[OSM-talk] osmarenderer issues
i've noticed a few changes recently to the output from osmarender, i'm guessing the the rules have been changed. there's also been a few odd things happening though, including: http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=-36.87498&lon=174.74479&zoom=17&layers=0B0FF http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=-36.905&lon=174.75337&zoom=17&layers=0B0FF http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=-36.92046&lon=174.76995&zoom=17&layers=0B0FF the first one shows the area containing a rugby stadium, with the individual stands mapped and tagged as buildings. is there any reason why some of the stands (southern and terraces in particular) appear to be defined by two polygons (there's only one actually drawn there)? there seems to be one which faithfully follows the ways drawn in potlatch, and another which has been 'rounded'. the second one is a park, and the third a school, all with similar issues the mapnik output of each of these looks fine given a choice, the square one is more appropriate, as it follows the actual shape of the thing being mapped ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] (1) news on mapping campaign in Mil ano and (2) check for procedure to generate com plex statistics on portion of OSM planet
Inge - Thanks for your appreciation!
See some comments below:
A) Concerning our approach to the radio: we (GFOSS.it) are putting a strong
focus on communication and media relations in our awareness raising activity,
and we have developed a good relationship with some mappers (some of which are
members of our association, but this is not a constraint)
...I think this is the key to our approach...we have a combination of a
"formal" presence (i.e. an association which is registered in Italy and can
relate formally to other institutional subjects) with some brilliant mappers
wreaking "GPS havoc" around the country...
We already had national radio coverage (live) for a Mapping party in Arezzo,
and who knows what will happen next.. ;)
This also deriving from other parallel experiences some of us are conducting,
and the radio is only one of the aspects.
B) ...thinking about other details...for example...we did put some thinking
also on "localisation".
Rather than calling the event a "mapping party", we devised the "M(')appare"
title, which has a double meaning in Italian:
Mappare = to map
M'appare = something appears to me
...so to many this is more intriguing than a plain "party" (while we do like to
party, anyway), as it suggests that the mapping we do is progressively
"exposing" our territory...
Various Italian mappers liked the idea, so we are now having M(')appare
Ferrara, Portofino and very soon Verona etc.
"non-mappers" (including media) also like the title..
...and so forth...the combination of these aspects surely helps to propose the
topic.
our radio hosts, following our "word game vibration", actually invented the
"Mappy hour", instead of the "Happy hour", which we have in a cafe last
Tuesday...
..all this is interesting...
C) On the other hand, it is true that OpenStreetMap is an extremely easy idea
to "sell"...joking on the Italian mailing list, I even suggested that we should
assign an award to the first person who says he/she DOES NOT like the concept ;)
The difficult parts are...
(1) to make this happen in the broader context of awareness raising of free
geographic information (of which OSM is a subset);
(2) insuring media provide a fair picture of what goes on...while the first
impression of OSM is simple, some of its founding principles are not immediate
for a general audience (and for journalists who serve a general audience);
(3) striking a balance between demonstrations and actual opportunities that
can be generated by OSM.
But overall I say that what we are doing an interesting challenge, and we are
very curious of seeing the what will happen in Italy over the coming months.
D) ...possibly I slightly deviated from "operational" suggestions for your
mapping party, but I thought that providing a broader picture on our drivers
may still give you ideas on how to apply this to your home town.
E) ...one last point: you mention competitions for the public...
no, this has not happened yet: GPS remains "not for all"...but the Autumn may
bring news in this respect..;)
Regards from Italy -
Andrea aka pibinko
http://www.pibinko.org
-- Initial Header ---
>From : "Inge Wallin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To : talk@openstreetmap.org,"Andrea Giacomelli (pibinko)" [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Cc :
Date : Fri, 30 May 2008 20:14:27 +0200
Subject : Re: [OSM-talk] (1) news on mapping campaign in Milano and (2) check
for procedure to generate complex statistics on portion of OSM planet
> On Friday 30 May 2008 17:15:36 Andrea Giacomelli (pibinko) wrote:
>
> > UPDATE ON MAPPING CAMPAIGN IN MILANO
> >
.
> > This campaign has been designed as a joint operation between GFOSS.it (the
> > Italian OSGEO Chapter), some of the Italian "free mappers", and a local
> > radio station.
>
> This is very interesting. I am currently planning a mapping weekend in my
> home town in august. I thought of trying to get a local newspaper to report
> before, during and after the event, but perhaps a radio station is even more
> interesting.
>
> How did you manage to sell the idea to the radio station? What where your
> arguments? Who did you talk to? Did they use the event in other ways like
> competitions for the public? Any detail is interesting.
>
> -Inge
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm not bothered that these levels are numbers, it is just that the CURRENT >> numbers do not allow for ALL of the levels as THIS list suggests. >> >> I still think there is a place for continents here rather than having to >> create yet another set of numbers? Africa, Asia and the rest are USED to >> provide administrative type grouping just as African Union and Asian Union >> do. > > Problem is that they violate the nesting rule: countries can span > multiple continents. Similarly continents are defined strictly by > geographical features (where the land meets the sea) whereas country > borders reach a distance into the sea, so they violate the covering > idea also. > > I don't have any good ideas about how to do continents (and by > extension the large oceans like Atlantic/Pacific/Indian/Southern/etc), > but I don't think admin_level is the right place. I don't think a > single country border runs along a continent border so you're not even > saving space. Same applies to any of the country boundaries, do you draw high water line, or the international demarcation out on the continental shelf. And England and Ireland are part of Europe and the EU so do you include the water around them or not. The 'nesting' rule does not exist. We have already had enough examples of where boundaries form different 'sets' of areas so there is no way to insist that the 'admin' boundaries are mutually exclusive :( -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://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] National borders in the British Islands
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not bothered that these levels are numbers, it is just that the CURRENT > numbers do not allow for ALL of the levels as THIS list suggests. > > I still think there is a place for continents here rather than having to > create yet another set of numbers? Africa, Asia and the rest are USED to > provide administrative type grouping just as African Union and Asian Union do. Problem is that they violate the nesting rule: countries can span multiple continents. Similarly continents are defined strictly by geographical features (where the land meets the sea) whereas country borders reach a distance into the sea, so they violate the covering idea also. I don't have any good ideas about how to do continents (and by extension the large oceans like Atlantic/Pacific/Indian/Southern/etc), but I don't think admin_level is the right place. I don't think a single country border runs along a continent border so you're not even saving space. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Islands in lakes
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Beau Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sidenote: I'm sure I'm not the only person who has hit those keys on > informationfreeway wondering what they did and messed up some tiles... Might > be good to have a popup explaining things the first time you press one and > then store that you've seen it in a cookie. AFAIK, they used to just add the tile to a waiting list of tiles to check the wateryness of by hand. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: > El Viernes, 30 de Mayo de 2008, Lester Caine escribió: >> Personally I've been viewing admin_level=0 as the world. > > Yeah, say that again when extraterrestrials invade us :-P we can always have -ve number ;) >> admin_level=1 should equal the continents > > I'm against this definition. A continent is a geographical separation, not an > administrative/political one. > > I'd say that admin_level=1 should separate supranational *economic* entities, > i.e: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Union > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Union > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asian_Union > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Task_Force_on_North_America > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_Central_American_States > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Southeast_Asian_Nations And European Union ? I'm not bothered that these levels are numbers, it is just that the CURRENT numbers do not allow for ALL of the levels as THIS list suggests. I still think there is a place for continents here rather than having to create yet another set of numbers? Africa, Asia and the rest are USED to provide administrative type grouping just as African Union and Asian Union do. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://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] simplifying mapnik layout definition
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080527 23:40]: > I have now put a bit of that stuff together. > > > All files (including sample code) is at > http://alius.ayous.org/~aba/osm-formater-1/ As I didn't get any comments, I assume that this solution doesn't fit the needs and I'll not follow it further. Cheers, Andi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] (1) news on mapping campaign in Milano and (2) check for procedure to generate complex statistics on portion of OSM planet
On Friday 30 May 2008 17:15:36 Andrea Giacomelli (pibinko) wrote: > UPDATE ON MAPPING CAMPAIGN IN MILANO > > > Some of you may be aware that in mid-March, following the inspiration by > our Edoardo "Mad Mapper" Marascalchi, we have set up a three-month mapping > campaign in Milano, Italy, to push on the completion of the open street map > in this relatively small (population approx 1.2 million) but important town > in Italy. > > This campaign has been designed as a joint operation between GFOSS.it (the > Italian OSGEO Chapter), some of the Italian "free mappers", and a local > radio station. This is very interesting. I am currently planning a mapping weekend in my home town in august. I thought of trying to get a local newspaper to report before, during and after the event, but perhaps a radio station is even more interesting. How did you manage to sell the idea to the radio station? What where your arguments? Who did you talk to? Did they use the event in other ways like competitions for the public? Any detail is interesting. -Inge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
El Viernes, 30 de Mayo de 2008, Lester Caine escribió: > Personally I've been viewing admin_level=0 as the world. Yeah, say that again when extraterrestrials invade us :-P > admin_level=1 should equal the continents I'm against this definition. A continent is a geographical separation, not an administrative/political one. I'd say that admin_level=1 should separate supranational *economic* entities, i.e: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asian_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Task_Force_on_North_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_Central_American_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Southeast_Asian_Nations -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Executive ability is prominent in your make-up. 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] National borders in the British Islands
Lester Caine wrote: > > Personally I've been viewing admin_level=0 as the world. > admin_level=1 should equal the continents > admin_level=2 for countries ( UNITED KINGDOM ) > admin_level=3 ( or so ) for states/areas ( ENGLAND ) It seems like level 4 is already used as you describe for level 3. > Only niggle with this is 'European Union' - does that class as a continent or > do we add floating point as suggested and have 1.5. Not all countries in > europe are in the European Union, but EU is certainly an administrative area? > So perhaps THAT should be level 2 for Europe with countries at level 3. That doesn't fit at all with the use of level 2 described on the wiki... > I don't think that the level structure was eve actually agreed - and now it's > biting back? I think it was put in place to avoid discussion about what to name the levels. In that it has been quite successful. I think that discussion would still be underway and no one would be happy, if we'd tried to use names for the values instead. -Alex Mauer "hawke" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Andy Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yes, for rendering decisions like X >=5. That doesn't imply it's the >> best approach for storing the data. Don't tag for renderers etc. > > It's not tagging for renderers. It's tagging for anything that wishes > to programmatically extract administration-type data from the OSM > database. At last someone who is also not bothered how things are rendered :) Personally I've been viewing admin_level=0 as the world. admin_level=1 should equal the continents admin_level=2 for countries ( UNITED KINGDOM ) admin_level=3 ( or so ) for states/areas ( ENGLAND ) Only niggle with this is 'European Union' - does that class as a continent or do we add floating point as suggested and have 1.5. Not all countries in europe are in the European Union, but EU is certainly an administrative area? So perhaps THAT should be level 2 for Europe with countries at level 3. I don't think that the level structure was eve actually agreed - and now it's biting back? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://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] access=license
Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote: > Access tags imply rights of use for (all) the tagged purpose(s) in my > book, not just rights of passage through. Does everyone else use that > interpretation? I do. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 4:43 PM, elvin ibbotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Sebastian Spaeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 30 May 2008 14:16:59 BDT > Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands > > elvin ibbotson wrote: > > As I understand it the numbers are not the problem, it > arises from people not knowing which is the right number to use (eg. > England/Scotland border admin_level 2 or 4?). This is why I think > numbers are useful in the data but users should not have to know what > numbers to use. Rather they should be presented with choices using words > they understand which then put the right numbers in the database. > > The problem is not at all about whether you let user choose a number or > from a list of wordings. The issue at hand here is whether Wales country > border is of the same type as Austria's is. > > It's true this was the original issue, and (as I have already said) I would > rank the Welsh and Scottish borders at the same level as US states, but my > contributions have been about the way the admin_level is presented to the > user. > > This is what wars are fought over and you cannot solve the issue by > either numbers or by having people select from a list "municipal" or > "country" border. > > Yes, I'm sure they would rather pick from such a menu. Mapping to the > relevant boundary and admin_level tags should be trivial as the wiki > page manages it. I'm sure implementations are welcome. > > The issue is not at all whether there's a nice drop down list or not. > People work already using descriptions on the wiki. > > I for one do not want to have to be flicking backwards and forwards between > wiki pages looking up the correct tagging convention when I am trying to > edit the map. I much prefer simply choosing from the options Potlatch or > JOSM present to me. Unfortunately, all to often, you need to consult the > wiki and I believe this is likely to put a lot of new users off. I was told > only a very small proportion of people who register as users are actually > active in building the map. This could be one of the reasons why. The > key=value tag approach is great for extending OSM into specialist fields or > adding metadata but the core properties have to be standardised. That is why > we have the guides on the wiki and arguments over the uses of these tags. I > just think there could be improvements to the way the core tags are handled > in the database and editor software, is all :-) The only part of this where you are causing controversy is where you talk about the database. The idea of editors providing better tagging support is a good one that would be welcomed by many people, and a fairly standardised core tag set is generally what we currently have (if a bit crap in places, and not necessarily well supported by the editors atm). As for the mappers to users ratio, well, historically it's running at about 1 in 10. That's based on the rolling month edit stats that the server produces every day... there are probably more semi-active mappers who aren't contributing every month. I don't think that's actually too bad considering. It would be interesting to see why the other 9/10 people haven't continued, but we'd probably have to spam them with a survey to find out. I'd wouldn't be surprised if the learning curve was a big factor. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Andy Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, for rendering decisions like X >=5. That doesn't imply it's the > best approach for storing the data. Don't tag for renderers etc. It's not tagging for renderers. It's tagging for anything that wishes to programmatically extract administration-type data from the OSM database. > So how can one admin level be globally defined, but another one isn't? > "Within a country" is a farcial statement, since this entire > conversation has shown there is no global equivalence to the meaning > of the word "country". You don't need a passport to travel from Wales > to England, nor from Belgium to Luxembourg, and the United Arab > Emirates adds a whole new level of complexity... Easy, because "country" is one of the few things in the world there is a broad concensus over: if you can issue a passport or not is a pretty good test. Not perfect, but as long you can settle on a definition that matches the criteria I set down below then I don't particularly care. No idea about Wales vs England but travelling from Belgium to Luxembourg you most certainly need a passport or ID card. You don't need to *show* it to anybody, but that's a different issue entirely. Let me tell you how I see the boundary/admin_level data being defined: - Every point on the globe should be, for each value of admin_level, either in exactly one boundary at that level, or be outside all boundaries at all levels greater than or equal to this one. - At any single boundary level, the sets of boundaries at that level, together with the set of points outside any area cover the entire globe (there are no gaps). - admin_levels nest, so that the area covered by an admin_level=X is also covered by areas with admin_level > X With these constraints we can implement an is_in system. You can pick any point on the earths surface and find all the boundaries it is inside. Other GIS systems can do this, so why shouldn't OSM? I think the problem is that you're trying to derive other non-geographic information from this, like whether you need a passport or not. If you want that, please go invent a new set of tags because that's a completely different problem. > You miss the point entirely, I think. Each renderer would choose the > number of boundary types it wants to distinguish between, and would > have a rule for each. My point is that you're proposing creating hundreds of boundary types and then requiring every renderer to know about all the types. We don't have hundreds of highway types so we should use the same idea here: encode an approximation of the most important useful feature and use additional tags to describe the details. > not some kind of small minded kludge where someone stood up one day > and said "there can only be 10 types of border in OSM". Or do we > accept floating point values? We havn't said there can be only 10 types, we've said that we only expect there to be upto 10 levels of nesting. What the boundary means politically is completely orthoginal. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
elvin ibbotson wrote: > I for one do not want to have to be flicking backwards and forwards > between wiki pages looking up the correct tagging convention when I am > trying to edit the map. I much prefer simply choosing from the options > Potlatch or JOSM present to me. Unfortunately, all to often, you need > to consult the wiki [...] > I just think there > could be improvements to the way the core tags are handled in the > database and editor software, is all :-) Well, one of the big things planned for Potlatch 1.0 is exactly that - an (optional) property editing system that abstracts the tags away from the novice user. These things don't happen overnight but they _do_ happen! :) cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
From: Sebastian Spaeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 30 May 2008 14:16:59 BDT Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands elvin ibbotson wrote: As I understand it the numbers are not the problem, it arises from people not knowing which is the right number to use (eg. England/Scotland border admin_level 2 or 4?). This is why I think numbers are useful in the data but users should not have to know what numbers to use. Rather they should be presented with choices using words they understand which then put the right numbers in the database. The problem is not at all about whether you let user choose a number or from a list of wordings. The issue at hand here is whether Wales country border is of the same type as Austria's is. It's true this was the original issue, and (as I have already said) I would rank the Welsh and Scottish borders at the same level as US states, but my contributions have been about the way the admin_level is presented to the user. This is what wars are fought over and you cannot solve the issue by either numbers or by having people select from a list "municipal" or "country" border. Yes, I'm sure they would rather pick from such a menu. Mapping to the relevant boundary and admin_level tags should be trivial as the wiki page manages it. I'm sure implementations are welcome. The issue is not at all whether there's a nice drop down list or not. People work already using descriptions on the wiki. I for one do not want to have to be flicking backwards and forwards between wiki pages looking up the correct tagging convention when I am trying to edit the map. I much prefer simply choosing from the options Potlatch or JOSM present to me. Unfortunately, all to often, you need to consult the wiki and I believe this is likely to put a lot of new users off. I was told only a very small proportion of people who register as users are actually active in building the map. This could be one of the reasons why. The key=value tag approach is great for extending OSM into specialist fields or adding metadata but the core properties have to be standardised. That is why we have the guides on the wiki and arguments over the uses of these tags. I just think there could be improvements to the way the core tags are handled in the database and editor software, is all :-) elvin___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
2008/5/30 Steve Chilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Also suggest a compromise for now. Good call. Steve for President. But of what country?... I'll get me coat. Dermot ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] (1) news on mapping campaign in Mil ano and (2) check for procedure to generate com plex statistics on portion of OSM planet
Hi,
A long e-mail for (1) an update on what goes on in Milano and (2) one technical
question.
I don't read the talk list every day, but I noted that after our March 18
thread on this we provided no updates, so I guess this may be of interest to
you.
Also, we are dealing with a technical task which may or may not be easy
We have talked about the issue with some of the Italian mappers, and I
understand this can be done, yet I'd like to hear about this from a more open
audience.
UPDATE ON MAPPING CAMPAIGN IN MILANO
Some of you may be aware that in mid-March, following the inspiration by our
Edoardo "Mad Mapper" Marascalchi, we have set up a three-month mapping campaign
in Milano, Italy, to push on the completion of the open street map in this
relatively small (population approx 1.2 million) but important town in Italy.
This campaign has been designed as a joint operation between GFOSS.it (the
Italian OSGEO Chapter), some of the Italian "free mappers", and a local radio
station.
Since March 17, we have been receiving a MON-FRI radio coverage, together with
advertisements on our progress and announcements of mapping events in town (we
had four of these in total).
More details (for Italian readers) are on http://www.mapparemilano.com and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Milano/Micro_Mapping_Party
This mapping campaign will close next Tuesday, June 3.
Once the operation is closed, we are going to present the result of this
activity in a small (yet to be advertised on national scale) workshop.
This will be sometime in the second half of June.
In the context of this workshop, we are going to summarise two aspects of the
M(')appare Milano experience: social and technical.
1. "social" -
the collaboration with a radio (and specifically with a show that is focused on
the city and its traffic conditions during rush hour, from 5 to 6 PM) has
brought OSM, and more in general concepts related to free geographic
information to people that would never have considered it otherwise (and they
enjoyed it)
...on the other side "people" provided insight that "we, the technologists"
would never have considered.
This is extremely interesting, and is leading to new ideas and projects that
will take place South of the Alps during the year.
2. technical
2.1. working with an "open audience", who may bring their own generic GPS, does
lead to some issues in running a mapping party. We are learning from this to
propose more structured activities in the future
TECHNICAL ISSUE
===
2.2. we would like to show various statistics of mapping activity deriving from
our project.
We know the dates, times, and areas of interest where we held our micro-mapping
parties, and we know who are the "power mappers" who are mapping every day,
independently of our awareness raising activity.
I wonder if there is some kind of "data mining" utility that would allow us to
generate different cross-tabulations by user name, date-time and GPX
coordinates.
This would be used to generate representative breakdowns of how the map in
Milano has been evolving in this period.
The visual change is very clear (and quite impressive) but I am curious of
exposing an additional level of detail with statistics of this type.
Edoardo, Niccolò and others are on top of this, but I'd like to learn more
myself (I am quite active on the promotion of the project, but less on the
technicalities)
Thanks for your attention on such a long message, and regards.
Andrea Giacomelli, aka pibinko
http://www.pibinko.org
http://www.gfoss.it
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Spiegel Online Article (Good luck to the server!)
Patrick Weber schrieb: One of Germany's leading online newspapers Spiegel Online just published an article about OSM. http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,555174,00.html Let's see how much of a traffic spike this causes. Great to see "mainstream" media noticing OSM. Yap, great article (I even bought the magazine). Now watch this: http://munin.openstreetmap.org/openstreetmap/tile.openstreetmap-apache_accesses.html http://munin.openstreetmap.org/openstreetmap/tile.openstreetmap-apache_processes.html Quite a nice jump there... Jannis smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Navit package for Debian Lenny
Here you can find Navit (latest version from svn) packaged for Debian Lenny i386: http://debian.gfoss.it/ Tested with OSM map, it works quite well. -- Niccolo Rigacci Firenze - Italy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
I am glad I mentioned it! Certainly stirred up some nationalist and sub-nationalist hornets. Can I suggest a cease-fire on it. Also suggest a compromise for now. I propose adding code to style sheet to show admin_level=3 as a less dominant variant of admin_level=2 to show at same zooms, so that "countries (=2)" and "sub-countries (=3)" can both show at reasonable levels. Activists are then free to bash each other in tag wars (changing tags between 2 and 3) at will. Scope for the DB to reflect the nuances (agreed or otherwise!) and the mapnik layer to show something. Cheers STEVE Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow Learning and Technical Support Unit Manager School of Health and Social Sciences Middlesex University phone/fax: 020 8411 5355 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mdx.ac.uk/schools/hssc/staff/profiles/technical/chiltons.asp Chair of the Society of Cartographers: http://www.soc.org.uk/ SoC conference 2008: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/cartographers08/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sebastian Spaeth Sent: 30 May 2008 14:17 Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands elvin ibbotson wrote: > As I understand it the numbers are not the problem, it > arises from people not knowing which is the right number to use (eg. > England/Scotland border admin_level 2 or 4?). This is why I think > numbers are useful in the data but users should not have to know what > numbers to use. Rather they should be presented with choices using words > they understand which then put the right numbers in the database. The problem is not at all about whether you let user choose a number or from a list of wordings. The issue at hand here is whether Wales country border is of the same type as Austria's is. This is what wars are fought over and you cannot solve the issue by either numbers or by having people select from a list "municipal" or "country" border. >> Yes, I'm sure they would rather pick from such a menu. Mapping to the >> relevant boundary and admin_level tags should be trivial as the wiki >> page manages it. I'm sure implementations are welcome. The issue is not at all whether there's a nice drop down list or not. People work already using descriptions on the wiki. However what constitutes a "country border" is open to interpretation, apparently. spaetz ___ 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] Mapnik street name positioning
Tom Chance wrote: > On Thursday 29 May 2008 17:43:11 David Earl wrote: >> >> Quite often streets change their names along their length. But the >> caption placement seems to put the names in the middle of a way. >> >> I wonder if it would be useful instead to put the name at either end of >> the way (unless it won't fit, in which case just one in the centre as >> now), and also repeat at intervals if there is plenty of room. Ditto refs. [...] > An interim solution, until your idea is developed, might be to put some kind > of hint like a little line perhaps with arrows at the point where the name > changes. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.72859&lon=-1.21865&zoom=16&layers=B00FF should make a good test case - a single road with three names within about 500m. "Littlemore Road" should fit in twice at z16, and looks like it'll fit in only once at z15. I think I'd prefer marking name boundaries rather than (as well as?) doubling names. I must really finish getting the warren-o-buildings done for the shopping centre to the N. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Spiegel Online Article (Good luck to the server!)
One of Germany's leading online newspapers Spiegel Online just published an article about OSM. http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,555174,00.html Let's see how much of a traffic spike this causes. Great to see "mainstream" media noticing OSM. 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] National borders in the British Islands
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because 99% of applications don't care the slightest how the internal > subdivisions of some random country in the world compare to those in > england. All renderers care about is "is boundary A more or less > important than boundary B". Numbers work perfect for this and that's > why they're used. Yes, for rendering decisions like X >=5. That doesn't imply it's the best approach for storing the data. Don't tag for renderers etc. > There is absolutely no implication that admin_level=4 is the same > everywhere. We know it isn't but we do know it's within a country, > because countries are admin_level=2. So how can one admin level be globally defined, but another one isn't? "Within a country" is a farcial statement, since this entire conversation has shown there is no global equivalence to the meaning of the word "country". You don't need a passport to travel from Wales to England, nor from Belgium to Luxembourg, and the United Arab Emirates adds a whole new level of complexity... > maintain the megabytes of rendering rules that would > be required to make it render You miss the point entirely, I think. Each renderer would choose the number of boundary types it wants to distinguish between, and would have a rule for each. So all the different types would be coalesced before rendering. For example, I made a style last week that took "minor", "tertiary" and "unclassified" to be the same thing (for this particular application) and coalesced them into one rule. And to be honest, it's not long until I decide to do the same thing for the million shades of green on the cycle map. And if I was to do the same with boundaries, I'd merge all the international + constituent country borders into one style, and lump the rest together too. When it's a pain to write mapnik filters, I'll fiddle the DB instead, or preprocess the planet file. But I don't demand only two admin levels, even if that suits everything I want from OSM. And you won't hear me saying that there are only 10 highway types, or all green spaces should have a common tag. It's up to the renderers to make the decisions - the database should be as accurate as possible, not some kind of small minded kludge where someone stood up one day and said "there can only be 10 types of border in OSM". Or do we accept floating point values? Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
elvin ibbotson wrote: > As I understand it the numbers are not the problem, it > arises from people not knowing which is the right number to use (eg. > England/Scotland border admin_level 2 or 4?). This is why I think > numbers are useful in the data but users should not have to know what > numbers to use. Rather they should be presented with choices using words > they understand which then put the right numbers in the database. The problem is not at all about whether you let user choose a number or from a list of wordings. The issue at hand here is whether Wales country border is of the same type as Austria's is. This is what wars are fought over and you cannot solve the issue by either numbers or by having people select from a list "municipal" or "country" border. >> Yes, I'm sure they would rather pick from such a menu. Mapping to the >> relevant boundary and admin_level tags should be trivial as the wiki >> page manages it. I'm sure implementations are welcome. The issue is not at all whether there's a nice drop down list or not. People work already using descriptions on the wiki. However what constitutes a "country border" is open to interpretation, apparently. spaetz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Andy Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Other words *could* be mapped into the same numbers. But since we can > see quite clearly that there are more than 10 types of administrative > boundaries in the world, and different people have different opinions > as to which are equivalent, what advantage is there in trying to > shoe-horn them into such a narrow set? And can anybody, in advance, > name every boundary type in the entire world and get the inter-nation > equivalence correct and uncontroversial? I think not. Because 99% of applications don't care the slightest how the internal subdivisions of some random country in the world compare to those in england. All renderers care about is "is boundary A more or less important than boundary B". Numbers work perfect for this and that's why they're used. There is absolutely no implication that admin_level=4 is the same everywhere. We know it isn't but we do know it's within a country, because countries are admin_level=2. Just like highway=tertiary is not the same everywhere in the world, but customised to the local situation. > I think we should store the actual boundary types, and if a user of > the data (e.g. a renderer) considers that English counties are > equivalent to US states then he can process them into both being the > same numerical value. If he considers English counties and US counties > to be equivalent, he can do so too. So the numerical equivalence table > should be on the rendering end of things, and the database should > store the actual factual data. If you are willing to maintain a mapping table for the 160+ counties in the world and maintain the megabytes of rendering rules that would be required to make it render sensebly then we can talk. Until then let us use admin_level and be done with it. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] access=license
cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > > In the Netherlands there's a number of parking lots where you can only park > if you have a valid parking license from the local government. > > Parking lots of this kind are common enough (in inner cities) that they have > their own official traffic sign (number 9 at [1]), but there's currently no > good way to tag them. > > The proposal is to add the new value 'license' to the 'access' key. > Parking lots of this kind would then be tagged with: > - amenity=parking > - access=license Yes, I think this is sensible. Some canal towpaths in the UK nominally require a permit for use by cyclists ( http://www.waterscape.com/things-to-do/cycling/permit ; no, I've never seen it enforced), so we should say that it can be use for any of the access 'helper' tags like motorcar=* or bicycle=* (and not just limit it to amenity=parking, of course). +1 for =license, to mean some sort of document, sticker or whatever must be shown on demand or displayed openly in order for access to be granted. Access tags imply rights of use for (all) the tagged purpose(s) in my book, not just rights of passage through. Does everyone else use that interpretation? The only objection I can see is that some might misspell the word. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
On 30 May 2008, at 10:26, Dave Stubbs wrote: > > Yes, it's the "there seemed to be more prejudice than logic in the > discussion" bit, which is complete rubbish. No offence. It's just that anyone who does not agree with my logic must be prejudiced :-) > > >> I'm no brain surgeon but, from what I've >> seen on telly, most peoples brains are, fundamentally, a bit mushy. > > I hope not. > We obviously need a numeric scale, here's the english mappings ;-) > 1 - rock > 2 - wood > 3 - cauliflower > 4 - brain > 5 - mashed potato > 6 - mushy peas > 7 - soup > Items 3-7 sound like a balanced diet elvin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch and the evil semicolons
Rory McCann wrote: > Well as a start, how about looking at the name tag? I'm looking at the issue... basically you never actually know whether, or how, the UI is going to work until you sit down and code the thing. Alternatively, svn is yadda yadda ASCII arrow yadda. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch and the evil semicolons
Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Well, I really, really dislike UIs that pop up an alert saying "You've > just done something wrong which you don't understand. It needs fixing. > Would you like to do something (a) you don't understand, or something > else (b) you don't understand either?". Well as a start, how about looking at the name tag? ways usually don't have 2 name tags (eg "Name 1; Name 2"). There are a bunch of *_name and *:name tags for that. Merging two ways with different names is nearly always a bad idea. How about a popup saying "You're trying to merge "Name 1" and "Name 2" into one road/path/whatever. Merge? Don't merge?" I agree that modal dialogs are not nice. And I wouldn't like to see a million popups but I dislike "Don't ask me again" options. This is a far from perfect solution. Rory ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:48 AM, elvin ibbotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 30 May 2008, at 00:19, Dave Stubbs wrote: > > This strand of the discussion (below) though echoes the earlier thread I > kicked off (but gave up pursuing because there seemed to be more prejudice > than logic in the discussion) about the idea of numerically-based properties > in the database mapped to human-friendly language in editors and viewers. > > OMG is your brain mush? This whole nonsense is over what admin_level > (a numerical tagging scheme) maps to. It's the perfect example of why > numbering the bloomin tags doesn't necessarily actually solve > anything. It's also the perfect example of how a global numbering > system is utterly irrelevant given our ability to invent domain and > ordering specific ones on a whim. > > Oops! I touched a nerve there :-) Yes, it's the "there seemed to be more prejudice than logic in the discussion" bit, which is complete rubbish. > I'm no brain surgeon but, from what I've > seen on telly, most peoples brains are, fundamentally, a bit mushy. I hope not. We obviously need a numeric scale, here's the english mappings ;-) 1 - rock 2 - wood 3 - cauliflower 4 - brain 5 - mashed potato 6 - mushy peas 7 - soup > As I understand it the numbers are not the problem, it arises from > people not knowing which is the right number to use (eg. England/Scotland > border admin_level 2 or 4?). Actually no, people knew exactly what number to use. The wiki actually told them that for the UK internal borders the correct number was 2. The problem is more fundamental than that... depending on who you talk to it'll either be 1) whether or not the english/scottish border is a national boundary, or 2) what is admin_level is supposed to be counting in the first place. > [snip] > > Most of that discussion was about highways but similar arguments seem to > apply to boundaries. I think most British mappers would be happier selecting > from a boundary sub-menu of 'National', 'County', 'District', 'parish', with > each choice invisibly mapped back to the appropriate numerical boundary type > than with the clumsy 'boundary=administrative' 'admin_level=4' approach. > > Yes, I'm sure they would rather pick from such a menu. Mapping to the > relevant boundary and admin_level tags should be trivial as the wiki > page manages it. I'm sure implementations are welcome. > > Exellent! We agree, then :-) Awesome :-) Although I just noticed you missed out the entry for the description of the UK internal borders from your sub-menu. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 4:37 PM, elvin ibbotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think most British mappers would be happier selecting > from a boundary sub-menu of 'National', 'County', 'District', 'parish', Yes. > with > each choice invisibly mapped back to the appropriate numerical boundary type > than with the clumsy 'boundary=administrative' 'admin_level=4' approach. No. > In > other countries/languages, other words would map to the same numbers. Other words *could* be mapped into the same numbers. But since we can see quite clearly that there are more than 10 types of administrative boundaries in the world, and different people have different opinions as to which are equivalent, what advantage is there in trying to shoe-horn them into such a narrow set? And can anybody, in advance, name every boundary type in the entire world and get the inter-nation equivalence correct and uncontroversial? I think not. I think we should store the actual boundary types, and if a user of the data (e.g. a renderer) considers that English counties are equivalent to US states then he can process them into both being the same numerical value. If he considers English counties and US counties to be equivalent, he can do so too. So the numerical equivalence table should be on the rendering end of things, and the database should store the actual factual data. Or in short, call a spade a spade, not a gardening implement level 2. Cheers, Andy > But isn't this democratic/anarchic approach to mapping great? I'm going to > put a national/state level boundary around our village and name it Isle of > Man, resulting in some worthwhile reductions in taxes and a free grandstand > seat for the TT races next month :-) > elvin ibbotson > > From: Shaun McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 29 May 2008 13:43:43 BDT > To: Bruce Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands > On 29 May 2008, at 13:31, Bruce Cowan wrote: > > Seriously, the number system for borders is rather strange, surely there > must be a more obvious scale. I suppose this has been mentioned before > though. > > I thought people are using things like district, country, city, town etc for > the boundaries, rather than a numeric value. > > > ___ > 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] Overlapping & Crossing ways
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (Should I also just disable z11 on Potlatch altogether? Thoughts > welcome: personally I don't use it, but then I don't use the Yahoo > imagery either.) I'm an urban mapper, so the higher the zoom the better. Especially when clicking "edit" on any of my traces, which immediately tries loading tens of square kilometres of south-west london, bringing the app to a juddering halt. At least erring on the side of over-zoom allows people to easily zoom back out, where as starting at too low a zoom often makes the experience a bit naff. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
On 30 May 2008, at 00:19, Dave Stubbs wrote: This strand of the discussion (below) though echoes the earlier thread I kicked off (but gave up pursuing because there seemed to be more prejudice than logic in the discussion) about the idea of numerically-based properties in the database mapped to human-friendly language in editors and viewers. OMG is your brain mush? This whole nonsense is over what admin_level (a numerical tagging scheme) maps to. It's the perfect example of why numbering the bloomin tags doesn't necessarily actually solve anything. It's also the perfect example of how a global numbering system is utterly irrelevant given our ability to invent domain and ordering specific ones on a whim. Oops! I touched a nerve there :-) I'm no brain surgeon but, from what I've seen on telly, most peoples brains are, fundamentally, a bit mushy. This fluidity and flexibility is IMHO better than the rigidity of an ossified brain. As I understand it the numbers are not the problem, it arises from people not knowing which is the right number to use (eg. England/Scotland border admin_level 2 or 4?). This is why I think numbers are useful in the data but users should not have to know what numbers to use. Rather they should be presented with choices using words they understand which then put the right numbers in the database. As for "our ability to invent domain and ordering specific ones on a whim" this too would be better translated into English as she is spoke. Most of that discussion was about highways but similar arguments seem to apply to boundaries. I think most British mappers would be happier selecting from a boundary sub-menu of 'National', 'County', 'District', 'parish', with each choice invisibly mapped back to the appropriate numerical boundary type than with the clumsy 'boundary=administrative' 'admin_level=4' approach. Yes, I'm sure they would rather pick from such a menu. Mapping to the relevant boundary and admin_level tags should be trivial as the wiki page manages it. I'm sure implementations are welcome. Exellent! We agree, then :-) elvin (mushbrain) ibbotson___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping & Crossing ways
Mark Williams wrote: > I can't imagine this was done knowingly; I suspect that the redraw > was sufficiently slow that it looked unmapped to a less experienced > user, and allowed time to re-draw the ways before it showed up. > > Would it be possible to make it draw ways & nodes BEFORE the aerial > photography, so this can't happen is less likely? Not sensibly, I'm afraid. It's a server speed thing - basically it takes longer for our server to respond to "send me a way" than it does for a tile service to respond to "send me a tile" (fairly understandably - the effort required to look something up from the database is greater than that required to just send something from the filesystem). TBH I'm not sure the presence of aerial photography or otherwise is an issue; it can still be slow to load if you're in an area without any. There's a few things that I think could help. One which I'm already planning is to have one of those little whirry "please wait, loading" carousels that OS X popularised a couple of years back and are now everywhere on the web, to make loading more visible. Potlatch could also theoretically say "loading n ways", though they all come down in one chunk, so this wouldn't update one-by-one as they arrive. The second is for various parts of the site that invoke Potlatch to do so at a higher zoom level than they do at present - in particular, if you search for a placename, then click "Edit", it invokes Potlatch at z11. Loading such a large area is always going to take a lot of time, especially in an area like London where there's oodles of nodes and ways. It would be better, IMO, to do this at z13. There are people much more qualified to do the Rails changes for this than me, so patches very welcome. :) (Should I also just disable z11 on Potlatch altogether? Thoughts welcome: personally I don't use it, but then I don't use the Yahoo imagery either.) And the third thing is to put some magic juice in to speed up the server! On a slightly related issue, I'll be interested to see how changesets, and the easier ability to monitor an area, affect this. 0.6b went live on 15th January, 0.8a on 30th March, so these duplicated ways have been around there for a while: I'm slightly surprised that they hadn't been noticed before. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] online routing service with osm data
Wow, its really easy to handle, even if I couldn't get some information in the "Get information"-mode -- at least in the center of Berlin. But a problem turned out with calculating the route for pedestrians. The routing mechanism doesn't route along some roads. In http://data.giub.uni-bonn.de/openrouteservice/?zoom=15&lat=6889335.08669&lon=1486725.17222&layers=0B0 is the problem the red main road (Hauptstraße). The pedestrian way goes all way through Bülowstraße in the north, while the shortest route goes through all other roads. Obviously, not all 'highways' allow pedestrian to walk on. Or how is it thought? It's quite interesting, because I never tagged a road as allowed for pedestrians... Greetings, Stefan >i saw this today on the openmoko list, not sure why it wasn't >announced here as well: > >http://www.openrouteservice.org/ > >it's a point and click routing service, using OSM data, pretty similar >to google maps. nice interface, and pretty quick to come up with an >answer > >the kicker for me is it allows routing for pedestrians, which >generally have a shorter route than cars - cutting through malls, >parks, against traffic on one way streets, etc > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
