Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-ca] SOTM 2010 Bid for Ottawa?
Thanks Yves, yup, i DEFINATLY support the idea of Barcelona for the 2010 SOTM, (i saw on the talk-au list that maybe 2011 would be great for Austrailia, and maybe 2012 for Canada. (we should be all imported by then) :) and yes, if you can help on the sotm planning side, i think is Henk who is a contact for that, im sure sotm planners would welcome the collaboration (4 day all fun event). See below for details. (for the main talk@ list) Sam On 10/20/09, Yves Moisan wrote: >> Hi, >> Just wondering if anyone on the talk-ca list wants to make a bid for >> the 2010 SOTM? (although i like the idea of Barcelona, also) :-) > > A comment from someone at the FOSS4G conference here in Sydney who > usually can attend *one* FOSS conference per year and desperately wants > to attend SotM : let's please make a joint FOSS4G/SotM event next year > so that the two very closely related communities that attend those > yearly events get a chance to meet or to attend two great conferences at > the same time. > > Ideas for organizing a joint event : > > * share a post- or pre- conference day for para-conference activities > (e.g. workshops/code sprints for FOSS4G, mapping > parties/[code][data]sprints for SotM); maybe that day would be a > wednesday to accommodate 2-day conferences before and after > > * potentially overlap the two conferences (e.g. to accommodate one of > the conference needing 3 days) but overlap should be kept at a minimum > so that people could participate in both and maybe even get a rebate for > registering at the two events > > I don't know if this is at all feasible, but I definitely think SotM and > FOSS4G communities need to meet. FOSS4G 2010 will likely bring in > excess of 500 or 600 people and maybe that number can be increased by > the interest generated by a joint SotM meeting. And the other way > around of course. I think the question will be addressed here at one of > the administrative meetings (I think the OSGeo one tonight). > > My 2 cents, > > Yves Moisan > > > -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blog: http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org @Acrosscanadatrails ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] proposal for deletion: talk-us-ga and talk-us-bayarea
me too also bay area On 20 Oct 2009, at 21:00 , Dan Homerick wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:23 PM, SteveC wrote: >> Neither list has any real traffic, and what they do tend to just be >> reposts of talk-us. >> >> Splitting the community at this stage is retarded, we should wait for >> talk-us to grow to a sizable level and then begin spinning off as >> required, like we did with the other lists. >> >> Yours &c. >> >> Steve > > I'm in favor of deletion. > Bay Area resident, > - Dan > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > talk...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/21 Ulf Lamping > Anthony schrieb: > > Disused canal, fine. Disused railway, sure. Disused building, no > > problem. Disused quarry, yes. > > > > But disused cafe? A cafe is a building, or part of a building, which > > is *used* as a cafe. The use is part of the definition. > > Well, yes and no. > > People might remember that there once was a cafe. They might call the > building "the cafe" even if its no longer a cafe "in use". > > So this is what the mapper *may* wanted to express. While I don't think > the combination is well done, it but could well have its reasons. > > > However, > > This obviously doesn't work pretty well in the 4th dimension, if you > want to tag: this once was a cafe, before that a pub, before a bakery > and before that a police_station. > > > Another even simpler problem, if a node is tagged: > > shop=bakery > amenity=police_station > disused=yes > > disused refers to shop or amenity now? > > > Yes But, If a Pub is tagged amenity=pub disused=yes The thing looks like a put (ie large pub like lables) hence works relatively well as a land mark, it just happens to be closed and does not sell Beer anymore. Its still useful if its a landmark. same as a disused mine shaft is. Once it gets knocked down, or reused, or as something else then the tags need changing. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Vanuatu
Hi all, I received some GPS traces from someone in Vanuatu. He had had them for some time, but didn't have the opportunity to slice them up and upload them. I took the data and used gpsbabel to split the entire GPS log into daily chunks which coincided with manageable trip segments. I checked the tracks in JOSM to make sure they were not duplicates of existing information, then uploaded them. My intention was to assist in mapping Vanuatu by tracing the GPS tracks and uploading new ways as highway=road for others with local knowledge to fix. Unfortunately I have had very little time to do this, but more to the point, I felt a little uncomfortable when I added some roads, since I am not local, and I don't know the terrain at all. The point of this message is to announce that I *have* uploaded the GPS traces, and to ask/encourage people who are familir with Vanuatu to look at them and use them to map more roads. Best wishes, Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] proposal for deletion: talk-us-ga and talk-us-bayarea
Neither list has any real traffic, and what they do tend to just be reposts of talk-us. Splitting the community at this stage is retarded, we should wait for talk-us to grow to a sizable level and then begin spinning off as required, like we did with the other lists. Yours &c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Anthony schrieb: > Disused canal, fine. Disused railway, sure. Disused building, no > problem. Disused quarry, yes. > > But disused cafe? A cafe is a building, or part of a building, which > is *used* as a cafe. The use is part of the definition. Well, yes and no. People might remember that there once was a cafe. They might call the building "the cafe" even if its no longer a cafe "in use". So this is what the mapper *may* wanted to express. While I don't think the combination is well done, it but could well have its reasons. However, This obviously doesn't work pretty well in the 4th dimension, if you want to tag: this once was a cafe, before that a pub, before a bakery and before that a police_station. Another even simpler problem, if a node is tagged: shop=bakery amenity=police_station disused=yes disused refers to shop or amenity now? Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: > Because tags like disused=yes conflict with a general principle in OSM: > We don't have a fixed set of tags and mappers can invent and use their > own tags, so it should be possible for software to ignore tags it > doesn't know without causing problems. If I don't support distinguishing > between different variants of amenity=parking, I just ignore parking=* > tags entirely, and while the result is less useful, it's still correct. > If I don't support disused features, I can just ignore disused=yes tags > ... no wait, I can't. Okay, but what if the tag is "man_made=mineshaft"? Is it safe to ignore the "disused=yes" tag then? I don't see why not. It's not like "man_made=mineshaft" means you can grab a pickaxe and go head for it. A mineshaft defaults to *not* being accessible to the public. Whereas a parking lot defaults to being *accessible* to the public (in fact, that's even in the definition, though the definition is somewhat ruined with the weasel-word "Generally"). Bottom line, is "man_made=mineshaft" a tag to represent the physical presence of a mineshaft, or is it a tag to represent the use of a mineshaft in mining? If the former, disused=yes is fine. If the latter, it isn't. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Dave F.: > Shaun McDonald wrote: >> If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the >> OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe. > Don't map for the renderer, router etc. etc. > > You should be writing a post asking why they don't recognise such a > widely used tag. Because tags like disused=yes conflict with a general principle in OSM: We don't have a fixed set of tags and mappers can invent and use their own tags, so it should be possible for software to ignore tags it doesn't know without causing problems. If I don't support distinguishing between different variants of amenity=parking, I just ignore parking=* tags entirely, and while the result is less useful, it's still correct. If I don't support disused features, I can just ignore disused=yes tags ... no wait, I can't. Of course, in order to make mapping convenient, it's sometimes necessary to break that concept (with access tags, for example), and probably we won't be able to get rid of disused/abandoned/construction/planned/proposed/etc anymore. Unfortunately, people didn't seem to like my status=disused/... proposal very much. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Dave F. wrote: >> Shaun McDonald wrote: >>> If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the >>> OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe. >> Don't map for the renderer, router etc. etc. >> >> You should be writing a post asking why they don't recognise such a >> widely used tag. > > What does shop=cafe, disused=yes mean? When a cafe is abandoned, it's > no longer a cafe, it's now an abandoned building. > > I think the renderer is right in this example, and the tagger is, most > likely, wrong (maybe there is an example of a cafe which is still a > cafe, it's just a "disused" cafe, but this seems rare, and not > something that should be "widely used"). > Disused canal, fine. Disused railway, sure. Disused building, no problem. Disused quarry, yes. But disused cafe? A cafe is a building, or part of a building, which is *used* as a cafe. The use is part of the definition. "a generally informal place with sit-down facilities selling beverages and light meals and/or snacks". By that definition, if they aren't selling anything, they're not a cafe. So what is a disused cafe? When they're selling but no one is buying? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Dave F. wrote: > Shaun McDonald wrote: >> If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the >> OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe. > Don't map for the renderer, router etc. etc. > > You should be writing a post asking why they don't recognise such a > widely used tag. What does shop=cafe, disused=yes mean? When a cafe is abandoned, it's no longer a cafe, it's now an abandoned building. I think the renderer is right in this example, and the tagger is, most likely, wrong (maybe there is an example of a cafe which is still a cafe, it's just a "disused" cafe, but this seems rare, and not something that should be "widely used"). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Lesi wrote: > I was already planning to start a proposal for heaps. At the moment I use > natural=peak. Not sure what to use at the moment, but they're definitely not natural. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Shaun McDonald wrote: > If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the > OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe. Don't map for the renderer, router etc. etc. You should be writing a post asking why they don't recognise such a widely used tag. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
Someoneelse wrote: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining >> > > It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as > currently - looking in the UK I can see one "man-made=mineshaft" and no > references to "surface_mining". Do you know what people are using > currently? landuse=quarry ? 364 uses in tagwatch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] loading geotiff to osm editors
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > maning sambale gmail.com> writes: > >> >> Any advice on loading georectfied imagery (very large geotiff) to >> josm/merkaartor/potlatch? >> >> If WMS is the only option, anybody willing to host? This is for >> tracing features on a donated high-res images (0.6 meters) for >> post-disaster efforts (Typhoon Kestana and Parma) in some areas in the >> Philippines > > > Hi, > > I believe you are using QGis, have you considered to have a try with it? It > can > for sure handle GeoTIFFs, but I am not sure how well the OSM plugin works for > sending edits but at least it is opening osm files just fine and it can > reproject it on-the-fly to suit the projection of the imagery. Yes, I also use QGIS for editing some OSM data. But I want to share the geotiffs to the rest of the OSM-PH contributors. > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- cheers, maning -- "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] loading geotiff to osm editors
Ah that easy?! Look so simple versus a WMS configuration. On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Andy Allan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM, maning sambale > wrote: >> Any advice on loading georectfied imagery (very large geotiff) to >> josm/merkaartor/potlatch? > > * Create a mapnik style that has one layer (the geotiff) and one > rastersymbolizer > * Run generate_tiles.py to make google-projection tiles > * Put them on a webserver. They are already in the right folder > structure so any webserver will do > * You're good to go! > > You can supply extra parameters in the Potlatch url if you want to > direct people to the imagery without having to paste in anything into > the custom url box. For a working example, see > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=52.191248&lon=-1.701483&zoom=18&tileurl=http://andy.sandbox.cloudmade.com/tiles/stratford/!/!/!.png > > I'd avoid WMS for this stuff. If you can't get it working I can > process it and host the tiles for you. Thanks for the offer. I'll contact you when we have all the images. > Cheers, > Andy > -- cheers, maning -- "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/20 Liz : > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Lesi wrote: >> The >> area of the mine can be tagged with landuse=industrial. > Too broad a definition > > industrial covers too much > mining is quite different a landuse > heavy industry doesn't build up piles of waste (mullock heaps) and then have > to rehabilitate the area in the same way as mining +1 landuse=surface_mining? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] loading geotiff to osm editors
maning sambale gmail.com> writes: > > Any advice on loading georectfied imagery (very large geotiff) to > josm/merkaartor/potlatch? > > If WMS is the only option, anybody willing to host? This is for > tracing features on a donated high-res images (0.6 meters) for > post-disaster efforts (Typhoon Kestana and Parma) in some areas in the > Philippines Hi, I believe you are using QGis, have you considered to have a try with it? It can for sure handle GeoTIFFs, but I am not sure how well the OSM plugin works for sending edits but at least it is opening osm files just fine and it can reproject it on-the-fly to suit the projection of the imagery. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
>> Underground resources can not be mapped. > why not? > isn't that what a geology map does? > > I was commenting on the resource proposal really > Now I get your point. The resource-tag describes for which resource the mineshaft was built. If the mineshaft is disused, it is irrelevant if the deposits are mined or unmined. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
>> > how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme? >> >> If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore -> >> disused=yes. >> >> lesi > I wasn't thinking of disused, i was thinking of still there, with or > without a > mineshaft Perhaps, my English is too bad, but I do not really understand what you mean. With unmined deposit you mean the resource, but what has the resource to do with the existence of a mineshaft. Underground resources can not be mapped. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
> > but when the mine shaft is disused the winding gear is removed I can not confirm this. All disused mineshafts I know still have their winding gear, only the cables are removed. But even if the winding gear is removed you can tag with headframe=yes. Of courde, if the whole headframe is removed the mineshaft should be tagged with disused=yes;headframe=no. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
> industrial covers too much > mining is quite different a landuse > heavy industry doesn't build up piles of waste (mullock heaps) and then > have > to rehabilitate the area in the same way as mining I was already planning to start a proposal for heaps. At the moment I use natural=peak. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Jason Cunningham wrote: > 4. The term Headframe is used to describe a Pit Head, which is confusing. > More problems with language use. Pit Head appears to be the correct term > for the building or structure. I don't claim to be an expert on mining language but pit head is the area / buildings surrounding the shaft, and headframe sits exactly over the shaft. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC-(man_made=mineshaft)
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Lesi wrote: > Of course I meant adit and not audit. Some people would call it a gallery. In Australia I've heard level gallery stopes and probably some other words i've forgotten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Shaun McDonald wrote: > If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the OSM > data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe. But a disused mineshaft is still a mineshaft, it's just an abandoned one. > As another example for when a road is under construction, you can use > highway=constriction;construction=primary, thus routing engines won't route > along that road That logic makes sense for a highway that is under construction. But I'm not sure it makes sense for an abandoned mineshaft. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Someoneelse wrote: > no > references to "surface_mining". Do you know what people are using > currently? I've used quarry for an open cut mine, but it isn't appropriate for the size of feature involved. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Lesi wrote: > Having winding gears is the main purpose of a headframe IMO. but when the mine shaft is disused the winding gear is removed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Lesi wrote: > The > area of the mine can be tagged with landuse=industrial. Too broad a definition industrial covers too much mining is quite different a landuse heavy industry doesn't build up piles of waste (mullock heaps) and then have to rehabilitate the area in the same way as mining ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC-(man_made=mineshaft)
> If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the > OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe. Instead you > should use something like old_amenity=cafe, or > amenity=closed;closed=cafe, that way there won't be any confusion. I agree with you, but at the moment disused=yes is widely used and not deprecated. So there is no reason to use a different system with mineshafts. I would recommend to start a proposal to deprecate disused=yes and replace it with =closed;closed=. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC-(man_made=mineshaft)
> I think you are mixing up audits and mineshafts. Mineshafts always go > verticaly or almost-verticaly into the ground. You are talking about > adits, > that is something completly different and should be dealed with in another > proposal. See Wikipedia for definitions of these terms. Of course I meant adit and not audit. Some people would call it a gallery. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
> 1. Mineshaft may exist but we are going to be mapping > the location mine entrances, not the tunnel leading away from > the mineentrance. In the future someone may want to map the 'way' > that the mineshaft follows especially if its a horizontal tunnel going > into a hillside > 2. What we want to locate, or map, are mine entrances. Mine entrances to > are mostly small and most go horizontally into hillsides. > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Mine_entrance.jpg > I assume most are too small to map as an area in OSM. They would have > to be mapped as a node. I think you are mixing up audits and mineshafts. Mineshafts always go verticaly or almost-verticaly into the ground. You are talking about adits, that is something completly different and should be dealed with in another proposal. See Wikipedia for definitions of these terms. > 3. There are plans to supply info on structures associated with mines > as part of the tag, notably the Pit Head. I think this could be confusing > and people would map the outline of the Pit Head structure and tag it as > a 'mineshaft'. The Pit Head should be mapped separately as a building and > this should be made clear. I am not sure what you mean here. The pit head is always above the mineshaft, so it makes no sense to map the mineshaft and the pithead seperatly. >4. The term Headframe is used to describe a Pit Head, which is confusing. > More problems with language use. Pit Head appears to be the correct term > for the building or structure. Headframe is the more correct term. A headframe is the structural frame above an underground mine shaft (see Wikipedia). Usually winding shafts have such a headframe, air shafts do not. A pit head could also be a building with an enclosed headframe. But the intention of this tag is to express if the headframe is visible, because it is a prominent point of reference. Look at the examples in the wiki. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] loading geotiff to osm editors
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Dane Springmeyer wrote: > Nice Andy. > > If I can help let me know as well. In Mapnik trunk I've been working on > adding support for GDAL overviews, so using gdaladdo on that large Geotiff > and then reading it with the 'gdal' datasource could be really useful if the > geotiff is > 1GB. Also, reprojecting the geotiff into EPSG:900913 will be > required, before rendering with Mapnik. Gah, forgot to mention that! gdalwarp is the tool for this. I spent a day finding this out the hard way the first time I worked with mapnik and rasters. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] loading geotiff to osm editors
On Oct 20, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Andy Allan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM, maning sambale > wrote: >> Any advice on loading georectfied imagery (very large geotiff) to >> josm/merkaartor/potlatch? > > * Create a mapnik style that has one layer (the geotiff) and one > rastersymbolizer > * Run generate_tiles.py to make google-projection tiles > * Put them on a webserver. They are already in the right folder > structure so any webserver will do > * You're good to go! > > You can supply extra parameters in the Potlatch url if you want to > direct people to the imagery without having to paste in anything into > the custom url box. For a working example, see > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=52.191248&lon=-1.701483&zoom=18&tileurl=http://andy.sandbox.cloudmade.com/tiles/stratford/!/!/!.png > > I'd avoid WMS for this stuff. If you can't get it working I can > process it and host the tiles for you. > > Cheers, > Andy > Nice Andy. If I can help let me know as well. In Mapnik trunk I've been working on adding support for GDAL overviews, so using gdaladdo on that large Geotiff and then reading it with the 'gdal' datasource could be really useful if the geotiff is > 1GB. Also, reprojecting the geotiff into EPSG:900913 will be required, before rendering with Mapnik. Cheers, Dane ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
I worried that the use of language might prove to be confusing and the the buildings associated with a mine should have a separate tag. 1. Mineshaft may exist but we are going to be mapping the location mine entrances, not the tunnel leading away from the mine entrance. In the future someone may want to map the 'way' that the mineshaft follows especially if its a horizontal tunnel going into a hillside 2. What we want to locate, or map, are mine entrances. Mine entrances to are mostly small and most go horizontally into hillsides. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Mine_entrance.jpg I assume most are too small to map as an area in OSM. They would have to be mapped as a node. 3. There are plans to supply info on structures associated with mines as part of the tag, notably the Pit Head. I think this could be confusing and people would map the outline of the Pit Head structure and tag it as a 'mineshaft'. The Pit Head should be mapped separately as a building and this should be made clear. 4. The term Headframe is used to describe a Pit Head, which is confusing. More problems with language use. Pit Head appears to be the correct term for the building or structure. Jason 2009/10/20 Lesi > Hello, > > based on an old (abandoned) proposal and on a discussion in the German > board > I have created a new proposal for tagging mineshafts: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft > > In addition to this proposal I would like to discuss the tag resource. In > my > proposal resource is used to describe what is mined for with the mineshaft. > These resources are the same that can be used in a power plant, but there > they are tagged as power source. It's the same with pumping_rig and > pipelines, where this resources are tagged as type. What do you think about > standardizing this and replacing all this different tags with one: > resource? > > lesi > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
On 10/16/09, Erik Johansson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Richard Fairhurst > wrote: >> >> Erik Johansson wrote: >>> Open Database License (ODbL) >>> “Attribution and Share-Alike for Data/Databases” >> >> Yep. Exactly. >> >> CC-BY-SA, famously, allows you to combine different types of "creative >> content" as a collective work. Wikipedia regularly combines GFDL text with >> CC-BY-SA photos, and no-one bats an eyelid: it's a collective work. > > I now have a practical case. > > Routes for public transports are usually printed on a map, this map is > usually licensed and it might be difficult to get permissions to > distribute the map on the net (see picture). So how do I get to use > OSM data for free? you always get to use OSM data for free - that's the point! i guess what you mean is "how do i get to use OSM data in conjunction with other licensed data without releasing the other licensed data?" under the linking system described previously in this thread (hereafter The Fairhurst Doctrine), i think that the following would be required: > I can store my data as > 1. already georeffed shape files if neither the geometry, not any attributes, have come from OSM, then there's no need to release them. even if the shapefile is rendered together with OSM data, it doesn't create a derivative database at any point - it's essentially the same as rendering a pushpin mashup - so it's a collective work. > 2. shapefiles of the routes that are created from OSM data anything that comes from OSM would need to be released, e.g: geometry or attributes. other attributes not coming from OSM may not, under the Fairhurst Doctrine, unless they are modifications of attributes already existing in OSM. in my view, the shapefile geometry would need to be released, along with a dbx file containing all the attributes which originated with or derived from OSM, but not ones from any non-OSM dataset. however, it's possible that the whole dbx file may be considered a "whole derivative database", as dbx files aren't capable of the sort of relational linkage that was discussed before. > 3. route relations in OSM format, but no from OSM (just referencing IDs in > OSM) i think this doesn't require any release of those relations, as they're basically just lists of OSM way IDs. under the Fairhurst Doctrine, such lists aren't "qualitatively substantial" and therefore aren't derivative databases. > 4. description used by bus drivers to get around there's nothing in the description derived from OSM, so my view is that this doesn't need to be released. it's a list of directions, after all. > Then a separate database with Share-Alike Openstreetmap data. this would need to be made available, of course. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] loading geotiff to osm editors
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM, maning sambale wrote: > Any advice on loading georectfied imagery (very large geotiff) to > josm/merkaartor/potlatch? * Create a mapnik style that has one layer (the geotiff) and one rastersymbolizer * Run generate_tiles.py to make google-projection tiles * Put them on a webserver. They are already in the right folder structure so any webserver will do * You're good to go! You can supply extra parameters in the Potlatch url if you want to direct people to the imagery without having to paste in anything into the custom url box. For a working example, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=52.191248&lon=-1.701483&zoom=18&tileurl=http://andy.sandbox.cloudmade.com/tiles/stratford/!/!/!.png I'd avoid WMS for this stuff. If you can't get it working I can process it and host the tiles for you. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] loading geotiff to osm editors
Any advice on loading georectfied imagery (very large geotiff) to josm/merkaartor/potlatch? If WMS is the only option, anybody willing to host? This is for tracing features on a donated high-res images (0.6 meters) for post-disaster efforts (Typhoon Kestana and Parma) in some areas in the Philippines -- cheers, maning -- "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On 20 Oct 2009, at 14:44, Lesi wrote: On 20 Oct 2009, at 12:05, Lesi wrote: how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme? If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore -> disused=yes Do NOT use something like disused=yes as a modifier, you instead need to add an extra level of indirection, so that you don't end up having disused or closed things being confused with things that are still in operation. Shaun Could you explain this further, I do not understand what you mean. disused=yes is quite popular and used in combination with many other things. I'll take an example of an amenity=cafe since it's one that I know slightly better. If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe. Instead you should use something like old_amenity=cafe, or amenity=closed;closed=cafe, that way there won't be any confusion. As another example for when a road is under construction, you can use highway=constriction;construction=primary, thus routing engines won't route along that road. If you added a construction=yes or similar tag, it would require so much more complex logic in the processing of the osm data that it wouldn't be practical to do it this way. Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/20 Lesi : > I know mineshaft you can get very close to (2-3m). With your argument half > of the features of OSM should not be mapped e.g. historic=wreck or streets > within the ground of a factory. And once again: mineshafts which have a > headframe are very good points of reference. Often names of mineshafts are > also used to describe where something is (e.g. somebody could say: "You will > not know the street, but it's near the Foobar Mineshaft."). Mineshafts and > mines are also mapped on many commercial maps. If most of the world only has low res sat imagery, and shaft heads usually are only a few pixels wide on low res, so how do you mark them if you can't get close to them? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
> On 20 Oct 2009, at 12:05, Lesi wrote: > >>> how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme? >> >> If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore >> -> disused=yes >> > > Do NOT use something like disused=yes as a modifier, you instead need to > add an extra level of indirection, so that you don't end up having disused > or closed things being confused with things that are still in operation. > > Shaun > Could you explain this further, I do not understand what you mean. disused=yes is quite popular and used in combination with many other things. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
> There is probably a good reason only tourist attractions are mapped > because you wouldn't be allowed to go near one unless you worked > there, there is a mine shaft on the other side of town but I wouldn't > get anywhere near it. I know mineshaft you can get very close to (2-3m). With your argument half of the features of OSM should not be mapped e.g. historic=wreck or streets within the ground of a factory. And once again: mineshafts which have a headframe are very good points of reference. Often names of mineshafts are also used to describe where something is (e.g. somebody could say: "You will not know the street, but it's near the Foobar Mineshaft."). Mineshafts and mines are also mapped on many commercial maps. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On 20 Oct 2009, at 12:05, Lesi wrote: how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme? If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore -> disused=yes Do NOT use something like disused=yes as a modifier, you instead need to add an extra level of indirection, so that you don't end up having disused or closed things being confused with things that are still in operation. Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/20 Martin Koppenhoefer : > 2009/10/20 John Smith : >> There is probably a good reason only tourist attractions are mapped >> because you wouldn't be allowed to go near one unless you worked >> there, there is a mine shaft on the other side of town but I wouldn't >> get anywhere near it. > > You're missing the point: this is not about whether it is possible to > get there or not, but how to map them, which tags to use if you know > where they are, which parts might be interesting, etc. > > cheers, > Martin > I didn't miss anything, just pointing out why they aren't mapped, and it isn't because people haven't figured out what to tag them with. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/20 John Smith : > There is probably a good reason only tourist attractions are mapped > because you wouldn't be allowed to go near one unless you worked > there, there is a mine shaft on the other side of town but I wouldn't > get anywhere near it. You're missing the point: this is not about whether it is possible to get there or not, but how to map them, which tags to use if you know where they are, which parts might be interesting, etc. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proper attribution
- Original Message > From: Frederik Ramm > To: Licensing and other legal discussions. > Sent: Tuesday, 20 October, 2009 13:13:31 > Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proper attribution > > Hi, > > Tom Hughes wrote: > > The main issue of debate surrounds exactly what forms of attribution > > are/are not valid. > > And this is not made easier by the fact that what is valid and what not > is not the community's decision but (within the confines of the license > text) that of the individual contributor. > > Assuming for a moment that my contributions to OSM are copyrightable and > the CC-BY-SA license is valid, then if I license my data CC-BY-SA I have > the right to request anyone using my data, or building or using derived > versions thereof, to provide attribution in the form I believe is > required, and I can drag them to court if they don't. So it seems I have stumbled back on to the license debate. > > So even if the attribution you provide looks ok to the majority of the > community, it only needs "one especially vociferous individual" who has > contributed to the data you are using to cause you trouble. I guess this will only be resolved / improved by ODbL. Until that time, i guess the more attribution the better and following the guidelines on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ will suffice. > > Bye > Frederik > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/20 Lesi : >> It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as >> currently - looking in the UK I can see one "man-made=mineshaft" and no >> references to "surface_mining". Do you know what people are using >> currently? > > In the area I map the mineshafts are currently not mapped at all. Also > looking at mineshafts in other parts of the world they are very often not > mapped. Sometimes they are tagged with tourism=attraction (especially when > they can be visited), sometimes with historic=mine (if they are disused), > sometimes there is only a note, that there is a mineshaft. But it seems > mostly they are not mapped because people do not know how to tag them. There is probably a good reason only tourist attractions are mapped because you wouldn't be allowed to go near one unless you worked there, there is a mine shaft on the other side of town but I wouldn't get anywhere near it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/20 Someoneelse : >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining > > It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as > currently - looking in the UK I can see one "man-made=mineshaft" and no > references to "surface_mining". Do you know what people are using > currently? I checked 2 places I know of for surface mining: one uses landuse=quarry (IMHO errateously) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.60024&lon=14.24461&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF the other one is not in use anymore and does not define any area: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.5545&lon=14.0141&zoom=13&layers=B000FTF cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
> and no references to "surface_mining" There is also landuse=quarry which can be used for surface mines. But actually they are not part of my proposal - it refers only to underground mining. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
> It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as > currently - looking in the UK I can see one "man-made=mineshaft" and no > references to "surface_mining". Do you know what people are using > currently? In the area I map the mineshafts are currently not mapped at all. Also looking at mineshafts in other parts of the world they are very often not mapped. Sometimes they are tagged with tourism=attraction (especially when they can be visited), sometimes with historic=mine (if they are disused), sometimes there is only a note, that there is a mineshaft. But it seems mostly they are not mapped because people do not know how to tag them. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proper attribution
Hi, Tom Hughes wrote: > The main issue of debate surrounds exactly what forms of attribution > are/are not valid. And this is not made easier by the fact that what is valid and what not is not the community's decision but (within the confines of the license text) that of the individual contributor. Assuming for a moment that my contributions to OSM are copyrightable and the CC-BY-SA license is valid, then if I license my data CC-BY-SA I have the right to request anyone using my data, or building or using derived versions thereof, to provide attribution in the form I believe is required, and I can drag them to court if they don't. So even if the attribution you provide looks ok to the majority of the community, it only needs "one especially vociferous individual" who has contributed to the data you are using to cause you trouble. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as currently - looking in the UK I can see one "man-made=mineshaft" and no references to "surface_mining". Do you know what people are using currently? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
> how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme? If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore -> disused=yes lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
> there are mineshafts and BIG mineshafts and open cut mines > and mining in english has its own language to describe the parts of the > mine For open cut mines there is another draft. IMO they are something completly different. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining The intention of this proposal is to tag the most important and most visible part of a mine - not the other parts, which are just normal buildings. The area of the mine can be tagged with landuse=industrial. > > and some mineshafts have winding gear on headframes > and lots of other things Having winding gears is the main purpose of a headframe IMO. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Peter Childs wrote: > I agree standardizing on resource might be a good idea but we might need > resource_output and resource_input or somthing Are you an economist? from my worldview which deals with people and biological systems i don't see an importance in designating where on its path the resource lies how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/20 Lesi > Hello, > > based on an old (abandoned) proposal and on a discussion in the German > board > I have created a new proposal for tagging mineshafts: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft > > In addition to this proposal I would like to discuss the tag resource. In > my > proposal resource is used to describe what is mined for with the mineshaft. > These resources are the same that can be used in a power plant, but there > they are tagged as power source. It's the same with pumping_rig and > pipelines, where this resources are tagged as type. What do you think about > standardizing this and replacing all this different tags with one: > resource? > > lesi > > > Not sure thats going to work Power Plants produce Electricity from the resource Mine Shafts produce the resource. A Processing Plant, will produce one resource and take in a different one, I agree standardizing on resource might be a good idea but we might need resource_output and resource_input or somthing Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
Hello, based on an old (abandoned) proposal and on a discussion in the German board I have created a new proposal for tagging mineshafts: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft In addition to this proposal I would like to discuss the tag resource. In my proposal resource is used to describe what is mined for with the mineshaft. These resources are the same that can be used in a power plant, but there they are tagged as power source. It's the same with pumping_rig and pipelines, where this resources are tagged as type. What do you think about standardizing this and replacing all this different tags with one: resource? lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] using indic fonts with josm
Hi, I have indic fonts installed in my machine, but when I try to type them in josm, I just get little boxen - how does one install indic (or any font) font support in josm? -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Project Officer NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
