[OSM-talk] OSM on German TV
I just saw an item on OSM in (a rerun) of Quarks & Co on the German TV station WDR. It was about mapping the inner city of Bonn for wheelchairs. Nice example of micromapping, where mappers were even measuring the height of the curbs and inclination of streets (both very important for wheelchair users). The video [1] is available on Quarks & Co's website [2]. All in German, but google's translate does a decent job of the website. [1] http://www.wdr.de/tv/quarks/videos/flashplayer.jsp?mid=84793 [2] http://www.wdr.de/tv/quarks/sendungsbeitraege/2009/0915/008_karten.jsp Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM on German TV
Am Samstag 19 September 2009 schrieb Maarten Deen: > I just saw an item on OSM in (a rerun) of Quarks & Co on the German TV > station WDR. It was about mapping the inner city of Bonn for wheelchairs. > Nice example of micromapping, where mappers were even measuring the height > of the curbs and inclination of streets (both very important for > wheelchair users). > > The video [1] is available on Quarks & Co's website [2]. All in German, but > google's translate does a decent job of the website. > > [1] http://www.wdr.de/tv/quarks/videos/flashplayer.jsp?mid=84793 > [2] http://www.wdr.de/tv/quarks/sendungsbeitraege/2009/0915/008_karten.jsp > > Regards, > Maarten Things like this are very good to know. I mean I allway map all kind of steps that I see (even though there are only to steps) just to make sure that handycaped people know that there comes stair. But I never thought about the steapnes or anything simmilar. That is really important and good to know. Thanks for the link ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] ANNOUNCE: Free Garmin MapSource installer available
I've written a free installation program for Garmin's MapSource. It's aimed at the people who are maintaining Garmin map exports of the OpenStreetMap database. A lot of these exports[1] don't have a MapSource installer, some suggest proprietary solutions and some have a unconfigurable BAT file included or ask end-users to manually edit their registry after installation. I'd like to improve upon that, so I've written this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Garmin_Mapsource_installer Here's blog post about it on the OpenStreetMap site: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/%C3%86var%20Arnfj%C3%B6r%C3%B0%20Bjarmason/diary/7965 Like it says in the blog I'm interested in getting feedback / testing from users & map distributors on how it fits their needs. So please download the installer for Iceland (or make your own!): http://osm.nix.is/latest/default/OSM_IS_default.zip And tell me how installing it in MapSource goes. Whether you can install the map from there onto your Garmin device. And what could be improved about the whole process. 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Map_On_Garmin/Download ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] new proposals for k:shop
shop=vacant; empty stores should be marked vacant, not removed from map. I think this is fine. shop=foo disused=yes doesn't work because often the idenity of a shop is removed as the landlord gets ready to re-lease, and it's just an empty room. shop=supplements; specialty food and dietary supplements. I thinh you mean 'dietary supplements, herbal remedies, and the kinds of food that are culturarlly associated with the crowd that buys supplements' :-)A shop that sells mostly fine cheeses wouldn't fit. shop=cash; non-bank cheque cashing or short term "payday" loans name is awkward, but valid point. shop=beauty; personal beauty services, tanning, nails, spa, etc. sounds good. 'solarium' appears to be British, and I think beauty is more likely to be readily apparent to those for whom English is a second language. shop=tobacco; specialty shop selling cigars, cigarettes, pipe tobacco, and accessories There's a far larger issue, which I noticed on Garmin's proprietary map data. When searching for A, how does one map the desire A to the category scheme, and then enter it, and get the right answer? For restaurants, is it "American" or "Steak/Grill"? Where's the boundary? For shops, many can be put into neatly divided categories, but near me for example there is a fish store that sells meat and beer/wine. Really it's of type shop and has a multivalued attribute for what it sells. That said, having a map where all stores are on it and mappers pick the best and we get on with things gets us 95% of the value - but I wanted to mention the semantics problem. pgpU5D0Lzr1MJ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
Hi I have a bridge carrying a cycle lane, dual carriage way (with central reservtion) & footpath. As far as I can see is they each need there own bridge & the result gets a bit crowded. Is there a way to simplify this? If the bright was independent it could also mean that the ways wouldn't need to be split! Saving a hell of a lot of work. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
2009/9/19 d f : > Hi > > I have a bridge carrying a cycle lane, dual carriage way (with central > reservtion) & footpath. As far as I can see is they each need there own > bridge & the result gets a bit crowded. > > Is there a way to simplify this? > If the bright was independent it could also mean that the ways wouldn't need > to be split! Saving a hell of a lot of work. There is indeed a problem with bridges (in cases like yours it looks like several bridges where in reality there is just one, then there are bridge-names that can differ from the streetname, etc.), but what do you intent by independant? Do you propose to connect all ways to one bridge? I would recommend a relation to unify "several bridges" in one (which gets also the name). Not really more simple to map, but resulting more accurate and probably could also render nicer. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer : > I would recommend a relation to unify "several bridges" in one (which > gets also the name). Not really more simple to map, but resulting more > accurate and probably could also render nicer. That seems like such a nasty way to do it, this is why I've suggested allowing us to tag lanes, not just ways so we don't need to do this sort of hacks to tag the physical world. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
Am 19.09.2009 14:39, Martin Koppenhoefer: > 2009/9/19 d f: >> Hi >> >> I have a bridge carrying a cycle lane, dual carriage way (with central >> reservtion)& footpath. As far as I can see is they each need there own >> bridge& the result gets a bit crowded. >> >> Is there a way to simplify this? >> If the bright was independent it could also mean that the ways wouldn't need >> to be split! Saving a hell of a lot of work. > > There is indeed a problem with bridges (in cases like yours it looks > like several bridges where in reality there is just one, then there > are bridge-names that can differ from the streetname, etc.), but what > do you intent by independant? Do you propose to connect all ways to > one bridge? > > I would recommend a relation to unify "several bridges" in one (which > gets also the name). Not really more simple to map, but resulting more > accurate and probably could also render nicer. > > cheers, > Martin See this bridge/tunnel proposal for reference: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels Claudius ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
2009/9/19 John Smith : > 2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer : > >> I would recommend a relation to unify "several bridges" in one (which >> gets also the name). Not really more simple to map, but resulting more >> accurate and probably could also render nicer. > > That seems like such a nasty way to do it, this is why I've suggested > allowing us to tag lanes, not just ways so we don't need to do this > sort of hacks to tag the physical world. don't get you. Isn't "mapping lanes" just the same like what I suggested? I'm in favour of mapping all lanes and ways as well, but you DO need relations to combine them into streets (indicating kind of separation and / or possibility to change lanes). I was in this case just talking about the bridge, but for streets I can imagine the same procedure (and add green, dividers, walls, curbs, etc. as well) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer : > don't get you. Isn't "mapping lanes" just the same like what I > suggested? I'm in favour of mapping all lanes and ways as well, but > you DO need relations to combine them into streets (indicating kind of > separation and / or possibility to change lanes). I was in this case > just talking about the bridge, but for streets I can imagine the same > procedure (and add green, dividers, walls, curbs, etc. as well) Why do we need relations to combine "lanes" into "ways". Wouldn't it make more sense to tag lanes of ways? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
Hi, John Smith wrote: >> I would recommend a relation to unify "several bridges" in one (which >> gets also the name). Not really more simple to map, but resulting more >> accurate and probably could also render nicer. > > That seems like such a nasty way to do it, this is why I've suggested > allowing us to tag lanes, not just ways so we don't need to do this > sort of hacks to tag the physical world. Indeed. A much better way would be tagging the bridge as a man-made construct of its own (i.e. in most cases draw an area for the bridge surface), and then use a relation to say which ways lead over (and possibly which lead under) the bridge. See the ideas under http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
2009/9/19 John Smith : > 2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer : >> don't get you. Isn't "mapping lanes" just the same like what I >> suggested? I'm in favour of mapping all lanes and ways as well, but >> you DO need relations to combine them into streets (indicating kind of >> separation and / or possibility to change lanes). I was in this case >> just talking about the bridge, but for streets I can imagine the same >> procedure (and add green, dividers, walls, curbs, etc. as well) > > Why do we need relations to combine "lanes" into "ways". > > Wouldn't it make more sense to tag lanes of ways? > what do you mean? We are already doing this: lanes=3 In simple cases you don't need it, and when it get's complex, IMHO explicit mapping is the only transparent and easy way to solve the issue. One of my favourite example is this situation: http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=de&ie=UTF8&ll=41.866627,12.49679&spn=0.000684,0.001206&t=h&z=20 you will get just confusion when you start to count lanes and tag things like lane:11=oneway, no_right_turn Usually at crossings you will have different turnrestrictions for parallel lanes. Lanes are starting and ending (even small ones as for busses, to turn, etc.). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
2009/9/19 Frederik Ramm : > Hi, > > John Smith wrote: >>> >>> I would recommend a relation to unify "several bridges" in one (which >>> gets also the name). Not really more simple to map, but resulting more >>> accurate and probably could also render nicer. >> >> That seems like such a nasty way to do it, this is why I've suggested >> allowing us to tag lanes, not just ways so we don't need to do this >> sort of hacks to tag the physical world. > > Indeed. A much better way would be tagging the bridge as a man-made > construct of its own (i.e. in most cases draw an area for the bridge > surface), and then use a relation to say which ways lead over (and possibly > which lead under) the bridge. that's what I intended (besides the area, which I think is a very good idea, good get even more detailed and add type of bridge-construction, pylons, shoulders, etc.). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [mkgmap-dev] ANNOUNCE: Free Garmin MapSource installer available
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:21 PM, dom Team OiD wrote: > Hi, > > I'm sure such a tool is really cool stuff. I already experimented with > easy installer, whcih is creating msi packaes for windows. > I didn't use your installer, so this question comes up. > What is the benefit of your installer compared to any other like install > shield or easy installer? Has it special Mapsource features? I wrote it because I wanted something which I could compile/bundle in an automated fashion on Linux and wasn't huge. I played with the MSI tools briefly but couldn't see how I could get those features. But as it turns out the nullsoft scriptable install system has those features: http://nsis.sourceforge.net/ That's what Lambertus is using to create his MapSource installers: http://garmin.na1400.info/ Using the NSIS is better than the ad-hoc program I've written. I just wrote it because I thought there wasn't anything else I could use. So /ANNOUNCEMENT I guess :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer : > what do you mean? We are already doing this: lanes=3 That only says how many lanes, it doesn't describe restrictions or properties of individual lanes. > In simple cases you don't need it, and when it get's complex, IMHO > explicit mapping is the only transparent and easy way to solve the > issue. > One of my favourite example is this situation: > http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=de&ie=UTF8&ll=41.866627,12.49679&spn=0.000684,0.001206&t=h&z=20 No, more like this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/4/46/Lane_group_example1_screen_2.png > you will get just confusion when you start to count lanes and tag > things like lane:11=oneway, no_right_turn > Usually at crossings you will have different turnrestrictions for > parallel lanes. Lanes are starting and ending (even small ones as for > busses, to turn, etc.). I'm not suggesting to do it that way, I'm suggesting editors show each lane as a parallel way and each lane can be tagged independent of the way. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/9/19 John Smith : >> 2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer : >>> don't get you. Isn't "mapping lanes" just the same like what I >>> suggested? I'm in favour of mapping all lanes and ways as well, but >>> you DO need relations to combine them into streets (indicating kind of >>> separation and / or possibility to change lanes). I was in this case >>> just talking about the bridge, but for streets I can imagine the same >>> procedure (and add green, dividers, walls, curbs, etc. as well) >> Why do we need relations to combine "lanes" into "ways". >> >> Wouldn't it make more sense to tag lanes of ways? >> > > what do you mean? We are already doing this: lanes=3 > In simple cases you don't need it, and when it get's complex, IMHO > explicit mapping is the only transparent and easy way to solve the > issue. > One of my favourite example is this situation: > http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=de&ie=UTF8&ll=41.866627,12.49679&spn=0.000684,0.001206&t=h&z=20 > > you will get just confusion when you start to count lanes and tag > things like lane:11=oneway, no_right_turn > Usually at crossings you will have different turnrestrictions for > parallel lanes. Lanes are starting and ending (even small ones as for > busses, to turn, etc.). The same problem has come up in other recent threads. lanes=6 answers the mapping problem, but does not provide enough information when 100mts before it was lanes=5 Which side has the extra lane appeared? ARE there 3 lanes each way? or 2 lanes one side with 3 opening to 4 on the other side as one becomes a slip road off the side, and the lanes=5 actually has a single lane side route. When creating routing information how do you pick up things like this and handle the move into xxx slip road (left or right depending on which side of the road you drive ;) ) We do not need to replace long tracks of simple lanes=2 where there is no doubt, and road junctions where several differing routes through are allowed will remain a problem, but detailing the lanes of a way where a complex junction is involved seems an essential area to come to some agreement? With micromapping the lanes being the only obvious way to handle it. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Free BlackBerry/Android POI mapping application
At work we've released for beta testing a POI mapping app for both BlackBerry and Android, with future plans for iPhone, Windows Mobile and Symbian. Already it's receiving favourable reviews from non-OSM mappers. http://www.blackberryinsight.com/2009/09/19/bigtincan-mapper-acts-as-the-best-gps-information-locator/ There is more PR lined up for this/OSM, will post more news links as they become visable. There is some more details and a video demo on our website: http://maps.bigtincan.com/btc-mapper.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] [mkgmap-dev] ANNOUNCE: Free Garmin MapSource installer available
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason schrieb: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:21 PM, dom Team OiD wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm sure such a tool is really cool stuff. I already experimented with >> easy installer, whcih is creating msi packaes for windows. >> I didn't use your installer, so this question comes up. >> What is the benefit of your installer compared to any other like install >> shield or easy installer? Has it special Mapsource features? > > I wrote it because I wanted something which I could compile/bundle in > an automated fashion on Linux and wasn't huge. > > I played with the MSI tools briefly but couldn't see how I could get > those features. > > But as it turns out the nullsoft scriptable install system has those > features: http://nsis.sourceforge.net/ > > That's what Lambertus is using to create his MapSource installers: > > http://garmin.na1400.info/ > > Using the NSIS is better than the ad-hoc program I've written. I just > wrote it because I thought there wasn't anything else I could use. > > So /ANNOUNCEMENT I guess :) Hi! I've implemented the NSIS based JOSM Installer for Windows [1]. NSIS has the advantage that you can build the installer also on Unix systems (at least on debian?). I've also ceated some other installers using NSIS as well. It can be "low level" sometimes (so you have to do some stuff "by hand"), but I've never stumbled over the "can't do it with NSIS" situation. You'll find lot's of useful examples on their website. Anyway, nice to see installer development for the Garmin stuff ... Regards, ULFL [1] http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/editors/josm/nsis/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
>From time to time I have a related problem, viz. a bridge carrying a public >right of way and crossing both a physical feature, e.g. a river, and an >administrative boundary. The result is that the ref= key changes value on the >boundary, typically in the middle of the river, thus creating two consecutive >bridges. This is basically only a rendering problem but I wonder whether >anyone has any thoughts? Mike Harris _ From: d f [mailto:fac63te...@yahoo.com] Sent: 19 September 2009 13:30 To: Talk OSM Subject: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways? Hi I have a bridge carrying a cycle lane, dual carriage way (with central reservtion) & footpath. As far as I can see is they each need there own bridge & the result gets a bit crowded. Is there a way to simplify this? If the bright was independent it could also mean that the ways wouldn't need to be split! Saving a hell of a lot of work. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
Claudius - I think you may have answered the question I just asked - thanks - I must admit that I hadn't seen this proposal before. Once again, relations prove powerful! Mike Harris > -Original Message- > From: Claudius [mailto:claudiu...@gmx.de] > Sent: 19 September 2009 14:12 > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways? > > Am 19.09.2009 14:39, Martin Koppenhoefer: > > 2009/9/19 d f: > >> Hi > >> > >> I have a bridge carrying a cycle lane, dual carriage way (with > >> central reservtion)& footpath. As far as I can see is > they each need > >> there own bridge& the result gets a bit crowded. > >> > >> Is there a way to simplify this? > >> If the bright was independent it could also mean that the ways > >> wouldn't need to be split! Saving a hell of a lot of work. > > > > There is indeed a problem with bridges (in cases like yours > it looks > > like several bridges where in reality there is just one, then there > > are bridge-names that can differ from the streetname, > etc.), but what > > do you intent by independant? Do you propose to connect all ways to > > one bridge? > > > > I would recommend a relation to unify "several bridges" in > one (which > > gets also the name). Not really more simple to map, but > resulting more > > accurate and probably could also render nicer. > > > > cheers, > > Martin > > See this bridge/tunnel proposal for reference: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_ > and_Tunnels > > Claudius > > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
2009/9/20 Mike Harris : > Claudius - I think you may have answered the question I just asked - thanks > - I must admit that I hadn't seen this proposal before. Once again, > relations prove powerful! Yes except they get abused when we should be looking towards micromapping techniques, not hacks to get round the current DB/frame work limitations. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
2009/9/19 John Smith : > 2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer : > >> what do you mean? We are already doing this: lanes=3 > > That only says how many lanes, it doesn't describe restrictions or > properties of individual lanes. > >> In simple cases you don't need it, and when it get's complex, IMHO >> explicit mapping is the only transparent and easy way to solve the >> issue. >> One of my favourite example is this situation: >> http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=de&ie=UTF8&ll=41.866627,12.49679&spn=0.000684,0.001206&t=h&z=20 > > No, more like this: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/4/46/Lane_group_example1_screen_2.png > yes, but that's not the problem: straight parallel ways. The problem arises when they change (become one more or less), on intersections, etc. Try to imagine a situation like the one I posted above in a geometrically reduced system: it will get way too confusing. If we map lanes where they are, there is another benefit: positional correctness and ease of topological structure: you see what you do. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
2009/9/20 Martin Koppenhoefer : > yes, but that's not the problem: straight parallel ways. The problem > arises when they change (become one more or less), on intersections, > etc. Try to imagine a situation like the one I posted above in a > geometrically reduced system: it will get way too confusing. If we map > lanes where they are, there is another benefit: positional correctness > and ease of topological structure: you see what you do. I don't see the problem, you just need to be able to tag which lanes merge into which, or which diverge, this is a lane issue and needs to be solved on a lane basis, not on a way basis. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Patch to render names from routes and custom highway shields on a per country basis
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Lennard wrote: > OTOH, if osm2pgsql will only run some queries and let postgis handle the > stamping of features with a proper field to filter on in the stylesheet, > it can be done at the end of the import. The challenge to this method is > in how to handle diffs. You wouldn't want to run through every geometry > in your database everytime you import diffs, but only the changed ones. I suppose it would be possible to get osm2pgsql to assign columns based on country locations, if the relevant polygons were available in another table. Handling diffs is not the problem, osm2pgsql knows exactly which things have changed and can do the relevent query to supplement the data. > One more issue I see is what to do with features that cross these > boundaries? Which style will/should they get? Should the import split > them into 2 features, each on one side of the boundary? Tricky, not something that's going to be solved the first try. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout http://svana.org/kleptog/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
El Sábado, 19 de Septiembre de 2009, John Smith escribió: > I don't see the problem, you just need to be able to tag which lanes > merge into which, or which diverge, this is a lane issue and needs to > be solved on a lane basis, not on a way basis. Per-lane speed limits, per-lane traffic access restrictions, proper topology of complex crossings... And don't forget relating lanes to lanes, to say if you can change lanes or not (overpassing/incorporating to traffic/whatever). -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega http://ivan.sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net IRC: ivansanchez @ OFTC & freenode ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Patch to render names from routes and custom highway shields on a per country basis
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > I suppose it would be possible to get osm2pgsql to assign columns > based on country locations, if the relevant polygons were available in Not just countries, but also states (different shields per state, for instance). Granted: same thing really. >> One more issue I see is what to do with features that cross these >> boundaries? Which style will/should they get? Should the import split >> them into 2 features, each on one side of the boundary? > > Tricky, not something that's going to be solved the first try. A little birdie once told me of a trick used by a certain map maker. Split the border-crossing road twice, so there is only a short section that actually crosses the border; probably less than 10 meters. Assign one of the styles to that short section, either randomly or by length or any other means. Because these sections are so short, it's not noticeable on a map, and you don't have "style bleed". -- Lennard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
this is a lane issue and needs to > be solved on a lane basis, not on a way basis. +1, that's what I say. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:24 AM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > don't get you. Isn't "mapping lanes" just the same like what I > > suggested? I'm in favour of mapping all lanes and ways as well, but > > you DO need relations to combine them into streets (indicating kind of > > separation and / or possibility to change lanes). I was in this case > > just talking about the bridge, but for streets I can imagine the same > > procedure (and add green, dividers, walls, curbs, etc. as well) > > Why do we need relations to combine "lanes" into "ways". > The suggestion was to use relations to combine "ways" into "streets". > Wouldn't it make more sense to tag lanes of ways? > Only if those lanes have identical geometries and traffic is free to change lanes. The use of a single way implies that traffic is free to travel between any parts of a way. What if you have a single bridge with two lanes traveling in the same direction which are separated by a Jersey barrier ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_barrier)? It would be incorrect to use a single way to represent that bridge. There are two ways and one bridge. A relation seems like the only appropriate way to represent this, and I don't see how it's a hack. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > yes, but that's not the problem: straight parallel ways. The problem > arises when they change (become one more or less), on intersections, > etc. Try to imagine a situation like the one I posted above in a > geometrically reduced system: it will get way too confusing. If we map > lanes where they are, there is another benefit: positional correctness > and ease of topological structure: you see what you do. > This can be done without resorting to mapping each lane separately. If you have a three lane road with no lane change restrictions or physical barriers, you map it as one way, with three lanes, with the position as the center of the three lanes. When the road goes to two lanes, you map it as one way, with two lanes, with the position as the center of the two lanes. Perhaps there could be some sort of special designation for a way with 3 lanes at the beginning and 2 lanes at the end, which designates whether the right or left lane ends, if you really want to get into the fine detail. When a lane doesn't end, but becomes an exit only, it's even simpler. You pick a decision point where the (let's say right) lane becomes exit only. You split the way at that point. Before the decision point you have one way, with three lanes, with the position as the center of the three lanes. After the decision point you have two ways - the left way has two lanes with the position as the center of the two lanes; the right way has one lane with the position as the center of the lane. Then when the right lane goes off to exit, you just follow that geometry. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=27.944845&lon=-82.538208&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Anthony wrote: > Perhaps there could be some sort of special designation for a way with 3 > lanes at the beginning and 2 lanes at the end, which designates whether the > right or left lane ends, if you really want to get into the fine detail. > To clarify, at the point where the third lane starts to end, you split the way. Before the point you have lanes=3, after the point you have some sort of "lanes=3;2", "laneends=right". Then, at the point where the third lane is completely gone, you split the way again. Before the point you still have "lanes=3;2","laneends=right". After the point you have lanes=2. In all cases you map the physical center of all the lanes. No need for relations for something simple like that. Relations would be nice for divided highways (a separate way could even go in the middle to represent the island or whatever divider is present), for bridges, and stuff like that, though. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] new proposals for k:shop
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > There's a far larger issue, which I noticed on Garmin's proprietary map > data. When searching for A, how does one map the desire A to the > category scheme, and then enter it, and get the right answer? For > restaurants, is it "American" or "Steak/Grill"? Where's the boundary? > For shops, many can be put into neatly divided categories, but near me > for example there is a fish store that sells meat and beer/wine. Really > it's of type shop and has a multivalued attribute for what it sells. How about shop=butcher;alcohol ? Additional info (the fact it sells fish, beer/wine specifically) should be put in additional tags. Regarding search - ideally, I think the user should be able to say that they want "to eat a t-bone steak in mood lighting for under $20 less than 30min drive away", and any suitable restaurant would be returned - regardless of whether it be classified overall as e.g. "American" or "Steak/Grill". > That said, having a map where all stores are on it and mappers pick the > best and we get on with things gets us 95% of the value - but I wanted > to mention the semantics problem. Yeah...I think at this stage, it's useful to input as much detail as possible, even if you have to make up tags along the way, provided their meaning is explicit and self-explanatory. They must be self-explanatory to facilitate a possible future move to a more coordinated scheme, to get that last 5% of value without having to re-survey (highway=footway/cycleway/path should serve as a warning against non-explicit tag names!). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > yes, but that's not the problem: straight parallel ways. The problem > arises when they change (become one more or less), on intersections, > etc. Try to imagine a situation like the one I posted above in a > geometrically reduced system: it will get way too confusing. If we map > lanes where they are, there is another benefit: positional correctness > and ease of topological structure: you see what you do. There seems to me to be good arguments for both of the suggestions being discussed. For clarity, here is a summary of the two main options: 1) modeling a *lane* as a series of nodes (as suggested by Martin) 2) modeling a *set of parallel lanes* as a series of nodes (as suggested by John) In 1), tags referring to the lane are applied to the way that explicitly represents the lane. Lanes of the same street are grouped with a relation. In 2), tags referring to the lane are (somehow) applied to the way that explicitly represents the entire street (group of parallel lanes). I would like to think that a structural database change is not necessary to implement 2). All that would be required is a way to denote which tags refer to which individual lanes (e.g. lane:*=*). I know, John, that you prefer a change to database structure instead. Note first, however, that regardless of whether lane:*=* or a new database table is used, editors could be changed to allow for the kind of editing you describe (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/4/46/Lane_group_example1_screen_2.png). It's still 2). Personally, I think both 1) and 2) could be used, as applicable. Specifically, 1) where lanes are not parallel, and 2) otherwise. I prefer 1), though, as it is more extensible (e.g. to use of further relations indicating ability to change lanes - with 2), it's likely to get messy). I also don't agree with John that 1) is an "abuse" of relations. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] new proposals for k:shop
Hi, Roy Wallace wrote: > Regarding search - ideally, I think the user should be able to say > that they want "to eat a t-bone steak in mood lighting for under $20 > less than 30min drive away" Whoa, that would be the killer app! "Go out for cheap drinks with some friends, meet a nice person of the matching sex in your age bracket who happens to have a soft spot for geeks with GPSes and is looking for the same kind of relationship that you are after..." Just needs a foolproof user interface ;-) Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > There is indeed a problem with bridges (in cases like yours it looks > like several bridges where in reality there is just one, then there > are bridge-names that can differ from the streetname, etc.) > I wonder if this perhaps isn't a problem with the data after all. As long as the way widths are given, it's not ambiguous. If the distance between two ways is less than or (approximately) equal to the average width of the two ways, you've got one bridge. If the distance is greater, you've got two bridges. I guess you might have a separator on a single bridge, but that can always be represented as another way. And it might be difficult with the current editors to get the separation exactly correct, but there's no reason the editor can't allow you to select two ways, set the distance in meters between them, and automagically make one parallel to the other separated by the distance you choose. This is only really a problem if the renderer ignores width. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
2009/9/20 Anthony : > This can be done without resorting to mapping each lane separately. If you > have a three lane road with no lane change restrictions or physical > barriers, you map it as one way, with three lanes, with the position as the > center of the three lanes. When the road goes to two lanes, you map it as > one way, with two lanes, with the position as the center of the two lanes. I wasn't suggesting to map each lane separately, however an editor could display lanes and it would be so much better to display them as parallel ways which could be edited if they needed to be. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Patch to render names from routes and custom highway shields on a per country basis
2009/9/20 Martijn van Oosterhout : > I suppose it would be possible to get osm2pgsql to assign columns > based on country locations, if the relevant polygons were available in > another table. Handling diffs is not the problem, osm2pgsql knows > exactly which things have changed and can do the relevent query to > supplement the data. Any thoughts on osm2pgsql patches to do this? Would be be able to use a shape file for this instead of trying to use information that may or may not already exist in the DB? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Patch to render names from routes and custom highway shields on a per country basis
2009/9/20 Lennard : > Not just countries, but also states (different shields per state, for > instance). Granted: same thing really. This is one reason to do these sorts of routes as relations instead of trying to cram lots of information into the way, you then should avoid overlapping shields if the rendering process is doing it's job. > A little birdie once told me of a trick used by a certain map maker. > Split the border-crossing road twice, so there is only a short section > that actually crosses the border; probably less than 10 meters. Assign > one of the styles to that short section, either randomly or by length or > any other means. Because these sections are so short, it's not > noticeable on a map, and you don't have "style bleed". If it's just ref numbers changing that shouldn't need anything more than to split the way would it? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:37 PM, John Smith wrote: > > I wasn't suggesting to map each lane separately, however an editor > could display lanes and it would be so much better to display them as > parallel ways which could be edited if they needed to be. John, do you concede that there are some situations where lanes are not parallel or are separated? How would you propose to model those situations? Do you concede that sometimes there is a need to map an individual lane as a series of nodes (way), and that in those circumstances there is a need to group lanes (ways) with a relation? Also, how would you propose to model transitions between sections of ways with different lane configurations, if lanes are not individually modeled as a series of nodes (way)? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:37 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/20 Anthony : > > This can be done without resorting to mapping each lane separately. If > you > > have a three lane road with no lane change restrictions or physical > > barriers, you map it as one way, with three lanes, with the position as > the > > center of the three lanes. When the road goes to two lanes, you map it > as > > one way, with two lanes, with the position as the center of the two > lanes. > > I wasn't suggesting to map each lane separately, however an editor > could display lanes and it would be so much better to display them as > parallel ways which could be edited if they needed to be. > That's an editor issue. If the editor wants to display lanes in a single way as parallel ways, and let you edit them if need be, it can do that. All that's needed is an unambiguous way to represent all the various scenarios. There are some issues where I think your method of using a single way is appropriate (per lane speed when traffic is free to change lanes freely is the only one I can think of at the moment though), and some issues where I think using a single way is completely inappropriate (per lane access restrictions, per lane geometries, per lane turn restrictions). I should be able to run a shortest path algorithm on a single set of nodes and edges. Add whatever features you want to that, but don't take that away. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
2009/9/20 Anthony : > That's an editor issue. If the editor wants to display lanes in a single > way as parallel ways, and let you edit them if need be, it can do that. It's also a DB/framework issue, I don't think relations should be abused for this purpose, instead the DB needs to be extended to cope with lanes being individually tagged. My suggestion about the editor is that's how ways could be represented in editors so lanes could be individually tagged if needed, if there is no need for lanes to be tagged differently to ways then they shouldn't be, it's just that in some cases they need to be. For example, you may have different maxpseed=* depending on the lane you are in, for example near here there is 2 lanes, one in each direction, each lane for a short section has a different maxspeed, I've taged it as maxspeed:forward=* but this won't scale to say 5 lanes in each direction and 4 different maximum speeds depending on which lane you are in, and I know this situation exists as I've seen it. 130, 110, 100, 80, 80 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] shp-to-osm 0.6 released
For those of you using the shp-to-osm app, I just uploaded the 0.6 version. If you're looking for what changed, here's the changelog: http://redmine.yellowbkpk.com/versions/show/15 Download here: http://redmine.yellowbkpk.com/projects/list_files/geo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
