Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
On 20 September 2010 21:48, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Firstly, what is "behind" the gate differs depending on your location. > Secondly, the way "behind" the gate may well be reachable by other means > (i.e. a detour) - it is easy to imagine a gate where vehicles cannot pass, > but still vehicles are allowed on both sides of the gate! There's an example of this near where I used to live. A developer built a new residential road, which got a lot more traffic than intended because it cut the distance out to the main streets for a lot of people. So he put a gate across the middle, and made two dead end roads. You can visit either side of the gate, you just can't go through. He left it as a gate instead of blocking it off completely so that it can be opened in an emergency, but it's never been opened that I've ever known. Every map I've every seen shows it as two separate roads, and ignores the gate. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Partnership between OSM and local government?
Aun Yngve Johnsen gimnechiske.org> writes: > You mean, how would the city council benefit apart from the fact they > are participating in a free, powerful routable map with loads of > features? Free worldwide distribution, availability on several types > of equipment. Software to make everything from local restaurant > guides, to routable maps with custom warnings. > > Besides there are thousands and thousands of volunteers doing the work > for them, without getting paid, demanding no more than access to the > finished works. There can be a little problem if municipalities are also selling their geodata. For sure municipalities can use dual license for the original data but what happens if they want to update their own data with OSM user contributions? Would the whole updated dataset become share alike as well? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] "Natural person" in CT 3
On 21 September 2010 08:42, John Smith wrote: > On 21 September 2010 08:10, Richard Weait wrote: >> CTs are per account. Active Contributors are per person. > > Exactly, you agree to the CTs as a person, which then encompasses all > accounts used, unless the wording of the current CTs is changed your > suggestion shouldn't be given. > Sorry, forgot to post a link to David Groom's comment about this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/Open_Issues#Scope_1 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Partnership between OSM and local government?
In Canada the federal government works with other levels of government to collect GIS information which is then released to OSM etc. as the CANVEC dataset. Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver have released some data as open and have a number of apps running based on this data. for example: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Software+developer+wins+Edmonton+competition/3531077/story.html#ixzz105I5lCK7 All are rethinking their licensing to align it with OSM. Some politicians have been using OSM to show ideas when electioneering. Andrew MacKinnon posted the following on CA-talk "Found an interesting use of OpenStreetMap data - Sarah Thompson's mayoral campaign is using it to display a proposed network of bike lanes in Toronto: http://sarahthomson.ca/blog/sarah-thomsons-bike-city"; The maps at the bottom of the page are OSM. Ottawa city planners have difficulties when trying to give someone a map showing new developments because of map copyright issues and they are very interested in OSM for this reason. Hope that helps. Cheerio John On 20 September 2010 15:04, Valent Turkovic wrote: > Hi, > if I would write an NGO project for my hometown (Osijek in Croatia) that > does some specific data collection of some type (like all bus stations, > all cycle tracks, etc). Do I need some special permission from OSM board > to do this? > > Second question that I have is, been there been some joint ventures > between OSM and some cities/towns or local government (except Haiti)?. > Has anybody gotten support from their local government or city council? > On what kind of project have you been working on? > > We have a local NGO and would like to present OSM and ask for support, > but city council would like to see how can they benefit from it. Just > explaining how OSM is a great project and how it has hundreds of > thousands active members won't impress them. We have one nice example as > city owned transport company uses OSM maps on their website and shows > trams in transit via gps. > > I would love to hear more positive feedback from people who have made > contact between OSM and local government and/or cities. What for can > local government use OSM maps and data for? Any good example would be > great! > > > Thank you in advance for your feedback, > Valent. > > -- > pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt > blog: http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com > linux, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless, ronjenje, pametne kuće > registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. > ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, MSN: valent.turko...@hotmail.com > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:12:03 -0400 Donald Campbell II wrote: > You mean like in the movie "The God's Must Be Crazy"? :-) No, the dropped glass bottle was not a Coke bottle, but brown beer bottles :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Partnership between OSM and local government?
On 20.09.2010 21:04, Valent Turkovic wrote: > Hi, > if I would write an NGO project for my hometown (Osijek in Croatia) that > does some specific data collection of some type (like all bus stations, > all cycle tracks, etc). Do I need some special permission from OSM board > to do this? Just for info: there is a very nice overview of principles for opening up government data: http://sunlightfoundation.com/policy/documents/ten-open-data-principles/ The first three principles are solely in the hand of the government. The remaining depend on the framework that you use. OpenStreetMap is compliant with the remaining principles but one: OpenStreetMap uses a Attribution Share-A-Like license while the principles say that a Public Domain license would be most appropriate. > I would love to hear more positive feedback from people who have made > contact between OSM and local government and/or cities. What for can > local government use OSM maps and data for? Any good example would be > great! > The data can be used for any purpose (as long as it is not unlawful). The Attribution and Share-a-like principle give you two conditions for usage: (1) you must mention the source and license of the data (Attribution) (2) if you make changes to the data and use them publicly you need to share these changes with public. Regards, Oliver (Btw: I like the riverside in Osijek) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Partnership between OSM and local government?
On 21 September 2010 01:53, Valent Turkovic wrote: > I really need so spell it out to them what is the advantage for them > locally. To be blunt they probably don't care what we did on Haiti or > other parts of the world, but they would like to know how OSM could be > used locally for our town. Project documentation is clear that they will > support only projects that benefit local population. Completely agree . You need to cleverly give the benefits almost like you are convincing a business client . One thing I could give is Apart from croud sourcing , data availability you could definitely pitch for localised maps . Localised for that town council . If there is huge support from the Town council I bet we(you me or anyone) could make a huge change in the way local data is presented and harnessed by websites,print etc ! Go for it . Its a good initiative and All the best :) Regards, Pavithran -- pavithran sakamuri http://look-pavi.blogspot.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Partnership between OSM and local government?
Hi, Valent Turkovic wrote: That is why I would like to hear from cities that are between 100,000-500,000 population on what projects have they collaborated on with their city council. [...] City council doesn't care too much about maps of restaurants, and we aren't such big city that we need that such specific kind of map because there are maybe 5-6 decent restaurants any everybody knows them. 5-6 decent restaurants for 100.000 people? Are you in England or what? Jokes aside, here in Germany mappers have cooperated with the government on various scales. Almost always this was done by local groups without involvement of FOSSGIS (our would-be national OSMF chapter) or OSMF themselves; only where the government wanted a contract to be signed we sometimes involved them. That should answer your initial question (whether you need permission) - no you don't, but please make it clear that you are not "the OpenStreetMap project" but "the local OpenStreetMap group". One successful example, albeit with a smaller city, is the aerial imagery we received from Lauf. They made their images available for tracing, and now they've got a very good city map on their web site, much better than the old one, more current, and free: http://lauf.de/index.php?mid=9 We've also received data sets of buildings from the city of Rostock in Germany, and some other places have made aerial imagery available as well. I don't know how things are in your country but one thing that many city councils are after here is specialist maps for cyclists and specialist maps for the disabled, especially wheelchair users. OSM offers an attractive path to get there; while medium-sized cities will often have the money to license ready-made maps, their money doesn't easily get them something with wheelchair info in it, or even something where they have a chance of adding wheelchair info other than having someone paste symbols onto a standard map with Illustrator. 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] Partnership between OSM and local government?
Well, the city of Vitoria (state capital of Espirito Santo, Brazil) allowed us to import their local data, giving a detailed map of the city. Now it is up to the community to fill in "the blanks", that is all the data we support that wasn't present in the data we received, or adjust the data where construction work have been done after the official survey. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html?lat=-20.3058&lon=-40.3027&zoom=12 brgds Aun Johnsen On 20/09/2010, at 17:23, Valent Turkovic wrote: On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:50:09 -0300, Aun Yngve Johnsen wrote: You mean, how would the city council benefit apart from the fact they are participating in a free, powerful routable map with loads of features? Free worldwide distribution, availability on several types of equipment. Software to make everything from local restaurant guides, to routable maps with custom warnings. Besides there are thousands and thousands of volunteers doing the work for them, without getting paid, demanding no more than access to the finished works. In short yes ;) Longer answer: I really need so spell it out to them what is the advantage for them locally. To be blunt they probably don't care what we did on Haiti or other parts of the world, but they would like to know how OSM could be used locally for our town. Project documentation is clear that they will support only projects that benefit local population. Any support we get can't be used to travel somewhere and map there, we need to collect data locally or use local data in some new and interesting ways. That is why I would like to hear from cities that are between 100,000-500,000 population on what projects have they collaborated on with their city council. As this is local (not state or EU) government the big emphasis is on local benefit. City council doesn't care too much about maps of restaurants, and we aren't such big city that we need that such specific kind of map because there are maybe 5-6 decent restaurants any everybody knows them. Cheers, Valent. -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt blog: http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com linux, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless, ronjenje, pametne kuće registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org . ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, MSN: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] "Natural person" in CT 3
Am 20.09.2010 12:02, schrieb Jukka Rahkonen: Clause 3 in CTs says: " An "active contributor" is defined as: a contributor natural person (whether using a single or multiple accounts) " This aims, I suppose, at giving only one vote for each natural person. How could this be checked? In case someone created hundreds of accounts we probably will notice, and it's good to have legal precautions for that situation. On the other hand, if someone has two accounts, we probably can rely on the honor system. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Partnership between OSM and local government?
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:50:09 -0300, Aun Yngve Johnsen wrote: > You mean, how would the city council benefit apart from the fact they > are participating in a free, powerful routable map with loads of > features? Free worldwide distribution, availability on several types of > equipment. Software to make everything from local restaurant guides, to > routable maps with custom warnings. > > Besides there are thousands and thousands of volunteers doing the work > for them, without getting paid, demanding no more than access to the > finished works. In short yes ;) Longer answer: I really need so spell it out to them what is the advantage for them locally. To be blunt they probably don't care what we did on Haiti or other parts of the world, but they would like to know how OSM could be used locally for our town. Project documentation is clear that they will support only projects that benefit local population. Any support we get can't be used to travel somewhere and map there, we need to collect data locally or use local data in some new and interesting ways. That is why I would like to hear from cities that are between 100,000-500,000 population on what projects have they collaborated on with their city council. As this is local (not state or EU) government the big emphasis is on local benefit. City council doesn't care too much about maps of restaurants, and we aren't such big city that we need that such specific kind of map because there are maybe 5-6 decent restaurants any everybody knows them. Cheers, Valent. -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt blog: http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com linux, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless, ronjenje, pametne kuće registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, MSN: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Partnership between OSM and local government?
You mean, how would the city council benefit apart from the fact they are participating in a free, powerful routable map with loads of features? Free worldwide distribution, availability on several types of equipment. Software to make everything from local restaurant guides, to routable maps with custom warnings. Besides there are thousands and thousands of volunteers doing the work for them, without getting paid, demanding no more than access to the finished works. brgds Aun Johnsen On 20/09/2010, at 16:04, Valent Turkovic wrote: Hi, if I would write an NGO project for my hometown (Osijek in Croatia) that does some specific data collection of some type (like all bus stations, all cycle tracks, etc). Do I need some special permission from OSM board to do this? Second question that I have is, been there been some joint ventures between OSM and some cities/towns or local government (except Haiti)?. Has anybody gotten support from their local government or city council? On what kind of project have you been working on? We have a local NGO and would like to present OSM and ask for support, but city council would like to see how can they benefit from it. Just explaining how OSM is a great project and how it has hundreds of thousands active members won't impress them. We have one nice example as city owned transport company uses OSM maps on their website and shows trams in transit via gps. I would love to hear more positive feedback from people who have made contact between OSM and local government and/or cities. What for can local government use OSM maps and data for? Any good example would be great! Thank you in advance for your feedback, Valent. -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt blog: http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com linux, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless, ronjenje, pametne kuće registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org . ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, MSN: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Partnership between OSM and local government?
Hi, if I would write an NGO project for my hometown (Osijek in Croatia) that does some specific data collection of some type (like all bus stations, all cycle tracks, etc). Do I need some special permission from OSM board to do this? Second question that I have is, been there been some joint ventures between OSM and some cities/towns or local government (except Haiti)?. Has anybody gotten support from their local government or city council? On what kind of project have you been working on? We have a local NGO and would like to present OSM and ask for support, but city council would like to see how can they benefit from it. Just explaining how OSM is a great project and how it has hundreds of thousands active members won't impress them. We have one nice example as city owned transport company uses OSM maps on their website and shows trams in transit via gps. I would love to hear more positive feedback from people who have made contact between OSM and local government and/or cities. What for can local government use OSM maps and data for? Any good example would be great! Thank you in advance for your feedback, Valent. -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt blog: http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com linux, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless, ronjenje, pametne kuće registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, MSN: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
2010/9/20 Dave F. : > On 20/09/2010 09:07, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> I prefer asuming that a gate is closed (I tag them with access=private >> in these cases anyway) > > This is a bad assumption to have. Just because a gate is closed, it doesn't > mean your not allowed access. maybe I wasn't clear: I am tagging gates with the access-restrictions that apply. I do this with access for closed gates (access=private/destination) and with exceptions like foot=yes, bicycle=yes, motorcar=yes. If applies, also add maxheight or height tags. I didn't care for motorcycles, wheelchairs, horses and others until now, but sometimes information for those can be taken from the kind of obstacle (gates exist in great variety why at least width is an important extra information, but others like [1] are more predictable for certain modes of movement) and I think we could also have different tags for "pysically impossible" "allowed/forbidden". The first can sometimes be expressed by width and height (and maxweight, etc.), but not in all cases. The latter is what we usually describe with access and subtags (foot etc.). Another approach [2] to map physical possibility would be to define all possible barrier types and every application can decide based on the type and maybe measurements if it lets it's user through. > barrier=gate means it's a gate & nothing else. It could be open/closed & all > sorts of traffic could legitimately have access. yes > Tag what you see on the ground. If you don't know, don't tag it. what also means: "no tag -> no information" - this is opposed to the idea of defaults (which would be deriving the information from the fact that a tag is _not_ set). I agree. Cheers, Martin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:TR-a.JPG [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_barrier_types#Tag_values ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
On 20.09.2010 13:20, Dave F. wrote: On 20/09/2010 10:31, Peter Wendorff wrote: Here we come to a great possibility for software to contribute to the OSM data. Wherever possible the software should provide a mechanism to add the data, if needed. How? The original point of this thread was that routing software couldn't distinguish it. Exactly - but IF a software navigates the user through e.g. a closed gate, the user can say "this gate is closed for me as a cyclist". The software has to calculate a new route - and if that's recognized by the software, there could be a question back: why do I have to recalculate? Dependent on the current setting that could be reduced to specific map entities: - is the street missing? - is the gate closed and not passable for me? - is the street typed incorrectly (oneway, ...) - is a barrier missing (and what type of barrier) I think, there are a lot of small questions we can create to situations like the one in front of a gate, and these small, predefined questions/answers can hopefully contribute to the database in place, with end users as source without much skills using complex editors etc. You are right: The software couldn't distinguish it, but the user can - and with a cup of brain used for a feature like that the software can ask useful questions easy to answer by the user. In conclusion: The software can motivate and enable the user to distinguish it. regards Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
Am 20.09.2010 13:48, Frederik Ramm: Hi, Claudius wrote: The point is that tags should only accommodate one piece of information. A gate is a gate, access is something else. Completely true. If a way has restricted access (and that may be physically enforced by the used of a closed gate) I tag the access restriction on the way behind the gate and not the gate. I don't see any added benefit by adding the access to a way behind a gate to the gate (!) itself. We both agree on the "a gate is a gate", but a gate does not necessarily mean that a way has restricted access. Firstly, what is "behind" the gate differs depending on your location. Secondly, the way "behind" the gate may well be reachable by other means (i.e. a detour) - it is easy to imagine a gate where vehicles cannot pass, but still vehicles are allowed on both sides of the gate! Ah, true. Sorry for my rant only half thought through. Indeed access tagging on a gate makes sense :) And just to get my vote in as well: I used a plain barrier=gate in the sense that "there's a gate, but I don't know about any access restrictions it may imply". Claudius ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Donald Campbell II wrote: > So if you visit lots of places in ?outback? Australia, you get to open > and close the gates as you go. > The gate should be closed, and you are free to pass, but have to open > the gate, pass the boundary and close the gate again. > > You mean like in the movie "The God's Must Be Crazy"? :-) Same hemisphere, different continent, different desert. But the gates serve the same purpose, namely keeping the livestock fenced in. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
Richard Fairhurst schrieb: barrier=gate states that there's a gate. The thing about gates, as opposed to (say) walls, is that you can open them to get through. Not quite. It's that _someone_ can open them to get through. That someone does not have to be you, and you might not be able to get through after all. Robert Kaiser ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
Message: 9 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:33:58 +1000 From: Elizabeth Dodd To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers Message-ID: <20100920203358.743e0...@mum-quad> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 So if you visit lots of places in ?outback? *Australia, you get to open **and close the gates as you go. **The gate should be closed, and you are free to pass, but have to open **the gate, pass the boundary and close the gate again.* You mean like in the movie "The God's Must Be Crazy"? :-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
El 20/09/2010, a las 12:33, Elizabeth Dodd escribió: > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:21:21 +0100 > "Dave F." wrote: > > The point is that tags should only accommodate one piece of information. > A gate is a gate, access is something else. Defaults cause confusion > and arguments - we should have a system in which information is > specified and not assumed. hi im the one who wrote that barrier implied access=no back in the day. but when the barrier tag was created i thought that that implication was forcing to always tag access along barrier. (that was a common effort and no one else until now thought that this was wrong neither me) also i never thought about routing softwares now, after this years of mapping, i think that defaults are a wrong way to tag if you have access tag, use it either way. barrier=gate alone, inmo only means there is a gate, nothing else. if there is no access tags there is no access info, period. a mapper can see a gate but has no time to stop and check if the gate is closed, locked or has opening_hours, so he should map it so the info doesn't gets lost and let other with more time tag access. same with satellite mapping, if i map a highway and i don't know what type is it, i must use highway=road and of course i don't know if there is access limits. until someone with more info than me tags it. the assumptions that routing software must take should be done by common sense of coders and explained in their own pages so the routing software user knows what to expect. > It´s cold here and I´m going to sit back and wait for the flames to > warm me up. me too cheers sergio ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] NaviPOWM 0.2.5 released
Hi, I released some days ago the new version of NaviPOWM: 0.2.5 It can be found on SourceForge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/navipowm/ New in version 0.2.5: - fixed bugs: - 2964054: speeds and oceantiles should be loaded from OSM2POWM path - 2964466: Operator shown instead of name - 2973833: TrackLog must show real GPSCoor - 2974142: Oneway - 2974500: Coastline bug when coastline also border - 2976212: ROUNDABOUT - implemented feature requests: - 1828272: No aygshell.dll on PNA systems - 2762052: Optimized display of greater areas - 2959663: Add option -q for "quiet" - 2976915: Option -b xmin,ymin,xmax,ymax for OSM2POWM - 2979185: Visibility of speed-pos box adjustable - 2979561: Make OSM2POWM use more than one thread - 2980508: Show oneway arrow on streets - 2991340: Save received data also as GPX file - other: - coastlines bugfixing and speedup - area display (sea) speedup - reorganized directories - support for CMake Bye Julian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
Hi, Claudius wrote: The point is that tags should only accommodate one piece of information. A gate is a gate, access is something else. Completely true. If a way has restricted access (and that may be physically enforced by the used of a closed gate) I tag the access restriction on the way behind the gate and not the gate. I don't see any added benefit by adding the access to a way behind a gate to the gate (!) itself. We both agree on the "a gate is a gate", but a gate does not necessarily mean that a way has restricted access. Firstly, what is "behind" the gate differs depending on your location. Secondly, the way "behind" the gate may well be reachable by other means (i.e. a detour) - it is easy to imagine a gate where vehicles cannot pass, but still vehicles are allowed on both sides of the gate! Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:21:49PM +0200, Claudius wrote: > Am 20.09.2010 12:33, Elizabeth Dodd: > > The point is that tags should only accommodate one piece of information. > > A gate is a gate, access is something else. > > Completely true. If a way has restricted access (and that may be > physically enforced by the used of a closed gate) I tag the access > restriction on the way behind the gate and not the gate. I don't see any > added benefit by adding the access to a way behind a gate to the gate > (!) itself. This will be right for most cases, but not always. Sometimes access through the gate may be restricted, but free on both sides of the gate. An example: a service area at a highway. For regular traffic it is available only from the highway, but there are gates (normally closed) to local/service ways outside. Only authorized may open and pass the gates, though the roads on neither side is officially closed for traffic. Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
On 20/09/2010 10:31, Peter Wendorff wrote: Here we come to a great possibility for software to contribute to the OSM data. Wherever possible the software should provide a mechanism to add the data, if needed. How? The original point of this thread was that routing software couldn't distinguish it. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
Am 20.09.2010 12:33, Elizabeth Dodd: The point is that tags should only accommodate one piece of information. A gate is a gate, access is something else. Completely true. If a way has restricted access (and that may be physically enforced by the used of a closed gate) I tag the access restriction on the way behind the gate and not the gate. I don't see any added benefit by adding the access to a way behind a gate to the gate (!) itself. Claudius ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:21:21 +0100 "Dave F." wrote: > On 20/09/2010 09:07, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I prefer asuming that a gate is closed (I tag them with > > access=private in these cases anyway) > > This is a bad assumption to have. Just because a gate is closed, it > doesn't mean your not allowed access. So if you visit lots of places in ¨outback¨ Australia, you get to open and close the gates as you go. The gate should be closed, and you are free to pass, but have to open the gate, pass the boundary and close the gate again. The point is that tags should only accommodate one piece of information. A gate is a gate, access is something else. Defaults cause confusion and arguments - we should have a system in which information is specified and not assumed. It´s cold here and I´m going to sit back and wait for the flames to warm me up. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to view villages etc., at lesser zoom levels
On 20/09/2010, Tanveer Singh wrote: > Sadly, it does not run properly on linux. Is there some way to make this > happen on openstreetmap web page or something? Hmm its definitely hard to get all the POI's in mapnik . But Osmarender (t...@h) can accommodate new Points of Interest . 1. See that the tag which is used for that particular point is in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_features You can file a ticket for both the rendering engines if it is available . http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ 2. Is the tag widely used ? Yes = Do mention them here . No = Than see if an appropriate tag could be used , If not propose a new tag . Its a bit of tiring/long process to get new stuff into the map hosted at OSM website . The easiest thing you could do is to have your own rendering . http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rendering Since you have mentioned Jammu & Kashmir .Lawgon has been running a mapnik instance for India . http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India#Rendering_Server You can ask him to include our desi tags on the map :) Regards, Pavithran -- pavithran sakamuri http://look-pavi.blogspot.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
On 20/09/2010 09:07, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I prefer asuming that a gate is closed (I tag them with access=private in these cases anyway) This is a bad assumption to have. Just because a gate is closed, it doesn't mean your not allowed access. barrier=gate means it's a gate & nothing else. It could be open/closed & all sorts of traffic could legitimately have access. or you have to indicate allowed traffic (foot=yes, bicycle=yes, etc.)). Why do we have to have a default? Defaults don't work because you can't differentiate between information not present and access=default, and therefore I recommend to tag explicitly in order to get unambiguous data. Tag what you see on the ground. If you don't know, don't tag it. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to view villages etc., at lesser zoom levels
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Alexandr Zeinalov wrote: > > Is there a way to see all features at lesser zoom. The idea is to print > > out > > a jpg map from OSM which has everything written. > > regards > > Tanveer > > You may use Kosmos or any other OSM renderer with you own rules for this. > I made this map to print on B&W printer with all villages using Kosmos: > http://shurik.aliki.ru/p3map.png > > > > Sadly, it does not run properly on linux. Is there some way to make this happen on openstreetmap web page or something? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [syj]: website to share routes
Le lundi 20 septembre 2010, à 11:24:28 +0200, Niccolo a écrit : > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 09:01:49PM +0200, arno wrote: > > > > > When you have finished, the button is not called "save", but "create". > > > > That's on purpose. > > Sorry, I was not clear. > > I was meaning that the welcome popup says "save" button, where > the button is labelled "create" instead. > > Thank you! oh sorry, thanks for noticing. that's fixed now. arno ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
On 20.09.2010 10:12, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I prefer asuming that a gate is closed (I tag them with access=private in these cases anyway) or you have to indicate allowed traffic (foot=yes, bicycle=yes, etc.)). Why do we have to have a default? The default should be applied by the software evaluating the data. The default is not an "OpenStreetMap default" but an "application default". A conservative routing engine might assume an unspecified gate to always be closed, while others might simply apply a slight penalty for a route containing a gate, or even assume it is alway open. Here we come to a great possibility for software to contribute to the OSM data. Wherever possible the software should provide a mechanism to add the data, if needed. Of course a conservative setting would avoid gates for being sure, but even that could be adjustable for the user: "I have time, it doesn't matter to turn around at wrong data - but I will fix it then". I think, in future we need end user software with the ability to edit the OSM, because mapping new stuff is much easier and makes more fun than to fix small errors. talk@openstreetmap.org Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [syj]: website to share routes
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 09:01:49PM +0200, arno wrote: > > > When you have finished, the button is not called "save", but "create". > > That's on purpose. Sorry, I was not clear. I was meaning that the welcome popup says "save" button, where the button is labelled "create" instead. Thank you! -- Niccolo Rigacci Firenze - Italy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
Hi, M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I prefer asuming that a gate is closed (I tag them with access=private in these cases anyway) or you have to indicate allowed traffic (foot=yes, bicycle=yes, etc.)). Why do we have to have a default? The default should be applied by the software evaluating the data. The default is not an "OpenStreetMap default" but an "application default". A conservative routing engine might assume an unspecified gate to always be closed, while others might simply apply a slight penalty for a route containing a gate, or even assume it is alway open. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
2010/9/20 Steve Bennett : > Personally, I think I prefer the default that access is open to anyone > who could be on both sides. But anyway, could we try and reach > consensus, and then document that? beside simple access-restrictions there are also lots of cases where the gates are open at some time and closed at other times. Generally a gate is either open or closed, so that the mere presence of a gate gives the reader of the map a hint, that passage might be obstructed. I prefer asuming that a gate is closed (I tag them with access=private in these cases anyway) or you have to indicate allowed traffic (foot=yes, bicycle=yes, etc.)). Why do we have to have a default? Defaults don't work because you can't differentiate between information not present and access=default, and therefore I recommend to tag explicitly in order to get unambiguous data. cheers, Martin cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
