Re: [OSM-talk] Taginfo for Changesets?
I wrote a bit of python a while ago to shove the weekly changeset dump into a postgres database where you can query tags. There is no snazzy front end for it though. https://github.com/ToeBee/ChangesetMD Toby On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > Is there an equivalent of taginfo for the tags in changesets? > Short of that is there a search facility for changeset tags? > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping of multiple-lane toll areas
On 23/10/2013 10:01, Pieren wrote: But I can say that tagging each lane with "highway=motorway" + "lanes=1" is incorrect and seems to be "tagging for the renderer" (just to show the toll on mapnik) There's nothing wrong with that. It's mapped accurately as individual lanes & clarified with the lanes=* tag. All elements are "tagged for the renderer" How else would they know how to render them? What shouldn't be done is tagging incorrectly to get it to render, such as labelling a golf bunker as a beach to get it to appear yellow. I'm surprised someone with your OSM experience needs to be reminded of this. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping of multiple-lane toll areas
On 23/10/2013 13:00, Martin Raifer wrote: There is another complication with this kind of lane mapping: At many motorway toll areas, not all toll booths are open all the time. Often even the allowed traffic direction through the individual booths is changed dynamically to meet asymmetric demand! Then accurately mapping individual tool booths makes it clear that there are multiple booths to choose from. See also original post. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping of multiple-lane toll areas
Am 25.10.2013 17:04, schrieb Dave F.: > On 23/10/2013 10:01, Pieren wrote: >> But I can say that tagging each lane with >> "highway=motorway" + "lanes=1" is incorrect and seems to be "tagging >> for the renderer" (just to show the toll on mapnik) > > There's nothing wrong with that. It's mapped accurately as individual > lanes & clarified with the lanes=* tag. As long as there is no physical separation you should use the :lanes system and only use separate ways for the individual booths. > All elements are "tagged for the renderer" How else would they know how > to render them? What shouldn't be done is tagging incorrectly to get it > to render, such as labelling a golf bunker as a beach to get it to > appear yellow. I'm surprised someone with your OSM experience needs to > be reminded of this. Well, as long as the renderer do not respect width=* or lanes=* people will experiment and rendering is not the only purpose. You can do quite a lot more things with a geodata base. I do not want to tag for the renderer (e.g. I do not add area=yes on any multipolygon and closed ways which make no sense to not be interpreted as area). I even did open a bug report about it against carto only to have it closed as "other software". cu fly signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping of multiple-lane toll areas
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Dave F. wrote: > What shouldn't be done is tagging incorrectly to get it to > render, such as labelling a golf bunker as a beach to get it to appear > yellow. Or tagging each lane as an individual carriageway. We duplicate "highway=*" only with physical separators which is not the case here until the individual booth. Vehicles can switch from one lane to the next at any time. >I'm surprised someone with your OSM experience needs to be reminded > of this. We will say it's your Friday evening tiredness.. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Wikipedia article
Hi, The MIT technology review just published this article on Wikipedia. http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ It is sport criticizing Wikipedia, but two things stuck out. Wikipedia is trying to get more editors. However, they seem to have some additional problems that OSM does not have. Wikipedia failed to roll out the new GUI article editor. If you read the discussion on hacker news, and Slashdot. http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/10/23/1643228/wikipedias-participation-problem https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6612638 It seems like Wikipedia has revert first policy on questionable edits. It makes it unpleasant to start with the project, since probably every bodies first edits are questionable. OSM policy/culture of discussing a change *before* reverting is really good thing. Jason ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping of multiple-lane toll areas
Unfortunately http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways is one of the most misunderstood editing standards in OSM. Originally intended to make sure that motorways and other highways would be tagged as separate ways, the 'physical separation' almost seems like a settled law by some mappers. For the toll area: it's indeed true that for a distance of say 10 meters there is a physical separation. That by the way also happens at fuel stations. And in both these situations it's more like an area in which one is able to drive one way than visible highways. Map a highway as long as it's visible. If it's not, than don't map it. 2013/10/25 colliar > Am 25.10.2013 17:04, schrieb Dave F.: > > On 23/10/2013 10:01, Pieren wrote: > >> But I can say that tagging each lane with > >> "highway=motorway" + "lanes=1" is incorrect and seems to be "tagging > >> for the renderer" (just to show the toll on mapnik) > > > > There's nothing wrong with that. It's mapped accurately as individual > > lanes & clarified with the lanes=* tag. > > As long as there is no physical separation you should use the :lanes > system and only use separate ways for the individual booths. > > > All elements are "tagged for the renderer" How else would they know how > > to render them? What shouldn't be done is tagging incorrectly to get it > > to render, such as labelling a golf bunker as a beach to get it to > > appear yellow. I'm surprised someone with your OSM experience needs to > > be reminded of this. > > Well, as long as the renderer do not respect width=* or lanes=* people > will experiment and rendering is not the only purpose. You can do quite > a lot more things with a geodata base. > > I do not want to tag for the renderer (e.g. I do not add area=yes on any > multipolygon and closed ways which make no sense to not be interpreted > as area). I even did open a bug report about it against carto only to > have it closed as "other software". > > cu fly > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia article
I wrote an article somewhat in the same vein: > http://macwright.org/2013/10/15/point-and-shoot.html Perhaps something to note is that, beyond technical and policy issues, one of the more common complaints about Wikipedia is that there's an unfriendly, elitist attitude amongst the established editors. My article asks for some relatively deep changes to infrastructure and user experience, but the more actionable and immediately useful thing that everyone can do is to be friendly. On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Jason Remillard wrote: > Hi, > > The MIT technology review just published this article on Wikipedia. > > > http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ > > It is sport criticizing Wikipedia, but two things stuck out. > > Wikipedia is trying to get more editors. However, they seem to have > some additional problems that OSM does not have. > > Wikipedia failed to roll out the new GUI article editor. > > If you read the discussion on hacker news, and Slashdot. > > > http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/10/23/1643228/wikipedias-participation-problem > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6612638 > > It seems like Wikipedia has revert first policy on questionable edits. > It makes it unpleasant to start with the project, since probably every > bodies first edits are questionable. > > OSM policy/culture of discussing a change *before* reverting is really > good thing. > > Jason > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping of multiple-lane toll areas
Am 25.10.2013 um 17:42 schrieb Pieren : > Or tagging each lane as an individual carriageway. We duplicate > "highway=*" only with physical separators which is not the case here > until the individual booth. Vehicles can switch from one lane to the > next at any time. The physically divided part of the lane is a bit longer than just the booth: http://binged.it/1ij4lEH ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia article
Hi Tom Your blog post is very interesting. Just in case anybody thinks that the rapid growth of OSM is inevitable at this point, this study shows how Wikipedia turned off its growth like a switch when they starting clamping down on first time editors. Since 2007 the number of active editors has actually decreased. http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/ Unless the map in your area is 100% perfect and complete, be extra nice to those new editors! Jason On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Tom MacWright wrote: > I wrote an article somewhat in the same vein: > >> http://macwright.org/2013/10/15/point-and-shoot.html > > Perhaps something to note is that, beyond technical and policy issues, one > of the more common complaints about Wikipedia is that there's an unfriendly, > elitist attitude amongst the established editors. My article asks for some > relatively deep changes to infrastructure and user experience, but the more > actionable and immediately useful thing that everyone can do is to be > friendly. > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Jason Remillard > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The MIT technology review just published this article on Wikipedia. >> >> >> http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ >> >> It is sport criticizing Wikipedia, but two things stuck out. >> >> Wikipedia is trying to get more editors. However, they seem to have >> some additional problems that OSM does not have. >> >> Wikipedia failed to roll out the new GUI article editor. >> >> If you read the discussion on hacker news, and Slashdot. >> >> >> http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/10/23/1643228/wikipedias-participation-problem >> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6612638 >> >> It seems like Wikipedia has revert first policy on questionable edits. >> It makes it unpleasant to start with the project, since probably every >> bodies first edits are questionable. >> >> OSM policy/culture of discussing a change *before* reverting is really >> good thing. >> >> Jason >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
