Re: [Talk-transit] NAPTAN Import: Plus-bus Zones
PlusBus zone boundaries are defined by the stoppoints at the edges of the zones. It should be possible to draw straight lines between each of the boundary points to define the polygon of the area they cover (all stops within such a polygon are members of that PlusBus zone). The exceptional treatment of NET (tram) in Nottingham is not reflected in the data supplied by PlusBus – which is why it doesn’t show up on your mapping of the data (and it doesn’t show on the zone diagram on the PlusBus web site either) – I suspect that this is because it would be misleading as it would imply that buses can be used in the area of served by the tram that is beyond the main area of the PlusBus bus zone. The PlusBus zone data comes from PlusBus – so please don’t try to change it. If you think it is wrong, then let me know and I will ask PlusBus to review the information. Roger From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Clough - OSM Sent: 05 August 2009 15:31 To: talk-transit@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-transit] NAPTAN Import: Plus-bus Zones I've had a quick look at a couple of the PlusBusZones (once inadvertently, as the name is rendering inappropriately on the Mapnik map): Nottingham and Maidenhead. In both cases boundaries are only approximate, and appear to be delimited by bus stops rather than routes (e.g., service 6 in Maidenhead travels along A308, and through the Pinkneys Green area, but AFAIK does not stop). The Nottingham one is of particular interest to me as the available literature shows an extremely fuzzy map with no indications of the precise limits of the zone. On the routes where I know the limit of the city-wide tickets (CityRider, Kangaroo) the edges of the zone are from 100-200 metres out. I wonder how we can improve this mapping in OSM. For instance I could ensure that the PlusBus zone polygon shared nodes with the bus stops at the Blue http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.9075lon=-1.23513zoom=17layers=B000FTF Bell, Attenborough, and the Sherwin http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.93592lon=-1.25096zoom=17layers=B000FTF Arms, Bramcote. There is one other issue: the Nottingham Tram (NET) extends to Hucknall, and I think the relevant tram stops are included in the PlusBus scheme, but buses are not. The Kangaroo includes the tram and also train services between Hucknall, Attenborough, Carlton and Nottingham. Jerry SK53 PS. First posting to list, so formatting might be an issue. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
[Talk-transit] New 'Transit' page and proposed Stop Place model
I have create a new top level page for 'transit' and redirected 'public transport' to that page. Take a look here and tell me what you think, and do of course make it better! http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Transit I am also proposing to write basic articles for each of the individual modes that I have identified (currently the 'main' articles referred to are mostly to redirects to a tag page which isn't sufficient). Do you think Tram should be included in Rail or be discussed separately? You will also notice that I am also plugging a proposal I am developing for a new consistent Stop Place model ( based on Oxoma's proposal) which you can read about here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:PeterIto/Stop_Place Regards, Peter ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
[Talk-transit] Subject: Re: Railway route relations
On 5 Aug 2009 14:59:04 +0100, Peter Miller wrote: I totally agree, however we are just setting out on a long journey to capture all the transit data for the world, so lets get the modelling clear now and not be held back by some tag-updating! As we are aware the various transit strands and proposals were initially created bottom-up in a rather random way (which is the nature of these projects). Oxomoa then did a good review of the tagging and identified a number of gaps and inconsistencies with the German community which started to bring it all together. We have also had some useful input from the professional transit community. I suggest that we put significant effort into the wiki and modelling at this point to get all the transit related pages to fit together in a consistent way to our liking and that this will pay big dividends in the future. I would like to be part of the effort Peter is proposing. It now appears likely that our research center will receive funding to begin developing a multimodal trip planner using OpenStreetMap data. If this does indeed come to pass, then one of the things that we will need to do as part of this work will be to work with the OSM community to ensure that OSM can record the data needed for the transit part of such a system. We plan to develop an advisory committee for the project, including people from US transit agencies and from the OSM community (especially those working with transit data in Europe, where most of the OSM transit activity seems to be), to advise us on the needs and the possibilities. The first phase to be funded would focus on transit data and on tools for uploading transit data from common formats (at least, common in the state of Florida, plus data that some agencies have converted into the Google Transit Feed Specification) into OpenStreetMap, but obviously that requires having a good, clear model of what we are uploading into. And, somehow we will need to work out a way to store and access timetable data which, as far as we can tell, OSM now does not handle. We envision an eventual system that we think also would be able to work with railway timetables in Europe, and to interline between systems, as well as interline between bus, rail, bicycle, and walking modes. Although our initial focus will be on urban public transit systems, we know there is some interest in this among the US intercity bus industry, and I anticipate someone from that industry would be part of the advisory committee as well. We are drafting the scope of work for the project now. Within the constraints of having to deliver certain kinds of results by the end of this phase of the project (such as the uploads, and assurance that the desired system can indeed be developed on an OSM base), we are trying to include as much flexibility as possible for us to work collaboratively with other organizations in figuring out what needs to be done and how best to do it. My best guess is that we will have confirmation of the project by the end of the month, and authorization to begin work by the end of September, although these steps can always take longer than expected. Certainly I can participate on my own time before then. Best regards, Ed Hillsman Edward L. Hillsman, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 Fowler Ave., CUT100 Tampa, FL 33620-5375 813-974-2977 (tel) 813-974-5168 (fax) hills...@cutr.usf.edu http://www.cutr.usf.edu ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] New 'Transit' page and proposed Stop Place model
On 6 Aug 2009, at 14:07, Frankie Roberto wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: snip b) splitting the pages down into smaller components - eg railways, bus stops, train services, train stations, etc. Whilst it's good to have an overall conceptual model, I think most mappers will be more interested in understanding how to tag at a feature level. Umm.. I think it is important to have a page for the conceptual model and then when we are happy with it, we introduce it into the other articles in the context of that transport mode. A description of a Stop Place for a drag-lift will be pretty different from that of an airport, but I am keen that there is a consistency across modes from a programming and tagging perspective. I think I more-or-less agree. I'm mainly just keen that we keep the discussion embedded in the context of actual usage (with plenty of real-life examples) rather than being too abstract. Ok, I completely agree that someone who wants to model a railway station should have to look no further that the train page (or railway station page) and should gets lots of great examples of how to model stations (and nothing about drag-lifts!). However... I also want there to be a good robust general purpose model behind it (what I call the Stop Place) and that also needs a page that the developers look at when wondering how to model the world efficiently (including drag-lifts and Manchester Airport!). I think we should also remove the redirect from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:public_transport and turn that into a standard Key page (with the KeyDescription infobox) documenting existing and proposed usage of the key. Likewise, it'd be useful to have the relevant tag and key pages for all the other tags and keys that are in use or proposed. It is certainly not appropriate for it to redirect to a user page. For now I have redirected it to the Transit article until someone fancies adding some content, however I am not clear if we even want a key of that title, should we not standarise on Transit rather than public transport. The proposed use of the tag is something I would prefer to call stop_place anyway. I agree that whether we need the key or not is unclear. However, since there's at least some usages of it currently, I think it's worth documenting what the existing practice is at least (same for other tags with significant usage). fine by me This reminds me - I think it'd be worth encouraging people here to share links to OSM for public transport stops/routes/etc that they've mapped, for feedback and discussion. I did this a while back on the discussion page for the unified_stoparea proposal (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/unified_stoparea) In this spirit, here's what I've mostly done so far: Oxford Road train station (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/78910 ) - mapped the platforms as areas (railway=platform, role=platform) - mapped all the tracks, and the stopping points (role=halt) with one of them marked as the 'main' one with railway=station and a name tag. - station building outline (building=yes, no role) - footbridge and steps (not part of the relation - wasn't sure whether they should be?) Have started to map the tram system in Manchester as two separate tracks (http://osm.org/go/evgo1FaS--) though this is complicated by the sharing of ways with the highway, and the current part-closure of the system for track replacement. Mapping UK tram system routes as relations (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams) Mapping UK 'minor railway' routes as relations (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Independent_and_minor_railways) I suggest we have a list of 'examples of good practice' associated with each page. the Tram page should like to good examples of Tram modelling and also all the tram related projects and email list around the world. Similarly the Train / Railway page would do the same for trains. I suggest the Stop Place page might give some examples of a few of each sort of Stop Place, including a real monster multi-modal interchange (JFK, Heathrow or Schipol). Regards, Peter Would welcome comments on any of those - and would love to see which bits of the map other people are working on! Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Subject: Re: Railway route relations
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Hillsman, Edward hills...@cutr.usf.eduwrote: It now appears likely that our research center will receive funding to begin developing a multimodal trip planner using OpenStreetMap data. Firstly, congratulations on the getting this funding (presuming it gets confirmed) - sounds like a great project. We plan to develop an advisory committee for the project, including people from US transit agencies and from the OSM community (especially those working with transit data in Europe, where most of the OSM transit activity seems to be), to advise us on the needs and the possibilities. And advisory committee for your project, including OSM members, is a good idea. However it'd be good to keep as much of the discussion about the mapping and data-import bits of your project on this mailing list as possible. We are drafting the scope of work for the project now. Within the constraints of having to deliver certain kinds of results by the end of this phase of the project (such as the uploads, and assurance that the desired system can indeed be developed on an OSM base), we are trying to include as much flexibility as possible for us to work collaboratively with other organizations in figuring out what needs to be done and how best to do it. My best guess is that we will have confirmation of the project by the end of the month, and authorization to begin work by the end of September, although these steps can always take longer than expected. Certainly I can participate on my own time before then. Great. It'd be useful to know the scope of your project - I'd recommend starting with something small and achievable, your suggestion of urban metro systems is a good one (and I reckon has good coverage in OSM already). Incidentally, many metro systems don't have an advertised timetable as such, instead more likely an advertised frequency (eg every 3-5 minutes). This is something that could, potentially, be included in OSM data... Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Is 'Transit' and 'Public Transport' the same thing?
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote: I notice that Frankie has created a new Tram page (no content yet but it will come). Yup! Is 'transit' a synonym for 'public transport'? or not. If not then what is the difference? For me, as a native British English speaker, public transport is the term that encompasses trains, trams, buses (perhaps to a lesser extent) planes. I wouldn't ever user the term transit really. The most common association would be the Ford Transit Van! I'm also vaguely aware of the term mass transit. I've always assumed transit to by synonymous with transport though - ie applicable to all forms of transport, including private transport. That's just me though - I'm well aware that other languages, and other dialects of English (and perhaps even other people within the UK) will have different interpretations... Which terms sound more natural to other people on this list? Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [talk-ph] Draft MoA between the OSM-F and any possible localchapter
I added our plans to form an OSM-PH org here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters I also requested/nominated Entrhopia to take on the interim Sec/Treas position at the moment. Another thing we should look into: Local Chapters would pay the Foundation a fee based on the number of members (£10 is currently proposed). On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Ronny Ager-Wick - Develo Ltd.r...@develo.ltd.uk wrote: Sorry I missed this. Yes, I still volunteer, and I'm going to the Phils in 3 weeks anyway, so if it will happen between 3 and 7 weeks from now, perfect! Ronny. Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Ronny volunteered to be one of the incorporators before: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2009-May/000901.html On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Andre Marcelo-Tanner an...@enthropia.com wrote: no responses yet, need 1 more, 4 cannot make a company, need 5 ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
[talk-ph] POI- Petrol/Fuel/Gasoline
I don't see this in potlatch, or am I blind? :) (Fuel/Gas/Petrol) It's certainly a point of interest that I'd like to see on a map if I'm on the road. -- eric pareja (eric.par...@gmail.com) LPIC-2 | PGP/GPG Key 0xB82E42D9 Coordinator for Technology / Senior Linux Trainer National Telehealth Center, University of the Philippines Manila International Open Source Network - ASEAN+3 Ang mundo ay aklat, at iisang pahina lamang ang nababasa ng hindi naglalakbay. わかよたれぞ つねならむ ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] POI- Petrol/Fuel/Gasoline
I just double-click on the POI location then choose 'petrol station' under '(no preset)', or drag the Parking icon then change it to 'petrol station'. -Original Message- From: talk-ph-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-ph-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of eric pareja Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 8:04 PM To: osm-ph Subject: [talk-ph] POI- Petrol/Fuel/Gasoline I don't see this in potlatch, or am I blind? :) (Fuel/Gas/Petrol) It's certainly a point of interest that I'd like to see on a map if I'm on the road. ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Draft MoA between the OSM-F and any possible localchapter
I think I mentioned this before but I disagree with the fee. In the draft agreement, the idea is to pay £10 *for each member of the local chapter*! I think this is too much. On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:36 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.comwrote: I added our plans to form an OSM-PH org here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters I also requested/nominated Entrhopia to take on the interim Sec/Treas position at the moment. Another thing we should look into: Local Chapters would pay the Foundation a fee based on the number of members (£10 is currently proposed). On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Ronny Ager-Wick - Develo Ltd.r...@develo.ltd.uk wrote: Sorry I missed this. Yes, I still volunteer, and I'm going to the Phils in 3 weeks anyway, so if it will happen between 3 and 7 weeks from now, perfect! Ronny. Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Ronny volunteered to be one of the incorporators before: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2009-May/000901.html On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Andre Marcelo-Tanner an...@enthropia.com wrote: no responses yet, need 1 more, 4 cannot make a company, need 5 ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] some osm-ph stats (20090729)
no prob. I can give updates if you need it. Kelan ba magkakaroon ng IdeaCamp Manila? On 8/7/09, George Tujan gtu...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the stats maning. If its ok with you, we'd like to use it for the next ideacampdavao presentation On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:06 AM, maning sambaleemmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Sharing some OSM-PH stats (as of 20090729). Number rows: 3355279 Total Ways: 77531 Total Nodes: 809186 Total Relations: 218 Number of Contributors: 252 TOP NODES - maning 212061 MichaelCollinson 115526 ph_import 101419 ianlopez1115 75317 murlwe 47715 seav 43220 hellodeck 37900 ed_waypointsdotph 37206 axk 19791 remzamora 18064 Plutocrat 16539 Rally 9685 ivansanchez 5713 RoadMaps 5210 ingguana 3732 neilnacario 3724 denz 3444 Totor 2981 Eiddup 2829 rainerr 2756 sorabsuperstar 2723 phtraveler 2593 tools4fools 2515 Susannen 2376 ginolot 2015 kulweng 1988 tobiassteffes 1866 Hsing 1825 Andre68 1400 myMapGil 1362 TOP WAYS maning 20478 ph_import 15924 ianlopez1115 9730 seav 7423 murlwe 5541 hellodeck 3285 remzamora 2875 Rally 1780 Plutocrat 1021 ed_waypointsdotph 947 ingguana 798 neilnacario 772 RoadMaps 662 AlanM 441 denz 420 axk 378 Totor 267 sorabsuperstar 267 MichaelCollinson 243 Eiddup 241 Rcadayona 234 Andre68 207 smackcode 190 myMapGil 184 ferdie 178 kulweng 150 Hsing 147 ragingmon 141 phtraveler 122 Wtmitchell 122 TOP RELATIONS - ianlopez1115 128 seav 49 maning 23 ph_import 8 murlwe 3 bruntij 1 Floating_iron 1 dmgroom 1 PA94 1 apotski 1 axk 1 Andre68 1 highway length sums (metres): primary 12452889m residential 10392211m secondary 4640978m road 3579534m tertiary 2800464m unclassified 2314400m trunk 1945433m service 697133m track 597994m motorway 575177m footway 175930m path 157708m motorway_link 65112m trunk_link 41099m cycleway 27059m primary_link 25900m construction 14349m pedestrian 13677m steps 2807m secondary_link 2169m raceway 1542m minor 1022m living_street 771m Alley 101m This is a driveway 61m This is not a road 35m TOTAL 40525567m Some observations: 1. Only 20% to reach 1 million nodes, not a big number compared to Germany, but 1 million is still a big number. :) 2. 252 contributors. I am also seeing new contributors adding little detail here and there and then stop contributing. This is nice. In Metro Manila, the roads are there that serves as the framework to add little details. 3. Local contributors have overtaken Mike Collinson's contributions. Hehehe. I think Mike would love that to happen. Although 95% of
Re: [talk-ph] some osm-ph stats (20090729)
September 12, 2009...its Marloue's turn to talk about OSM :) sige we'll need updated data talaga. TIA! On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:32 AM, maning sambaleemmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: no prob. I can give updates if you need it. Kelan ba magkakaroon ng IdeaCamp Manila? On 8/7/09, George Tujan gtu...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the stats maning. If its ok with you, we'd like to use it for the next ideacampdavao presentation On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:06 AM, maning sambaleemmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Sharing some OSM-PH stats (as of 20090729). Number rows: 3355279 Total Ways: 77531 Total Nodes: 809186 Total Relations: 218 Number of Contributors: 252 TOP NODES - maning 212061 MichaelCollinson 115526 ph_import 101419 ianlopez1115 75317 murlwe 47715 seav 43220 hellodeck 37900 ed_waypointsdotph 37206 axk 19791 remzamora 18064 Plutocrat 16539 Rally 9685 ivansanchez 5713 RoadMaps 5210 ingguana 3732 neilnacario 3724 denz 3444 Totor 2981 Eiddup 2829 rainerr 2756 sorabsuperstar 2723 phtraveler 2593 tools4fools 2515 Susannen 2376 ginolot 2015 kulweng 1988 tobiassteffes 1866 Hsing 1825 Andre68 1400 myMapGil 1362 TOP WAYS maning 20478 ph_import 15924 ianlopez1115 9730 seav 7423 murlwe 5541 hellodeck 3285 remzamora 2875 Rally 1780 Plutocrat 1021 ed_waypointsdotph 947 ingguana 798 neilnacario 772 RoadMaps 662 AlanM 441 denz 420 axk 378 Totor 267 sorabsuperstar 267 MichaelCollinson 243 Eiddup 241 Rcadayona 234 Andre68 207 smackcode 190 myMapGil 184 ferdie 178 kulweng 150 Hsing 147 ragingmon 141 phtraveler 122 Wtmitchell 122 TOP RELATIONS - ianlopez1115 128 seav 49 maning 23 ph_import 8 murlwe 3 bruntij 1 Floating_iron 1 dmgroom 1 PA94 1 apotski 1 axk 1 Andre68 1 highway length sums (metres): primary 12452889m residential 10392211m secondary 4640978m road 3579534m tertiary 2800464m unclassified 2314400m trunk 1945433m service 697133m track 597994m motorway 575177m footway 175930m path 157708m motorway_link 65112m trunk_link 41099m cycleway 27059m primary_link 25900m construction 14349m pedestrian 13677m steps 2807m secondary_link 2169m raceway 1542m minor 1022m living_street 771m Alley 101m This is a driveway 61m This is not a road 35m TOTAL 40525567m Some observations: 1. Only 20% to reach 1 million nodes, not a big number compared to Germany, but 1 million is still a big number. :) 2. 252 contributors. I am also seeing new contributors adding little detail here and there and then stop contributing. This is nice. In Metro Manila, the roads are there that
Re: [talk-ph] some osm-ph stats (20090729)
Hehehe i didn't get your post, ideacamp manila pala hehehe may isang group that wants to take it there but I'm not sure if matuloy, but in any case ideacamp itself is just an idea you can actually make one there and the guys here would definitely love and support it On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:46 AM, George Tujangtu...@gmail.com wrote: September 12, 2009...its Marloue's turn to talk about OSM :) sige we'll need updated data talaga. TIA! On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:32 AM, maning sambaleemmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: no prob. I can give updates if you need it. Kelan ba magkakaroon ng IdeaCamp Manila? On 8/7/09, George Tujan gtu...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the stats maning. If its ok with you, we'd like to use it for the next ideacampdavao presentation On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:06 AM, maning sambaleemmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Sharing some OSM-PH stats (as of 20090729). Number rows: 3355279 Total Ways: 77531 Total Nodes: 809186 Total Relations: 218 Number of Contributors: 252 TOP NODES - maning 212061 MichaelCollinson 115526 ph_import 101419 ianlopez1115 75317 murlwe 47715 seav 43220 hellodeck 37900 ed_waypointsdotph 37206 axk 19791 remzamora 18064 Plutocrat 16539 Rally 9685 ivansanchez 5713 RoadMaps 5210 ingguana 3732 neilnacario 3724 denz 3444 Totor 2981 Eiddup 2829 rainerr 2756 sorabsuperstar 2723 phtraveler 2593 tools4fools 2515 Susannen 2376 ginolot 2015 kulweng 1988 tobiassteffes 1866 Hsing 1825 Andre68 1400 myMapGil 1362 TOP WAYS maning 20478 ph_import 15924 ianlopez1115 9730 seav 7423 murlwe 5541 hellodeck 3285 remzamora 2875 Rally 1780 Plutocrat 1021 ed_waypointsdotph 947 ingguana 798 neilnacario 772 RoadMaps 662 AlanM 441 denz 420 axk 378 Totor 267 sorabsuperstar 267 MichaelCollinson 243 Eiddup 241 Rcadayona 234 Andre68 207 smackcode 190 myMapGil 184 ferdie 178 kulweng 150 Hsing 147 ragingmon 141 phtraveler 122 Wtmitchell 122 TOP RELATIONS - ianlopez1115 128 seav 49 maning 23 ph_import 8 murlwe 3 bruntij 1 Floating_iron 1 dmgroom 1 PA94 1 apotski 1 axk 1 Andre68 1 highway length sums (metres): primary 12452889m residential 10392211m secondary 4640978m road 3579534m tertiary 2800464m unclassified 2314400m trunk 1945433m service 697133m track 597994m motorway 575177m footway 175930m path 157708m motorway_link 65112m trunk_link 41099m cycleway 27059m primary_link 25900m construction 14349m pedestrian 13677m steps 2807m secondary_link 2169m raceway 1542m minor 1022m living_street 771m Alley 101m This is a driveway 61m This is not a road 35m TOTAL
Re: [talk-ph] some osm-ph stats (20090729)
Second week of September right? Just in time for our OSM-PH GPS Map scheduled release. As a contribution to Davao efforts, I will provide updates to: 1. OSM-PH Garmin Map 2. OSM-PH Magellan Map for Davao 3. OSM-PH-Contour Garmin Map for Davao (sana this map will help hikers/mountaineers add detail to Mt. Apo) On 8/7/09, George Tujan gtu...@gmail.com wrote: September 12, 2009...its Marloue's turn to talk about OSM :) sige we'll need updated data talaga. TIA! On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:32 AM, maning sambaleemmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: no prob. I can give updates if you need it. Kelan ba magkakaroon ng IdeaCamp Manila? On 8/7/09, George Tujan gtu...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the stats maning. If its ok with you, we'd like to use it for the next ideacampdavao presentation On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:06 AM, maning sambaleemmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Sharing some OSM-PH stats (as of 20090729). Number rows: 3355279 Total Ways: 77531 Total Nodes: 809186 Total Relations: 218 Number of Contributors: 252 TOP NODES - maning 212061 MichaelCollinson 115526 ph_import 101419 ianlopez1115 75317 murlwe 47715 seav 43220 hellodeck 37900 ed_waypointsdotph 37206 axk 19791 remzamora 18064 Plutocrat 16539 Rally 9685 ivansanchez 5713 RoadMaps 5210 ingguana 3732 neilnacario 3724 denz 3444 Totor 2981 Eiddup 2829 rainerr 2756 sorabsuperstar 2723 phtraveler 2593 tools4fools 2515 Susannen 2376 ginolot 2015 kulweng 1988 tobiassteffes 1866 Hsing 1825 Andre68 1400 myMapGil 1362 TOP WAYS maning 20478 ph_import 15924 ianlopez1115 9730 seav 7423 murlwe 5541 hellodeck 3285 remzamora 2875 Rally 1780 Plutocrat 1021 ed_waypointsdotph 947 ingguana 798 neilnacario 772 RoadMaps 662 AlanM 441 denz 420 axk 378 Totor 267 sorabsuperstar 267 MichaelCollinson 243 Eiddup 241 Rcadayona 234 Andre68 207 smackcode 190 myMapGil 184 ferdie 178 kulweng 150 Hsing 147 ragingmon 141 phtraveler 122 Wtmitchell 122 TOP RELATIONS - ianlopez1115 128 seav 49 maning 23 ph_import 8 murlwe 3 bruntij 1 Floating_iron 1 dmgroom 1 PA94 1 apotski 1 axk 1 Andre68 1 highway length sums (metres): primary 12452889m residential 10392211m secondary 4640978m road 3579534m tertiary 2800464m unclassified 2314400m trunk 1945433m service 697133m track 597994m motorway 575177m footway 175930m path 157708m motorway_link 65112m trunk_link 41099m cycleway 27059m primary_link 25900m construction 14349m pedestrian 13677m steps 2807m secondary_link 2169m raceway 1542m minor 1022m living_street 771m Alley 101m This is a driveway 61m This is not a
Re: [talk-ph] some osm-ph stats (20090729)
The GPS map? Syor! Maybe they want to host the svn and trac as well (joke). On 8/7/09, George Tujan gtu...@gmail.com wrote: Nice! incidentally Holden Hao of DabaweGNU approached me last week and ask if it would be possible for DabawenGNU to link/host your maps as well. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:51 AM, maning sambaleemmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: Second week of September right? Just in time for our OSM-PH GPS Map scheduled release. As a contribution to Davao efforts, I will provide updates to: 1. OSM-PH Garmin Map 2. OSM-PH Magellan Map for Davao 3. OSM-PH-Contour Garmin Map for Davao (sana this map will help hikers/mountaineers add detail to Mt. Apo) On 8/7/09, George Tujan gtu...@gmail.com wrote: September 12, 2009...its Marloue's turn to talk about OSM :) sige we'll need updated data talaga. TIA! On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:32 AM, maning sambaleemmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: no prob. I can give updates if you need it. Kelan ba magkakaroon ng IdeaCamp Manila? On 8/7/09, George Tujan gtu...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the stats maning. If its ok with you, we'd like to use it for the next ideacampdavao presentation On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:06 AM, maning sambaleemmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Sharing some OSM-PH stats (as of 20090729). Number rows: 3355279 Total Ways: 77531 Total Nodes: 809186 Total Relations: 218 Number of Contributors: 252 TOP NODES - maning 212061 MichaelCollinson 115526 ph_import 101419 ianlopez1115 75317 murlwe 47715 seav 43220 hellodeck 37900 ed_waypointsdotph 37206 axk 19791 remzamora 18064 Plutocrat 16539 Rally 9685 ivansanchez 5713 RoadMaps 5210 ingguana 3732 neilnacario 3724 denz 3444 Totor 2981 Eiddup 2829 rainerr 2756 sorabsuperstar 2723 phtraveler 2593 tools4fools 2515 Susannen 2376 ginolot 2015 kulweng 1988 tobiassteffes 1866 Hsing 1825 Andre68 1400 myMapGil 1362 TOP WAYS maning 20478 ph_import 15924 ianlopez1115 9730 seav 7423 murlwe 5541 hellodeck 3285 remzamora 2875 Rally 1780 Plutocrat 1021 ed_waypointsdotph 947 ingguana 798 neilnacario 772 RoadMaps 662 AlanM 441 denz 420 axk 378 Totor 267 sorabsuperstar 267 MichaelCollinson 243 Eiddup 241 Rcadayona 234 Andre68 207 smackcode 190 myMapGil 184 ferdie 178 kulweng 150 Hsing 147 ragingmon 141 phtraveler 122 Wtmitchell 122 TOP RELATIONS - ianlopez1115 128 seav 49 maning 23 ph_import 8 murlwe 3 bruntij 1 Floating_iron 1 dmgroom 1 PA94 1 apotski 1 axk 1 Andre68 1 highway length sums (metres): primary 12452889m residential 10392211m secondary 4640978m road 3579534m tertiary 2800464m unclassified 2314400m trunk 1945433m service 697133m track 597994m motorway 575177m footway 175930m path 157708m motorway_link
Re: [talk-ph] Draft MoA between the OSM-F and any possiblelocalchapter
Ok I'll be Sec/Tres. Will Eugene be President? Para maform na :) Lapit lang bahay natin sa south. Andre maning sambale wrote: You're doing some the roles at the moment (tres/sec). I nominate you then. :) On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Andre Marcelo-Tanneran...@enthropia.com wrote: We cant move forward on this without a President and Secretary/Treasurer, you may want to do it democratically by voting but not many are coming forward, if ever someone can take the position first and then hold an officers election after. :) Andre ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
[talk-ph] Draft MoA between the OSM-F and any possible localchapter
What would be the point of paying? It says a local chapter can use the logo and osm domain and promote osm. Isnt counter-productive to charge an organization which wants to help improve OSM locally by its own resources/costs? A per member fee is rather high, maybe a low chapter fee would be ok, but what do they need the fees for anyway? Its just like a way of saying this one is officially recognized. Also for paying that fee what does the local chapter get in return? Do we get like gps units, documents, paraphernalia? Stuff that helps us? Anyway I know its all still under discussion but I think it wouldnt be worth paying unless there is just reason and the members here agree to it. ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [Talk-si] meje in zakoni]
Zdravo Ales, Zanimiv pristop, se popolnoma strinjam. Mogoce kasneje najdemo se kaksno drugo open-source karto z boljso resolucijo, pa tisto uvozimo naknadno. Edino bi pripomnil, da je treba vrisati le manjkajoco mejo s Hrvasko, ker so ostale ze vrisane iz drugih (verjetno bolj natancnih) virov. Strinjam se tudi s Stefanom glede groznje GURS-u :) Kar se tice Hrvatov, pa se vedno lahko dodajo tudi svojo razlicico meje, bo pac dvojna. lp Igor 2009/8/6 Ales rom gab...@gmail.com Pozdrav vsem kartografom. Tudi sam sem se že pred časom oglasil na listi z vprašanjem v zvezi z mejo. V zvezi z objavljeno .shp datoteko na spletni strani GURS sem jim tudi poslal pisno vprašanje o možnosti uporabe omenjene datoteke v Openstreetmap.org Odgovor, je bil, da jo lahko uporabimo v skladu z njihovimi pogoji uporabe, kar pa po mojem mnenju ni dovolj za neposreden uvoz. Mejo s Hrvaško sem sam narisal na naslednji način: 1. Iz wikipedije sem naložil zemljevid Slovenije http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slika:Slovenia_map.png. Zemljevid je del UN Maps in če prav razumem, je konkretna slika uporabna brez omejitev. Tudi ločljivost slike je precej dobra. 2. Sliko sem uvozil v brezplačni program *GPS TrackMaker* http://www.gpstm.com/ in jo poravnal v koordinatni sistem. 3. Po meji sem posnel GPX file, ki sedaj čaka na uvoz v Openstreetmap. Verjamem, da je to trenutno edini legalni način vrisa meje iz kakšne predloge. Ocenjujem, da bo natančnost tako narisane meje nekje okoli 200 m. Vsekakor ne bo mogoče zajeti prav vsake parcele, vendar pa sem prepričan, da mejo potrebujemo. Sploh ne za to, da bi se ločili od Hrvatov, temveč da bi končno lahko videli, svojo statistiko pri projektu. Ponekje nam pomagajo reke (predvsem zelo dolga Kolpa :-) Pričakujem vaše komentarje. Če ne bo kakšnega res negativnega odziva ali argumenta proti, bom mejo uvozil v v nekaj dneh. Hvala, in lep pozdrav, Aleš Rom 2009/7/28 Igor Brejc igor.br...@gmail.com Forwardam na listo :) lpi Oj! Kakor sem jaz pred časom gledal so občine v zakonu definirane kot skupine naselij, ki spadajo v posamezno občino. Kje so definirane natančne meje teh naselij pa nisem šel raziskovat. Najbrž so definirane vsaj v zemljiški knjigi (javna listina!), vendar jih je od tam malo težje prečrpati, ponovna raba (objava) pa je verjetno spet nekako omejena (ker kataster vsebuje tudi osebne podatke). Ve kdo še za kak drug vir definicije mej naselij? lp, Štefan 2009/7/28 Igor Brejc Zdravo, Da malo oživim diskusijo na naši listi. Včeraj sem začel vrisovati meje Triglavskega NP (približno) na osnovi starih kart, potem pa sem se spomnil, da so te meje tako ali tako določene z zakonom (http://www.tnp.si/razumeti/C65), kar naj bi načeloma pomenilo (po moji laični presoji), da so podatki o poteku meje public domain. To pa naj bi pomenilo, da jih lahko svobodno uporabljamo v OSM, ali pač? Enaka situacija bi lahko bila pri državni meji: sicer nisem našel točnega zakona v Uradnem listu, vendar naj bi državna meja bila določena z zunanjimi mejami občin. Meje občin pa so tudi določene z zakonom. Torej bi teoretično spet lahko to definicijo uporabili pri vnašanju meje v OSM. Pa tudi občinskih mej, če bi se komu dalo. Kaj pravite? lp Igor ___ Talk-si mailing list Talk-si@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-si ___ Talk-si mailing list Talk-si@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-si ___ Talk-si mailing list Talk-si@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-si ___ Talk-si mailing list Talk-si@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-si
Re: [OSM-talk] landuse for hotels
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 12:54:01PM -0700, Joseph Scanlan wrote: What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be commercial or retail. For the area of the hotel: amenity=hotel And for the hotel itself: amenity=hotel, building=yes (For reference see amnenity=university) greetings, Stephan -- Seid unbequem, seid Sand, nicht Öl im Getriebe der Welt! - Günther Eich ,-. | Stephan Plepelits, | | Technische Universität Wien -Studien Informatik Raumplanung | | openstreetbrowser.org couchsurfing.org tubasis.at bl.mud.at | | sk...@xover.htu.tuwien.ac.at - My Blog: http://plepe.at | `-' ___ 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
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Bear in mind that the highway tags aren't meant to be a sliding scale of importance, or follow a strict hierarchy. -1. I would contradict this for streets. I would correct that. Roads that form the main road network have a scale of importance - yes - but once we drop below that infrastructure, all the remaining ways should be considered as equal, and personally *I* include tertiary in that. So residential, service and probably even track as well as unclassified are of equal importance when it comes to the main function of moving vehicles from a to c. The argument about 'is way x better than way y' where one is residential and one is unclassified is the mistake being made, and I would still like some one the provide a situation where unclassified would be used in an urban area which is by default 'residential/industrial' ? Although the designation of 'green belt' within an urban area probably adds a level of uncertainty :( -- 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
Re: [OSM-talk] landuse for hotels
Stephan Plepelits wrote: On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 12:54:01PM -0700, Joseph Scanlan wrote: What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be commercial or retail. For the area of the hotel: amenity=hotel And for the hotel itself: amenity=hotel, building=yes (For reference see amnenity=university) greetings, Stephan +1 Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] landuse for hotels
On 6 Aug 2009, at 07:47, Mark Williams wrote: Stephan Plepelits wrote: On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 12:54:01PM -0700, Joseph Scanlan wrote: What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be commercial or retail. For the area of the hotel: amenity=hotel And for the hotel itself: amenity=hotel, building=yes (For reference see amnenity=university) greetings, Stephan +1 Sounds good but it's tourism=hotel not amenity! :-) John ___ 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 I have cleaned up the proposal following comments on the list and concentrated on my core interest of being able to tag shops systematically. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Database/Model updates or suggestions
Hello, I am interested in OSM's database. The schema in the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Database/Model; is out of date. Who knows the way it is now? Cheers Gianfranco _ Scarica i nuovi gadget per personalizzare Messenger! http://www.messenger.it/home_gadget.aspx___ 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.
Frederik Ramm schrieb: This is not how it is generally used over here (Germany) where the majority of people use unclassified for a road roughly equal to residential but without people living there. And suddenly changing the meaning of a widely used tag is a really, really bad idea. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] landuse for hotels
Stephan Plepelits wrote: On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 12:54:01PM -0700, Joseph Scanlan wrote: What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be commercial or retail. For the area of the hotel: amenity=hotel And for the hotel itself: amenity=hotel, building=yes (For reference see amnenity=university) The question is what to use for landuse= Currently there SHOULD be a landuse/natural tag for each area on a map as using amenity= creates another level of complexity. One may still has to decide what to use for landuse if the tag itself is missing. I still think 'landuse=natural' with a sub tag of natural= is the correct framework ... In the UK hotels are a retail activity although a specific classification of retail, but the landuse=retail fits the current tag structure but the BLPU classifications are a little more practical than that. This would give landuse=residential and landuse=commercial with secondary tags taken from amenity= but logically a residential=xx or commercial=xx is a lot more practical. Appendix A of http://www.nlpg.org.uk/documents/DTF7.3v1.pdf has the details, or http://enquirysolve.co.uk/nlpg/list_county.php?list=blpu_class has a sortable list. All land in the UK is already classified under this scheme and from what I've seen, something similar is evolving in Europe? -- 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
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Ulf Möller use...@ulfm.de wrote: And suddenly changing the meaning of a widely used tag is a really, really bad idea. Well I was right, it is too ambiguous :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Database/Model updates or suggestions
On 06/08/09 09:01, Gianfranco Gliozzo wrote: I am interested in OSM's database. The schema in the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Database/Model; is out of date. Who knows the way it is now? Trust the code, not the documentation: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/sites/rails_port/db/migrate Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Modifying variable in wiki
How do I modify a variable in a template on the wiki. In the Swedish version of the place-template there's a link to a weather site with forecasts for the city. Works for all Swedish cities as long as there is no space in the area name. However, for Vastra Gotaland the url of the area part to the weather site has to be Vastra_Gotaland. Is there a simple way to handle this (changing spaces to _) within the wiki-templare, or do I have to pass a url-friendly area name as a variable? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Residential home
Birgit This is late as I have been away in Finland for three weeks. I like your proposal as I have often searched the wiki for something like this. I have taken the liberty of adding a voting section to your proposal page and adding my vote in favour as the first entry. Hope this is OK! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Birgit Huesken [mailto:birgit.hues...@web.de] Sent: 17 July 2009 09:35 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Residential home The object of this proposal is to add a new value residential_home to the amenity-tag amenity=residential_home. There are places where people, who for different reasons can't stay alone or in their families, live. The idea is to create a tag/amenity that covers these places in general and which can be specified in more details by adding additional tags e.g. according to the people who live there. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Residential_home It's my first proposal so I hope I did everything the correct way so far. Glad for any hints... Birgit ___ 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 Thu, 6 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: And suddenly changing the meaning of a widely used tag is a really, really bad idea. Well I was right, it is too ambiguous :) and then we find out that whatever track translates to in German is not the same as what track means in Au. so again we have widely used tags who are about to change their meaning ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] restriction=school_zone (second email)
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: this doesn't look very familiar to me. Do you know the following? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditions_for_access_ tags http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_conditions_fo r_access_tags there could be maxspeed[08:30-09:30]=40 maxspeed[14:30-15:30]=40 maxspeed[08:30-09:30]:reason=school_zone maxspeed[14:30-15:30]:reason=school_zone cheers, Martin Martin, its only 5 days a week and not in school holidays so how do we expand the tagging to cover the full set of restrictions? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Residential home
David's summary is imho a good one. There are subtle but not hard-and-fast distinctions between 'sheltered accommodation' for those who can manage in their own place but need a warden around (and perhaps a community room or a public kitchen) and 'nursing home' for those in need of greater care, including nursing care. The normal progression is from 'sheltered accommodation' to 'nursing home' (to cemetery!). David and Birgit are correct to distinguish 'shelter' - which in British English - is quite different from 'sheltered accommodation' and is indeed a more temporary arrangement for people, e.g. homeless, victims of domestic violence etc. who need a temporary place to go while sorting out their lives. I.e. people entering 'sheltered accommodation' usually leave it only for a 'nursing home' (or the grave) while most people entering a 'shelter' will sooner or later resume a more normal lifestyle. As per previous message, I have voted yes. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: David Earl [mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com] Sent: 17 July 2009 11:14 To: Birgit Huesken Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Residential home Birgit Huesken wrote: There are places where people, who for different reasons can't stay alone or in their families, live. The idea is to create a What you are describing is normally known (at least here) as shelters. For homeless people and domestic violence victims etc. If I understood you correctly, shelters are something like emergency places or homes where people stay for a comparably short time. What I mean are places where people really _live_ instead of staying alone or with their families, not for emergency reasons but following a decision well thought over. Don't know if this sounds a bit pathetic but I don't know how to describe it in a better way at the moment. Residential Home in the UK is definitely a term to describe a place where usually elderly people, but vulnerable people in general, live communally, usually involving professional care and sometimes advanced medical care (though this is often called a Nursing Home; the distinction is not a hard one). So I think your tag is an appropriate description. Emergency shelters are something else. (And in many cases will not be recognisable from the street as they often need to be discreet - e.g. refuges) David ___ 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 Thu, 6/8/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: and then we find out that whatever track translates to in German is not the same as what track means in Au. so again we have widely used tags who are about to change their meaning It means about the same from what I've seen, a forestry type track, which isn't the same thing as a rural road. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] restriction=school_zone (second email)
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: Martin, its only 5 days a week and not in school holidays so how do we expand the tagging to cover the full set of restrictions? No matter what happens school holidays or the inverse can be mapped to some administrative boundary. Western areas of NSW have different school holiday times, or used to, to eastern areas due to high temps over summer, and the NSW govt not funding aircon units. Although if they build schools underground the temps would be 22C all year round and wouldn't need heating or cooling. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Modifying variable in wiki
Konrad Skeri schrieb: How do I modify a variable in a template on the wiki. In the Swedish version of the place-template there's a link to a weather site with forecasts for the city. Works for all Swedish cities as long as there is no space in the area name. However, for Vastra Gotaland the url of the area part to the weather site has to be Vastra_Gotaland. Is there a simple way to handle this (changing spaces to _) within the wiki-templare, or do I have to pass a url-friendly area name as a variable? Maybe the anchorencode function is what you need? http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Magic_words ___ 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.
John Smith wrote: --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Where we fail is that we don't have anything less significant than unclassified for non-residential areas. In particular, country roads that aren't particularly routable, but still have a passable standard of upkeep (i.e. a road, not a track). This is what I was trying to explain. Ok, but that's not what your proposal says on the wiki. (You're delta_foxtrot2, right? I do wish people would be consistent with names/pseudonyms...) I am proposing highway=rural for roads that wouldn't be classified as tertiary due to low volumes of traffic. Rural roads are generally single lane, generally unsealed but all weather. Rural roads may or may not be through roads they are for connecting farms to urban areas and between urban areas where the funding hasn't been made available to seal the road. That's proposing highway=rural as something less significant than tertiary (bad, we already have unclassified for that), not something less significant than unclassified (good, we don't have anything like that in rural areas). cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-RFC--highway%3Dunclassified-currently-is-too-ambiguous%2C-so-here%27s-my-proposal-to-fix-it.-tp24821055p24841081.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] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: That's proposing highway=rural as something less significant than tertiary (bad, we already have unclassified for that), not something less significant than unclassified (good, we don't have anything like that in rural areas). The distinction is that highway=rural isn't as well maintained, or has as much traffic as highway=residential, so if residential is lower than unclassified, then rural is lower than residential, but higher than track ___ 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.
I'm coming to sympathise with the rendering gods, this really is going round in circles isn't it! The advantage of a new highway tag is a nice clear match between tag and reality, leading to better performance by taggers, renderers and routers. The disadvantage is confusion in the transitionary period (which could be years) and the effort of retagging. I'm concluding that - while you wouldn't start from here - the existing tagging can be made to work, though the documentation should be improved. We don't really need another level in the countryside, and there are other ways of coping with the fact that a rural unclassified and an urban unclassified are physically different (I would propose recommending the use of abutters for urban ones, and discouraging it for rural ones). I don't think the proposal for highway=rural is going to be agreed (though making it was helpful in progressing the debate). So I'll probably have a go at improving the wording in the wiki (initially by adding rather than deleting). Richard On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:02 AM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: That's proposing highway=rural as something less significant than tertiary (bad, we already have unclassified for that), not something less significant than unclassified (good, we don't have anything like that in rural areas). The distinction is that highway=rural isn't as well maintained, or has as much traffic as highway=residential, so if residential is lower than unclassified, then rural is lower than residential, but higher than track ___ 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] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I'm concluding that - while you wouldn't start from here - the existing tagging can be made to work, though the documentation should be improved. We don't really need another level in the countryside, and there are other ways of coping with the fact that a rural unclassified and an urban unclassified are physically different (I would propose recommending the use of abutters for urban ones, and discouraging it for rural ones). The problem with this is it requires urban areas to be in existence for the routing to work, so this is a bad idea as well. A lot of towns simply aren't marked in rural areas of Australia, where as a number of roads that would be marked like this are already mapped. ___ 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 Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:51 AM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: The problem with this is it requires urban areas to be in existence for the routing to work, so this is a bad idea as well. Routers can look for an abutters tag just as easily as using an urban area polygon. Richard ___ 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.
John Smith wrote: The distinction is that highway=rural isn't as well maintained, or has as much traffic as highway=residential, so if residential is lower than unclassified, then rural is lower than residential, but higher than track Rural is lower than residential doesn't arise, because by definition residential means a built-up area, so it ain't rural. I would humbly suggest highway=minor is a better tag because - the adjective rural could apply to a motorway in the countryside - it's already in the Mapnik stylesheet ;) cheers Richard ___ 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 Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: Routers can look for an abutters tag just as easily as using an urban area polygon. They don't always exist either. That's the problem, lots of Australia is just blank or very near to it. ___ 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 Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote: The problem with this is it requires urban areas to be in existence for the routing to work, so this is a bad idea as well. Routers can look for an abutters tag just as easily as using an urban area polygon. Richard abutters has not been used in our mapping instructions for some time so we don't have any marked ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Residential home
Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com writes: David's summary is imho a good one. There are subtle but not hard-and-fast distinctions between 'sheltered accommodation' for those who can manage in their own place but need a warden around (and perhaps a community room or a public kitchen) and 'nursing home' for those in need of greater care, including nursing care. The normal progression is from 'sheltered accommodation' to 'nursing home' (to cemetery!). David and Birgit are FWIW in the US we use assisted living for what I think you mean by sheltered accomodation, and also use nursing home. The difference is that the help in assisted living is not 'medical care'. (I'm not trying to argue with the name - but I often find wiki pages that say things that might look like residential=sheltered_accomodation : Use this for a sheltered accomodation. to be not all that useful, since people either know what the words mean or they don't. A lot of UK terms aren't obvious to us Yanks, and I'm sure it's the other way around. correct to distinguish 'shelter' - which in British English - is quite different from 'sheltered accommodation' and is indeed a more temporary arrangement for people, e.g. homeless, victims of domestic violence etc. who need a temporary place to go while sorting out their lives. I.e. people entering 'sheltered accommodation' usually leave it only for a 'nursing home' (or the grave) while most people entering a 'shelter' will sooner or later resume a more normal lifestyle. We use 'shelter' in the same sense, more or less. pgphTLMIbZY1Z.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/6 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: Sounds good to me. An improvement. Look forward to seeing the individual tag definitions cleaned up accordingly (eventually). that would probably be a fulltime-job ;-) cheers, Martin ___ 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
2009/8/6 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Bear in mind that the highway tags aren't meant to be a sliding scale of importance, or follow a strict hierarchy. -1. I would contradict this for streets. I would correct that. Roads that form the main road network have a scale of importance - yes - but once we drop below that infrastructure, all the remaining ways should be considered as equal, and personally *I* include tertiary in that. So residential, service and probably even track as well as unclassified are of equal importance when it comes to the main function of moving vehicles from a to c. lat's put it like this: it depends where and why you want to go to some place. For a farmer, lumberjack or forest police a track is important, no doubt. I intended importance for the street grid. IMHO Of course a tertiary road is more important than un unclassified or residential one. Otherwise: what would be the distinction? Generally you could find out the importance by evaluating (or estimating) the relative traffic frequency. Relative means: relative to the area / surroundings. The argument about 'is way x better than way y' where one is residential and one is unclassified is the mistake being made, and I would still like some one the provide a situation where unclassified would be used in an urban area which is by default 'residential/industrial' ? yes, I agree that there is no consensus about the distinction of importance between unclassified and residential, and maybe not even has to be. But this is the first time I learn that there is also doubt about the distinction of tertiary from residential and unclassified. The latter 2 IMHO are clearly less important than tertiary. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] landuse for hotels
2009/8/6 John McKerrell j...@mckerrell.net: On 6 Aug 2009, at 07:47, Mark Williams wrote: Stephan Plepelits wrote: On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 12:54:01PM -0700, Joseph Scanlan wrote: What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be commercial or retail. For the area of the hotel: amenity=hotel And for the hotel itself: amenity=hotel, building=yes Sounds good but it's tourism=hotel not amenity! :-) I guess even for business-hotels, or is there a distinction made? IMHO building=hotel is better than building=yes cheers, Martin ___ 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 6 Aug 2009, at 12:06, John Smith wrote: --- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: Routers can look for an abutters tag just as easily as using an urban area polygon. The abutters tag is dwindling in use as landuse polygons should be used instead as the new way of doing things. They don't always exist either. That's the problem, lots of Australia is just blank or very near to it. That is a lack of data problem, there is nothing that you can do about it other than go out and do some mapping! Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Spam on TAH-Map
Hi This looks a little like spam to me or at least like bad rendering rules for tah. Can anyone confirm one of these? http://tah.openstreetmap.org/Browse/?layer=tilez=12x=3492y=1586 Peter ___ 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
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: The argument about 'is way x better than way y' where one is residential and one is unclassified is the mistake being made, and I would still like some one the provide a situation where unclassified would be used in an urban area which is by default 'residential/industrial' ? yes, I agree that there is no consensus about the distinction of importance between unclassified and residential, and maybe not even has to be. But this is the first time I learn that there is also doubt about the distinction of tertiary from residential and unclassified. The latter 2 IMHO are clearly less important than tertiary. The distinction between tertiary and unclassified in the UK is rather blured now. Any road that does not have a classification is 'unclassified' but there ARE no 'C' roads, so by extension there are no tertiary roads in the UK. However many roads in rural areas ( and I live in the Cotswolds ) are probably tertiary or track rather than unclassified. Private roads ( such as provided across private estates ) may well be built to a high standard and have a right of way over, that is they ARE more important than tertiary roads in the road system, yet they are legally unclassified. It's for that reason I think trying to apply 'levels of importance' to the lowest highway tier IS the problem? If there are countries where the road classification system identifies tertiary roads distinctly then fair enough, but most of the residential and service roads in the UK are probably tertiary rather than unclassified, which puts them above unclassified. However there is still nothing really distinct between these two levels? Of cause 'unadopted' is the actual legal status of roads that are not maintained by the state in some way, and these can be urban or rural :) -- 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
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote: That is a lack of data problem, there is nothing that you can do about it other than go out and do some mapping! I penned this email about a week ago. I was watching the State of the Map Canadian talk and they point out how low the population density of Canada is, also the fact most of the population lives within about 100 miles of the US border. Australia has a lower population density but suffers the same fate when it comes to the majority of the population clustering around the border essentially. Most information is from CIA world fact book site, which gives July 2009 estimates. Landmass in Mill. Sq km --- 2. Canada 10 3. USA9.8 6. Aust. 7.7 85.UK 0.2 Population in Mill -- 4. USA307 (82% urban) 23.UK 61 (90% urban) 39.Canada 33 (80% urban) 55.Aust. 21 (89% urban) Information from wikipedia is from some 2004 estimate but the order is what I was after the actual density can be calculated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density Population Density (People per Sq km) - 52. UK 305.0 177.USA 31.3 227.Canada 3.3 232.Aust. 2.7 238.Denmark 0.03 Density Map http://www.mapsofworld.com/australia/images/populatilon-dencity.gif To sum up, Australia is the 6th largest country in the world, by area excluding Antarctica etc, yet almost the lowest population density in the world, and for the most part Canada is in the same boat. Feel free to help us out since the UK is more densely populated and has almost 3x the population of Australia. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Modifying variable in wiki
How do I modify a variable in a template on the wiki. In the Swedish version of the place-template there's a link to a weather site with forecasts for the city. Works for all Swedish cities as long as there is no space in the area name. However, for Vastra Gotaland the url of the area part to the weather site has to be Vastra_Gotaland. Is there a simple way to handle this (changing spaces to _) within the wiki-templare, or do I have to pass a url-friendly area name as a variable? Maybe the anchorencode function is what you need? http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Magic_words That seems to work with one exception - it doesn't handle non-English characters in the same way as urlencode, so I'm getting invalid URLs for e.g. Västra Götaland. I've also tried nesting them without any useful results. Konrad ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] restriction=school_zone (second email)
2009/8/6 Liz ed...@billiau.net: On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: this doesn't look very familiar to me. Do you know the following? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditions_for_access_ tags http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_conditions_fo r_access_tags there could be maxspeed[08:30-09:30]=40 maxspeed[14:30-15:30]=40 maxspeed[08:30-09:30]:reason=school_zone maxspeed[14:30-15:30]:reason=school_zone cheers, Martin Martin, its only 5 days a week and not in school holidays so how do we expand the tagging to cover the full set of restrictions? Yes, I thought that it was like that. According to this example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Vandalised_School_Zone_sign.jpg it is valid on school-days only. So either you need explicitly 2 conditions (some tag for AND school-day=true, like in the wiki proposal maxspeed[hgv][Sa,Su] = 80) or you interpret the above, that you could implicitly see from the reason that it is only valid on school-days. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Spam on TAH-Map
Peter Körner wrote: Hi This looks a little like spam to me or at least like bad rendering rules for tah. Can anyone confirm one of these? http://tah.openstreetmap.org/Browse/?layer=tilez=12x=3492y=1586 It looks to me like a lot of place=town nodes have been added that might very well be place=suburb. Regards, Maarten ___ 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 Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.ukwrote: The abutters tag is dwindling in use as landuse polygons should be used instead as the new way of doing things. Agree, but you wouldn't test against a landuse polygon anyway, you'd test against an urban area polygon. Abutters is just a reasonable shortcut to flag up the handful of urban unclassifieds for those who find testing against polygons (or looking them up on websites) unreliable, or too much like hard work. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Spam on TAH-Map
Peter Körner schrieb: Hi This looks a little like spam to me or at least like bad rendering rules for tah. Can anyone confirm one of these? http://tah.openstreetmap.org/Browse/?layer=tilez=12x=3492y=1586 Peter Addendum: This seems to be bad imports by user cyana: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/cyana Here are some of the mistaken changesets: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/1403365 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/84044 As some nodes contain this as source: http://kr.open.gugi.yahoo.com Can anyone confirm this? Should we contact cyana and how is this to be done? Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Spam on TAH-Map
Maarten Deen schrieb: Peter Körner wrote: Hi This looks a little like spam to me or at least like bad rendering rules for tah. Can anyone confirm one of these? http://tah.openstreetmap.org/Browse/?layer=tilez=12x=3492y=1586 It looks to me like a lot of place=town nodes have been added that might very well be place=suburb. There are also a lot of Supermarkets, Bus-Stations and Clinics far away from any street: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.59968lon=127.13618zoom=15layers=0B00FTFT All dfrom user cyana. Peter ___ 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 Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Rural is lower than residential doesn't arise, because by definition residential means a built-up area, so it ain't rural. Exactly. I would humbly suggest highway=minor is a better tag because Someone already did and it went no where. My proposal wasn't just about highway=rural but clarifying highway=unclassified. - the adjective rural could apply to a motorway in the countryside Hence the references to unsealed, single lane etc. - it's already in the Mapnik stylesheet ;) Well that's just plain silly, mapnik shouldn't be told about anything not agreed upon. ___ 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.
2009/8/6 Liz ed...@billiau.net: On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: And suddenly changing the meaning of a widely used tag is a really, really bad idea. Well I was right, it is too ambiguous :) and then we find out that whatever track translates to in German is not the same as what track means in Au. so again we have widely used tags who are about to change their meaning actually track implies even within Germany different things (legally, due to the federal organisation), as in Baden-Württemberg it is generally forbidden to use them even without special signs, where in the rest of Germany you can use them if there is not a sign to forbid it (which in some parts is nearly always, in others it is generally tolerated but not recommended to use). cheers, Martin ___ 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
2009/8/6 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: If there are countries where the road classification system identifies tertiary roads distinctly then fair enough, but most of the residential and service roads in the UK are probably tertiary rather than unclassified, which puts them above unclassified. However there is still nothing really distinct between these two levels? I wonder which type of classification you talk about. Is this about administrative, physical or grid hierarchy? Usually all these aspects are covered by some kind of (sometimes different) classification. cheers, Martin ___ 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 Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: actually track implies even within Germany different things (legally, due to the federal organisation), as in Baden-Württemberg it is generally forbidden to use them even without special signs, where in the rest of Germany you can use them if there is not a sign to forbid it (which in some parts is nearly always, in others it is generally tolerated but not recommended to use). Generally tolerated but not recommended is pretty close to the English country lane. We have various devices for discouraging people (Broken Road, Unsuitable for HGVs, Quiet Lane), but none have much legal force. I think the distinction between a highway=track+tracktype=grade1 and a highway=unclassified (rural) is quite fine, and would wish that Mapnik would treat them more similarly. But that's no reason to alter the tagging. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Redefine the highway-key from scratch
Konrad Skeri wrote: we should redefine the syntax of the highway-tag from scratch. I don't think this is not at all a good idea. This affects on of the basics of mapping OSM and is considered as having an larger impact than inventing a new API. Maybe we should just add more/additional information to tagged roads. Best regards, Michael. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] landuse for hotels
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Lester Caine wrote: Currently there SHOULD be a landuse/natural tag for each area on a map as using amenity= creates another level of complexity. One may still has to decide what to use for landuse if the tag itself is missing. I still think 'landuse=natural' with a sub tag of natural= is the correct framework ... Thanks everyone for the input. In this case I'm going with landuse=retail. The hotel itself is tagged building=yes, tourism=hotel. I suppose if a hotel is surrounded by commercial landuse then there's no point making a little retail island to hold it. -- - Joseph Scanlan +1-702-455-3679 http://www.n7xsd.us/ j...@co.clark.nv.us (work) (not work) n7...@arrl.net - So he went inside there to take on what he found. But he never escaped them, for who can escape what he desires? --Tony Banks of Genesis in The Lady Lies ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Status of the Local Chapter working group
Hello, looking at the foundation web site and the wiki, there is very few information on the local chapter working group - only a draft of the federation agreement is linked withought an information on the version or date it was created! Additionally there are no meeting minutes available at all. (or at least I didn't find iformation and minutes). On the Saturday eving at the SOTM09 there was a meeting relatetd to to local chapters. So please could: A) somebody from the working group give the current status (and maybe add a version information to the draft!) B) somebody joining the SOTM meeting provide information what was discussed and potential results C) somebody from the working group providing information on next steps... Thanks in advance, Michael. ___ 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.
As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified Comments in the usual place (or have your own go at hacking it) Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] landuse for hotels
2009/8/6 Joseph Scanlan n7...@arrl.net: I suppose if a hotel is surrounded by commercial landuse then there's no point making a little retail island to hold it. +1 Martin ___ 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
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/8/6 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: If there are countries where the road classification system identifies tertiary roads distinctly then fair enough, but most of the residential and service roads in the UK are probably tertiary rather than unclassified, which puts them above unclassified. However there is still nothing really distinct between these two levels? I wonder which type of classification you talk about. Is this about administrative, physical or grid hierarchy? Usually all these aspects are covered by some kind of (sometimes different) classification. Simple highway= - which is what we are talking about -- 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
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
2009/8/6 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com: As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified Comments in the usual place (or have your own go at hacking it) actually there are 3 things in the main definition (1st phrase) I don't consider good ideas: Public road without (official) classification, primarily for access to properties, typically paved, non-residential. 1. classification is not unambiguous (what kind of classification). What about countries with classification for more kind of streets? Shall they invent another highway-class for small roads, because there is a classification for smalles roads in there country? 2. streets primarily or solely for access to properties are IMHO tagged as service 3. typically paved is a definition that depends strongly on context, and in wide parts of the world I suppose it not to be true I think this will cause more trouble than it can solve. cheers, Martin ___ 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
2009/8/6 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/8/6 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: If there are countries where the road classification system identifies tertiary roads distinctly then fair enough, but most of the residential and service roads in the UK are probably tertiary rather than unclassified, which puts them above unclassified. However there is still nothing really distinct between these two levels? I wonder which type of classification you talk about. Is this about administrative, physical or grid hierarchy? Usually all these aspects are covered by some kind of (sometimes different) classification. Simple highway= - which is what we are talking about Actually I don't understand, how a service-road, which is by definition not intended for general through traffic (don't know if this is English), can be considered tertiary, which is one level below secondary and has by this a connective function. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Residential home
Hi Greg Thanks for useful input - agree that US 'assisted living' = UK 'sheltered accommodation'. Medical care (or at least nursing care) is indeed the key difference. Although a Brit I have lived twice in the USA (as well as briefly in Germany) so am reasonably au fait with the THREE ((;) totally different languages! I even own a British-American American-British bilingual dictionary! But I still make mistakes - like asking an American lady business visitor once (when checking her into a hotel) when she would like to be knocked up in the morning ... Also did media training in the US (as a conversion course from doing PR in the UK) - and that was a real eye-opener! Cheers! -Original Message- From: Greg Troxel [mailto:g...@ir.bbn.com] Sent: 06 August 2009 13:01 To: Mike Harris Cc: 'David Earl'; 'Birgit Huesken'; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Residential home Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com writes: David's summary is imho a good one. There are subtle but not hard-and-fast distinctions between 'sheltered accommodation' for those who can manage in their own place but need a warden around (and perhaps a community room or a public kitchen) and 'nursing home' for those in need of greater care, including nursing care. The normal progression is from 'sheltered accommodation' to 'nursing home' (to cemetery!). David and Birgit are FWIW in the US we use assisted living for what I think you mean by sheltered accomodation, and also use nursing home. The difference is that the help in assisted living is not 'medical care'. (I'm not trying to argue with the name - but I often find wiki pages that say things that might look like residential=sheltered_accomodation : Use this for a sheltered accomodation. to be not all that useful, since people either know what the words mean or they don't. A lot of UK terms aren't obvious to us Yanks, and I'm sure it's the other way around. correct to distinguish 'shelter' - which in British English - is quite different from 'sheltered accommodation' and is indeed a more temporary arrangement for people, e.g. homeless, victims of domestic violence etc. who need a temporary place to go while sorting out their lives. I.e. people entering 'sheltered accommodation' usually leave it only for a 'nursing home' (or the grave) while most people entering a 'shelter' will sooner or later resume a more normal lifestyle. We use 'shelter' in the same sense, more or less. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Modifying variable in wiki
Konrad Skeri wrote:
How do I modify a variable in a template on the wiki.
In the Swedish version of the place-template there's a link to a
weather site with forecasts for the city. Works for all Swedish cities
as long as there is no space in the area name. However, for Vastra
Gotaland the url of the area part to the weather site has to be
Vastra_Gotaland. Is there a simple way to handle this (changing spaces
to _) within the wiki-templare, or do I have to pass a url-friendly
area name as a variable?
I guess this is
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Sv:Place
and the link
http://www.openstreetmap.org/traces/tag/{{urlencode:{{{name}
Urlencode should work, since it changes space to +. Doesn't this
work? Perhaps the OSM server needs to be changed to accept +.
An alternative is to write Västra_Götaland (with underscore) in
the page that calls the template.
--
Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Residential home
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Mike Harrismik...@googlemail.com wrote: Thanks for useful input - agree that US 'assisted living' = UK 'sheltered accommodation'. Medical care (or at least nursing care) is indeed the key difference. Although a Brit I have lived twice in the USA (as well as briefly in Germany) so am reasonably au fait with the THREE ((;) totally different languages! I even own a British-American American-British bilingual dictionary! But I still make mistakes - like asking an American lady business visitor once (when checking her into a hotel) when she would like to be knocked up in the morning ... Also did media training in the US (as a conversion course from doing PR in the UK) - and that was a real eye-opener! Is there room in this scheme for the concept of a hospice where one might go to live out the remainder (usually short) of one's life comfortably after medical care has failed to cure/treat an illness? Cheers, Adam Cheers! -Original Message- From: Greg Troxel [mailto:g...@ir.bbn.com] Sent: 06 August 2009 13:01 To: Mike Harris Cc: 'David Earl'; 'Birgit Huesken'; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Residential home Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com writes: David's summary is imho a good one. There are subtle but not hard-and-fast distinctions between 'sheltered accommodation' for those who can manage in their own place but need a warden around (and perhaps a community room or a public kitchen) and 'nursing home' for those in need of greater care, including nursing care. The normal progression is from 'sheltered accommodation' to 'nursing home' (to cemetery!). David and Birgit are FWIW in the US we use assisted living for what I think you mean by sheltered accomodation, and also use nursing home. The difference is that the help in assisted living is not 'medical care'. (I'm not trying to argue with the name - but I often find wiki pages that say things that might look like residential=sheltered_accomodation : Use this for a sheltered accomodation. to be not all that useful, since people either know what the words mean or they don't. A lot of UK terms aren't obvious to us Yanks, and I'm sure it's the other way around. correct to distinguish 'shelter' - which in British English - is quite different from 'sheltered accommodation' and is indeed a more temporary arrangement for people, e.g. homeless, victims of domestic violence etc. who need a temporary place to go while sorting out their lives. I.e. people entering 'sheltered accommodation' usually leave it only for a 'nursing home' (or the grave) while most people entering a 'shelter' will sooner or later resume a more normal lifestyle. We use 'shelter' in the same sense, more or less. ___ 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] Finding what country something is in (new website)
There is still something wrong here : http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry//?lat=51.894lon=9.1909 Thank you for submitting the bug. Unfortunately, it revealed a larger fault. However, I've added a temporary patch such that the area should work in about 3 hours (22h00 UTC). Cheers, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Spam on TAH-Map
2009/8/6 Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de: Maarten Deen schrieb: Peter Körner wrote: Hi This looks a little like spam to me or at least like bad rendering rules for tah. Can anyone confirm one of these? http://tah.openstreetmap.org/Browse/?layer=tilez=12x=3492y=1586 It looks to me like a lot of place=town nodes have been added that might very well be place=suburb. There are also a lot of Supermarkets, Bus-Stations and Clinics far away from any street: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.59968lon=127.13618zoom=15layers=0B00FTFT The streets have not been mapped yet, but there are streets leading to all these obejcts, see e.g. http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?mt0=mapnikmt1=googlesatlon=126.63172lat=37.47186zoom=18 I don't see a reason to think the imported data is incorrect. However I found a couple of duplicate restaurants and fuel stations. Also shouldn't the names be in local language and only name:en contain the english name, instead of this name=name:ko (name:en) scheme? Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] restriction=school_zone (second email)
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/6 Liz ed...@billiau.net: On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: there could be maxspeed[08:30-09:30]=40 maxspeed[14:30-15:30]=40 maxspeed[08:30-09:30]:reason=school_zone maxspeed[14:30-15:30]:reason=school_zone ... So either you need explicitly 2 conditions (some tag for AND school-day=true, like in the wiki proposal maxspeed[hgv][Sa,Su] = 80) or you interpret the above, that you could implicitly see from the reason that it is only valid on school-days. I think Martin does have a point, that perhaps we should tag the effect of the school zone (i.e. a maxspeed restriction) rather than the school zone itself. Though this preference is subjective, it would avoid the need for an extra, redundant tag, making it easier for users (e.g. routers) to parse the data. Either way, the meaning of school days has to be determined. For this, I prefer something like the following: maxspeed[school_days][08:30-09:30]=40 which is really quite a simple format: maxspeed[day(s)][time span] rather than requiring inference from a separate :reason tag. :reason=school_zone is more ambiguous than a tag that explicitly states the restriction only applies on school days. ___ 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 Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Richard Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified Comments in the usual place (or have your own go at hacking it) I've added my thoughts to the discussion page. Replicated below: Presently IMHO it's an absolute mess. Try reading the whole page through once, then see if you can explain to someone what it means. Or better yet, get a non-OSM'er to read it and see if they understand. Here's another idea: there appears to be several distinct definitions of the tag in current use, according to talk and talk-au mailing list discussion e.g. 1. urban roads in industrial areas less important than highway=tertiary 2. something bigger than highway=residential but smaller than highway=tertiary 3. rural roads less important than highway=tertiary 4. a road equal to a residential road, but outside residential areas; a road roughly equal to residential but without people living there 5. the lowest street/road in the interconnecting grid, be it in urban or rural areas Rather than trying to unify the different usages into one big confusing mess, maybe it would be better to separately explain each current usage? i.e. This tag is used if the road is A or B or C or D or E. This more closely reflects reality and IMHO will not be any harder to read than the current mess. This could also lead the way to *eventually* replace each different usage with a tag of its own. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Spam on TAH-Map
andrzej zaborowski schrieb: 2009/8/6 Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de: Maarten Deen schrieb: Peter Körner wrote: Hi This looks a little like spam to me or at least like bad rendering rules for tah. Can anyone confirm one of these? http://tah.openstreetmap.org/Browse/?layer=tilez=12x=3492y=1586 It looks to me like a lot of place=town nodes have been added that might very well be place=suburb. There are also a lot of Supermarkets, Bus-Stations and Clinics far away from any street: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.59968lon=127.13618zoom=15layers=0B00FTFT The streets have not been mapped yet, but there are streets leading to all these obejcts, see e.g. http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?mt0=mapnikmt1=googlesatlon=126.63172lat=37.47186zoom=18 I don't see a reason to think the imported data is incorrect. However I found a couple of duplicate restaurants and fuel stations. Also shouldn't the names be in local language and only name:en contain the english name, instead of this name=name:ko (name:en) scheme? Cheers Okay, then sorry for that. I just saw http://tah.openstreetmap.org/Browse/?layer=tilez=12x=3492y=1586 and got really scared. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] restriction=school_zone (second email)
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: maxspeed[school_days][08:30-09:30]=40 Except that is putting values on the key side of things. To do things properly you would need something like this. maxspeed:school_zone=40 maxspeed:school_zone:on=08:30-09:30;14:30-15:30 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] restriction=school_zone (second email)
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:55 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 6/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: maxspeed[school_days][08:30-09:30]=40 Except that is putting values on the key side of things. To do things properly you would need something like this. maxspeed:school_zone=40 maxspeed:school_zone:on=08:30-09:30;14:30-15:30 Hmm I'm still undecided whether it really is necessary to enforce a finite set of keys (i.e. force putting values on the value side of things). But ok, if you think it is, my main point is still an issue: perhaps we should explicitly state that the restriction applies on school days rather than indirectly implying this by using school_zone. And by the way, in the example you gave, you seem to be using school_zone as a placeholder/ID, i.e. a means to link the two tags together. Looking at things more generally what's really happening is: maxspeed:foo=40 maxspeed:foo:on:day=school_days maxspeed:foo:on:time=08:30-09:30;14:30-15:30 This is the problem with enforcing values (i.e. continuous values) to be on the right hand side - you need a primary key to join tags. To clarify my point further, how would you propose to tag a 50 kmph maxspeed on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons, if you are forced to put the values (i.e. Tuesday, Thursday, 50, 12:00-24:00) on the right hand side? Without that requirement, it's a one-liner: maxspeed[Tu,Th][12:00-24:00] = 50 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Copyright of Logo?
Hi, is there a copyright on the osm logo? I just want to make a logo for openmtbmap and the idea is modifying the osm logo to show the osm-affiliation. Kai___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] restriction=school_zone (second email)
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Without that requirement, it's a one-liner: maxspeed[Tu,Th][12:00-24:00] = 50 You've gone from school zones to general restrictions. School zones as signed in Australia are predicable to some extent, they are always mon-fri and only when there isn't a school holiday. For general time based restrictions you can still do it in one line if you must, without needing to parse variable information in the key section: maxspeed:time=12:00-23:59;tu,th;50 hh:mm-hh:mm;[dd,dd,dd|dd-dd];speed However I'm primarily concerned with recording information on school zones as I see on signs, not general time restrictions, someone else can do up a proposal for that. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] restriction=school_zone (second email)
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:42 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 6/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Without that requirement, it's a one-liner: maxspeed[Tu,Th][12:00-24:00] = 50 You've gone from school zones to general restrictions. That's right. Sorry if that was unclear. I tried to explain by saying perhaps we should tag the effect of the school zone (i.e. a maxspeed restriction) rather than the school zone itself. Though this preference is subjective, it would avoid the need for an extra, redundant tag, making it easier for users (e.g. routers) to parse the data. (sorry to repeat myself). For general time based restrictions you can still do it in one line if you must, without needing to parse variable information in the key section: maxspeed:time=12:00-23:59;tu,th;50 hh:mm-hh:mm;[dd,dd,dd|dd-dd];speed Hmm ok, fair enough, you've convinced me - although you'd probably want to use maxspeed:time_limited to indicate that the value is not a time, but a full description of a time-limited restriction. However I'm primarily concerned with recording information on school zones as I see on signs, not general time restrictions, someone else can do up a proposal for that. Ok - if you've made up your mind on that, then fair enough. My only suggestion, then, would be to replace school_zone_on and school_zone_maxspeed with school_zone:on and school_zone:maxspeed. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] restriction=school_zone (second email)
--- On Fri, 7/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm ok, fair enough, you've convinced me - although you'd probably want to use maxspeed:time_limited to indicate that the value is not a time, but a full description of a time-limited restriction. It's a limit so stating limited is redundant, otherwise you'd use maxspeed:wet_limited maxspeed:hvg_limited Ok - if you've made up your mind on that, then fair enough. My only suggestion, then, would be to replace school_zone_on and school_zone_maxspeed with school_zone:on and school_zone:maxspeed. I wasn't disagreeing with using maxspeed:school_zone, this seems to make sense, however school_zones are a special case where what days and times the school zones in that area are in effect would vary by year, so you place the school holiday information in an appropriate administrative boundary, where as the zone in question only needs to store the time. maxspeed:school_zone=hh:mm-hh:mm[,hh:mm-hh:mm];speed This explains what the restriction is, school zone, the times it is in effect and the reduced speed all in one line. school zones are a corner case and I don't think you should try to shoe horn them into a general time restriction since they don't operate during school holidays. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] een amsterdam zonder keep right issues - bijna dan
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:43:57 Rejo Zenger wrote: ++ 05/08/09 20:21 +0200 - Rejo Zenger: Die 25 issues wil ik ook wegwerken, door het op te lossen of als false positive te markeren. Voor een deel wacht dat op onsite survey, andere dingen weet ik niet hoe ik het moet oplossen. [...] Andere dingen waarvan ik niet zeker weet hoe we het willen hebben: http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=4671602 http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=4671603 http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=4671604 http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=4671605 Dit zijn een tweetal trappen (rij treden) in het Max Euweplein. Die zullen er in het echt ook wel zijn, maar omdat ze midden in het plein zitten zit er geen pad aan vast. Dat levert toevallig een error op Keep Right als almost-junction. De vraag is niet zozeer of Keep Right het hier goed doet, maar de vraag is vooral, willen we dat inderdaad zo in OSM, die trappen in het niets? Ik woon er vlakbij en die trappen zijn er. Persoonlijk vind ik het niet erg zinvol om trappen zo in het 'niets' te tekenen. Voor wandelroutes moeten die natuurlijk worden aangesloten op de rest. Overigens vind ik dat wel zinvol. Vroeg of laat zullen ook blinden/slechtzienden hiervan gebruik kunnen maken. Vooralsnog zou ik zeggen link die trappen met de weg en tag dat stukje weg die tussen de trappen loopt met foot=no. Overigens voeg ik zelf alleen trappen toe daar waar die echt een nieuwe verbinding vormen, bijvoorbeeld een trap die een brug/viaduct die de weg eronder direct bereikbaar maakt voor voetgangers. In bovenstaande geval was er al een verbinding. http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=4715381 http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=4832345 http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=4755669 http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=4786346 http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=4475639 http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=4475638 Dit zijn onder andere een viertal layer issues. D'r is een perron getekend als area en tagged met layer 1, daarin een trap die uit een onderliggende layer omhoog komt en dwars op trap en area een kleine way zonder layer aanduiding. Die 'junction of ways on different layers' is gewoon een onzin fout. Layers hebben geen functie op nodes. Een stukje way heeft een layer tag om aan te geven dat die boven of onder een ander kruisende way ligt. Dat is de enige functie van de layer tag. Keepright geeft zelf aan dat het een twijfelgeval is en moet simpelweg opgelost worden door die 'regel' eruit te gooien. Er is principieel geen verschil tussen een 'juntion' van twee 'ways' en meer dan twee. Hier een onderscheid maken doet mij denken aan de tijd waarin men de nul onzin vond want niets van iets zou niet zinvol zijn. Oftewel er zou een wezenlijk verschil zijn tussen 0 en alle ander getallen. Die is er niet en de zaak wordt alleen ingewikkelder als je dat onderscheid toch maakt. Als niemand mij voor is zal ik binnenkort een verzoek naar de General Talk list sturen om die 'regel' eruit te gooien. Ik snap waarom Keep Right hier een melding van maakt. Mijn vraag heeft wederom niet zoveel met dat issue te maken: hoe hoor dat perron getekend te zijn? En die trap omhoog. Mij lijkt het dat die trap er wel hoort, maar die way daar dwars op niet (want geen toegevoegde informatie en niet waarheidsgetrouw). Mijn voorstel zou zijn om het perron niet als area maar als way te tekenen. Als ik de way daar dwars op goed begrijp is dat gedaan om de trap aan te sluiten op het wegennetwerk en dat is goed. De fietspad daar impliceert ook voetgangers. Je kunt je afvragen of het het nodig is een stukje voetpad daar te tekenen maar helemaal verkeerd vind ik het niet. Tenslotte, de volgende issues denk ik alleen op te kunnen lossen met een onsite survey. Ik zou het niet erg vinden als iemand die eerder in de buurt is dat wil doen. Hehe. Het gaat om: http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=3122296 http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=3102983 (nabij NS Station Amsterdam Zuid/WTC) http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=4832776 (nabij Muziekgebouw, iets oostelijk van Centraal Station) http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=4561246 http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=4561245 (nabij kruising A10 en S104) Als ook deze issues als resolved of false positive gemarkeerd zijn, is Amsterdam binnen de ring A10 geheel vrij van Keep Right issues - voor het moment [1]. Ik vind het echt fantastisch wat je hebt gedaan, petje af. Toch moet keepright niet heilig worden verklaard. Er is al genoeg ellende in de wereld met al die 'heiligen' :) Wie kan me helpen met bovenstaande? [1] Maar ik heb geen jaarwisseling nodig voor goede voornemens. Lambert Carsten ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] een amsterdam zonder keep right issues - bijna dan
On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:36:34 Lambert Carsten wrote: Ik snap waarom Keep Right hier een melding van maakt. Mijn vraag heeft wederom niet zoveel met dat issue te maken: hoe hoor dat perron getekend te zijn? En die trap omhoog. Mij lijkt het dat die trap er wel hoort, maar die way daar dwars op niet (want geen toegevoegde informatie en niet waarheidsgetrouw). Mijn voorstel zou zijn om het perron niet als area maar als way te tekenen. Als ik de way daar dwars op goed begrijp is dat gedaan om de trap aan te sluiten op het wegennetwerk en dat is goed. De fietspad daar impliceert ook voetgangers. Je kunt je afvragen of het het nodig is een stukje voetpad daar te tekenen maar helemaal verkeerd vind ik het niet. Ik had een verkeerd station in gedachte ! Bestaat die verbinding daar (Zuid-WTC) wel? Vandaag of morgen ga ik wel kijken of die trappen er zijn. Het is voor mij nieuw dat daar ook een ingang is naar de perrons. Zo leer je nog eens wat. Die fietspad parallel en ten zuiden van het station richting west loopt volgens mij daar niet dood, dus dat neem ik dan ook mee. Overigens als die trappen er wel zijn kun je het natuurlijk ook oplossen zoals Skywave dat voor de trappen aan de andere kant heeft gedaan door het aan te sluiten op de 'area'. Lambert Carsten ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] een amsterdam zonder keep right issues - bijna dan
++ 06/08/09 10:36 +0200 - Lambert Carsten: Overigens voeg ik zelf alleen trappen toe daar waar die echt een nieuwe verbinding vormen, bijvoorbeeld een trap die een brug/viaduct die de weg eronder direct bereikbaar maakt voor voetgangers. In bovenstaande geval was er al een verbinding. Ook zonder zulke overduidelijke niveau overbrugging lijken trappen mij erg zinvol. Kleine, smalle trappen in een groot plein niet. Trappen in een pad of trappen over de gehele breedte van een plein lijken me zeer zinvol. Ik denk dan bijvoorbeeld aan een routeplanner voor rolstoelers. Mijn voorstel zou zijn om het perron niet als area maar als way te tekenen. Waarom is dat? Als ik de way daar dwars op goed begrijp is dat gedaan om de trap aan te sluiten op het wegennetwerk en dat is goed. De fietspad daar impliceert ook voetgangers. Je kunt je afvragen of het het nodig is een stukje voetpad daar te tekenen maar helemaal verkeerd vind ik het niet. Je hebt het over iets anders. Zie mijn andere e-mail, met directe link naar de way die ik bedoelde. -- Rejo Zenger . r...@zenger.nl . 0x21DBEFD4 . https://rejo.zenger.nl GPG encrypted e-mail prefered. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] een amsterdam zonder keep right issu es - bijna dan
On Thursday 06 August 2009 11:18:00 Rejo Zenger wrote: ++ 06/08/09 10:36 +0200 - Lambert Carsten: Overigens voeg ik zelf alleen trappen toe daar waar die echt een nieuwe verbinding vormen, bijvoorbeeld een trap die een brug/viaduct die de weg eronder direct bereikbaar maakt voor voetgangers. In bovenstaande geval was er al een verbinding. Ook zonder zulke overduidelijke niveau overbrugging lijken trappen mij erg zinvol. Kleine, smalle trappen in een groot plein niet. Trappen in een pad of trappen over de gehele breedte van een plein lijken me zeer zinvol. Ik denk dan bijvoorbeeld aan een routeplanner voor rolstoelers. Ik had ook al aangegeven dat ik het op-zichzelf wel zinvol vind. Mijn voorstel zou zijn om het perron niet als area maar als way te tekenen. Waarom is dat? Ik zie de toegevoegde waarde van een perron als area niet. Integendeel het maakt al die 'ways' die erop aansluiten nodeloos ingewikkeld. De mapfeatures geeft aan dat het kan (als area aanmerken:especially wider ones) maar ik zie daar nauwelijks een discussie over dus het lijkt niet erg doordacht. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway=platform Als ik de way daar dwars op goed begrijp is dat gedaan om de trap aan te sluiten op het wegennetwerk en dat is goed. De fietspad daar impliceert ook voetgangers. Je kunt je afvragen of het het nodig is een stukje voetpad daar te tekenen maar helemaal verkeerd vind ik het niet. Je hebt het over iets anders. Zie mijn andere e-mail, met directe link naar de way die ik bedoelde. Ja ik begrijp het nu. Die oplossing aan de andere kant vind je juist niet mooi. Ik kan mij daar iets bij voorstellen. Ik wil ID's. :) Die afkortingen weer.. !? :) Lambert Carsten ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [talk-au] posters/banners
Well, what information do you want it to get across? Do we want OSM Australia to become some form of semi-official name for OSM activities/groups in Australia? Or do we just want a sign which says There's an OpenStreetMap mapping party meeting here, this is what you look for to find us in which case the Australia is redundant as we're in Australia already. I certainly think that re-using other OSM logos etc is an excellent idea though as it maintains brand consistency in the online-real world transition. It's probably worth thinking about how this will be seen, too. For instance say you're driving through a town you've never been to while looking for the mapping party meeting place. If you see that poster the text in penstreetmap gets lost very easily in front of the quasi-cammo pattern background. It may work better if the same concept is used with this symbol for the O: http://svn.openstreetmap.org/misc/images/osm_withtext.svg and then penStreetMap next to it, as that way the text is much clearer to read and the form of the magnifying glass is easier to spot while trying to drive. Lastly, whatever gets written on it please try to maintain font consistency :). Serif fonts are great when you're reading bulk text but they aren't used nearly as often on banners as sans serif fonts. I'll have a go at sketching something up tomorrow night, after my current assignment is handed in. - Original Message - From: John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009 3:20 pm Subject: Re: posters/banners To: b.schulz...@scu.edu.au, Ash Kyd a...@kyd.com.au I was digging about and I found this SVG image... http://svn.openstreetmap.org/misc/images/osm_button.svg I whacked the word Australia under it and made a very big png: http://maps.bigtincan.com/data/osm_australia_banner.png ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] posters/banners
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: Well, what information do you want it to get across? Don't want look like a dork waiting for everyone to turn up :) Do we want OSM Australia to become some form of semi-official name for OSM activities/groups in Australia? Dunno, I didn't think of putting mapping party on it, but I didn't want to be place specific which is why I ended up putting Australia on it. I certainly think that re-using other OSM logos etc is an excellent idea though as it maintains brand consistency in the online-real world transition. Plus it saves time and effort coming up with something else. It's probably worth thinking about how this will be seen, too. For instance say you're driving through a town you've never been to while looking for the mapping party meeting place. If you see that poster the text in penstreetmap gets lost very easily in front of the quasi-cammo pattern background. I'm planning a one off vinyl banner about 50cm wide in full colour, everyone should have a fair idea where to be already, this isn't for a general flier run that gets posted out in letter boxes in bw. Lastly, whatever gets written on it please try to maintain font consistency :). Serif fonts are great when you're reading bulk text but they aren't used nearly as often on banners as sans serif fonts. Some people are colour blind, I'm font blind, I really don't see a lot of the subtleties that some people do in fonts, I was trying to find a font that looked similar to the penstreetmap text. Obviously it wasn't close enough :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
I'm just still not sure if we should categorise paths so they display correctly with the current limitations of a rendering algorithm. When reading the main wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Cycleway ) I understand the definition of cycleway to mean bicycle only paths or paths created specifically for bicycles. So rail-trails don't really fall into this category. http://www.railtrails.org.au/trails/ Railtrails were not designed predominantly for bicycles, and most sections near urban centres would predominantly be used by pedestrians. I lived near a disused track and saw it develop into a rail-trail. I personally don't care as I often ride a bike, but I think the map should be consistant and the only way to achieve this is to use path and then describe the properties. Opencyclemap / openhikingmap / openhorsemap etc can then render the appropriate map. Here is an example of why it is best to use the path tag for shared use paths http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=-37.81133383418217lon=145.39752250272988zoom=15layers=BF000F track 10 is really a fire-access track (DSE) with the majority of traffic being foot. This has been categorised as a bike path because I assume it was surveyed that way. regards, Evan On Wednesday 05 Aug 2009 22:34:07 j...@talk21.com wrote: Noted. As far as I'm aware, all railtrails are designed predominantly for bicycle use. This is a reflection of both the distances usually involved and the users they attract. I do see the occasional walker on a railtrail, and these, horse riders and wheelchair users are also encouraged to use them. Another advantage of highway=cycleway is that this causes the cycleway to be immediately obvious to those likely to use the facility (cyclists). Not only do they appear distinctively blue on the main osm.org map, but they show on the specific Garmin cycle maps available at http://www.osmaustralia.org/garmincycle.php John --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Evan Sebire e...@sebire.org wrote: I would have thought that the tag highway=path would be more appropriate. After that follow what is in the wiki guidelines. I don't think we should necessarily appeal to the majority/minority on a particular path, but describe its properties. I was labelling many hiking paths as footway but have now seen it is better to use path and add properties such as horse, bicycle and sac_scale. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Evan Sebire e...@sebire.org wrote: I'm just still not sure if we should categorise paths so they display correctly with the current limitations of a rendering algorithm. What limitation? :) We're currently in the process of defining how things render how we choose, we just need to be able to describe it in terms mapnik understands though. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Rendering
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: I can't find the email with the Wiki link For the record... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Aussie_Mapnik_Style_Changes Also I've been trying to stick the category tags on the Aussie specific pages. [[Category:Australia]] Then all pages tagged properly will show up on the following link automatically: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:WikiProject_Australia ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
On Thursday 06 Aug 2009 09:21:59 John Smith wrote: --- On Thu, 6/8/09, Evan Sebire e...@sebire.org wrote: I'm just still not sure if we should categorise paths so they display correctly with the current limitations of a rendering algorithm. What limitation? :) We're currently in the process of defining how things render how we choose, we just need to be able to describe it in terms mapnik understands though. A complicated solution would be to have user options similar to non-web applications. Tick-box to emphasise paths that have bicycle = yes tag. The current cycle map is good but tick-boxes for other properties such as fuel, bbq, motel etc. The rendering is good but the user preferences are limited. I think a lot of data is entered and tagged a specific way so it displays on the main map the way an individual would like to see. I recently came across a series of rural roads that were labelled as cycleways because they are part of a cycle tour. (Switzerland) Probably the best solution for now it to have a separate domain for each kind of map and focus on getting the data correctly entered and let Marble worry about user tick-boxes. http://edu.kde.org/marble just some random thoughts. I think the quality of the data is generally excellent, and just like wikipedia there will be users who don't think things through and enter something as they initially think. I'm guilty of this as- well. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Evan Sebire e...@sebire.org wrote: A complicated solution would be to have user options similar to non-web applications. Tick-box to emphasise paths that have bicycle = yes tag. The current cycle map is good but tick-boxes for other properties such as fuel, bbq, motel etc. The rendering is good but the user preferences are limited. This would be best dealt with as a layer option, and this layer highlights stuff over the top of a base map layer, which is rendered in a general type of way. What we're currently doing is working out the kinks on the base layer, from there we can work on these specalised layers that are shown when the user ticks the box. It can be done, I can only assume cyclestreets.net does this for showing cycle routes, I doubt they would render individual tiles for each search query. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
On Thursday 06 Aug 2009 10:13:47 John Smith wrote: --- On Thu, 6/8/09, Evan Sebire e...@sebire.org wrote: A complicated solution would be to have user options similar to non-web applications. Tick-box to emphasise paths that have bicycle = yes tag. The current cycle map is good but tick-boxes for other properties such as fuel, bbq, motel etc. The rendering is good but the user preferences are limited. This would be best dealt with as a layer option, and this layer highlights stuff over the top of a base map layer, which is rendered in a general type of way. What we're currently doing is working out the kinks on the base layer, from there we can work on these specalised layers that are shown when the user ticks the box. It can be done, I can only assume cyclestreets.net does this for showing cycle routes, I doubt they would render individual tiles for each search query. Maybe slightly off-topic but does the current rendering engine obey the width parameter? I wanted to fix up a river that is in some parts 10m wide and others 100m. Would setting the width be the correct way to make it render better? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:30:02 +0200 Evan Sebire e...@sebire.org wrote: Maybe slightly off-topic but does the current rendering engine obey the width parameter? I wanted to fix up a river that is in some parts 10m wide and others 100m. Would setting the width be the correct way to make it render better? No. Use waterway=riverbank to define the actual river banks then it will render nicer. Has to be a closed area. Here's an example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-19.2929lon=146.8142zoom=14layers=B000FTF The river is defined using waterway=riverbank upto about Rosslea then waterway=river after that. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Rendering
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: highway=ford doesn't render I've come across this before, I just made the ford the node that crosses, not the way. I've got one which renders on JOSM, as a node it's like a little car in the water ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Evan Sebire wrote: A complicated solution would be to have user options similar to non-web applications. Tick-box to emphasise paths that have bicycle = yes tag. The current cycle map is good but tick-boxes for other properties such as fuel, bbq, motel etc. The rendering is good but the user preferences are limited. With a fuel station, it would be useful to be able to mark lpg=yes, diesel=yes, e10=yes ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Rendering
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: I've got one which renders on JOSM, as a node it's like a little car in the water Would that mean the same thing to you if you've never used JOSM? well it is of course wrong to assume there would be water. I was just thinking that the graphic could be reusable -- BOFH excuse #106: The electrician didn't know what the yellow cable was so he yanked the ethernet out. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
