[OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?

[Lauri Kytömaa]

It's not detailled enough. A path is too narrow for a 4
wheels vehicle like a car but not for a 2 wheels vehicle
like a moped or a motorbike (or no


While that is often true, the criteria goes the other way:
- if the way is too narrow to fit a car (hey, my summer
  car is only 1.48 m wide) or a tractor, it can't be a
  highway=track, but is a footway, bridleway, cycleway
  or a path
- not all paths are too narrow for four wheel vehicles;
  many of the things some country guidelines recommend
  to tag as highway=path + bicycle=designated etc. are
  3 to 5 meters wide.
Given a random ... linear thing you cross in the forest,
without any knowledge of the restrictions possibly posted
at the ends, you can be sure it's anything from path to
bridleway if it's not wide enough; but not the other way.

Replies should go to the tagging list.

--
Alv

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[David Fawcett]

+1

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
>  Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ? Is that
>  a term mainly used by civil engineers ?
>
> I understand it to be a passage under a road that isn't big enough for a
> vehicle - maybe a 0.5m pipe for water, or maybe just big enough for some
> animals, but a human going through a culvert would be abnormal.
>
>  Question 2 : if not, is it normal that OSM average contributor has to use
>  these technical words just to make the civil engineers happy ? Don't we take
>  the risk to exclude more and more average contributors by adopting such
>  technical vocabular ?
>
> In my opinion, one of the broken things about OSM is the insistence on
> making up names and not adopting existing professional terminology.
> Coming up with names is often about a taxonomy and that requires a fair
> bit of thought.  When a relevant professional community has done this,
> we should just use their definitions.  That doesn't mean we can't give
> readable explanations.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Culvert and average contributor

[John F. Eldredge]

That is, indeed, a highly detailed map, but since it doesn't show elevation 
contours (or at least not any visible at maximum zoom from my phone's browser), 
it would not be classified as a topographical map.  By definition, a 
topographical map shows the three-dimensional topography of an area.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
>From  :mailto:carti...@xs4all.nl
Date  :Thu Aug 26 17:40:42 America/Chicago 2010


On Thursday 26 August 2010 22:45:58 John F. Eldredge wrote:
> As far as I know, we aren't trying to make a full topographical map

Really?



--
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

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

[OSM-talk] What's wrong with this multipolygon?

[Nathan Edgars II]

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=1141252
Mapnik has no problems with it, but Osmarender won't fill the northern
part correctly. (It's not a delay in rendering; I added the swamps
after creating the multipolygon.)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Greg Troxel]

  Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ? Is that
  a term mainly used by civil engineers ?

I understand it to be a passage under a road that isn't big enough for a
vehicle - maybe a 0.5m pipe for water, or maybe just big enough for some
animals, but a human going through a culvert would be abnormal.

  Question 2 : if not, is it normal that OSM average contributor has to use
  these technical words just to make the civil engineers happy ? Don't we take
  the risk to exclude more and more average contributors by adopting such
  technical vocabular ?

In my opinion, one of the broken things about OSM is the insistence on
making up names and not adopting existing professional terminology.
Coming up with names is often about a taxonomy and that requires a fair
bit of thought.  When a relevant professional community has done this,
we should just use their definitions.  That doesn't mean we can't give
readable explanations.



pgpKxZEgLHV8Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:24 PM, John Smith  wrote:
> On 27 August 2010 10:04, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>>
>> The way I understand it, a culvert is just a tiny pseudo-bridge, physically
>> equivalent to a tunnel under an embankment. Culverts don't show up in the US
>> National Bridge Inventory, which is a database of bridges on public roads.
>> They normally carry water under roads, but may also carry a private farm
>> access road under a highway that splits a farmer's land.
>
> There was discussion about this sort of thing on the Australian list
> some time back, although from memory it was more about what
> constitutes a bridge, I can't fully remember the outcome, but imho
> anything able to allow something as big as farm machinery or a person
> to go under a road would be a tunnel not a culvert.

So tunnel=culvert :)
Here's an example of what I'd call a farm access culvert:
http://maps.google.com/maps?t=k&layer=c&cbll=28.203143,-81.694469&panoid=m0xmwF1Hx8Ct09dXPzcRRQ&cbp=12,193.6,,0,2.84&ll=28.203453,-81.694529&spn=0.003981,0.0103&z=18

The line between bridges and tunnels is not always clear, so you're
not going to have well-defined bounds for what a culvert is.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[John Smith]

On 27 August 2010 10:04, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>
> The way I understand it, a culvert is just a tiny pseudo-bridge, physically
> equivalent to a tunnel under an embankment. Culverts don't show up in the US
> National Bridge Inventory, which is a database of bridges on public roads.
> They normally carry water under roads, but may also carry a private farm
> access road under a highway that splits a farmer's land.

There was discussion about this sort of thing on the Australian list
some time back, although from memory it was more about what
constitutes a bridge, I can't fully remember the outcome, but imho
anything able to allow something as big as farm machinery or a person
to go under a road would be a tunnel not a culvert.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Nathan Edgars II]

The way I understand it, a culvert is just a tiny pseudo-bridge, physically
equivalent to a tunnel under an embankment. Culverts don't show up in the US
National Bridge Inventory, which is a database of bridges on public roads.
They normally carry water under roads, but may also carry a private farm
access road under a highway that splits a farmer's land.

I think culvert=yes is ambiguous: does it refer to the feature on top or
underneath? It may be best to use bridge=culvert and tunnel=culvert instead
(the former saying that it's not a true bridge; the latter equivalent to
tunnel=yes).
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5467745.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship

[John Smith]

On 27 August 2010 09:31, Stephen Hope  wrote:
> How about a church run unemployed support centre? (gives out food,

This could border on the absurd...

Several of the job agencies[1] contracted to the Australian Federal
Government are run/backed by religious organisations, these places
don't give out food etc, so would that still make the
landuse=religious?

Sanitarium[2], is a commercial arm of the Seventh Day Adventist
church, would their food manufacturing/packaging plants be
landuse=religious?

[1] http://jobsearch.gov.au/provider/providersearch.aspx
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitarium_Health_Food_Company

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship

[Stephen Hope]

On 21 August 2010 04:29, Pierre-Alain Dorange  wrote:
> Yes it seems strange to tag "place_of_worship" the whole area. According
> to the wiki should apply to the church, synagoge, temple... the place of
> worship, not the office, the garden and so on.
>

To me, it's not strange at all.  To me, the place of worship is the
church and all related grounds, just as a school is the buildings and
all related grounds. Now, just because a church owns a building, that
doesn't make it a place of worship, but the immediate grounds of a
church are, to me.

On the other hand, I have no problem with using landuse = religious if
that's what is decided.  It will certainly make it easier to mark
those sites where you have a church,  church school and other
functions all in one spot.  But then we have to start making edge
decisions on that.  Is a church run orphanage landuse = religious?
How about a church run unemployed support centre? (gives out food,
clothes, advice and help to get jobs, etc)

Stephen

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Cartinus]

On Thursday 26 August 2010 22:45:58 John F. Eldredge wrote:
> As far as I know, we aren't trying to make a full topographical map

Really?



-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Cartinus]

On Thursday 26 August 2010 22:30:11 Pieren wrote:
> Not bad for a hidden tag. The question is to know how many are on the
> waterway and not on the road and how many different contributors used it.

70 different authors worldwide.

There were 4 places worldwide where culvert=yes was used on the same way as a 
highway tag. I fixed the one in the Netherlands.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Dave F.  wrote:
> Have you not noticed how your posts are becoming repetitious?

If by that you mean, "Thanks Steve for your insights on moderation, I
think you have now clearly communicated your point of view", then,
good, I'll stop.

If it was just a cheap shot, then please accept my sarcastic thanks
for bringing the tone of the list just that little step lower.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[SomeoneElse]

 On 26/08/2010 19:29, John F. Eldredge wrote:

The term "culvert" is also standard usage in American English.  "Tunnel" is 
generally used to mean an underground passageway large enough for a person to walk through, if not 
larger.


As has already been said, it's also widespread in British English too - 
although (at least in some places) it doesn't always imply "covered".  
For example, someone might say "this stream has been culverted" to refer 
to a stream that has been forced to run through an artificial concrete 
canyon with no roof on it


There's an example here:
http://www.sepa.org.uk/planning/idoc.ashx?docid=77d6eb29-bede-474f-9258-1fdc14e977f5&version=-1
(sorry for the PDF)

that talks specifically about "enclosed culverting".  I've tended to use 
"tunnel=yes" for a piped waterway or one in a boxed culvert, but would 
be the first to admit that that's stretching "tunnel" way beyond its 
former use.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/8/26 John F. Eldredge :
> Wouldn't that only be used on the section of the path that actually has the 
> steps, however?


yes, of course. And dependant where (how far) you want to go, it might
also be suitable to take the path.


I am wondering how (or if) you would tag the entire path to indicate
that you can, legally, use a bicycle or motorcycle on it, but it isn't
well-suited to such use.


I don't really see the point (maybe in a printed map, but in a digital
one? You could check with your routing engine). What is "the entire
path"? Probably this is more about routes than about tagging a way
IMHO.


> Another reason that you might want to tag a path in such a manner would be if 
>it had stepping-stones across a stream, rather than a bridge.


this should be tagged there. (don't know how. surely not as bridge. ford?)

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[John F. Eldredge]

Well, the culvert is used where the waterway passes under the roadway.  Also, 
many culverts are located where there is running water only during, or shortly 
after, a rainstorm, so the ditch or low spot they are intended to drain may 
well not be marked on the map.  As far as I know, we aren't trying to make a 
full topographical map, so culverts are likely to be mapped as landmarks for 
someone using the road or path.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
>From  :mailto:pier...@gmail.com
Date  :Thu Aug 26 15:30:11 America/Chicago 2010


On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Cartinus mailto:carti...@xs4all.nl> > wrote:
 Sometime last year on talk or tagging there was discussion about culverts.
 IIRC you opposed special tagging for them then too. 


I opposed because I though that it was a technical term only known by civil 
engineers. But go ahead with culvert and sewers, we will see how many 
applications will use them.
   
Despite it being hidden so far, there are already 597
 culvert=yes tags in the database.



Not bad for a hidden tag. The question is to know how many are on the waterway 
and not on the road and how many different contributors used it. 
 
Pieren
 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Pieren]

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Cartinus  wrote:

> Sometime last year on talk or tagging there was discussion about culverts.
> IIRC you opposed special tagging for them then too.
>

I opposed because I though that it was a technical term only known by civil
engineers. But go ahead with culvert and sewers, we will see how many
applications will use them.


>
> Despite it being hidden so far, there are already 597
> culvert=yes tags in the database.
>
>
Not bad for a hidden tag. The question is to know how many are on the
waterway and not on the road and how many different contributors used it.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?

[John F. Eldredge]

Wouldn't that only be used on the section of the path that actually has the 
steps, however?  I am wondering how (or if) you would tag the entire path to 
indicate that you can, legally, use a bicycle or motorcycle on it, but it isn't 
well-suited to such use.  Another reason that you might want to tag a path in 
such a manner would be if it had stepping-stones across a stream, rather than a 
bridge.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, 
trail?
>From  :mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com
Date  :Thu Aug 26 14:59:01 America/Chicago 2010


2010/8/26 John F. Eldredge :
> What additional tag would one use to state that a particular path is not 
> advisable for vehicular use (for instance, because it contains steps at one 
> or more points), but doesn't have a sign forbidding vehicular use?

this is not to solve by "additional" tags, but with highway=steps

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/8/26 Pieren :
> n Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Cartinus  wrote:
>> On Thursday 26 August 2010 12:34:26 Maarten Deen wrote:
>> > That is not how it is described in the wiki:
>> Then the wiki is wrong.

I agree with Cartinus here: the wiki is wrong. Path is not necessary
for non-motorized vehicles.

Btw,: if assisted bicycles gain more popularity we might have to
decide how to deal with them.

btw2: this should be discussed on tagging-list

> It's not detailled enough. A path is too narrow for a 4 wheels vehicle like
> a car but not for a 2 wheels vehicle like a moped or a motorbike (or no
> wheels like a snowmobile ;-).


I don't know if snowmobiles are narrower than cars.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Cartinus]

On Thursday 26 August 2010 19:52:02 Pieren wrote:
> Some people decided recently 

Those some people are the Dutch who are active on the OSM forum.

As you might know the Netherlands is a very wet country. So we have many 
culverts in the country. Not surprisingly the Dutch word for such a water 
carrying pipe below the road is commonly known by average Dutch people and 
not just Dutch civil engineers. This word is "duiker". Plugging this into 
Google translate [1].

AFAIK how to tag a "duiker" was first discussed on the Dutch mailinglist over 
a year ago. The conclusion was that it had to be something with the word 
culvert.

Sometime last year on talk or tagging there was discussion about culverts. 
IIRC you opposed special tagging for them then too. Afterwards Andy seems to 
have added culvert to this wiki page [2].

Today there was discussion on the Dutch forum about "duikers". Then one of the 
participants made what was hidden on the Water_features page more visible by 
giving it its own page. Despite it being hidden so far, there are already 597 
culvert=yes tags in the database.

[1] 
[2] 

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/8/26 John F. Eldredge :
> What additional tag would one use to state that a particular path is not 
> advisable for vehicular use (for instance, because it contains steps at one 
> or more points), but doesn't have a sign forbidding vehicular use?

this is not to solve by "additional" tags, but with highway=steps

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[John F. Eldredge]

Sewer tunnel would be a description of the largest sewers, containing the 
merged outflow of many smaller sewers.  As you said, frequently these are 
simply referred to as sewers.  I remember watching one large storm-sewer tunnel 
being built, years ago; it was about seven meters in diameter.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
>From  :mailto:paperl...@timmcnamara.co.nz
Date  :Thu Aug 26 13:42:50 America/Chicago 2010


This is how I understand "culvert", from New Zealand. Although I've rarely 
heard "sewer tunnel", it's just "sewer".

Tim.


On 27 August 2010 06:29, John F. Eldredge mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com> > wrote:
 The term "culvert" is also standard usage in American English.  "Tunnel" is 
generally used to mean an underground passageway large enough for a person to 
walk through, if not larger.  Also, the default assumption is that a tunnel is 
not intended for drainage, unless there is a longer phrase such as "sewer 
tunnel".  A "culvert" refers to a tube or pipe under a roadway or other raised 
area, meant to carry surface-water runoff.  Some are large enough to walk 
through, but most aren't.  Usually they extend only for a short distance, such 
as the width of a roadway.  "Covered" does not indicate the size of a 
passageway, nor does it indicate the intended purpose of the passageway.
 
 ---Original Email---
 Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
 From  :mailto:rich...@systemed.net  
 Date  :Thu Aug 26 13:10:13 America/Chicago 2010
 



 
 
 Pieren wrote:
 > Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ?
 > Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ?
 
 It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely
 because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them.
 
 cheers
 Richard
 --
 View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466615.html
 Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org  
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 
 --
 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
 


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

[OSM-talk] Greek cadastre authority - draft letter pending

[Niklas Cholmkvist]

Hello everyone,

I finally sent the message to the info email at geodata.gov.gr 'as
is'(just as I published it on the list with subject and message body).
I hope first that they will reply here, because if I get a private
email I can't disclose it. (although I could maybe tell a summary,
that isn't breaking any privacy laws, is it? Rather free speech,
right?)

Regards,

Niklas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Toby Murray]

Yeah, being in tornado alley the word "culvert" is frequently used in
tornado safety instructions as a last resort shelter if you encounter
a tornado on the open road. For example:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/?n=safety-severe-roadsafety

Toby


On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Tim McNamara
 wrote:
> This is how I understand "culvert", from New Zealand. Although I've rarely
> heard "sewer tunnel", it's just "sewer".
>
> Tim.
>
> On 27 August 2010 06:29, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
>>
>> The term "culvert" is also standard usage in American English.  "Tunnel"
>> is generally used to mean an underground passageway large enough for a
>> person to walk through, if not larger.  Also, the default assumption is that
>> a tunnel is not intended for drainage, unless there is a longer phrase such
>> as "sewer tunnel".  A "culvert" refers to a tube or pipe under a roadway or
>> other raised area, meant to carry surface-water runoff.  Some are large
>> enough to walk through, but most aren't.  Usually they extend only for a
>> short distance, such as the width of a roadway.  "Covered" does not indicate
>> the size of a passageway, nor does it indicate the intended purpose of the
>> passageway.
>>
>> ---Original Email---
>> Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
>> From  :mailto:rich...@systemed.net
>> Date  :Thu Aug 26 13:10:13 America/Chicago 2010
>>
>>
>>
>> Pieren wrote:
>> > Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ?
>> > Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ?
>>
>> It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely
>> because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them.
>>
>> cheers
>> Richard
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466615.html
>> Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
> ___
> 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] Culvert and average contributor

[Tim McNamara]

This is how I understand "culvert", from New Zealand. Although I've rarely
heard "sewer tunnel", it's just "sewer".

Tim.

On 27 August 2010 06:29, John F. Eldredge  wrote:

> The term "culvert" is also standard usage in American English.  "Tunnel" is
> generally used to mean an underground passageway large enough for a person
> to walk through, if not larger.  Also, the default assumption is that a
> tunnel is not intended for drainage, unless there is a longer phrase such as
> "sewer tunnel".  A "culvert" refers to a tube or pipe under a roadway or
> other raised area, meant to carry surface-water runoff.  Some are large
> enough to walk through, but most aren't.  Usually they extend only for a
> short distance, such as the width of a roadway.  "Covered" does not indicate
> the size of a passageway, nor does it indicate the intended purpose of the
> passageway.
>
> ---Original Email---
> Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
> From  :mailto:rich...@systemed.net
> Date  :Thu Aug 26 13:10:13 America/Chicago 2010
>
>
>
> Pieren wrote:
> > Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ?
> > Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ?
>
> It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely
> because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them.
>
> cheers
> Richard
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466615.html
> Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> --
> 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
> ___
> 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] Culvert and average contributor

[John F. Eldredge]

The term "culvert" is also standard usage in American English.  "Tunnel" is 
generally used to mean an underground passageway large enough for a person to 
walk through, if not larger.  Also, the default assumption is that a tunnel is 
not intended for drainage, unless there is a longer phrase such as "sewer 
tunnel".  A "culvert" refers to a tube or pipe under a roadway or other raised 
area, meant to carry surface-water runoff.  Some are large enough to walk 
through, but most aren't.  Usually they extend only for a short distance, such 
as the width of a roadway.  "Covered" does not indicate the size of a 
passageway, nor does it indicate the intended purpose of the passageway.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
>From  :mailto:rich...@systemed.net
Date  :Thu Aug 26 13:10:13 America/Chicago 2010



Pieren wrote:
> Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ?
> Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ?

It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely
because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them.

cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466615.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

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

[OSM-talk] Fwd: [CrisisMappers] Crowd Sourcing Location of Flood Affect Villages in KP Pakistan

[Jean-Guilhem Cailton]

Hi,

I've found one approximate match in GNS so far (Mota- Kha-n Darra for 
requested Mota Khan
Danda), if that source may help (http://geonames.nga.mil - it is 
compatible with OSM, unlike geonames.org).


Best wishes,

Jean-Guilhem


(present on #hot and #osm IRC channels, on oftc.net)



 Message original 
Sujet: 	[CrisisMappers] Crowd Sourcing Location of Flood Affect Villages 
in KP Pakistan

Date :  Fri, 27 Aug 2010 02:32:01 +1000
De :Shoaib Burq 
Répondre à :crisismapp...@googlegroups.com
Pour : 	crisismapp...@googlegroups.com, crisiscomm...@googlegroups.com, 
Kashif Rasul 




Hi everyone,

I have setup a public google spreadsheet of flood affected villages in 
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa at http://bit.ly/pkflood_kp


We desperately need these villages geocoded. This information will be 
used to conduct things like helli-drops, providing medical aid and 
sending doctors or other personnel to villages worst affected.


Can I ask anyone with some time on their hands to start by

1. checking http://www.geonames.org/advanced-search.html? for the 
village. If a location is found add it to the latitude and longitude. If 
you feel the need to verify the location from a second independent 
source check another geocoder as well.


2. verifying  it from second source
I have set up openlayers here with the geonames embedded in it: 
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1415964/pkfloods_dma.html
I will try to turn this into a proper mashup so that searches appear on 
the map tomorrow - that way we can see our search on the map


3. Feel free to suggest improvement and also share with anyone you know 
who can assist


Thanks
Shoaib Burq
--
skype: spatialgoat
twitter.com/sabman 
Canberra
--



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Richard Fairhurst]

Pieren wrote:
> Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ? 
> Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ?

It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely
because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466615.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Richard Fairhurst]

Pieren wrote:
> Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ? 
> Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ?

It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely
because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466616.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

[OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Pieren]

Some people decided recently and alone to introduce the tag "culvert=yes" on
the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:culvert

Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ? Is that
a term mainly used by civil engineers ?
Question 2 : if not, is it normal that OSM average contributor has to use
these technical words just to make the civil engineers happy ? Don't we take
the risk to exclude more and more average contributors by adopting such
technical vocabular ?
Question 3 : between tunnel, covered and culvert, how many additionnal tags
are we going to create to designate the exact same thing : "the water is
under the road" ?

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

[OSM-talk] Greek cadastre authority - draft letter pending

[Niklas Cholmkvist]

Dear list,

I'm planning to send this letter to the Greek cadastre authority
asking under which license they are providing their orthophotos/aerial
photographs for Greece, or if OpenStreetMap has explicit permission to
use that data. Do you think it is ok? Any comments are welcome.


OpenStreetMap and orthophotos/aerial photographs by Ktimatologio A.E.


Dear sir/madam,

I'm a contributor of OpenStreetMap and also a Greek citizen from
Thessaloniki. I noticed on your website Frequently Asked Questions
"How can I use the data" and "What is OpenStreetMap and how can I
help?" and am curious if we contributors of OpenStreetMap can use your
orthophotos/aerial imagery to make OpenStreetMap better for Greece. Is
there or will there be a public statement that OpenStreetMap
contributors can use this data?

You are of course also welcome to reply to the public mailing list of
OpenStreetMap which can be found at
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk . I think signup to the
mailing list is required which is common with mailing lists.

Kind regards,

Niklas Cholmkvist


Regards,

Niklas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?

[John F. Eldredge]

What additional tag would one use to state that a particular path is not 
advisable for vehicular use (for instance, because it contains steps at one or 
more points), but doesn't have a sign forbidding vehicular use?  My impression 
is that tags such as bicycle=no and motorcycle=no are generally reserved for 
cases where there is a sign stating that restriction.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, 
footway,trail?
>From  :mailto:pier...@gmail.com
Date  :Thu Aug 26 08:07:18 America/Chicago 2010


n Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Cartinus mailto:carti...@xs4all.nl> > wrote:
 
On Thursday 26 August 2010 12:34:26 Maarten Deen wrote:
 > That is not how it is described in the wiki:
 
 Then the wiki is wrong.



It's not detailled enough. A path is too narrow for a 4 wheels vehicle like a 
car but not for a 2 wheels vehicle like a moped or a motorbike (or no wheels 
like a snowmobile ;-).
 
Pieren
 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?

[Pieren]

n Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Cartinus  wrote:

> On Thursday 26 August 2010 12:34:26 Maarten Deen wrote:
> > That is not how it is described in the wiki:
>
> Then the wiki is wrong.
>
>
It's not detailled enough. A path is too narrow for a 4 wheels vehicle like
a car but not for a 2 wheels vehicle like a moped or a motorbike (or no
wheels like a snowmobile ;-).

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?

[Cartinus]

On Thursday 26 August 2010 12:34:26 Maarten Deen wrote:
> That is not how it is described in the wiki:

Then the wiki is wrong.

In the initial discussions about the path tag, one of the things that kept 
cropping up was: "snowmobile trail". Snowmobiles are definitely motorised.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway= path, footway, trail?

[Maarten Deen]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:28:53 +0200, Ben Laenen 
wrote:
> Maarten Deen wrote:
>> As highway=path means no motorized traffic, it might be a footpath or
>> cyclepath or bridleway (or others). That's the "more specific" part.
> 
> highway=path doesn't mean no motorized traffic, if means no "wide" vehicles. 
> So no cars, but mopeds are still allowed.

That is not how it is described in the wiki:

> The default access restriction of highway=path is "open to all
> non-motorized vehicles, but emergency vehicles are allowed".
> (Although it depends on each country what vehicles are allowed by default).

Regards,
Maarten

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?

[Ben Laenen]

Maarten Deen wrote:
> As highway=path means no motorized traffic, it might be a footpath or
> cyclepath or bridleway (or others). That's the "more specific" part.

highway=path doesn't mean no motorized traffic, if means no "wide" vehicles. 
So no cars, but mopeds are still allowed.

Greetings
Ben

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

Re: [OSM-talk] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/logictheo/edits

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

Location based comments could be added automatically by 
JOSM/Potlatz
edits near: town/area/major road

I admit, adding  all useful additions to a comment is not an easy task.

Gert Gremmen


 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] 
Namens Peter Wendorff
Verzonden: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:06 AM
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/logictheo/edits

  Hi Niklas
I didn't look into your Changesets in detail, but I think, your 
Changeset comments are okay.
Sometimes you could be a little bit more precise - but I'm not better 
with mine, I fear.

For me (other user's) changeset comments are useful to get a fast 
overview over the change made.
Considering your comment "Finished a block of buildings I was surveying 
on today" I could miss the information where you edited - perfect would 
be something like "...a block of buildings between x-street and y-avenue 
in z-city" or something with housenumbers - just to be able to identify 
the location only reading the changeset comment.

Same for "iniversity building", "bus stop" etc.

But:
I know that good changeset comments feel like a lot of work sometimes, 
and as I said: I'm not better - I would give these critics similar to my 
own changeset comments (compare 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jongleur1983/edits)

Regards
Peter

On 26.08.2010 09:11, Niklas Cholmkvist wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ...thus I take the chance for a little more guidance(never hurts), why
> not comment on my edits?
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/logictheo/edits . I hope you will
> have an interesting read.
>
> Regards,
>
> Niklas
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>


___
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] JOSM validator error: why?

[Cartinus]

On Thursday 26 August 2010 09:58:12 Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> Whey I load relation 1144866 in JOSM and run the validator, I get an
> "illegal tag/value combinations" error with no details. Is there an
> error here that I'm missing, or is it a bug in JOSM?

There is definitely a bug, because there are no "illegal" tag/value 
combinations in OSM.

That said:
* place=airport : This is a weird tag/value combination to me.
* name_1 : I think alt_name is a lot more common for this.


-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/logictheo/edits

[Peter Wendorff]

 Hi Niklas
I didn't look into your Changesets in detail, but I think, your 
Changeset comments are okay.
Sometimes you could be a little bit more precise - but I'm not better 
with mine, I fear.


For me (other user's) changeset comments are useful to get a fast 
overview over the change made.
Considering your comment "Finished a block of buildings I was surveying 
on today" I could miss the information where you edited - perfect would 
be something like "...a block of buildings between x-street and y-avenue 
in z-city" or something with housenumbers - just to be able to identify 
the location only reading the changeset comment.


Same for "iniversity building", "bus stop" etc.

But:
I know that good changeset comments feel like a lot of work sometimes, 
and as I said: I'm not better - I would give these critics similar to my 
own changeset comments (compare 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jongleur1983/edits)


Regards
Peter

On 26.08.2010 09:11, Niklas Cholmkvist wrote:

Hi,

...thus I take the chance for a little more guidance(never hurts), why
not comment on my edits?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/logictheo/edits . I hope you will
have an interesting read.

Regards,

Niklas

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




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

[OSM-talk] JOSM validator error: why?

[Nathan Edgars II]

Whey I load relation 1144866 in JOSM and run the validator, I get an
"illegal tag/value combinations" error with no details. Is there an
error here that I'm missing, or is it a bug in JOSM?

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

[OSM-talk] Useful changeset comments are useful.

[Niklas Cholmkvist]

Hi,

Sorry, but I just remembered the subject header and put it in. My
reply to the thread "Useful changeset comments are useful." is here
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-August/053403.html

Regards,

Niklas

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

[OSM-talk] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/logictheo/edits

[Niklas Cholmkvist]

Hi,

...thus I take the chance for a little more guidance(never hurts), why
not comment on my edits?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/logictheo/edits . I hope you will
have an interesting read.

Regards,

Niklas

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