Re: [OSM-talk] Fixme: A proposal
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 06:56:51AM +0100, Ed Loach wrote: > Nathan wrote: > > > Would it make more sense to categorize by the tag? For example: > > *FIXME:name=yes > > *FIXME:maxspeed=verify that the entire road is 55 mph > > We don't need a proposal for this. It is such common sense that > people do this already where it is appropriate (i.e. where more than > one FIXME is needed on a single OSM element) : > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=FIXME#keys Its not common sense, its stupid. That way you make sure that your special fixme tag is not seen by tools that look for the normal fixme tag. The value for the fixme tag is a free-text note. You can just write: "fixme=Not sure whether the name is right, verify maxspeed". Even better: If you are not sure about the name and maxspeed, delete those tags. Then its obvious that something is missing there and somebody will add it in due course. No special tags needed. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fixme: A proposal
Nathan wrote: > Would it make more sense to categorize by the tag? For example: > *FIXME:name=yes > *FIXME:maxspeed=verify that the entire road is 55 mph We don't need a proposal for this. It is such common sense that people do this already where it is appropriate (i.e. where more than one FIXME is needed on a single OSM element) : http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=FIXME#keys Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fixme: A proposal
Would it make more sense to categorize by the tag? For example: *FIXME:name=yes *FIXME:maxspeed=verify that the entire road is 55 mph ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fixme: A proposal
Hi, On 10/03/2011 12:49 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: OSM Inspector is very good. And hopefully Frederik will be along in a minute to tell you how to use it from within Potlatch. :) Until then - http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/ As it happens I have just written this blog post to announce OSMI Potlatch compatibility: http://blog.geofabrik.de/?p=96 Here's a direct example of using OSMI's "tagging" view (which highlights potential typos as well as any FIXME tags) in Potlatch: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=53.02178&lon=-2.65969&zoom=16&tileurl=http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/tiles/tagging/$z/$x/$y.png You might want to use the "d" key in Potlatch to temporarily dim the data and/or switch off background dimming so that OSMI's messages are easier readable. This is the early days of OSMI tiles in Potlatch and I'm sure we'll see improvements over time; feel free to suggest what you think should be changed or added. 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] Fixme: A proposal
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Jochen Topf wrote: > Only manually detected problems should be tagged with fixme. And it should be > as easy as possible to mark those. Extra categorization would make it more > difficult. I don't think it makes it significantly more difficult, as fixmes should have some kind of description of the problem. Classifiying them in the tags is just a more systematic way of doing that, which makes them more amenable to higher-level tool use (e.g. someone could write a program that identifies the areas with most density of problems that need on-the-ground surveying... or even a route planner that creates a route using highways tagged as approximate, for someone to carry a GPS over, although the latter is probably stretching it a bit). > Why exactly do you want the extra categorization? What help would it > be in your practical day to day work? It's not just ease of tagging things with fixme that counts (although it should be easy, and a plain "fixme" should always be acceptable); ease of using (finding and fixing) the fixmes is also important. > I can see one useful differentiation: Some problems are fixable only with > local > knowledge (say a missing street name), some are fixable from afar (most > topological problems). It might be helpful to not see problems needing local > knowledge in areas where I don't have local knowledge. I think it's also helpful for people to be able to plan problem-fixing surveys efficiently. __John ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fixme: A proposal
Kev js1982 wrote: > Whats the best way of finding these, the only one i have seen is the > ito analysis but they dont offer zooming in :-( OSM Inspector is very good. And hopefully Frederik will be along in a minute to tell you how to use it from within Potlatch. :) Until then - http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/ cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Fixme-A-proposal-tp6853578p6854522.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] Fixme: A proposal
Commo fixme in the East midlands at least is Fixme:stub for future suvey Typically a path or bridleway where the end has been surveyed but the route not traversed. often these hasn't been placed to accuratly either (i.e. Someone spotted it when passing without gps) so incomplete isn't accurate either! Whats the best way of finding these, the only one i have seen is the ito analysis but they dont offer zooming in :-( (dont suggest josm, me and it seam to hate one another) On Oct 3, 2011 11:13 AM, "John Sturdy" wrote: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Ed Avis wrote: >>FIXME=Do these roads join here? Not clear on Bing imagery. Survey needed. >> >> That will be a useful note for somebody planning to visit the area later so >> they can check this place if they wish. > > How about starting a convention of using a tag "fixme:survey_needed" > with the details in the value string? > > The only other subtype of fixme that I can think of immediately would > be "fixme:incomplete", for long / hard-to-spot linear features such as > powerlines (where I've seen someone else was using fixme=incomplete > and have tried to follow that convention myself). > > I like the idea of extending the NONAME layer to report fixmes, and if > we used a convention like fixme:survey_needed we could have a distinct > map symbol for that. > > __John > > ___ > 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] Fixme: A proposal
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Ed Avis wrote: > FIXME=Do these roads join here? Not clear on Bing imagery. Survey needed. > > That will be a useful note for somebody planning to visit the area later so > they can check this place if they wish. How about starting a convention of using a tag "fixme:survey_needed" with the details in the value string? The only other subtype of fixme that I can think of immediately would be "fixme:incomplete", for long / hard-to-spot linear features such as powerlines (where I've seen someone else was using fixme=incomplete and have tried to follow that convention myself). I like the idea of extending the NONAME layer to report fixmes, and if we used a convention like fixme:survey_needed we could have a distinct map symbol for that. __John ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fixme: A proposal
Jochen Topf remote.org> writes: >Problems with the data that are automatically detected should never ever be >tagged on the data itself. This is useless, and worse, its counterproductive. They should never be *automatically* tagged on the data itself. >Only manually detected problems should be tagged with fixme. I would add, however, that if an automated tool reported a problem and you manually investigated it but weren't able to fix it immediately (or to immediately determine that the tool is wrong), then you can tag fixme with a note on your work so far. For example, FIXME=Do these roads join here? Not clear on Bing imagery. Survey needed. That will be a useful note for somebody planning to visit the area later so they can check this place if they wish. But deluging the area with large numbers of automatically generated fixme tags is not helpful, because anyone can run the tool themselves to see that. -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
