Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
>> Would it be better to have something other than "yes" to mean "legally >> enshrined access permission" to protect against people tagging stuff as >> "yes" without fully understanding what it means (i.e. people not reading >> the wiki)? >I think it would. I suggest access=highway It would have to be contained within the foot, horse, bicycle, and motorcar tags though, so that the "official" rights of *each* mode of transport can be described. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
A path with horse,foot,cycle=yes still isn't a bridleway though (e.g. on a bridleway, cycles are permitted but the surface doesn't have to be suitable for cycling - a situation more complex than just cycle=yes). The legal bridleway has more attributes than just who is allowed to travel along it (e.g. races can't be held on bridleways) It also can't be easily updated if the laws change - bikes weren't always allowed on bridleways, and hasn't the list of vehicles allowed on byways changed recently? The issue isn't so much discussion of loads of new tags, but the potential loss of existing data if people start using highway=bridleway for something which isn't one (or use horse=yes instead of a bridleway tag, which has pretty much the same effect) On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Nick Whitelegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Would it be better to have something other than "yes" to mean "legally >>> enshrined access permission" to protect against people tagging stuff as > >>> "yes" without fully understanding what it means (i.e. people not > reading >>> the wiki)? > >>I think it would. I suggest access=highway > > It would have to be contained within the foot, horse, bicycle, and > motorcar tags though, so that the "official" rights of *each* mode of > transport can be described. > > 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] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
OJ W wrote: > A path with horse,foot,cycle=yes still isn't a bridleway though (e.g. > on a bridleway, cycles are permitted but the surface doesn't have to > be suitable for cycling - a situation more complex than just > cycle=yes). The legal bridleway has more attributes than just who is > allowed to travel along it (e.g. races can't be held on bridleways) Exactly - couldn't have put it better myself. Using designation=bridleway (but maybe optional when highway=bridleway?) would be a good, easy solution. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
>A path with horse,foot,cycle=yes still isn't a bridleway though It depends what's meant by "yes" - does it mean official, legal rights? On reflection maybe "designated" is better than "yes". >(e.g. >on a bridleway, cycles are permitted but the surface doesn't have to >be suitable for cycling - a situation more complex than just >cycle=yes). The legal bridleway has more attributes than just who is >allowed to travel along it (e.g. races can't be held on bridleways) One could sort this out though by means of the "surface" tag, and indeed any other tags that might be relevant. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
On Tuesday 20 May 2008 10:20:59 OJ W wrote: > The issue isn't so much discussion of loads of new tags, but the > potential loss of existing data if people start using > highway=bridleway for something which isn't one But what is a bridleway? >From your talk it seems like the tag can only be used for something that is a bridleway in the eyes of the British (or possibly local) law. Except nowhere on the wiki can I find anything that says that. Both Map Features and the Tag:highway=bridleway read: For horses, (in the UK, generally footpaths on which horses are also permitted) If in the Netherlands we would limit the tagging of bridleways (dutch: ruiterpaden) to what is one legally, then we wouldn't have many, as I don't remember ever having seen the official sign for it. (A round blue sign with a white horse and rider) However I have seen plenty of paths which are signed with a rectangular sign with the word "ruiterpad" and/or are physically only suitable for horse riders. (too narrow for vehicles and with deep loose sand; think dry part of a sandy beach) So to sum it up: Do the ways currently tagged with "bridleway" conform to your narrow definition or is there already no data to loose, because it is already use for ways which are physically, but not legally paths for horses. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Cartinus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So to sum it up: Do the ways currently tagged with "bridleway" conform to your > narrow definition or is there already no data to loose, because it is already > use for ways which are physically, but not legally paths for horses. I would consider all the existing tagging as of suspect interpretation. For example, foot=yes is almost entirely meaningless as "right of pedestrian access enshrined in law" since it's been added by default to every highway=footway in potlatch for some time. But then again, it's a wiki, so all the data will always be of "suspect interpretation" to a greater or lesser extent :-) Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] precompiled navit bin-files
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 All map files that have had their md5 files updated after noon BST (server time) have been regenerated using osm2navit from latest svn - -- 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 iD8DBQFIMrnGFUbODdpRVDwRAsWcAKCTnb54podtffEgNH/rDxrE8WExHwCeKRc4 pY1Xxht8JjZBEcai/AelmnE= =U3Tf -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
[OSM-talk] Zueri See Lake Outline not closed
Hi Noticed that the Zuerich Lake is not rendering in Mapnik, and checked. The Outline of the lake is not closed, but to be honest, using Potlatch I can't seem to find a method of finding the error. Is this easier in JOSM? Can somebody help me rectify this? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.35704&lon=8.54538&zoom=15&layers=B0FT Also, the lake as *loads* of piers for recreational boating, and people who mapped the lake outline have included these piers in the outline. Wouldnt it make much more sense to map them as separate features, to keep the lake shoreline simpler and easier to manage? tagging them manmade=pier would make sense? Cheers Patrick begin:vcard fn:Patrick Weber n:Weber;Patrick org:University College London adr:;;Gower Street;London;;WC1E 6BT;United Kingdom email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Engineering Doctorate Student tel;work:02077185430 tel;cell:07854840450 url:http://www.ucl.ac.uk/cemi version:2.1 end:vcard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Zueri See Lake Outline not closed
El Martes, 20 de Mayo de 2008, Patrick Weber escribió: > Noticed that the Zuerich Lake is not rendering in Mapnik, and checked. > The Outline of the lake is not closed, but to be honest, using Potlatch > I can't seem to find a method of finding the error. Is this easier in > JOSM? Can somebody help me rectify this? I just checked it, and it seems properly closed and OK. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Un ordenador no es un televisor ni un microondas, es una herramienta compleja. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Zueri See Lake Outline not closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Iván Sánchez Ortega schrieb: | El Martes, 20 de Mayo de 2008, Patrick Weber escribió: |> Noticed that the Zuerich Lake is not rendering in Mapnik, and checked. |> The Outline of the lake is not closed, but to be honest, using Potlatch |> I can't seem to find a method of finding the error. Is this easier in |> JOSM? Can somebody help me rectify this? | | I just checked it, and it seems properly closed and OK. I just closed it, the gap was near Wollishofen Station. - -- 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 iD8DBQFIMssXFUbODdpRVDwRAuPWAKCfyJ193Mto/SkyGS/4QTHE8xXFXgCghYxi mPbKJz9otXElNZ6ofcypJ3U= =geP4 -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] Zueri See Lake Outline not closed
I think Dirk was faster !! Cheers Guys Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: El Martes, 20 de Mayo de 2008, Patrick Weber escribió: Noticed that the Zuerich Lake is not rendering in Mapnik, and checked. The Outline of the lake is not closed, but to be honest, using Potlatch I can't seem to find a method of finding the error. Is this easier in JOSM? Can somebody help me rectify this? I just checked it, and it seems properly closed and OK. begin:vcard fn:Patrick Weber n:Weber;Patrick org:University College London adr:;;Gower Street;London;;WC1E 6BT;United Kingdom email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Engineering Doctorate Student tel;work:02077185430 tel;cell:07854840450 url:http://www.ucl.ac.uk/cemi version:2.1 end:vcard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [EMAIL PROTECTED] style updates
Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] pull the latest Osmarender styles from svn every so often? - 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] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
Nick Whitelegg wrote: > It would have to be contained within the foot, horse, bicycle, and > motorcar tags though, so that the "official" rights of *each* mode of > transport can be described. I think it's been implied for a long time that all the values for the access key apply to all of the mode-of-transport keys as well. Certainly http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:access seems to suggest that it does. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [EMAIL PROTECTED] style updates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steve Hill schrieb: | Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] pull the latest Osmarender styles from svn every so often? | Yes and no. it's completely up to the people running the client, when or how often they update, unless there is a version change in the client, where an update is often forced by deprecating the old version after a while. - -- 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 iD8DBQFIMuB6FUbODdpRVDwRAiJzAKDGJ/CZdEU9iYYyNhUoze29etGJLwCgyKHm BB59gfqo3lbTQN+O3LjewxE= =8Z1E -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] [EMAIL PROTECTED] style updates
On Tue, 20 May 2008, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote: Yes and no. it's completely up to the people running the client, when or how often they update, unless there is a version change in the client, where an update is often forced by deprecating the old version after a while. Ah, ok. So why don't you get horribly inconsistent tile renderings where someone has the latest styles and someone else has ancient ones? (I'm guessing the answer here is "you do" and I just haven't noticed :) - 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] HOWTO: edit GPX tracks using JOSM
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Shaun McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In that case it is usually odd points and I fix them manually by >> editing the GPX file in a text editor and removing them ;-) >> > > It is a lot easier to do this task graphically. It's a lot easier to not bother :-) Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] man_made=pier
> Also, the lake as *loads* of piers for recreational boating, and people > who mapped the lake outline have included these piers in the outline. > Wouldnt it make much more sense to map them as separate features, to > keep the lake shoreline simpler and easier to manage? tagging them > manmade=pier would make sense? Good idea. I just did some of these elsewhere, and I was confused about why it didn't work right until I found that it is man_made=pier Then the system was happy with it :-) - Alan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Description nodes on the cycle map?
Is it possible to add descriptions that would be visible on the detailed zoom of the cycle map? e.g. "and now there are no NCN signs until Salford", or "ignore misleading sign here" - that sort of thing to help people planning a route... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [EMAIL PROTECTED] style updates
Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ah, ok. So why don't you get horribly inconsistent tile renderings where > someone has the latest styles and someone else has ancient ones? (I'm > guessing the answer here is "you do" and I just haven't noticed :) Exaktly! I fixed a bug in track rendering 10 days ago (2008-05-10). The tile has been rendered 2008-05-19 with the bug still present. It has however been correctly rendered some short periaod in between. Sven -- C is quirky, flawed, and an enormous success (Dennis M. Ritchie) /me is [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Description nodes on the cycle map?
> Is it possible to add descriptions that would be visible on the > detailed zoom of the cycle map? > > e.g. "and now there are no NCN signs until Salford", or "ignore > misleading sign here" - that sort of thing to help people planning a > route... > I don't whether this is appropriate, but I suggested adding some tags to nodes within the Relation/Route Something like stop_00_label = '23A' stop_00_comment = 'and now there are no NCN signs until Salford' Does this work for you? Simon. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [EMAIL PROTECTED] style updates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steve Hill schrieb: | On Tue, 20 May 2008, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote: | |> Yes and no. |> it's completely up to the people running the client, when or how often |> they update, unless there is a version change in the client, where an |> update is often forced by deprecating the old version after a while. | | Ah, ok. So why don't you get horribly inconsistent tile renderings | where someone has the latest styles and someone else has ancient ones? | (I'm guessing the answer here is "you do" and I just haven't noticed :) You do, but you don't notice that often, because: - - only a small fraction of tiles is updated in any observable timeframe. - - most updated tiles are rendered by only a few active participants who usually keep up to date, the rest contribute a rather negligible amount. - - In the past there have been quite a few version bumps which also forced the style update. - -- 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 iD8DBQFIMzotFUbODdpRVDwRAvEQAJ471RbDWS7h3ZQ1YTDoWe+cdXWaMQCdHxj4 jVqEsQrwQOASPP2RXN7Ltec= =+jou -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] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
Andy Allan wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Cartinus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> So to sum it up: Do the ways currently tagged with "bridleway" conform to >> your >> narrow definition or is there already no data to loose, because it is already >> use for ways which are physically, but not legally paths for horses. > > I would consider all the existing tagging as of suspect > interpretation. For example, foot=yes is almost entirely meaningless > as "right of pedestrian access enshrined in law" since it's been added > by default to every highway=footway in potlatch for some time. Agreed. I would expect that all the access tags have that problem, not just foot. I don't think the "yes" value has ever been defined in that manner, so I'm certain it's been applied to routes which are not rights-of-way. I know I've always understood "yes" to mean that "[vehicle type]s are capable of traversing this route, and are not forbidden to use it." Certainly nothing currently in the wiki appears to contradict that. I'm also quite certain that footway/cycleway/bridleway have been applied to routes which do not follow the UK definition. (In other words, there is already no right-of-way data to lose). -Alex Mauer "hawke" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: Service (railway)
The key "service" applying to railways has been approved. 15 votes total, 14 approving and 1 opposing. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Description nodes on the cycle map?
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:16 PM, OJ W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it possible to add descriptions that would be visible on the > detailed zoom of the cycle map? > > e.g. "and now there are no NCN signs until Salford", or "ignore > misleading sign here" - that sort of thing to help people planning a > route... I've always imagined little warning triangles or information icons that are clickable and have a popup with this kind of thing in them. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Description nodes on the cycle map?
At 01:04 AM 21/05/2008, Andy Allan wrote: >On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:16 PM, OJ W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Is it possible to add descriptions that would be visible on the >> detailed zoom of the cycle map? >> >> e.g. "and now there are no NCN signs until Salford", or "ignore >> misleading sign here" - that sort of thing to help people planning a >> route... > >I've always imagined little warning triangles or information icons >that are clickable and have a popup with this kind of thing in them. > >Cheers, >Andy For broad descriptive use there is already the description= tag, designed for future pop-up maps and for search-oriented functions such as route driving (riding) instructions. For things specific to cyclists, I use description:bicycle= Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
