Re: [OSM-talk] Osmosis - error when trying to apply a change file

[Karl Newman]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:21 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I'm trying to get Osmosis to apply a change file to a data set, although I
> think I am following the instructions on the wiki it throws an error...
> "Task 3-apply-change does not support data provided by default pipe"
>
> Example is below, where I have 'upgraded' a village to a city (don't worry
> this is just a test).
>
> Any suggestions?
> Simon.
> ---
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/Desktop/osmosis-latest/osmosis-0.28
> $ java -jar osmosis.jar  --read-xml file="village.xml" --read-xml-change
> file="test.osc" --apply-change --write-xml file="village_rechanged.xml"
>

What happens if you switch the order of the --read-xml and --read-xml-change
tasks? I remember Brett changed the way the tasks were consumed and
connected (queue vs. stack) a while back, and it might affect this. You
could also try explicitly naming the pipes and see if that helps.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OsmChange Files/Datasets.

[Brett Henderson]

The create/modify/delete "action" is applied at the node/way/relation 
level.  There is no way of applying changes at a tag level.  When 
osmosis receives a modified entity in the --apply-change task, it 
replaces the existing entity with the new one.

So in other words if you wish to add tags you need to include all 
existing tags in your modified entry.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've started looking at change sets to upload blocks of data (population
> figures in this case) and am a little confused.
>
> From the work I have done so far I can produce a change set such as
> ---
> $ cat population.osc
> 
> 
> 
>osmxapi:users='Mungewell' timestamp='2008-03-27T23:52:01Z'>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> ---
>
> However when I use Osmosis to apply this change set (to a local '.osm'
> file) it wipes out any of the already existing tags for this node, rather
> than just modifying/adding those tags which I specify.
>
> Is there some other way to apply the change set, or do I need to modify my
> script to include all the of the original tags for each node in the change
> file?
>
> Cheers,
> Simon.
>
>
> ___
> 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] OsmChange Files/Datasets.

[simon]

I've started looking at change sets to upload blocks of data (population
figures in this case) and am a little confused.

>From the work I have done so far I can produce a change set such as
---
$ cat population.osc



  





  


---

However when I use Osmosis to apply this change set (to a local '.osm'
file) it wipes out any of the already existing tags for this node, rather
than just modifying/adding those tags which I specify.

Is there some other way to apply the change set, or do I need to modify my
script to include all the of the original tags for each node in the change
file?

Cheers,
Simon.


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

[OSM-talk] Osmarender Glitch - foot patch under roadway

[simon]

Osmarender glitch at this location:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.60705&lon=-114.42645&zoom=17&layers=0B0FT

Footway is layer -1 and goes under a roadway bridge.

The footpath is rendered under the roadway, but on top of the casing for
the bridge.

Cheers,
Simon.


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

[OSM-talk] Osmosis - error when trying to apply a change file

[simon]

Hi all,
I'm trying to get Osmosis to apply a change file to a data set, although I
think I am following the instructions on the wiki it throws an error...
"Task 3-apply-change does not support data provided by default pipe"

Example is below, where I have 'upgraded' a village to a city (don't worry
this is just a test).

Any suggestions?
Simon.
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/Desktop/osmosis-latest/osmosis-0.28
$ java -jar osmosis.jar  --read-xml file="village_changed.xml" --read-xml
file="village.xml" --derive-change --write-xml-change file="test.osc"
Jun 9, 2008 7:11:03 PM com.bretth.osmosis.core.Osmosis main
INFO: Osmosis Version 0.28
Jun 9, 2008 7:11:03 PM com.bretth.osmosis.core.Osmosis main
INFO: Preparing pipeline.
Jun 9, 2008 7:11:03 PM com.bretth.osmosis.core.Osmosis main
INFO: Launching pipeline execution.
Jun 9, 2008 7:11:03 PM com.bretth.osmosis.core.Osmosis main
INFO: Pipeline executing, waiting for completion.
Jun 9, 2008 7:11:03 PM com.bretth.osmosis.core.Osmosis main
INFO: Pipeline complete.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/Desktop/osmosis-latest/osmosis-0.28
$ cat test.osc


  

  
  

  


[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/Desktop/osmosis-latest/osmosis-0.28
$ java -jar osmosis.jar  --read-xml file="village.xml" --read-xml-change
file="test.osc" --apply-change --write-xml file="village_rechanged.xml"
Jun 9, 2008 7:11:13 PM com.bretth.osmosis.core.Osmosis main
INFO: Osmosis Version 0.28
Jun 9, 2008 7:11:13 PM com.bretth.osmosis.core.Osmosis main
INFO: Preparing pipeline.
Jun 9, 2008 7:11:13 PM com.bretth.osmosis.core.Osmosis main
SEVERE: Execution aborted.
com.bretth.osmosis.core.OsmosisRuntimeException: Task 3-apply-change does
not support data provided by default pipe stored at level 2 in the default
pi
pe stack.
at
com.bretth.osmosis.core.pipeline.common.PipeTasks.retrieveTask(PipeTasks.java:154)
at
com.bretth.osmosis.core.pipeline.common.TaskManager.getInputTask(TaskManager.java:164)
at
com.bretth.osmosis.core.pipeline.v0_5.MultiSinkMultiChangeSinkRunnableSourceManager.connect(MultiSinkMultiChangeSinkRunnableSourceManager.ja
va:60)
at
com.bretth.osmosis.core.pipeline.common.Pipeline.connectTasks(Pipeline.java:69)
at
com.bretth.osmosis.core.pipeline.common.Pipeline.prepare(Pipeline.java:111)
at com.bretth.osmosis.core.Osmosis.main(Osmosis.java:49)



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

[OSM-talk] osm talk at local LUG

[Robin Paulson]

i'm thinking of giving a talk at my local LUG in the near future on
OSM - we could do with some extra mappers in the area, and any extra
OSM publicity is always useful

any advice or suggestions on things to include/exclude, focus on, etc?
i've had a quick look at some of the lectures in svn which has given
me a few ideas, but thought i'd poll here for suggestions before i
committed to anything

thanks

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Alex Mauer]

Andy Allan wrote:
> The issue is the partially-done, somewhat scrappy areas, like
> http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15&lat=6718359.62403&lon=859.10713&layers=B000
> 
> I don't know whether Dave or Shaun or Harry or anyone else has gone
> and checked these roads. And there's no point in me checking them,
> finding that they don't have a name, and also finding on Wednesday in
> the pub that all three of them have also checked these roads in the
> last few weeks. That would be a waste of time, and its this
> double-over-checking that Dave and SteveC are trying to avoid.

That (or the corrected link in the followup) is a better example than
Shaun's, but surely more of a coordination problem than a tagging
problem.  Adding a tag (be it reviewed=no, unnamed=yes, or anything
else) cannot solve it, and is simply tagging to remove warnings from the
validator.

Both examples seem to be "Look at all the streets that show up in the
validator: there might be one or two in there that are truly unnamed!".
  And the solution there is not to mark the ones that are truly unnamed,
it's to go and find out the names of the ones that are named.  Once
that's done, you can probably assume that the one or two roads that
still don't have a name are truly unnamed.  And if occasionally someone
just passing through anyway double checks the roads because they're on
the validator, it's no big deal.

I could be mistaken there.  If all the roads in that link are truly
unnamed, then I could see where the validator could mislead someone by
suggesting that there's a need to actually go there to fix up the
largish cluster of missing road names in the area.  And if so, there's
probably a need to clean up the validator.  But I don't believe that to
be the case.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"



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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Alex Mauer]

Dave Stubbs wrote:
> Mostly because this is the property that we're most interested in at
> the moment. Reviewed feels to me too open ended.

It is a bit, but I think it's great for this sort of localized, map
party sort of thing.  You put the tags on in the area you're about to do
and take them off when you're done.  Any unreviewed roads remaining in
the area you (or the mapping party) is working on, you know still need
to be done.

> A little like the
> concept of completeness. We can't really (easily) mark in the
> unreviewed areas because so many have already been added without it,
> but we can tell they don't have a name so then we just want to
> quickly deal with the false positives that throws up.

I think you can fairly easily add a "reviewed=no" tag to all unnamed
roads in an area (using JOSM).  Then once you've gone through and
reviewed them, any unnamed road in that area without a reviewed=no tag
can be assumed to be a truly unnamed street (false positive in the
no-names map).

This does make a couple of assumptions:
*The mapping of the area is fairly complete, so you don't have someone
adding a bunch more unnamed roads later on.
*You're not going to go out of your way into this area again any time
soon to check on the very few unnamed roads that are still there.  This
is fairly likely, since the area in question hasn't been mapped by hand
yet (i.e. there is no mapper local to the area)

-Alex Mauer "hawke"



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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Andy Allan]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Andy Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The issue is the partially-done, somewhat scrappy areas, like
> http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15&lat=6718359.62403&lon=859.10713&layers=B000
[...]
> that only really applies there. I wouldn't suggest that someone goes
> adding noname tags to rural areas like
> http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15&lat=6718359.62403&lon=859.10713&layers=B000

Permalink FAIL.

Scrappy urban area, noname tag useful:
http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15&lat=670.32587&lon=-17089.25868&layers=B000

Rural area, noname tag waste of time:
http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=11&lat=6659550.89814&lon=-129528.10292&layers=B000

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik Tilecache Memory Error (Myanmar Cyclone Relief)

[Jon Burgess]

On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 18:48 +1000, Brett Henderson wrote:
> Tom Hughes wrote:
> > I may be being dense here, but this is openstreetmap-talk (not
> > even dev) not tilecache-talk... Is there not somewhere better you
> > should be going to with this where there will be experts in tilecache
> > that can help you?
> >   
> I've sent an email to the tilecache mailing list, just thought there 
> might be some folks around here familiar with this stuff.  As for 
> osm-dev versus osm-talk, I wasn't sure which was appropriate in this 
> case ...
> >
> > Well the obvious answer is that something in your apache configuration
> > is limiting the amount of memory that the daemons can use.
> >   
> Sounds reasonable, I'm not too familiar with the innards of apache.  
> It's a default fedora 8 install, I'll poke around and see what I can find.
> > Unless of course you really are managing to exhaust your physical
> > memory and swap - how big do your apache processes get?
> The machine has 2GB of RAM and isn't overly stressed.  The processes are all 
> using around 115MB virtual memory, 24MB resident memory and 13MB shared 
> memory.

My previous experience with tilecache suggested that it did not have
any mechanisms to limit the number of tiles that could be rendered
concurrently which could lead to lots of processes trying to render at
once.

The recent Mapnik builds try to mmap() the shapefiles while
rendering[1]. Since the largest shapefile is a few hundred MB this could
easily cause some issues if the file was mmap'd multiple times in a
single process. This might be a particular problem if you use a 32-bit
system in the multi-threaded Apache worker mode.

Perhaps you should try drastically cutting down the number of Apache
server processes and see if this resolves the issue.

Alternatively you might want to look at  mod_tile[2]. One of its design
goals was to achieve a well defined behaviour under load. It runs well
on the main tile.openstreetmap.org server.

[1] http://trac.mapnik.org/changeset/628
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Mod_tile 

Jon



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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Andy Allan]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Shaun McDonald
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Take a look at
>   >

Actually, those areas aren't the problem at hand - we know someone
needs to go get the names, it's pretty obvious someone was tracing and
there's plenty of names to be had.

The issue is the partially-done, somewhat scrappy areas, like
http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15&lat=6718359.62403&lon=859.10713&layers=B000

I don't know whether Dave or Shaun or Harry or anyone else has gone
and checked these roads. And there's no point in me checking them,
finding that they don't have a name, and also finding on Wednesday in
the pub that all three of them have also checked these roads in the
last few weeks. That would be a waste of time, and its this
double-over-checking that Dave and SteveC are trying to avoid.

And it's a problem that's only really apparent in urban areas with
both Yahoo! imagery and lots of overlapping mappers, so it's a concept
that only really applies there. I wouldn't suggest that someone goes
adding noname tags to rural areas like
http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15&lat=6718359.62403&lon=859.10713&layers=B000
, and if you're not trying to deal with the same problem as we are
then the problem might seem nonsensical to you.

Cheers,
Andy

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Dave Stubbs]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Stubbs wrote:
>
>> We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London... and
>> the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going to
>> go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother.
>
> When it's a single road or far out of the way of where you're mapping,
> would be my suggestion.  It's probably fine to go a few blocks out of
> the way to check out one unnamed road, and probably fine to go few mile
> or two out of the way to check a whole neighborhood of unnamed roads.  I
> for one will not be going 100 miles out of the way to check an unnamed
> road (or indeed to map at all).  It's a judgment call, so your mileage
> may vary. No pun intended.

Pity. It would have been a good pun. :-)
But yes, this is what I'm trying to do, but wasting as little time as
possible on the diversions.

>
>> This is one of those cases where we have actually identified a problem
>> and are figuring out how to fix it, rather than just inventing crap
>> for the sake of it.
>
> Good!  Karl suggested using the "reviewed" tag, and I agree with that.
> Mark all unnamed roads in the area you're mapping with "reviewed=no",
> and then once you've reviewed them, delete the tag.  I just don't see a
> need to mark out that the name specifically has been reviewed.

Mostly because this is the property that we're most interested in at
the moment. Reviewed feels to me too open ended. A little like the
concept of completeness. We can't really (easily) mark in the
unreviewed areas because so many have already been added without it,
but we can tell they don't have a name so then we just want to
quickly deal with the false positives that throws up.

Dave

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[SteveC]

On 9 Jun 2008, at 19:40, Alex Mauer wrote:

> SteveC wrote:
>
>> Why do you think Richard 'has' to revisit it?
>
> He personally doesn't, but if a road has a name, and that name is to  
> be
> in the database, someone has to go there and find out what it is.

Yes, but that's not what you said.

And, some data is better than no data.


>
>
> -Alex Mauer "hawke"
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Best

Steve


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Alex Mauer]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Oh sure, I'm not going to dispute that (things like "work" get in the  
> way there too). But to say it's "not conscientious" isn't right.

It may have been a poor choice of words (British/American usage
difference maybe?).  I meant that someone leaving off the names is being
less thorough than is possible, not that they are wrong in so doing.  In
retrospect, "meticulous" ("marked by extreme or excessive care in the
consideration or treatment of details") would have been a better choice.

> Ultimately many mappers make all completeness issues shallow anyway. ;)

Absolutely, and fortunately for us.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"



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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Shaun McDonald]

On 9 Jun 2008, at 19:38, Alex Mauer wrote:

> Dave Stubbs wrote:
>
>> We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London...  
>> and
>> the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going  
>> to
>> go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother.
>
> When it's a single road or far out of the way of where you're mapping,
> would be my suggestion.  It's probably fine to go a few blocks out of
> the way to check out one unnamed road, and probably fine to go few  
> mile
> or two out of the way to check a whole neighborhood of unnamed  
> roads.  I
> for one will not be going 100 miles out of the way to check an unnamed
> road (or indeed to map at all).  It's a judgment call, so your mileage
> may vary. No pun intended.
>

Take a look at

You will find lots of unnamed roads highlighted.
We'll be holding a mapping party there on Wednesday evening to name  
the streets. You are welcome to join us. This is one side effect of  
the Yahoo Tracers. Hence why we need to do this mapping.

>> This is one of those cases where we have actually identified a  
>> problem
>> and are figuring out how to fix it, rather than just inventing crap
>> for the sake of it.
>
> Good!  Karl suggested using the "reviewed" tag, and I agree with that.
> Mark all unnamed roads in the area you're mapping with "reviewed=no",
> and then once you've reviewed them, delete the tag.  I just don't  
> see a
> need to mark out that the name specifically has been reviewed.
>

That requires a mass data change, and causes a significant jump in  
data. This effectively needs to be done for all Yahoo traced areas. It  
would be far simpler to say unnamed=true.

Shaun

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Alex Mauer]

SteveC wrote:

> Why do you think Richard 'has' to revisit it?

He personally doesn't, but if a road has a name, and that name is to be
in the database, someone has to go there and find out what it is.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"



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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Alex Mauer]

Dave Stubbs wrote:

> We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London... and
> the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going to
> go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother.

When it's a single road or far out of the way of where you're mapping,
would be my suggestion.  It's probably fine to go a few blocks out of
the way to check out one unnamed road, and probably fine to go few mile
or two out of the way to check a whole neighborhood of unnamed roads.  I
for one will not be going 100 miles out of the way to check an unnamed
road (or indeed to map at all).  It's a judgment call, so your mileage
may vary. No pun intended.

> This is one of those cases where we have actually identified a problem
> and are figuring out how to fix it, rather than just inventing crap
> for the sake of it.

Good!  Karl suggested using the "reviewed" tag, and I agree with that.
Mark all unnamed roads in the area you're mapping with "reviewed=no",
and then once you've reviewed them, delete the tag.  I just don't see a
need to mark out that the name specifically has been reviewed.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"



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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Richard Fairhurst]

Alex Mauer wrote:

> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> That statement is just... wrong. Really, really flabbergastingly  
>> wrong.
>
> Well, it's my opinion.  You're going to have to revisit the route  
> anyway
> to find out the road names, so why not kill 2 birds with 1 stone?

It's not "you're going to", though; it's "the OSM community is going  
to".

On a cross-country bike route like that, I'd actually say there's not  
much point taking down the road names. The rural roads don't have  
names anyway. In the villages and towns, meanwhile, there's not much  
point in one passing cyclist taking down the name of a single through- 
route - you're going to need a "cul-de-sac mapper" to do all the  
adjacent roads anyway.

Same goes for an inter-urban project like http:// 
wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_A_Roads .  
It's a very good use of people's time to get this done quickly, even  
at the expense of neglecting street names along the way - it makes  
OSM much more useful for routing and for small-scale maps.

> But you have to accept that in that case you're not doing  
> everything you could be.

Oh sure, I'm not going to dispute that (things like "work" get in the  
way there too). But to say it's "not conscientious" isn't right.

Ultimately many mappers make all completeness issues shallow anyway. ;)

cheers
Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik Tilecache Memory Error (Myanmar Cyclone Relief)

[OJ W]

It's only outline code now (i.e. no rendering rules), but pyrender
shares those objectives (render on demand, get small amounts of data
as required)

http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/rendering/pyrender/

Various versions of that can go to an OSM API for data, or use a
[[Tile Data Server]].  e.g. file here:

http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/routing/pyroutelib2/tiledata.py





On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Brett Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  The
> next step is to render these tiles locally without requiring an Internet
> connection.  I don't want to pre-render tiles because this constrains
> the turnaround time on making new data available for display, on-demand
> rendering is far preferable because I'm expecting the load to be
> relatively low and disk space will be significantly reduced this way.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[SteveC]

On 9 Jun 2008, at 19:22, Alex Mauer wrote:

> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> That statement is just... wrong. Really, really flabbergastingly  
>> wrong.
>
> Well, it's my opinion.  You're going to have to revisit the route  
> anyway
> to find out the road names, so why not kill 2 birds with 1 stone?

Why do you think Richard 'has' to revisit it?

Best

Steve


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Alex Mauer]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> That statement is just... wrong. Really, really flabbergastingly wrong.

Well, it's my opinion.  You're going to have to revisit the route anyway
to find out the road names, so why not kill 2 birds with 1 stone?

And *of course* there are situations where you have to balance your
priorities.  If you're out for a bike ride first, and mapping is
secondary, then it's of course fine to prioritise the riding over the
mapping.  It is better to have some data than no data at all. But you
have to accept that in that case you're not doing everything you could
be.  I'm not going to lie and claim that I've always been completely
meticulous in that regard either.

> By your logic I should have either stopped at the bottom of every  
> hill to note down the street name, throwing away 30mph worth of  
> momentum (er, I don't think so), or not bothered mapping it at all.

I see a few alternatives to that:
1. Remember the last few road names, stop occasionally to note them
down. (when you're throwing away less momentum)
2. Bring a tape recorder, record the names of the streets as you travel
along them.  Stop occasionally if necessary to write them down. (e.g. if
you run out of tape.
3. Be satisfied that you're not doing everything you could be for the
map because your bike ride is more important to you than having the
names of roads on the first pass.  That's totally fine too, see above.

> Not everyone is the same type of mapper as you, and it doesn't help  
> to assume that they are. OSM is and should remain a broad church.

Agreed.  My opinion is not the only one, nor is it the canonically
correct one for everyone and in every situation.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"



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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Shaun McDonald]

On 9 Jun 2008, at 18:46, Karl Newman wrote:

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:

> Dave Stubbs wrote:
>
>> Maybe, but you're then asking, "reviewed what/how?". And you're  
back

>> to specifying that you've reviewed that the road has no name, only
>> probably in a more complicated way.
>
> Furthermore, I would expect the default (meaning the value to be  
assumed
> if the key doesn't exist) to be "yes".  I doubt anyone who would  
put in
> a named road without bothering to put in the name would bother to  
enter

> a "reviewed=no" tag anyway.
>
> That said, I still doubt the utility of a "no name" meta-value.  No
> conscientious mapper should be putting in roads with no name if they
> have a name, and no one should be going out of their way to check  
if a

> road that has no name in the db actually has no name.


So how are we going to fix London then?
Because this is happening on a massive scale thanks to tracing  
aerial imagery.


We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London... and
the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going to
go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother.

This is one of those cases where we have actually identified a problem
and are figuring out how to fix it, rather than just inventing crap
for the sake of it.

Dave

Why don't you just go to the unnamed road, and if it has a name, add  
it, otherwise drop a note="name not signed" on the way?


That isn't useful for validators or special renderings if you want to  
put a note for something else too.


Shaun

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Karl Newman]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dave Stubbs wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe, but you're then asking, "reviewed what/how?". And you're back
> >> to specifying that you've reviewed that the road has no name, only
> >> probably in a more complicated way.
> >
> > Furthermore, I would expect the default (meaning the value to be assumed
> > if the key doesn't exist) to be "yes".  I doubt anyone who would put in
> > a named road without bothering to put in the name would bother to enter
> > a "reviewed=no" tag anyway.
> >
> > That said, I still doubt the utility of a "no name" meta-value.  No
> > conscientious mapper should be putting in roads with no name if they
> > have a name, and no one should be going out of their way to check if a
> > road that has no name in the db actually has no name.
>
>
> So how are we going to fix London then?
> Because this is happening on a massive scale thanks to tracing aerial
> imagery.
>
> We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London... and
> the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going to
> go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother.
>
> This is one of those cases where we have actually identified a problem
> and are figuring out how to fix it, rather than just inventing crap
> for the sake of it.
>
> Dave
>

Why don't you just go to the unnamed road, and if it has a name, add it,
otherwise drop a note="name not signed" on the way?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Alex Mauer]

Andy Allan wrote:
> A) No evidence of the name
> B) Evidence of it not having a name
> 
> Doesn't have a sign? Or some authority agrees it actually has no name?
> The two are different and should be handled differently, since the

I think one of the principles of OSM is mapping things "as they are on
the ground".  As such, I would say that those two situations are the
same.  The latter situation might warrant a "note=Officially called Foo
Road" tag or some such.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"



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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Dave Stubbs]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Stubbs wrote:
>
>> Maybe, but you're then asking, "reviewed what/how?". And you're back
>> to specifying that you've reviewed that the road has no name, only
>> probably in a more complicated way.
>
> Furthermore, I would expect the default (meaning the value to be assumed
> if the key doesn't exist) to be "yes".  I doubt anyone who would put in
> a named road without bothering to put in the name would bother to enter
> a "reviewed=no" tag anyway.
>
> That said, I still doubt the utility of a "no name" meta-value.  No
> conscientious mapper should be putting in roads with no name if they
> have a name, and no one should be going out of their way to check if a
> road that has no name in the db actually has no name.


So how are we going to fix London then?
Because this is happening on a massive scale thanks to tracing aerial imagery.

We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London... and
the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going to
go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother.

This is one of those cases where we have actually identified a problem
and are figuring out how to fix it, rather than just inventing crap
for the sake of it.

Dave

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Richard Fairhurst]

Alex Mauer wrote:

> That said, I still doubt the utility of a "no name" meta-value.  No
> conscientious mapper should be putting in roads with no name if they
> have a name

Wuh?

That statement is just... wrong. Really, really flabbergastingly wrong.

I cycled 420 miles recently, to do the Pennine Cycleway (NCN 68) from  
start to finish - with GPS, of course. When I got home, I mapped what  
I'd seen on OSM. So now if you look at http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/ 
osm/, we have the most usable webmap in existence of the route.

By your logic I should have either stopped at the bottom of every  
hill to note down the street name, throwing away 30mph worth of  
momentum (er, I don't think so), or not bothered mapping it at all.

Not everyone is the same type of mapper as you, and it doesn't help  
to assume that they are. OSM is and should remain a broad church.

cheers
Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Alex Mauer]

Dave Stubbs wrote:

> Maybe, but you're then asking, "reviewed what/how?". And you're back
> to specifying that you've reviewed that the road has no name, only
> probably in a more complicated way.

Furthermore, I would expect the default (meaning the value to be assumed
if the key doesn't exist) to be "yes".  I doubt anyone who would put in
a named road without bothering to put in the name would bother to enter
a "reviewed=no" tag anyway.

That said, I still doubt the utility of a "no name" meta-value.  No
conscientious mapper should be putting in roads with no name if they
have a name, and no one should be going out of their way to check if a
road that has no name in the db actually has no name.

What next, going out of your way to double-check that the name is
(still) correct?  (Yes, I've had a road where the name was changed.  I
caught it because I happened to drive past that way, not because I'm
going around repeatedly checking the same routes "just in case".

Treat an unnamed road as the simple notification that it is, not as a
problem to be corrected.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"



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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Andy Allan]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> But how do you tell someone else that it's correct?
> If I see there is an unnamed street I may go out of my way to find its
> name, only to discover it doesn't have one

Define "doesn't have one".

A) No evidence of the name
B) Evidence of it not having a name

Doesn't have a sign? Or some authority agrees it actually has no name?
The two are different and should be handled differently, since the
first might be resolvable by means other than streetsign hunting (out
of copyright maps, or some such) whereas the second will only be
resolved by someone giving it a name.

So it

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Dave Stubbs]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> > Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> > SteveC wrote:
>> >> I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
>> >> they drop off the noname map.
>> >>
>> >>   http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/
>> >>
>> >> I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might not be optimal.
>> >> Maybe name:__none__. Or something.
>> >
>> > Sounds overcomplicated to me.  If you know something to be correct, just
>> > ignore the warnings.
>>
>>
>> But how do you tell someone else that it's correct?
>> If I see there is an unnamed street I may go out of my way to find its
>> name, only to discover it doesn't have one and that about 300
>> different people before me have done the same thing.
>>
>> Dave
>
> What about borrowing an idea from the TIGER import and have a "reviewed=yes"
> tag? That would indicate that the information present has been independently
> checked. This doesn't directly address the "no name" issue but it might
> prevent 299 unnecessary visits.


Maybe, but you're then asking, "reviewed what/how?". And you're back
to specifying that you've reviewed that the road has no name, only
probably in a more complicated way.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Karl Newman]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > SteveC wrote:
> >> I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
> >> they drop off the noname map.
> >>
> >>   
> >> http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/
> >>
> >> I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might not be optimal.
> >> Maybe name:__none__. Or something.
> >
> > Sounds overcomplicated to me.  If you know something to be correct, just
> > ignore the warnings.
>
>
> But how do you tell someone else that it's correct?
> If I see there is an unnamed street I may go out of my way to find its
> name, only to discover it doesn't have one and that about 300
> different people before me have done the same thing.
>
> Dave
>

What about borrowing an idea from the TIGER import and have a "reviewed=yes"
tag? That would indicate that the information present has been independently
checked. This doesn't directly address the "no name" issue but it might
prevent 299 unnecessary visits.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Dave Stubbs]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> SteveC wrote:
>> I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
>> they drop off the noname map.
>>
>>   http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/
>>
>> I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might not be optimal.
>> Maybe name:__none__. Or something.
>
> Sounds overcomplicated to me.  If you know something to be correct, just
> ignore the warnings.


But how do you tell someone else that it's correct?
If I see there is an unnamed street I may go out of my way to find its
name, only to discover it doesn't have one and that about 300
different people before me have done the same thing.

Dave

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Alex Mauer]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

SteveC wrote:
> I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that  
> they drop off the noname map.
> 
>   http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/
> 
> I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might not be optimal.  
> Maybe name:__none__. Or something.

Sounds overcomplicated to me.  If you know something to be correct, just
ignore the warnings.

- -Alex Mauer "hawke"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFITVSn66h/gpo37v8RAiwFAJwOlSMubRPwqZz9qYumylKvSKE7/QCdGUwY
NtBEjFKWSPnKWxoec6uzlAs=
=B1NX
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Karl Newman]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:44 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Nick Whitelegg
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > SteveC wrote:
> >>> I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
> >>> they drop off the noname map.
> > [..]
> >>> Maybe name:__none__. Or something.
> >
> >>Sounds good to me..  +1
> >
> > What about just name=""?
> >
>
>
> The problem with name="" is that it isn't blindingly obvious what that
> means to other mappers... people are likely to just delete it as an
> unnecessary empty tag. There are also probably a few of these about
> already.
>
> The good point about name=__none__ is that I can bet large amounts of
> money that no street is actually named "__none__" -- the bad points
> are that renderers that don't know about it are going to write it in
> the street name, and that if little Bobby Tables gets elected to a
> council somewhere we may be in trouble ;-)
>
> I'd also be keen on something that no sane yahoo tracer could think
> was a good thing to add.
>
> Dave


So now instead of tagging for renderers we're tagging for validators? ;-)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 46, Issue 27

[elvin ibbotson]

From: SteveC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 9 June 2008 12:44:49 BDT
To: 80n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: OSM Talk 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets


coz it makes me think of no=yes

and that would just be silly

On 9 Jun 2008, at 12:43, 80n wrote:

noname=yes seems like a perfectly good solution.  Why do you think  
it might not be optimal?


On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM, SteveC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I didn't find much on the wiki, has anyone looked at defining streets
without names?

I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
they drop off the noname map.

   http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/

I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might not be optimal.
Maybe name:__none__. Or something.

Best

Steve


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



Best

Steve




Hasn't 80n got a degree in philosophy? If so no=yes might not be too  
much of a problem ;-)


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik Tilecache Memory Error (Myanmar Cyclone Relief)

[Karl Newman]

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Brett Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Just to give some background on what I'm trying to do here.  I'm helping
> a team in Myanmar setup a software package called Sahana which is an
> open source disaster response package.  It will be used to help in the
> response to the recent Cyclone.
> http://www.sahana.lk/
>

Brett,

Kudos for giving your time to this humanitarian effort and demonstrating the
power of OSM at the same time!

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

> On 9 Jun 2008, at 12:43, 80n wrote:
>> noname=yes seems like a perfectly good solution.  Why do you think  
>> it might not be optimal?

SteveC wrote:
 > coz it makes me think of no=yes
 > and that would just be silly

Use "noname=true" then ;)

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] [tagging] noname streets

[cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)]

On 2008-06-09, SteveC wrote:
> coz it makes me think of no=yes
> and that would just be silly

:)

how about nameless=yes ?
-- 
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)


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] [tagging] absent tags (was: noname streets)

[Vincent Zweije]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 11:58:28AM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

||  Dave Stubbs wrote:
||
||  > The good point about name=__none__ is that I can bet large amounts of
||  > money that no street is actually named "__none__" -- the bad points
||  > are that renderers that don't know about it are going to write it in
||  > the street name
||
||  So maybe named=no (or unnamed=yes)?

The problem is really more general.

You want to be able to say (a): "tag T is absent", as opposed to (b)
"nobody has bothered to enter tag T yet".

For distinguishing these two, we need to find some way to explicitly
specify (a), because (b) has to be modeled by the tag just being not there
(think about it).

I can see several ways, in personally increasing preference:

 1. define a special value for the tag (e.g. "" or "__none__")

disadvantage: takes away a technially valid value, so may not be
generalizable to tags other than "name".

 2. add another (meta) tag specifying which tags are undefined:

absent_tags=name,any_other_tag,...

disadvantage: this is a multi value tag, which complicates the
model. Witness the gratuitous potlach value-combining with semicolons.

 3. specify a derived tag, as with localised names:

name:absent=yes

disadvantage: might accumulate to a lot of extra tags in the database,
but it only needs to be added if there really is uncertainty about
the situation.

So... how about doing T:absent=true? The interpretation of which being:
tag T is not there in the real world, as opposed to only not there in
the database.

Ciao. Vincent.
-- 
Vincent Zweije <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>| "If you're flamed in a group you
  | don't read, does anybody get burnt?"
[Xhost should be taken out and shot] |-- Paul Tomblin on a.s.r.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[SteveC]

coz it makes me think of no=yes

and that would just be silly

On 9 Jun 2008, at 12:43, 80n wrote:

> noname=yes seems like a perfectly good solution.  Why do you think  
> it might not be optimal?
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM, SteveC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didn't find much on the wiki, has anyone looked at defining streets
> without names?
>
> I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
> they drop off the noname map.
>
>http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/
>
> I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might not be optimal.
> Maybe name:__none__. Or something.
>
> Best
>
> Steve
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>

Best

Steve


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[80n]

noname=yes seems like a perfectly good solution.  Why do you think it might
not be optimal?

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM, SteveC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I didn't find much on the wiki, has anyone looked at defining streets
> without names?
>
> I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
> they drop off the noname map.
>
>
> http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/
>
> I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might not be optimal.
> Maybe name:__none__. Or something.
>
> Best
>
> Steve
>
>
> ___
> 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] talk Digest, Vol 46, Issue 26

[elvin ibbotson]

From: "Andrew Chadwick (email lists)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 9 June 2008 11:43:03 BDT
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Don't you just hate it when part 2...


Vincent Zweije wrote:


Hmm... everyone should be wearing their OSM shirt or other mark while
mapping... you'd have have a nice conversation as a result.


Slight downside to the OSM high-vis vests that Graham Smith sorted out
recently: I've noticed that more people ask me for directions when I'm
wearing it than when I'm not. One local resident even seemed to  
think I

was some sort of official surveyor bod and tried to mine me for
information about some recently-cleared land. Quite what a real  
surveyor

would be doing out on a Saturday, I'm not sure, but +1 for how fake-
official they look.

--
Andrew Chadwick



When I'm out surveying (with a tape and level and stuff rather than  
for OSM) I often get nosy types asking what's happening. I tend to  
say I can say too much but hint at (depending on the location) wind  
farms, by-passes or toxic waste sites. So far this has never (as far  
as I know) actually resulted in any NIMBY-style posters or local  
newspaper headlines, but one lives in hope :-)


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Richard Fairhurst]

Dave Stubbs wrote:

> The good point about name=__none__ is that I can bet large amounts of
> money that no street is actually named "__none__" -- the bad points
> are that renderers that don't know about it are going to write it in
> the street name

So maybe named=no (or unnamed=yes)?

cheers
Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Thomas Wood]

On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 11:15 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> SteveC wrote:
> >> I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that 
> >> they drop off the noname map.
> [..]
> >> Maybe name:__none__. Or something.
> 
> >Sounds good to me..  +1
> 
> What about just name=""?
> 
> Nick
> 

This would be a good solution, except if it were for editor support for
blank tag values.. Currently only Merkaartor supports creation of tags
with no value.

-- 
Regards,
Thomas Wood
(Edgemaster)


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

El Lunes, 9 de Junio de 2008, Nick Whitelegg escribió:
> >> Maybe name:__none__. Or something.
> >
> >Sounds good to me..  +1
>
> What about just name=""?

Some editors *cough*JOSM*cough*potlach*cough* won't let you enter an empty 
value for a tag.

-- 
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

MSN:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]


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] [tagging] noname streets

[Dave Stubbs]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Nick Whitelegg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SteveC wrote:
>>> I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
>>> they drop off the noname map.
> [..]
>>> Maybe name:__none__. Or something.
>
>>Sounds good to me..  +1
>
> What about just name=""?
>


The problem with name="" is that it isn't blindingly obvious what that
means to other mappers... people are likely to just delete it as an
unnecessary empty tag. There are also probably a few of these about
already.

The good point about name=__none__ is that I can bet large amounts of
money that no street is actually named "__none__" -- the bad points
are that renderers that don't know about it are going to write it in
the street name, and that if little Bobby Tables gets elected to a
council somewhere we may be in trouble ;-)

I'd also be keen on something that no sane yahoo tracer could think
was a good thing to add.

Dave

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Don't you just hate it when part 2...

[Andrew Chadwick (email lists)]

Vincent Zweije wrote:
> 
> Hmm... everyone should be wearing their OSM shirt or other mark while
> mapping... you'd have have a nice conversation as a result.

Slight downside to the OSM high-vis vests that Graham Smith sorted out
recently: I've noticed that more people ask me for directions when I'm
wearing it than when I'm not. One local resident even seemed to think I
was some sort of official surveyor bod and tried to mine me for
information about some recently-cleared land. Quite what a real surveyor
would be doing out on a Saturday, I'm not sure, but +1 for how fake-
official they look.

-- 
Andrew Chadwick

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Shaun McDonald]

On 9 Jun 2008, at 11:15, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

> SteveC wrote:
>>> I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
>>> they drop off the noname map.
> [..]
>>> Maybe name:__none__. Or something.
>
>> Sounds good to me..  +1
>
> What about just name=""?
>

Editors don't allow for empty tags values. I believe the next version  
of the API will prevent it completely. Also the nonames render  
excludes the names that have just whitespace in them.

Shaun


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Nick Whitelegg]

SteveC wrote:
>> I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that 
>> they drop off the noname map.
[..]
>> Maybe name:__none__. Or something.

>Sounds good to me..  +1

What about just name=""?

Nick

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[Alex S.]

SteveC wrote:
> I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that  
> they drop off the noname map.
[..]
> Maybe name:__none__. Or something.

Sounds good to me..  +1


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Don't you just hate it when part 2...

[Vincent Zweije]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 10:21:47AM +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

||  I thought when I passed the GPS guy "is he doing OSM?" and thought about
||  starting a conversation but didn't. Oh well

Hmm... everyone should be wearing their OSM shirt or other mark while
mapping... you'd have have a nice conversation as a result.

Ciao.Vincent.
-- 
Vincent Zweije <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>| "If you're flamed in a group you
  | don't read, does anybody get burnt?"
[Xhost should be taken out and shot] |-- Paul Tomblin on a.s.r.


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

[OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets

[SteveC]

I didn't find much on the wiki, has anyone looked at defining streets  
without names?

I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that  
they drop off the noname map.

http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/

I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might not be optimal.  
Maybe name:__none__. Or something.

Best

Steve


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Don't you just hate it when part 2...

[Nick Whitelegg]

>The way I look at it, is that you will often find that if two people 
>survey an area, they will both think different things are more 
>important, or one will miss something. You can also use it as a way to 
>check what is already there, as there may be something missing or wrong.

Yes, that was a more successful outcome of yesterday. The other guy had 
tagged the whole bridleway as bridleway, but I re-tagged some of it as 
track/foot=yes/horse=yes to reflect the physical surface. Also about half 
the bridleway was left undone. Also there was a footpath in the same area 
which was actually a bridleway (I suspected this and verified it) and 
another path nearby which formed a rather nice circle round the side of a 
hill, but was in OSM as a straight line.

I thought when I passed the GPS guy "is he doing OSM?" and thought about 
starting a conversation but didn't. Oh well

Nick

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Don't you just hate it when part 2...

[Steve Hill]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

> Same with me too, though I might have gone somewhere else if I'd known! Guess
> the lesson is to make sure you know what the others in your area are doing...

It is useful to have a wiki page for your area where people can state what 
areas they are working on... of course it also helps if people actually 
use it (only two people are using the Swansea wiki page, even though there 
are more than two of us mapping Swansea) :(

  - 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] Mapnik Tilecache Memory Error (Myanmar Cyclone Relief)

[Brett Henderson]

Tom Hughes wrote:
> I may be being dense here, but this is openstreetmap-talk (not
> even dev) not tilecache-talk... Is there not somewhere better you
> should be going to with this where there will be experts in tilecache
> that can help you?
>   
I've sent an email to the tilecache mailing list, just thought there 
might be some folks around here familiar with this stuff.  As for 
osm-dev versus osm-talk, I wasn't sure which was appropriate in this 
case ...
>
> Well the obvious answer is that something in your apache configuration
> is limiting the amount of memory that the daemons can use.
>   
Sounds reasonable, I'm not too familiar with the innards of apache.  
It's a default fedora 8 install, I'll poke around and see what I can find.
> Unless of course you really are managing to exhaust your physical
> memory and swap - how big do your apache processes get?
The machine has 2GB of RAM and isn't overly stressed.  The processes are all 
using around 115MB virtual memory, 24MB resident memory and 13MB shared memory.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik Tilecache Memory Error (Myanmar Cyclone Relief)

[Tom Hughes]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Brett Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I am trying to use tilecache to generate mapnik tiles but have run into 
> the issue described in my previous email.  It is probably something 
> screwy with the way I've configured things but I've been unable to 
> diagnose the problem.

I may be being dense here, but this is openstreetmap-talk (not
even dev) not tilecache-talk... Is there not somewhere better you
should be going to with this where there will be experts in tilecache
that can help you?

>> It seems to be working intermittently but most requests result in the 
>> following response being returned to the browser when requesting new 
>> tiles.
>>
>> An error occurred: failed mapping file: Cannot allocate memory
>>  File "/home/tilecache/app/TileCache/Service.py", line 221, in 
>> modPythonHandler
>>host )
>>  File "/home/tilecache/app/TileCache/Service.py", line 205, in 
>> dispatchRequest
>>return self.renderTile(tile, params.has_key('FORCE'))
>>  File "/home/tilecache/app/TileCache/Service.py", line 138, in renderTile
>>data = layer.render(tile)
>>  File "/home/tilecache/app/TileCache/Layer.py", line 411, in render
>>return self.renderTile(tile)
>>  File "/home/tilecache/app/TileCache/Layers/Mapnik.py", line 38, in 
>> renderTile
>>mapnik.load_map(m,self.mapfile)

Well the obvious answer is that something in your apache configuration
is limiting the amount of memory that the daemons can use.

Unless of course you really are managing to exhaust your physical
memory and swap - how big do your apache processes get?

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.compton.nu/

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