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:31:32PM +0100, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote: > > A road is represented by a single way. Although the way has zero > width in the database, it represents the whole width of the > carriageway (pavement) and well as the pavement (sidewalk). If a > minor road meets a more important way at a T-junction, we do not > put the last node where the minor road ends, instead we extend it > to the centre of the more important one. The Way in the database is the centre of the real-world carriageway, plus any short extensions necessary to make the routing graph work. Not the same thing as a centreline ;) Representing shape accurately is important to areas. Rendering reachability is more important than shape for roads. There are two classes of object here, each with differing requirements and allowable compromises. > In the same way, if an > area comes right up to the edge of a road (including its pavement, > etc), we should extend the area to use the same defining nodes. I disagree! But you knew that. Let me try to explain more clearly why I think this is wrong. You _don't know_ where the edge of the rendered road will be but that it'll lie within a certain zone. Thus you infect the edge of the abutted area with that uncertainty, and for most buildings, fields, residential areas, or any other Area that doesn't make sense. It's abusing the fact that the renderer will render the road on top of a conjoined area at whatever width the view dictates. It is better to get shape and coverage down correctly for areas, especially buildings. With a system like OSM where one can ignore or disregard some types of object when rendering in favour of others, it's important to map each sort of object accurately *in and of itself*, *in its own terms*, without undue reliance on adjacent objects and the way they get rendered. Contrived example: say you're an arty type or a town planner rendering _just_ the buildings and building-like zones within a city and considering the negative spaces between them for either aesthetic[1] or civil engineering reasons. Abut two buildings to a single road, render without the road "defining" the edge, and suddenly your negative space is zero, buildings are touching, and the rendered map is All Wrong. It is wrong because the data was wrong for the buildings. To think of it all another way, road widths are always scaled to whatever is appropriate for the viewer. Take a look at some other street maps, and you'll see roads seemingly painted with yard brushes because for their readership it's street names and road routes that matters. [1] Yes, it matters *pats his copy of _A Pattern Language_*. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Anyone with SISNET (EGNOS) access
OSM, Does anyone have a login to the EGNOS test application SISNET? If you do, could you send me a screenshot of MT18 / Grid Point mask for the EGNOS and ESTB signals. I have requested access to SISNET but am impatient. ;-) / Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Hi-vis vest with OpenStreetMap Logo & "Surveyor" Text
Hi Folks, Thanks again to all those who have contacted me to date, to express interest in the OSM printed/logo'ed Hi-Vis Vests. I'm pleased to report that these are now no longer vapour-ware, as today, the full order arrived at my house. Below are some photos of the finished article, which I have to say, have somewhat exceeded my expectations. The print quality is bold and clear, and the logo has turned out rather nicely. See pics below (no nasty comments about my modelling abilities please!) :) :) http://www.sonicresolutions.com/osm_vest/IMG_6327.jpg http://www.sonicresolutions.com/osm_vest/IMG_6328.jpg For those who have already expressed an interest and stated their sizes, etc, I will be sending out proforma invoices within the next 2 days (utilising PayPal), so payment can be completed and I can start to get the vests into the post. Payment can be completed by any major credit card and you don't need a paypal account to complete payment. The proforma invoice will contain postage cost details as well as give you an opportunity to supply your postal address for delivery. If you have contacted me requesting me to reserve a vest, but no longer wish to purchase, please just drop me an email to let me know and ignore the proforma invoice. If anybody is interested in purchasing any of the spares I have in stock, I still have the following quantities for sale: 1 x Small 2 x Medium 2 x XL (if you are after a large, which sold out quickly, you might like to consider the XL's as they are only a few inches bigger) 1 x XXL As indicated previously, the final cost of the vests is £8.50 each + P&P (which I estimate to be around £2 for UK destinations). If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch at "osm at sonicresolutions.com". Kind regards, Graham Graham Smith wrote: Hi again Folk, Many thanks to all those that have contacted me about purchasing the custom OSM printed/logo'ed Hi-Vis Vests. I'm please to announce that the order has now been placed with the printer and hopefully I'll have the printed vests sometime in the next 5 - 7 working days. When they arrive, I'll be in touch directly with all those who have responded to me, to finalise the orders and organise dispatch, etc. In the meantime, for those who maybe missed the first email, I have ordered the following spares, which are still available if you're interested: 1 x Small Size 3 x Medium Size 3 x Large Size 3 x XL Size 1 x XXL Size The final price of the vests will be £8.50 and this includes the logo printed on both the back of the vest (as per the below mock-ups), but also on the front lapel. As previously indicated, postage should be circa £2 within the UK (Royal Mail), with overseas shipping prices dependent on destination. If you have not yet been in touch and wish to reserve one of the above spares, please contact me directly at "osm at sonicresolutions.com". Once these spares are gone, that's it for the time being (unless we can get together enough pre-orders for another run). Kind regards, Graham Graham Smith wrote: Just as a bit more info, I meant to add that these vests are fully certified to EN471, class 2 standards and have double 5cm HiVis reflective banding. Also, the sizes I have quoted below are chest sizes in inches. I have also corrected a typographic error in the original mockup pictures, whereby I had the address of the OSM website as a .com rather than a .org domain (thanks to Andy for picking up on this). The mockups and the graphic have been corrected accordingly. Cheers, Graham Graham Smith wrote: Hi folks, I'm in the process of getting a custom high-visibility safety vest printed for myself, for OSM surveying work, as I do most of my surveying on-foot and sometimes find myself near busy roads, etc. It's also a great way to raise the profile of OSM, whilst offering a real health and safety advantage for both pedestrian and bike surveyors. These high-visibility orange vests can be warn over the top of your normal clothing, so are suitable for all types of weather conditions. If you're wondering what these vests are, see the following link (you've no doubt seen highway maintenance crews, or airport ground crews wearing these): http://www.worksafedepot.co.uk/img/prod_img/hivis/vest.jpg I'm wondering if anybody else might be interested in purchasing one of these with a custom OSM print on the back? I'm trying to gauge the level of interest before I think about submitting a bulk order for printing. The following are URLs to jpegs of a mock-up of the design I've come up with (showing the back of the vest), based on the OSM logo: http://www.sonicresolutions.com/osm_vest/mockup.jpg http://www.sonicresolutions.com/osm_vest/mockup2.jpg Depending on numbers, the vests are likely to sell for around £9.00 each + P&P (P&P will probably be a few pounds for the UK, maybe more to Europe/rest of world). I will dona
Re: [OSM-talk] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 4:09 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Both are created by man. A canal is normally navigable and a drain is not. > A > canal is for carrying goods and people, a drain is for transporting water > much like a river but the drain has been dug by man rather than nature. > Drains can be anything from quite narrow watercourses to very large > constructions depending on how much water they carry. > > Hope this helps. > > Cheers > Andy > > Wow, that's not obvious to the casual (non-UK) observer. In the US, the usage of "canal" is different. They're almost never navigable, and even small drainage ditches are commonly called "canals". Almost no-one here would call any kind of waterway a "drain". Definitely clarify that on the Wiki. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain
Karl Newman wrote: > Wow, that's not obvious to the casual (non-UK) observer. In the US, the > usage of "canal" is different. They're almost never navigable, and even > small drainage ditches are commonly called "canals". Almost no-one here > would call any kind of waterway a "drain". Definitely clarify that on the > Wiki. It's a fairly classic confusion - "canal" vs "channel" (same root). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_canal cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain
Karl Newman wrote: > Wow, that's not obvious to the casual (non-UK) observer. In the US, the > usage of "canal" is different. They're almost never navigable, and even > small drainage ditches are commonly called "canals". Almost no-one here > would call any kind of waterway a "drain". Definitely clarify that on > the Wiki. So what do you call the big man made 'rivers' that barges go down? Rory ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Bridge proposal
>> Does someone care about this proposal? > > Yes, sorry, I'll move it to a vote RSN. Maybe you should wait some days. There is some activity on the talk page cause of the Bridge_and_Tunnels Relations proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels Regards Raphael ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
On Wed, 14 May 2008, Shaun McDonald wrote: > I find it interesting that you use motorcar, as I generally just use > car, as that is what I think is on the wiki (unless someone has > decided to change it). The wiki uses "motorcar" as the access restriction tag. - 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] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Rory McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Karl Newman wrote: > >> Wow, that's not obvious to the casual (non-UK) observer. In the US, the >> usage of "canal" is different. They're almost never navigable, and even >> small drainage ditches are commonly called "canals". Almost no-one here >> would call any kind of waterway a "drain". Definitely clarify that on the >> Wiki. >> > > So what do you call the big man made 'rivers' that barges go down? > > Rory > I did say *almost* never. Certainly there are large navigable canals (more common in the Eastern US) but if you were to look at the sum total of all the waterways called "canals" here, the navigable ones would make up a tiny portion. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Bridge proposal
Raphael Studer wrote: >>> Does someone care about this proposal? >> Yes, sorry, I'll move it to a vote RSN. > > Maybe you should wait some days. There is some activity on the talk > page cause of the Bridge_and_Tunnels Relations proposal: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels A proper definition of what a relation is may be a good start ;( I don't see why a single mapped element should be defined as a 'relation'. A relation would be used to join a number of mapped elements making up a bridge, as where several ways make up the one 'bridge' such as some complex motorway junctions. Adding AREAS to the equation simply reopens the debate whether EVERY way should properly define it's area. i.e. roads carriageways making up the bridge should have widths as well. And then add multi-deck bridges and roadways which are single ways on top of one another ;) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
On 14 May 2008, at 16:18, Steve Hill wrote: > On Wed, 14 May 2008, Shaun McDonald wrote: > >> I find it interesting that you use motorcar, as I generally just use >> car, as that is what I think is on the wiki (unless someone has >> decided to change it). > > The wiki uses "motorcar" as the access restriction tag. > Grr, must have misread and misremembered it then :-( Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain
Karl Newman wrote: > Both are created by man. A canal is normally navigable and a drain > is not. A > canal is for carrying goods and people, a drain is for transporting > water > much like a river but the drain has been dug by man rather than nature. > Drains can be anything from quite narrow watercourses to very large > constructions depending on how much water they carry. > > Wow, that's not obvious to the casual (non-UK) observer. In the US, the > usage of "canal" is different. They're almost never navigable, and even > small drainage ditches are commonly called "canals". Almost no-one here > would call any kind of waterway a "drain". Definitely clarify that on > the Wiki. In the US am I right in thinking that storm water drains may only have actual water in them under flood conditions. From what I remember of car chases in films ;) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Hi-vis vest with OpenStreetMap Logo & "Surveyor" Text
totally awsome On 14 May 2008, at 07:27, Graham Smith wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Thanks again to all those who have contacted me to date, to express > interest in the OSM printed/logo'ed Hi-Vis Vests. I'm pleased to > report that these are now no longer vapour-ware, as today, the full > order arrived at my house. Below are some photos of the finished > article, which I have to say, have somewhat exceeded my > expectations. The print quality is bold and clear, and the logo has > turned out rather nicely. See pics below (no nasty comments about > my modelling abilities please!) :) :) > > http://www.sonicresolutions.com/osm_vest/IMG_6327.jpg > http://www.sonicresolutions.com/osm_vest/IMG_6328.jpg > > For those who have already expressed an interest and stated their > sizes, etc, I will be sending out proforma invoices within the next > 2 days (utilising PayPal), so payment can be completed and I can > start to get the vests into the post. Payment can be completed by > any major credit card and you don't need a paypal account to > complete payment. The proforma invoice will contain postage cost > details as well as give you an opportunity to supply your postal > address for delivery. > > If you have contacted me requesting me to reserve a vest, but no > longer wish to purchase, please just drop me an email to let me know > and ignore the proforma invoice. > > If anybody is interested in purchasing any of the spares I have in > stock, I still have the following quantities for sale: > > 1 x Small > 2 x Medium > 2 x XL (if you are after a large, which sold out quickly, you might > like to consider the XL's as they are only a few inches bigger) > 1 x XXL > > As indicated previously, the final cost of the vests is £8.50 each + > P&P (which I estimate to be around £2 for UK destinations). > > If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch at > "osm at sonicresolutions.com". > > Kind regards, > Graham > > > Graham Smith wrote: >> >> Hi again Folk, >> >> Many thanks to all those that have contacted me about purchasing >> the custom OSM printed/logo'ed Hi-Vis Vests. I'm please to >> announce that the order has now been placed with the printer and >> hopefully I'll have the printed vests sometime in the next 5 - 7 >> working days. When they arrive, I'll be in touch directly with all >> those who have responded to me, to finalise the orders and organise >> dispatch, etc. >> >> In the meantime, for those who maybe missed the first email, I have >> ordered the following spares, which are still available if you're >> interested: >> >> 1 x Small Size >> 3 x Medium Size >> 3 x Large Size >> 3 x XL Size >> 1 x XXL Size >> >> The final price of the vests will be £8.50 and this includes the >> logo printed on both the back of the vest (as per the below mock- >> ups), but also on the front lapel. As previously indicated, >> postage should be circa £2 within the UK (Royal Mail), with >> overseas shipping prices dependent on destination. >> >> If you have not yet been in touch and wish to reserve one of the >> above spares, please contact me directly at "osm at >> sonicresolutions.com". Once these spares are gone, that's it for >> the time being (unless we can get together enough pre-orders for >> another run). >> >> Kind regards, >> Graham >> >> Graham Smith wrote: >>> >>> Just as a bit more info, I meant to add that these vests are fully >>> certified to EN471, class 2 standards and have double 5cm HiVis >>> reflective banding. Also, the sizes I have quoted below are chest >>> sizes >>> in inches. >>> >>> I have also corrected a typographic error in the original mockup >>> pictures, whereby I had the address of the OSM website as a .com >>> rather >>> than a .org domain (thanks to Andy for picking up on this). The >>> mockups >>> and the graphic have been corrected accordingly. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Graham >>> >>> Graham Smith wrote: >>> Hi folks, I'm in the process of getting a custom high-visibility safety vest printed for myself, for OSM surveying work, as I do most of my surveying on-foot and sometimes find myself near busy roads, etc. It's also a great way to raise the profile of OSM, whilst offering a real health and safety advantage for both pedestrian and bike surveyors. These high-visibility orange vests can be warn over the top of your normal clothing, so are suitable for all types of weather conditions. If you're wondering what these vests are, see the following link (you've no doubt seen highway maintenance crews, or airport ground crews wearing these): http://www.worksafedepot.co.uk/img/prod_img/hivis/vest.jpg I'm wondering if anybody else might be interested in purchasing one of these with a custom OSM print on the back? I'm trying to gauge the level of interest befo
Re: [OSM-talk] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Karl Newman wrote: > > Both are created by man. A canal is normally navigable and a drain > > is not. A > > canal is for carrying goods and people, a drain is for transporting > > water > > much like a river but the drain has been dug by man rather than > nature. > > Drains can be anything from quite narrow watercourses to very large > > constructions depending on how much water they carry. > > > > Wow, that's not obvious to the casual (non-UK) observer. In the US, the > > usage of "canal" is different. They're almost never navigable, and even > > small drainage ditches are commonly called "canals". Almost no-one here > > would call any kind of waterway a "drain". Definitely clarify that on > > the Wiki. > > In the US am I right in thinking that storm water drains may only have > actual > water in them under flood conditions. From what I remember of car chases in > films ;) > > -- > Lester Caine - G8HFL > In certain cases, yes. It depends on the season and the location. In a drainage canal near my house (would be called a stream if it were natural), the water stops flowing in summer, but there are generally pools in certain areas that hold water year round. Some drainage ditches are concrete, but most aren't--they're just cuts in the earth; sometimes they're elevated above the surrounding terrain with berms on either side (these are more commonly used for irrigation, not so much for drainage). Generally only certain large cities have the big concrete canals suitable for car chases. ;-) Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain
On 14 May 2008, at 17:18, Karl Newman wrote: > [..] > In certain cases, yes. It depends on the season and the location. In > a drainage canal near my house (would be called a stream if it were > natural), the water stops flowing in summer, but there are generally > pools in certain areas that hold water year round. Some drainage > ditches are concrete, but most aren't--they're just cuts in the > earth; sometimes they're elevated above the surrounding terrain with > berms on either side (these are more commonly used for irrigation, > not so much for drainage). Generally only certain large cities have > the big concrete canals suitable for car chases. ;-) > If it's just a cutting with no concrete, then it would just be a ditch. Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 09:40 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > >It's not quite a 1:1 mapping - a UK bridleway also means "cycles > >permitted by right" and a whole host of other stuff, so it's a > >valuable piece of information in itself. > > >By all means tag the individual users (horse=yes, bicycle=yes, etc.), > >but I'd consider the official bridleway status a useful, taggable fact > >in itself. > > What I'd like to get some idea of is what people as a whole consider > highway=bridleway on its own(with no foot/horse/etc tags added) to mean - > do people on the whole consider this to be a public bridleway, or a > permissive bridleway? On freemap I assume permissive unless foot/horse=yes > is added, rather like highway=footway is assumed to be permissive (in view > of the large number of permssive footways in towns). > > Nick > If I come across a bridleway sign, I'll tag it as highway=bridleway, assuming that horse=yes is implied. As Andy says, how else would I know it's a bridleway? I generally find that footpaths in towns is an odd situation, some are clearly regarded as public rights of way (some I've seen even having full road name-like signs informing you of that [0]). Signing differs wildly between london boroughs, Sutton having relatively few signs (although an oddly signed bridleway down the back of houses[1] does exist). On the other hand, Croydon signs every single one of the footpaths I've seen with their own reference number and often a destination - even if it's just the next road. If something specifically informed me that it was permissive, I'd tag up horse=permissive etc. [0] http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.35598&lon=-0.16353&zoom=16&layers=0BFT Footpath No. 77, The Avenue (ref=78) [1] Bridleway north of the railway line in [0] -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Local councils
I contacted the parish councils around my area, explaining what OSM is and suggesting that they might like to use OSM maps on their web sites and for local events. I'm pleased to say there has been interest from four councils. I've sent simple slippy map examples to the web site admins and they are beginning to appear. I've also got a request to help with a couple of local events that use maps - I thought I'd use Kosmos to print maps with local overlays such as the locations of garage sales. Maybe everyone should think about contacting their local councils ... Cheers, Chris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Local councils
Chris Hill wrote: > I contacted the parish councils around my area, explaining what OSM is > and suggesting that they might like to use OSM maps on their web sites > and for local events. I'm pleased to say there has been interest from > four councils. I've sent simple slippy map examples to the web site > admins and they are beginning to appear. > > I've also got a request to help with a couple of local events that use > maps - I thought I'd use Kosmos to print maps with local overlays such > as the locations of garage sales. > > Maybe everyone should think about contacting their local councils ... A hint on where you are based would help us identify which councils have already been covered ;) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Hi-vis vest with OpenStreetMap Logo & "Surveyor" Text
would someone put a copy on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Featured_image_proposals ;) > On 14 May 2008, at 07:27, Graham Smith wrote: >> >> http://www.sonicresolutions.com/osm_vest/IMG_6327.jpg >> http://www.sonicresolutions.com/osm_vest/IMG_6328.jpg ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Local councils
Lester Caine wrote: Chris Hill wrote: I contacted the parish councils around my area, explaining what OSM is and suggesting that they might like to use OSM maps on their web sites and for local events. I'm pleased to say there has been interest from four councils. I've sent simple slippy map examples to the web site admins and they are beginning to appear. I've also got a request to help with a couple of local events that use maps - I thought I'd use Kosmos to print maps with local overlays such as the locations of garage sales. Maybe everyone should think about contacting their local councils ... A hint on where you are based would help us identify which councils have already been covered ;) I'm based in Swanland, East Yorkshire, UK. If a council is contacted more than once they might be persuaded to look at OSM. :-) I'm going to spread the message to other villages in this area and I'm going to add a contact column to the list of villages in the East Yorkshire wiki page. Cheers, Chris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain
So would the california aqueduct be a 'drain' under that definition? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tupman_California_California_Aqueduct_Mile_236.JPG http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.4868&lon=-121.0883&zoom=12&layers=0BFT (currently taged as 'river') On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Both are created by man. A canal is normally navigable and a drain is not. A > canal is for carrying goods and people, a drain is for transporting water > much like a river but the drain has been dug by man rather than nature. > Drains can be anything from quite narrow watercourses to very large > constructions depending on how much water they carry. > > Hope this helps. > > Cheers > Andy > >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:talk- >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raphael Studer >>Sent: 14 May 2008 12:01 PM >>To: OSM Talk List >>Subject: [OSM-talk] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain >> >>Hi, >> >>As a not native english speaker, I'm looking for the difference between >>canal (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:waterway%3Dcanal) >>and >>drain (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:waterway%3Ddrain). >> >>By looking at the Map Features, there are nearly the same. >> >>Canal: An artificial open waterway used for transportation, >>waterpower, or irrigation >>Drain: An artificial waterway for carrying storm water or industrial >>discharge. >> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [OSM-dev] area topology]
Sorry,, sent this to the wrong mailing list. On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 02:43:19PM +0100, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote: > You _don't know_ where the edge of the rendered road will be but that > it'll lie within a certain zone. Thus you infect the edge of the abutted > area with that uncertainty, and for most buildings, fields, residential > areas, or any other Area that doesn't make sense. It's abusing the fact The uncertainty introduced by our GPS devices is probably an order of magnitude bigger than the uncertainty on the width of a road, I think your arguments are not holding up. I'd advice to re-use the nodes for forest/grass/landuse and whatever to express the fact that it runs right up to the road. For things like buildings, I'd probably not reuse the nodes since there is most of the time a clearly distinct zone between the building and the road. For that zone (in campus's it's mostly grass) I'd reuse both the nodes of the building and the road. cu bart ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
>If I come across a bridleway sign, I'll tag it as highway=bridleway, >assuming that horse=yes is implied. As Andy says, how else would I know >it's a bridleway? There could be "permissive bridleway" signs (prevalent in parts of Surrey) or evidence of horse use through it being a wide sandy track with horse prints. In the latter case, and in the absence of signs, I tend to tag as permissive bridleway. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Aware, the state of the current pheromones
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Skywave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://skywave0.googlepages.com/osm-kml2.html?zoom=6&lat=46.43289&lon=1.51207&layers=B0T > > I hacked (changed one line ;) ) on an example provided by crschmidt. Thanks Skywave, I didn't realize it was that simple to import some KMLs in OpenLayer with crschmidt script :) I've added versions for World( day, hour and minute changes) and France (minutes changes) for now: (http://www.fxfoo.com/osm/kml/): http://www.fxfoo.com/osm/kml/web-osm-france-day-latest-v0.html http://www.fxfoo.com/osm/kml/web-osm-world-day-latest-v0-openlayers.html http://www.fxfoo.com/osm/kml/web-osm-world-hour-latest-v0-openlayers.html http://www.fxfoo.com/osm/kml/web-osm-world-minute-latest-v1-openlayers.html The version2 kml (with the colored lines) also works (I'll add them a little latter). I'll also add some informations about the file and part of the summary stats (number of nodes, users, etc) I'm impressed by OpenLayers, I think I'm going to also use it also to geolocate my pictures in GPicSync: http://code.google.com/p/gpicsync/ Thanks! francois > > > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:38 PM, François Schnell < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Thanks Tim for your feedback, I appreciate. >> >> Concerning "World Wind" it looks like you can visualize KML with >> placemarks since version 1.3.4. I just had a quick try, it seems to work >> fine for placemarks (but it doesn't seem to show the extrusion for lines in >> my "v2" KMLs, just the top): >> http://flickr.com/photos/frenchy/2490757820/ >> >> I've also heard Microsft's "Virtual Earth" supports KMLs now (but haven't >> tried it). >> It looks like KMLs are now spreading quickly since its 'Open Standard' >> adoption: >> >> """ >> The KML 2.2 specification has been submitted to the Open Geospatial >> Consortium to assure its status as an open standard for all geobrowsers. As >> of November 2007, the OGC has a new KML 2.2 Standards Working Group. >> Comments were sought on the proposed standard until January 4, 2008,[1] and >> it became an industry standard on April 14, 2008.[2] >> """ >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyhole_Markup_Language >> >> That said I could try other formats like GeoRss and GML. >> >> """ as an overlay over existing osm maps? """ >> >> Yes that certainly would be nice :) >> I'll look at it when I'll have some time for it (OpenLayers, >> SlippyMap,...) >> >> Thanks >> >> francois >> >> >> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:13 AM, tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> just thought this was a lovely, brilliant visualisation of osm usage. >>> Well done, good work! >>> >>> Would love to see some of this in non-kml formats, somehow (google >>> earth doesn't work well for me). Or on the web. >>> (GeoRSS? GML? Worldwind? etc) >>> >>> as an overlay over existing osm maps? >>> >>> tim >>> >> >> >> ___ >> 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 > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GPSBabel 1.3.5
OK, my BGT-31 arrived today so did some testing of it after work (which got cut short by a drawing pin in the front wheel). Unfortunately for me, although I'd put the SD card in I'd forgotten to turn on logging so have only the internal log at 10 seconds. Eventually got gpsbabel 1.3.5 installed on Ubuntu (.rpm to .deb via alien) to try it out. I dumped 2 files to SD card - a .BIN and a .SBP file but no idea what either of them are. I tried converting these (using navilink as input format) and got a 339 byte GPX file for each. Identical result for doing via USB cable connection. Fortunately there is an alternative: the navilink.pl[1] script does work. Cheers, [1] http://www.splitbrain.org/projects/navilink Tom Hughes wrote: > GPSBabel 1.3.5 was released a few days ago, and for those of you using > the popular NaviGPS units I am pleased to be able to say that the new > release of GPSBabel includes native support for the NaviGPS. > > This includes both direct access to stored tracks, routes and > waypoints via the USB cable as well as the ability to decode waypoints > and tracks copied to the SD card if you are using a recent release of > the NaviGPS firmware that supports that. > > The code has been tested with my GT-11 unit but should work with the > BGT-11 as well, and will hopefully work with the new GT-31 and BGT-31 > units when they arrive - please let me know if you manage to test with > one of those. > > The name for the new driver is "navilink", so to recover waypoints > over the USB cable on linux you would do something like: > > gpsbabel -w -f navilink -i /dev/ttyUSB0 -F gpx -o waypoints.gpx > > Any problems, give me a shout... > > Tom > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] area topology
On Tue, 13 May 2008 23:25:39 +0200 Raphaël Jacquot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the "boundary of the forrest run in parallel to the road" is actually > the correct way to do it. this is what you say. I say "sharing nodes of the forest and the road is actually the correct way to do it." Why can't people accept that sometimes there is simply no agreed correct way of doing things. spaetz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GPSBabel 1.3.5
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tom Higgy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, my BGT-31 arrived today so did some testing of it after work (which > got cut short by a drawing pin in the front wheel). > > Unfortunately for me, although I'd put the SD card in I'd forgotten to > turn on logging so have only the internal log at 10 seconds. > > Eventually got gpsbabel 1.3.5 installed on Ubuntu (.rpm to .deb via > alien) to try it out. > > I dumped 2 files to SD card - a .BIN and a .SBP file but no idea what > either of them are. I tried converting these (using navilink as input > format) and got a 339 byte GPX file for each. Identical result for doing > via USB cable connection. After some discussion with Tom on IRC it turned out that he hadn't specified the -t switch to gpsbabel so it was operating in waypoint mode (the default) and as he didn't have any waypoints he was getting an empty GPX file. With -t it worked both over USB and reading the file from the SD card. Tom -- Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain
What is your definition of an artificial waterway? Dug and designed by man? Made of non-natural materials? Near me a few years ago was an open marshy field that was fed by a stream, with a stream exiting. Now the developers have put houses up in the field. They brought in dirt and raised the ground level, dug a connection between the entry and exit streams and landscaped around it. Is it a stream or a drain? It's not concrete (except for one bridge area), it looks like a stream, but it is man made. Stephen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Zero point tag?
Hello everyone, How would you tag the "zero point" of a country? Shouldn't be an important tag as distances in a country are measure from that point? Thanks for the advices. François de Ryckel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Bridge proposal
>> Maybe you should wait some days. There is some activity on the talk >> page cause of the Bridge_and_Tunnels Relations proposal: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels > > A proper definition of what a relation is may be a good start ;( > I don't see why a single mapped element should be defined as a 'relation'. A > relation would be used to join a number of mapped elements making up a bridge, > as where several ways make up the one 'bridge' such as some complex motorway > junctions. Adding AREAS to the equation simply reopens the debate whether > EVERY way should properly define it's area. i.e. roads carriageways making up > the bridge should have widths as well. > And then add multi-deck bridges and roadways which are single ways on top of > one another ;) This multi-deck bridges would be a good example, why having relations for bridges. An other example are if you have a highway and a cycleway on the same bridge. Or a railway and a footway. Regards, Raphael ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] area topology
Sebastian Spaeth schrieb: > this is what you say. I say "sharing nodes of the forest and the road > is actually the correct way to do it." In the beginning, I thought the same. Now I keep the node separate. It is just too cumbersome if you have to separate them later on. And you often have too. At least in Germany, trees more and more are taken apart from the road too minimize all these accidents... -- Karl Eichwalder ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Zero point tag?
At 05:00 AM 15/05/2008, Francois De Ryckel wrote: >Hello everyone, > >How would you tag the "zero point" of a country? > >Shouldn't be an important tag as distances in a country are measure from >that point? > >Thanks for the advices. > > >François de Ryckel François, I don't know if this will suit your particular requirements, but I've published a list of "country bounds" here which includes a centre lat/lon: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/User:Ewmjc/Country_bounds This was generated from US government (public domain!) GNIS data. This is a dataset of several million location points around the world conveniently categorised by country. I simply calculated a bounding box for each country and then the centre point of that box. I then generated about 80% of the OSM place=country tags using the centre point to locate the tag. The OSM database should now have a tag for every country in the world (at least as defined by the US government). There are some inaccuracies though and I am working on a version two. In particular, I included marine features which makes several boxes too large, and may throw the centre point to a strange location. Once I have this sorted, I intend to add a lat_max ... lon_min or some such tags to the country tags. You could then derive a "zero point" directly from the OSM database. Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
