[OSM-talk] Category:TagsSupportedBy
I added a category Category:TagsSupportedBy and tagged some pages with it as a test. How usefully do you find this? Should we do something like this? By design such a list can never be complete but combined with tagwatch it could be a good way to consolidate the list of tags some more and provide better feedback on how well a tag is established. We do have tags that are still in proposed -state that are interpreted by applications. We have tags that are interpreted by many applications but seldomly used and there are bound to be tags that are in the map but not interpreted by any application at all. Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Propoasl - RFC - Gym
Guenther Meyer schrieb: > Am Montag 30 März 2009 schrieb Adrian Moisey: >> Hi >> > Someone else started a proposal for a gym, I need it in my area. So > I'm finishing it off: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Gym Why not simply use: leisure=sports_centre sport=work_out (or gymnastics or ...) Regards, ULFL >>> wh have a key for sports facilites, so why not sport=gym? >> There are no tags for 'sport=work-out' or 'sport=gym'. >> Also, a Gym isn't a sports_centre, its an actual building designed for >> Gymning. >> > right. so you have to create a new one. > as most gyms are not part of a sports centre, tagging leisure=sports_centre > for every gym would be wrong. > > a gym is used for physical workout, so sport is better suited than amenity. > sport=gym (only this, whithout leisure=...) says everything needed to > basically describe and categorize this facilities, so it should be better > than amenity=gym. No one is talking about amenity here! :-) The current logic is: 1.) leisure=xy for the facility (stadium, pitch, sports_centre, golf_course, ...) 2.) sport=xy for the actual sport done here I don't think we need different leisure tags for tennis_halls, boxing_clubs, ... when we already have a working solution. The advantage of the current system is the renderers not interested in showing different kinds of sports_centres can simply render only this tag generically and ignoring the sport tag altogether - at least all facilities will then show up on the map in question. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Propoasl - RFC - Gym
Am Montag 30 März 2009 schrieb Ulf Lamping: > Guenther Meyer schrieb: > > Am Montag 30 März 2009 schrieb Adrian Moisey: > >> Hi > >> > > Someone else started a proposal for a gym, I need it in my area. So > > I'm finishing it off: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Gym > > Why not simply use: > > leisure=sports_centre > sport=work_out (or gymnastics or ...) > > Regards, ULFL > >>> > >>> wh have a key for sports facilites, so why not sport=gym? > >> > >> There are no tags for 'sport=work-out' or 'sport=gym'. > >> Also, a Gym isn't a sports_centre, its an actual building designed for > >> Gymning. > > > > right. so you have to create a new one. > > as most gyms are not part of a sports centre, tagging > > leisure=sports_centre for every gym would be wrong. > > > > a gym is used for physical workout, so sport is better suited than > > amenity. sport=gym (only this, whithout leisure=...) says everything > > needed to basically describe and categorize this facilities, so it should > > be better than amenity=gym. > > No one is talking about amenity here! :-) > the proposal this thread was started for reads amenity=gym: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Gym > The current logic is: > > 1.) leisure=xy for the facility (stadium, pitch, sports_centre, > golf_course, ...) > > 2.) sport=xy for the actual sport done here > > > I don't think we need different leisure tags for tennis_halls, > boxing_clubs, ... when we already have a working solution. > no one was talking of different leisure tags... > The advantage of the current system is the renderers not interested in > showing different kinds of sports_centres can simply render only this > tag generically and ignoring the sport tag altogether - at least all > facilities will then show up on the map in question. > the same would be possible for the key sport. every element containing the key sport could be drawn with a generic sport-icon, if the renderer is not interested in further specification. a sports centre for me is a place, where multiple sports facilites are combined in a building or area, and not every gym/tennis hall/whatever is built in this way. so if something is not a sports centre it should not be tagged as such. if your "logic" says to do this anyhow, this is simple wrong. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
This should be tagged in a different way that uses fact instead of opinion/fiction. Perhaps by referring to crime statistics for a given boundary area. Cheers Andy >-Original Message- >From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk- >boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of NL >Sent: 30 March 2009 3:42 AM >To: talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas > >This isn't a formal proposal so much as presenting an idea. When i was >booking a hotel recently for travel, a friend who knew the area advised me >that it was a dangerous neighborhood. That allowed me to find a different >hotel in a safer area and possibly save myself some unpleasantness. This >kind of word-of-mouth knowledge is the kind of thing open projects can >excel at providing. The problem, of course, is a metric for something as >subjective as "dangerous neighborhood". It it dangerous at 12:00 or at >01:00? Is it unsafe to park a bike/car there? > >Would some tagging system to indicate dangerous area be desirable, and how >would it best be implemented? > >Cheers >P ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
Actually, I think this is a bad idea. Wether or not an area is "dangerous" is highly subjective, and will most likely result in heated edit wars. 2009/3/30 Russ Nelson > > On Mar 29, 2009, at 10:42 PM, NL wrote: > > > Is it unsafe to park a bike/car there? > > We should mark areas of high bicycle theft, but we'd need a map to > display it. > > -- > Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson > r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - > http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Bernt Marius Johnsen "Melius vivit qui remigat" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
On Monday 30 March 2009 14:25:46 Bernt M. Johnsen wrote: > Actually, I think this is a bad idea. Wether or not an area is "dangerous" > is highly subjective, and will most likely result in heated edit wars. and possibly defamation/libel suits -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Category:TagsSupportedBy
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote: > I added a category Category:TagsSupportedBy and tagged some pages with it > as a test. I'm not sure why you called the category "TagsSupportedBy" when you want to apply it to keys and especially relations, too. Wouldn't a simple "Supported by" or "Features supported by" or something like that fit better? Also, I don't know why you left out spaces. CamelCase is, imo, less human-friendly. Except that I generally like the idea. I wonder, however, how we should handle "partial" support. Especially with more complicated stuff like restriction or multipolygon relations, many applications support only a subset of the possibilities. The only fundamental problem I see in the long term is the amount of applications that will be added to each and every page. This will potentially make categories unusable. Maybe it would be better to create templates to be used at the bottom of each page? You could get the list of supported features by checking template inclusions, and it would allow you to choose an appropriate style, maybe expand/collapse the box to save screen space and so on. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Category:TagsSupportedBy
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:03:14 +0200, Tobias Knerr
wrote:
> marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> I added a category Category:TagsSupportedBy and tagged some pages with
it
>> as a test.
>
> I'm not sure why you called the category "TagsSupportedBy" when you want
> to apply it to keys and especially relations, too. Wouldn't a simple
> "Supported by" or "Features supported by" or something like that fit
> better?
I'm not sure what you mean.
Nodes, Ways and Relations are identified by Tags.
If you apply a category to to a Key that this would mean
that all or at least all major values for that key are
supported.
Maybe we "Supported by" would be better.
I am against naming it "Feature" as a feature in the context
of an application is something completely different then a
feture in the context of a map. Thus it would create confusion.
> Also, I don't know why you left out spaces. CamelCase is, imo,
> less human-friendly.
Well... I'm used to writing names in CamelCase all day. It happens.
>
> Except that I generally like the idea. I wonder, however, how we should
> handle "partial" support. Especially with more complicated stuff like
> restriction or multipolygon relations, many applications support only a
> subset of the possibilities.
Not at all.
It's not supposed to be perfect.
* The list of supported tags is never complete
* The list of values for a tag may change after adding the category
* The tag may not be supported in all cases or for all purposed or in all
configurations
This is mentioned in the individual category-pages.
Such a limitation does not change the fact that the tag is
evaluated at all and thus it makes sense to apply it wherever
it shall be applied.
> The only fundamental problem I see in the long term is the amount of
> applications that will be added to each and every page. This will
> potentially make categories unusable. Maybe it would be better to create
> templates to be used at the bottom of each page? You could get the list
> of supported features by checking template inclusions, and it would
> allow you to choose an appropriate style, maybe expand/collapse the box
> to save screen space and so on.
Sounds better. However I have no idea how these templates with named
parameters
work. I've only used positional parameters {{{1}}} in mediawiki up to now
and looking at the template-pages for Tag and Key it gets quite confusing.
Marcus
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] mapnik on Ubuntu howto
Hi all, I made some notes as I got my tile server working. Let me know if the HOWTO is useful to you. In three parts so far on http://weait.com More coming soon. Help from many on #osm was instrumental. I believe that I have put each of those patches back into the wiki. Best regards, Richard. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_output
Simple proposal for adding power_output tag to power generators allowing specifying output power. Could be used to distinguish small (like single pylon acting as wind power plant) and large (like 2000+ MW) power plants and perhaps render/not render them according to zoom level, level of detail, etc.. May be also nice information to show in map, perhaps. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
El Lunes, 30 de Marzo de 2009, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) escribió: > This should be tagged in a different way that uses fact instead of > opinion/fiction. Perhaps by referring to crime statistics for a given > boundary area. I don't think OSM is the place for statistics... it has been said over and over "map what is on the ground". So, I'd either go and start up OpenCrimeDensityMap, or put that info in Wikitravel. Cheers, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega Error 941 - CPU not found... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - h==highway
Chris Hill wrote: > Maarten Deen wrote: >> Can we implement this tomorrow? > When hell freezes over maybe. I meant day after tomorrow BTW. Maybe that clears it up a bit. Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
> There are many areas that nearly everyone agrees is unsafe, even the > residents. But not all the residents would have the same opinion. > But more importantly, there is a reasonable amount of subjective stuff in > OSM already e.g. permissive footways across vacant land, residential vs. > living_street This is different to your statement above because even though a path may not be official, I could take a person to it. Point at it, ask the question "Is that a path?", and get the response "Yes", every time. Regardless if your allowed to walk on it or not, it is still a path. Ciarán ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
On Monday 30 March 2009 16:59:25 Ciarán Mooney wrote: > > There are many areas that nearly everyone agrees is unsafe, even the > > residents. > > But not all the residents would have the same opinion. especially those residents who have made the area 'unsafe' - reminds me of a poster I once saw: 'O yea I will walk without fear through the valley of death because I am the meanest son of a bitch in the valley' -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Osm2pgsql and column names with two underscores
Hi, An osm2pgsql user writes on the forum about importing special tags into PostGIS. He has defined for example these tags: node openGeoDB:telephone_area_code text node openGeoDB:license_plate_code text Import fails and error message is: CREATE TABLE planet_osm_point ( osm_id int4,"access" text, "admin_level" text, ---SNIP--- "openGeoDB:postal_codes" text,"openGeoDB:telephone_are" a_code, "openGeoDB:type" text,"openGeoDB:license_plate" _code,"z_order" int4 ); failed: ERROR: type "a_code" does not exist LINE 1: ...eoDB:postal_codes" text, "openGeoDB:telephone_are" a_code,"op... ^ Error occurred, cleaning up Look at these: "openGeoDB:telephone_are" a_code, "openGeoDB:license_plate" _code It looks like column name gets truncated at the second underline character. Could it be some bug in osm2pgsql, or is it some other place where the error occurs? -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Osm2pgsql and column names with two underscores
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > Hi, > > An osm2pgsql user writes on the forum about importing special tags > into PostGIS. > He has defined for example these tags: > node openGeoDB:telephone_area_code text > node openGeoDB:license_plate_code text > > Import fails and error message is: > CREATE TABLE planet_osm_point ( osm_id int4,"access" text, > "admin_level" text, Ok, it's got nothing to do with the underscores and more to do with the fact that the field names are limited to 23 characters by osm2pgsql. I don't really know where this restriction comes from, does anyone else have ideas? It should be easy to fix in output-pgsql.c. Fix the read_style_file() function to increase the length of the buffers. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout http://svana.org/kleptog/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
talk@openstreetmap.org
If it's good enough for a horse and a mountain-bike, but not really a "normal" bicycle, I'd tag it as "highway=bridleway" in the UK, "highway=path (+horse=yes if explicitly signposted)" elsewhere. If it's been improved such to be good enough for a "normal" bicycle, I'd tag it as "highway=cycleway+designation=public_bridleway+horse=yes". I'm intending to add much of this to Mike's "designation" proposal in the next few days, though I feel the need to understand a bit more about how/where "path" is being used in Germany first. Richard On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Mike Harris wrote: > By the way - in England and Wales, cyclists are normally allowed to use > public bridleways (but the highways authority has no obligation to maintain > the way to a standard that makes it possible to cycle) unless explicitly > forbidden by a very localised regulation. Cyclists must also give way to > cyclists and horse riders. I would normally tag these as highway=bridleway > with foot/horse/bicycle=yes. An alternative would be to use > designation=public_bridleway - in which case, what do people think should be > the value for the highway tag? > > > Mike Harris > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Hill [mailto:chillly...@yahoo.co.uk] > Sent: 28 March 2009 12:30 > To: Stephen Hope; talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway > > > Cyclists are often going to be asked to give way to pedestrians. Cycle > routes often (usually) allow pedestrian access too. I would tag it as a > cycleway with foot=yes. The fact that they are part of a cycle trail > reinforces this to me. > > But, hey, get it in the database as something close to right is the most > important thing, it can always be changed later and its very presence > attracts interest, use and possible improvement. > > cheers, Chris > > > > - Original Message > > From: Stephen Hope > > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > > Sent: Saturday, 28 March, 2009 5:50:01 > > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway > > > > OK, so while we're talking about this, there are a number of paths > > near me. Nice smooth concrete, about 2m wide. They run through parks, > > and there are signs on the park as a whole that say "No motorised > > vehicles". These paths are marked with a sign that has a pedestrian > > and a bicycle, and another sign that says "Cyclists give way to > > Pedestrians". How would you normally mark these? I've used footway, > > plus bicycle=yes. I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they > > have to give way to other users. > > > > Just to confuse the issue, some of them also have name signs, and most > > of these names are "Xxxx cycle trail" (or similar). Even on these, > > though, pedestrians still have right of way. > > > > Stephen > > > > ___ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > > > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Osm2pgsql and column names with two underscores
On Monday 30 March 2009 14:08, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > Hi, Hi, ( better transfert this to dev ?) > An osm2pgsql user writes on the forum about importing special tags > into PostGIS. > He has defined for example these tags: > node openGeoDB:telephone_area_code text > node openGeoDB:license_plate_code text I've read his problem, and proposed converting the osm input file with smaller tag name. The other solution might be to patch osm2pgsql. > Look at these: > "openGeoDB:telephone_are" a_code, > "openGeoDB:license_plate" _code > > It looks like column name gets truncated at the second > underline character. Coincidence ;-) Both tag name are also truncated at 24 chars exactly, let's see... > Could it be some bug in osm2pgsql, > or is it some other place where the error occurs? Looks like I went lucky : # grep 24 output-pgsql.c char buffer[1024]; char buffer[1024]; char osmtype[24]; char tag[24]; char datatype[24]; Recompiling osm2pgsql might help, if that limit of 24 is not present elsewhere -- sly Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
> This should be tagged in a different way that uses fact instead of > opinion/fiction. Perhaps by referring to crime statistics for a given > boundary area. That makes sense, and it might indeed take a separate project to create regional statistics maps as some have said, or to have people rate areas and take a mean (a la that old rotten chestnut "hot or not"). However, since there seems to be a lot of concern over subjectivity, we could also just map "what's on the ground" (or not, as the case may be): chalk outlines and missing bikes, autos, and other stuff. Not nearly as useful as being able to shade a map layer according to perceived danger, though. -P > Cheers > > Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - h==highway
Maarten Deen wrote: > Renaud MICHEL wrote: > >> Le lundi 30 mars 2009 à 05:46, PAA a écrit : >> >>> Request for comments on creating the key:h and making it synonymous with >>> key:highway. >>> >> That's just ridiculous. >> Don't start duplicating tags with the same meaning. >> > > No it's not. It's called convenience. > No, it's stupid, unnecessary laziness leading to confusion. > >> And once you start with tag names, you could go on with values and >> replace "primary" with "p", "secondary" with "s" and so on. >> > > Then I would like to propose 1 for primary, 2 for secondary, and so on. > trunk roads would be 0 and highways -1. Add .5 for _link. > > Can we implement this tomorrow? When hell freezes over maybe. Just use the tools, JOSM and Potlatch help to reduce typing and maintain consistency, database space saving of this order is inconsequential. The few oddities can be cleaned up easily. Confusion using such short keys would reign. Cheers, Chris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
talk@openstreetmap.org
I think internationally it is quite rare for cyclists to have priority over pedestrians on "cycleways" (maybe only Germany). I remember wandering onto the cyclist half of a pavement/sidewalk in Germany, and eventually noticing that someone was riding behind me, repeatedly ringing their bell to get me to move. In the UK, they'd have have just switched to the pedestrian side of the pavement/sidewalk, and ridden round me, probably illegally, but that doesn't usually seem to stop them. I'm not sure I really like the term "cycleway", and perhaps renderers could come up with something less pedestrian-unfriendly for their map keys. But it does describe the physical reality - something that's been engineered (whether deliberately or accidentally) to be just good enough for bikes. So I'd tag it as cycleway. Richard On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Stephen Hope wrote: > OK, so while we're talking about this, there are a number of paths > near me. Nice smooth concrete, about 2m wide. They run through parks, > and there are signs on the park as a whole that say "No motorised > vehicles". These paths are marked with a sign that has a pedestrian > and a bicycle, and another sign that says "Cyclists give way to > Pedestrians". How would you normally mark these? I've used footway, > plus bicycle=yes. I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they > have to give way to other users. > > Just to confuse the issue, some of them also have name signs, and most > of these names are "Xxxx cycle trail" (or similar). Even on these, > though, pedestrians still have right of way. > > Stephen > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Allowed ? GSoC'09
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Nick Black wrote: > >> Just to be clear the "Personal Use" parts of the CloudMade T&Cs refer to >> the >> site contents and use of the website - cloudmade.com, rather than any of >> the >> APIs and web service. You, and everyone else are welcome to use >> CloudMade's >> APIs, web services and the documentation provided on the site in personal, >> public or business uses. >> > > Sorry for misrepresenting that then! I read about the "personal use" in the > Ts and Cs and thought "well it cannot probably mean that they don't want > business users to look at their web page so it must mean the > tiles/services/APIs". No problem :-) > > > It would be great if you could link to > > http://developers.cloudmade.com/projects/web-maps-lite/terms >> http://www.cloudmade.com/products/libraries_apis/terms_of_use >> > > from > > http://cloudmade.com/terms_conditions >> > > because the latter is the one that you find when you google for "cloudmade > terms and conditions"! Good feedback - we could definitely make the T&Cs more clear. Cheers, > > > Bye > Frederik > > -- -- Nick Black twitter.com/nick_b ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: > This should be tagged in a different way that uses fact instead of > opinion/fiction. Perhaps by referring to crime statistics for a given > boundary area. How about: i_was_violently_threatened_while_trying_to_map_this=yes Speaking from my experience of this weekend :-( -- Brian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
There are many areas that nearly everyone agrees is unsafe, even the residents. But more importantly, there is a reasonable amount of subjective stuff in OSM already e.g. permissive footways across vacant land, residential vs. living_street in countries were there's no seperate legal classification, how many segments should be used to describe a corner. And although wikipedia has many rules, a lot of it's content is subjective e.g. what is notable, when can a blog be cited. People learn to deal with it. 2009/3/30 Bernt M. Johnsen > Actually, I think this is a bad idea. Wether or not an area is "dangerous" > is highly subjective, and will most likely result in heated edit wars. > > 2009/3/30 Russ Nelson > > >> On Mar 29, 2009, at 10:42 PM, NL wrote: >> >> > Is it unsafe to park a bike/car there? >> >> We should mark areas of high bicycle theft, but we'd need a map to >> display it. >> >> -- >> Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson >> r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - >> http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson >> >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > > > -- > Bernt Marius Johnsen > "Melius vivit qui remigat" > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Osm2pgsql and column names with two underscores
On Monday 30 March 2009 14:08:11 Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > Look at these: > "openGeoDB:telephone_are" a_code, > "openGeoDB:license_plate" _code > > It looks like column name gets truncated at the second > underline character. Could it be some bug in osm2pgsql, > or is it some other place where the error occurs? It doesn't get truncated at the second underscore as there is a character before the second underscore at the first case. Looks like it gets truncated after the 23th character. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - h==highway
>> Request for comments on creating the key:h and making it synonymous with >> key:highway. > That's just ridiculous. > Don't start duplicating tags with the same meaning. It's definitely not something to be done with all tags, but i don't think you made a very good case why it's ridiculous for this one tag that is both prone to misspelling and in greater use than all others. There are more than 1500 misspellings of the tag in the european database right now. I use potlatch mainly, and it's simple enough to get a highway tag in potlatch. Moreover, all the roads around here have been imported from public databases. It doesn't affect me personally, but i think the cumulative savings in time for all mappers over the rest of OSM's lifetime could be substantial. >> -reduce OSM data storage space (over 6M highways just from >> http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Europe/En/tags.html; simple naive estimate >> 6M*6 bytes=36MBytes uncompressed data reduction) >> -reduce bandwidth for transfers to/from OSM > > planet files are already compressed, you won't gain much by replacing > meaningful tags by codeletters. That could be, but there any gain would still have to be a significant by the time the planet is mapped. My rudimentary knowledge of LZW suggests that 'h' is probably smaller than a dictionary token, but i think i have been wrong before, once or twice...an hour. > And once you start with tag names, you could go on with values and > replace "primary" with "p", "secondary" with "s" and so on. "Could", but i'm definitely not advocating that. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, as they say. I think i've demonstrated some merits in this proposal. Are they any good reasons not to do it besides potential confusion? I've waded through enough confusion since i joined OSM a few days ago to think this small, fathomable addition will be completely lost in the noise. Cheers, PAA ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
El Lunes, 30 de Marzo de 2009, Brian Quinion escribió: > How about: > > i_was_violently_threatened_while_trying_to_map_this=yes > > Speaking from my experience of this weekend :-( Oh, you mean you met the London police while taking photographs and carrying a GPS... *ducks* -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega Un ordenador no es un televisor ni un microondas, es una herramienta compleja. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - h==highway
PAA schrieb: > There are more than 1500 misspellings of the tag in the european > database right now. Which you can fix within a few minutes if you are sure that they aren't intended. > I use potlatch mainly, and it's simple enough to get a highway tag in > potlatch. Moreover, all the roads around here have been imported from > public databases. It doesn't affect me personally, but i think the > cumulative savings in time for all mappers over the rest of OSM's > lifetime could be substantial. Improve editor autocompletion. Or write a plugin / alternative editor version that changes all "highway" keys to "h" for you (and back at upload). If that's really a problem for anyone else, everyone will be using your super-efficient editing tool. Most likely you'll find out that many people are using templates, autocompletion or simply copy existing tags anyway and don't care about manual typing at all. Others probably prefer human-readable tagging. > I think i've demonstrated some merits in this proposal. Are they any > good reasons not to do it besides potential confusion? "Potential confusion" can consume far more mapper and programmer time than you are hoping to save. It's a good enough reason. That the proposal would require changing every editor, rendering or routing tool, documentation (including printed books) etc. isn't negligible either. And permanently having "h OR highway" in every tool, stylesheet etc. sucks. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] DIY Aerial Photos
If you want to take your own aerial photographs you might want to buy this radio control model aircraft: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=280319160407 ... then you just need to fit it out with GPS navigation, and a medium format film camera for high resolution pix. :-) Paul Y -- Tel: +44(0) 7814 517 807 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Brian Quinion wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) > wrote: >> This should be tagged in a different way that uses fact instead of >> opinion/fiction. Perhaps by referring to crime statistics for a given >> boundary area. > > How about: > > i_was_violently_threatened_while_trying_to_map_this=yes > > Speaking from my experience of this weekend :-( after the wembley mapping party last year i heard suggestions of a "locals=angry" tag. maybe we should expand that to include "locals=violent" or "locals=heavily_armed"? cheers, matt PS: or combine with smoothness -> "locals=very_horrible" :-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
talk@openstreetmap.org
Stephen Hope wrote: > OK, so while we're talking about this, there are a number of paths > near me. Nice smooth concrete, about 2m wide. They run through parks, > and there are signs on the park as a whole that say "No motorised > vehicles". These paths are marked with a sign that has a pedestrian > and a bicycle, and another sign that says "Cyclists give way to > Pedestrians". How would you normally mark these? I've used footway, > plus bicycle=yes. I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they > have to give way to other users. I would tag it as highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=designated. highway=cycleway+foot=designated would also make sense, IMO. -Alex Mauer "hawke" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
talk@openstreetmap.org
Hatto von Hatzfeld wrote: > Russ Nelson wrote: > >> On Mar 28, 2009, at 1:50 AM, Stephen Hope wrote: >> >>> I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they >>> have to give way to other users. >> Cyclists ALWAYS have to give way to other users. It's a simple matter >> of the laws of physics. > > At least here in Germany there are cycleways which are not allowed for > pedestrians and others which are shared by cyclists and pedestrians. This is also true in at least some parts of the US. I suppose it's technically still true that cyclists have to at least try to give way (I assume that if a pedestrian is walking down the motorway, motorists shouldn't just casually run them down; the cycleway situation is similar) -Alex Mauer "hawke" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Hi all
Hi all My name is Paweł Niechoda and I am participating in Summer of Code. I am going to apply for one of OSM projects. I am writing just to introduce myself. I am studying maths with computer science (I am on final year of my master studies). I am familiar with PHP and Java. I worked as PHP developer for a long time, but generally I prefer Java to PHP. I hope I will help you in OSM development. Regards Paweł ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
> after the wembley mapping party last year i heard suggestions of a > "locals=angry" tag. maybe we should expand that to include > "locals=violent" or "locals=heavily_armed"? What happened at the Wembley mapping party? Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - h==highway
Le lundi 30 mars 2009 à 15:00, PAA a écrit : > >> Request for comments on creating the key:h and making it synonymous > >> with key:highway. > > > > That's just ridiculous. > > Don't start duplicating tags with the same meaning. > > It's definitely not something to be done with all tags, but i don't > think you made a very good case why it's ridiculous for this one tag > that is both prone to misspelling and in greater use than all others. (I replied quickly this morning before leaving for work and forgot to write my main argument, should never reply in a hurry) With two synonymous tags you can get inconsistent tagging, like a way tagged highway=primary h=secondary -- Renaud Michel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - h==highway
> -Original Message- > From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk- > boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of PAA > Sent: 30 March 2009 14:01 > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - h==highway > > >> Request for comments on creating the key:h and making it synonymous > with > >> key:highway. > > That's just ridiculous. > > Don't start duplicating tags with the same meaning. > > It's definitely not something to be done with all tags, but i don't > think you made a very good case why it's ridiculous for this one tag > that is both prone to misspelling and in greater use than all others. > There are more than 1500 misspellings of the tag in the european > database right now. i.e. a minute proportion of the total number of highways that are in the data. Looking at that same European Tagwatch data there are approximately 6 million highways. 1500 misspellings represents a mere 0.025% of that. Doesn't that suggest that the auto-completing dropdowns and templates are actually keeping the number of errors to a minimum? > I use potlatch mainly, and it's simple enough to get a highway tag in > potlatch. Moreover, all the roads around here have been imported from > public databases. It doesn't affect me personally, but i think the > cumulative savings in time for all mappers over the rest of OSM's > lifetime could be substantial. > > >> -reduce OSM data storage space (over 6M highways just from > >> http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Europe/En/tags.html; simple naive > estimate > >> 6M*6 bytes=36MBytes uncompressed data reduction) > >> -reduce bandwidth for transfers to/from OSM > > > > planet files are already compressed, you won't gain much by replacing > > meaningful tags by codeletters. > > That could be, but there any gain would still have to be a significant > by the time the planet is mapped. My rudimentary knowledge of LZW > suggests that 'h' is probably smaller than a dictionary token, but i > think i have been wrong before, once or twice...an hour. > > > And once you start with tag names, you could go on with values and > > replace "primary" with "p", "secondary" with "s" and so on. > > "Could", but i'm definitely not advocating that. Let's not throw the > baby out with the bathwater, as they say. > > I think i've demonstrated some merits in this proposal. Are they any > good reasons not to do it besides potential confusion? I've waded > through enough confusion since i joined OSM a few days ago to think > this small, fathomable addition will be completely lost in the noise. How about the time it would take to update the software and associated stylesheets that are consuming the data to cope with the "h" variant? Would you be willing to update all of these for no discernable benefit? Wouldn't it simply be quicker to fix the typos in the data and have better quality data as a result?! Gregory ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Bogus GPS Uploads
I have found what I believe to be bogus data in the GPS track database. If you open JOSM and download GPS data for this area: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.067&lon=-76.766&zoom=9 You will find a trace for a very long elliptical area, oriented East-West.. I am very familiar with this area, and I can't imagine how anyone would have generated such a trace by any legitimate means. Is there a way to figure out who did this and see if we can have it corrected? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:31 PM, MP wrote: >> after the wembley mapping party last year i heard suggestions of a >> "locals=angry" tag. maybe we should expand that to include >> "locals=violent" or "locals=heavily_armed"? > > What happened at the Wembley mapping party? andy and steve independently attempted to map the same road on a council estate but both decided it might not be a wise idea. no violence was done i think, just evil stares. andy actually tagged it "locals=angsty", rather than "angry", but there is a precedent :-) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/27794700 cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] WikiTravel MAPS -Tofino, BC
Hi all, One of my projects is to help update the wiki article about Tofino, -but more importantly; add the OpenStreetMap map showing a custom layer dedicated to showing the features relivant to WikiTravel. I think Cloudmade's map styles API thing should do the trick, if not already done, i would like to see it shown as a public view, and all those who are working on it join the club having the club -(discussion of styles &what should be listed etc.) might be better off listing on wiki.openstreetmap.org as a 'project'. I know there is lots of interest from wikiTravel users, but hosting discussion might be better here where all the mappers are. I.e. on wikitravel there is a few pages about 'how to make a map', i think it helpfull if all those details were shown on wiki.osm, as its helpful to all users, & those who would like to deviate & create their own paper maps. (to print and hand to local hostels/hotels/tourist info centers/bikeshops) and ask them to make photocopies if they want more. cheers, Sam ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - h==highway
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote: > PAA schrieb: >> There are more than 1500 misspellings of the tag in the european >> database right now. > > Which you can fix within a few minutes if you are sure that they aren't > intended. It's possible that somebody could do that in a few minutes, but i certainly couldn't with my current knowledge of the OSM ecosystem. It seems like there's a pretty substantial knowledge gap between the OSM "pros" and the average OSM contributor. >> It doesn't affect me personally, but i think the >> cumulative savings in time for all mappers over the rest of OSM's >> lifetime could be substantial. > > If that's really a problem for anyone else, everyone will be using your > super-efficient editing tool. Most likely you'll find out that many > people are using templates, autocompletion or simply copy existing tags > anyway and don't care about manual typing at all. Others probably prefer > human-readable tagging. I think you misunderstood me: this isn't a problem for me, anymore than it is a problem for "everyone". It would be more efficient for servers, clients, and humans to use a shorter tag for something as universal and common as highway. The cumulative resource savings in the future far outweigh any transitional, temporary inconvenience. Still... >> It's definitely not something to be done with all tags, but i don't >> think you made a very good case why it's ridiculous for this one tag >> that is both prone to misspelling and in greater use than all others. > > (I replied quickly this morning before leaving for work and forgot to write > my main argument, should never reply in a hurry) > With two synonymous tags you can get inconsistent tagging, like a way tagged > highway=primary > h=secondary Now *that* is a good argument. Well, i had thought it was a win-win kind of proposal, but i guess it's not entirely so. I'll keep looking for other ways to improve efficiency. Cheers, P ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bogus GPS Uploads
> If you open JOSM and download GPS data for this area: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.067&lon=-76.766&zoom=9 > > You will find a trace for a very long elliptical area, oriented > East-West.. I am very familiar with this area, and I can't imagine how > anyone would have generated such a trace by any legitimate means. Flying in a plane? But then the trace probably does not correspond to anything on earth and is probably worthless. Unless it is some air route. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bogus GPS Uploads
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Adam Killian wrote: > You will find a trace for a very long elliptical area, oriented > East-West.. I am very familiar with this area, and I can't imagine how > anyone would have generated such a trace by any legitimate means. looks to me like a track from an aeroplane in a holding pattern, possibly headed towards newark? that might also explain why the points are so widely spaced. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bogus GPS Uploads
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 13:29 -0400, Adam Killian wrote: > I have found what I believe to be bogus data in the GPS track database. > > If you open JOSM and download GPS data for this area: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.067&lon=-76.766&zoom=9 > > You will find a trace for a very long elliptical area, oriented > East-West.. I am very familiar with this area, and I can't imagine how > anyone would have generated such a trace by any legitimate means. > > Is there a way to figure out who did this and see if we can have it > corrected? Looks like a trace from a flight. It does a couple more of these racetracks further East. Nothing to worry about. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
Indeed no harm done. But both Andy and I (independently) decided not to even go into the road, as others had apparently decided earlier! Discretion being definately the better part of valour in this case. Incident noted at: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Steve%20Chilton/diary/3669 Cheers STEVE -Original Message- From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org on behalf of Matt Amos Sent: Mon 3/30/2009 6:33 PM To: MP Cc: Talk Openstreetmap Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:31 PM, MP wrote: >> after the wembley mapping party last year i heard suggestions of a >> "locals=angry" tag. maybe we should expand that to include >> "locals=violent" or "locals=heavily_armed"? > > What happened at the Wembley mapping party? andy and steve independently attempted to map the same road on a council estate but both decided it might not be a wise idea. no violence was done i think, just evil stares. andy actually tagged it "locals=angsty", rather than "angry", but there is a precedent :-) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/27794700 cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bogus GPS Uploads
El Lunes, 30 de Marzo de 2009, MP escribió: > Flying in a plane? But then the trace probably does not correspond to > anything on earth and is probably worthless. Unless it is some air > route. AFAIK, aerial navigation charts have to be published, copyright-free (at least in my jurisdiction). So it seems pretty useless to me. (How to get the charts in something more parseable than a bunch of .pdf files is an issue, though... nonetheless, I should grab a hold on them at some point) -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega La felicidad consiste en tener buena salud y mala memoria.- E. Feuillere signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - h==highway
[Snip] > > > > (I replied quickly this morning before leaving for work and forgot to > write > > my main argument, should never reply in a hurry) > > With two synonymous tags you can get inconsistent tagging, like a way > tagged > > highway=primary > > h=secondary > > Now *that* is a good argument. Well, i had thought it was a win-win > kind of proposal, but i guess it's not entirely so. I'll keep looking > for other ways to improve efficiency. In fact I saw exactly that scenario a little earlier this evening. A few ways with higwhway=service (sic) and highway=unclassified. I've added some points adjacent to them in OpenStreetBugs for them to be reviewed for the correct highway type. Gregory ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bogus GPS Uploads
BTW, is there a way to find the actual traces in a given area, maybe the comments on that track say what was recorded. But AFAIK besides getting anonymous points in a given area, there is no way to actually find the source track. I actually wanted to get the full traces of parts I saw and couldn't. This would be useful to see stuff like the track's precision since this is not reported by the points download API... Yann Le 30 mars 09 à 20:07, Matt Amos a écrit : > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Adam Killian > wrote: >> You will find a trace for a very long elliptical area, oriented >> East-West.. I am very familiar with this area, and I can't imagine >> how >> anyone would have generated such a trace by any legitimate means. > > looks to me like a track from an aeroplane in a holding pattern, > possibly headed towards newark? > > that might also explain why the points are so widely spaced. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
2009/3/30 Russ Nelson : > We should mark areas of high bicycle theft, but we'd need a map to > display it. Isn't this something the police do already? http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2008/08/crime-in-hood.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Category:TagsSupportedBy
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> I'm not sure why you called the category "TagsSupportedBy" when you want
>> to apply it to keys and especially relations, too. Wouldn't a simple
>> "Supported by" or "Features supported by" or something like that fit
>> better?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.
> Nodes, Ways and Relations are identified by Tags.
A relation isn't just a set of tags. It requires certain members and
roles (which aren't tags). Thus, a relation isn't, as the category name
would suggest, a "tag supported by X" (it's a relation supported by X),
whereas the relation's type=xyz tag would indeed be a "tag supported by
X". But that's not a very relevant issue.
>> Maybe it would be better to create
>> templates to be used at the bottom of each page? You could get the list
>> of supported features by checking template inclusions, and it would
>> allow you to choose an appropriate style, maybe expand/collapse the box
>> to save screen space and so on.
>
> Sounds better. However I have no idea how these templates with named
> parameters
> work. I've only used positional parameters {{{1}}} in mediawiki up to now
> and looking at the template-pages for Tag and Key it gets quite confusing.
Well, I'm no MediaWiki expert either, so I'm not sure about the best way
of creating that sort of template.
Something like Babel (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Babel)
templates would probably be easy, but I've got no idea what the
performance effects of something like that would be.
Anyway, I'd definitely like a statement from someone with MediaWiki
experience before creating some widely-used template. Of course,
categories are the simpler solution and could theoretically be exchanged
with something else by a bot if we encounter problems.
Tobias Knerr
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Tagging best practices
What is the preferred way to design tags: First scenario * One key, multiple values * Multiple keys, single values Using the proposed shop=pet as an example: * grooming=yes: The shop offers pet grooming services * kennel=yes: The shop offers kennel (pet keeping or tending) services * training=yes: The shop offers obedience training services Or * service=(grooming;kennel;training) Second scenario *One node, multiple functions *Multiple nodes, single functions The example for this scenario is a subway entrance that is also a bus station entrance. Should the node be tagged both railway=subway_entrance and amenity=bus_station (er...think it's amenity), or should two nodes be created, even though there is one entrance (the same situation could as easily apply to an area, too. Cheers, P ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] turn restriction relations: via
Nic Roets schrieb: > Perhaps we should introduce restriction=forced_left / forced_right etc. that > are rendered the same as only_*, but interpreted as restrictions ? > "Forced" may not be the best word. Any word that is unused will work. > Perhaps only2left, only2right... or only2_left, etc ? I assume that the name isn't the most important aspect. The main problem is probably that users would have to add all forbidden alternatives rather than just the single allowed one. That would, of course, be more effort, and has also been argued by some to be more error-prone (adding a new service road and forgetting to modify relations etc.). What I've done for now is a only_ implementation that forces you to use "to" after "from" with nothing but "via" ways (or parts of ways between via node pairs) in between. It doesn't care about how many of the via members you actually use. Still wouldn't mind a real definition, though. >>> I think we should require that complex vias must always include all the >> ways >>> that are traveled. >> Does "way" mean way primitives here, as opposed to nodes? >> > > In addition to nodes. AFAIK having nodes and ways in the same role of the > same relation is allowed. I haven't decided what I favour : Either that all > the nodes are optional, or that all the nodes except endpoints of 'from' and > 'to' are optional. I'd support make every node optional, as the endpoints can be determined without help from the mappers (which means less work for them), and this can always be done unambiguously if the ways are properly split (that's usually the case anyway). > I realized that there is an ambiguity with the current (unordered definition > of via) that cannot be solved : If the via includes a loop that must be > taken for the restriction to be applied. Yes, I've thought about loops, too, and I have to agree that they are a possible situation where order would make a difference. I've yet to see any real-life examples, but nevertheless I don't really like this. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM's new database server has arrived
The new database server has arrived. Photos of Matt Amos unpacking it here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/smsm1/sets/72157615842027585/ Gotta love all those cool blue blinkenlights. 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM's new database server has arrived
And photos of it being installed: http://www.flickr.com/photos/67155...@n00/sets/72157615870580859/ On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:50 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > The new database server has arrived. > > Photos of Matt Amos unpacking it here: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/smsm1/sets/72157615842027585/ > > Gotta love all those cool blue blinkenlights. > > 80n > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Category:TagsSupportedBy
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:34:36 +0200, Tobias Knerr
wrote:
> A relation isn't just a set of tags. It requires certain members and
> roles (which aren't tags). Thus, a relation isn't, as the category name
> would suggest, a "tag supported by X" (it's a relation supported by X),
> whereas the relation's type=xyz tag would indeed be a "tag supported by
> X". But that's not a very relevant issue.
I have not seen any valir relation without a type -tag yet.
After all, you need to know in what way (and not just in what role)
they are related.
> Well, I'm no MediaWiki expert either, so I'm not sure about the best way
> of creating that sort of template.
>
> Something like Babel (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Babel)
> templates would probably be easy, but I've got no idea what the
> performance effects of something like that would be.
I've never seen that
{{#if:{{{1|}}}|XXX}} -construct.
Is that a mediawiki-plugin?
Marcus
>
> Anyway, I'd definitely like a statement from someone with MediaWiki
> experience before creating some widely-used template. Of course,
> categories are the simpler solution and could theoretically be exchanged
> with something else by a bot if we encounter problems.
>
> Tobias Knerr
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging best practices
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:53:12 -0400, PAA wrote: > What is the preferred way to design tags: > > First scenario > * One key, multiple values > * Multiple keys, single values > > Using the proposed shop=pet as an example: > * grooming=yes: The shop offers pet grooming services > * kennel=yes: The shop offers kennel (pet keeping or tending) services > * training=yes: The shop offers obedience training services > > Or > > * service=(grooming;kennel;training) shop:pet:grooming=yes shop:pet:kennel=yes shop:pet:training=yes sounds reasonable. > Second scenario > *One node, multiple functions > *Multiple nodes, single functions > > The example for this scenario is a subway entrance that is also a bus > station entrance. Should the node be tagged both > railway=subway_entrance and amenity=bus_station (er...think it's > amenity), or should two nodes be created, even though there is one > entrance (the same situation could as easily apply to an area, too. If it's in the exact same location and tagging is possible, I suggest using one node tagged as both. Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Category:TagsSupportedBy
Hi,
2009/3/31 :
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:34:36 +0200, Tobias Knerr
> wrote:
>> Something like Babel (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Babel)
>> templates would probably be easy, but I've got no idea what the
>> performance effects of something like that would be.
>
> I've never seen that
> {{#if:{{{1|}}}|XXX}} -construct.
> Is that a mediawiki-plugin?
It's pure MediaWiki (a parser function).
Not very cost-intensive, I don't expect any problems even if used excessively.
Bye, Tim.
--
http://wikipedistik.de
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Category:TagsSupportedBy
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> Something like Babel (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Babel)
>> templates would probably be easy, but I've got no idea what the
>> performance effects of something like that would be.
>
> I've never seen that
> {{#if:{{{1|}}}|XXX}} -construct.
> Is that a mediawiki-plugin?
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ParserFunctions
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:ParserFunctions
Didn't even know it was an extension until now, as many major wikis
(especially Wikimedia's) seem to have it installed.
Tobias Knerr
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] turn restriction relations: via
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:58:51 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote: >> I realized that there is an ambiguity with the current (unordered >> definition >> of via) that cannot be solved : If the via includes a loop that must be >> taken for the restriction to be applied. > > Yes, I've thought about loops, too, and I have to agree that they are a > possible situation where order would make a difference. I've yet to see > any real-life examples, but nevertheless I don't really like this. That issue gues away with API0.6 as relations become ordered. Does it? (I don't plan to support via) Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
