Re: [OSM-talk] Yet another street number scheme

[Matias D'Ambrosio]

On Wednesday 15 October 2008 03:36:08 Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Karl Newman wrote:
> > No, that would be tagging for actually being able to use the data.
> > Without the odd/even/both information, it's actually a loss of data.
>
> Sounds quite strange to me. Any interpolation rule and odd/even/both
> rule is only a workaround for devices or schemes unable to fully depict
> reality - it is not information added, but an attempt at generalization
> dictated by shortcomings in devices or algorithms.
>
 There are (municipal?) rules or laws (I'm not sure which) which dictate 
odd/even as well as street numbering. It is *not* part of the lot in which a 
house stands.
 It's complementary to having each lot numbered. Not to mention lot numbers 
change a lot more often than street numbers for a block (two lots are joined 
into one for a building, etc).
 It might be different where you are, but please accept that it is the case 
here.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Yet another street number scheme

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Karl Newman wrote:
> No, that would be tagging for actually being able to use the data. 
> Without the odd/even/both information, it's actually a loss of data.

Sounds quite strange to me. Any interpolation rule and odd/even/both 
rule is only a workaround for devices or schemes unable to fully depict 
reality - it is not information added, but an attempt at generalization 
dictated by shortcomings in devices or algorithms.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Gnash works with Potlatch

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

I just tried to compile 0.8.4 and found it to be completely unusable
for potlatch, the cursor seemed to update once every few seconds
making it hard to select anything, I was unable to edit keys and the
potlatch user interface had all the wrong dimensions or was rendered
offscreen, see screenshot:
http://flickr.com/photos/avarab/2942850805/sizes/o/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Gnash works with Potlatch

[Richard Fairhurst]

If you use a Linux system and would prefer not to use the Adobe Flash  
Player, you can now use Gnash - the GPL-licensed SWF player - to run  
Potlatch.

http://freshmeat.net/projects/gnash/?branch_id=64471&release_id=286570

Full credit to the Gnash devs who have done an outstanding job here.

cheers
Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Map Features, maxspeed and maplint

[Karl Newman]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Tristan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If this catches on not only do we have a well-defined and easily-processed
> value for "speed" to use in all manner of things, we also have a template
> for defining other data types (bridge height? maxweight?) which might (or
> might not) make the job of the data processor for an map consuming
> application (satnav etc) much easier.
>
> Tristan
>
> 2008/10/14 David Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 14/10/2008 18:26, Tristan Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Given that SI units are standard across OSM could be define a "speed"
>>> value in addition to "Numeric" "String" etc like so:
>>> (default to kmh as specified before (also means not adding millions of
>>> pointless "kmh" strings to the db)
>>> Factor means "multiply by this to convert to SI - interpreters would
>>> either use value as-is or multiply by Factor for that suffix to get SI
>>> units.
>>> "Suffix" is the entire string after the numerical value, with whitespace
>>> trimmed - so spaced/not spaced suffix wouldn't matter - defining this
>>> rigidly would be ignored by most users, i suspect
>>>
>>> My proposed table:
>>> Unit - Factor
>>> "" - 1
>>> "kmh" - 1
>>> "mph" - 1.609
>>> "knots" - 1.852
>>>
>>
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> I really don't see what all the fuss is about. It's not exactly novel to
>> do it this way: CSS puts units as part of the value.
>>
>> It's what I've been doing all along, except some pedant comes along and
>> changes it to some incomprehensible decimal number almost as soon as I add
>> them to the map (which means I can carry on doing it that way even if others
>> think differently, as they'll get converted automatically as far as i am
>> concerned and I don't have to think about a magic number in km/h).
>>
>> David
>>
>>
What about just using the maxspeed tag with just a number and having a
separate tag for the units. i.e., maxspeed=30; maxspeed_units=mph

Karl
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Yet another street number scheme

[Karl Newman]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Karl Newman wrote:
> >Sent: 14 October 2008 4:59 PM
> >To: Frederik Ramm
> >Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Yet another street number scheme
> >
> >On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >   
> >
> >   As for the efficiency in storage, I suggest you take the long-term
> >view:
> >   I am 100% sure that at some point in the future, OSM will have at
> >least
> >   one node for every house, more likely a building outline for every
> >   house. Look at this if you don't believe me:
> >
> >
> http://informationfreeway.org/?lat=51.03267406093207&lon=13.718639663
> >339111&zoom=15&layers=BF000F
> >
> >   At this point it will be trivial (easy to edit, easy to handle, and
> >   requiring little extra storage) to simply add a house number tag to
> >   every one of these buildings. Any sort of complex relations for
> roads
> >   with interpolation rules for house numbers will then simply be
> >   unnecessary.
> >
> >
> >That's not really true, because there are devices (such as Garmin GPS
> >receivers) on which we would like to use OSM data, which need address
> >numbers in a compact format with interpolation rules. Trying to reverse-
> >engineer the scheme (odd, even, both, etc.) from single nodes that aren't
> >even part of the way is nigh-impossible, or at the least, wastefully
> >compute-intesive and error-prone.
> >
>
> However, houses are not part of the road network, so the house number node
> should not be part of the highway, that would be tagging for the Garmin or
> whatever. The house numbers need to go on the houses (or the object
> representing them).
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy


No, that would be tagging for actually being able to use the data. Without
the odd/even/both information, it's actually a loss of data.

Karl
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final callfor comments

[Simon Ward]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 01:36:39PM +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
> I was really signalling that I had got the Brief and Use Cases into a form
> where I was happy with them and where I thought they covered the issues
> raised but needed confirmation re that from others.

The way you phrased it made it sound “final” even if it wasn’t.  May I
suggest that if you have a timetable for working out your brief that you
publish it, _before_ telling people their time is up?

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License

[Simon Ward]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 12:22:19PM +0100, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) 
wrote:
> Apologies to all, that’s my mistake. I forwarded the wrong version to Mike
> for inclusion on the website. I'll have that sorted asap. The version
> Richard just posted is the correct one.

Thanks.  Now to read it… at some point.
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways

[Stefan Monnier]

> Tagging a road as something implies certain rules, surely, and only when 
> those rules are different from the standard (for that country) should 
> you need to say so. Same as the oneway=no discussion that went on 
> previously.

All those discussions about cycleways, motorway_link, maxspeed,
etc... seem to point at the same problem: on the one hand, the authors
should need to enter as little info as possible, and as close to the "on
the ground data" as possible, which means that it should elide all the
data that's available from context (local laws and customs); and on the
other hand, users of the data want it to be in a much more regular form,
without having to worry about the customs used in any particular part of
the world.

So, I think we should split the data in the following way:
1 - the user-written data, as close as possible to what's available on
the ground.
2 - a bunch of "locales", defined by the land they cover (typically
countries, states, provinces, ...).
3 - a set of rules that say how to interpret the raw data for
specific locales.
4 - A library that takes the above 3 and generates a "clean" output,
indendent from any local laws and customs.


-- Stefan


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call for comments

[Tim Waters (chippy)]

On 10/14/08, Peter Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> This is a final call for comments by readers of legal-talk for feedback on
> the brief and the use cases.

I think we should make it clear in each use case the full
requirements, the whole picture, including whether they  would also be
required to make available any changed osm data, derivative database
etc.

For example, I'm not sure but I think that  "Publishing a simple map
in a book, newsletter" would require a not-so-simple requirement to
make the data they used available, somehow...

___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] map display www.openstreetmap.org (Roman Neumüller)

[Shaun McDonald]

On 14 Oct 2008, at 20:42, Stefan Monnier wrote:

...and maybe a small crosshair just in the middle of the map-window  
to

indicate the exact lat/long... ;-)


For me: right click at a spot in the map should pop up some info about
that location (e.g. tags and values, lat/long, cafés nearby, copy
location as a GPS coord, copy it as a URL, you name it...).



Um don't you mean the data browser?

Click the little blue plus in the top right, and click data.

For cafes near lat lon, you can use the search box with the search:
cafes near 51.517,-0.267

Of course you should use your own lat, lon.

You could always put what you are looking for on your own site, and  
then bingo you have a map doing exactly what you want. This is the  
whole idea of osm.


Shaun

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] - RFC - Motorway_link implies oneway=??

[Stefan Monnier]

> routing down it anyway. Do people actually add oneway roads and
> forget to tag them as such?

When mapping over Yahoo satellite images?  very much so, yes!


Stefan


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] map display www.openstreetmap.org (Roman Neumüller)

[Stefan Monnier]

> ...and maybe a small crosshair just in the middle of the map-window to
> indicate the exact lat/long... ;-)

For me: right click at a spot in the map should pop up some info about
that location (e.g. tags and values, lat/long, cafés nearby, copy
location as a GPS coord, copy it as a URL, you name it...).


Stefan


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM, Data

[John Wilbanks]

The folks at Creative Commons and Science Commons would be happy to help 
out in the creation of a public domain repository. My opinions on the 
difficulties of using "copyleftish" licenses on data are well known and 
I won't rehash them here :-)

jtw

 
I've had some recent discussions with Joseph Gentle and Kari Pihkala
about the desire to maintain a "clean" repository of data collected
for OSM that would be released in the public domain before being
imported into OSM. This would allow anyone to use the data without
having to worry about the OSM license restrictions, especially the
viral portions.

I wasn't a proponent of this "public domain approach" until I started
to learn about the licensing issue and some of the problems and
complications it can cause. I know believe things are a lot simpler if
my OSM data is just released into the public domain before it is
contributed.

I believe there is (at least a small) group that would also like to
release there data into the public domain before it is contributed to
OSM. Joseph and Kari have given their support to setting up a
repository for this public domain data. I'm not sure yet exactly what
this repository will look like, or how much of the OSM software stack
we will need to replicate. I don't want this to turn into a fork of
OSM. I'd rather see it as a holding basin mechanism that can be used
to release data collected for OSM into the public domain before it is
uploaded to the main OSM database.

Joseph, Kari, and I thought it would be wise to bounce this idea of
the legal-talk mailing list. Are there any strong objections to our
setting up a public domain repository, and if so, what are the
objections? Would it be appropriate to start a separate mailing list
for those interested in releasing the data they collect for OSM under
the public domain?

I'd like to work with Joseph to get the infrastructure we'll need for
this project lined up. This will likely include finding a sponsor
organization and doing some work on a simple websiter or wiki.
However, we thought it wise to mention our idea here before we take
any concrete steps.

Landon


___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data

[Sunburned Surveyor]

I suppose there is the Public Domain Dedication from the Creative
Commons that we could use as well, although that will have to be
discussed among the participants. Or the Open Data Commons Public
Domain Dedication and License,

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
http://www.opendatacommons.org/odc-public-domain-dedication-and-licence/

Landon

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Denver Gingerich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Sunburned Surveyor  wrote:
>> I've had some recent discussions with Joseph Gentle and Kari Pihkala
>> about the desire to maintain a "clean" repository of data collected
>> for OSM that would be released in the public domain before being
>> imported into OSM. This would allow anyone to use the data without
>> having to worry about the OSM license restrictions, especially the
>> viral portions.
>
> I suggest that you be very careful when creating the agreement you
> will present to contributors that says they want their contributions
> in the public domain.  In many countries, there are unwaivable moral
> rights that could make an agreement to the effect of "I release this
> work into the public domain" invalid.
>
> You may want to base your agreement on the PD agreement that Wikipedia uses:
>
> "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the
> public domain. This applies worldwide.
>
> In case this is not legally possible:
> I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any
> conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."
>
>
> A statement like this is a much more likely to be valid in a variety
> of jurisdictions.
>
> Denver
> http://ossguy.com/
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: http://getfiregpg.org
>
> iD8DBQFI9O9rq02IUA/pi34RAuFeAKCKJhuO7xYakUsF1b+8eNDVDK1ZTwCbBuH2
> 4WUS67BF/KLPUg/nySiZva8=
> =aipb
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>

___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data

[Denver Gingerich]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Sunburned Surveyor  wrote:
> I've had some recent discussions with Joseph Gentle and Kari Pihkala
> about the desire to maintain a "clean" repository of data collected
> for OSM that would be released in the public domain before being
> imported into OSM. This would allow anyone to use the data without
> having to worry about the OSM license restrictions, especially the
> viral portions.

I suggest that you be very careful when creating the agreement you
will present to contributors that says they want their contributions
in the public domain.  In many countries, there are unwaivable moral
rights that could make an agreement to the effect of "I release this
work into the public domain" invalid.

You may want to base your agreement on the PD agreement that Wikipedia uses:

"I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the
public domain. This applies worldwide.

In case this is not legally possible:
I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any
conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."


A statement like this is a much more likely to be valid in a variety
of jurisdictions.

Denver
http://ossguy.com/


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org

iD8DBQFI9O9rq02IUA/pi34RAuFeAKCKJhuO7xYakUsF1b+8eNDVDK1ZTwCbBuH2
4WUS67BF/KLPUg/nySiZva8=
=aipb
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-talk] Links presented on openstreetmap.org

[Tordanik]

Hi talk,

currently, the http://openstreetmap.org/ page contains direct links to
* Help & Wiki
* News blog
* Shop
* Map key

I consider the first and last link to be well chosen, but I do not
believe that the other two are really helpful for most users – the shop
will not be relevant for anyone except enthusiasts, really. The blog,
well ... updates are rare and it's really not what a new user will
likely look for, imo.

Instead, I'd suggest to add direct links to online communication
channels (IRC, ML, forum) -- these are very hard to find now. If that's
considered too much, it could be useful to at least link
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Additional_Help

Tordanik


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data

[Sunburned Surveyor]

I've had some recent discussions with Joseph Gentle and Kari Pihkala
about the desire to maintain a "clean" repository of data collected
for OSM that would be released in the public domain before being
imported into OSM. This would allow anyone to use the data without
having to worry about the OSM license restrictions, especially the
viral portions.

I wasn't a proponent of this "public domain approach" until I started
to learn about the licensing issue and some of the problems and
complications it can cause. I know believe things are a lot simpler if
my OSM data is just released into the public domain before it is
contributed.

I believe there is (at least a small) group that would also like to
release there data into the public domain before it is contributed to
OSM. Joseph and Kari have given their support to setting up a
repository for this public domain data. I'm not sure yet exactly what
this repository will look like, or how much of the OSM software stack
we will need to replicate. I don't want this to turn into a fork of
OSM. I'd rather see it as a holding basin mechanism that can be used
to release data collected for OSM into the public domain before it is
uploaded to the main OSM database.

Joseph, Kari, and I thought it would be wise to bounce this idea of
the legal-talk mailing list. Are there any strong objections to our
setting up a public domain repository, and if so, what are the
objections? Would it be appropriate to start a separate mailing list
for those interested in releasing the data they collect for OSM under
the public domain?

I'd like to work with Joseph to get the infrastructure we'll need for
this project lined up. This will likely include finding a sponsor
organization and doing some work on a simple websiter or wiki.
However, we thought it wise to mention our idea here before we take
any concrete steps.

Landon

___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] vandalism on OSM

[Tristan Scott]

I now use itoworld to give me a RSS feed for sessions of updates in "my"
area (or indeed any defined area)

Tristan

2008/10/14 Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> >>> Subtle vandalism will always be the hardest to spot. If it is
> >>> imagined that it might become a problem, then perhaps uploading a
> >>> change to anything which already existed could notify the last 1 or
> >>> 2 people that amended that feature, as they are the most likely to
> >>> know what is correct or be in a position to double check if they
> >>> doubt what they did previously.
> >> This would be very useful indeed.  Not just for vandalism.
> > A good diff tool or better a diff API call would be helpful as well.
> > With that you could periodically look over the changes in "your" area.
>
> I have better things to do than keep an eye on the various parts that
> I changed in the past.  That's what computers are for.  Which is why
> I think it'd be *much* better if any change automatically sends
> a heads-up email to the previous author(s).
>
>
>Stefan
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Tristan Scott BSc(Hons)
Yare Valley Technical Services
www.yvts.co.uk
07837 205829
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Map Features, maxspeed and maplint

[Tristan Scott]

If this catches on not only do we have a well-defined and easily-processed
value for "speed" to use in all manner of things, we also have a template
for defining other data types (bridge height? maxweight?) which might (or
might not) make the job of the data processor for an map consuming
application (satnav etc) much easier.

Tristan

2008/10/14 David Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> On 14/10/2008 18:26, Tristan Scott wrote:
>
>> Given that SI units are standard across OSM could be define a "speed"
>> value in addition to "Numeric" "String" etc like so:
>> (default to kmh as specified before (also means not adding millions of
>> pointless "kmh" strings to the db)
>> Factor means "multiply by this to convert to SI - interpreters would
>> either use value as-is or multiply by Factor for that suffix to get SI
>> units.
>> "Suffix" is the entire string after the numerical value, with whitespace
>> trimmed - so spaced/not spaced suffix wouldn't matter - defining this
>> rigidly would be ignored by most users, i suspect
>>
>> My proposed table:
>> Unit - Factor
>> "" - 1
>> "kmh" - 1
>> "mph" - 1.609
>> "knots" - 1.852
>>
>
>
> +1.
>
> I really don't see what all the fuss is about. It's not exactly novel to do
> it this way: CSS puts units as part of the value.
>
> It's what I've been doing all along, except some pedant comes along and
> changes it to some incomprehensible decimal number almost as soon as I add
> them to the map (which means I can carry on doing it that way even if others
> think differently, as they'll get converted automatically as far as i am
> concerned and I don't have to think about a magic number in km/h).
>
> David
>
>


-- 
Tristan Scott BSc(Hons)
Yare Valley Technical Services
www.yvts.co.uk
07837 205829
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Map Features, maxspeed and maplint

[David Earl]

On 14/10/2008 18:26, Tristan Scott wrote:
> Given that SI units are standard across OSM could be define a "speed" 
> value in addition to "Numeric" "String" etc like so:
> (default to kmh as specified before (also means not adding millions of 
> pointless "kmh" strings to the db)
> Factor means "multiply by this to convert to SI - interpreters would 
> either use value as-is or multiply by Factor for that suffix to get SI 
> units.
> "Suffix" is the entire string after the numerical value, with whitespace 
> trimmed - so spaced/not spaced suffix wouldn't matter - defining this 
> rigidly would be ignored by most users, i suspect
> 
> My proposed table:
> Unit - Factor
> "" - 1
> "kmh" - 1
> "mph" - 1.609
> "knots" - 1.852


+1.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about. It's not exactly novel to 
do it this way: CSS puts units as part of the value.

It's what I've been doing all along, except some pedant comes along and 
changes it to some incomprehensible decimal number almost as soon as I 
add them to the map (which means I can carry on doing it that way even 
if others think differently, as they'll get converted automatically as 
far as i am concerned and I don't have to think about a magic number in 
km/h).

David


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Map Features, maxspeed and maplint

[Matthias Julius]

"Tristan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Given that SI units are standard across OSM could be define a "speed" value
> in addition to "Numeric" "String" etc like so:
> (default to kmh as specified before (also means not adding millions of
> pointless "kmh" strings to the db)
> Factor means "multiply by this to convert to SI - interpreters would either
> use value as-is or multiply by Factor for that suffix to get SI units.
> "Suffix" is the entire string after the numerical value, with whitespace
> trimmed - so spaced/not spaced suffix wouldn't matter - defining this
> rigidly would be ignored by most users, i suspect
>
> My proposed table:
> Unit - Factor
> "" - 1
> "kmh" - 1
> "mph" - 1.609
> "knots" - 1.852
>
> Not sure if any other units are in (common) use? Can someone check tagwatch?

Maybe we need to support scientific notation in case someone wants to
add maxspeed for the LHC...

Matthias

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Multinode singleway relations

[Matias D'Ambrosio]

 Maybe this would be best discussed in -dev, I'm not sure.
 If there is a relation that applies to a way and nodes belonging to it, and 
one splits it (for example in my proposed street_number system, but I could 
see other relations that apply to this), an editor could take a few different 
paths:
 1. Do nothing. I think this is the current behaviour for all editors?
 2. Add the new way to the relation. This might not make sense.
 3. Remove the nodes no longer in the way from the relation. This might lose 
the 'role' data, if any.
 4. Present a dialog asking what to do. Probably the sanest for unknown 
relations (known relation types might be handled automatically).

 Actually the single way restriction doesn't make sense, hmm. Thoughts? 
Relation UI seems to be immature in all editors, might be good to 
standardise :-)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Map Features, maxspeed and maplint

[Tristan Scott]

Given that SI units are standard across OSM could be define a "speed" value
in addition to "Numeric" "String" etc like so:
(default to kmh as specified before (also means not adding millions of
pointless "kmh" strings to the db)
Factor means "multiply by this to convert to SI - interpreters would either
use value as-is or multiply by Factor for that suffix to get SI units.
"Suffix" is the entire string after the numerical value, with whitespace
trimmed - so spaced/not spaced suffix wouldn't matter - defining this
rigidly would be ignored by most users, i suspect

My proposed table:
Unit - Factor
"" - 1
"kmh" - 1
"mph" - 1.609
"knots" - 1.852

Not sure if any other units are in (common) use? Can someone check tagwatch?

Tristan

2008/10/14 Matthias Julius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> "Tristan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If it were up to me (dicatorships are so much swifter to deal with
> > things...)
> > * maxspeed should be the only tag. Therefore you can't contradict
> > yourself/others (or update one to 40mph, or not catching because it's not
> > normal, maxspeed:mph is still 30 you end up with broken data)
> > * "mph" is the only permittable suffix (or a SHORT fixed list added to
> map
> > features), therefore parsing is simple. If Mph / MilesPerHour / mp/h /
> > yard/minute / walk / et al is allowed then parsing becomes either
> impossibly
> > (inf types of value) difficult, or becomes easy (if it's not all numeric,
> > ignore it).
>
> The list doesn't need to be very short, but it needs to be defined
> somewhere.  Then, any application that uses the data can be taught how
> to deal with it.
>
> Then Map Features needs to specify that maxspeed is a speed
> measurement and link to the table of speed units.
>
> Then Maplint can be extended to recognize tags that require a speed
> unit and it can warn if there is none.
>
> Matthias
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Tristan Scott BSc(Hons)
Yare Valley Technical Services
www.yvts.co.uk
07837 205829
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Yet another street number scheme

[Matias D'Ambrosio]

On Tuesday 14 October 2008 14:17:43 Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
> Karl Newman wrote:
> >That's not really true, because there are devices (such as Garmin GPS
> >receivers) on which we would like to use OSM data, which need address
> >numbers in a compact format with interpolation rules. Trying to reverse-
> >engineer the scheme (odd, even, both, etc.) from single nodes that aren't
> >even part of the way is nigh-impossible, or at the least, wastefully
> >compute-intesive and error-prone.
>
> However, houses are not part of the road network, so the house number node
> should not be part of the highway, that would be tagging for the Garmin or
> whatever. The house numbers need to go on the houses (or the object
> representing them).
 That might be so in some places. In my country, the numbers belong to the 
street, and buildings and other things are associated to the street. It's 
very common for us to say something is at "Sesame Street 2100" to indicate a 
block side (is there an english word for 'block side'?). The only reason a 
house has an address Sesame Street 2142 is because it's located in the Sesame 
Street 2100 block. That's why my scheme is so focused in Argentina's system, 
no system will cover all possibilities.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Yet another street number scheme

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

vegard wrote:
>Sent: 14 October 2008 5:28 PM
>To: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Yet another street number scheme
>
>On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 05:17:43PM +0100, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
>wrote:
>>
>> However, houses are not part of the road network, so the house number
>node
>> should not be part of the highway, that would be tagging for the Garmin
>or
>> whatever. The house numbers need to go on the houses (or the object
>> representing them).
>>
>
>But house-numbers are *related* to a way => relations ?

Yep, each building has an association with a particular street.

Cheers

Andy


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Yet another street number scheme

[vegard]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 05:17:43PM +0100, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) 
wrote:
> 
> However, houses are not part of the road network, so the house number node
> should not be part of the highway, that would be tagging for the Garmin or
> whatever. The house numbers need to go on the houses (or the object
> representing them).
> 

But house-numbers are *related* to a way => relations ?
-- 
- Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] vandalism on OSM

[Stefan Monnier]

>>> Subtle vandalism will always be the hardest to spot. If it is
>>> imagined that it might become a problem, then perhaps uploading a
>>> change to anything which already existed could notify the last 1 or
>>> 2 people that amended that feature, as they are the most likely to
>>> know what is correct or be in a position to double check if they
>>> doubt what they did previously.
>> This would be very useful indeed.  Not just for vandalism.
> A good diff tool or better a diff API call would be helpful as well.
> With that you could periodically look over the changes in "your" area.

I have better things to do than keep an eye on the various parts that
I changed in the past.  That's what computers are for.  Which is why
I think it'd be *much* better if any change automatically sends
a heads-up email to the previous author(s).


Stefan


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Map Features, maxspeed and maplint

[Matthias Julius]

"Tristan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> If it were up to me (dicatorships are so much swifter to deal with
> things...)
> * maxspeed should be the only tag. Therefore you can't contradict
> yourself/others (or update one to 40mph, or not catching because it's not
> normal, maxspeed:mph is still 30 you end up with broken data)
> * "mph" is the only permittable suffix (or a SHORT fixed list added to map
> features), therefore parsing is simple. If Mph / MilesPerHour / mp/h /
> yard/minute / walk / et al is allowed then parsing becomes either impossibly
> (inf types of value) difficult, or becomes easy (if it's not all numeric,
> ignore it).

The list doesn't need to be very short, but it needs to be defined
somewhere.  Then, any application that uses the data can be taught how
to deal with it.

Then Map Features needs to specify that maxspeed is a speed
measurement and link to the table of speed units.

Then Maplint can be extended to recognize tags that require a speed
unit and it can warn if there is none.

Matthias

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Yet another street number scheme

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Karl Newman wrote:
>Sent: 14 October 2008 4:59 PM
>To: Frederik Ramm
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Yet another street number scheme
>
>On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>   
>
>   As for the efficiency in storage, I suggest you take the long-term
>view:
>   I am 100% sure that at some point in the future, OSM will have at
>least
>   one node for every house, more likely a building outline for every
>   house. Look at this if you don't believe me:
>
>
http://informationfreeway.org/?lat=51.03267406093207&lon=13.718639663
>339111&zoom=15&layers=BF000F
>
>   At this point it will be trivial (easy to edit, easy to handle, and
>   requiring little extra storage) to simply add a house number tag to
>   every one of these buildings. Any sort of complex relations for
roads
>   with interpolation rules for house numbers will then simply be
>   unnecessary.
>
>
>That's not really true, because there are devices (such as Garmin GPS
>receivers) on which we would like to use OSM data, which need address
>numbers in a compact format with interpolation rules. Trying to reverse-
>engineer the scheme (odd, even, both, etc.) from single nodes that aren't
>even part of the way is nigh-impossible, or at the least, wastefully
>compute-intesive and error-prone.
>

However, houses are not part of the road network, so the house number node
should not be part of the highway, that would be tagging for the Garmin or
whatever. The house numbers need to go on the houses (or the object
representing them).

Cheers

Andy


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Greenland coastline looks good

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

Looking at the coastline checker it looks like greenland is looking
good. I think that's the last major landmass. Very nice.

Eurasia is looking a bit sick, nothing a little bit of editting won't fix.

http://tile.openstreetmap.nl/coastlines.html

Have a nice day,

-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Yet another street number scheme

[Karl Newman]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 

As for the efficiency in storage, I suggest you take the long-term view:
> I am 100% sure that at some point in the future, OSM will have at least
> one node for every house, more likely a building outline for every
> house. Look at this if you don't believe me:
>
>
> http://informationfreeway.org/?lat=51.03267406093207&lon=13.718639663339111&zoom=15&layers=BF000F
>
> At this point it will be trivial (easy to edit, easy to handle, and
> requiring little extra storage) to simply add a house number tag to
> every one of these buildings. Any sort of complex relations for roads
> with interpolation rules for house numbers will then simply be
> unnecessary.


That's not really true, because there are devices (such as Garmin GPS
receivers) on which we would like to use OSM data, which need address
numbers in a compact format with interpolation rules. Trying to
reverse-engineer the scheme (odd, even, both, etc.) from single nodes that
aren't even part of the way is nigh-impossible, or at the least, wastefully
compute-intesive and error-prone.

Karl
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Map Features, maxspeed and maplint

[Ed Loach]

Tristan wrote:

> I am happy to use 30mph not 48 (which conflicts 
> with map features which specify kmh and not units..) 
> as it seems a widely-used value and hence /ought/ to 
> be interpreted by renderers (is it? are any of them?)

I don't think I know of any renderers that render maxspeed, whatever
the units. 

The maplint validation works from an xml file which is generated
from the Map Features page using a perl script, the updated XML
output of which needs commiting to svn which will then get
downloaded by [EMAIL PROTECTED] clients when they next update. I recently
did this to try and get parking_aisle to be recognised by the
maplint validation (I didn't do the svn commit - someone did this
bit for me).

Anyway, because the Map Features Restrictions template which
includes maxspeed has Number in the relevant column it is
interpreted as a special field type and the validation done at
present is !=NaN (or some similar syntax) which basically says it is
an error if the value of a maxspeed key is "Not a Number", and
highlights the way with a non-numeric maxspeed as
not-in-map_features. I don't believe there is an easy solution to
this. I was looking at the Perl script and a quick but distasteful
workaround would be to change Number on the Map Features page to
Number / User defined which I think *might* then allow *anything*
(which is why I don't want to do it). I think this would be the only
way without amending the perl script. If the perl script was to be
amended then either we could add special code to handle the key of
maxspeed, or define a type of "speed" which could be applied to both
maxspeed and minspeed and allow either a number (with assumed km/h
units) or a number followed by "mph" - I guess this would be done
using a regular expression comparison which from my limited perl
knowledge seems to use the =~ comparator. If a new type of "speed"
was defined in the code, then Map Features would still need
modifying in some way for the script to know which fields are of
that type - perhaps by changing "Number" to "Number (speed)".

As I said, there is no easy solution to the maplint issue that I can
think of, although I'm still considering the possibilities.

Ed



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Map Features, maxspeed and maplint

[Tristan Scott]

I've been reading this discussion since it started...

So far I've seen that there's a problem with conflicting values. It seems
that not only is maxspeed=??mph widely used, it's also handily in exactly
the same place as maxspeed=48 (which is what map features told me to do
(..ish, it didn't specify d.p), therefore it's what I did)

I accept the argument that mapping mph values in kmh is a problem as people
use different levels of precision, and also any mapped value is inaccurate.

When I mapped my first maxspeed (ah, sweet innocence since lost) I found
that people seemed to be converting inaccurately (in that they'd trucated
values rather the rounding according to tagwatch) so I added the lookup
table as a canonical guide (30mph is 48kph if the same number of dp are
used).

If it were up to me (dicatorships are so much swifter to deal with
things...)
* maxspeed should be the only tag. Therefore you can't contradict
yourself/others (or update one to 40mph, or not catching because it's not
normal, maxspeed:mph is still 30 you end up with broken data)
* "mph" is the only permittable suffix (or a SHORT fixed list added to map
features), therefore parsing is simple. If Mph / MilesPerHour / mp/h /
yard/minute / walk / et al is allowed then parsing becomes either impossibly
(inf types of value) difficult, or becomes easy (if it's not all numeric,
ignore it).

I am happy to use 30mph not 48 (which conflicts with map features which
specify kmh and not units..) as it seems a widely-used value and hence
/ought/ to be interpreted by renderers (is it? are any of them?)



Use of the data?

What I had in mind was a satnav, with the user on the way driving along. He
doesn't care what the units are internally, just that the satnav goes "bong"
when he's over the limit. He might have the units displayed, but they'd be
displayed in whatever format he'd told the satnav to use anyway, and so
again the internal types are irrelevant - as long as they can be
standardised by the parser they're ok.
This use would best fit with kmh values (numbers are much easier to atoi()
than various concatenated value+unit strings) in my view. However. "30mph"
to "30" requires some logic by the program.

##I thought that the program being:

waySpeedDisplay = round(atoi(way.maxspeed)*0.621371) #use 1 for kph display

##would be much simpler than the program being

if (sub_string(way.maxspeed,last3chars) == mph)
{
CONV_FACTOR=0.621371
}
else if (not_is_numeric(way.maxspeed))
{
echo "you what?" #handle other string suffixes too!
}
else
{
CONV_FACTOR = 1
}
waySpeedDisplay = round(atoi(way.maxspeed)*CONV_FACTOR); #divide by 0.621371
for km/h display




I may start mapping "mph" suffixes instead of kmh values as it seems in wide
use (therefore logically interpretors would handle it) and arguments for it
on this thread seem logical and well-founded to me.

Tristan

2008/10/13 Ed Loach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Andy wrote:
> > It's much simpler to parse maxspeed=30mph than it is to work
> > out which
> > one is correct when there's multiple maxspeed:[kph|mph]=30
> > tags, I'd
> > say. I'd try to avoid having two potentially conflicting ways
> > of
> > tagging the same property.
> >
> > Oh, and changing documentation on the wiki to promote the
> > least-prevalent method of tagging is bad form! The wiki should
> > (IMNotVeryHO) be there to document what's in the database, not
> > promote
> > particular tagging schemes over one another.
>
> I agree, and I think the changes to the wiki should be at least
> reversed, and possibly an additional note added to say many users
> append mph to the value where the speed limit is signposted in mph
> rather than converting to km/h (as is already noted on the following
> page I discovered today, following a link from the maxspeed=none
> voting page:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OSM_tags_for_routing/Maxspee
> d
> )
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Tristan Scott BSc(Hons)
Yare Valley Technical Services
www.yvts.co.uk
07837 205829
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways

[Erik Johansson]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Stanislav Brabec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Czech Republic:
> There are very few dedicated cycleways. Most other cycleways are either
> completely mixed with pedestrian ways (e. g. in Prague) or one half of
> the way is pedestrian and the other is cycleway (e. g. Pardubice).
>
> Well, it's a question, whether such ways should be tagged as
> highway=cycleway;foot=yes (as proposes wiki)

1/3 of all highway=cycleways have foot=yes in Sweden, I can't remember
any cycleway that dissallowed foot access, I've never seen it. Besides
if there were such a thing you would stil be able to use it on foot.

-- 
/emj
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways

[David Earl]

On 14/10/2008 13:43, spaetz wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:16:15PM +0200, sylvain letuffe wrote:
>> I respect your points to defend cycleway, and to tag the "pedestrians 
>> allowed" 
>> by adding a foot=yes, but I'm quite sure the original problem in belgium was 
>> not quite a "pedestrian only" case.
>>
>> The fact is, that here in france (but I think this is the same case in 
>> belgium) we have those "so called" cycleway where are allowed :
>> - bicycle
>> - pedestrian
>> - skate boards
>> - roller blades
>> - pedestrian with dogs
>> - wheel chair
>> - small plastic cars for children
>> etc.
>>  
>> Will anyone tag this :
> 
>> highway=cycleway;foot=yes;skate=yes;roller=yes; ?

In the UK, pedestrians can use all highways except where explicitly 
disallowed (e.g. motorways, and those where there is a Traffic 
Regulation Order). So if we do this ad absurdum highway=residential etc 
should be tagged foot=yes, bicycle=yes (and so on) as well.

Tagging a road as something implies certain rules, surely, and only when 
those rules are different from the standard (for that country) should 
you need to say so. Same as the oneway=no discussion that went on 
previously.

David


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways

[spaetz]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:16:15PM +0200, sylvain letuffe wrote:
> I respect your points to defend cycleway, and to tag the "pedestrians 
> allowed" 
> by adding a foot=yes, but I'm quite sure the original problem in belgium was 
> not quite a "pedestrian only" case.
> 
> The fact is, that here in france (but I think this is the same case in 
> belgium) we have those "so called" cycleway where are allowed :
> - bicycle
> - pedestrian
> - skate boards
> - roller blades
> - pedestrian with dogs
> - wheel chair
> - small plastic cars for children
> etc.
>  
> Will anyone tag this :

> highway=cycleway;foot=yes;skate=yes;roller=yes; ?

Yes, that is what I would expect if that is what is allowed. I don't see how 
this would be different from your proposal which would require:

highway=path;bicycle=yes;foot=yes;skate=yes;roller 


> Well, I tag them highway=path, and that's not restricted, it correspond to 
> the 
> reallity :
> "open to all non-motorized vehicles"

And all highway=path will work with wheelchairs and skate boards?
Phantastic, I look forward to seeing those skateboarders on the muddy paths I 
have seen already :-) 


spaetz

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways

[Philip Homburg]

In your letter dated Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:16:15 +0200 you wrote:
>
>> highway=cycleway;foot=yes 
>> 
>> used to work very well before highway=path has been introduced. What has
>> changed that? 
>
>I respect your points to defend cycleway, and to tag the "pedestrians allowed"
> 
>by adding a foot=yes, but I'm quite sure the original problem in belgium was 
>not quite a "pedestrian only" case.
>
>The fact is, that here in france (but I think this is the same case in 
>belgium) we have those "so called" cycleway where are allowed :
>- bicycle
>- pedestrian
>- skate boards
>- roller blades
>- pedestrian with dogs
>- wheel chair
>- small plastic cars for children
>etc.
> 
>Will anyone tag this :
>highway=cycleway;foot=yes;skate=yes;roller=yes; ?
>
>Will anyone tag this :
>highway=rollerway;foot=yes;cycleway=yes;... ?

Well, in .nl, skate boards, roller blades, etc. are all considered
pedestrians. 

So, unless OSM wants to introduce those categories, there is only the issue
of whether the default access rules for routing programs should allow 
pedestrians on cycleways or not.

Just for reference, in .nl cycleways are indicated by 
http://stereo.hq.phicoh.net/osm/Verplicht%20fietspad.png
(though 
http://stereo.hq.phicoh.net/osm/Onverplicht%20fietspad.png
and 
http://stereo.hq.phicoh.net/osm/Fiets-%20en%20bromfietspad.png
an issue)

And there is nothing 'so called' about those cycleways. just like there is
nothing 'so called' about primary roads when there is no sidewalk and people
are just walking on the road (with or without skate boards, roller blades, or
small plastic cars).




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] map display www.openstreetmap.org

[OJ W]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Jonathan Bennett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Got a printed UK Road Map? Open it to any page -- where are the coordinates?
>

Which is *extremely* annoying when you have a GPS and a printed UK
road map and are trying to find out where you are...

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final callfor comments

[Peter Miller]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm
> Sent: 14 October 2008 12:55
> To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final
> callfor comments
> 
> Andy,
> 
> Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
> > You are already aware that the OSMF has an ongoing project in this
> respect
> > and SteveC posted an update on progress only two days ago. Most of what
> you
> > are suggesting above is already in our implementation plan.
> 
> Can I suggest that the Foundation publish their plan to avoid double and
> triple work. I had until now concluded from the relative lack of
> communications on the part of the Foundation that there isn't a real
> plan and was therefore quite happy for someone (Peter) to show some
> initiative. (Indeed I assumed that the Foundation would be happy as well
> - the Foundation didn't give the impression of embracing the topic at
> all so I figured they might be relieved to have Peter do it.) Apologies
> if I misjudged the Foundation's work - it wouldn't hurt if the
> Foundation not only worked hard but also talked about it ;-)
> 
> Does the Foundation's plan have any sort of dates put to it, or any
> timeframe at all, or is it more or less "it takes as long as it takes"?
> 

I was really signalling that I had got the Brief and Use Cases into a form
where I was happy with them and where I thought they covered the issues
raised but needed confirmation re that from others.

I know from SteveC that he wants this wrapped up by Xmas and that is only 10
weeks away, yup only 10 shopping weeks til xmas, lets all go out a spend! Or
alternatively let's get an agreed action plan published and get the licence
sorted and implemented. 


Peter

 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways

[sylvain letuffe]

> highway=cycleway;foot=yes 
> 
> used to work very well before highway=path has been introduced. What has
> changed that? 

I respect your points to defend cycleway, and to tag the "pedestrians allowed" 
by adding a foot=yes, but I'm quite sure the original problem in belgium was 
not quite a "pedestrian only" case.

The fact is, that here in france (but I think this is the same case in 
belgium) we have those "so called" cycleway where are allowed :
- bicycle
- pedestrian
- skate boards
- roller blades
- pedestrian with dogs
- wheel chair
- small plastic cars for children
etc.
 
Will anyone tag this :
highway=cycleway;foot=yes;skate=yes;roller=yes; ?

Will anyone tag this :
highway=rollerway;foot=yes;cycleway=yes;... ?

> For cycleways that allow pedestrians? Sounds quite restricted ;-)
Well, I tag them highway=path, and that's not restricted, it correspond to the 
reallity :
"open to all non-motorized vehicles"

... more thinking about that ...
The problem here, might not come from path, or cycleway, but from the access 
keys.
Those keys are too restricted, and too specific. So too badly usable.
I'm probably dreaming here, but a classification schem would have been of more 
use here :
- non_wheeled
- non_motorized
- car_sized
- truck
- explosive

So, in that case, yeah, we would have simplified and dropped 
path/cycleway/footway/track
replacing it by :
highway=primary
non_motorized=yes
( thus describing a major cycleway in only two tags )




-- 
Sylvain Letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call for comments

[Frederik Ramm]

Andy,

Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
> You are already aware that the OSMF has an ongoing project in this respect
> and SteveC posted an update on progress only two days ago. Most of what you
> are suggesting above is already in our implementation plan.

Can I suggest that the Foundation publish their plan to avoid double and 
triple work. I had until now concluded from the relative lack of 
communications on the part of the Foundation that there isn't a real 
plan and was therefore quite happy for someone (Peter) to show some 
initiative. (Indeed I assumed that the Foundation would be happy as well 
- the Foundation didn't give the impression of embracing the topic at 
all so I figured they might be relieved to have Peter do it.) Apologies 
if I misjudged the Foundation's work - it wouldn't hurt if the 
Foundation not only worked hard but also talked about it ;-)

Does the Foundation's plan have any sort of dates put to it, or any 
timeframe at all, or is it more or less "it takes as long as it takes"?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] More vandalism

[Matt White]

I use potlatch almost exclusively (every so often, I play with 
merkaator), and I guess I'd just like to say that I think potlatch is 
the the ducks nuts. You've done a sterling job, Richard (and others, but 
I get the feeling the majority is still Richard slaving away making the 
app a fine bit of kit, with only occasional forays into the mailing list 
to defend the honour of potlatch), and I for one appreciate it.

Given that a large chunk of the mapping I do is long 4WD tracks, 
potlatch really is the way to go

Richard, don't let the great JOSM unwashed get you down... :)

Cheers

Matt

vegard wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:57:08PM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>   
>> While I'm here I might as well say something about the lack of a Save
>> button.
>>
>> I'm not violently against the concept: I think "unconvinced" is
>> perhaps the best way to describe my opinion.
>>
>> There are two big issues with it. One is that for edit sessions
>> lasting more than a couple of seconds, there has to be conflict
>> management. If you're a JOSM user, then you are de facto a  clued-up,
>> computer-savvy type, so conflict management doesn't worry you. But if
>> you are a newbie - maybe even a schoolkid - trying just to edit your
>> local area, then being presented with "The following conflicts were
>> detected. Accept/Resolve/Revert?" will just utterly confuse you, and
>> you'll click the wrong thing and cause more errors. Or maybe just
>> close Potlatch and never return to OSM.
>> 
>
> Well. I'm a bit unconvinced that we need to attract everyone, even these
> people :)
>
> And as for schoolkids - I think even schoolkids can learn JOSM. Heck, I
> even have example to prove it: A 9 year old nephew that's recently
> started doing his own tagging in JOSM :) Of course, his father looks over
> the things he's done from time to time...
>
> Personally, *I* don't dare using Potlach for the lack of a "save" button.
> Yes, I'll do it for the quick change (moving a single node, changing a
> property) that I see while looking at the map, but not for more things.
> I just find it too dangerous.
>
>   
>> The second is that, in JOSM, your "canvas" is usually quite small -
>> i.e. you have downloaded a particular area and are working on that
>> exclusively. In Potlatch, because you can pan around an infinite map,
>> your canvas may be much bigger. You may have traced a 600km cycle
>> route (I know, I've done that! :) ) in one session. Yet you can't
>> zoom out to see the whole thing, because requesting a 600km bounding
>> box would break both the server and the browser. So you would be
>> clicking "Save" to upload changes that you can't actually see or
>> review, and that - in my opinion - defeats the point of it.
>> 
>
> Point taken.
>
>   
>> What worries me most, because I've seen it before, is that people are
>> seizing on the first thing they don't like, and thinking that's the
>> reason why there are bad edits. People used to criticise Potlatch for
>> causing bad edits because there was no 'revert' feature, so I added a
>> revert feature (the H key). Then they criticised Potlatch for causing
>> bad edits because there was no 'test' mode, so I added a test mode.
>> Then they criticised Potlatch because there was no 'splash screen'
>> explaining things, so I added a splash screen. Now they criticise
>> Potlatch because there's no compulsory 'save' button.
>> 
>
> Well. Yes. We critize. Based on what we see people actually manage to do
> despite these safety measures...Granted, I thought the test mode would
> help *much* more. And it helped, but not enough. Revert-button is great,
> but you'll have to know that you need to revert and not just quit the
> browser...
>
>   
>> the bad edits. The bad edits are principally because these guys are
>> newbies. Newbies make mistakes. (Experienced users don't make
>> mistakes with Potlatch just because it has no Save button.)
>> 
>
> *Ehem* - I don't trust myself not to :) Enough to not daring to use it
> for more advanced work.
>
>   
>> And in a week's time, someone would be saying "Potlatch must be
>> banned unless it has a pony" (or something) and there'd be a lot of
>> postings saying "yes, the reason there are all these bad edits is
>> BECAUSE POTLATCH HAS NO PONY". And so, a few weeks later, Potlatch
>> would get a pony, which would make it even harder to use (ponies are
>> quite stubborn, you know) and require newbies to learn even more, and
>> then someone would decide on another "reason" for the bad edits...
>> and so on.
>>
>> 
>
> You are right, this is an endless task. But it's a necessary task. Bad
> edits are annoying as hell to the people who worked hard with them in
> the first time. Tools should be as foolproof as possible. And I would not
> too afraid to scare away someone by adding a submit button and conflict
> management, done wisely it need not be too annoying. But I'm no flash
> programmer :)
>
> And no, I don't want to ban potlach. But it 

Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways

[spaetz]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:53:11AM +0200, sylvain letuffe wrote:

> I think that what you need is not a cycleway anymore, because pedestrian are 
> allowed.


highway=cycleway;foot=yes 

used to work very well before highway=path has been introduced. What has 
changed that?

> Luckyly, the higwhay=path is made for that

For cycleways that allow pedestrians? Sounds quite restricted ;-)

spaetz

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call forcomments

[Peter Miller]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
> Sent: 14 October 2008 11:54
> To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call
> forcomments
> 
> Peter Miller wrote:
> >Sent: 14 October 2008 10:28 AM
> >To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
> >Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call for
> comments
> >
> >This is a final call for comments by readers of legal-talk for feedback
> on
> >the brief and the use cases.
> >
> 
> I'd just like to point out that this "final call for comments" is your
> suggestion. Those dealing with the licence drafting process in the OSMF
> have
> not set any final call on feedback or use cases, in fact we haven't yet
> called for comment on either at the present time. While the use cases will
> indeed be useful we don't consider that the process is closed and
> contributors are welcome to add new use case questions to the wiki at any
> time, as per any other wiki page.

Sure, but we must get all the discussions and arguments out the way sooner
rather than later! If we have a target to get this completed by Xmas then we
need to be resolving the Brief and the Use Cases very soon.

Yes, I am aware of what SteveC is doing and believe my contribution is
complimentary. I am however stepping into an apparent gap in regard to
getting some of this out the way ready for the legal brief.

If the foundation (or anyone else) disagrees with the brief or the use cases
we have evolved on this list in the past two weeks then it would be very
useful to have their input soon so that other interested parties on this
list can consider the remaining issues.

> 
> >I suggest that we next put together a project plan to bring the licence
> >elegantly into life and sort out what needs to be done, by when and by
> whom
> >to achieve that? I will add a proposed task-list to the wiki when I next
> >have a chance and we can then refine it and then pick up individual
> tasks.
> >There will be consensus building tasks (on Talk, talk-de and other local
> >and specialist talk lists); legal tasks (to codify the licence), there
> will
> >be technical tasks (seeing who needs to be contacted in each area, see
> what
> >data is at risk in any particular area, to allow people to accept the new
> >terms and see their data becoming 'safe'), and finally there will be
> >outreach tasks (to get buy in from individual contributors in each area,
> in
> >particular from major contributors who are not on talk to increase the
> >amount of safe data). Finally there will be a painful technical task to
> >remove 'non-safe' content.
> 
> You are already aware that the OSMF has an ongoing project in this respect
> and SteveC posted an update on progress only two days ago. Most of what
> you
> are suggesting above is already in our implementation plan. We very much
> welcome the work that has been done by you and others over the last few
> weeks so we will be happy to see a task list appearing but don't be
> surprised if the final process is undertaken in a different format.
> Anything
> put up on the wiki will be noted and incorporated into the master plan
> where
> the need is seen, and of course we will continue to provide updates as and
> when there is something concrete to report.
>

Again, yes I am aware of SteveC's post and did talk to him at the weekend. I
will put up a 'straw-man' project plan and then we can discuss it. I am
please that the Foundation will take note of the discussions on this list.

Again, I am just stepping into a perceived gap and aiming to help the
project to a harmonious and successful conclusion within the timeframe the
foundation has set itself.

Thanks for all your work and I expect that the two work streams will come
together in the near future.

Regards,

 

Peter

 
> Cheers
> 
> Andy
> 
> Andy Robinson
> Secretary
> OpenStreetMap Foundation
> 0777 553 7872
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Name & Registered Office:
> Openstreetmap Foundation
> 16 Oakfield Glade
> Weybridge
> Surrey
> KT13 9DP
> United Kingdom
> A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales.
> Registration No. 05912761.
> 
> 
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call for comments

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Peter Miller wrote:
>Sent: 14 October 2008 10:28 AM
>To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
>Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call for comments
>
>This is a final call for comments by readers of legal-talk for feedback on
>the brief and the use cases.
>

I'd just like to point out that this "final call for comments" is your
suggestion. Those dealing with the licence drafting process in the OSMF have
not set any final call on feedback or use cases, in fact we haven't yet
called for comment on either at the present time. While the use cases will
indeed be useful we don't consider that the process is closed and
contributors are welcome to add new use case questions to the wiki at any
time, as per any other wiki page. 

>I suggest that we next put together a project plan to bring the licence
>elegantly into life and sort out what needs to be done, by when and by whom
>to achieve that? I will add a proposed task-list to the wiki when I next
>have a chance and we can then refine it and then pick up individual tasks.
>There will be consensus building tasks (on Talk, talk-de and other local
>and specialist talk lists); legal tasks (to codify the licence), there will
>be technical tasks (seeing who needs to be contacted in each area, see what
>data is at risk in any particular area, to allow people to accept the new
>terms and see their data becoming 'safe'), and finally there will be
>outreach tasks (to get buy in from individual contributors in each area, in
>particular from major contributors who are not on talk to increase the
>amount of safe data). Finally there will be a painful technical task to
>remove 'non-safe' content.

You are already aware that the OSMF has an ongoing project in this respect
and SteveC posted an update on progress only two days ago. Most of what you
are suggesting above is already in our implementation plan. We very much
welcome the work that has been done by you and others over the last few
weeks so we will be happy to see a task list appearing but don't be
surprised if the final process is undertaken in a different format. Anything
put up on the wiki will be noted and incorporated into the master plan where
the need is seen, and of course we will continue to provide updates as and
when there is something concrete to report.

Cheers

Andy

Andy Robinson
Secretary
OpenStreetMap Foundation
0777 553 7872
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Name & Registered Office:
Openstreetmap Foundation
16 Oakfield Glade
Weybridge
Surrey
KT13 9DP
United Kingdom 
A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales.
Registration No. 05912761.


___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call for comments

[Peter Miller]

This is a final call for comments by readers of legal-talk for feedback on
the brief and the use cases.

 

The Brief - Does anyone strongly disagree with any aspects of the brief? Are
there any ways we could make it stronger and better? If so can we hear about
the issues in the next few days so we can try to accommodate them?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License#A_brief_for_the_pr
oposed_licence

 

Use Cases - I have added some new Use Cases, and reworded some of the
existing use cases to use a standard style throughout, normally starting
with the phrase 'The licence should allow'.. Or 'The licence should not
allow'. Does anyone strongly object to any of the Use Cases and there
interpretation. Can we know about that in the next few days?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License

 

I suggest that we next put together a project plan to bring the licence
elegantly into life and sort out what needs to be done, by when and by whom
to achieve that? I will add a proposed task-list to the wiki when I next
have a chance and we can then refine it and then pick up individual tasks.
There will be consensus building tasks (on Talk, talk-de and other local and
specialist talk lists); legal tasks (to codify the licence), there will be
technical tasks (seeing who needs to be contacted in each area, see what
data is at risk in any particular area, to allow people to accept the new
terms and see their data becoming 'safe'), and finally there will be
outreach tasks (to get buy in from individual contributors in each area, in
particular from major contributors who are not on talk to increase the
amount of safe data). Finally there will be a painful technical task to
remove 'non-safe' content.

 

None of the above will be easy, but it is getting harder the longer we
fiddle because the community is growing and more and more contributors will
be drifting out of contact.

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Peter Miller

  www.itoworld.com

 

___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Good practice for updating the source tag

[Dave Stubbs]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:04 AM, maning sambale
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What's the good practice for updating the source tag?
> For example in my mapping area, the initial coastline was from an SRTM
> import (source=SRTM), then somebody updated the coast using LANDSAT,
> then another user updated it using Yahoo!.
>
> I would very much like to preserve the original tag as it provides
> some history on the development of the data, but the data have been
> greatly modified that it does not in anyway similar to the original
> coastline import.
>

If you entirely move something to match another source then just
replace the tag.
If I modify something with reference to another source, but still
trying to take into account the original then I tend to add the source
to the tag, so source=SRTM+landsat or similar.
(sometimes I just forget it completely)

The way/node history on the OSM server takes care of preserving the
origins, so anybody who's interested can look back through it.

Dave

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Good practice for updating the source tag

[maning sambale]

Hi,

What's the good practice for updating the source tag?
For example in my mapping area, the initial coastline was from an SRTM
import (source=SRTM), then somebody updated the coast using LANDSAT,
then another user updated it using Yahoo!.

I would very much like to preserve the original tag as it provides
some history on the development of the data, but the data have been
greatly modified that it does not in anyway similar to the original
coastline import.

cheers,
maning

-- 
|-|--|
| __.-._  |"Ohhh. Great warrior. Wars not make one great." -Yoda |
| '-._"7' |"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden|
|  /'.-c  |Linux registered user #402901, http://counter.li.org/ |
|  |  /T  |http://esambale.wikispaces.com|
| _)_/LI
|-|--|

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] More vandalism

[Ed Loach]

Nic wrote (I think - I might have got confused by who is quoting
who):

> Or change potlatch so that it will not delete or modify 
> objects last edited by other users. Then it would at 
> least be easy to delete anything they did.

This couldn't work. I've modified a lot of things which have been
added to the project by Potlatch users such as when tracing things
from NPE (UK) or other such overlays, when I've actually travelled
the route at a later date and GPS traced it. While the overlays are
lined up pretty well in Potlatch and slightly less so (in my
experience) in JOSM, it doesn't seem to compare with the accuracy of
actually travelling a route and tracing it with GPS.

An example from a journey I did at a weekend (to buy wet walnuts
from a local farm, a trip I do about once a year) - when I uploaded
the trace and followed it on the map I was changing (in JOSM)
highway=road to a more appropriate type, splitting ways where the
names changed, adding new ways that joined to existing ways (adding
a node to those existing ways) or so on. If I were one of those
experienced users who prefer Potlatch I'd want to be able to do all
the same things. Occasionally I also find random nodes in the middle
of nowhere that I delete (to be honest I may have added some of
those on those few occasions I have used Potlatch when I've been
trying to drag the map and messed up).

Ed



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] map display www.openstreetmap.org

[spaetz]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 07:29:51PM +0100, David Earl wrote:
[snip much that I agree with]
> OSM's instance of Mapnik might "own" not just the 
> tiles, but the page in which they are showcased as well. Likewise 
> Potlatch, likewise Osmarender, likewise namefinder gazetteer. But we 
> provide a starting point to look at them.

As a side note, I hear more often nowadays that osma and [EMAIL PROTECTED] are 
not OSM projects (whatever that implies :-)). This used to be different 1-2 
years ago. 

According to that, osmarender ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is indeed just as much 
derived as the cyclemap.

spaetz

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Spam on Diaries

[Tom Hughes]

Roman Neumüller wrote:

>> Do you have some suggestions? It's hard to see what we can do about this 
>> sort of (presumably manual) spamming where people are prepared to go to 
>> the trouble of registering and confirming an account beyond deleting the 
>> accounts.
> 
> Good would be something like
> * wordpress akismet plugin,

If we were running wordpress that might be an excellent idea.

> * added captcha or
> * if with link do it simply as in osm-wiki

Give that the spam appears to be manual it's not clear that either of 
these would help - both are aimed at combating bot spam.

Tom

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


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk