Re: [OSM-talk] Investigating missing relation
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > If you know one of the former members of the relation you can > use the data browser to hunt it down. ... > And this page tells you, as Frederik already said, that NRS deleted > that relation on Jan 02. Thanks very much for all this info. Next question: is there a way to revert the deletion, or do I have to manually add it again to the various segments? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I understand this is what your plugin does and I'd say it is ok for a couple > of nodes (for simplicity) but if you really have something like an > administrative area that ends at the coastline I'd not like to see someone > "following" the coastline for 100s of nodes. If ways can be found to > encourage people to use relations in these cases, that would be great. Cool. Just to clarify, it's not a plugin, it's a standard feature in potlatch 2 now. Will think a bit more about how to make multipolygon editing work. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Investigating missing relation
Steve, On 01/31/11 09:07, Steve Bennett wrote: Next question: is there a way to revert the deletion, or do I have to manually add it again to the various segments? In our database, a relation is not a property of various segments. I.e. the pointers don't go from the segments to the relation, but from the relation to the segments. This means that undeleting the relation is a very simple operation (you do not have to touch all of its members - just upload one object). As far as I remember you said you dislike JOSM and prefer online tools; in that case your tool of choice for this task would probably be osmrawedit, more specifically the URL http://rawedit.openstreetmap.fr/edit/relation/413916/edit together with a previously downloaded last-good-version of the said relation, i.e. http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/413916/61 You might encounter difficulties in uploading if one or several of the ways used by the relation don't exist any more; in that case just follow a similar procedure for those ways, the IDs of which you can see from the error message. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
Daniel Sabo wrote: > This is a really bad idea. Drawing collinear features by sharing > nodes is NEVER a good idea beyond 1 or 2 shared corners, > that's what multipolygons are for. Disagree very very strongly. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-tool-in-Potlatch-2-for-areas-that-share-a-way-tp5975811p5976514.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] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
I also fail to see how I should convert the patched blanket of landuses into multipolygons. I try to use those multipolygons as sparingly as possible. Jo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
2011/1/31 Steve Bennett : > I'd like to have a better understanding of support for multipolygons > across different renderers and editors. For example, does mapnik > support mp's on *all* tags, or is it case-by-case? AFAIK they are conversed into single polygons on DB-import, so they should work with all kinds of tags. > I think I agree with your earlier point that mp's are better than > colinear ways, but colinear ways are still better than parallel ways > for areas that do actually touch. Yes, parallel ways are actually to be considered errors in the case that the polygons really do touch, while colinear ways are simply less elegant but not wrong. I fear though, that laziness will lead to people identifying features as touching, when they actually aren't in the real world (e.g. between 2 fields there is often some rough area, sometimes with a waterway running along, and personally I prefer mapping these fine details, even though it is more work then approximating the situation). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Search by Key
... or if this is just a one-off type of search (non-server), JSOM does this nicely. Ben -- Ben Mearns Research and Data Management Services, IT-Client Support & Services University of Delaware mea...@udel.edu : 302.831.1978 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:44 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/1/31 Steve Bennett : >> I think I agree with your earlier point that mp's are better than >> colinear ways, but colinear ways are still better than parallel ways >> for areas that do actually touch. > > Yes, parallel ways are actually to be considered errors in the case > that the polygons really do touch Agreed, although I'd like to point out that in a case where one of the features is physical and one is virtual (for instance, a road and an administrative boundary), I wouldn't classify that as features which "touch", and I think parallel ways *are* a viable solution. To wit, I'd say parallel ways are the proper solution for TIGER boundaries which coincide with TIGER lines. Especially when the way is a dual carriageway. Fixing dual carriageways which share nodes with TIGER boundaries sucks. Fortunately most TIGER boundaries themselves suck, so a simple fix is to just delete the TIGER boundary. (Note that there's no problem with two *boundaries* sharing nodes or (preferably) ways. I'm talking about a road sharing a way with a boundary, which maybe is okay sometimes, but sometimes definitely is not.) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
On 31 January 2011 15:44, Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:44 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> 2011/1/31 Steve Bennett : >>> I think I agree with your earlier point that mp's are better than >>> colinear ways, but colinear ways are still better than parallel ways >>> for areas that do actually touch. >> >> Yes, parallel ways are actually to be considered errors in the case >> that the polygons really do touch > > Agreed, although I'd like to point out that in a case where one of the > features is physical and one is virtual (for instance, a road and an > administrative boundary), I wouldn't classify that as features which > "touch", and I think parallel ways *are* a viable solution. > > To wit, I'd say parallel ways are the proper solution for TIGER > boundaries which coincide with TIGER lines. Especially when the way > is a dual carriageway. Fixing dual carriageways which share nodes > with TIGER boundaries sucks. Fortunately most TIGER boundaries > themselves suck, so a simple fix is to just delete the TIGER boundary. > > (Note that there's no problem with two *boundaries* sharing nodes or > (preferably) ways. I'm talking about a road sharing a way with a > boundary, which maybe is okay sometimes, but sometimes definitely is > not.) The example that come to my mind is the case where an administrative boundary is _defined_ by a river or stream for example. In this case I'd say that the boundary and way should share nodes. However, I agree that this might get messy in the case of a dual-carriageway. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
2011/1/31 Matt Williams : > The example that come to my mind is the case where an administrative > boundary is _defined_ by a river or stream for example. Yes, the same came to my mind. But what is the situation if the river changes? Will the boundary change, or will the boundary be at the position of the river at the time when the boundary was defined? IMHO probably the latter, which is an argument to keep them separate. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:02 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/1/31 Matt Williams : >> The example that come to my mind is the case where an administrative >> boundary is _defined_ by a river or stream for example. > > > Yes, the same came to my mind. But what is the situation if the river > changes? Will the boundary change, or will the boundary be at the > position of the river at the time when the boundary was defined? IMHO > probably the latter, which is an argument to keep them separate. I think the general rule is that changes due to gradual natural causes change the boundary, but if the changes are due to avulsion, the boundary remains at the original position. There's also the fact that a river or stream is not a single line. While a boundary might be determined as the deepest part of of the river or stream, the more common location to map the river or stream would be in the geographical center, which may or may not be the deepest part. I'd say in general it's usually better to keep them separate, but my main point was just that *sometimes* it's better to keep them separate, even if they are initially drawn in the exact same location. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] Questions about importing data for University of Vermont campus
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Benjamin Mearns wrote: > apologies for reposting ... was having some trouble replying, as I > just subscribed to this list: > At University of Delaware, we've just implemented OpenStreetMap as the > repository for our own campus map (www.udel.edu/maps). That is really nice, Ben! I've proposed it as an Image of the Week on the OSM wiki. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] Questions about importing data for University of Vermont campus
awesome :-) On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Benjamin Mearns wrote: >> apologies for reposting ... was having some trouble replying, as I >> just subscribed to this list: > >> At University of Delaware, we've just implemented OpenStreetMap as the >> repository for our own campus map (www.udel.edu/maps). > > That is really nice, Ben! I've proposed it as an Image of the Week on > the OSM wiki. > -- Ben Mearns Research and Data Management Services, IT-Client Support & Services University of Delaware mea...@udel.edu : 302.831.1978 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
* char...@cferrero.net [2011-01-31 07:40 +]: > I've noticed, however, that Osmarender doesn't render islands which > are multipolygons (but Mapnik does). Osmarender can be weird with multipolygons. I know from mentions on IRC that Tiles@Home splits up OSM data in chunks the size of a single z12 tile, so multipolygons larger (or wider or longer) than a z12 tile can mess up its rendering. In particular, if osmarender can't see all the bounds of a riverbank multipolygon, it'll do things like rendering the entire tile full of water. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- "You're Hells Angels, then? What chapter are you from?" REVELATIONS, CHAPTER SIX. -- _Good Omens_, Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett --- -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Join the State of the Map Committee
We are looking for OpenStreetMappers interested in helping make this years international conference absolutely stellar. There are several ways to get involved including working with the program format, sponsorships and scholarships and volunteering during the conference to name a few! Check out www.stateofthemap.org We have dial in meetings every other Wednesday at 8pm CET / 7pm GMT / 12pm MST. Our next meeting is Feb 2nd. Please email the team at t...@stateofthemap.org for more information. Happy Mapping, Hurricane Coast ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Investigating missing relation
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > As far as I remember you said you dislike JOSM and prefer online tools; in > that case your tool of choice for this task would probably be osmrawedit, > more specifically the URL > > http://rawedit.openstreetmap.fr/edit/relation/413916/edit Thanks, I really appreciate this help. When I try and edit or create, I just get an error "XML parser can't parse this data". I've tried using .../create in the url, and removing parts of the relation definition (like the id, uid etc). Will the OSM server accept new objects being created with specific ids? I guess I'm not at all familiar with the actual mechanics of loading/saving data. I'm thinking this would be a useful feature to add to Potlatch - loading and saving files from disk. (If possible within Flash) Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:44 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Yes, parallel ways are actually to be considered errors in the case > that the polygons really do touch, while colinear ways are simply less > elegant but not wrong. I fear though, that laziness will lead to > people identifying features as touching, when they actually aren't in > the real world (e.g. between 2 fields there is often some rough area, > sometimes with a waterway running along, and personally I prefer > mapping these fine details, even though it is more work then > approximating the situation). I think a few of our tags aren't sufficiently well defined to be clear about which is correct. For example, say a steel manufacturer owns a large piece of land, at one end of which is a steel smelter. The rest is grass. Is the whole land landuse=industrial? Just the built-up section? Does the landuse correspond to the physical features or the zoning... Partly this gets back to the debate about whether a map is an abstract representation, or whether it's essentially a 2D bitmap of the real world. But...perhaps let's not go there right now. :) Anyway, the range of opinions in this thread convinces me that there is no consensus yet about when and how colinear ways, parallel ways, and multipolygons are to be used. Improved tools for all three should at least help people use whatever is the preferred tool for the job, rather than being constrained by whatever is the easiest. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Investigating missing relation
Hi, Steve Bennett wrote: Thanks, I really appreciate this help. When I try and edit or create, I just get an error "XML parser can't parse this data". Hm. Unsure why. Maybe you need to drop the changeset id and/or user name and user id and timestamp from the relation, as those will be set automatically. The osmrawedit tool will have to make minor changes to the xml you enter so what works and doesn't not only depends on what the API expects, but also what osmrawedit is coded to do (and I don't know it so well). I've tried using .../create in the url, and removing parts of the relation definition (like the id, uid etc). You can create a new relation with the old contents but it would be cooler if you managed to edit the old one, since that will then show up right in the history (people later investigating the relation would see that it has been created by you earlier, then deleted, then undeleted). Will the OSM server accept new objects being created with specific ids? No, usually you would pass in the id only when updating an existing object (or undeleting one that has previously existed). 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] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett : > I think a few of our tags aren't sufficiently well defined to be clear > about which is correct. For example, say a steel manufacturer owns a > large piece of land, at one end of which is a steel smelter. The rest > is grass. Is the whole land landuse=industrial? probably no. Landuse is describing the actual usage of the land. If there is only grass, it cannot be considered industrial, regardless of who owns the land. > Partly this gets back to the debate about whether a map is an abstract > representation, or whether it's essentially a 2D bitmap of the real > world. We can't do different then use abstraction. What you are thinking about is resolution IMHO. Every generalisation should be aware of the scale the map will be printed. As we are trying to create an universal database (i.e. there is no such thing as a fixed scale in OSM, although there is some scale limits like the precision in which we store the coordinates), the finer the data is structured, the more possible maps could be made out of it. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
What about a grassy field that is being used for industrial storage? For example, one small company here in Nashville has stacks of steel beams, several wheeled cranes, and the like stored on a grass-covered vacant lot next to their office and parking lot. From the way the grass is grown up around the wheels, some of the equipment hasn't been moved in years. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way >From :mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com Date :Mon Jan 31 19:48:14 America/Chicago 2011 2011/2/1 Steve Bennett : > I think a few of our tags aren't sufficiently well defined to be clear > about which is correct. For example, say a steel manufacturer owns a > large piece of land, at one end of which is a steel smelter. The rest > is grass. Is the whole land landuse=industrial? probably no. Landuse is describing the actual usage of the land. If there is only grass, it cannot be considered industrial, regardless of who owns the land. > Partly this gets back to the debate about whether a map is an abstract > representation, or whether it's essentially a 2D bitmap of the real > world. We can't do different then use abstraction. What you are thinking about is resolution IMHO. Every generalisation should be aware of the scale the map will be printed. As we are trying to create an universal database (i.e. there is no such thing as a fixed scale in OSM, although there is some scale limits like the precision in which we store the coordinates), the finer the data is structured, the more possible maps could be made out of it. cheers, Martin ___ 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] Anyone know who wrote rawedit?
Hi all, So, as discussed on another thread, I'm trying to use rawedit.openstreetmap.fr to undelete a relation, but am getting XML parser errors. Anyone know who I can contact, or where to get the source from? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > probably no. Landuse is describing the actual usage of the land. If > there is only grass, it cannot be considered industrial, regardless of > who owns the land. Problem with that ruling is you would end up with tiny little odd-shaped pockets of "industry" separated by space. Whereas I think a large, unbroken region like this: http://osm.org/go/uGt0Ttv7- is actually a lot more informative. Furthermore, you might be reduced to categorising individual elements of the factory. Would the administrative wing really be landuse=industrial? Surely it should be landuse=commercial. etc etc. I don't think there's any single answer that can give the right information to every consumer. Sometimes OSM has to make actual choices between different uses of the data. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Anyone know who wrote rawedit?
On 1 February 2011 12:24, Steve Bennett wrote: > Hi all, > So, as discussed on another thread, I'm trying to use > rawedit.openstreetmap.fr to undelete a relation, but am getting XML > parser errors. Anyone know who I can contact, or where to get the > source from? It's my understanding that deleted objects aren't really deleted, just hidden, and if you pull the object ID into JOSM and make a small change it should become visible again. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Anyone know who wrote rawedit?
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM, John Smith wrote: > It's my understanding that deleted objects aren't really deleted, just > hidden, and if you pull the object ID into JOSM and make a small > change it should become visible again. Sorry, to clarify, I'm also interested in getting access to the source for other reasons - not just solving this particular, relatively unimportant problem. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Investigating missing relation
Steve Bennett wrote: > I'm thinking this would be a useful feature to add to Potlatch - > loading and saving files from disk. (If possible within Flash) That'll happen when we migrate from requiring Flash Player 9 to Flash Player 10, but we're not ready for that yet. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Investigating-missing-relation-tp5968579p5979982.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] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:13:54PM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: > I think a few of our tags aren't sufficiently well defined to be clear > about which is correct. For example, say a steel manufacturer owns a > large piece of land, at one end of which is a steel smelter. The rest > is grass. Is the whole land landuse=industrial? Just the built-up > section? Does the landuse correspond to the physical features or the > zoning... I would say it is the latter. If it is part of the steel mill (storage area or something), then it should be landuse=industrial IMHO. If you want to say it is covered with grass, then why don't you add surface=grass? No renderer shows that? That is because current renderers renders zones, but still a new one may be added that will be surface-based. For some purposes the 'landuse=industrial' information will be more important, for other 'surface=grass'. These are different kinds of information. Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
