Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
Hi, Anthony wrote: > I guess the suggestion to "map what's on the ground" is good advice as > long as it's not exclusionary. But my beef is with people who tell us > to "map what's on the ground" to the exclusion of everything that isn't > on the ground. Problem is that whatever is not on the ground is not verifiable; I'd have to take the mapper's word for it. And this opens the door to people inventing stuff. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
(sorry about the duplicate, Anthony; I forgot to send to all) On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Nathan Edgars II > wrote: >> In other words, if we know for sure that Long Street >> is officially the A1889, it might make sense as a separate >> ref_unmarked=A1889 tag, like old_ref=A1, but using the same tagging >> for signed and unsigned routes helps nobody. > > Agreed. Using the exact same tagging would be inappropriate. You might as > well be taking that from the private message I sent you earlier today, where > I said as much (I said we should map unsigned routes and add a tag of > signed=yes/no). That's not really enough, since we need to distinguish types of unsigned routes. Who defined the route? If we can get good data to that extent, then we can do something like MDSHA_route=IS 595 (see page 6 of http://www.sha.state.md.us/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/2008_hlr_all/co02.pdf). In this case, there's no other definition, but theoretically the Federal Highway Administration might give it different endpoints, and we'd show that in a different tag. For a county road, we might have different tags based on the county's official definitions (if such actually exist) and a possible statewide database. > > But you're looking at only half of the picture. Yes, if you know where you > want to go on the map and you want to find it in the real world, you want to > have access to the signs that are on the ground. Of course, for that > purpose we're better off mapping most of the signs as nodes, not as ways. > > But what if you're looking for A1889? If it's not on the map, and it's not > on the ground, you're not going to find it. Then maybe you shouldn't find it :) But this is what the separate tag would cover, *if* we have an authoritative official definition of the route. > > I guess the suggestion to "map what's on the ground" is good advice as long > as it's not exclusionary. But my beef is with people who tell us to "map > what's on the ground" to the exclusion of everything that isn't on the > ground. > I guess I'm more of a "map more prominently what's on the ground, and only map what's not on the ground within reason" person. But I would like some beef, if you've got any extra. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Anthony wrote: > > In any case, more important than the etymology of the phrase "map what's > on > > the ground" is what it means and whether or not it's good advice. In > terms > > of its use in excluding verifiable information I think it is quite > > problematic. When a route isn't written "on the ground" that's exactly > when > > it's most useful to have it identified in a map. > > Not really; maps are primarily used for navigation, whether > computer-routed or human-read. If the map shows that Long Street is > the A1889, someone using the map will be looking for the A1889. But if > Long Street is not marked "on the ground" as the A1889, that > designation is about as relevant as the fact that it was once the > route of the A1. In other words, if we know for sure that Long Street > is officially the A1889, it might make sense as a separate > ref_unmarked=A1889 tag, like old_ref=A1, but using the same tagging > for signed and unsigned routes helps nobody. > Agreed. Using the exact same tagging would be inappropriate. You might as well be taking that from the private message I sent you earlier today, where I said as much (I said we should map unsigned routes and add a tag of signed=yes/no). But you're looking at only half of the picture. Yes, if you know where you want to go on the map and you want to find it in the real world, you want to have access to the signs that are on the ground. Of course, for that purpose we're better off mapping most of the signs as nodes, not as ways. But what if you're looking for A1889? If it's not on the map, and it's not on the ground, you're not going to find it. I guess the suggestion to "map what's on the ground" is good advice as long as it's not exclusionary. But my beef is with people who tell us to "map what's on the ground" to the exclusion of everything that isn't on the ground. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
John F. Eldredge wrote: >>From: Nathan Edgars II >>In other words, if we know for sure that Long Street is officially the A1889, >>it might make sense as a separate ref_unmarked=A1889 tag, like old_ref=A1, >>but using the same tagging for signed and unsigned routes helps nobody. >It is not unusual for roads to have signage for both the local name and also >an official route name (sometimes multiple route names). Definitely. I'm talking about the case where A1889 appears on no signs; it is simply an internal designation used by the highway agency. Here's a real-life example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_595_(Maryland) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
On 31 May 2010 08:56, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > +1, we already map stuff that is not found "on the ground" but still > fits perfectly into our data (e.g. borders). Borders isn't a good example, some/many of these are marked on the ground, even if it's just a sign such as "welcome to such and such state" or "thank you for visiting such and such local government area" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
It is not unusual for roads to have signage for both the local name and also an official route name (sometimes multiple route names). -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria -Original Message- From: Nathan Edgars II Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 18:48:12 To: Anthony Cc: Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Anthony wrote: > In any case, more important than the etymology of the phrase "map what's on > the ground" is what it means and whether or not it's good advice. In terms > of its use in excluding verifiable information I think it is quite > problematic. When a route isn't written "on the ground" that's exactly when > it's most useful to have it identified in a map. Not really; maps are primarily used for navigation, whether computer-routed or human-read. If the map shows that Long Street is the A1889, someone using the map will be looking for the A1889. But if Long Street is not marked "on the ground" as the A1889, that designation is about as relevant as the fact that it was once the route of the A1. In other words, if we know for sure that Long Street is officially the A1889, it might make sense as a separate ref_unmarked=A1889 tag, like old_ref=A1, but using the same tagging for signed and unsigned routes helps nobody. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
2010/5/30 Mikel Maron : > It really shouldn't be taken as a more general rule. Just for instance, > localised names of places are not very often found on the ground. +1, we already map stuff that is not found "on the ground" but still fits perfectly into our data (e.g. borders). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Anthony wrote: > In any case, more important than the etymology of the phrase "map what's on > the ground" is what it means and whether or not it's good advice. In terms > of its use in excluding verifiable information I think it is quite > problematic. When a route isn't written "on the ground" that's exactly when > it's most useful to have it identified in a map. Not really; maps are primarily used for navigation, whether computer-routed or human-read. If the map shows that Long Street is the A1889, someone using the map will be looking for the A1889. But if Long Street is not marked "on the ground" as the A1889, that designation is about as relevant as the fact that it was once the route of the A1. In other words, if we know for sure that Long Street is officially the A1889, it might make sense as a separate ref_unmarked=A1889 tag, like old_ref=A1, but using the same tagging for signed and unsigned routes helps nobody. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OpemMtbMap style
Hi, Has anyone found a way to run mkgmap using the styles provided by openmtbmap.org ? I keep on getting errors such as SEVERE (Main): java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException: uk.me.parabola.imgfmt.ExitException: Could not open style null java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException: uk.me.parabola.imgfmt.ExitException: Could not open style null at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask $Sync.innerGet(FutureTask.java:222) at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.get(FutureTask.java:83) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.main.Main.endOptions(Main.java:289) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.CommandArgsReader.readArgs(CommandArgsReader.java:123) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.main.Main.main(Main.java:100) Caused by: uk.me.parabola.imgfmt.ExitException: Could not open style null at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.reader.osm.xml.Osm5MapDataSource.createStyler(Osm5MapDataSource.java:126) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.reader.osm.xml.Osm5MapDataSource.load(Osm5MapDataSource.java:79) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.main.MapMaker.loadFromFile(MapMaker.java:148) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.main.MapMaker.makeMap(MapMaker.java:56) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.main.Main$1.call(Main.java:168) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.main.Main$1.call(Main.java:1) at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask $Sync.innerRun(FutureTask.java:303) at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:138) at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor $Worker.runTask(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:886) at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor $Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:908) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:619) The command line I run is java -ea -Xmx1024M -jar /usr/share/mkgmap/mkgmap.jar --style-file=/home/samokk/osm/styles/openmtbmap_style --max-jobs --generate-sea=polygons,extend-sea-sectors,close-gaps=6000 --reduce-point-density=5.4 -uppress-dead-end-nodes --index --transparent --adjust-turn-headings --ignore-maxspeeds --ignore-turn-restrictions --remove-short-arcs=4 --description=hike_usa_nh --location-autofill=1 --route --country-abbr=us --country-name=USA--mapname=1234 --family-id=1234 --product-id=1 --series-name="hike_usa_nh_%date%" --family-name="hike_usa_nh_%date%" --tdbfile --overview-mapname=mapset --area-name="NH_%date%_hike.org" -c template.args --gmapsupp and the /home/samokk/osm/styles/openmtbmap_style folder contains the extracted style.7z : $ ls -l /home/samokk/osm/styles/openmtbmap_style total 5852 drwx-- 3 samokk samokk4096 2010-05-26 16:58 bikingmap -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 78142 2010-05-21 22:31 clas.typ -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 194 2010-01-24 23:39 info -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 516537 2010-04-28 10:44 legend.osm -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 203649 2010-05-26 17:48 lines -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 1478351 2010-05-25 18:45 mkgmap_velo.jar -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 15872 2010-04-18 16:54 No Contact Information.xls -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 1441467 2010-05-27 21:58 openmtbmap_style.7z.zip -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 436 2010-05-10 19:13 options -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 735 2010-05-21 18:32 overlays -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 57390 2010-04-28 10:44 points -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk8889 2010-04-28 10:44 polygons -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk1445 2010-05-25 23:32 readme - copyright.txt -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 11833 2010-03-27 21:44 relations -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 77492 2010-05-21 22:16 thin.typ -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 74663 2010-05-21 22:17 trad.typ -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 342778 2010-05-26 22:03 typ1bike1.typ.prj -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 367395 2010-05-21 22:31 typ1clas1.typ.prj -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 351291 2010-05-21 22:16 typ1thin1.typ.prj -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 327519 2010-05-21 22:17 typ1trad1.typ.prj -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 366996 2010-05-21 22:18 typ1wide1.typ.prj -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 74801 2010-05-26 22:03 velomap.TYP -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 2 2010-04-28 10:44 version -rw-r--r-- 1 samokk samokk 78080 2010-05-21 22:18 wide.typ and the splitter command I used was : java -Xmx1024m -ea -jar ../apps/splitter/splitter.jar --max-nodes=60 --overlap=4000 --max-areas=255 --cache="cache" --description="nh" --mapid="1234" --max-nodes="60" --no-trim --overlap="4000" --status-freq="600" nh.osm.bz2 Do you have an idea of what might be going wrong ? thanks a lot, Sami Dalouche ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Highway=footway or highway=track for peds only on gravel
Since I'm using Potlatch to edit the map, I start the tagging of a walking path/road etc. by selecting the presets for the "walking man". Then, I select by the surface and permissibility, which for a peds only, gravel, 4ft wide public path ends up as higway=track and surface=gravel. But isn't highway=footway the preferred tagging for this? On May 30, 2010 12:03 PM, wrote: Send talk mailing list submissions to talk@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of talk digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: On the ground rule on the wiki (andrzej zaborowski) 2. Re: Questions regarding the mapping of hiking trails (Sami Dalouche) 3. Re: On the ground rule on the wiki (Anthony) 4. Re: On the ground rule on the wiki (John Smith) 5. Re: On the ground rule on the wiki (John Smith) 6. Re: On the ground rule on the wiki (Anthony) 7. Re: Cloudmade routing issue (Anton Popov) 8. Re: On the ground rule on the wiki (Mikel Maron) 9. Re: On the ground rule on the wiki (Ulf Lamping) 10. Re: On the ground rule on the wiki (Rory McCann) -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 15:12:31 +0200 From: andrzej zaborowski Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki To: John Smith Cc: Nathan Edgars II , talk@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 30 May 2010 09:40, John Smith wrote: > On 30 May 2010 15:39, Anthony wrote: >> "If the dispute can not be resolved through discussion, then the simple >> default rule is that whatever name, designation, etc are used by the people >> on the ground at that location are used in the non-localized tags." > > Isn't that kinda asking for an edit war where there is disputed > territory with different names by different languages possibly in > multiple languages? Why? By my reading it is to quiet such edit wars, so the exact opposite. See how this rule is applied in Belgium with streets having three names and all three printed on street signs. Cheers -- Message: 2 Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 09:16:34 -0400 From: Sami Dalouche Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Questions regarding the mapping of hiking trails To: j...@jfeldredge.com Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list Message-ID: <1275225394.12673.0.ca...@samxps> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, 2010-05-30 at 03:21 +, John F. Eldredge wrote: > Also, the name "Van Hoevenburg Trail" doesn't necessarily mean that it passes through the Van Hoevenburg Property. That might be the name of the current land-owner, the name of a former land-owner, or simply the name of some notable person whom the trail was named after. > thanks for your answers. By "property", I was referring to the key/value pairs to tag ways, not anything else... Sami Dalouche -- Message: 3 Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 09:17:29 -0400 From: Anthony Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki To: John Smith Cc: Nathan Edgars II , talk@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 3:40 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 30 May 2010 15:39, Anthony wrote: > > "If the dispute can not be resolved through discussion, then the simple > > default rule is that whatever name, designation, etc are used by the > people > > on the ground at that location are used in the non-localized tags." > > Isn't that kinda asking for an edit war where there is disputed > territory with different names by different languages possibly in > multiple languages? > >From what I can tell, it was actually the solution to such an edit war. How "map what the people on the ground say" turned into "map what's on the ground", I can't figure out. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100530/f0969784/attachment.htm -- Message: 4 Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 23:19:45 +1000 From: John Smith Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki To: Anthony Cc: Nathan Edgars II , talk@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 30 May 2010 23:17, Anthony wrote: > From what I can tell, it was actually the solution to such an edit war. How > "map what the people on the ground s
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
On 30/05/10 14:12, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 30 May 2010 09:40, John Smith wrote:
>> On 30 May 2010 15:39, Anthony wrote:
>>> "If the dispute can not be resolved through discussion, then the simple
>>> default rule is that whatever name, designation, etc are used by the people
>>> on the ground at that location are used in the non-localized tags."
>>
>> Isn't that kinda asking for an edit war where there is disputed
>> territory with different names by different languages possibly in
>> multiple languages?
>
> Why? By my reading it is to quiet such edit wars, so the exact
> opposite. See how this rule is applied in Belgium with streets having
> three names and all three printed on street signs.
Or Ireland, which has the Irish (name:ga) and English names on all signs.
I found a road today (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/3789374)
that has 2 signs across the road from each other, both have the same
English name ("Chancery Place"), but each has a different Irish name
("Plás Seansaire" vs "Plás na Seansaireachta"). I had to make an
educated guess based on how new each sign was.
Rory
0x5373FB61.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
Am 30.05.2010 19:09, schrieb Mikel Maron: > > > Right now, the only mention of the "on the ground" rule on the wiki is >> here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes#On_the_Ground_Rule > > Should a separate page be created about how it applies more generally? > > The intention of us devising the On the Ground rule was only for Dispute > resolution, originally in response to the situation in Cyprus. > > It really shouldn't be taken as a more general rule. Just for instance, > localised names of places are not very often found on the ground. +1 Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
> Right now, the only mention of the "on the ground" rule on the wiki is > here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes#On_the_Ground_Rule > Should a separate page be created about how it applies more generally? The intention of us devising the On the Ground rule was only for Dispute resolution, originally in response to the situation in Cyprus. It really shouldn't be taken as a more general rule. Just for instance, localised names of places are not very often found on the ground. -Mikel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cloudmade routing issue
Hello Nathan, This is CM navigation engine bug. It's already in the most priority issues list, but still I cannot guarantee the ETA. Sorry for your feedback response delay - there's might be some technical problems, I will try to check that. On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > I know this isn't the Cloudmade list, but a recent thread here got > some results. I used the feedback link but never got a response. > > If you go to > http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=40.257259&lng=-74.289401&zoom=16&directions=40.2545894931206,-74.28884267807007,40.256497279719156,-74.29014086723328,40.25585043964603,-74.29341316223145&travel=car&styleId=1&opened_tab=1 > and remove destination point B, it changes to a much longer route. I > believe all the turn restrictions are correct (this is a jughandle, > where you exit right to turn left), but the routing engine doesn't > like to use it. Can someone make sure they're aware of it? > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Best regards, Popov Anton. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:19 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 30 May 2010 23:17, Anthony wrote: > > From what I can tell, it was actually the solution to such an edit war. > How > > "map what the people on the ground say" turned into "map what's on the > > ground", I can't figure out. > > Seems like it would logically go the other way round, from map what > was on the ground to map what people on the ground say... > I'm not sure what it means to "logically go" one way or the other, but the earliest reference I can find to any sort of "on the ground rule" is November/December 2007, and it's that one quoted at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes . If you can find an earlier one I'd be quite interested. In any case, more important than the etymology of the phrase "map what's on the ground" is what it means and whether or not it's good advice. In terms of its use in excluding verifiable information I think it is quite problematic. When a route isn't written "on the ground" that's exactly when it's most useful to have it identified in a map. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
On 30 May 2010 23:12, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > Why? By my reading it is to quiet such edit wars, so the exact Why... simple, you can't verify what is in someone's brain as true, at best you get a consensus, but that may be limited in scope, I guess it comes down to the importance of the object being mapped. > opposite. See how this rule is applied in Belgium with streets having > three names and all three printed on street signs. Ok so it works some times for some places, may not be applicable to all situations leaving things up to not being verifiable. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
On 30 May 2010 23:17, Anthony wrote: > From what I can tell, it was actually the solution to such an edit war. How > "map what the people on the ground say" turned into "map what's on the > ground", I can't figure out. Seems like it would logically go the other way round, from map what was on the ground to map what people on the ground say... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 3:40 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 30 May 2010 15:39, Anthony wrote: > > "If the dispute can not be resolved through discussion, then the simple > > default rule is that whatever name, designation, etc are used by the > people > > on the ground at that location are used in the non-localized tags." > > Isn't that kinda asking for an edit war where there is disputed > territory with different names by different languages possibly in > multiple languages? > >From what I can tell, it was actually the solution to such an edit war. How "map what the people on the ground say" turned into "map what's on the ground", I can't figure out. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Questions regarding the mapping of hiking trails
On Sun, 2010-05-30 at 03:21 +, John F. Eldredge wrote: > Also, the name "Van Hoevenburg Trail" doesn't necessarily mean that it passes > through the Van Hoevenburg Property. That might be the name of the current > land-owner, the name of a former land-owner, or simply the name of some > notable person whom the trail was named after. > thanks for your answers. By "property", I was referring to the key/value pairs to tag ways, not anything else... Sami Dalouche ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
On 30 May 2010 09:40, John Smith wrote: > On 30 May 2010 15:39, Anthony wrote: >> "If the dispute can not be resolved through discussion, then the simple >> default rule is that whatever name, designation, etc are used by the people >> on the ground at that location are used in the non-localized tags." > > Isn't that kinda asking for an edit war where there is disputed > territory with different names by different languages possibly in > multiple languages? Why? By my reading it is to quiet such edit wars, so the exact opposite. See how this rule is applied in Belgium with streets having three names and all three printed on street signs. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Cloudmade routing issue
I know this isn't the Cloudmade list, but a recent thread here got some results. I used the feedback link but never got a response. If you go to http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=40.257259&lng=-74.289401&zoom=16&directions=40.2545894931206,-74.28884267807007,40.256497279719156,-74.29014086723328,40.25585043964603,-74.29341316223145&travel=car&styleId=1&opened_tab=1 and remove destination point B, it changes to a much longer route. I believe all the turn restrictions are correct (this is a jughandle, where you exit right to turn left), but the routing engine doesn't like to use it. Can someone make sure they're aware of it? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We need urgently a clarification between place locality, farm and isolated_dwelling
2010/5/28 Roy Wallace : > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Pieren wrote: >> Good to see that nobody cares about the wiki inconsistencies of 'locality'. give us some time, not everybody can read everything within some hours. >>> at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Locality: > > I would delete the first sentence: "All current place tags are for > either populated areas, or for larger areas of County sized or > bigger." +1 place tags contain actually 2 types of features: human settlements (city, town, ...) geographic features (vulcano, locality, ...) and farms ;-) >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place : > > Seems consistent. > >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Places > > Seems consistent. > >>> place=isolated_dwelling: >>> at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Places >>> - missing that's why I asked to add it... cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik renderer issue?
Am 29.05.2010 19:26, schrieb Jon Burgess: > On 29 May 2010 18:04, Mike N. wrote: >>> Is there an issue with the renderer now? >> >> The Mapnik tiles are not rendering, and the Wiki status page confirms >> this. I don't know any more details. >> > > A node at -90 degrees caused an exception in the tile expiry code and > stopped the diff import process. I added a limit to clamp the latitude > at +-85 degrees and the process has been restarted. It will probably > take about 6 hours to catch up with the pending diffs. > It seems there's still sth. wrong with mod_tile: http://a.tile.openstreetmap.org/17/68518/44580.png/status Tile is due to be rendered. Last rendered at Sat Jan 01 00:00:00 2000 That looks a bit odd ^^ Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
On 30 May 2010 15:39, Anthony wrote: > "If the dispute can not be resolved through discussion, then the simple > default rule is that whatever name, designation, etc are used by the people > on the ground at that location are used in the non-localized tags." Isn't that kinda asking for an edit war where there is disputed territory with different names by different languages possibly in multiple languages? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
