Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
Peter Childs wrote: > I have no knowledge of Canals and shipping, so maybe we need an > expert on how to map waterways properly. Yeah, maybe we could ask the editor of the biggest-selling waterway magazine, established since 1972 and which publishes a series of detailed pull-out waterway maps every month. Maybe, by some bizarre coincidence, he might even be an OSMer. Wouldn't that be bizarre. cheers Richard editor, Waterways World -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/waterway%3Dlock-tp25170540p25197228.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Path in JOSM preset and motorcar=yes/designated
Hi, I would really appreciate if the JOSM presets dictators could remove the option about motorcar in the JOSM presets dialog. We get on the french ML more and more complains about the confusion between unclassified, tracks, footway, path, etc. If in addition, the JOSM presets about highway=path suggests that a path is also for motorcars, we will never stop ! If a car can use it, it's a track, not a path. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Trace type
2009/8/28 Tomas Straupis : > This could later be used in editors to use different colours for > different types of traces. This way we would rather approximate street > track along motorcar traces (if available) rather than "foot-traces" > done walking alongside the street. in JOSM there is a plugin that displays different colours according to travelling speed, but currently it works just with locally opened tracks, not downloaded ones (because they do not contain the time-information). With the new type of track it might by possible to do this (the ones that contain time info. Actually I don't know if this already works, did a test some day ago and the so called new-"public" tracks were not downloaded at all, so I deleted them and reuploaded it in old-"public"-way and then it worked again). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Trace type
Hello During a meeting of Lithuanian mappers we raised an idea, that it would be useful to have type of track recorded along access/security details. That is currently you only specify how your traces can be accessed (public, private, intermediary). It would be nice to be able specify how were those tracks recorded and for what purpose. Say: * Motorcar * Bicycle * Foot (along road/street) * Foot (along some feature (f.e. forest/woodland/lake/river bank/edge)) * Unclassified track (for tracks recorded with GPS switched on while doing a lot of different activities: driving, walking, sitting in one place etc. - probably the default setting or the one used for all previous traces). This could later be used in editors to use different colours for different types of traces. This way we would rather approximate street track along motorcar traces (if available) rather than "foot-traces" done walking alongside the street. For example if I want to mark a better bank of a lake (or say edge of a forest), I could walk around a lake and mark that trace as "Foot (alongside natural object)" so that it is displayed as say blue/green in JOSM. This way other mappers would not confuse it with actual footpath or even worse - track/road. What do you think? P.S. Currently there is a possibility to add "tags", but those are not "predefined", there is no clear explanation how to use them etc. And anyway, currently they are used (as far as I know) to specify a "place" traces rather than "how" or "for what purpose" was a trace done. P.S.S. I do understand that the best source for mapping such natural features would be aerial photos, but until or where those are not available or are available in bad detail... -- Tomas Straupis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Beach volleyball
2009/8/28 Arlindo Pereira :
> Or not even limited to volleyball at all. Here in Rio de Janeiro it is very
> common to play futevôlei ("footvolley", volley played with the foot, not
> with the hand) in the volleyball pitches.
Indeed. However, in most cases they *are* (beach) volleyball courts.
That is that when a person looks at one, they think "that's a
volleyball court" and not "that's some sand that I could play
volleyball on but I could also play chess". Any local person could
think, upon seeing a "beach volleyball court" on the map, "I could
play futevôlei on that".
I think this comes down to 'mapping what is on the ground', i.e. a
volleyball court. That's not to say, however, that if the court
really is appropriate for futevôlei then it shouldn't have some sort
of extra tag to denote that.
--
Matt Williams
http://milliams.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Beach volleyball
Or not even limited to volleyball at all. Here in Rio de Janeiro it is very
common to play futevôlei ("footvolley", volley played with the foot, not
with the hand) in the volleyball pitches.
:)
Cheers,
2009/8/28 Peteris Krisjanis
> >> I'd tag it something like this:
> >>
> >> leisure=pitch
> >> sport=beach_volleyball
> >> surface=sand
> >
> > I surveyed one last year
> > (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/25866824) and tagged it as:
> >
> > leisure = pitch
> > sport = volleyball
> > surface = sand
> >
> > Perhaps that's a mistagging. I like your schema better.
>
> I would second sport = volleyball, because from my experience those
> pitches are usually not limited to beach_volleyball (two versus two
> players). Sometimes there is is 3v3 or even 5v5.
>
> Cheers,
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
--
Arlindo Saraiva Pereira Jr.
Bacharelando em Sistemas de Informação - UNIRIO - uniriotec.br
Consultor de Software Livre da Uniriotec Consultoria - uniriotec.com
Acadêmico: arlindo.pere...@uniriotec.br
Profissional: arlindo.pere...@uniriotec.com
Geral: cont...@arlindopereira.com
Tel.: +5521 92504072
Jabber/Google Talk: nig...@nighto.net
Skype: nighto_sumomo
Chave pública: BD065DEC
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM in Wired
2009/8/28 Morten Kjeldgaard : > OSM is featured in Wired Magazine today: > > http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/gps-hackers/ And now mirrored in CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/27/gps.digital.maps/ -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
2009/8/28 Richard Fairhurst : > > Peter Childs wrote: >> The Canal way will need to be split at the lock gates, (or in >> some cases where a diversion starts (due to some rivers >> going over weirs) while there is a lock for boats. > > (UK-specific tagging stuff follows) > > Ideally I'd like to discourage people from using a (non-closed) way for > locks where possible. > > It makes dealing with the data vastly harder; doesn't actually give you many > real advantages; and is actively misleading in that it suggests the length > of the way is significant. Given that UK locks have a tolerance measured in > inches, and our mapping doesn't, the length is much better expressed in the > maxlength tag. > > About the one thing to be said for mapping the lock as a way, with lock-gate > nodes at either end, is that you can route a footpath over one of them. > Which is quite nice in a micro-mapping sort of way but so much of an edge > case (99% of footpath crossings are actually on lock bridges) that I don't > see a real issue. > > If there's a _large_ lock - say, those on the Manchester Ship Canal - then > it should really be mapped as an area, not an unclosed way. > While I agree that a maxlength tag is a good idea. maxlength still needs to be on a way otherwise its saying the max length of the gate which is utter rubbish. Your suggestion is even more complex. a Closed area would not work as you need to map the gates so you would need 4 ways, one for each bank and one for each gate. I have no knowledge of Canals and shipping, so maybe we need an expert on how to map waterways properly. I guess you need two parallel ways for each bank of a river or canal and a third for the river itself right, When I was adding Tenston Lock I did not the banks where not maped only the river so there was no clue to river width. Oh sorry a river is a series of Area (he frowns) What event happens at the joins are they completely arbitratory. Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM in Wired
OSM is featured in Wired Magazine today: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/gps-hackers/ Cheers, Morten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Local Chapters Working Group Update
Peter, John + list, Not sure where the details of payment have gone - I'll try to take a look at the history over the weekend, but I might not get the chance. The info is definitely on the wiki discussion page, which seemed a good place to hold the contentious issues. Totally agree regarding a mailing list - I know Mike has it on his todo list. For now I'll keep communicating on Talk. Regarding the call, its a Local Chapters Working Group call, almost entirely about the process of setting up local chapters. We won't be talking about the ins and outs of the actual agreement, just how we can get a framework in place for things like handling applications, negotiating contracts with local groups etc. Anyone is welcome to join the group - please mail lo...@osmfoundation.org is you'd like to join and help out. -- Nick On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:50 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/8/29 Peter Miller : > > As agreed in an earlier thread on talk [1] can we have an email list for > > this subject. How about talk-local? Can we have it now! > > +100 > > Why are people being excluded from these decisions when I've > repeatedly told/emailed you that 6pm BST is unsuitable for a number of > interested parties in this process? > > > Fyi, the 'proposed agreement' on the wiki makes no mention of a payment > of > > £10, indeed the finance section starts "Local chapters and the OSMF being > > separate legel entities have their own sources of income like membership > > fees and donations and decide on their own what to do with their money. > > There is no automatic payment of money from local chapters to OSMF or > vice > > versa" . Are you referring back to the original document? I believe we > > should all be working from the version on the wiki. > > I really don't think it's a good idea to force people to automatically > join OSM-F, I agree that it should be encouraged but not mandated it > will deter people from joining both local chapters and OSM-F. > > But of course there has been no discussion on this except for a few > that was on the last discussion about this. > -- -- Nick Black twitter.com/nick_b ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Canada Chapter
Hi, On the talk-ca list it's still in the works (i put forward the idea, but no responses yet). Once the Canada Import is done... that'll be a BIG difference in Map quality. :-) But anyway, being a local foundation might let us work closer with Natural Resource Canada, and with Non-profits and helping them build up their own maps that they provide to their own members. (and perhaps meet-up.com could help spur growth... but that's another story) OSGeo -Ottawa exists and OS GeoBC exists... and Austrialia / New Zealand exists http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Aust-NZ (I think it's John Smith thats in Australia but im not sure)? Anyway, im watching as close as i can to whats going on down there, and trying to understand the relationship between the OSM and OSGeo. I think it's the licensing issue (because industry uses Prop. Software -ArchGIS (but it's now compatible, and can work with it). Once OSM gets bigger (in these next 2 years of fast growth s-curve, more industry will be looking at use more professionally, (since we will out-map TeleAtlas & NavTeq) :-) Anyway, i schedualed time to make that conference call. (Hopefully by then, we'll have more details). I'll be on that mailing list, as soon as it's available :) Cheers, Sam Vekemans Across Canada Trails Twitter: @Acrosscanada Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Local Chapters Working Group Update
2009/8/29 Peter Miller : > As agreed in an earlier thread on talk [1] can we have an email list for > this subject. How about talk-local? Can we have it now! +100 Why are people being excluded from these decisions when I've repeatedly told/emailed you that 6pm BST is unsuitable for a number of interested parties in this process? > Fyi, the 'proposed agreement' on the wiki makes no mention of a payment of > £10, indeed the finance section starts "Local chapters and the OSMF being > separate legel entities have their own sources of income like membership > fees and donations and decide on their own what to do with their money. > There is no automatic payment of money from local chapters to OSMF or vice > versa" . Are you referring back to the original document? I believe we > should all be working from the version on the wiki. I really don't think it's a good idea to force people to automatically join OSM-F, I agree that it should be encouraged but not mandated it will deter people from joining both local chapters and OSM-F. But of course there has been no discussion on this except for a few that was on the last discussion about this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Local Chapters Working Group Update
On 28 Aug 2009, at 16:49, Nick Black wrote: Hello, *Next Meeting of the Local Chapters Group* The local chapters working group will meet at 6pm BST on Weds 30th September to discuss these issues and others. The agenda of the meeting is: * What is the process for creating draft agreements and approving local chapters? This includes a timeline for getting the first chapters set up and identifying any discussion items that the local chapters group feel may be blockers to moving forward with local chapter agreements. * What is the process for continuing to refine the current agreement? * Which parts of the agreement should be standard and which could be amended for each group? The local chapters group will report back to this list after our meeting next week. In the meantime, please comment on the agreement on the wiki page, or mail us directly at lo...@osmfoundation.org. As agreed in an earlier thread on talk [1] can we have an email list for this subject. How about talk-local? Can we have it now! It seems sensible to set this up and use it and the wiki to work things through for a while before considering the need for a conference call. If you do make a conference call then please take minutes and put them on the new public email list for people to read who were not on the call. I don't believe any decisions should be made on the conference call. Btw, I notice that there was a call on 24 August 2009; can the minutes for that meeting be published prior to any further call? Fyi, the 'proposed agreement' on the wiki makes no mention of a payment of £10, indeed the finance section starts "Local chapters and the OSMF being separate legel entities have their own sources of income like membership fees and donations and decide on their own what to do with their money. There is no automatic payment of money from local chapters to OSMF or vice versa" . Are you referring back to the original document? I believe we should all be working from the version on the wiki. Thanks for pushing this forward Nick, Peter [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-August/040634.html If you have a chapter you'd like to set up, please add it to the list here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/Proposed_Chapters [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity -- Nick Black twitter.com/nick_b ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Local Chapters Working Group Update
Hello, Here's an update on the current state of the local chapters working group: *Local Chapters Agreement* The debate around the details of setting up local chapters is happening on the local chapters wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters and its discussion page. The whole community are welcome to join the discussion about how we extend the benefits of OSM and the Foundation beyond the current membership base. The main areas of discussion are: Payments: The current agreement asks for £10 from each member of a federated local chapter. Many people have suggested that £10 would be too much for members in some developing economies to pay. One current suggestion is to use "Purchasing Power Parity" [1] - an index similar to the Big Mac Index, to calculate a local rate. Membership: There is some controversy around the relationship between local chapter members and the OSM-Foundation. There are broadly two opinions here: 1) All local chapter members are by default members of the OSM-Foundation. The Local Chapter is affiliated to the Foundation 2) The Local Chapter members do not have to be members of the OSM-Foundation. The Local Chapter is affiliated to the Foundation *Next Meeting of the Local Chapters Group* The local chapters working group will meet at 6pm BST on Weds 30th September to discuss these issues and others. The agenda of the meeting is: * What is the process for creating draft agreements and approving local chapters? This includes a timeline for getting the first chapters set up and identifying any discussion items that the local chapters group feel may be blockers to moving forward with local chapter agreements. * What is the process for continuing to refine the current agreement? * Which parts of the agreement should be standard and which could be amended for each group? The local chapters group will report back to this list after our meeting next week. In the meantime, please comment on the agreement on the wiki page, or mail us directly at lo...@osmfoundation.org. If you have a chapter you'd like to set up, please add it to the list here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/Proposed_Chapters [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity -- Nick Black twitter.com/nick_b ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] unsubscribe
unsubscribe Dit elektronisch bericht en zijn bijlagen zijn vertrouwelijk en bedoeld voor exclusief gebruik door degenen die door de zender als geadresseerd zijn bedoeld. Het bericht en zijn bijlagen kunnen informatie bevatten voor beperkt gebruik of onderworpen aan copyright of andere wetsbepalingen. Als u dit bericht per vergissing ontvangt of indien u niet de bedoelde geadresseerde bent, is elke publicatie, reproductie, kopie, distributie of andere verspreiding ervan ten strengste verboden. Wij verzoeken u in dat geval dit door een antwoordbericht te laten weten en het bericht daarna te wissen. Alle berichten naar en van Eandis kunnen worden gecontroleerd op hun conformiteit met interne voorschriften, ter bescherming van onze activiteiten en/of om mogelijke ‘malware’ te verwijderen. E-mails zijn niet veilig en fouten zijn altijd mogelijk door onderschepping, wijziging, verlies of vernietiging. Evenmin kan worden gegarandeerd dat ze geen virussen bevatten. Iedereen die via e-mail met ons communiceert, wordt geacht deze risico's te aanvaarden. Ce message électronique et ses annexes sont confidentiels et destinés à l’usage exclusif des personnes indiquées comme destinataires par l’expéditeur. Le message et ses annexes peuvent contenir des informations à usage restreint ou soumises à copyright ou à d’autres dispositions légales. Si vous l’avez reçu par erreur ou si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire visé, toute publication, reproduction, copie, distribution ou autre diffusion ou utilisation en sont strictement défendues. Veuillez nous en informer par retour de courrier avant d’effacer le message de votre système. Tous les messages envoyés à et depuis Eandis peuvent être contrôlés pour assurer leur conformité aux directives internes, afin de protéger nos activités et/ou d’éliminer les logiciels malveillants potentiels. Les e-mails ne sont pas sûrs et nous ne saurions garantir l’absence d’erreurs étant donné qu’ils peuvent être interceptés, modifiés, perdus, détruits ou contenir des virus. Toute personne qui communique avec nous par e-mail est supposée accepter ces risques. Eandis cvba, Brusselsesteenweg 199, 9090 Melle BTW / TVA BE 0477.445.084 - RPR / RPM Gent ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Beach volleyball
>> I'd tag it something like this: >> >> leisure=pitch >> sport=beach_volleyball >> surface=sand > > I surveyed one last year > (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/25866824) and tagged it as: > > leisure = pitch > sport = volleyball > surface = sand > > Perhaps that's a mistagging. I like your schema better. I would second sport = volleyball, because from my experience those pitches are usually not limited to beach_volleyball (two versus two players). Sometimes there is is 3v3 or even 5v5. Cheers, ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
Peter Childs wrote: > The Canal way will need to be split at the lock gates, (or in > some cases where a diversion starts (due to some rivers > going over weirs) while there is a lock for boats. (UK-specific tagging stuff follows) Ideally I'd like to discourage people from using a (non-closed) way for locks where possible. It makes dealing with the data vastly harder; doesn't actually give you many real advantages; and is actively misleading in that it suggests the length of the way is significant. Given that UK locks have a tolerance measured in inches, and our mapping doesn't, the length is much better expressed in the maxlength tag. About the one thing to be said for mapping the lock as a way, with lock-gate nodes at either end, is that you can route a footpath over one of them. Which is quite nice in a micro-mapping sort of way but so much of an edge case (99% of footpath crossings are actually on lock bridges) that I don't see a real issue. If there's a _large_ lock - say, those on the Manchester Ship Canal - then it should really be mapped as an area, not an unclosed way. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/waterway%3Dlock-tp25170540p25189952.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Update on using Translatewiki for translations
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð
Bjarmason wrote:
I'm splitting this from the previous thread.
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Richard Fairhurst
> wrote:
>> Potlatch uses the OSM wiki for localisation. I have no plans to change this
>> in favour of a third-party solution.
>
> Perhaps we should look into using translatewiki, OpenLayers is already using
> it:
>
> http://translatewiki.net
> http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:OpenLayers/stats/trunk
>
> The software itself is just a MediaWiki extension:
>
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Translate
>
> How it works is that you write a driver for it so that it can
> read-write your in/output, here's the driver for OpenLayers for
> example:
>
> http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/Translate/ffs/OpenLayers.php?revision=51180&view=markup
>
> Then you run a job periodically which dumps the translations & imports
> them into your project. Bidirectional syncing is also possible but
> then you have to worry about merging.
>
> They're already working on a YAML driver.
>
> Once you're logged in you get a nice Launchpad-like interface for
> translations. *I* think it's more tedious than just editing the YAML
> in Emacs but then again it's not really targeting that demographic but
> amateur translators who'll be more familiar with a web interface
I talked to siebrand (Translatewiki guy) yesterday here at Wikimania
2009 about using Translatewiki for OSM projects. Beginning with the
rails_port.
They now have a YAML driver so they can support our translations, how
it would work is:
* Initially the translations would be imported to Translatewiki from
the files in sites/rails_port/config/locales/
* Translators would then go to the Translatewiki site for translations
It would be easiest if translations were exclusively done at
Translatewiki from this point (so we don't have to do merging).
Strings could be added / deleted in the primary en.yml file by
developers when hacking the rails_port and the re-import / export
process would take this into account.
Translations would then be merged back into the OSM SVN by running a
job which exports from Translatewiki. Siebrand has offered to take
care of this task if we give him a SVN account. He's already
maintaining such jobs at dozens of SVN servers, so adding one more
isn't a workload for him.
Here's an example of such a commit:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/55608
The only problem I can see is Translatewiki's incompatibility with
with rails-i18n's plural forms. I.e. when you can turn a key "foo.bar"
into "foo.bar.[one/two/three/.../other]" if it contains a "{{count}}"
variable.
We can hack around this by simply providing all the plural forms for
all languages if any language needs them. Plural forms are used for
<2% of our translation strings so I don't think this would be that
large of a PITA. Especially compared to all the translations we'd get
in return.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
2009/8/28 : >> On 27/08/09 12:13, Jack Stringer wrote: >> >>> lock=yes >>> lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock >> >> When you are tagging a way, you can't use name= because that will >> already contain the name of the canal. Hence lock_name=. >> > Why would you want to repeat the name of a canal on its individual nodes? > Isn’t that repeating the mistake of the TIGER node tags? > > Read it again. on a node lock=yes name="lock name" or on a node waterway=lock_gate name="lock gate name" and on the way between the lock gates waterway=canal name="canal name" lock=yes lock_name="lock name" The Canal way will need to be split at the lock gates, (or in some cases where a diversion starts (due to some rivers going over weirs) while there is a lock for boats. Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Beach volleyball
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Craig Wallace wrote: > On 28/08/2009 10:12, Valent Turkovic wrote: >> Hi, I would like to know how to tag beach (sand) volleyball courts? >> >> I see nothing happening at proposed features page for this feature: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/volleyball >> >> Cheers, >> Valent. > I'd tag it something like this: > > leisure=pitch > sport=beach_volleyball > surface=sand I surveyed one last year (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/25866824) and tagged it as: leisure = pitch sport = volleyball surface = sand Perhaps that's a mistagging. I like your schema better. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Beach volleyball
2009/8/28 Richard Weait : > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:16 AM, John Smith wrote: >> 2009/8/28 Valent Turkovic : >>> Hi, I would like to know how to tag beach (sand) volleyball courts? >> >> People have been using natural=sand to tag golf bunkers. > > But that is tagging for the renderer and hopefully people will change > over to the proposed golf tags. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Golf_course this page lists no tag for sand though. (Or is sand rough? I thought rough was grass/mud/bushes) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Beach volleyball
2009/8/28 Martin Koppenhoefer : > 2009/8/28 Richard Weait : >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:16 AM, John Smith wrote: >>> 2009/8/28 Valent Turkovic : Hi, I would like to know how to tag beach (sand) volleyball courts? >>> >>> People have been using natural=sand to tag golf bunkers. >> >> But that is tagging for the renderer and hopefully people will change >> over to the proposed golf tags. >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Golf_course > > this page lists no tag for sand though. (Or is sand rough? I thought > rough was grass/mud/bushes) I see, sand is called "bunker". Sorry for the noise... cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Beach volleyball
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:16 AM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/8/28 Valent Turkovic : >> Hi, I would like to know how to tag beach (sand) volleyball courts? > > People have been using natural=sand to tag golf bunkers. But that is tagging for the renderer and hopefully people will change over to the proposed golf tags. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Golf_course ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
> On 27/08/09 12:13, Jack Stringer wrote: > >> lock=yes >> lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock > > When you are tagging a way, you can't use name= because that will > already contain the name of the canal. Hence lock_name=. > Why would you want to repeat the name of a canal on its individual nodes? Isnt that repeating the mistake of the TIGER node tags? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
2009/8/28 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 > Maybe it was a Wiki/ or browser-problem? I didn't intentionally delete any votes. I just changed (just wanted to change) the lines 3 and 9 in this diff. Really have no idea how line 34 was changed. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
I second option that highway tag isn't used for physical purposes.
Physical status of road *can* define it's importance (legal or
subjective), and I think there is where disagreement is.
More or less comon practice is to follow some kind of rules/laws when
tagging roads. But it is also clear that it won't work for all 100%,
there will be small perntage when road shall be tagged by user's
judgement. What I think that user should have very clear guidelines
how to act in scenario like that. For example, in my country there
were discussions how to tag backstreet streets. I was thinking about
living_street, but there were arguments, that "Living street"
("Dzīvojama zona" here) is legal term and there is special sign which
indicates start or finish of such zone.
However, after careful vetting, one of us found that law already says
what I have suspected - backstreet streets are living streets by
definition.
So I think wiki must have clear rules how to act when highway's
importance status is not known and trust people instincts - but in
same time, user should investigate situation before doing so.
Cheers,
Peteris.
2009/8/28 Alex Mauer :
> On 08/28/2009 03:46 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> If dieterdriest has found a number of people who've been ignoring the
>> definition,
>
> Nobody (that I know of) has been ignoring the definition. It's just
> that the definitions didn't match the top-leveldescription. *None* of
> the definitions of the highway values has ever described the physical
> characteristics of the road, apart from motorway in a very limited sense.
>
> -Alex Mauer "hawke"
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
--
mortigi tempo
Pēteris Krišjānis
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
On 28/08/2009, at 9:23 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > On 08/28/2009 03:46 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: >> If dieterdriest has found a number of people who've been ignoring the >> definition, > > Nobody (that I know of) has been ignoring the definition. It's just > that the definitions didn't match the top-leveldescription. *None* of > the definitions of the highway values has ever described the physical > characteristics of the road, apart from motorway in a very limited > sense. Indeed. I'm wondering how things like "Administrative classification in the UK, generally linking larger towns" (primary, from the highway=* page) could possibly be taken as describing the physical structure of the road. Personally, I think that the road hierarchy from trunk down to tertiary doesn't really have a strong definition, and that region- specific mappings (the International Equivalence table) is what people generally go off[0]. The distinction between motorway and trunk seems to be somewhat consistent globally, and the sub-tertiary values (unclassified, residential, et al) have globally useful definitions, even if people don't always agree on what they are. [0] Although I just had to fix the Australia section to match the Australian Tagging Guidelines and what people do. The ABC classification mappings were off by one level ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
On 08/28/2009 03:46 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > If dieterdriest has found a number of people who've been ignoring the > definition, Nobody (that I know of) has been ignoring the definition. It's just that the definitions didn't match the top-leveldescription. *None* of the definitions of the highway values has ever described the physical characteristics of the road, apart from motorway in a very limited sense. -Alex Mauer "hawke" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Beach volleyball
On 28/08/2009 10:12, Valent Turkovic wrote: > Hi, I would like to know how to tag beach (sand) volleyball courts? > > I see nothing happening at proposed features page for this feature: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/volleyball > > Cheers, > Valent. I'd tag it something like this: leisure=pitch sport=beach_volleyball surface=sand ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Beach volleyball
2009/8/28 Valent Turkovic : > Hi, I would like to know how to tag beach (sand) volleyball courts? People have been using natural=sand to tag golf bunkers. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] dissapearing country border
Valent Turkovic wrote: > Hi, I'm from Croatia and I have seen something strange when looking at > borders. If you look at this map you will clearly see borders: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.2&lon=16.51&zoom=7&layers=B000FTF > > But if you zoom in or out the borders start to dissapear, especially > between Slovenia and Croatia. Any ideas why is that happening? > It's in most cases always the same reason why you get an object only in some zoom levels, the object got changed and the the object will disappear/appear on new rendered tiles. This is for example new http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39612881/history BTW: Why are there 2 different border lines ? Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Beach volleyball
Hi, I would like to know how to tag beach (sand) volleyball courts? I see nothing happening at proposed features page for this feature: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/volleyball Cheers, Valent. -- 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
On 26/08/09 21:42, Mikel Maron wrote: > IMO, the wiki should reflect the current collective thinking. If the > collective thinking is in disagreement, > then the wiki should show both sides, equally, with _respectful_ > disagreement. If, however many years after starting the project, we are in respectful disagreement about what the *&%$ highway tag means, then we are absolutely doomed. How on earth is anyone going to be able to rely on OSM data for anything if the meaning of the tags keeps changing? If dieterdriest has found a number of people who've been ignoring the definition, then he should tell them to fix the roads they've mistagged and to read more carefully next time. If I'd spent ages tagging a number of roads carefully according to a definition and then someone changed the definition so that a load of my tagging was now wrong, I would be most upset. We are far too late on in the project to be asking contributors to revisit every highway tag in the database to check it conforms to some new definition. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
On 27/08/09 14:27, Mike Harris wrote: > 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. The correct solution here is to use relations. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels The relation should be as follows: type=bridge across= under= ref= Optionally: maxwidth= maxheight= name= However, no renderer yet shows this, although I've been working with Steve Chilton for a while to get it done. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We need a report spam button for diary entries... and to ban accounts repeatedly spamming...
On 28/08/09 09:39, John Smith wrote: > 2009/8/28 Tom Hughes: >> What do you mean exactly? > > Well if enough people can tag a post as spam it would effectively > disappear from the site to be reviewed and/or deleted, maybe you could > have a more extensive rating system, don't know, but this would allow > native speakers of various languages to tag something as spam even if > it doesn't look it at first glance to a non-native speaker. It's not the posts we want to delete though, it's the users that make the posts (deleting a user hides all their posts). Deleting users is not something we want to make happen automatically on the basis of some sort of public vote ;-) If somebody wants to build a system with a button that triggers some sort of hiding/referral of a post then fine. It's not a high priority on my personal list of things to do but if somebody feels it is an itch they'd like to scratch then all well and good. 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] waterway=lock
On 27/08/09 12:13, Jack Stringer wrote: > 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. This was the original tag. However, it has various problems - for example, it makes it hard to render a lock as a single icon if there are two tags (one for each end) and in a staircase lock, things get even more confusing. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lock > Says to tag either both ends or just use a single node. This was created to deal with the above problem. For high-resolution mapping, use it to tag the water way between the gates as "lock=yes". For low-resolution mapping, just add a node to the canal and tag it. > lock=yes > lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock When you are tagging a way, you can't use name= because that will already contain the name of the canal. Hence lock_name=. > I have then seen people use name_1=5 to tell you the lock number. Ick. Please use "ref" for this. If you are mapping carefully, I'd suggest the tags you want are lock=yes on the waterway section, lock_name for the name, and ref for the number if present. If you want to add waterway=lock_gate to the two ends as well, knock yourself out. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We need a report spam button for diary entries... and to ban accounts repeatedly spamming...
2009/8/28 Tom Hughes : > What do you mean exactly? Well if enough people can tag a post as spam it would effectively disappear from the site to be reviewed and/or deleted, maybe you could have a more extensive rating system, don't know, but this would allow native speakers of various languages to tag something as spam even if it doesn't look it at first glance to a non-native speaker. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We need a report spam button for diary entries... and to ban accounts repeatedly spamming...
On 28/08/09 09:24, John Smith wrote: > 2009/8/28 Thomas Wood: >> Accounts spamming are banned. >> They're usually caught in good time by our master admin. > > Why not make use of crowd sourcing? What do you mean exactly? 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] We need a report spam button for diary entries... and to ban accounts repeatedly spamming...
2009/8/28 Thomas Wood : > Accounts spamming are banned. > They're usually caught in good time by our master admin. Why not make use of crowd sourcing? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We need a report spam button for diary entries... and to ban accounts repeatedly spamming...
Accounts spamming are banned. They're usually caught in good time by our master admin. 2009/8/28 John Smith : > More diary spam: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mariann/diary/7691 > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New proposal: Bad data
2009/8/28 James Livingston : > If someone doesn't upload their trace _and_ doesn't add a source tag, > then I'll assume that my GPS trace is more accurate than whatever they > used. I think that's fair, because all someone has to do if they have > an accurate way is let other mappers know that by tagging it. +1 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag lanes, not ways, was: Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
2009/8/28 Tobias Knerr : > I believe that stop signs have usually nothing to do with lanes (though > there probably are exceptions). They apply to everyone travelling into a > certain direction, no matter on what lane. This becomes apparent in > streets where there are no distinct lanes for the two directions of > traffic: Stop signs will still apply to everyone moving towards a > junction. They will not apply to certain lanes, obviously, because there > are none. The assumption is an average way has 2 lanes, one in each direction, and a stop sign only effects one direction. > So except for truly lane-based stop signs, I think that expressing stop > signs using lane-based methods would be a bad idea - as they are > direction based, not lane based, in reality. You are assuming lanes running in the same direction, but you can have lanes running in oposite directions which is what the whole issue about stop signs came from. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag lanes, not ways, was: Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
John Smith wrote: > Actually no, you can still tag stop signs on a way like people always > have, then when lanes get sorted out they can be dealt with properly. I believe that stop signs have usually nothing to do with lanes (though there probably are exceptions). They apply to everyone travelling into a certain direction, no matter on what lane. This becomes apparent in streets where there are no distinct lanes for the two directions of traffic: Stop signs will still apply to everyone moving towards a junction. They will not apply to certain lanes, obviously, because there are none. So except for truly lane-based stop signs, I think that expressing stop signs using lane-based methods would be a bad idea - as they are direction based, not lane based, in reality. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New proposal: Bad data
On 27/08/2009, at 9:09 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I'd say the only thing you know for sure is that the source is unknown > unless it is explicitly tagged. I wouldn't assume anything besides > that. There are people who don't upload their traces (i personally > always do) and who have all rights to not do it. Not uploading traces is perfectly fine. If someone doesn't upload their trace _and_ doesn't add a source tag, then I'll assume that my GPS trace is more accurate than whatever they used. I think that's fair, because all someone has to do if they have an accurate way is let other mappers know that by tagging it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag lanes, not ways, was: Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
2009/8/28 Peter Childs : > A Way can have many lanes, Infact the default is lanes=2 (or is it?) > > oneway=yes infers lanes=1 Seems like a sane assumption. > A Lane may need to be in a relation etc. The way would be the relation, and the properties of the way should cascade to the lane, and then you can change the lane from the defaults inherieted from the way. > Hmm I don't think Lane is a good name, might get confused with the > other kind of Lane (Small Uncalssiffied Road) No, that's highway=service, unless someone editted the wiki since I last checked :) In this context a lane is a portion of a way and I can't think of any other name it would go by either. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] We need a report spam button for diary entries... and to ban accounts repeatedly spamming...
More diary spam: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mariann/diary/7691 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag lanes, not ways, was: Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
2009/8/28 Roy Wallace : > I actually think it leaves things in slightly better shape - like me > tagging a post box outside, or tagging my addr:housenumber. Sure, it's I'm not talking about post boxes or house addressing schemes, I'm talking about being able to tag lanes on a way differently when things are asymmetrical effect the way. > a "half solution" to mapping the entire world, but this is OSM for > goodness sake. You are right, though, that tagging things > *ambiguously* does indeed leave things in worse shape - but that is > certainly not what I am suggesting! Tagging things badly can leave things worst than not tagging them too, since if they aren't tagged it can be flagged that it needs to be tagged. > But anyway, you seem to be insisting that I not tag any stop signs > until we have a solution to the "fundamental problem". I have no idea > for that, unfortunately, but I'm all ears. Actually no, you can still tag stop signs on a way like people always have, then when lanes get sorted out they can be dealt with properly. At a guess 99.999% of stop signs wouldn't be double sided so it would be an easy transition to lanes almost automatically once something gets sorted. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag lanes, not ways, was: Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
Sorry for thinking out loud but here we go. A Way can have many lanes, Infact the default is lanes=2 (or is it?) oneway=yes infers lanes=1 lanes can be used for many purposes including turning, parking, walking cycling. Lanes need names I guess partially if we all going to use them to describe pavements, cycle tracks etc This sounds like a new data structure. Could put it in a standard syntax for tags but that sounds like a very dirty solution. so I'm thinking this will need new tables, and API enhancements. Each Lane need to carry tags like a way. Each Lane needs to have a "parent" way A Lane may need to be in a relation etc. I'm thinking Lane is a way without any nodes, but a "Parent" way (which has the nodes) and some tags to say where it is in the way. Hmm I don't think Lane is a good name, might get confused with the other kind of Lane (Small Uncalssiffied Road) Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag lanes, not ways, was: Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:21 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/8/28 Roy Wallace : > >> Ok, I understand. Do you have any antibiotics? > > If have an answer or not doesn't matter, the OSM community is more > than the sum of it's parts and some people may already have experience > with other systems that do do this already and may be able to offer > insight into how to do it best. The important thing is to discuss it > and come up with a suitable solution, this won't be quick or easy but > is the right thing to do. > >> If you don't (at least in the foreseeable future), in the meantime I >> could really do with some pain killers. > > That's really the wrong attitude, we need to solve a very fundemental > problem and applying a multitude of half solutions is the wrong way to > handle the situation and it leaves things in worst shape going into > the future. I actually think it leaves things in slightly better shape - like me tagging a post box outside, or tagging my addr:housenumber. Sure, it's a "half solution" to mapping the entire world, but this is OSM for goodness sake. You are right, though, that tagging things *ambiguously* does indeed leave things in worse shape - but that is certainly not what I am suggesting! But anyway, you seem to be insisting that I not tag any stop signs until we have a solution to the "fundamental problem". I have no idea for that, unfortunately, but I'm all ears. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Proposed feature: Directional node
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. It lacks an example where this complex modelling would even be necessary. In all examples mentioned so far, a node modelling the direction-dependent objects is part of a single way, so directions (forward/backward) can be based on the direction of that way. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] dissapearing country border
Hi, I'm from Croatia and I have seen something strange when looking at borders. If you look at this map you will clearly see borders: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.2&lon=16.51&zoom=7&layers=B000FTF But if you zoom in or out the borders start to dissapear, especially between Slovenia and Croatia. Any ideas why is that happening? -- 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] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
2009/8/28 Lester Caine : > 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. Exactly, the problem is being able to tag lanes would solve a number of problems currently not solved. > ( 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 ) A foot path attached to a road could just be another 'lane', but it needs to be tagged differently than the road part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] How to tag lanes, not ways, was: Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
2009/8/28 Roy Wallace : > Ok, I understand. Do you have any antibiotics? If have an answer or not doesn't matter, the OSM community is more than the sum of it's parts and some people may already have experience with other systems that do do this already and may be able to offer insight into how to do it best. The important thing is to discuss it and come up with a suitable solution, this won't be quick or easy but is the right thing to do. > If you don't (at least in the foreseeable future), in the meantime I > could really do with some pain killers. That's really the wrong attitude, we need to solve a very fundemental problem and applying a multitude of half solutions is the wrong way to handle the situation and it leaves things in worst shape going into the future. ___ 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
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:48 PM, John Smith wrote: > > We really don't seem to be on the same wave > length at times. :) Amen to that :P > 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. ... > What we need is a real solution to address all these problems which > comes down to a fundemental problem of describing lanes, not ways. Ok, I understand. Do you have any antibiotics? If you don't (at least in the foreseeable future), in the meantime I could really do with some pain killers. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
