[OSM-talk] Wiki editing (was Re: (magical?) road detector)

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> potlatch-dev@ list and ask for assistance. But this kind of "oh, let's just
> put some unchecked info up" is why so many people disregard the wiki these
> days. We wouldn't tolerate anything so disconnected from reality on the map,
> and nor should we on the wiki.

I'd like to register my disagreement with this philosophy. IMHO people
should be encouraged to edit and contribute to the wiki - that's the
way to have it up to date and perhaps reflecting the latest consensus.
Whacking people over the head for making a good-intentioned but
erroneous edit (hell, *I* didn't know it was wtfpl) is what causes
people to not bother.

I've restored the infobox and fixed a couple of things. If there are
still errors, I encourage someone else to fix them.

>We wouldn't tolerate anything so disconnected from reality on the map,

Yes, we'd fix it.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki editing (was Re: (magical?) road detector)

[Matthias Meißer]

Hi Richard,

sorry didn't followed the discussion till this moment.
Well yes I'm the guy that added the template to the page :)
Sorry for the mistake, but as everybody knows, this can happen, even if 
you fight alone against a dozen of wikipages ;)


But I don't see why did you removed the template completely instead of 
fixing just the license?


The template is about to be collected by a bot to generate lists of our 
software, so we have only one single point where to provide the 
informations: the dedicated tool pages.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Software2

This already works fine for all the mapping apps and now we extend it 
for the editors and renderers. Would be bad to miss Potlatch2 there :(


Matthias

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki editing (was Re: (magical?) road detector)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Richard Fairhurst 
> wrote:
> >We wouldn't tolerate anything so disconnected from reality on the map,
> Yes, we'd fix it.

Up to a point.

We have scarce resources. We don't have enough mappers and we _certainly_
don't have enough developers.

It is thus incumbent on us all not to make more work for other people. We
should try and solve problems, not create them. If, for example, I create a
new feature in P2 that has the side-effect of bringing down the server
through, I dunno, overuse of relation//full or something, then TomH will
have to spend a whole load of time either fixing the server or, at the
least, rolling back the P2 deployment. In that event, no matter how awesome
the new feature might be, I have caused work for already hard-pressed people
and I shouldn't have done it.

The wikibox stuff is a neat idea and it'd be great if it could be done
right. But as originally posted, it was actively misleading in at least
three regards, and we'd already seen someone on the lists who had been
misled. At 11pm on a Sunday evening my first response to that is "bin it",
not "oh, what I really wanted to do before going to bed was learn some new
MediaWiki syntax". ;)

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Wiki-editing-was-Re-magical-road-detector-tp6000107p6000415.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] Wiki editing (was Re: (magical?) road detector)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Matthias Meißer wrote:
> Sorry for the mistake, but as everybody knows, this can happen, even 
> if you fight alone against a dozen of wikipages ;)

Anything I say here will only get me into trouble so I better not. :)

> But I don't see why did you removed the template completely instead 
> of fixing just the license?

Because the first three things I looked at were wrong:

1. Licence
2. Developers (just Dave and me named, which is unfair on Andy and Steve and
others)
3. URL (the osm.org instance is only one - there are instances at MapQuest
Open, CycleStreets, wanderreitkarte.de, geowiki.com, Sustainable London Map
and elsewhere)

At that point I gave up looking and decided to take it down before it could
mislead anyone else. Tobias Knerr has very kindly offered to post some
accurate information and that'd be great.

But please, if you're "cleaning up" the wiki and there's something you're
not sure about, do what we do on the map: add a FIXME. Don't just put a
guess in there and assume that someone will spot it.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Wiki-editing-was-Re-magical-road-detector-tp6000107p6000424.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] Bing coverage

[ant]

Hi,

I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing 
high resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and 
stuffed them into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the 
wiki page [1])
I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those methods, 
so I took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it 
creates a simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, 
red=hires not available).
You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but that 
is due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in 
order to trigger the rendering. Try it out: 
http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/


cheers
ant


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki editing (was Re: (magical?) road detector)

[Matthias Meißer]

Hi Richard,

well your theorem on getting all with one shot is great, but this 
doesn't work for me. Things (esp. on the wiki) are to large to do it in 
one step.


I setup the attributes with the best I can find out within 5minutes. 
Cause it's on our SVN I expected it to be GPL.
As all on the wiki this table should allow you just to get an idea of 
the tools not, to be 100% accurate in listing authors, instances. But of 
course everybody can fix it, if he has another point of view :)


Matthias

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki editing (was Re: (magical?) road detector)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Matthias Meißer wrote:
> well your theorem on getting all with one shot is great, but this 
> doesn't work for me. Things (esp. on the wiki) are to large to do it 
> in one step.

So if you don't know, put a FIXME there. It's what we do on the map.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Wiki-editing-was-Re-magical-road-detector-tp6000107p6000617.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] Bing coverage

[Toby Murray]

What is your definition of "hires"? Zooming in on my city shows green
where I would consider the imagery to be decent but nothing
spectacular. (I think it is mostly just USGS ~1m imagery reused by
Bing)

Nice bit of code though.

Toby


On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:41 AM, ant  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing high
> resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and stuffed them
> into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the wiki page [1])
> I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those methods, so I
> took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it creates a
> simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, red=hires not
> available).
> You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but that is
> due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in order to
> trigger the rendering. Try it out:
> http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/
>
> cheers
> ant
>
>
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage
>
> ___
> 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] Bing coverage

[ant]

Hi Toby,

On 07.02.2011 16:21, Toby Murray wrote:

What is your definition of "hires"? Zooming in on my city shows green
where I would consider the imagery to be decent but nothing
spectacular. (I think it is mostly just USGS ~1m imagery reused by
Bing)


the definition of "hires" used in this application is "imagery is 
available at zoom level 14 or more". If you compare coverage areas 
linked to on the wiki page, you'll see that almost all of them 
correspond to that definition.


I'm aware that there might be levels of even greater detail, but that 
isn't implemented...


cheers
ant



Nice bit of code though.

Toby


On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:41 AM, ant  wrote:

Hi,

I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing high
resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and stuffed them
into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the wiki page [1])
I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those methods, so I
took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it creates a
simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, red=hires not
available).
You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but that is
due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in order to
trigger the rendering. Try it out:
http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/

cheers
ant


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage

___
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] Bing coverage

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2011/2/7 ant :
>> What is your definition of "hires"?
> the definition of "hires" used in this application is "imagery is available
> at zoom level 14 or more". If you compare coverage areas linked to on the
> wiki page, you'll see that almost all of them correspond to that definition.
>
> I'm aware that there might be levels of even greater detail, but that isn't
> implemented...


Yes, I agree that more colours could clarify this. Currently, all
areas in Italy seem to be green, where some of the ones I checked
offer resolutions up to zoom 17 (not quite the very best imagery
imaginable) and others up to 20 (absolutely sufficient for the very
most OSM-usecases). I you would use a colour scale for availability at
different zoom levels this tool would gain a lot IMHO, without
requiring a lot of effort to implement.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage

[Toby Murray]

Well the jump from 13 to 14 is a pretty big milestone for aerial
imagery. You go from rough blobs to distinguishable features. So that
does make sense.

But yeah, all of the US is just going to be solid green with this
definition. Maybe a red/yellow/green scheme? Red means http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage

[ant]

On 07.02.2011 16:48, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Yes, I agree that more colours could clarify this. Currently, all
areas in Italy seem to be green, where some of the ones I checked
offer resolutions up to zoom 17 (not quite the very best imagery
imaginable) and others up to 20 (absolutely sufficient for the very
most OSM-usecases). I you would use a colour scale for availability at
different zoom levels this tool would gain a lot IMHO, without
requiring a lot of effort to implement.


Can you give an example of a zoom 20 region? I'd like to have a look.

Thanks

ant



cheers,
Martin



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2011/2/7 Toby Murray :
> Well the jump from 13 to 14 is a pretty big milestone for aerial
> imagery. You go from rough blobs to distinguishable features. So that
> does make sense.
>
> But yeah, all of the US is just going to be solid green with this
> definition. Maybe a red/yellow/green scheme? Red means  indicates z14-18 and green is for z19+? Or maybe different colors for
> those colorblind people among us :)


I would use a scale like
#19ff00 Z20+
#99ff00 Z18-19
#ffe500 Z15-17
#ff6600 Z14

or possibly a colour tone for each level.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2011/2/7 ant :

> Can you give an example of a zoom 20 region? I'd like to have a look.

http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=41.8901512469295&lon=12.492339797131855&zoom=20

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage

[Toby Murray]

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:02 AM, ant  wrote:
> Can you give an example of a zoom 20 region? I'd like to have a look.

http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=39.294169460227224&lon=-94.71799114942492&zoom=20

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage

[Peter Wendorff]

Hi ant.
The tool is great, but it would be even greater to have the specific 
zoom level availlable instead of "14 or more".
14 may be a threshold of useability in many areas, but for other 
purposes even 17, 18 or 19 may be the treshold (e.g. mapping of 
sidewalks, mapping of street lanterns ;) (compare the AeroWest imagery 
we have (had?) availlable for use in Dortmund).


regards
Peter

P.S.: if possible, an OSM map overlay would be great, too ;)

Am 07.02.2011 16:27, schrieb ant:

Hi Toby,

On 07.02.2011 16:21, Toby Murray wrote:

What is your definition of "hires"? Zooming in on my city shows green
where I would consider the imagery to be decent but nothing
spectacular. (I think it is mostly just USGS ~1m imagery reused by
Bing)


the definition of "hires" used in this application is "imagery is 
available at zoom level 14 or more". If you compare coverage areas 
linked to on the wiki page, you'll see that almost all of them 
correspond to that definition.


I'm aware that there might be levels of even greater detail, but that 
isn't implemented...


cheers
ant



Nice bit of code though.

Toby


On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:41 AM, ant  wrote:

Hi,

I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing 
high
resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and stuffed 
them
into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the wiki 
page [1])
I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those 
methods, so I
took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it 
creates a
simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, 
red=hires not

available).
You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but 
that is
due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in 
order to

trigger the rendering. Try it out:
http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/

cheers
ant


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage

___
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] Bing coverage

[ant]

On 07.02.2011 17:36, Peter Wendorff wrote:

Hi ant.
The tool is great, but it would be even greater to have the specific
zoom level availlable instead of "14 or more".


That seems to be what most people wish to see. I'll work on that.

cheers
ant

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

[OSM-talk] Travel Discounts to SotM 2011

[Coast, Hurricane]

Hi,

I have been working on a relationship with United Airlines to attain travel 
discounts for people flying to Denver for SotM in September.

Woohoo!

I have started a wiki page here: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/2011_SotM_Travel_Discounts


Please add your name (and user name) to this page if you are interested in 
accessing travel discounts up to 20% with United Airlines.

When this list reaches 20 people, we can open the account!

Here are the basics:

1. Travel is with United Airlines or UA codeshare operated by Lufthansa for 
scheduled service to the United States and Canada to/from destinations in 
Europe. *I will post specific fare rules when we have this in effect.

2. Min 20 customers

3. Travel must be between Sept1- Sept 30. So come stay awhile :)

4. Travel can originate from anywhere, but MUST travel to Denver and leave from 
Denver.

5. Use the meeting code to get the discount.

When the discount is available, you can book by phone or united.com


Sincerely,

Hurricane


Hurricane Coast
hurric...@stateofthemap.org
+1 303 882 1314
stateofthemap.org
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] osm new zealand website and community launch

[Claudius]

Am 07.02.2011 04:43, Robin Paulson:

Hi all,
OSM New Zealand have recently launched their website, and announced
meetings beginning this month:
http://www.openstreetmap.org.nz/


The Wiki link on that should be fixed to point to 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NZ
Currently it's targeting 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/index.html/NZ which is a non-existant 
page.


Claudius


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

Re: [OSM-talk] osm new zealand website and community launch

[Robin Paulson]

On 7 February 2011 17:11, Richard Weait  wrote:
>> How do i get meetings included in the wiki front page?
>
> 1) Log in to the wiki.  The wiki account is separate from your api account.
> 2) Add your event to the wiki calendar.  [1]
>
>
> [1] 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Template:Calendar&action=edit

cool, cheers. is there any way to auto-update that? can it drag events
from calendar feeds for example?

thanks also to claudius for pointing out the broken link

-- 
robin

http://tangleball.org.nz/ - Auckland's Creative Space
http://bumblepuppy.org/blog/

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

[OSM-legal-talk] mapquest open aerial tiles

[John S Gruber]

While the mapquest open aerial tiles aren't mentioned in the wiki as
being ok to trace over, josm has them as an available layer.

Are these images ok to trace over? They are newer in my area than the others.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Robin Paulson]

On 8 December 2010 11:14, David Murn  wrote:
> Once all the licence issues are resolved and we know whether projects
> will be forked or our data removed, then Ill start dumping all my edits
> back in.  Ive also tried working on parts of New Zealand, but have come
> up against a brick wall as there is an import partially in progress
> (almost all roads, and lots of other POI bits).. but will not be
> completed until the licence is resolved, so basically an entire
> countries mapping is on-hold.  Once the issues are resolved, I have no
> doubt there are lots of mappers in my position who have lots of new data
> to upload.

hi david,
i'm an NZ mapper, and involved with the LINZ import process. the line
we are going with around the import is to encourage mappers to do
their own mapping anyway - the LINZ import will be some time, plus
there are mistakes in the data which will need correcting manually,
and there is greater value in individuals collecting data than relying
on the government. so, map away - your work will not be deleted, we
will work round it.

if you'd like to know more, join us on the nzopengis group -
https://groups.google.com/group/nzopengis

-- 
robin

http://tangleball.org.nz/ - Auckland's Creative Space
http://bumblepuppy.org/blog/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki editing (was Re: (magical?) road detector)

[Steve Bennett]

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> So if you don't know, put a FIXME there. It's what we do on the map.

Good suggestion. Could I also suggest that if you think someone's
change has lots of problems, instead of rolling it back with an
offensive commit comment, you could:
1) Comment it out with a note for someone to verify the entries then
un-comment; or
2) Add a FIXME yourself; or
3) Mention the problem here; or
4) Revert it and drop the author a line; or...

Although there was incorrect information in this case, it hardly
warranted speedy action. Wrong (but harmlessly so) licence
information? Call the fire brigade!!

Wikis need it to be possible for work to be split amongst different
people: one person creates the infobox, someone else fixes the data in
it.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki editing (was Re: (magical?) road detector)

[Matthias Meißer]

Come on folks,

it's not that a big problem. Now let's close the thread and see what 
will come witin the next weeks on the wiki side.


good night
Matthias

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage

[Jo]

2011/2/7 Peter Wendorff :
> Hi ant.
> The tool is great, but it would be even greater to have the specific zoom
> level availlable instead of "14 or more".
> 14 may be a threshold of useability in many areas, but for other purposes
> even 17, 18 or 19 may be the treshold (e.g. mapping of sidewalks, mapping of
> street lanterns ;) (compare the AeroWest imagery we have (had?) availlable
> for use in Dortmund).

Counting the number of white lines in pedestrian crossings :-)

Jo

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