Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals

[Paul Norman]

On 3/18/2015 2:43 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
Since you are involved with updating the rendering, can you tell us 
the process to decide what should be rendered? I realize that part of 
it must be stylistic, but what outside influences cause you to include 
a tag as part of the standard rendered OSM tile?
I should preface this by stating that these are my opinions, and I know 
other OpenStreetMap Carto maintainers look at it differently. They are 
also not the opinion of my employer, MapQuest, and the MapQuest Open 
style has different cartographic goals.


There are no policies on what is rendered, and types of features are 
decided on a case by case basis.


Normally the process of deciding to render a feature and deciding to 
render a particular tag are separate. You might decide you want to 
render bus stops, but also find that in the region you're rendering 
there is a GTFS feed with better data. In OpenStreetMap Carto, these two 
steps are more entwined. We're aiming at mappers and want to avoid 
additional sources of non-OSM data.


A first consideration is technical. Some of the crazy relation types out 
there are not designed in a way that they can be reasonably rendered 
with a standard toolchain. If I can't figure out how to write the SQL to 
be able to get a data layer suitable for rendering, it almost certainly 
won't be rendered.


I'm only interested in rendering established tags. The primary indicator 
of this is usage. There are some exceptions to this like national 
capitals, where there are only many of them. My view is that a tag 
should be able to obtain reasonable usage numbers on its own merits 
without being rendered. I also look beyond taginfo numbers to see if 
they are being skewed by a small number of contributors, mechanical 
edits, or a bulk import.


We don't want to encourage difficult to consume tagging approach. This 
is why we will not use disused=yes. (#111)


The wiki is a source I use, but just one among many.

A good read is Andy's comment about changing tags: 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/230#issuecomment-29238913. 
It is related.


And of course, all of this is done in a limited amount of available 
time. If I decide to work on something with the style it means I'm not 
working on a different part of it. It's zero sum for me, and I always 
have more I can work on. Rendering new types of features is about bottom 
of the priority list for me right now.



Would you render a tag without a wiki entry, or with just a proposal?
In principle, if it were an established tag? Yes. It's very unlikely an 
established tag would not have a wiki page.
How does the fact that it may be useful to specific groups, ie, 
cyclists which has its own style impact your decisions?
I don't particularly consider the presence of specialist styles. There 
are styles for most topical interests these days.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals

[Warin]

On 19/03/2015 2:44 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:


On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Matthijs Melissen 
mailto:i...@matthijsmelissen.nl>> wrote:


As far as I know, we don't have a policy on which tags to include in
the rendering, and there is currently no consensus within the
development team on what the best policy would be. Personally I'm
trying to steer towards requiring an accepted proposal plus
documentation on the wiki before rendering a new tag, but I know not
all of the developers share this point of view. Currently, proposals
for newly rendered tags are currently discussed on a case by case
base.


Requiring an accepted proposal plus good documentation sound like a 
reasonable policy. I would probably add, that the tag is sufficiently 
used, and/or be very desirable. It is interesting that developers are 
discussing which tags to render as well as being discussed on the 
tagging mail list. It seems like we should have the benefit of both 
discussions. While not all tags need to be, or even should be 
displayed, I wonder if it might knowing if a tag is likely to be 
rendered would have an impact the acceptance of tags. It shouldn't, 
but it might sway voting.


Even more so, the decision by developers to add the tag to editors. I 
would think that having a tag supported by JOSM and iD would more 
quickly lead to its acceptance. Conversely, not including the tag 
could result in it being one of the many tags with limited use.


Voting is all well and good, but it seems like we need to encourage 
dialog with developers to support new tags or understand why they 
don't think the tag is worthwhile of their time and effort. I feel 
that voting should be just part of the approval process. If we, the 
mappers, feel like a new tag should be adopted, then we should make 
sure that developers share our belief. I am not saying that developers 
need to be part of the initial dialog. We would probaby scare them off 
from ever taling to us again!





I don't think renders will be interested so much in tags with low usage. 
And at the start new tags have low use thus they don't get rendered. 
Catch 22. So renders may not actually be too interested in the making of 
new tags?


To me (and I'm not a render) I'd render things that had a good wiki page 
with some idea of how to render it, lots of use and some 'significance' 
to the map .. the 'significance' will depend on the render and their 
desired application. For example cycle maps might include 'bicycle 
repair station' despite the low usage.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Matthijs Melissen  wrote:

> As far as I know, we don't have a policy on which tags to include in
> the rendering, and there is currently no consensus within the
> development team on what the best policy would be. Personally I'm
> trying to steer towards requiring an accepted proposal plus
> documentation on the wiki before rendering a new tag, but I know not
> all of the developers share this point of view. Currently, proposals
> for newly rendered tags are currently discussed on a case by case
> base.
>

Requiring an accepted proposal plus good documentation sound like a
reasonable policy. I would probably add, that the tag is sufficiently used,
and/or be very desirable. It is interesting that developers are discussing
which tags to render as well as being discussed on the tagging mail list.
It seems like we should have the benefit of both discussions. While not all
tags need to be, or even should be displayed, I wonder if it might knowing
if a tag is likely to be rendered would have an impact the acceptance of
tags. It shouldn't, but it might sway voting.

Even more so, the decision by developers to add the tag to editors. I would
think that having a tag supported by JOSM and iD would more quickly lead to
its acceptance. Conversely, not including the tag could result in it being
one of the many tags with limited use.

Voting is all well and good, but it seems like we need to encourage dialog
with developers to support new tags or understand why they don't think the
tag is worthwhile of their time and effort. I feel that voting should be
just part of the approval process. If we, the mappers, feel like a new tag
should be adopted, then we should make sure that developers share our
belief. I am not saying that developers need to be part of the initial
dialog. We would probaby scare them off from ever taling to us again!

Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 18 March 2015 at 21:43, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> Paul,
> Since you are involved with updating the rendering, can you tell us the
> process to decide what should be rendered? I realize that part of it must be
> stylistic, but what outside influences cause you to include a tag as part of
> the standard rendered OSM tile? Would you render a tag without a wiki entry,
> or with just a proposal?

I'm not Paul, but I can give you my view:
As far as I know, we don't have a policy on which tags to include in
the rendering, and there is currently no consensus within the
development team on what the best policy would be. Personally I'm
trying to steer towards requiring an accepted proposal plus
documentation on the wiki before rendering a new tag, but I know not
all of the developers share this point of view. Currently, proposals
for newly rendered tags are currently discussed on a case by case
base.

> How does the fact that it may be useful to specific groups, ie, cyclists
> which has its own style impact your decisions?

Objects aimed at specific user groups are less likely to be rendered,
and if they are rendered they will appear at higher zoomlevels. For
example, we don't render fire hydrants because they are of little
interest to the general public.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> Just as a clarification, this is for voting on what it takes to indicate a
> tag is approved on the wiki. It is not about if a tag is approved for use,
> as there is no such thing.
>
> No approval is needed to create a new tag, to render a tag, or to
> otherwise do something with a tag that has not passed a wiki vote.
>

Paul,
Since you are involved with updating the rendering, can you tell us the
process to decide what should be rendered? I realize that part of it must
be stylistic, but what outside influences cause you to include a tag as
part of the standard rendered OSM tile? Would you render a tag without a
wiki entry, or with just a proposal?

How does the fact that it may be useful to specific groups, ie, cyclists
which has its own style impact your decisions?

Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals

[Paul Norman]

On 3/18/2015 2:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I'd like to point to the tagging mailing list, where there is 
currently a discussion going on, whether the current voting system for 
voting proposals should be changed.
Just as a clarification, this is for voting on what it takes to indicate 
a tag is approved on the wiki. It is not about if a tag is approved for 
use, as there is no such thing.


No approval is needed to create a new tag, to render a tag, or to 
otherwise do something with a tag that has not passed a wiki vote.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks

[JB]

Le 18/03/2015 11:31, Janko Mihelić a écrit :

I'm not aware of any routers that routes across areas.

They do exist: http://moodwalkr.makina-corpus.net/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks

[Mike N]

Are there routers that do shortest-path routing across areas? I do
not have an example of an area without additional roads ready.


I'm not aware of any routers that routes across areas.


There's some prior work in OpenTripPlanner - 
http://blog.openplans.org/2012/06/b-roll-david-solves-the-plaza-problem-with-help-from-de-berg-and-matt-conway/ 
.   The odd cases come up quickly when there is a convex or concave area 
and deciding when to traverse it.


  I'm not sure if that work was rolled up into the current 
OpenTripPlanner repository though.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Maps on Wikimedia

[Enock Seth Nyamador]

Nice one!

- Enock
twitter: @Enock4seth
enockseth.blogspot.com | [[User:Enock4seth]]


On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Alex Rollin  wrote:

> +1 bravo!
>
> --
> Alex
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
> wrote:
>
>> From https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-
>> March/081243.html :
>> (You can login on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org with your Wikipedia
>> account too, among others.)
>>
>> 
>>
>> Hi, just a quick note: as part of general search and discovery work, me
>> and
>> Yuri are resurrecting the project to have OpenStreetMap in Wikimedia
>> starting in April. Because the initial part of this work will include
>> researching options which will influence precise goals and this is yet to
>> be done, we still can't commit to a precise timeline, but as a ballpark
>> estimate I personally want to aim for serving PNG tiles at a reasonable,
>> though not necessarily "dynamic maps on every WP page" scale by the end of
>> Q4. Vector/multilingual maps would be the next stage. We will be mostly
>> using Phabricator for planning,
>> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/openstreetmap/ is my first pass on
>> the outline of things to be done.
>>
>> Your comments and suggestions would be highly appreciated, please share
>> your thoughts, ideas of projects that might use these maps, or just
>> merciless critique! :D
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Fwd: Maps on Wikimedia

[Alex Rollin]

+1 bravo!

--
Alex

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> From https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-
> March/081243.html :
> (You can login on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org with your Wikipedia
> account too, among others.)
>
> 
>
> Hi, just a quick note: as part of general search and discovery work, me and
> Yuri are resurrecting the project to have OpenStreetMap in Wikimedia
> starting in April. Because the initial part of this work will include
> researching options which will influence precise goals and this is yet to
> be done, we still can't commit to a precise timeline, but as a ballpark
> estimate I personally want to aim for serving PNG tiles at a reasonable,
> though not necessarily "dynamic maps on every WP page" scale by the end of
> Q4. Vector/multilingual maps would be the next stage. We will be mostly
> using Phabricator for planning,
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/openstreetmap/ is my first pass on
> the outline of things to be done.
>
> Your comments and suggestions would be highly appreciated, please share
> your thoughts, ideas of projects that might use these maps, or just
> merciless critique! :D
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Maps on Wikimedia

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

From 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-March/081243.html :
(You can login on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org with your Wikipedia 
account too, among others.)




Hi, just a quick note: as part of general search and discovery work, me and
Yuri are resurrecting the project to have OpenStreetMap in Wikimedia
starting in April. Because the initial part of this work will include
researching options which will influence precise goals and this is yet to
be done, we still can't commit to a precise timeline, but as a ballpark
estimate I personally want to aim for serving PNG tiles at a reasonable,
though not necessarily "dynamic maps on every WP page" scale by the end of
Q4. Vector/multilingual maps would be the next stage. We will be mostly
using Phabricator for planning,
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/openstreetmap/ is my first pass on
the outline of things to be done.

Your comments and suggestions would be highly appreciated, please share
your thoughts, ideas of projects that might use these maps, or just
merciless critique! :D

--
Best regards,
Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks

[Volker Schmidt]

OK, my answer should have been more clear:

   1. we need a tag for the area: stay_on_path=yes|no
   2. we want routers to cross parks with stay_on_path=no
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks

[Dave F.]

On 18/03/2015 10:31, Janko Mihelić wrote:
2015-03-18 11:25 GMT+01:00 Maarten Deen >:



Are there routers that do shortest-path routing across areas? I do
not have an example of an area without additional roads ready.


I'm not aware of any routers that routes across areas.


With routers going 'mainstream' on OSM's front page, what a perfect time 
to amend that omission.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks

[Janko Mihelić]

2015-03-18 11:25 GMT+01:00 Maarten Deen :

>
> Are there routers that do shortest-path routing across areas? I do not
> have an example of an area without additional roads ready.
>

I'm not aware of any routers that routes across areas.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks

[Dave F.]

On 10/03/2015 17:02, Mike N wrote:

On 3/10/2015 12:56 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote:

If I understand correctly that you want routing to cross a park as long
as the way in and the way out are connected to the perimeter of the
park. This is only correct in parks where you are free to walk anywhere.
Most parks in continental Europe do not work this way. Typically, but
not always, you have to stay on the paths.

To solve this, one needs possibly a new (?) tag for parks like
stay_on_path=yes|no


I agree - there needs to be areas of general walk permission 
established before a router can include that area.


The vast majority of parks are public access & should be assumed as 
such. Access restrictions should be tagged. Similar to roads/path etc.


Dave F.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks

[Maarten Deen]

On 2015-03-10 17:56, Volker Schmidt wrote:

Subject: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks

For example let's use parks. Both of the foot routers won't cross
the
park unless there's a specific path way. However, as users can
wander
about anywhere they like there are no marked paths, not even worn
ground. (I would post an example but OSM has just gone down)


If I understand correctly that you want routing to cross a park as
long as the way in and the way out are connected to the perimeter of
the park. This is only correct in parks where you are free to walk
anywhere. Most parks in continental Europe do not work this way.
Typically, but not always, you have to stay on the paths.

To solve this, one needs possibly a new (?) tag for parks like
stay_on_path=yes|no


Isn't it better to tag areas where you are allowed to walk with foot=yes 
(when it is not already tagged as highway)? I don't know how routers 
handle leisure=park or landuse=grass combined with foot=yes.
Are there routers that do shortest-path routing across areas? I do not 
have an example of an area without additional roads ready.


Maarten



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks

[Dave F.]

On 10/03/2015 16:56, Volker Schmidt wrote:


Subject: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks

For example let's use parks. Both of the foot routers won't cross the
park unless there's a specific path way. However, as users can wander
about anywhere they like there are no marked paths, not even worn
ground. (I would post an example but OSM has just gone down)


 Most parks in continental Europe do not work this way. Typically, but 
not always, you have to stay on the paths.


To solve this, one needs possibly a new (?) tag for parks like 
stay_on_path=yes|no


You're talking about the opposite problem really: If there are tagged 
paths then the routers can easily transverse the area.


I'm trying to get them to cross an area when there are no defined paths 
& the whole area is accessible.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I'd like to point to the tagging mailing list, where there is currently a
discussion going on, whether the current voting system for voting proposals
should be changed.


This is the discussion so far:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.tagging/22969

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk