Re: [OSM-talk] Nationnal websites
Hi Vincent: Thank you for telling us the problem. The url to our site is corrected. And www.openstreetmap.tw works now. -- Louis Liu OSM TW: http://OpenStreetMap.tw/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Mount Obama mapped
Antigua and Barbuda today renames Boggy Peak to Mount Obama http://snurl.com/onw6v So the OSM map shows it on change day http://snurl.com/onw8t Easy comparison target: Google has Boggy Peak (as was) in wrong place http://snurl.com/onw8t See also Bolans (spelt wrong), Jennings and Ebenezer well out of place, and the road nr Old Road settlement taking completely fictitious line in a couple of places. And don't get me started on Yahoo maps http://snurl.com/onws5 Use transparency slider and zoom tools for full effect. Check SE of Island which appears to have no roads in it at all and the road detail in the north of the island. Cheers STEVE Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow Manager of e-Learning Academic Development Centre for Educational Technology Middlesex University phone/fax: 020 8411 5355 email: ste...@mdx.ac.uk http://www.mdx.ac.uk/study/elearning/chiltons.asp Chair of the Society of Cartographers: http://www.soc.org.uk/ SoC conference 2009: http://www.soc.org.uk/southampton09/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mount Obama mapped
Steve Chilton wrote: > Antigua and Barbuda today renames Boggy Peak to Mount Obama > http://snurl.com/onw6v > So the OSM map shows it on change day http://snurl.com/onw8t That link appears to be wrong - http://osm.org/go/Y2AFWDF > Easy comparison target: Google has Boggy Peak (as was) in wrong place > http://snurl.com/onw8t This also doesn't seem to show what you wanted http://snurl.com/oo77r > And don't get me started on Yahoo maps http://snurl.com/onws5 Neither does this, http://snurl.com/oo79e Now it'll be embarrassing if I also messed up. -- Jonas Häggqvist rasher(at)rasher(dot)dk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On 03/08/2009, at 11:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/8/3 James Livingston : >> In any case, if you have a router that does this kind of thing, >> wouldn't it be better to base it off landuse=residential/industrial? > > the problem is, that it is far more timeconsuming to check this for > all roads instead of having the information already avaible as such. It'd probably take a bit longer to convert from the OSM data to whatever format your router actually uses, but it also means you could treat roads in other landuse areas differently too. > well, tag whatever you like, I just can tell you, that the definiton > in the wiki says for residential, that there must be at least at one > side residences. The highway=residential wiki page doesn't directly say that, but may imply it. The problem is that a lot of the words used seem to be based on the British way of defining roads and that doesn't necessarily translate into non-British English very well, let alone into other languages (as seen in some of the other discussions). Most of the Highway page talks about British road classifications, and things like "(tertiary) In the UK, they tend to have dashed lines down the middle, whereas unclassified roads don't", which doesn't really help people figure out how it is supposed to apply to other countries. What exactly does "This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not a classified or unclassified highway" mean? If you take 'highway' to be a synonym for 'road' then suburban residential streets shouldn't be tagged like that because they are unclassified. If it's not a synonym, then how do industrial streets get tagged, because they're not highways. In addition the "Australian Tagging Guidelines" (which Liz mentioned were written a year before the residential page) explicitly disagree with the residential page. Which brings us around to one of the major questions in this argument. If the consensus (which may exist in Europe, but I'm far from certain is global) is to use one definition, but within a region there is a consensus to use a different definition, what do people want to happen? > If you don't care about this definition, do as you > like. You'll IMHO loose a datum and gain nothing. There are other ways of storing that data (e.g. landuse) and roads in Australia aren't tagged according to the highway=residential wiki page at the present time, so what exactly do we lose? We might not be able to use exactly the same routing settings as in Europe, but I'm pretty certain they are never going to work as-is anyway, simply because things are different over here. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Mount Obama (revisited)
It would seem that snurl.com short URLs are not copy-and-pasteable - well not from a tweet. So if interested here is the message with long URLs (thanks to those that pointed it out to me). -- Antigua and Barbuda today renames Boggy Peak to Mount Obama http://repeatingislands.com/2009/05/31/boggy-peak-to-become-mount-obama- on-august-4th/ So the OSM map shows it on change day http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=17.0396 Easy comparison target: Google has Boggy Peak (as was) in wrong place http://sautter.com/map/?zoom=13&lat=17.05235&lon=-61.86419&layers=000B00 TF See also Bolans (spelt wrong), Jennings and Ebenezer well out of place, and the road nr Old Road settlement taking completely fictitious line in a couple of places. And don't get me started on Yahoo maps http://sautter.com/map/?zoom=13&lat=17.08304&lon=-61.80496&layers=B0 TF Use transparency slider and zoom tools for full effect. Check SE of Island which appears to have no roads in it at all and the road detail in the north of the island. Cheers STEVE Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow Manager of e-Learning Academic Development Centre for Educational Technology Middlesex University phone/fax: 020 8411 5355 email: ste...@mdx.ac.uk http://www.mdx.ac.uk/study/elearning/chiltons.asp Chair of the Society of Cartographers: http://www.soc.org.uk/ SoC conference 2009: http://www.soc.org.uk/southampton09/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Potlatch really slow
Hi All I'm trying to update the map using a GPS trace I took while on holiday in Udine in Northern Italy http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?gpx=462905 However, the map itself is really slow to show all the existing ways once I go into edit mode - I have already created a road that was already there (and then had to delete it), as the existing ways didn't come up, despite waiting quite a few minutes. Is this normal? Is there anything I can do to speed this up? Is it because the area I'm doing is not very well mapped, so not cached on the server or something? Cheers Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch really slow
Looks like it could be a bug or something (or maybe something wrong in the trace). I tried editing it in IE and it does the same thing. I've got some other traces from the same area that I'll upload and see how I get on Cheers Mike 2009/8/4 Mike Ryan > Hi All > > I'm trying to update the map using a GPS trace I took while on holiday in > Udine in Northern Italy > http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?gpx=462905 > > However, the map itself is really slow to show all the existing ways once I > go into edit mode - I have already created a road that was already there > (and then had to delete it), as the existing ways didn't come up, despite > waiting quite a few minutes. > > Is this normal? Is there anything I can do to speed this up? Is it because > the area I'm doing is not very well mapped, so not cached on the server or > something? > > Cheers > > Mike > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/4 James Livingston : > On 03/08/2009, at 11:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> well, tag whatever you like, I just can tell you, that the definiton >> in the wiki says for residential, that there must be at least at one >> side residences. > > The highway=residential wiki page doesn't directly say that, but may > imply it. you're right, it doesn't say that explicitly (any more?), and I couldn't find it neither in the history, but I am sure (100%) that is was there some time (last year) ago and somewhere. Maybe it was on a different page. But I'm sure, it was explicitly written in the wiki. > Most of the Highway page talks about British road classifications, and > things like "(tertiary) In the UK, they tend to have dashed lines down > the middle, whereas unclassified roads don't", which doesn't really > help people figure out how it is supposed to apply to other countries. IMHO the highway-class is not about lines on the street, not even about width, these are all relative and dependant on local habits. It's about structuring your road-grid into different levels. From the top-level to the smallest footpath. > What exactly does "This tag is used for roads accessing or around > residential areas but which are not a classified or unclassified > highway" mean? It means that's a road in residential areas that is less important than unclassified, tertiary, secondary, primary, etc. according to your local hierarchy. > In addition the "Australian Tagging Guidelines" (which Liz mentioned > were written a year before the residential page) explicitly disagree > with the residential page. > Which brings us around to one of the major questions in this argument. > If the consensus (which may exist in Europe, but I'm far from certain > is global) is to use one definition, but within a region there is a > consensus to use a different definition, what do people want to happen? > There are other ways of storing that data (e.g. landuse) and roads in > Australia aren't tagged according to the highway=residential wiki page > at the present time, so what exactly do we lose? You will probably have more traffic led through residential areas if also other areas are tagged entirely residential and the (current) router doesn't see the differences. You could also probably overcome this issue with subtags like width (to introduce more "classes" on a sublevel). IMHO the routing will work as long as the above mentioned (hierarchy of streets) is kept. Even if you abandon all residential and unclassified roads and start your classification from tertiary upwards, routing will somehow work - you will simply have less possibilities to distinguish slight differences. > We might not be able to use exactly the same routing settings as in > Europe, but I'm pretty certain they are never going to work as-is > anyway, simply because things are different over here. this I don't understand. Can you give me an example? I would appreciate to have the same routing and rules allover the world, so if there's something you would consider relevantly (in terms of routing) different to Europe, you could name it and maybe there is a solution to solve it. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch really slow
2009/8/4 Mike Ryan : > Is this normal? Is there anything I can do to speed this up? Is it because > the area I'm doing is not very well mapped, so not cached on the server or > something? I also experienced the same issue when mapping in Italy. When I was in Germany, it was a completely different potlatch-experience and I was sorry for blaming potlatch in the past ;-). Guess like you that there is some network-problems (are you accessing from italy or from somewhere else?). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch really slow
Thanks, Martin I think I may have found out what the problem is. Like you said, don't blame the potlatch!! On the traces I have problems with, I did multiple traces on the same day and saved them on my Garmin eTrex. The device shows for example, the following two traces 29-JUL-2009 29-JUL-2009 02 However, I only see one file in windows 20090729.gpx This is what I uploaded to the web site and this is what I guess is causing the problem Cheers Mike 2009/8/4 Martin Koppenhoefer > 2009/8/4 Mike Ryan : > > I originally tried to edit these in Germany when I stayed at a friend's > > house in Munich - I'm back home in the UK now and it's exactly the same. > > > > I've uploaded all my traces from my holiday now and see similar problems > > with all of the larger ones. However, one thing I have noticed about > > Openstreetmap in this region is that literally every house has been > mapped. > > Therefore, whenever you try to do an edit it has to load up an awful lot > of > > data. > > it's an import (the houses). FVG is the common name in italy for this > import, the data came from the region. > > cheers, > Martin > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] main page proposed feature
Hi all. I would like to propose to add the "full" option ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Protocol_Version_0.6#Full:_GET_.2Fapi.2F0.6.2F.5Bway.7Crelation.5D.2F.23id.2Ffull) to the "download xml" link, on the element's page (e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/32428515). Actually, the link return only node's ID, not their coordinates (contrary to the "export" tab, working with bbox). This incomplete information is useless to work offline (e.g. making custom maps). Vincenzo. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] (no subject)
I have put together some thoughts about how you could go about tagging a whole shop chain or similar while making searches for the chain or the type of shop useful. I have put them online in the OSM wiki at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/user:Wynndale/Tagging_branch_networks_(draft) As a bit of background, I am looking at incorporating ideas set out on the page into a Wiki project for mapping shops. I would appreciate comments on the approaches I am suggesting. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch really slow
Mike Ryan schrieb: > Hi All > > I'm trying to update the map using a GPS trace I took while on holiday > in Udine in Northern Italy > http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?gpx=462905 > > However, the map itself is really slow to show all the existing ways > once I go into edit mode - I have already created a road that was > already there (and then had to delete it), as the existing ways didn't > come up, despite waiting quite a few minutes. > > Is this normal? Is there anything I can do to speed this up? Is it > because the area I'm doing is not very well mapped, so not cached on the > server or something? > > Cheers > > Mike Did you try JOSM? It's a Java-Programm that (IMHO) performs much better than Postlatch. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM Low-Res / Overview / Toplevel
Hello, I would like a subset of the planet file that only include the largest and most notable features: For example large cities, provinces, states and countries. The ways should be simplified so that segments are typically several kilometers long (or longer). Is it easy to generate such an extract ? If care is taken with the selection of places / names, such a map may become quite useful for geocoding. We want only "the" Paris. We want abbreviations like NY, as long as they do not lead to confusion. Sources of information include geonames and wikipedia. Anyone interested in helping with such a project ? Regards, Nic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] api static maps
Hi all According to feedback I recived I have add some new featurs to static API. So now there is a better way of controlling how drawings are drawn (transparence, thickness, color could be defined for each object separately, there is a way to put image onto the map). It is also possible to put scale bar and to put map request parameters into a file instead puting them into url (take a look at paramFileUrl in API description) etc. http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~pafciu17/ Let me know your opinion:) Pa ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Coastline
- Original Message - From: "Martijn van Oosterhout" To: "David Groom" Cc: "Openstreetmap" Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 9:45 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Coastline > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:26 PM, David Groom > wrote: FWIW, I'm trying to get it working again (it was pointed out to me a few days ago that hypercube was back online) however I keep running into problems with corrupted planet dumps and daily diffs. I hope to have it working again soon. >> >> Thanks Martijn >> >> Its such a useful tool to have available > > Well, I managed to get something working. Martjin, Thanks very much for fixing this. David > > http://dev.openstreetmap.nl/coastlines.html > > (thanks to whoever put the page on dev, it's a much better place). > > All the data is now based on 0.6 inputs and it's quite obvious that > since the 0.6 changeover the data is much much cleaner (many less > errors). > > It's still on hypercube and it's not super fast, but it does appear to > work. Let me know if you see something odd. > > Have a nice day, > -- > Martijn van Oosterhout http://svana.org/kleptog/ > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch really slow
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I also experienced the same issue when mapping in Italy. When I > was in Germany, it was a completely different potlatch-experience > and I was sorry for blaming potlatch in the past ;-) :) Potlatch is indeed quite sensitive to connectivity problems, whether with the OSM server or anything in between. Or to be more accurate, Flash Player is reluctant to tell Potlatch if the connection has failed, so Potlatch is happily sitting there not knowing anything is wrong. The link that Mike posted works pretty quickly for me - only about three seconds or so. So it does sound like it might be a network issue. Best advice is that if it's taking too long, just refresh. cheers Richard (wrt Peter Körner's post, I think I'm going to write Botlatch, a script which will look for any mention of JOSM and reply "Have you tried Potlatch? It's a Flash program which performs much better (IMHO) than JOSM etc. etc.") -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Potlatch-really-slow-tp24808433p24814875.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] (no subject)
Could you please give examples of usage on that page? In the main most chains, such as the Tesco supermarket have the tags shop=supermarket; name=Tesco, which I don't think is compatible with your idea of having an operator and name tag where you would put the name of the branch (for example Elmers End) and the name of the chain in the operator tag (in this case Tesco) if I understand it correct. This wouldn't be great as I don't want to search for a supermarket called Elmers End, which is a place name, instead I want to search for a Tesco near Elmers End (or some other nearby place). I would recommend using a name:branch or branch tag for the name of the branch since it is unlikely to be as important. (Though it would be nice to include in the geocoding search results). Shaun On 4 Aug 2009, at 19:17, wynnd...@lavabit.com wrote: > I have put together some thoughts about how you could go about > tagging a > whole shop chain or similar while making searches for the chain or the > type of shop useful. I have put them online in the OSM wiki at: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/user:Wynndale/Tagging_branch_networks_(draft) > > As a bit of background, I am looking at incorporating ideas set out > on the > page into a Wiki project for mapping shops. I would appreciate > comments on > the approaches I am suggesting. > > > > > ___ > 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] Potlatch really slow
Richard Fairhurst schrieb: > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> I also experienced the same issue when mapping in Italy. When I >> was in Germany, it was a completely different potlatch-experience >> and I was sorry for blaming potlatch in the past ;-) > > :) > > Potlatch is indeed quite sensitive to connectivity problems, whether with > the OSM server or anything in between. Or to be more accurate, Flash Player > is reluctant to tell Potlatch if the connection has failed, so Potlatch is > happily sitting there not knowing anything is wrong. > > The link that Mike posted works pretty quickly for me - only about three > seconds or so. So it does sound like it might be a network issue. > > Best advice is that if it's taking too long, just refresh. > > cheers > Richard > > (wrt Peter Körner's post, I think I'm going to write Botlatch, a script > which will look for any mention of JOSM and reply "Have you tried Potlatch? > It's a Flash program which performs much better (IMHO) than JOSM etc. etc.") I'm sorry I wrote such a dumb answer. If someone is using Postlatch he's probably doing so with intent. My intention was to give Mike a solution he can work with. I see that the suggestion "try another tool" is not the correct answer to "tool xy does not what it should" and I promise to think about it, next time. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] (no subject)
I would name it name=Elmers End Tesco, operator=Tesco etc, So if someone wanted to bring up a list off all Tesco sites they just seach the operators, but if you were doing a search for the nearest Tesco then the name will supply you with the details you need to find it. Its a PITA when you do a search for Tesco and all the ones come up with Tesco 3.5miles, Tesco 5.5miles etc. I like to know which town as some towns are better than others IYSWIM. Now I am off to read this draft proposal as I have internet access now via the laptop. Jack ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > IMHO the highway-class is not about lines on the street, not even > about width, these are all relative and dependant on local habits. > It's about structuring your road-grid into different levels. From the > top-level to the smallest footpath. Interesting. I don't disagree with this, but I though I'd put in my two cents - don't forget about verifiability. I think it is desirable to be able to tag a particular way (by considering the characteristics of that way only) without knowledge of the entire local road-grid. I can only presume that this is why little examples like "lines on the street" are given. If this doesn't apply in Australia, I think other more appropriate *concrete* examples would be helpful, especially for new mappers. > > We might not be able to use exactly the same routing settings as in > > Europe, but I'm pretty certain they are never going to work as-is > > anyway, simply because things are different over here. > > this I don't understand. Can you give me an example? I would > appreciate to have the same routing and rules allover the world, so if > there's something you would consider relevantly (in terms of routing) > different to Europe, you could name it and maybe there is a solution > to solve it. Please, don't tag for the router! Tag what's on the ground (e.g. go ahead and call a street residential if it's a residential street, etc. - these should be defined according to the characteristics of the ways as they are on the ground), then leave the routing settings for the router (e.g. in Australia, tell your router whether or not you prefer residential streets to unclassified streets, etc.). What's important when deciding how to tag ways is that they are verifiable, and accurately describe the physical reality. If you do that, routing (and rendering) will take care of itself. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mount Obama (revisited)
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Steve Chilton wrote: > It would seem that snurl.com short URLs are not copy-and-pasteable - > well not from a tweet. > So if interested here is the message with long URLs (thanks to those > that pointed it out to me). mine defaulted to the last item I had viewed on osm etc ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > this I don't understand. thankyou for realising this. I can't speak for others in Au, but I've visited many countries in my young adulthood, as well as being born elsewhere again and I certainly know that roads in Australia are different to roads in New Zealand, although similar, and different to roads in Nouvelle Caledonie again, which I drove around in the 1970s. I have also visited Greece, the Balkans, even Germany! > Can you give me an example? We have tried, and you just don't believe what we say > I would > appreciate to have the same routing and rules allover the world, I don't believe it is possible > so if > there's something you would consider relevantly (in terms of routing) > different to Europe, you could name it and maybe there is a solution > to solve it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] (no subject)
On 4 Aug 2009, at 21:11, Jack Stringer wrote: > I would name it name=Elmers End Tesco, operator=Tesco etc, > > So if someone wanted to bring up a list off all Tesco sites they just > seach the operators, but if you were doing a search for the nearest > Tesco then the name will supply you with the details you need to find > it. Its a PITA when you do a search for Tesco and all the ones come up > with Tesco 3.5miles, Tesco 5.5miles etc. I like to know which town as > some towns are better than others IYSWIM. The geocoding can easily look at another tag other than the name tag when it is a shop to give you a more appropriate answer about its name. They can also use some geo black magic and tell you the area (suburb, town, city, country etc) that they are in without needing the tags on the specific shop node/way. > > Now I am off to read this draft proposal as I have internet access now > via the laptop. It needs some clarifications and examples to be more useful. Shaun > > > > Jack > > ___ > 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] Potlatch vs JOSM
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Peter Körner wrote: > > (wrt Peter Körner's post, I think I'm going to write Botlatch, a script > > which will look for any mention of JOSM and reply "Have you tried > > Potlatch? It's a Flash program which performs much better (IMHO) than > > JOSM etc. etc.") > > I'm sorry I wrote such a dumb answer. If someone is using Postlatch he's > probably doing so with intent. My intention was to give Mike a solution > he can work with. I see that the suggestion "try another tool" is not > the correct answer to "tool xy does not what it should" and I promise to > think about it, next time. Talking with my friends in Kosovo the laptops are underpowered and hang using JOSM the laptops are underpowered and hang using the browser and hence Potlatch the power supply is completely intermitttent the internet is also intermittent but better than the power supply so perhaps we could run a plug for Merkaartor next time, as not such a memory hog? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch vs JOSM
2009/8/4 Liz : > Talking with my friends in Kosovo > the laptops are underpowered and hang using JOSM > the laptops are underpowered and hang using the browser and hence Potlatch > the power supply is completely intermitttent > the internet is also intermittent but better than the power supply Since recently there is walking papers. Do they know about? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] (no subject)
I think name should be what the shop is called like (e.g. what stands on a sign on top / in front of it). If there are additional information like the operator it could be added via an additional tag but not as part of the name. Peter Shaun McDonald schrieb: > Could you please give examples of usage on that page? > > In the main most chains, such as the Tesco supermarket have the tags > shop=supermarket; name=Tesco, which I don't think is compatible with > your idea of having an operator and name tag where you would put the > name of the branch (for example Elmers End) and the name of the chain > in the operator tag (in this case Tesco) if I understand it correct. > This wouldn't be great as I don't want to search for a supermarket > called Elmers End, which is a place name, instead I want to search for > a Tesco near Elmers End (or some other nearby place). I would > recommend using a name:branch or branch tag for the name of the branch > since it is unlikely to be as important. (Though it would be nice to > include in the geocoding search results). > > Shaun > > On 4 Aug 2009, at 19:17, wynnd...@lavabit.com wrote: > >> I have put together some thoughts about how you could go about >> tagging a >> whole shop chain or similar while making searches for the chain or the >> type of shop useful. I have put them online in the OSM wiki at: >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/user:Wynndale/Tagging_branch_networks_(draft) >> >> As a bit of background, I am looking at incorporating ideas set out >> on the >> page into a Wiki project for mapping shops. I would appreciate >> comments on >> the approaches I am suggesting. >> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
I'd agree that it should be "importance" for trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. The stuff about not using trunk for single-track roads just doesn't match what people are actually doing (judging by some of the roads in the Western Highlands). The physical tends to align to the importance, but what we actually tend to tag is the importance (usually based on the type of signs). However, motorway is physical, and many of the other highway tags are defined in physical terms, or in terms of access rights. So the initial sentence needs to allow for more variety than just "importance". On the residential/unclassified question, I do tend to use highway=unclassified for non-residential urban roads. I'm not entirely comfortable using the same tag for industrial estate roads and narrow country lanes (and it probably makes matters harder for renderers than necessary). Perhaps the solution lies in qualifying unclassified roads with an abutters tag when it's used in towns. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging roads
Interesting - I've measured the widths of most of the main roads in Oxford, mostly at quiet times of day (easy enough with a wheely device - I wouldn't recommend tape). I do kerb-kerb. My inclination would be to put widths on nodes, since they are measured at points, but that might not be too helpful for renderers. But I don't think I really want to break a way every time I do a measurement (I did one particular stretch of road every 10m). Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] (no subject)
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Peter Körner wrote: > I think name should be what the shop is called like (e.g. what stands on > a sign on top / in front of it). +1 If a shop is a member of a larger group of shops belonging to a single chain, the "suburb" or "branch name" should be added in a separate tag (not sure what). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/5 Richard Mann : > I'd agree that it should be "importance" for > trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. The stuff about not using trunk for > single-track roads just doesn't match what people are actually doing > (judging by some of the roads in the Western Highlands). The physical tends > to align to the importance, but what we actually tend to tag is the > importance (usually based on the type of signs). Yes, I agree that there is some highway-types that are defined legally and not according to their importance (motorroad, pedestrian, living_street, cycleway, bridleway, etc.). > However, motorway is physical no, I don't agree. A highway becomes motorway when it get's legally promoted to be a motorway (by the motorway-sign this is indicated). If there are constructions on a motorway and the separation of the opposite lanes is removed and the lanes get narrow and there is a maxspeed of 40km/h it still remains a motorway, at least in Germany this is the case. On the other hand a street whichs entirely meets the physical requirements of a motorway (separated lanes, emergency lane, lots of lanes, slip roads etc.) will not be a motorway unless it is legally designated to be so (and signs are errected). > and many of the other highway tags are > defined in physical terms, or in terms of access rights. So the initial > sentence needs to allow for more variety than just "importance". Yes, I agree. That's why I suggested "mainly by their importance". But I would encourage us to leave physical out. We will gain by a clear distinction between importance and physical tags (which we already have: lanes, width, surface, separated ways) and I would also leave out those classes that require legal designation and therefore remain unambiguous (motorway, living_street, pedestrian). There will be no confusion about what is a motorway, but there are constant debates about primaries, secondaries and tertiary. Also in town the physical state is of few help, as it depends highly on the size of the town what e.g. a primary looks like. Furthermore, the physical state will in most cases correlate to the importance. > On the residential/unclassified question, I do tend to use > highway=unclassified for non-residential urban roads. I'm not entirely > comfortable using the same tag for industrial estate roads but aren't they not just what you defined: "non-residential urban roads"? > and narrow > country lanes (and it probably makes matters harder for renderers than > necessary). actually I never faced a problem with this. Do you have an example? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging roads
2009/8/5 Richard Mann : > Interesting - I've measured the widths of most of the main roads in Oxford, > mostly at quiet times of day (easy enough with a wheely device - I wouldn't > recommend tape). I do kerb-kerb. yes, that seems reasonable in urban context. Do you do the same if there is parking lots along the way? In this case I would probably measure where there aren't to indicate the width of the way (because otherwise - I was thinking of putting the tags to the way - you really would have to split the way every 10 meters). I don't like the idea of putting the width to nodes that much, as nodes tend to get moved - but maybe with more width attached to them, this would change and people get more cautious. What would you measure out of town? > My inclination would be to put widths on nodes, since they are measured at > points, but that might not be too helpful for renderers. But I don't think I > really want to break a way every time I do a measurement (I did one > particular stretch of road every 10m). did you find a lot of differences every 10m? I thought that most streets remain there width (for the "driving zone"). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 19:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/8/5 Richard Mann : >> I'd agree that it should be "importance" for >> trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. The stuff about not using trunk for >> single-track roads just doesn't match what people are actually doing >> (judging by some of the roads in the Western Highlands). The physical tends >> to align to the importance, but what we actually tend to tag is the >> importance (usually based on the type of signs). > > Yes, I agree that there is some highway-types that are defined legally > and not according to their importance (motorroad, pedestrian, > living_street, cycleway, bridleway, etc.). > >> However, motorway is physical > > no, I don't agree. A highway becomes motorway when it get's legally > promoted to be a motorway (by the motorway-sign this is indicated). The USA has no such sign, nor do Canada and Mexico (AFAIK.) Do we have no motorways? -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/5 David Lynch : >> no, I don't agree. A highway becomes motorway when it get's legally >> promoted to be a motorway (by the motorway-sign this is indicated). > > The USA has no such sign, nor do Canada and Mexico (AFAIK.) Do we have > no motorways? Well I can't tell from personal knowledge, German WIkipedia says you got this: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:I-95.svg&filetimestamp=20070518055237 cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On 08/04/2009 07:17 PM, David Lynch wrote: > The USA has no such sign, nor do Canada and Mexico (AFAIK.) Do we have > no motorways? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I-95.svg -Alex Mauer "hawke" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
Motorway is mainly physical. The point is that it most definitely isn't defined by importance. A motorway is the part of a trunk road that has grade-separated junctions, and is on a new alignment, or does by some other means keep slow traffic out of harm's way. My concern stands - beware putting a statement at the top of a wiki page that is only partly true. Richard On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:17 AM, David Lynch wrote: > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 19:02, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > 2009/8/5 Richard Mann : > >> I'd agree that it should be "importance" for > >> trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. The stuff about not using trunk for > >> single-track roads just doesn't match what people are actually doing > >> (judging by some of the roads in the Western Highlands). The physical > tends > >> to align to the importance, but what we actually tend to tag is the > >> importance (usually based on the type of signs). > > > > Yes, I agree that there is some highway-types that are defined legally > > and not according to their importance (motorroad, pedestrian, > > living_street, cycleway, bridleway, etc.). > > > >> However, motorway is physical > > > > no, I don't agree. A highway becomes motorway when it get's legally > > promoted to be a motorway (by the motorway-sign this is indicated). > > The USA has no such sign, nor do Canada and Mexico (AFAIK.) Do we have > no motorways? > > -- > David J. Lynch > djly...@gmail.com > > ___ > 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] tagging roads
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Richard Mann wrote: > My inclination would be to put widths on nodes, since they are measured at > points, but that might not be too helpful for renderers. But I don't think I > really want to break a way every time I do a measurement (I did one > particular stretch of road every 10m). No, I would mark width on a way - just use your judgement as to when the way needs to be split. Apply the width to a section of way, and the width should describe roughly the narrowest width on that section. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging roads
I wouldn't include parking bays if the kerb is built out around them. Generally I'd measure the running carriageway, but include any central islands. The road I measured every 10m had widths varying between 7.7m and 9.3m over about 50m, with no change in lane markings. Richard On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/8/5 Richard Mann : > > Interesting - I've measured the widths of most of the main roads in > Oxford, > > mostly at quiet times of day (easy enough with a wheely device - I > wouldn't > > recommend tape). I do kerb-kerb. > > yes, that seems reasonable in urban context. Do you do the same if > there is parking lots along the way? In this case I would probably > measure where there aren't to indicate the width of the way (because > otherwise - I was thinking of putting the tags to the way - you really > would have to split the way every 10 meters). I don't like the idea of > putting the width to nodes that much, as nodes tend to get moved - but > maybe with more width attached to them, this would change and people > get more cautious. What would you measure out of town? > > > My inclination would be to put widths on nodes, since they are measured > at > > points, but that might not be too helpful for renderers. But I don't > think I > > really want to break a way every time I do a measurement (I did one > > particular stretch of road every 10m). > > did you find a lot of differences every 10m? I thought that most > streets remain there width (for the "driving zone"). > > cheers, > Martin > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 19:31, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/8/5 David Lynch : >>> no, I don't agree. A highway becomes motorway when it get's legally >>> promoted to be a motorway (by the motorway-sign this is indicated). >> >> The USA has no such sign, nor do Canada and Mexico (AFAIK.) Do we have >> no motorways? > > Well I can't tell from personal knowledge, German WIkipedia says you got this: > http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:I-95.svg&filetimestamp=20070518055237 That indicates that it's part of the Interstate system. Every highway on the Interstate system is a motorway-class (high-speed and grade-separated) road, but not every motorway-class road in the United States is an Interstate. There is no equivalent to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_330.svg to draw a clear line between highway=motorway and highway=something else. -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/5 Richard Mann : > Motorway is mainly physical. The point is that it most definitely isn't > defined by importance. well, in nearly all cases the motorways will be the most important roads. Of course there are also other characteristics and a highly important footway will never become in no country a motorway (without at least slight modifications ;-) ). > A motorway is the part of a trunk road that has > grade-separated junctions, and is on a new alignment, or does by some other > means keep slow traffic out of harm's way. Yes, I'd agree on grade-separated junctions and keeping slow traffic out, while I don't think that new alignment is necessary neither do I understand, what a trunk-road is (Wikipedia:en="A trunk road, trunk highway, or strategic road is a major road—usually connecting two or more cities, ports, airports, etc.—which is the recommended route for long-distance and freight traffic. " so I'd say: importance). Though these criteria apply to some other roads as well, at least in Germany and Italy, that are not motorways but considered a lower class. > My concern stands - beware putting a statement at the top of a wiki page > that is only partly true. that's IMHO why I started this discussion: it surely isn't just physical. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
My English was perhaps unclear. The discomfort is with using the same tag for two quite different road types (industrial estate roads and country lanes). Either would be fine on their own. The potential problem for renderers is that there's a lot less space to render things in urban areas, so they benefit if lower-order roads are distinguishable between urban areas (so they can be narrowed or suppressed), and rural areas (so they can be used to help fill up the space). Abutters seems to offer one way of indicating to the renderer that it's within the urban area without creating yet another highway tag. Richard On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On the residential/unclassified question, I do tend to use > > highway=unclassified for non-residential urban roads. I'm not entirely > > comfortable using the same tag for industrial estate roads > > and narrow > > country lanes (and it probably makes matters harder for renderers than > > necessary). > > actually I never faced a problem with this. Do you have an example? > > cheers, > Martin > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/5 David Lynch : > That indicates that it's part of the Interstate system. Every highway > on the Interstate system is a motorway-class (high-speed and > grade-separated) road, but not every motorway-class road in the United > States is an Interstate. There is no equivalent to > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_330.svg to draw a clear line > between highway=motorway and highway=something else. As far as I have understood by reading English Wikipedia you have different classes (Freeway, Interstate, Numbered Highways) where at least Freeway and Interstate are motorways. Those seem to have unambiguous signs. May I suppose that I would not be allowed to ride my bike on any of these, even if the average speed on all lanes of the 405 in LA is 5 mph at rush hour? Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging roads
2009/8/5 Richard Mann : > I wouldn't include parking bays if the kerb is built out around them. > Generally I'd measure the running carriageway, but include any central > islands. +1 > The road I measured every 10m had widths varying between 7.7m and 9.3m over > about 50m, with no change in lane markings. that's a good way to go if you really, really want to be accurate, but if you're short on time you would map this as 7.7m and for many cases this would be sufficient. If you go into micromapping I would consider mapping the road as an area (additionally), just like we're already doing for squares. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] distinguishing urban streets from out-of-town WAS: definition of the main highway-tag
I put this on a separate thread, as it is no more about the _main_highway tag definition 2009/8/5 Richard Mann : > My English was perhaps unclear. The discomfort is with using the same tag > for two quite different road types (industrial estate roads and country > lanes). Either would be fine on their own. > The potential problem for renderers is that there's a lot less space to > render things in urban areas, so they benefit if lower-order roads are > distinguishable between urban areas (so they can be narrowed or suppressed), > and rural areas (so they can be used to help fill up the space). Abutters > seems to offer one way of indicating to the renderer that it's within the > urban area without creating yet another highway tag. IMHO you have this in all highway-classes (at least streets/roads). A primary road in town will be different from a primary road outside town, as will be a secondary, tertiary, and practically all others (at least in Europe). Out of town you usually won't find BE:pavements / sidewalks, inside you will (in Europe) usually find them. In town you will find more lanes than out of town, ... That's IMHO not a problem, because you can see in the data if you're in town or outside. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Low-Res / Overview / Toplevel
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, Nic Roets wrote: > If care is taken with the selection of places / names, such > a map may become quite useful for geocoding. We want only > "the" Paris. We want abbreviations like NY, as > long as they do not lead to confusion. Sources of > information include geonames and wikipedia. > > > Anyone interested in helping with such a project ? osm2navit does something like this, it only uses 1 out of 100 nodes to shrink the file size etc. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
> > > As far as I have understood by reading English Wikipedia you have > different classes (Freeway, Interstate, Numbered Highways) where at > least Freeway and Interstate are motorways. Those seem to have > unambiguous signs. May I suppose that I would not be allowed to ride > my bike on any of these, even if the average speed on all lanes of the > 405 in LA is 5 mph at rush hour? > wrong assumption. In california and oregon and maybe other states too there are some freeways which do allow bikes. usually in rural areas without alternative routes. > > Cheers, > Martin > > ___ > 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] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/4 Liz : >> I would >> appreciate to have the same routing and rules allover the world, > I don't believe it is possible > I have been to different countries too, e.g. to Africa, and I don't think the road systems are all the same. I know that there is big differences. But this doesn't explain why routing shouldn't work as long as you keep the hierarchy. In the end, you will have to drive on the roads that are there. There is no possibility if you go by car. I didn't say that I expect e.g. travel time estimations to work everywhere with the same rules, but simple routing - given the relative importance - should IMHO make routing possible worldwide. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
Motorways and trunk roads jointly form the most important tier in the UK. Most countries seem to follow a similar pattern - motorways feed into non-motorway trunk roads to jointly form the top tier. Richard On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/8/5 Richard Mann : > > Motorway is mainly physical. The point is that it most definitely isn't > > defined by importance. > > well, in nearly all cases the motorways will be the most important > roads. Of course there are also other characteristics and a highly > important footway will never become in no country a motorway (without > at least slight modifications ;-) ). > > > A motorway is the part of a trunk road that has > > grade-separated junctions, and is on a new alignment, or does by some > other > > means keep slow traffic out of harm's way. > > Yes, I'd agree on grade-separated junctions and keeping slow traffic > out, while I don't think that new alignment is necessary neither do I > understand, what a trunk-road is (Wikipedia:en="A trunk road, trunk > highway, or strategic road is a major road—usually connecting two or > more cities, ports, airports, etc.—which is the recommended route for > long-distance and freight traffic. " so I'd say: importance). Though > these criteria apply to some other roads as well, at least in Germany > and Italy, that are not motorways but considered a lower class. > > > My concern stands - beware putting a statement at the top of a wiki page > > that is only partly true. > > that's IMHO why I started this discussion: it surely isn't just physical. > > cheers, > Martin > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/5 Apollinaris Schoell : >> >> As far as I have understood by reading English Wikipedia you have >> different classes (Freeway, Interstate, Numbered Highways) where at >> least Freeway and Interstate are motorways. Those seem to have >> unambiguous signs. May I suppose that I would not be allowed to ride >> my bike on any of these, even if the average speed on all lanes of the >> 405 in LA is 5 mph at rush hour? > > wrong assumption. In california and oregon and maybe other states too there > are some freeways which do allow bikes. > usually in rural areas without alternative routes. I already expected something like this ;-). Do you also have freeways with traffic lights or access not via ramps? Are you tagging them as motorways or trunks (or even primary?) on these parts where bicycles are allowed? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 20:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/8/5 David Lynch : > >> That indicates that it's part of the Interstate system. Every highway >> on the Interstate system is a motorway-class (high-speed and >> grade-separated) road, but not every motorway-class road in the United >> States is an Interstate. There is no equivalent to >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_330.svg to draw a clear line >> between highway=motorway and highway=something else. > > As far as I have understood by reading English Wikipedia you have > different classes (Freeway, Interstate, Numbered Highways) where at > least Freeway and Interstate are motorways. Those seem to have > unambiguous signs. May I suppose that I would not be allowed to ride > my bike on any of these, even if the average speed on all lanes of the > 405 in LA is 5 mph at rush hour? "Freeway" is the general term in American English for what OSM would tag highway=motorway (some people would also include toll=no; that was one of the senses of the "free" part of the name when they first opened.) Interstates are a subset of freeways. The majority of centrally-maintained roads are numbered, and the majority of unnumbered roads are locally maintained*. Interstates and U. S. Highways have numbers and routes set by the federal government; other centrally-maintained roads are numbered on a state-by-state basis and states may even have more than one numbering system (Texas has about four state-specific ones that I can think of off of the top of my head, and 360 is a major urban road in three of them.) It's pretty much anarchy, compared to Europe. Generally, I would say that bicycles aren't a good idea, even when they are allowed. The legal definition of a freeway varies from state to state as do the restrictions that are in place. * - Some rural counties use numbers instead of names, but a lot dropped the practice in the last 15 years or so when a new law came into effect about identifying locations for fire/medical/police response. -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, Richard Mann wrote: > The potential problem for renderers is that > there's a lot less space to render things in urban > areas, so they benefit if lower-order roads are > distinguishable between urban areas (so they can be narrowed > or suppressed), and rural areas (so they can be used to help > fill up the space). Abutters seems to offer one way of > indicating to the renderer that it's within the urban > area without creating yet another highway tag. The problem with that is it would require abutters tags and/or be ambiguous as to what class of highway it is, I also don't think it's a very good idea using one class of highway for 2 very different purposes. Some people are using highway=unclassified to mean a wider than residential road which seems to contradict the wiki reference: "No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form the lowest form of the interconnecting grid network." This means to me to mean lower than residential, but the opposite has been used and some take it as higher than residential. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] (no subject)
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, Roy Wallace wrote: > If a shop is a member of a larger group of shops belonging > to a single > chain, the "suburb" or "branch name" should be added in a > separate tag > (not sure what). addr:city ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Bing Imagery
I know google forbids it, but I haven't heard about MS/Bing... Have they disallowed use of their sat imagery or is it explicitly forbidden in their T&Cs? > Just announced by Microsoft, a new round of imagery update for Bing Map > (previously known as Virtual Earth): 41TB. From the blog entry: "We just > deployed 41TB of new satellite imagery, aerial photography and vector > data for Bing Maps covering 189,000+ square kilometers of Earth > including 12,000+ square kilometers of Bird’s Eye photography. Did we > get your town this time? Check out the Bing Maps World Tour to sit back, > relax and watch the Bing Maps Silverlight Control take you through every > new local with new data. Alternatively, you can immerse yourself into > the application and explore for yourself. Check out the full list below." ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] (no subject)
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:19 PM, John Smith wrote: >> If a shop is a member of a larger group of shops belonging >> to a single >> chain, the "suburb" or "branch name" should be added in a >> separate tag >> (not sure what). > > addr:city ? No, that is "The name of the city as given in postal addresses of the building/area." Often a business will make reference to, e.g. "oh, for that you need to call our shop". In my experience, in Australia, this is usually the name of the suburb where the branch is located. But not always. See, for example, the following link, where "Garden City" is the name of a branch located in the suburb of "Upper Mount Gravatt": http://www.oxfamshop.org.au/pages/81876 Or have a look at www.jbhifi.com.au - click on "See All Stores" on the left - they disambiguate multiple branches located in the same suburb, e.g. "City - Bourke Street" vs. "City - Cameras". This information is useful, but I think it shouldn't be put in the name=* tag, rather a separate tag. Maybe either name:branch=* or branch_name=*. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing Imagery
I hope they do, they have several areas with high-res that are not covered in yahoo! in the Philippines On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:36 AM, John Smith wrote: > > I know google forbids it, but I haven't heard about MS/Bing... Have they > disallowed use of their sat imagery or is it explicitly forbidden in their > T&Cs? > >> Just announced by Microsoft, a new round of imagery update for Bing Map >> (previously known as Virtual Earth): 41TB. From the blog entry: "We just >> deployed 41TB of new satellite imagery, aerial photography and vector >> data for Bing Maps covering 189,000+ square kilometers of Earth >> including 12,000+ square kilometers of Bird’s Eye photography. Did we >> get your town this time? Check out the Bing Maps World Tour to sit back, >> relax and watch the Bing Maps Silverlight Control take you through every >> new local with new data. Alternatively, you can immerse yourself into >> the application and explore for yourself. Check out the full list below." > > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- cheers, maning -- "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I have been to different countries too, e.g. to Africa, and > I don't > think the road systems are all the same. I know that there > is big > differences. But this doesn't explain why routing shouldn't > work as > long as you keep the hierarchy. In the end, you will have > to drive on > the roads that are there. There is no possibility if you go > by car. I > didn't say that I expect e.g. travel time estimations to > work > everywhere with the same rules, but simple routing - given > the > relative importance - should IMHO make routing possible > worldwide. Would something like this make you happier? Change highway=unclassified definition to be more explicit, for example: "No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form the interconnecting grid network of residential and other Urban road ways." And a new highway classification highway=rural which would be: "No administrative classification. Rural roads typically form the lowest form of the non-Urban interconnecting grid network. Rural roads also connect more than one farm to urban areas even if they are no through roads." Hopefully the refinement of unclassified and the addition of a new highway type seen mostly in rural areas of Australia and I'm guessing other countries with large areas of sparsely populated areas. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
as far as I know freeway require that there are no intersections and access is via ramp. but this independent from bike access. Know one example where freeway ends just for a single access without ramp and starts again after ~ 100m yes usually these interruptions are tagged as trunk. US 101 in california is a good example. It changes from Primary or trunk to motorway many times. mainly the northern part is open for bikes. On Aug 4, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/8/5 Apollinaris Schoell : >>> >>> As far as I have understood by reading English Wikipedia you have >>> different classes (Freeway, Interstate, Numbered Highways) where at >>> least Freeway and Interstate are motorways. Those seem to have >>> unambiguous signs. May I suppose that I would not be allowed to ride >>> my bike on any of these, even if the average speed on all lanes of >>> the >>> 405 in LA is 5 mph at rush hour? >> >> wrong assumption. In california and oregon and maybe other states >> too there >> are some freeways which do allow bikes. >> usually in rural areas without alternative routes. > > I already expected something like this ;-). Do you also have freeways > with traffic lights or access not via ramps? > Are you tagging them as motorways or trunks (or even primary?) on > these parts where bicycles are allowed? > > cheers, > Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
John Smith wrote: > > > --- On Tue, 4/8/09, Richard Mann > wrote: > >> The potential problem for renderers is that >> there's a lot less space to render things in urban >> areas, so they benefit if lower-order roads are >> distinguishable between urban areas (so they can be narrowed >> or suppressed), and rural areas (so they can be used to help >> fill up the space). Abutters seems to offer one way of >> indicating to the renderer that it's within the urban >> area without creating yet another highway tag. > > The problem with that is it would require abutters tags and/or be ambiguous > as to what class of highway it is, I also don't think it's a very good idea > using one class of highway for 2 very different purposes. > > Some people are using highway=unclassified to mean a wider than residential > road which seems to contradict the wiki reference: > > "No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form the > lowest form of the interconnecting grid network." > > This means to me to mean lower than residential, but the opposite has been > used and some take it as higher than residential. highway tag identifies a linear feature that can be navigated along ... what seems to have been lost is the distinctions that are applied to train and water traffic, so while we have waterway and railway, we do not have 'footway' waterways have towpaths which are footways and so do some railways although those WOULD normally be marked with separate routes and so perhaps should towpaths. But the point I'm trying to make is that route which are essentially vehicle free are not easily identified currently. If these routes are stripped off from the 'highway' network, and route that are essentially vehicular are identified by 'highway', then we tidy up the definition of highway, 'cycleway' and 'bridleway' might complete this picture? We then come back to the relative 'levels' of highway tag, and these ARE fairly well formed for the major road classifications, motorway, trunk, primary and secondary form the major vehicle routing system, and I will not go into rant mode here about 20 mile per hour speed limits on primary roads because they are 'residential' - in that instance there is a missing bypass route of some sort ;) Roads within industrial areas or housing estates, may be 'short cuts' on the main 'interchange' map, but unless those routes are designated primary or secondary, the '20 mile per hour' speed should be considered to apply as these are essentially areas where the vehicular use is not the primary use, and children playing or vehicles being unloaded takes a higher priority? 'Urban' areas should on the whole be covered by 'residential' or 'service' in between the 4 main vehicle route tags. Although personally I'd prefer that motorway service roads were not grouped with 'industrial'. 'shopping' may have a place for filling in the gaps in these cases, but I do not see any reason that 'unclassified' would be used within an urban area? This leaves tertiary and unclassified for those roads outside urban areas and on the whole tertiary probably applies better leaving unclassified for roads such as farm tracks or routes where the vehicular usage may be questionable. Certainly an 'unclassified' highway should not be capable of handling a large lorry so routes for access to farms should be tagged 'service' perhaps where such access is practical, and 'track' needs to be tidied in the same context? 'living_street' is a footway with limited vehicular access as is 'pedestrian' I think I could well make a case for a 'way' having a 'highway', 'cycleway' and 'footway' tag if appropriate, so American motorways that have cycle access would simply add a 'cycleway' tag with separate linking ways if appropriate? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
Currently highway=unclassified is too ambiguous, and while there was a proposal to replace this with highway=minor this seems to have gone no where yet the same problem still exists. I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic than residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary. I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non-urban* areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than residential, generally unsealed but some of them are sealed and they generally only have a single lane depending how zealous the grader driver was feeling. Please comment and so forth on the talk page and hopefully this can be sorted out once and for all. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway:rural ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Lester Caine wrote: > 'Urban' areas should on the whole be covered by > 'residential' or 'service' in > between the 4 main vehicle route tags. Although personally > I'd prefer that > motorway service roads were not grouped with 'industrial'. > 'shopping' may have > a place for filling in the gaps in these cases, but I do > not see any reason > that 'unclassified' would be used within an urban area? The problem is the definition on the wiki is ambiguous enough that people took it to mean that it interconnects with residential streets, and at the same time they took residential streets to imply access=destination so they needed some what to distinguish and that's when the problem started. If they had marked the residential streets as access=destination instead, and used residential without the access restriction there wouldn't be the conversation we're having now. > This leaves tertiary and unclassified for those roads > outside urban areas and > on the whole tertiary probably applies better leaving > unclassified for roads > such as farm tracks or routes where the vehicular usage may > be questionable. > Certainly an 'unclassified' highway should not be capable > of handling a large > lorry so routes for access to farms should be tagged > 'service' perhaps where > such access is practical, and 'track' needs to be tidied in > the same context? Unfortunately that's not how everyone sees it, it really depends on what you're used to as to how you take the meaning of the current wiki definition. > I think I could well make a case for a 'way' having a > 'highway', 'cycleway' > and 'footway' tag if appropriate, so American motorways > that have cycle access > would simply add a 'cycleway' tag with separate linking > ways if appropriate? If a bike can legally go somewhere it should be tagged as such for the bike routing software to figure it all out :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
While this isn't my proposal, I have an interest in getting 4wd_only tracks to render properly. I've slightly modified this page to conform to what people suggested on the talk-au list. This tag is already in use in the Australian area, judging by the talk pages possibly other countries too. I would like to move things forward and have this render properly, roads that are 4wd only are everywhere in Australia and they need to clearly state it. Simply marking things as tracks isn't enough as cars are able to drive along some tracks, but for clearence reasons they won't be able to drive down a 4wd_only track. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/4WD_Only Australian Tagging Guidelines, based on talk-au threads. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#4WD_only_track ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
John Smith wrote: > --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Lester Caine wrote: > >> 'Urban' areas should on the whole be covered by >> 'residential' or 'service' in >> between the 4 main vehicle route tags. Although personally >> I'd prefer that >> motorway service roads were not grouped with 'industrial'. >> 'shopping' may have >> a place for filling in the gaps in these cases, but I do >> not see any reason >> that 'unclassified' would be used within an urban area? > > The problem is the definition on the wiki is ambiguous enough that people > took it to mean that it interconnects with residential streets, and at the > same time they took residential streets to imply access=destination so they > needed some what to distinguish and that's when the problem started. > > If they had marked the residential streets as access=destination instead, and > used residential without the access restriction there wouldn't be the > conversation we're having now. No you have totally lost me there ... I've not had time to read ALL the messages in this string, but routing software should address the time aspect of a route, and anything below 'secondary' should be treated as a slow route. As you say - stopping routing through an area has nothing to do with the highway tag ... >> This leaves tertiary and unclassified for those roads >> outside urban areas and >> on the whole tertiary probably applies better leaving >> unclassified for roads >> such as farm tracks or routes where the vehicular usage may >> be questionable. >> Certainly an 'unclassified' highway should not be capable >> of handling a large >> lorry so routes for access to farms should be tagged >> 'service' perhaps where >> such access is practical, and 'track' needs to be tidied in >> the same context? > > Unfortunately that's not how everyone sees it, it really depends on what > you're used to as to how you take the meaning of the current wiki definition. But that is the reason for discussing tidying up the definition. >> I think I could well make a case for a 'way' having a >> 'highway', 'cycleway' >> and 'footway' tag if appropriate, so American motorways >> that have cycle access >> would simply add a 'cycleway' tag with separate linking >> ways if appropriate? > > If a bike can legally go somewhere it should be tagged as such for the bike > routing software to figure it all out :) That is what I said Tag a cycleway as a cycleway ;) Rather than having to check for 'bike=no' tags. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [RFC] restriction=school_zone (second email)
Since proposing this tag combination I've tagged about a dozen schools and at first glance I can't see any problems. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:restriction%3Dschool_zone ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smith wrote: > I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's > meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic than > residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary. Then I propose to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is a road equal to a residential road, but outside residential areas. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
John Smith wrote: > While this isn't my proposal, I have an interest in getting 4wd_only tracks > to render properly. I've slightly modified this page to conform to what > people suggested on the talk-au list. This tag is already in use in the > Australian area, judging by the talk pages possibly other countries too. > > I would like to move things forward and have this render properly, roads that > are 4wd only are everywhere in Australia and they need to clearly state it. > Simply marking things as tracks isn't enough as cars are able to drive along > some tracks, but for clearence reasons they won't be able to drive down a > 4wd_only track. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/4WD_Only > > Australian Tagging Guidelines, based on talk-au threads. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#4WD_only_track High ground clearance required? More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not always clear what they are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep fords, mud or poor traction conditions ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
