Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[Peter Childs]

2009/8/26 Richard Fairhurst :
> Renaud Martinet wrote:
>> I guess that the highway tag used to describe physical features
>> of different types of roads back when OSM was quite UK-centric.
>
> Nope - UK highway tagging, which was of course the original, has always 
> largely been aligned to administrative classifications.
>
> highway=motorway -> UK motorway (Mx or Ax(M))
> highway=trunk -> UK primary A-road (Ax with green signs)
> highway=primary -> UK non-primary A-road - yes, really (Ax with black/white 
> signs)
> highway=secondary -> UK B-road (Bx)
>
> We do have a super special, very rarely used exemption known as the Oxford 
> High Street Exemption, though.
>

I'm sorry what's this Oxford High Street Rule? This debate is very
heated and difficult. from what I can work out it is about
"Importance" it just happens that road classification in most
countries is meant to show importance as well. Even the old out of
copyright NPE OS maps do not use the classification to colour the
roads, but some idea of size/importance.

I'm trying to figure out what should be what in Gravesend, Kent, Uk
and currently I've got difference classifications for similar roads in
the east and west of the same town. I guess were going to need some
strong beer when it comes to the mapping party.

Peter.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] State of the NameFinder

[Valent Turkovic]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Brian
Quinion wrote:
>> The one I've been working on (suggestions for a name for the project
>> gratefully received off list BTW) is mostly functional.  I was
>> expecting to open it for testing on the geocoding list some time next
>> week when it has finished indexing the most recent planet import
>> however given the timing of this I've started an import of just a uk
>> extract (which will take 3 to 4 hours to run assuming it all works
>> first time) so people can have a quick preview.  I'll post a URL to
>> the list when it is complete.
>
> As promised, you can try a uk test system here:
>
> http://katie.openstreetmap.org/~twain/
>
> And a couple of sample queries:
>
> http://katie.openstreetmap.org/~twain/?q=london
> http://katie.openstreetmap.org/~twain/?q=91+upper+ground%2C+london
> http://katie.openstreetmap.org/~twain/?q=pub+near+upper+ground%2C+london
>
> If you want to know how the address was created click the 'details'
> link at the end of the search result.  Some of the values are my debug
> info but it will also provide links to the osm node/way/relation.
> Please be aware that this extract is about 4 weeks old and there have
> been quite a bit of improvements to the UK county data since then.
>
> Please email me bug reports off list, but be aware that I'm going to
> be away from my email for a lot of the weekend and that there are
> still known issues - so don't be that surprised if you break it.

Whoow, this looks and works much better than current OSM search! Any
info when will it be available on main OSM page for the whole world?
Current search just sucks for me ;(

-- 
pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt
http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/
linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless
registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org.
ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, msn: valent.turko...@hotmail.com

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[Richard Fairhurst]

(uk-specific, suggest follow-ups to talk-gb@)

Peter Childs wrote:

> I'm sorry what's this Oxford High Street Rule?

In cases of clear insanity you can tag according to what the road  
ought to be, rather than the administrative classification. Oxford  
High Street is the A420 so should be highway=primary, at least.  
However, it has a bollard halfway down making passage impossible  
(except for buses) throughout the day. We settled on highway=tertiary  
for that.

> I'm trying to figure out what should be what in Gravesend, Kent, Uk
> and currently I've got difference classifications for similar roads in
> the east and west of the same town.

Looks pretty good to me, but do ask on talk-gb if you need help.

cheers
Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:10:01 +0200, Renaud Martinet 
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Richard Fairhurst
> wrote:
>> Renaud Martinet wrote:
>>> I guess that the highway tag used to describe physical features
>>> of different types of roads back when OSM was quite UK-centric.
>>
>> Nope - UK highway tagging, which was of course the original, has always
>> largely been aligned to administrative classifications.
>>
>> highway=motorway -> UK motorway (Mx or Ax(M))
>> highway=trunk -> UK primary A-road (Ax with green signs)
>> highway=primary -> UK non-primary A-road - yes, really (Ax with
>> black/white signs)
>> highway=secondary -> UK B-road (Bx)
>>
>> We do have a super special, very rarely used exemption known as the
>> Oxford High Street Exemption, though.
>>
>> cheers
>> Richard
>>
> 
> Sure I used a shortcut here. :)
> 
> But most of the values of the highway tag were corresponding to a type
> of road: motorway would be 2x2 with central seperator, trunk would be
> mostly the same but with the possibility of smaller roads directly
> leading onto the trunk (no sliproad), etc.
> I know that the trunk value is the one that forced us to consider the
> highway tag a bit differently than what was on the map features at the
> time, because we have nothing like that. And it's probably the same
> for other countries. So we used the highway tag to describe the
> importance in the road network.
> 
> 
> Renaud.
> 
I think the best way to solve this is for each country to define its needs.
Norway have made very good definitions of their highways, while Brazil
where I live now are still trying to define it.

For Brazil we have 3 sources of funding (+ private, but that is usually on
license for one of the 3), Federal, State and Municipal, and 6 physical
differences, small unpaved, small paved, medium unpaved, medium paved,
large unpaved, large unpaved. Trunc and Motorway is easy to spot as they
are separated by distance, have multiple lanes, construction of
intersections, usage of light signals etc. The other types of road is a
little tougher to destinguish. Even small unpaved roads have free-flow
intersections, so that cannot be used as an identifier.

IMO physical, legal, and administrative (funding) classifications should be
tagged, some of these can be surface, lanes, (the dredded) smoothness, ref
(in Brazil this can identify all federal and stately roads), network,
maxspeed (and eventually minspeed), traffic_signal, etc can all be used for
this.

I do not believe it is possible to get a global consensus on the use of the
existing highway tag, and national definitions are necessary for getting
cinsistant tagging schemas.

Just my R$0,02.

-- 
Brgds
Aun Johnsen
via Webmail

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

[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Petting Zoo

[Sybren A . Stüvel]

Hi folks,

The Petting Zoo feature is open for voting. In short, it is a proposal
to tag petting zoos with tourism=zoo and zootype=petting_zoo.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/petting_zoo

Thank you for voting,
-- 
Sybren Stüvel
http://stuvel.eu/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sybrenstuvel


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Twitter bots

[Valent Turkovic]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Alexander Klink wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> This weekend, I hacked together a quick twitter bot,
> which now tweets all changesets in a certain are (in
> my case, Darmstadt, Germany) - see http://twitter.com/osm_darmstadt
>
> I've found it quite useful thus far, on the one hand I write
> better changeset comments, because I know they will be on
> Twitter, on the other hand, I see what happens in my community.
>
> If you want to run a similar bot, you can find the source
> at http://git.alech.de/?p=osm_twitter_bots.git
>
> Alternatively, I can add a bit of code to run more than
> one bot at a time and run a few of them for you (until I
> hit the Twitter API limits), I'd only need a name and a
> bounding box for that.
>
> Cheers,
>  Alex

Hi, could you help me setup twitter changest account for my town Osijek:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse?bbox=18.5783%2C45.5066%2C18.7634%2C45.6081&page=2

I would like to have twitter.com/osm-osijek

How can this be setup?

-- 
pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt
http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/
linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless
registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org.
ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, msn: valent.turko...@hotmail.com

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[Mike Harris]

I agree with Aun ..

Mike Harris
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) [mailto:skipp...@gimnechiske.org] 
> Sent: 27 August 2009 01:05
> To: Frederik Ramm
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; lulu-...@gmx.de
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
> 
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:43:22 +0200, Frederik Ramm 
> 
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > lulu-...@gmx.de wrote:
> >> There was a change on the highway key wiki page, that 
> interferes with 
> >> the concept presented here.
> > 
> > Have you read the following relevant thread on talk-de:
> > 
> > 
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2009-August/052258.ht
> > ml
> > 
> > Since both you and dieterdreist are speakers of German, I'm 
> surprised 
> > that you didn't speak up when the issue was raised on talk-de three 
> > weeks ago and now start a discussion on this list.
> > 
> The German speaking community on OSM is large, but not large 
> enough to form a majority, this sort of discussions should be 
> brought forward to the general talk if the national lists 
> agrees in some form of change so that those of us that 
> doesn't speak german can take part in the process.
> >  > IMHO this is a new dimension of vandalism.
> > 
> > The acronym "IMHO" is not well placed if you throw around such 
> > accusations. What you're saying here is not a "humble" opinion.
> > 
> >  > I also think we need a consensus that tag descriptions for tags 
> > that  > are used more than 100.000 times shall not be 
> changed without 
> > a  > proposal.
> > 
> > That seemed to be the consensus on talk-de as well (or at least 
> > "without prior discussion", not necessarily on the Wiki - 
> personally I 
> > dislike proposals, discussions and voting on the Wiki).
> > 
> If such discussions on national/lingual mailing lists isn't 
> brought to other lists, and mainly to talk, than the Wiki is 
> the only common medium.
> All proposal of this scale should have an english page 
> (though I guess there will be discussions in several linguas 
> as well) and consesus have to be reached among all groups of 
> OSM, not a couple of selective groups, even if it is the 
> larger communities.
> 
> Adding new tags, and changing widely used tags are two very 
> different topics, and the bar of changing a tag such as 
> highway should be much higher than to add a new type of amenities.
> 
> --
> Brgds
> Aun Johnsen
> via Webmail
> 
> 
> 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[Mike Harris]

Oxford can't be unique ... Surely it is common worldwide to assume that the
decisions of administrators and bureaucrats are just a load of bollards ...
Sorry about any spelling mistakes in the preceding ...

Mike Harris
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] 
> Sent: 27 August 2009 09:03
> To: OpenStreetMap generic wibble
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
> 
> (uk-specific, suggest follow-ups to talk-gb@)
> 
> Peter Childs wrote:
> 
> > I'm sorry what's this Oxford High Street Rule?
> 
> In cases of clear insanity you can tag according to what the 
> road ought to be, rather than the administrative 
> classification. Oxford High Street is the A420 so should be 
> highway=primary, at least.  
> However, it has a bollard halfway down making passage 
> impossible (except for buses) throughout the day. We settled 
> on highway=tertiary for that.
> 
> > I'm trying to figure out what should be what in Gravesend, Kent, Uk 
> > and currently I've got difference classifications for 
> similar roads in 
> > the east and west of the same town.
> 
> Looks pretty good to me, but do ask on talk-gb if you need help.
> 
> cheers
> Richard
> 
> 
> 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Lars Francke]

Hi

> Ideas? Comments? Flames? :-)

I'll have to admit that I didn't read the proposal or any of the mails
in this thread. However, I still have a comment:
All I can think of when reading "Key:stop" is that I can't wait to
finally see or use:
stop=hammer time
stop=in the name of love
stop=collaborate and listen

This is a motivation for me to update the osmdoc.com data more often.

You may continue your discussion now.

Lars

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMdoc.com - Tagwatch like interface for viewing tag data

[André Riedel]

> http://osmdoc.com/de/tag/amenity/drinking_water#misspellings

The possible misspellings looks like that:
drinking-water=*

You expect the key "drinking-water" with a various value. But
key/value is shown after a click is "amenity=drinking-water". So
please change it.

But in any case you did a great job! And hopefully we will get regular
updates in the future.

Ciao André

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

[OSM-talk] Bar, Restaurant, Nightclub and Cafe

[Alexander Menk]

Hi!

what is the best way for tagging multi-use cafes that also serve as a 
restaurant, and bar, and sometimes even as a nightclub?

Alexander


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bar, Restaurant, Nightclub and Cafe

[Liz]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, Alexander Menk wrote:
> Hi!
>
> what is the best way for tagging multi-use cafes that also serve as a
> restaurant, and bar, and sometimes even as a nightclub?
>
> Alexander
and does it have either sort of motel bed as well?


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

Re: [OSM-talk] compatibilit necessary OR reversing the meaning of tags: oneway on motorway_link (was: New dimension of vandalism)

[Michael Kugelmann]

Mikel Maron wrote:
> Your change earlier this month was pretty substantial.
[...]
> Personally, I'm not partial to either side of the argument, but willing to 
> work with whatever the consensus is.
>   
I want to give a hint on a change that was made some times ago and is 
still today considered not OK by myself.
As Mikel I am willing to work with a lot of definitions. But it is not 
OK IMO to reverse definitions that had been existing and used for years 
=> afterwards our data are likeley to be wrong.

What happened?
The standard definition since I joined the project years ago was that an 
attribute has to be added to a object (node/way/area). This means for 
"oneway" that "oneway = no" was the default for any object. Suddenly 
some people decided that a "highway=motorway_link" would automatically 
include a "oneway=yes" even w/o having the attribute attached to the 
object (also valid to other "XXX_link").
This is a real problem as after this change a lot of motorway exits are 
simpley tagged wrong!
My conclusion is that we have to be very (!) careful when we change 
definitions, there has to be a compatibility between the old definition 
and the new one. If this is not considered, our complete planet data has 
to be reworked because we change the data to wrong by a "simple change 
of the definitions". I am not willing to check and correct the whole 
planet...


Best rgerads,
Michael.

PS: my sollution at that time was to explicitley add a "oneway=yes/no" 
to every new X_link road part I create or modify but I am not 
willing to check all the _links I once created, that should be a 
work for those who decided to change the definition...
PPS: the change in the definitions was made silent: no announcement on 
the MLs and forum or any good visible place so it was not noticed by a 
lot of persons for long time. That's another issue I  think about being 
a very bad behavious...


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

[OSM-talk] Problems with the Multilingual Country-List

[Peter Körner]

Hi

I'm sorry to tell you that there was a major issue with the Multilingual 
Country-List that I didn't realize when it happend and now we to bite 
the bullet and face the problem: There are 70 countries in the osm-db 
that got lost in the list on 2009-08-21 between 17:00 and 18:00 for 
unknown reasons.

I'm guessing that there was a problem with the API and my script was so 
naive to beleive that no api-reponse for a node signs that it has been 
deleted. This was practical for testing but obviously not in productivity.

I created a new update-process using the xapi and also removed those 
idiotic deletes, but now I have to restore everything to the state of 
2009-08-21 at 17:00. Thisw means that all ok-marks in the last 6 days 
will be lost, but in exchange we could recover all ok-marks to those 70 
countries in all languages that were at 100% before. I think this is the 
lesser evil.

I'm sorry that this happened. The Multilingual Country-List is only an 
personal, hacky experiment on how tools could interact with OSM, the 
Community around it and how I could use the toolservers to make OSM 
better - nothing more.

Peter

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bar, Restaurant, Nightclub and Cafe

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/8/27 Alexander Menk :
> Hi!
>
> what is the best way for tagging multi-use cafes that also serve as a
> restaurant, and bar, and sometimes even as a nightclub?

usually people make different nodes/areas with different tags for
this, as the bar will not be in the restaurant, as won't be the
nightclub (micromapping).

cheers,
Martin

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

[OSM-talk] my flag is not showing on the green

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

hi,

am trying to customise a golf course using mapnik. I want a red flag on the 
green. I have tagged points on the course with the tag:
golf=green
I have created a flag called flag.png
I have added 
'node   golf   text'
in default.style of osm2pgsql, recreated the database and confirmed that there 
are 18 points in the table plamet_osm_point which have the tag golf=green. In 
my osm.xml file I have:



  2
  [golf]='green'
  



and


golfmarker

  postgis
  lawgon
  us5rm0d3
  india
  select node from planet_osm_point where 
golf='green' as golfmarkers
  false
  -20037508,-19929239,20037508,19929239



but the flag is not showing. What could be wrong?
-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate
NRC-FOSS
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Problems with the Multilingual Country-List

[Ed Avis]

Peter Körner  mazdermind.de> writes:

>I'm sorry to tell you that there was a major issue with the Multilingual 
>Country-List

I'm glad you mentioned it because I missed the original announcement.
The site is



But I don't really understand what it is reporting?

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

[OSM-talk] waterway=lock

[Jack Stringer]

Just looking at Keepright and I can see loads of waterway=lock

What is the preferred way to record the information?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dlock_gate
Shows to tag both ends of the lock. If there is a name just to use name.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lock
Says to tag either both ends or just use a single node.

Problem I see is that there are 2 ways to name a lock and 2 ways to
indicate one exists.

For example,
waterway=lock_gate
name=Withrington Bottom Lock

or

lock=yes
lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock

I have then seen people use name_1=5 to tell you the lock number.

I would suggest,
waterway=lock_gate
name=Withrington Bottom Lock
ref=5

Discuss...



Jack Stringer

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bar, Restaurant, Nightclub and Cafe

[John Smith]

--- On Thu, 27/8/09, Alexander Menk  wrote:

> what is the best way for tagging multi-use cafes that also
> serve as a 
> restaurant, and bar, and sometimes even as a nightclub?

I don't have a good answer and I wish I could suggest mailing the talk list but 
that is hit and miss if you get a good answer or pointless debate.

You could tag the primary purpose and then add secondary purposes as different 
tags, eg:

amenity=restaurant
bar=yes
nightclub=occasionally


  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Diary Spam, was: Wiki Spam

[Matt Williams]

2009/8/26 John Smith :
> --- On Wed, 26/8/09, Erik Johansson  wrote:
> There seems to be some diary spam too...
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lararefaeli/diary/7668

And more at http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/parkerlindsey/diary/7683

Maybe a [Report as spam] link would be useful?

-- 
Matt Williams
http://milliams.com

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Problems with the Multilingual Country-List

[Peter Körner]

Ed Avis schrieb:
> Peter Körner  mazdermind.de> writes:
> 
>> I'm sorry to tell you that there was a major issue with the Multilingual 
>> Country-List
> 
> I'm glad you mentioned it because I missed the original announcement.
> The site is
> 
> 
> 
> But I don't really understand what it is reporting?
If you got plenty of time, you may want to start reading the original 
thread [1].

In short: a list of the languages a wikipedia exists for (read from 
[2]). For each language you'll get a list of all countries in the 
osm-database and their native name (default name), their name how it 
would be read in the selected language (translated name). You can then 
mark this translation as ok, if it's correct for this language, or to 
edit it via josm/potlatch if it isn't.

In the languages-list you see the percentage of all countries marked as 
ok for this language. Those translations will later be used for 
localized maps on wikipedia (see [3] for an old preview with many 
missing translations).

Peter


[1] 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-August/thread.html#40318
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SiteMatrix
[3] http://cassini.toolserver.org/tile-browse/

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

[OSM-talk] Fw: Re: Diary Spam, was: Wiki Spam

[John Smith]

--- On Thu, 27/8/09, Matt Williams  wrote:

> From: Matt Williams 
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Diary Spam, was: Wiki Spam
> To: "John Smith" 
> Date: Thursday, 27 August, 2009, 9:24 PM
> 2009/8/26 John Smith :
> >
> >
> > --- On Wed, 26/8/09, Erik Johansson  wrote:
> >
> >> deleted
> >
> > There seems to be some diary spam too...
> >
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lararefaeli/diary/7668
> 
> And more at http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/parkerlindsey/diary/7683
> 
> Maybe a [Report as spam] link would be useful?
> 
> -- 
> Matt Williams
> http://milliams.com
> 


  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock

[Peter Childs]

2009/8/27 Jack Stringer :
> Just looking at Keepright and I can see loads of waterway=lock
>
> What is the preferred way to record the information?
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dlock_gate
> Shows to tag both ends of the lock. If there is a name just to use name.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lock
> Says to tag either both ends or just use a single node.
>
> Problem I see is that there are 2 ways to name a lock and 2 ways to
> indicate one exists.
>
> For example,
> waterway=lock_gate
> name=Withrington Bottom Lock
>


My reading is that that should be on the Node that is the Lock Gate.

> or
>
> lock=yes
> lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock
>

The way I read it that should be on the way "between" the two lock
gates, that make up the lock. There should not be any need to put the
name on each gate unless they have different names, But putting
waterway=lock_gate on a node without any way saying lock=yes is a
short hand of saying lock here but not putting in the stretch of water
between the lock and the second lock gate.

I will grant this needs cleaning up. In the case of a lock I added in
Teston, Kent, Uk last week, I put name="Teston Lock" on both gates and
lock_name="Teston Lock", lock=yes on the diversion I added, as the
main River goes over a weir. (Marked weir=yes), Probably over kill
but never mind.

I have to grant that most of the renders don't show waterways very
well currently.

There is also a 5knots speed limit there as well, But I'm not sure I
got the tags right.

Peter.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Marc Schütz]

> > This brings up an interesting question, when you're "finding the
> > nearest junction" to use for stop key on a node, what counts as a
> > junction? It's going to be a node which belongs to the current way and
> > at least one other way satisfying certain conditions, but what are
> > those conditions? If we are to use the stop key, I think those
> > conditions will need to be explicitly spelt out, so that you can
> > process the data.
> 
> It would have to be ANY junction, I think (the nearest node that
> belongs to more than one way, as you say). There should be as little
> dependence on other tags as possible. Otherwise - a maintenance
> nightmare...

Note that by requiring a junction, you make it impossible to model stop signs 
don't involve a junction.

I don't know how frequent these occur, but I can imagine cases where there is a 
sharp curve before which you're required to stop. And I believe there are roads 
near airports with low-flying plains crossing the road, thought these are 
usually regulated by traffic lights.

(Just for the sake of completeness.)

Regards, Marc

-- 
Neu: GMX Doppel-FLAT mit Internet-Flatrate + Telefon-Flatrate
für nur 19,99 Euro/mtl.!* http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Peter Childs]

2009/8/27 "Marc Schütz" :
>
> Note that by requiring a junction, you make it impossible to model stop signs 
> don't involve a junction.
>
> I don't know how frequent these occur, but I can imagine cases where there is 
> a sharp curve before which you're required to stop. And I believe there are 
> roads near airports with low-flying plains crossing the road, thought these 
> are usually regulated by traffic lights.
>
> (Just for the sake of completeness.)
>

Un-lit, Level Crossings? While these are not common here in the UK
except possibly on Farm Tracks and footpaths. I am sure they will
appear a lot in countries without a well an advanced road system


Peter.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] State of the NameFinder

[Robert (Jamie) Munro]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Brian Quinion wrote:
> As promised, you can try a uk test system here:
> 
> http://katie.openstreetmap.org/~twain/
> 
> And a couple of sample queries:
> 
> http://katie.openstreetmap.org/~twain/?q=london
> http://katie.openstreetmap.org/~twain/?q=91+upper+ground%2C+london
> http://katie.openstreetmap.org/~twain/?q=pub+near+upper+ground%2C+london
> 
> If you want to know how the address was created click the 'details'
> link at the end of the search result.  Some of the values are my debug
> info but it will also provide links to the osm node/way/relation.
> Please be aware that this extract is about 4 weeks old and there have
> been quite a bit of improvements to the UK county data since then.
> 
> Please email me bug reports off list, but be aware that I'm going to
> be away from my email for a lot of the weekend and that there are
> still known issues - so don't be that surprised if you break it.

Preliminary results of the British Museum Test:
http://povesham.wordpress.com/2007/11/23/the-british-museum-test-for-public-mapping-websites/

(also on wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/British_Museum_Test)

* Tate Modern
  - Correct, but listed 2 nearly identical results for "Attraction" and
"Arts centre".
* British Museum
  - First result is "disused station" that's not even visible on the
standard map. Second result correct.
* National Gallery
  - No results found
* Natural History Museum
  - First result is Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire. 2nd, 3rd and 4th
results "correct". "Natural History Museum, London" produced just the 3
"correct" results.
* British Airways London Eye
  - No results found
* London Eye
  - First result good. Second result nearby bus stop. Third result
"common". Not sure what the "common" means, but otherwise good
* Science Museum
  - Correct, but listed 2 nearly identical results for "Museum" and
"Public Building"
* The Victoria & Albert Museum
  - Correct, but listed 2 nearly identical results for
"Museum;attraction" and "Public Building"
* V&A Museum
  - Identical results to above (good)
* The Tower of London
  - Correct, but listed 3 nearly identical results for "Castle",
"Attraction" and "Public Building"
* St Paul’s Cathedral
  - 4 results. First one "Attraction", which is acceptable. Second one
"bus stop", Fourth one "Place of Worship". 3rd one = "Place of Worship"
in Dundee.
* National Portrait Gallery
  - No results found

So overall, I'd say it's very good, but it could use some sort clumping
of multiple results of the same thing and needs improvements in
prioritising results - Museums are more important than bus stops and
disused stations. Also it needs typo correction.

Another hint for priorities would be if something is in the current map,
it should possibly score a bit higher than something further away
(although anything in the current map area should score the same - you
don't want to put a positive bias on The Midlands when searching while
viewing the whole UK). This would have solved the "Natural History
Museum, Hemel Hempsted" problem.

Postcode searching is weird. If I search for NW1 3AN, it seems to give
me the result for NW1 3AR, which isn't the same place. If it doesn't
know the correct postcode, it should fall back to the area - NW1 3, for
which is a better result because it's clear that it's not accurate and
it's pointing to the whole area.

Robert (Jamie) Munro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEUEARECAAYFAkqWf5kACgkQz+aYVHdncI3BWACg8SalbIGx2j8eCFSo4+Skeuoq
F/kAmP+u2eS7SKSEzqBMCuk4v10Btng=
=h8fE
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock

[Mike Harris]

Jack

I have tried various systems for this one. At present I favour tagging two
nodes - one for each gate (or multiples of 2 for complex locks e.g. Vale
Royal where there are two parallel locks, each with - of course - two
gates), isolating the section of canal between and giving this the tags
name= and ref= . I have no strong opinion - beyond wishing to record the
name and number of the lock - and would be interested in other views. Not
keen on using name_1 - prefer the ref= tag.

Not quite clear whether you add identical name= and ref= to each of the two
gates?

On a related canal issue, I have a problem with deciding how to tag a canal
bridge as a segment of a way. The way will often already have name= and ref=
tags as a highway; but I want to add a name= and ref= tag for the canal
bridge. Not keen on name_1 or ref_1 - any better ideas? I did wonder about
adding a node in the middle of the bridge and then tagging this with the
canal bridge information and reserving the name and ref tags for the highway
segment.

Mike Harris
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Jack Stringer [mailto:jack.ix...@googlemail.com] 
> Sent: 27 August 2009 12:14
> To: Talk Openstreetmap
> Subject: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
> 
> Just looking at Keepright and I can see loads of waterway=lock
> 
> What is the preferred way to record the information?
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dlock_gate
> Shows to tag both ends of the lock. If there is a name just 
> to use name.
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lock
> Says to tag either both ends or just use a single node.
> 
> Problem I see is that there are 2 ways to name a lock and 2 
> ways to indicate one exists.
> 
> For example,
> waterway=lock_gate
> name=Withrington Bottom Lock
> 
> or
> 
> lock=yes
> lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock
> 
> I have then seen people use name_1=5 to tell you the lock number.
> 
> I would suggest,
> waterway=lock_gate
> name=Withrington Bottom Lock
> ref=5
> 
> Discuss...
> 
> 
> 
> Jack Stringer
> 
> 
> 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] State of the NameFinder

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:58 AM, David Earl wrote:
> Beyond getting the index updated using the existing technology, my next
> step is to try using postgres instead of mysql to (hopefully) increase
> the search speed (I use self-joins a lot and these should be faster in
> postgres; there may also be scope beyond that for replacing my low level
> word search algorithm with postgres' flexible free text searching but
> still retaining the multiple variations the system copes with at present).

This might be a silly question but has someone looked into using
dedicated search engines like lucene for OSM data?

That's what Wikimedia moved to after hacking search with relational
databases proved too slow, but I'm not familiar with how well it could
handle searching through geodata.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Problems with the Multilingual Country-List

[Ed Avis]

Peter Körner  mazdermind.de> writes:

>>

>In short: a list of the languages a wikipedia exists for

OK - so it doesn't use Wikipedia data for anything except a list of language
codes.

>Those translations will later be used for 
>localized maps on wikipedia (see [3] for an old preview with many 
>missing translations).

That's really cool, I think localized maps are an important benefit of OSM.

Could the tool be extended to support names of cities?  For these, a percentage
completion indicator makes little sense, since most city names are not
translated, but there are still a hundred or so worldwide which do have their 
own
name in most major languages.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

[OSM-talk] How to get a notification email for a change on a watched wiki page

[Lulu-Ann]

Hi Mike,

> 2. Wiki vs mailing list: I use both - but the mailing list appears
> automatically in my in-tray every day and gets read whenever I have time
> to
> log on; the wiki seems to need me to watch a particular page and, simple
> person that I am, I haven't found out how to get changes notified to me -
> probably missed a 'watch this page' link or something! Whichever one
> prefers, common courtesy perhaps dictates that before making major changes
> to the wiki a check is also made with the mailing list community -
> overlapping but not identical.

Here is how to get a notification email:
1. Put the pages on your watch list
2. Go to your preferences and configure your tab watch list.
3. On the first tab in your preferences you can choose to get emails for 
changes on pages on your watch list.

Regards
Lulu-An
-- 
Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3 -
sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/chbrowser

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

Re: [OSM-talk] State of the NameFinder

[Ed Avis]

Robert (Jamie) Munro  arjam.net> writes:

>>http://katie.openstreetmap.org/~twain/

>Preliminary results of the British Museum Test:

>* National Gallery
>  - No results found

This is because it's tagged as 'National Gallery / National Portrait Gallery'.
If they share the same physical building, there isn't an obvious way to tag it
with two separate names, so putting a slash may be the least bad option.

Semicolon is also used, as in 'Palace of Westminster; Houses of Parliament;
House of Commons; House of Lords'.  And a semicolon is used by some mapping
tools to join together names when two objects are merged.

So I suggest the namefinder should split names at slash and at semicolon, and
search each part separately.

>* British Airways London Eye
>  - No results found

I've added alt_name tags to this object, so after a database update it should
work.

>* London Eye
>  - First result good. Second result nearby bus stop. Third result
>"common". Not sure what the "common" means, but otherwise good

Might be caused by the map having both an area and a node for the attraction.
I have tidied this to just the area.

>* The Victoria & Albert Museum
>  - Correct, but listed 2 nearly identical results for
>"Museum;attraction" and "Public Building"

This is semicolons getting into the tagging again; I've changed it to just
'museum' since that is more specific than 'attraction'.  The two separate
results look like a namefinder bug (you had other examples).

>* St Paul’s Cathedral
>  - 4 results. First one "Attraction", which is acceptable. Second one
>"bus stop", Fourth one "Place of Worship". 3rd one = "Place of Worship"
>in Dundee.

There used to be separate tagging for the building and a node in the centre
of the building, which could explain one of the duplicate results.  I've
tidied that up.

>* National Portrait Gallery
>  - No results found

See discussion of slashes above.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] State of the NameFinder

[Tom Hughes]

On 27/08/09 14:26, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:58 AM, David Earl  
> wrote:
>> Beyond getting the index updated using the existing technology, my next
>> step is to try using postgres instead of mysql to (hopefully) increase
>> the search speed (I use self-joins a lot and these should be faster in
>> postgres; there may also be scope beyond that for replacing my low level
>> word search algorithm with postgres' flexible free text searching but
>> still retaining the multiple variations the system copes with at present).
>
> This might be a silly question but has someone looked into using
> dedicated search engines like lucene for OSM data?

Brian's stuff is using the full text search support in postgres which is 
effectively a dedicated full test search engine. The advantage of using 
that over something like lucene is that you combine geographic 
restrictions (using postgis) with text searches in the same query.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://www.compton.nu/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Problems with the Multilingual Country-List

[Jonas Häggqvist]

Peter Körner wrote:
> Those translations will later be used for
> localized maps on wikipedia (see [3] for an old preview with many
> missing translations).
>
> [3] http://cassini.toolserver.org/tile-browse/

The Danish map[1] is simply a blank map at all zoom levels. What gives?

[1] http://cassini.toolserver.org/tile-browse/browse-da.html

-- 
Jonas Häggqvist
rasher(at)rasher(dot)dk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[Lulu-Ann]

Hi Martin

> I'm happy that you finally put your edits to this list. Actually
> before I was changing the page I was trying to involve as many
> contributors as possible. I not only posted on talk but also on
> talk-de and also on talk-it there was a note about this discussion.

You did not put in in the wiki. Many people are not on the mailing lists 
because mailing lists consume a lot of time. But they are using the highway tag 
just as much as the ones that read it. (maybe more, because the are out mapping 
instead of reading ;-)  )

> Therefore I think that "vandalism" is not really adequat. After some
> time of discussion I was pointing out on the list (referring also to
> the diff) that I changed the page. It was not hidden, but announced
> (many changes in the wiki do neither follow voting nor are announced
> to the lists).

Maybe vandalism was to hard, but we started our controverse with a little edit 
war... I am also happy this will end now.

You said yourself it was a proposal. It is obvious that this is a tag that is 
used extremely often, so it should be obvious to use the extablished voting 
workflow in this case.
There are votings for much minor tags, and it is good that way.
It is easy to put up a proposal, you can copy your new text there and wait two 
weeks.
 
> Besides this, the German highway-definition already stated the tagging
> according to "importance". 

Everybody, guess who changed it!

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=DE:Key:highway&diff=prev&oldid=288849

Thank you for making me aware of that.

>Please also note, that "physical state" is
> not absolute but highly relative to the surrounding/context, and that
> it didn't work neither (there was the need for "exceptions").

You can solve the trouble with each sentence in your new proposal.
(I really like the idea of having only the table with pictures, see below...)

> come on, they don't have to be reviewed, because
> a) this is already common practise

Then let's vote on it and see if it is the practice of the majority.

> b) people refer more to the specific definition than to the general one.

Then let's have a proposal that we don't need a general description and the 
specific definition is the good one (I'd agree I guess!)

> > Two important aspect of routing, the estimation of time to arrival and
> finding the fastest route, will fail if the highway tag does not stick to
> physical facts.
> 
> No, I could say the contrary.

Let's vote on it to see what the majority thinks.

> > Several other established or proposed tags like maxspeed defaults are
> negatively affected by changing the highway concept of tagging.
> 
> No. It seems you didn't look at the changes. AFAIK maxspeed defaults
> are about "in town" and "out-of-town" and (in Germany) about
> dual-carriageways and motorways. They are all not affected.

Let's vote on it to see what the majority thinks.

> > New OSM contributors learn bad practice from the start when the first
> tag they learn is switched from hard facts so unsure estimation.
> 
> Well, it was after an open discussion. What do you mean by "hard
> facts"? I added a reference to physical tags (width, lanes, surface)
> to the page that was missing before. In which way do "physical facts"
> help you to classify a road? Is a unsurfaced road always a track? Is a
> road with 4 lanes always a primary road?

You made a change after a discussion with 8 persons and not all did agree. This 
is far below the limit for a proposal voting to become approved.
Only in your last email you stated that you want to make a change to the page. 
If one only missed that one email, he/she was not aware of the change.
That is why votings are on the wiki, text *stays* there.
Also your arguments can be written on a talk page before you edit the main 
page. You are invited to use it.
 
> please. I didn't change a single specific tag and adjusted the main
> vague definition to common practise, you are not only exagerating, you
> are IMHO completely wrong.

You did change the most important tag. If common practise is not the best way 
to do something, it should not be in the tutorial - Or at least it shall be 
marked as an alternative. 
 
> > IMHO this is a new dimension of vandalism. I don't think that this is
> done by concurring commercial map providers, but this subtile method of
> weakening the OSM tagging schema and therefor lowering the quality of OSM data
> would be a really cool attack against OSM, because it is not possible to
> search for and revert such changes systematically.
> 
> Personally I see it contrary.

When I started wiki edits I also thought my edits were the best and no approval 
was needed... If you have much time, read my changes history, there were also 
some reverts needed. I was always advised to make a proposal as far as I 
remember, and not to put it on the list. 
It really seems that we have a devided group of contributors, some on the wiki, 
some on the list and some in both. 
We need to re

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/8/27  :
>> Besides this, the German highway-definition already stated the tagging
>> according to "importance".
>
> Everybody, guess who changed it!
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=DE:Key:highway&diff=prev&oldid=288849

you are not working properly, it wasn't me changing the meaning of the
German page. You are pointing to a minor edit of mine to regain
consistence (the one that originally changed the page according to
standard tagging habit left this phrase out).
This is the Diff. where the "new" meaning was introduced:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=DE%3AKey%3Ahighway&diff=283195&oldid=279292

> Thank you for making me aware of that.

please be more carefull when accusing other people.

> Then let's vote on it and see if it is the practice of the majority.

all right, let's vote.

>> b) people refer more to the specific definition than to the general one.
>
> Then let's have a proposal that we don't need a general description and the 
> specific definition is the good one (I'd agree I guess!)

no, it is IMHO important to have a general idea of how highway
classification works.

> When I started wiki edits I also thought my edits were the best and no 
> approval was needed... If you have much time, read my changes history, there 
> were also some reverts needed. I was always advised to make a proposal as far 
> as I remember, and not to put it on the list.

don't know who you talked to, but I see lot's of strange wiki edits
and lot's of discussions on the Mailing-List. IMHO a wiki is not a
good solution to discuss.

> It really seems that we have a devided group of contributors, some on the 
> wiki, some on the list and some in both.
> We need to reach all. The wiki proposal workflow does.

and don't forget the forum and IRC-channels ;-)

>> Did you set up a proposal to do so, that I can vote about?
>
> I did not change anything, I do not need a proposal.

yes you did. Why not revert the highway-page to the first version?
None of the intermediate versions was ever voted upon.

> I just wrote: "2000 is OK for me, let's have a look at tagwatch what would be 
> included then."
> And then I had a look at tagwatch, and I found that only in Germany the top 
> UNdocumented tag is used far over 100.000 times.
>
> addr:housenumber        344191

you are silly. That tag is far from undocumented and you know this.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] How to get a notification email for a change on a watched wiki page

[Mike Harris]

Thanks Lulu-Ann - I've been a lazy boy, haven't I! (:<) Tsk, tsk. Done now.

> -Original Message-
> From: lulu-...@gmx.de [mailto:lulu-...@gmx.de] 
> Sent: 27 August 2009 14:35
> To: Mike Harris; frede...@remote.org
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: How to get a notification email for a change on a 
> watched wiki page
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> > 2. Wiki vs mailing list: I use both - but the mailing list appears 
> > automatically in my in-tray every day and gets read whenever I have 
> > time to log on; the wiki seems to need me to watch a 
> particular page 
> > and, simple person that I am, I haven't found out how to 
> get changes 
> > notified to me - probably missed a 'watch this page' link or 
> > something! Whichever one prefers, common courtesy perhaps dictates 
> > that before making major changes to the wiki a check is 
> also made with 
> > the mailing list community - overlapping but not identical.
> 
> Here is how to get a notification email:
> 1. Put the pages on your watch list
> 2. Go to your preferences and configure your tab watch list.
> 3. On the first tab in your preferences you can choose to get 
> emails for changes on pages on your watch list.
> 
> Regards
> Lulu-An
> --
> Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und 
> Mozilla Firefox 3 - sicherer, schneller und einfacher! 
> http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/chbrowser


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

[OSM-talk] XAPI latency

[Peter Körner]

Hi

http://osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/ states
 > The source database is a mirror of the main OSM database and is
 > updated via the per-minute diff dumps. The data is normally no more
 > than about 10 minutes behind the main database.

But i added a name:de-Tag to node 462226505 [1] about 3 hours ago [2] 
and it's still not in the xapi response [3].

I'd like to update my Multilingual Country-List from the xapi, but this 
is a problem with such a delay. Is this intentional?

Peter



[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/462226505
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2277860
[3] http://osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.6/node \
 [place=country][bbox=-149.462984,-17.628559,-149.459057,-17.624162]


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

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/8/27  :
> You said yourself it was a proposal.
It was not a formal proposal as defined in:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features
because the text there states: "This page is for newly proposed
features to be added to the map features page. " which is not applying
to my edit.
Please also note this paragraph in here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Creating_a_proposal
"OSM was created out of a desire to change things, to break the status
quo; this principle should be kept in mind when creating tags as well.
"

I'm really concerned that OSM is going to wikipedia-like structures
with an overhead of formal requirements that IMHO will harm the
project.

> You made a change after a discussion with 8 persons and not all did agree. 
> This is far below the limit for a proposal voting to become approved.

1) there is no procedure to vote upon an edit like mine (see the
guidelines linked above, that don't reflect your point of view)
2) I guess you did not see all of the discussion. I'm leaving out
national lists and refer just to talk:
I count:
Greg Troxel
John Smith
Christiaan Welvaart
James Stewart
Emilie Laffray
Liz
James Livingston
Pieren
Roy Wallace
David Lynch
Elena of Valhalla
Richard Mann
Alex Mauer
Apollinaris Schoell
Lester Caine
Eugene Alvin Villar
Martin Simon
Dermot McNally

didn't count them, but it looks more than 8.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[Emilie Laffray]

2009/8/27 Martin Koppenhoefer 

>
> 2) I guess you did not see all of the discussion. I'm leaving out
> national lists and refer just to talk:
> I count:
> Greg Troxel
> John Smith
> Christiaan Welvaart
> James Stewart
> Emilie Laffray
> Liz
> James Livingston
> Pieren
> Roy Wallace
> David Lynch
> Elena of Valhalla
> Richard Mann
> Alex Mauer
> Apollinaris Schoell
> Lester Caine
> Eugene Alvin Villar
> Martin Simon
> Dermot McNally
>
> didn't count them, but it looks more than 8.
>

Well, usually, when I don't comment back, it usually means that I end up
agreeing whether willingly or not. I also believe that in the end people are
voting by their own practices. So I will usually not vote directly. There is
a saying in France: Who doesn't say anything agrees (roughly translated).

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

Re: [OSM-talk] XAPI latency

[Peter Körner]

It was finally updated, but it took about 4 hours (at least as i can tell)

Peter

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

[OSM-talk] [tagging] Proposed feature: Directional node

[Andrew MacKinnon]

This is a proposal for a generic way of tagging a node which
represents an object which faces a certain way - e.g. a traffic sign
such as a stop sign. Note this is not a specific proposal on how to
tag signs of a certain type, only a generic relation which can be used
for all objects of this type.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Directional_node

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/8/27 Emilie Laffray :
>
>
> 2009/8/27 Martin Koppenhoefer 
>>
>> 2) I guess you did not see all of the discussion. I'm leaving out
>> national lists and refer just to talk:
>> I count:
>> Greg Troxel
>> John Smith
>> Christiaan Welvaart
>> James Stewart
>> Emilie Laffray
>> Liz
>> James Livingston
>> Pieren
>> Roy Wallace
>> David Lynch
>> Elena of Valhalla
>> Richard Mann
>> Alex Mauer
>> Apollinaris Schoell
>> Lester Caine
>> Eugene Alvin Villar
>> Martin Simon
>> Dermot McNally
>>
>> didn't count them, but it looks more than 8.
>
> Well, usually, when I don't comment back, it usually means that I end up
> agreeing whether willingly or not. I also believe that in the end people are
> voting by their own practices. So I will usually not vote directly. There is
> a saying in France: Who doesn't say anything agrees (roughly translated).
>
> Emilie Laffray
>



OK, I set up a page (not that I wouldn't have prefered to do sth. more
useful like mapping in this time, but this issue is really important
to me, that's why I started the discussion and why I now set up the
page. I'm really hoping that this time there will be more contribution
on voting than in general.

The preliminary page is here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_key_voting_importance

please tell me what are the "rules", do I have to send a mail
containing RFC to the talk list? Should we discuss for another month
on all country-specific lists? Do we have to invite the forum?
Shouldn't we vote in general if we want to keep voting? Do I have to
add a special template?

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/8/27 Martin Koppenhoefer :
> The preliminary page is here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_key_voting_importance

what about reverting in the meantime (while we discuss the changes
(?)) the highway page to it's initial status? I'm not referring to the
one from before my edit but the first version. In the end this would
be the "correct" way to do it, as none of the changes ever had been
voted upon.

Any opinion on this?

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Problems with the Multilingual Country-List

[Peter Körner]

> Could the tool be extended to support names of cities?  For these, a 
> percentage
> completion indicator makes little sense, since most city names are not
> translated, but there are still a hundred or so worldwide which do have their 
> own
> name in most major languages.

Currently the tool gets it's updates from the api / xapi servers. This 
is ok for >300 countries but it wouldn't work for boundary-relations, 
cities, countries, islands, streets, airports, ...

As soon as the toolserver holds an up2date version of the osm-database 
(or at least a postgis database for mapnik) I plan zo implement a tool 
that allows translation of arbitrary things.

I don't have the servers nor do I have the knowledge to do my own 
diff-import, so i'm conditioned on the wikimedia toolserver. Another 
benefit of waiting until thei're ready is, that we'll have up2date 
localized maps then, so you cold see your success.

Peter

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Problems with the Multilingual Country-List

[Peter Körner]

>> [3] http://cassini.toolserver.org/tile-browse/
> 
> The Danish map[1] is simply a blank map at all zoom levels. What gives?
> 
> [1] http://cassini.toolserver.org/tile-browse/browse-da.html

It is just not yet rendered. The tiles will get in the render-queue as 
you try to see them. Take another look - it has filles already!

Peter


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

Re: [OSM-talk] XAPI latency

[80n]

Peter
If you inspect the contents of the  element in the response you will
see a tag xapi:planetDate which contains a timestamp that will tell you how
fresh the data is.

For example:


80n

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Peter Körner wrote:

> It was finally updated, but it took about 4 hours (at least as i can tell)
>
> Peter
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Proposed feature: Directional node

[John Smith]

2009/8/28 Andrew MacKinnon :
> This is a proposal for a generic way of tagging a node which
> represents an object which faces a certain way - e.g. a traffic sign
> such as a stop sign. Note this is not a specific proposal on how to
> tag signs of a certain type, only a generic relation which can be used
> for all objects of this type.

At first read is seems like a bad idea to link a stop sign with a
completely unrelated node just to indicate direction?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[David Earl]

On 27/08/2009 17:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> OK, I set up a page (not that I wouldn't have prefered to do sth. more
> useful like mapping in this time, but this issue is really important
> to me, that's why I started the discussion and why I now set up the
> page. I'm really hoping that this time there will be more contribution
> on voting than in general.

I think this whole discussion is like trying to change things by 
bludgeoning by email. I've had to largely stop reading it because I 
cannot possibly read and contribute to the hundreds of messages there 
have been on the subject.

I think it is a complete nonsense proposal and doesn't just change the 
highway tag but potentially the basis on which we tag all objects in 
OSM. This is tagging by subjective not objective criteria.

Tagging something as a motorway when it isn't signed that way or 
vice-versa just because in someone's opinion it looks a more "important" 
road is a rubbish way of doing it IMO.

There are subjective judgements to be made when the evidence is thin on 
the ground, I grant you; but to fly in the face of the physical evidence 
is perverse.

If you want a "I think this looks like a motorway" tag, 
("quacks_like_a_duck=motorway"?), fine, but please don't change the 
meaning of almost everything everyone has done.

To do this on the basis of a few votes on the wiki when there's 
thousands of mappers using these tags every day is a pretence of 
democracy. This one is more on the scale of the vote on a license change.

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/8/27 David Earl :
> On 27/08/2009 17:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> Tagging something as a motorway when it isn't signed that way or
> vice-versa just because in someone's opinion it looks a more "important"
> road is a rubbish way of doing it IMO.

actually a motorway isn't described by physical attributes either: it
is a legal question of what signs are put there. I completely agree
that a motorway is just to tag as such when it has a motorway-sign and
over. There is IMHO nothing to discuss about motorway and the
discussion was never about them. Also footways and cycleways, paths
ecc. are not in the focus, neither are traffic-lights and other stuff
aglomerated in the meantime in the highway-tag. The proposal is about
the grid of interconnections, the road system in general.

The thing is: how do you tag trunk, primary, secondary, tertiary and
unclassified? They are the aim.

> If you want a "I think this looks like a motorway" tag,
> ("quacks_like_a_duck=motorway"?), fine, but please don't change the
> meaning of almost everything everyone has done.

look on the current state of the Key:highway-page: that's what IS
THERE AT THE MOMENT.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[Matt Williams]

2009/8/27 Martin Koppenhoefer :
> 2009/8/27 David Earl :
>> On 27/08/2009 17:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> Tagging something as a motorway when it isn't signed that way or
>> vice-versa just because in someone's opinion it looks a more "important"
>> road is a rubbish way of doing it IMO.
>
> actually a motorway isn't described by physical attributes either: it
> is a legal question of what signs are put there. I completely agree
> that a motorway is just to tag as such when it has a motorway-sign and
> over. There is IMHO nothing to discuss about motorway and the
> discussion was never about them. Also footways and cycleways, paths
> ecc. are not in the focus, neither are traffic-lights and other stuff
> aglomerated in the meantime in the highway-tag. The proposal is about
> the grid of interconnections, the road system in general.
>
> The thing is: how do you tag trunk, primary, secondary, tertiary and
> unclassified? They are the aim.

Like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#International_equivalence,
surely?

-- 
Matt Williams
http://milliams.com

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMdoc.com - Tagwatch like interface for viewing tag data

[Lars Francke]

>> http://osmdoc.com/de/tag/amenity/drinking_water#misspellings
>
> The possible misspellings looks like that:
> drinking-water=*
>
> You expect the key "drinking-water" with a various value. But
> key/value is shown after a click is "amenity=drinking-water". So
> please change it.

You are of course right. Thanks for the hint. I fixed it.

> But in any case you did a great job! And hopefully we will get regular
> updates in the future.

I hope so too :)
I'll see what I can do this or next week, but no promises. I suspect
that quite a lot of spell correction has been going on, at least for
the popular tags. I wanted to correct some myself but most of the time
they had already been corrected.

Lars

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[David Earl]

On 27/08/2009 17:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> There is IMHO nothing to discuss about motorway and the
> discussion was never about them. 

That was the subject matter of a message to talk-gb this morning - 
someone wanting to tag a trunk road as a motorway because it looked like 
one (grade separated junctions and the like) even though the signs said 
otherwise.

David

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

Re: [OSM-talk] my flag is not showing on the green

[Jon Burgess]

On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 16:29 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
>   select node from planet_osm_point where 
> golf='green' as golfmarkers

Try:

 select way,golf from planet_osm_point where golf='green' as golfmarkers

* way is required for Mapnik to know where the point is located. 
* golf is required for your filter. 

If you want to optimize things, the filter in the style is redundant
since the SQL select is only going to return points with golf='green'
anyway.

Alternatively you could replace you select with just "planet_osm_point"
and leave the filter in place.

Jon



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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Craig Wallace]

On 27/08/2009 09:37, Lars Francke wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>> Ideas? Comments? Flames? :-)
>>  
> I'll have to admit that I didn't read the proposal or any of the mails
> in this thread. However, I still have a comment:
> All I can think of when reading "Key:stop" is that I can't wait to
> finally see or use:
> stop=hammer time
> stop=in the name of love
> stop=collaborate and listen
>
> This is a motivation for me to update the osmdoc.com data more often.
>
> You may continue your discussion now.
>
How's about stop=war? There are quite a few stop signs around the world 
that have been modified in such a way. eg 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OneWayStopWar.jpg
Or why not just stop=worrying: 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thisduckhere/2671360105/


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

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[Christiaan Welvaart]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> 2009/8/27  :
>> You made a change after a discussion with 8 persons and not all did 
>> agree. This is far below the limit for a proposal voting to become 
>> approved.
>
> 1) there is no procedure to vote upon an edit like mine (see the
> guidelines linked above, that don't reflect your point of view)
> 2) I guess you did not see all of the discussion. I'm leaving out
> national lists and refer just to talk:

...

It seems your translation of the german wording is incorrect. In german it 
talks about 'Verkehrsbedeutung' which does not sound so bad to me. But 
'importance' is something else IMO. A road's importance can be different 
for different traffic participants (or even non-participants), so it is 
too subjective.

The following probably makes just as little sense, though ):

   "A way with the highway tag set is a road. The value of this tag 
reflects the purpose of the road within the road network of a country. As 
such, a proper definition of many of the values can only be found in each 
country project. Some of these country-specific definitions are listed in 
the International Equivalence table below."


 Christiaan

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New proposal: Bad data

[Jukka Rahkonen]

Martin Koppenhoefer  gmail.com> writes:

> >> could we simply extend source=survey with a year
> >> and source=landsat similarly?
> >>
> >> source=survey09
> >> source=landsat_trace09
> >> source=yahoo_trace08
> >
> > That sounds like a good plan.
> 
> you can easily get this information by looking at the history (or even
> render a custom map to display the age), but feel free to add it 

Are history data very reliable to be used that way?  For example splitting a way
for some technical reason does not necessarily mean that the whole way was
surveyd again.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] my flag is not showing on the green

[Lennard]

Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:

>   select node from planet_osm_point where 
> golf='green' as golfmarkers
> 
> but the flag is not showing. What could be wrong?

select way from planet_osm_point  

-- 
Lennard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] How to get a notification email for a change on a watched wiki page

[Michael Kugelmann]

lulu-...@gmx.de schrieb:
> Here is how to get a notification email
Please allow me one comment on notification emails (this is not directly 
addressed to Lulu-Ann).

Preface: I use it since some time and shure they are usefull.

BUT:
how many definition pages are you willing to put on your watch page? I 
think there are hundreds. And I don't want to be flooded with hundreds 
of "notification emails". If there are too much notification emails I 
will not be able to check them all and/or get tired about it.
So the notification emails are IMHO not a sollution for changes of the 
key definitions.


Best regards,
Michael.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Roy Wallace]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:05 PM, "Marc Schütz" wrote:
>
> Note that by requiring a junction, you make it impossible to model stop signs 
> don't involve a junction.

Yeah, I was thinking about this too You could argue that a stop
sign/"requirement to stop" should be modeled not by "a way and a
junction", nor by a "node on a way and the nearest junction" but by a
*node on a way and a direction*.

After all, stop signs are generally not double-sided.

How about this...just tag a node (must be on a way) where the stop
sign/line is in reality, with the following:
stop:forward=yes, or
stop:backward=yes, or
stop=yes (for a node on a oneway=yes way, else implies the stop sign
applies in both directions)

Syntax negotiable, but you get the idea - the above was chosen to
resemble some examples on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access.  You might prefer
highway:forward=stop, but I don't.

Maybe this is a good compromise - it avoids the need for a relation,
but also clearly and completely describes the effect of the stop sign.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Proposed feature: Directional node

[Roy Wallace]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Andrew MacKinnon wrote:
> This is a proposal for a generic way of tagging a node which
> represents an object which faces a certain way - e.g. a traffic sign
> such as a stop sign. Note this is not a specific proposal on how to
> tag signs of a certain type, only a generic relation which can be used
> for all objects of this type.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Directional_node

Good effort, nice picture, and good to see it's generic :) But I don't
like the stop sign example. I think the direction of the sign would be
better described by the direction of the way, in this case.

For the artwork and bench examples, I guess this is ok. But like John
said, adding an extra node that is otherwise meaningless should be
avoided if possible. I think members of relations should be meaningful
elements in their own right, not just used to tag a single existing
element in a complex way.

The alternative to all of this is adding a tag which gives the
direction in the form of a bearing, as in north/south/east/west. You
may want to talk to davidsv who is drafting this:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/direction

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Proposed feature: Directional node

[OJ W]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Andrew MacKinnon wrote:
> This is a proposal for a generic way of tagging a node which
> represents an object which faces a certain way

like a lighthouse with directional light? how does openseamap store those?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Proposed feature: Directional node

[Christiaan Welvaart]

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Andrew MacKinnon wrote:
>> This is a proposal for a generic way of tagging a node which
>> represents an object which faces a certain way - e.g. a traffic sign
>> such as a stop sign. Note this is not a specific proposal on how to
>> tag signs of a certain type, only a generic relation which can be used
>> for all objects of this type.
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Directional_node
>
> Good effort, nice picture, and good to see it's generic :) But I don't
> like the stop sign example. I think the direction of the sign would be
> better described by the direction of the way, in this case.

Like  traffic_calming:starboard=stop  ?  (;


 Christiaan

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/8/27 Christiaan Welvaart :
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> It seems your translation of the german wording is incorrect. In german it
> talks about 'Verkehrsbedeutung' which does not sound so bad to me.
> But 'importance' is something else IMO. A road's importance can be different
> for different traffic participants (or even non-participants), so it is
> too subjective.

It might be that the first paragraph is too short and therefore
eventually missleading, even if I didn't translate  something. If you
see in the 3rd paragraph: "the highway tag is for making a general
description of the importance of a highway in the street grid" -
sounds horrible as well and should probably be "adjusted lingually",
but is more precise. It refers to the street grid, not the relative
importance for single users.

I tried to keep all of the text and change as little as possible, but
maybe at this point there could also be a complete "redesign" of the
page. I don't know. I wanted that the page somehow reflected the
"hierarchical-grid-aspect" of our system as I thought it is the best
approach and most others think the same (thought I ;-) )

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[Roy Wallace]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> I tried to keep all of the text and change as little as possible, but
> maybe at this point there could also be a complete "redesign" of the
> page. I don't know. I wanted that the page somehow reflected the
> "hierarchical-grid-aspect" of our system as I thought it is the best
> approach and most others think the same (thought I ;-) )

Perhaps it is worth trying to pin down exactly what is meant by
""hierarchical-grid-aspect" of our system".

If you can do it in such a way that it becomes less subjective than
"importance", you just might convince some others that it is indeed
the best approach (btw, I am already convinced, as long as
surface/lanes/width/maxspeed etc. is provided in addition).

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[JigPu]

Disclaimer: I'm new to the OSM mailing lists, so hopefully I didn't
screw up my email :D

~

I must say that I find both "Relation:type=stop" and Roy's ideas
interesting. The former suggests that we abstract reality away while
the latter suggests we mirror reality in OSM.

Mirroring reality will always result in more precision, but there is
often a tradeoff for simplicity. For instance, OSM maps multi-lane
roads with a single way. Although mapping individual lanes would
result in a map closer to reality, there are few benefits and the
work required for mapping, rendering, and routing would be
significant.

Unless there are a number of benefits that arise from knowing the
precice location of a stop sign it seems more reasonable to use
relations for this job. They're slightly easier to map (no precision
surveying required) and far easier to get software working with. The
one downside I can see is that you loose the ability to know exactly
WHERE a sign is -- information that I'm hard-pressed to think of a
use for (not to say that there isn't a use, mind you).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] [RFC] adjusting the main definition of Key:highway

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

please take a look at, contribute and fwd. to your local lists:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_key_voting_importance

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New proposal: Bad data

[John Smith]

2009/8/28 Jukka Rahkonen :
> Are history data very reliable to be used that way?  For example splitting a 
> way
> for some technical reason does not necessarily mean that the whole way was
> surveyd again.

As someone else already wrote, this information should be stored in
the change set tags, not in the way/node tags.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[John Smith]

2009/8/28 Roy Wallace :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:05 PM, "Marc Schütz" wrote:
>>
>> Note that by requiring a junction, you make it impossible to model stop 
>> signs don't involve a junction.
>
> Yeah, I was thinking about this too You could argue that a stop
> sign/"requirement to stop" should be modeled not by "a way and a
> junction", nor by a "node on a way and the nearest junction" but by a
> *node on a way and a direction*.
>
> After all, stop signs are generally not double-sided.
>
> How about this...just tag a node (must be on a way) where the stop
> sign/line is in reality, with the following:
> stop:forward=yes, or
> stop:backward=yes, or
> stop=yes (for a node on a oneway=yes way, else implies the stop sign
> applies in both directions)

You are still trying to tag for routing software, or trying to compare
a stop sign with a oneway segment, this really should be dealt with as
a bigger issue of lanes rather than the hacks people seem to be coming
up with.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism

[Micha Ruh]

All,

please note that 'Dieterdreist' (german) translates to 'brazen Dieter' /
'uppity Dieter'.

My vote got deleted by him _without any notice_.

 *** ** ** ***!

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Highway_key_voting_importance&diff=328929&oldid=328922


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Norbert Hoffmann]

John Smith wrote:

>2009/8/28 Roy Wallace :
>> How about this...just tag a node (must be on a way) where the stop
>> sign/line is in reality, with the following:
>> stop:forward=yes, or
>> stop:backward=yes, or
>> stop=yes (for a node on a oneway=yes way, else implies the stop sign
>> applies in both directions)
+1

>You are still trying to tag for routing software, or trying to compare
>a stop sign with a oneway segment, this really should be dealt with as
>a bigger issue of lanes rather than the hacks people seem to be coming
>up with.

No, Roy wants to tag the semantics of the stop-sign. If this really
simplifies the task of the data consumers, it's all the better.

Norbert


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[John Smith]

2009/8/28 Norbert Hoffmann :

> No, Roy wants to tag the semantics of the stop-sign. If this really
> simplifies the task of the data consumers, it's all the better.

It seems the problem Roy is trying to solve is to seperate lanes out,
of a dual direction way by use of a relation and pitting it against a
near by junction, where this isn't the problem the needs to be solved,
each lane may have individual restrictions of one sort or another, now
instead of having 1 hacked up solution we now have 2, to describe how
a stop sign effects one lane out of a pair.

The problem that needs to be solved is tagging individual lanes on a
way, regardless if the issue is a stop sign, different lanes have
different speed limits, different lanes having turn restrictions or
what ever the case may be, the problem is needing to tag individual
lanes.

We should not be tagging stop signs and junctions with a relation that
doesn't solve the bigger issue. Stop signs stop you from entering a
junction and are before the junction and that's how they should be
tagged, however in this case traffic coming from the other direction
and in the other lane isn't effected by any stop sign.

If we could tag lanes instead of ways this would be a no brainer, just
another speed bump of sorts, and in fact some speed bumps only effect
one lane, and they can be in pairs but at different positions on a way
and I bet they aren't being tagged properly either.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] my flag is not showing on the green

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Friday 28 Aug 2009 12:08:37 am Jon Burgess wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 16:29 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> >   select node from planet_osm_point where
> > golf='green' as golfmarkers
>
> Try:
>
>  select way,golf from planet_osm_point where golf='green' as golfmarkers
>
> * way is required for Mapnik to know where the point is located.
> * golf is required for your filter.
>
> If you want to optimize things, the filter in the style is redundant
> since the SQL select is only going to return points with golf='green'
> anyway.
>
> Alternatively you could replace you select with just "planet_osm_point"
> and leave the filter in place.

that did the trick - thanks
-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate
NRC-FOSS
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Roy Wallace]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:18 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Norbert Hoffmann :
>
>> No, Roy wants to tag the semantics of the stop-sign. If this really
>> simplifies the task of the data consumers, it's all the better.
>
> It seems the problem Roy is trying to solve is to seperate lanes out,
> of a dual direction way by use of a relation and pitting it against a
> near by junction,

Pretty much. Not necessarily by use of a relation (my suggestion above
was a tag only). But yes - the concept of direction is necessary for a
stop sign because, as I said before, stop signs are generally not
double-sided.

> where this isn't the problem the needs to be solved,
> each lane may have individual restrictions of one sort or another, now
> instead of having 1 hacked up solution we now have 2, to describe how
> a stop sign effects one lane out of a pair.
>
> The problem that needs to be solved is tagging individual lanes on a
> way, regardless if the issue is a stop sign, different lanes have
> different speed limits, different lanes having turn restrictions or
> what ever the case may be, the problem is needing to tag individual
> lanes.
>
> We should not be tagging stop signs and junctions with a relation that
> doesn't solve the bigger issue. Stop signs stop you from entering a
> junction and are before the junction and that's how they should be
> tagged, however in this case traffic coming from the other direction
> and in the other lane isn't effected by any stop sign.
>
> If we could tag lanes instead of ways this would be a no brainer, just
> another speed bump of sorts, and in fact some speed bumps only effect
> one lane, and they can be in pairs but at different positions on a way
> and I bet they aren't being tagged properly either.

So what are you proposing? How should we tag stop signs? To me, it
seems you are suggesting that stop signs should *only* be tagged on
ways that are oneway=yes. What are you proposing?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[John Smith]

2009/8/28 Roy Wallace :

> So what are you proposing? How should we tag stop signs? To me, it
> seems you are suggesting that stop signs should *only* be tagged on
> ways that are oneway=yes. What are you proposing?

Nothing of the sort. We really don't seem to be on the same wave
length at times. :)

The real issue is the OSM DB and editors all treat all ways as always
being symmetrical, real life however doesn't share the same
simplicitic view of things.

What we have now is when we tag a stop sign it has the implication of
effecting both lanes and various suggestions put forth so far try to
distingush this, but do so without addressing the real problem. We're
taking pain killers to mask the pain rather than taking antibiotics to
fix the underlying cause of the pain.

Stop signs are a good example of this, as is needing to tag lanes with
differing speed limits on motorways, as is tagging different
clearences if bridges over ways slope, or lanes having different
turning restrictions, and so on.

What we need is a real solution to address all these problems which
comes down to a fundemental problem of describing lanes, not ways.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[Lester Caine]

John Smith wrote:
>> No, Roy wants to tag the semantics of the stop-sign. If this really
>> simplifies the task of the data consumers, it's all the better.
> 
> It seems the problem Roy is trying to solve is to seperate lanes out,
> of a dual direction way by use of a relation and pitting it against a
> near by junction, where this isn't the problem the needs to be solved,
> each lane may have individual restrictions of one sort or another, now
> instead of having 1 hacked up solution we now have 2, to describe how
> a stop sign effects one lane out of a pair.
> 
> The problem that needs to be solved is tagging individual lanes on a
> way, regardless if the issue is a stop sign, different lanes have
> different speed limits, different lanes having turn restrictions or
> what ever the case may be, the problem is needing to tag individual
> lanes.

This does bring up a few more combinations that are not currently
covered. I've had a couple of runs over to Milton Keynes in the last
couple of days, and GETTING into the correct lane even to go straight on
can be a problem, with the outside lane of a pair forcing a right turn.

Slip lanes, splitting from 3 to 4 lanes with left and right filter lanes
and road markings that give different priority depending on which
direction you enter the junction from are all a lot more complex than
the simple stop sign problem :)

Traffic navigation that can warn you that you need a particular lane
would have prevented a couple of potentially nasty incidents! But then
there will still be people who can't wait anyway and will just plough
into the rest of us :(

Now is probably the time that we need to lay out a set of guidelines for
micro-mapping the complexities of the road system ( and I have already
ranted about the pedestrian aspects of that ) from a simple country
crossroads where there is a single main road, and a minor cross road
with stop signs ( and no separate pedestrian areas ) through to the 6 or
more road roundabouts with complex slip/giveway and traffic lights along
with identified pedestrian routes through the junction.

Relations may be useful in some instances, but I don't think that they
replace the need to BE ABLE to more accurately map the situation on the
ground? And we may be approaching the situation where lanes=2 -> lanes=3
is simply not an answer and every lane will need to be mapped?

( And I still think that complimenting highway=trunk with footway=? in
this micromapping level makes more sense than additional highway=path
for the pedestrian element of this )

-- 
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