Re: [OSM-talk] Merging OSM files
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Simon Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > Does anyone have a quick/easy solution to merge a number of '.osm' files > into a single file? (rather than opening them all in JOSM and merging the > layers down) > Osmosis can do this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Osmosis#--merge_.28--m.29 Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] generate taiwan map with mapnik
Hi everyone: I tried to generate Taiwan map with generate_image.pl, but the result was very strange. Some highways are shifted to south of the island. Does here anyone know what's going on? I'm afraid it's problem of me. Because that was the first I use mapnik. The thumbnail image is here: http://gallery.locomotion.tw/main.php/d/4984-2/image.png And the original image is here: http://gallery.locomotion.tw/main.php/d/4982-1/image.png The original image size is about 1.6MB, so it takes time to download. Thank you for your help. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Merging OSM files
Hi all, Does anyone have a quick/easy solution to merge a number of '.osm' files into a single file? (rather than opening them all in JOSM and merging the layers down) I am playing with relations/route for a tourist map, and would like to overlay a series of relation/routes onto a skelleton map (consisting only of the major roads/town names etc). I can use the API/XAPI to download seperate files; one for each relation/route, one for the major roads, etc. I am thinking that this is a better approach than downloading everything and then cutting stuff out. I don't think I can fake it with the render's features file as I would like the more detailed ways (say tertiary roads) to be rendered if they are part of a relation/route. I suppose this would also be a valid technique for producing a simplified map for Garmin/GPS export. Cheers, Simon PS. Should 'wget http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.5/way[...]' be returning relations as well as nodes/ways? It appears to... if it should, then the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Osmxapi) needs updating. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: path, designated. Rejected: *way deprecation
Andy Robinson \(blackadder-lists\) schrieb: > Frederik Ramm wrote: >>I should expect any good bike routing algorithm to consider footways >>as well, with speed suitable for walking. I'm not aware of any footway >>were you are not allowed to push your bike. Just start cycling next weekend, 50km and more. Watch the pedestrians and hikers if you misuse "their" ways. Also downhill push your bike "with speed suitable for walking"--that's surely no fun... >>Thus I would simply tag a >>cycleway where you have to dismount as a footway - I don't see a >>practical difference. > A point of note though that in the UK you are generally not allowed to > cycle > on footpaths and indeed in most urban areas there are no-cycling signs on > many of them to stop you doing so. I personally don't agree with the > policy but we have had it for a long time and is the norm here, not easy > therefore to overturn without an Act of Parliament presumably. It's the same in Germany. Often, nobody cares, but in summertime they often try to educate "cycling rowdies" and punish them. Sometimes they are right, often they are not... -- Karl Eichwalder ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: path, designated. Rejected: *way deprecation
Shaun McDonald schrieb: > If the use of the cycle is required, and the only other path is the > road, then putting bicycle=no on the road will cause routing > algorithms for cyclists to push the cyclist to the adjacent cycleway. This would be wrong in Germany. Using the road is not forbidden in Germany, it is just that you must use "accompanying" cycleway. And this "accompanying" is often highly discussed... And if the cycleway is too dangerous, (mis)used for parking, or does not go to your destination, you are not forced any longer to stay on the cycleway. Tagging a street with bicycle=no is only appropriate, if there is placed such road sign. > I would also like to see the value bicycle=dismount, for short > sections where cyclists have to dismount as part of the cycle network. For me, those sections are simply highway=footway without bicycle=yes. If there is a road sign disallowing cycling explicitly, I add bicycle=no. bicycle=dismount won't hurt, but is not needed, IMO. -- Karl Eichwalder ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] mapping resolution
Moshe Sayag wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Is there a way to merge these tracks? > Is it a matter of the selected resolution? Did I understand correctly that you have used JOSM's "Convert to data layer" feature to convert several track recordings into ways, and now wish to merge them? If that's the case, the best method is to select one of the ways (probably the one which has the most or most accurate connections to crossing ways and so forth) and then delete all the others. Then load all of the gpx tracks into JOSM and adjust the single remaining way to match the tracks as best you can. If the road goes perfectly straight, there's no need to have extra data points in the middle, other than at intersections. I generally sample data at 1Hz, but ways should have variable numbers of data points, depending on how much the road curves. "record at the highest resolution possible, map at the lowest resolution needed to look good" is how I do it. Hope this helps. -Alex Mauer "hawke" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Mapnik Render Glitch
It appears that Mapnik renders the name of a 'surface=rocks' area, but not the edge of the area. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.58993&lon=-114.374895&zoom=18&layers=B00FF Simon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: path, designated. Rejected: *way deprecation
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > > I would also like to see the value bicycle=dismount, for short > > sections where cyclists have to dismount as part of the cycle network. > > I should expect any good bike routing algorithm to consider footways > as well, with speed suitable for walking. I'm not aware of any footway > were you are not allowed to push your bike. Thus I would simply tag a > cycleway where you have to dismount as a footway - I don't see a > practical difference. > > Bye > Frederik > Be careful with that. In the US, I've sometimes encountered pedestrian-only gates--basically a fenced box with three openings in series, with the middle one offset from the other two such that only a pedestrian could get through all three. The appropriate thing to do here is to tag it highway=gate and then the appropriate access keys (bicycle=no, etc.). But the way should probably have bicycle=no on it as well if that's really the case. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] mapping resolution
>> Is there a way to merge these tracks? > > For uploading leave it as it is. For mapping just draw the way in the > middle > of the two tracks. > Hi, I would go a bit further to say 'estimate the best position given multiple samples'. The calculated position can be effected by enviromental issues. Yesterday whilst logging, I had a track go completely wild when a CPR train went past. You should ignore obviously incorrect sample points. Welcome aboard, Simon. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] mapping resolution
Hi, > I got my first gps device (Garmin III+) and I started to map my area. welcome :) . > I don't know what is "the best" sampling interval so I set it to 5m. We usually use the highest available, which usually is 1/sec on the Garmins. > The > problem is that when I upload the data to JOSM I see some roads as some > (~parallel) tracks for every time I've passed there. That's the normal aberration. > Is there a way to merge these tracks? For uploading leave it as it is. For mapping just draw the way in the middle of the two tracks. > Is it a matter of the selected resolution? No. HTH & best regards, ce ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] mapping resolution
Hi everyone, I'm sure this issue was raised before but I can't find the info I need so please summarize it or direct me to it. I got my first gps device (Garmin III+) and I started to map my area. I don't know what is "the best" sampling interval so I set it to 5m. The problem is that when I upload the data to JOSM I see some roads as some (~parallel) tracks for every time I've passed there. Is there a way to merge these tracks? Is it a matter of the selected resolution? Thanks, Moshe ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I big jump in new users and user activity.
Am Montag, 2. Juni 2008 20:52:08 schrieb Christoph Eckert: > Hi, > > > >> > > >> I, for one, welcome our new german overlords. > > >> > > > > > > Though we can only 100% definitively prove that the new arrivals are > > > Germans if the number of complaints about Potlatch triples, too. > > > > Not really, they were shown how to use JOSM at the LinuxTag :P > > I doubt this will prevent them from complaining about Potlatch; they are > whining and complaining all day. Even if you give them a perfect product, > they will keep nitpicking. > > I need to know that, as I am one of them ;-) . > > Cheers, > > ce So this means those Krauts from LinuxTag will neccessarily complain about JOSM all day long since they do not know Potlach at all? :-p ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: path, designated. Rejected: *way deprecation
Frederik Ramm wrote: >Sent: 02 June 2008 10:30 PM >To: Shaun McDonald >Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; Alex Mauer >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: path,designated. Rejected: *way >deprecation > >Hi, > >> I would also like to see the value bicycle=dismount, for short >> sections where cyclists have to dismount as part of the cycle network. > >I should expect any good bike routing algorithm to consider footways >as well, with speed suitable for walking. I'm not aware of any footway >were you are not allowed to push your bike. Thus I would simply tag a >cycleway where you have to dismount as a footway - I don't see a >practical difference. I'd do the same. A point of note though that in the UK you are generally not allowed to cycle on footpaths and indeed in most urban areas there are no-cycling signs on many of them to stop you doing so. I personally don't agree with the policy but we have had it for a long time and is the norm here, not easy therefore to overturn without an Act of Parliament presumably. Cheers Andy > >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 > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.5/1479 - Release Date: 02/06/2008 >7:02 PM ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sub-national and regional mailing lists
Frederik Ramm wrote: >Sent: 01 June 2008 5:16 PM >To: talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: [OSM-talk] Sub-national and regional mailing lists > >Hi, > > the Wiki warns of "high traffic" on the "talk" list, but the list >with the highest traffic in the OSM empire is "talk-de"; in May we had >1951 posts on talk-de (versus 1022 on talk). > >We have decided to create an extra mailing list for the 25+ strong >Berlin community and will likely do so for other equally large >regional communities in Germany, and I assume that in the not so >distant future we will also have the equivalent of a "newbies" >and "dev" list for the German-speaking community. > >We're likely to run these lists on the openstreetmap.de server(s) >in order not to burden central command with setup and maintenance. I'd suggest you check through the admin list whether setup and maintenance is an issue. I suspect it's not as long as someone is planning to take responsibility for maintaining the list(s) itself in the same way as we do now for all the other ones. If any new lists are set up away from OSM central it would be sensible to ensure the admin list knows who is responsible for them as queries may well come through the main osm channels rather than .de alone. Cheers Andy > >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 > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1477 - Release Date: 01/06/2008 >5:28 PM ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I big jump in new users and user activity.
We need a new list, editwanking maybe? ;-) Cheers Andy >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:talk- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm >Sent: 02 June 2008 10:26 PM >To: Florian Lohoff >Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; Richard Fairhurst >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] I big jump in new users and user activity. > >Hi, > >> > People also seem to have trouble to join ways properly. I often >> > must connect Potlatch created ways. >> >> Same here - i often find unconnected ways (crossing ways) with josm >> where the original contributer used potlatch. > >I can top that. I CREATE unconnected ways with Potlatch! > >During LinuxTag I often had to fire up Potlatch because one of our >machines didn't have JOSM installed. The person I was presenting to >was usually treated to a first-hand experience of toggling between >the edit view and the "First Steps" wiki page ;-) and I guess I created >a number of unconnected ways initially. Later I had a situation where >Potlatch continually complained that I wasn't logged in while the >screen still showed my user name in the top right corner - session >expiry perhaps? - On another occasion I would have liked a short >session expiry, when out of the corner of my eye I spotted some >visitors having fun at one of our machines, and suddenly realised >they had Potlatch open... and it was NOT in play mode ;-) I explained >to them that they were just editing our database which they found >a bit hard to believe. > >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 > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.5/1479 - Release Date: 02/06/2008 >7:02 PM ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: path, designated. Rejected: *way deprecation
Hi, > I would also like to see the value bicycle=dismount, for short > sections where cyclists have to dismount as part of the cycle network. I should expect any good bike routing algorithm to consider footways as well, with speed suitable for walking. I'm not aware of any footway were you are not allowed to push your bike. Thus I would simply tag a cycleway where you have to dismount as a footway - I don't see a practical difference. 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] I big jump in new users and user activity.
Hi, > > People also seem to have trouble to join ways properly. I often > > must connect Potlatch created ways. > > Same here - i often find unconnected ways (crossing ways) with josm > where the original contributer used potlatch. I can top that. I CREATE unconnected ways with Potlatch! During LinuxTag I often had to fire up Potlatch because one of our machines didn't have JOSM installed. The person I was presenting to was usually treated to a first-hand experience of toggling between the edit view and the "First Steps" wiki page ;-) and I guess I created a number of unconnected ways initially. Later I had a situation where Potlatch continually complained that I wasn't logged in while the screen still showed my user name in the top right corner - session expiry perhaps? - On another occasion I would have liked a short session expiry, when out of the corner of my eye I spotted some visitors having fun at one of our machines, and suddenly realised they had Potlatch open... and it was NOT in play mode ;-) I explained to them that they were just editing our database which they found a bit hard to believe. 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
[OSM-talk] [Tagging] Vote open: Hiking (Keys: sac_scale & trail_visibility)
Hello everybody, I request your votes on a classification scheme for hiking trails: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Hiking Best regards Chrischan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: path, designated. Rejected: *way deprecation
On 2 Jun 2008, at 21:31, Alex Mauer wrote:
> Karl Eichwalder wrote:
>> Alex Mauer schrieb:
>>
>>> The access restrictions on the road ("no bicycles if there is an
>>> accompanying cycle route") don't affect the access on the cycle
>>> route
>>> itself. Obviously legality of use by other modes of
>>> transportation will
>>> vary by jurisdiction (In some places cycleway implies "moped=yes",
>>> while
>>> in others it implies "moped=no"). But I think it's fair to say
>>> that in
>>> all jurisdictions, highway=cycleway will imply bicycle=designated.
>>
>> Probably. And what's the equivalent if you want to use the path
>> notation? I can think about different possibilities. Here, using
>> the path would be mandatory for cyclists:
>>
>> highway=path
>> cycleway=yes
>
> I don't see anything on
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:cycleway suggesting that
> cycleway=yes means that use of the cycleway is mandatory. Changing it
> to mean that is outside the scope of the path proposal and the
> "designated" proposal. You may want to create a new proposal to cover
> this situation, if it is necessary. I would suspect that the
> "mandatory
> bicycle route" could be accomplished by simply applying "bicycle=no"
> to
> the adjacent roads. "cycleway=mandatory" would also be a good
> possibility. But again, it's nothing to do with the recently-approved
> proposals.
>
If the use of the cycle is required, and the only other path is the
road, then putting bicycle=no on the road will cause routing
algorithms for cyclists to push the cyclist to the adjacent cycleway.
When a cycle specific map gets rendered, then it could grey out the
road, with the cycleway highlighted. I think this is a better way to
tag it, otherwise routing will not know which road cyclists are not
meant to use.
I would also like to see the value bicycle=dismount, for short
sections where cyclists have to dismount as part of the cycle network.
Shaun
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: path, designated. Rejected: *way deprecation
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> Alex Mauer schrieb:
>
>> The access restrictions on the road ("no bicycles if there is an
>> accompanying cycle route") don't affect the access on the cycle route
>> itself. Obviously legality of use by other modes of transportation will
>> vary by jurisdiction (In some places cycleway implies "moped=yes", while
>> in others it implies "moped=no"). But I think it's fair to say that in
>> all jurisdictions, highway=cycleway will imply bicycle=designated.
>
> Probably. And what's the equivalent if you want to use the path
> notation? I can think about different possibilities. Here, using
> the path would be mandatory for cyclists:
>
> highway=path
> cycleway=yes
I don't see anything on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:cycleway suggesting that
cycleway=yes means that use of the cycleway is mandatory. Changing it
to mean that is outside the scope of the path proposal and the
"designated" proposal. You may want to create a new proposal to cover
this situation, if it is necessary. I would suspect that the "mandatory
bicycle route" could be accomplished by simply applying "bicycle=no" to
the adjacent roads. "cycleway=mandatory" would also be a good
possibility. But again, it's nothing to do with the recently-approved
proposals.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I big jump in new users and user activity.
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 08:07:57PM +0200, Karl Eichwalder wrote: > Since version 9 or even 8 I like Potlatch more than JOSM because you can > do many things very fast. Nevertheless using Potlatch I destroy data > unintentionally because undo does not work, or I'm too stupid to undo > mistakes early enough or because Internet latency causes some strange > results (mostly duplicated ways). > > People also seem to have trouble to join ways properly. I often > must connect Potlatch created ways. Same here - i often find unconnected ways (crossing ways) with josm where the original contributer used potlatch. Are there number on how many edits happen with the different editors to get the wrong edits into perspective? Flo -- Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-171-2280134 Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: path, designated. Rejected: *way deprecation
Alex Mauer schrieb:
> The access restrictions on the road ("no bicycles if there is an
> accompanying cycle route") don't affect the access on the cycle route
> itself. Obviously legality of use by other modes of transportation will
> vary by jurisdiction (In some places cycleway implies "moped=yes", while
> in others it implies "moped=no"). But I think it's fair to say that in
> all jurisdictions, highway=cycleway will imply bicycle=designated.
Probably. And what's the equivalent if you want to use the path
notation? I can think about different possibilities. Here, using
the path would be mandatory for cyclists:
highway=path
cycleway=yes
or here, it is physically possible, but not mandatory:
highway=path
bicycle=yes
For clarity, I'd propose to add the traffic (road) sign, where
available.
--
Karl Eichwalder
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sub-national and regional mailing lists
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 06:47:25PM +0200, Lars Aronsson wrote: > Now, the wiki Category:Users_in_Östergötland already has 7 names > and I know we have a few more contributors than that, so we are > way beyond one mapper per 100,000 inhabitants. But does NRW have > 180 contributors to OSM? I am living in NRW (in the not so dense populated North-East of NRW) and there are ~5-6 participants active around me in an area of around 300km^2 which probably means there could even be more contributors. I havent yet made MY 190km^2 though - but working on it. Flo -- Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-171-2280134 Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sub-national and regional mailing lists
Hi, > The reason I don't carry *all* countries of Europe at geofabrik.de > is that the "maproom" web site where I got the polygons from has > broken down before I could download them all. I'm trying to source > them from elsewhere. http://christeck.de/stuff/Polygons.zip Best regards, ce ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I big jump in new users and user activity.
Hi, > >> > >> I, for one, welcome our new german overlords. > >> > > > > Though we can only 100% definitively prove that the new arrivals are > > Germans if the number of complaints about Potlatch triples, too. > > Not really, they were shown how to use JOSM at the LinuxTag :P I doubt this will prevent them from complaining about Potlatch; they are whining and complaining all day. Even if you give them a perfect product, they will keep nitpicking. I need to know that, as I am one of them ;-) . Cheers, ce ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: path, designated. Rejected: *way deprecation
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> Define "appropriate". Otherwise it cannot. A "cycleway" (Radweg)
> is somethig very special in Germany (unfortunately). It does not
> equal to a path where you are allowed to cycle. You are _forced_ to
> make use of this way if it accompanies the street. Of course, here
> in Germany there are also many a lot ways where cycling is possible
> (legally and physically), but most of these ways are by no means
> "cycleway"; often these ways are just "tracks".
The access restrictions on the road ("no bicycles if there is an
accompanying cycle route") don't affect the access on the cycle route
itself. Obviously legality of use by other modes of transportation will
vary by jurisdiction (In some places cycleway implies "moped=yes", while
in others it implies "moped=no"). But I think it's fair to say that in
all jurisdictions, highway=cycleway will imply bicycle=designated.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I big jump in new users and user activity.
Dave Stubbs schrieb: > One of those things... JOSM has the opposite problem: it frequently > connects things that aren't connected without me noticing (I need a > caps-lock for the control key) - then disconnecting them again is much > faster in potlatch. I've found a few of these in the wild. Yes, I also think default settings in JOSM are rather aggressive. But because it does not manipulate data live on the server, it is not that dangerous. Careful users would simply stay away from uploading broken data. -- Karl Eichwalder ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sub-national and regional mailing lists
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Lars Aronsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, but the horizontal axis in your diagrams is not proportional > to the size of the country, but to the country's rank by size. > If I insert a new country in the middle of the scale, the rank > jumps by one for half of the countries, but their sizes don't > change. I have made a file with: Country name Area (from Wikipedia) Population (from Wikipedia) Number of lines in the OSM file for the country Number of nodes in the OSM file for the country In Iceland there are under 2,5 inhabitants per node, but 64 inhabitants per node in Poland. On the other hand, there are 1.25 nodes per sq km Iceland, with 86 in the Netherlands. Regards, Gustav Country;Area;Population;Filesize;Nodes Austria;83872;8316487;3563586;906599 Belgium;30528;10584534;1890995;493806 Denmark;43094;5475791;1664107;401828 Finland;338145;5308208;6175447;1769457 France;674843;61875822;8548698;2164513 Germany;357022;82244000;33446096;7949754 Great Britain;209331;58845700;20982257;4897487 Iceland;103000;316252;500990;128883 Ireland;84412;4339000;2618222;559075 Italy;301318;59448163;4186922;1147631 Luxembourg;2586;476200;212260;74570 Netherlands;41528;16426371;22686945;3606970 Norway;323082;4764700;7895117;1711602 Poland;312685;38115967;2892542;595056 Spain;505992;45200737;5579401;1300674 Sweden;449964;9196227;7099762;2001304 Switzerland;41277;7619800;2558506;679291___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I big jump in new users and user activity.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Karl Eichwalder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Richard Fairhurst schrieb: >> Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: >> >>> >>> I, for one, welcome our new german overlords. >>> >> >> Though we can only 100% definitively prove that the new arrivals are >> Germans if the number of complaints about Potlatch triples, too. > > Yeah ;) > > Since version 9 or even 8 I like Potlatch more than JOSM because you can > do many things very fast. Nevertheless using Potlatch I destroy data > unintentionally because undo does not work, or I'm too stupid to undo > mistakes early enough or because Internet latency causes some strange > results (mostly duplicated ways). > > People also seem to have trouble to join ways properly. I often > must connect Potlatch created ways. > One of those things... JOSM has the opposite problem: it frequently connects things that aren't connected without me noticing (I need a caps-lock for the control key) - then disconnecting them again is much faster in potlatch. I've found a few of these in the wild. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: path, designated. Rejected: *way deprecation
Alex Mauer schrieb: > The new highway value "path" has been approved. It received 31 votes, > 22 in favor and 9 against, with 3 abstentions. > > The new access value "designated" has been approved. It received 32 > votes, 19 in favor and 13 against, with 2 abstentions > > The deprecation of footway, bridleway, and cycleway in favor of the path > tag has been rejected. However, those tags can be interpreted as > "shortcuts" for the path tag with appropriate access implications. Define "appropriate". Otherwise it cannot. A "cycleway" (Radweg) is somethig very special in Germany (unfortunately). It does not equal to a path where you are allowed to cycle. You are _forced_ to make use of this way if it accompanies the street. Of course, here in Germany there are also many a lot ways where cycling is possible (legally and physically), but most of these ways are by no means "cycleway"; often these ways are just "tracks". -- Karl Eichwalder ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: path, designated. Rejected: *way deprecation
The new highway value "path" has been approved. It received 31 votes, 22 in favor and 9 against, with 3 abstentions. The new access value "designated" has been approved. It received 32 votes, 19 in favor and 13 against, with 2 abstentions The deprecation of footway, bridleway, and cycleway in favor of the path tag has been rejected. However, those tags can be interpreted as "shortcuts" for the path tag with appropriate access implications. Voting was 6 in favor, 26 against, and 2 abstentions. Relevant changes have been incorporated into the wiki. -Alex Mauer "hawke" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I big jump in new users and user activity.
Richard Fairhurst schrieb: > Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: > >> >> I, for one, welcome our new german overlords. >> > > Though we can only 100% definitively prove that the new arrivals are > Germans if the number of complaints about Potlatch triples, too. Yeah ;) Since version 9 or even 8 I like Potlatch more than JOSM because you can do many things very fast. Nevertheless using Potlatch I destroy data unintentionally because undo does not work, or I'm too stupid to undo mistakes early enough or because Internet latency causes some strange results (mostly duplicated ways). People also seem to have trouble to join ways properly. I often must connect Potlatch created ways. -- Karl Eichwalder ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sub-national and regional mailing lists
Steve Chilton wrote: > http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~steve8/planetextracts.pdf > In all cases the countries are ranked by size (km2). > From the first graph, and making a simple assumption that the > size of the extract file ought perhaps to be proportional to the > size of the country, Yes, but the horizontal axis in your diagrams is not proportional to the size of the country, but to the country's rank by size. If I insert a new country in the middle of the scale, the rank jumps by one for half of the countries, but their sizes don't change. And still, maps are drawn by humans, not by empty land size. So you need to take population density into account before you label anyone as more or less active. Iceland has 3 inhabitants per square kilometre, Russia has 8, Finland has 16, Sweden 20, Latvia 36, Scotland 65, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 73, Ukraine 77, France 114, Poland 122, Denmark 129, Lower Saxony 167, Belgium 344, England 388, the Netherlands 395, and North Rhine-Westphalia 528. If one in every 100.000 inhabitants goes out mapping, the 90 participants from Sweden will each have 5000 square kilometers to cover (the size of Northumberland). In my province, Östergötland, with twice the average Swedish population density, the expected 4 participants will only have 2500 sq.km each (the size of Dorset or Luxembourg). We're lucky, but Iceland is expected to have 3 participants, each covering 34,000 sq.km (the size of Belgium). From England we would expect 500 participants, who each need to cover a tiny 260 sq.km (less than the Isle of Wight). But in NRW, the 180 participants need only cover 190 sq.km each. Now, the wiki Category:Users_in_Östergötland already has 7 names and I know we have a few more contributors than that, so we are way beyond one mapper per 100,000 inhabitants. But does NRW have 180 contributors to OSM? -- Lars Aronsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
Cartinus wrote: > A powerstation and a gas distribution node are physical things (fenced off > areas) and not administrative entities, so this comparison is just weird > IMHO. I think Martijn was referring to the areas served by a particular power station or gas distribution node, not to the stations and nodes themselves. Those areas are logical, not physical. -Alex Mauer "hawke" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Platform network issues
There is currently a network issue that is affecting some servers and will mean access via the main website will fail. The problem is under investigation and a sysadmin is heading over to UCL, our primary host, to investigate. 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 Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave Stubbs wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Shaun McDonald >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On 1 Jun 2008, at 22:52, Cartinus wrote: >>> On Sunday 01 June 2008 17:43:11 Karl Newman wrote: >> The examples that keep being quoted are of 'towns' that straddle >> state >> boundaries in the US I don't know any examples of "towns" straddling state boundaries, but "towns" straddling county boundaries are common enough to break the model. Here is one example of a city that is "part of" three counties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora%2C_Colorado The authority of the municipalities is granted by the states, not by the counties. >>> Here's another. Worcester Park sits on the boundary of 3 English >>> counties >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.38053&lon=-0.24354&zoom=15&layers=B00FF >>> >> >> How's that relevant? >> Is there a Worcester Park administrative area that you know of >> straddling the boundaries? > > ACTUALLY it may well be that one authority is responsible for some aspects > even where the area is in a different county. I pay RATES to Gloucestershire, > but the Business premises are a Worcestershire postal address. Things are > simply not black and white when it comes to abstract concepts like boundaries > ;) > Yeah, but we can just ignore postal boundaries completely for now, they're not administrative and don't mesh with the admin boundaries at all in the UK. Your example is reasonably common, my postal address and postcode is Surrey, but I live in the London Borough of Sutton (so pay rates to London etc). Please lets not drag non-admin things into this, since it's complicated enough as it is. -- 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
Dave Stubbs wrote: > On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Shaun McDonald > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 1 Jun 2008, at 22:52, Cartinus wrote: >> >>> On Sunday 01 June 2008 17:43:11 Karl Newman wrote: > The examples that keep being quoted are of 'towns' that straddle > state > boundaries in the US >>> I don't know any examples of "towns" straddling state boundaries, >>> but "towns" >>> straddling county boundaries are common enough to break the model. >>> >>> Here is one example of a city that is "part of" three counties: >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora%2C_Colorado >>> >>> The authority of the municipalities is granted by the states, not by >>> the >>> counties. >> Here's another. Worcester Park sits on the boundary of 3 English >> counties >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.38053&lon=-0.24354&zoom=15&layers=B00FF >> > > How's that relevant? > Is there a Worcester Park administrative area that you know of > straddling the boundaries? ACTUALLY it may well be that one authority is responsible for some aspects even where the area is in a different county. I pay RATES to Gloucestershire, but the Business premises are a Worcestershire postal address. Things are simply not black and white when it comes to abstract concepts like boundaries ;) -- 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] I big jump in new users and user activity.
Richard Fairhurst schrieb: Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: I, for one, welcome our new german overlords. Though we can only 100% definitively prove that the new arrivals are Germans if the number of complaints about Potlatch triples, too. Not really, they were shown how to use JOSM at the LinuxTag :P 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] I big jump in new users and user activity.
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: > > I, for one, welcome our new german overlords. > Though we can only 100% definitively prove that the new arrivals are Germans if the number of complaints about Potlatch triples, too. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I big jump in new users and user activity.
Frederik Ramm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Sent: 02 June 2008 2:45 PM >To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) >Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] I big jump in new users and user activity. > >Hi, > >> Since the heise online article of 23rd May [1] the stats charts[2] are >> showing a big change in the user activity statistics. The jump is the >> biggest in the history of the project and the trend appears to be >> continuing. My predition of 100,000 registered users by the end of the >> year will probably be reached somewhat sooner J > >The article in the printed "Spiegel" is more likely to be responsible. >"Spiegel" is one of our two biggest weekly news magazines, with a >circulation of more than 1 million. This may seem a small number >compared to the "page impressions" we're used to deal with, but it's >a real paper thing that people actually pay money for, it lies on >the waiting room tables of countless GP practices and so on... it's >as mainstream as it gets. I'm not sure if that tallies. The jump is discernable and continuous from the stats on the 24th (ie data for the 23rd) and the printed edition came out on the 26th according to the wiki. > >As you have probably noticed, the article went public on their online >portal some time last week, and that spike was even higher than the >"Heise" spike in the Munin graphs. > We should always make the distinction between visitors to the website and OSM database activity (edits). The first does not necessarily reflect the other and vice versa. Cheers Andy >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] I big jump in new users and user activity.
Hi, > Since the heise online article of 23rd May [1] the stats charts[2] are > showing a big change in the user activity statistics. The jump is the > biggest in the history of the project and the trend appears to be > continuing. My predition of 100,000 registered users by the end of the > year will probably be reached somewhat sooner J The article in the printed "Spiegel" is more likely to be responsible. "Spiegel" is one of our two biggest weekly news magazines, with a circulation of more than 1 million. This may seem a small number compared to the "page impressions" we're used to deal with, but it's a real paper thing that people actually pay money for, it lies on the waiting room tables of countless GP practices and so on... it's as mainstream as it gets. As you have probably noticed, the article went public on their online portal some time last week, and that spike was even higher than the "Heise" spike in the Munin graphs. 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] I big jump in new users and user activity.
El Lunes, 2 de Junio de 2008, 80n escribió: > I've been tracking the number of new users who go further than just > registering and actually do some editing. > > It's normally a relatively constant number, but has more than tripled in the > last week or so. I, for one, welcome our new german overlords. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Proudly running Debian Linux with 2.6.24-1-amd64 kernel, KDE 3.5.9, and PHP 5.2.6-1 generating this signature. Uptime: 15:36:10 up 10 days, 3:08, 4 users, load average: 0.38, 0.36, 0.37 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] Turn restriction
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Erik Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > > I was trying to add a turn restriction today, but failed because I got > stuck reading the extremly outdated routing page, so is there anything > important on that page? [1] Otherwise I'll delete it, pronto, so > people can read the much saner relation page [2]. > > > > [1] > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Routing:_turn_restrictions > > > [2] > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Turn_Restrictions > -- > /emj > Yes, please kill it. I had some comments on there but my suggestion on that page is very close to the current proposed (and de facto in use) turn restriction relation. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I big jump in new users and user activity.
I've been tracking the number of new users who go further than just registering and actually do some editing. Its normally a relatively constant number, but has more than tripled in the last week or so. I'll try and put up some actual figures later today. 80n On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since the heise online article of 23rd May [1] the stats charts[2] are > showing a big change in the user activity statistics. The jump is the > biggest in the history of the project and the trend appears to be > continuing. My predition of 100,000 registered users by the end of the year > will probably be reached somewhat sooner J > > > > [1] > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/GPS-Geraete-kostenlos-fuer-OpenStreetMap-Aktionen--/meldung/108392 > > [2] > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Stats#Database_Statistics_-_Graphical > > > > Cheers > > > > Andy > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] I big jump in new users and user activity.
Since the heise online article of 23rd May [1] the stats charts[2] are showing a big change in the user activity statistics. The jump is the biggest in the history of the project and the trend appears to be continuing. My predition of 100,000 registered users by the end of the year will probably be reached somewhat sooner :-) [1] http://www.heise.de/newsticker/GPS-Geraete-kostenlos-fuer-OpenStreetMap-Akti onen--/meldung/108392 [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Stats#Database_Statistics_-_Graphica l Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Baseball fields
howabout using surface=sand, so it matches beaches etc. and surface=grass? (no idea if those are rendered yet) On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to map a baseball field in a way that looks good on the map > (baseball fields have such a characteristic shape that it's worth the > effort, IMHO). In particular, I'd like to have the sand infield in a > different color than the grass outfield. > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] osmarenderer issues
>> on tah list similar problem and possible solution was shortly discussed here >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tilesathome/2008-May/002176.html >> >> Dodi > > looks useful, will it be implemented? It's implemented now changeset #8083. To disable the drawing of bezier curves add the pseudo class "no-bezier" to a line object in the stylesheet. I've changed the styles on layer 17 for buildings, aerialways and powerlines. Regards Raphael ___ 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 Monday 02 June 2008 10:38:59 Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > Most people ignore them because they are irrevelent to most people. > They make no laws, have no jurisdiction. In that sense they're more > like postcode boundaries: a fairly arbitrary division of area for the > purposes of optimising some process. The "waterschap" levies taxes. They do have "laws", which if you break them, you do get fined. There are elections for the representatives. Legally they are part of the Dutch administration. See e.g.: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterschap (Dutch) http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestuursrecht_%28Nederland%29#Bestuursorganen (Dutch) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_board_%28The_Netherlands%29 (English) Just the fact that the "waterschap" mostly deals with farmers and most Dutch people are urbanised and don't realise what the "waterschap" is and does isn't making it less part of the Dutch administration. > Another example would be the area > covered by a power substation or gas distribution node. These are > well-defined areas, but not interesting to people directly. A powerstation and a gas distribution node are physical things (fenced off areas) and not administrative entities, so this comparison is just weird IMHO. > I was > kinda assuming that admin_level would only be for legal administrative > boundaries, not so much any arbitrary boundary. That is what I think too. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Baseball fields
Hi, I’d like to map a baseball field in a way that looks good on the map (baseball fields have such a characteristic shape that it’s worth the effort, IMHO). In particular, I’d like to have the sand infield in a different color than the grass outfield. Should I have two different areas, one with leisure=track and the other with leisure=pitch? Are there other ideas? And is there a way to have the square for the runners somehow on the map? We don’t have a tag for "white line on a sports field" yet, do we? Also, what would be a good tag for the fences that appear on a baseball field (e.g. around the outfield), and whose’ shapes are also characteristic for such a field? Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de ICQ#: 74513189 Jabber-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways warning for areas
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Thomas Wood wrote: > Ignore the warnings, they were mostly as a warning to inform you that > there happen to be two ways there rather than as an error. Ok, I thought as much, thanks. Would there be any bad side effects of the validator never warning of overlapping ways where one of those ways has area=yes? - 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] Overlapping ways warning for areas
Ignore the warnings, they were mostly as a warning to inform you that there happen to be two ways there rather than as an error. The validator plugin should probably move it's level down to info from warning (can't remember what it is at the moment for certain) Also see: http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/774 On 6/2/08, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have created a number of "landuse" areas which are divided by ways. > E.g. a "natural=wood" area abutting a "landuse=farm" area with a > "highway=footway" running along the join. Where they join, the two areas > share the same nodes, as does the footway which goes along the join. > > However, JOSM's validator is complaining of "overlapping ways". I know > there is some contention as to whether sharing nodes is necessarilly the > right thing to do, but in this case the footway really is the thing that > divides the woodland from the farmland - should I take notice of the > validator and change the way I have drawn the land use areas (I guess I > could move them to layer -5, but shouldn't landuse areas default to being > on the lowest layer anyway?), or should I just ignore the warnings? > > - 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 > -- 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
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Cartinus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For another less obvious example closer to Martijn van Oosterhout: > A Dutch "waterschap" is an administrative level that resorts directly below > the national government. Several of them straddle provincial boundaries. In > the Netherlands this problem is solved on most maps by just ignoring > the "waterschap" boundaries, because most people ignore the "waterschappen" > anyway. There is however no reason not to put them in the openstreetmap > database (if we can get the data). Most people ignore them because they are irrevelent to most people. They make no laws, have no jurisdiction. In that sense they're more like postcode boundaries: a fairly arbitrary division of area for the purposes of optimising some process. Another example would be the area covered by a power substation or gas distribution node. These are well-defined areas, but not interesting to people directly. That isn't to say these boundaries shouldn't be in OSM. It would be interesting to have the local zones associated with schools in AU, for example. I'm just not sure admin_level is the right tag for this. But then, I don't have any other suggestion for tags either. I was kinda assuming that admin_level would only be for legal administrative boundaries, not so much any arbitrary boundary. 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
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Shaun McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1 Jun 2008, at 22:52, Cartinus wrote: > >> On Sunday 01 June 2008 17:43:11 Karl Newman wrote: The examples that keep being quoted are of 'towns' that straddle state boundaries in the US >> >> I don't know any examples of "towns" straddling state boundaries, >> but "towns" >> straddling county boundaries are common enough to break the model. >> >> Here is one example of a city that is "part of" three counties: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora%2C_Colorado >> >> The authority of the municipalities is granted by the states, not by >> the >> counties. > > Here's another. Worcester Park sits on the boundary of 3 English > counties > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.38053&lon=-0.24354&zoom=15&layers=B00FF > How's that relevant? Is there a Worcester Park administrative area that you know of straddling the boundaries? Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restriction
> [2]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Turn_Restrictions It mentions 'car', but to conform to Map_Features it should be 'motorcar' ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Overlapping ways warning for areas
I have created a number of "landuse" areas which are divided by ways. E.g. a "natural=wood" area abutting a "landuse=farm" area with a "highway=footway" running along the join. Where they join, the two areas share the same nodes, as does the footway which goes along the join. However, JOSM's validator is complaining of "overlapping ways". I know there is some contention as to whether sharing nodes is necessarilly the right thing to do, but in this case the footway really is the thing that divides the woodland from the farmland - should I take notice of the validator and change the way I have drawn the land use areas (I guess I could move them to layer -5, but shouldn't landuse areas default to being on the lowest layer anyway?), or should I just ignore the warnings? - 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
