Re: [OSM-talk] Google satellite maps updates

[Christian Linder]

Hi Mark, afaik this resolution is available for the most demanded
regions for a long time. Please note that this is (afaik) not
satellite data, but aerial photographs made from a plane.

Best regards
Christian

2009/5/21 Maarten Deen :
> I haven't seen this anywhere, but it seems that Google is updating its 
> satellite
> maps with even higher resolution data.
> Compare what I previously knew as "best resolution":

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

[OSM-talk] [Tagging] Vote open: Hiking (Keys: sac_scale & trail_visibility)

[Christian Linder]

Hello everybody,

I request your votes on a classification scheme for hiking trails:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Hiking

Best regards
Chrischan
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] [Tagging] Request for Comments: Smoothness

[Christian Linder]

Hi everybody,

I request comments for the proposed key "Smoothness":

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Smoothness

Rationale:

Provide a very narrow, yet sufficient classification scheme regarding the
physical usability of a way for wheeled vehicles. In my opinion, it is
possible to adequately model this very important and broadly applicable
property of ways (think of racing bikes, wheel chairs, skates, sports cars)
by a very small set of values. The following table provides an overview of
the proposed tags with an examplary set of vehicles. Please note that this
proposal is *not* confined to this subset of wheeled vehicles. I rather
propose that *any* wheeled vehicle perfectly fits into one of those
categories, please correct me if I am wrong.


Best regards

Chrischan
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Osmosis/Mkgmap: Missing ways at tile borders

[Christian Linder]

I am using a Garmin 60CSx handheld. As you suggested, I looked at the tiles
in JOSM. The problem is the same:

In the original osm file, the way is contiguous:

---

I call osmosis with something like

bzcat ~/Desktop/germany.osm.bz2 | java -Xmx512M -jar
~/osm/osmosis/osmosis.jar --rx file=/dev/stdin enableDateParsing=no --tee 2
--bb left=8 right=9 bottom=50.9 top=51 completeWays=yes
completeRelations=yes --bb left=8 right=9 bottom=51 top=51.1
completeWays=yes completeRelations=yes --wx e008n50-e009n51.osm --wx
e008n51-e009n52.osm

This gives me two tiles, but right at the border between the two tiles (at
51 degree north), there is one segment missing as one tile contains only
data north of the border, the other contains only data south of the border:

--- ---

I reproduced it with different tiles several times, and when I download the
german states from
Geofabrik<http://download.geofabrik.de/osm/europe/germany/>and try to
concatenate them to one map for the whole of germany, it is the
same problem.
So I am kind of confident it is not me doing something wrong.
Any suggestions?


2008/4/2, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:24 AM, Christian Linder <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > I am trying to split osm data into 1x1 degree tiles with OSMOSIS, then I
> > want to use MKGMAP to create maps for GARMIN devices, assembled from these
> > tiles. Although I use the flags "completeWays=yes" and
> > "completeRelations=yes" in OSMOSIS, there are always some segments missing
> > right at the border between tiles if I look at the map on my GARMIN device.
> > Before I investigate further, does anyone happen to know about this issue,
> > and wether it is a problem of OSMOSIS, MKGMAP or the GARMIN device?
> >
> > Best regards
> > Chrischan
> >
>
> I wrote the "completeWays" and "completeRelations" addition for Osmosis.
> I'm not aware of any problem with it. Try loading the resulting tile into
> JOSM to see what's going on. Also, which Garmin device are you using? I'm
> not aware of any issues with the handheld variety, but the Nuvi, etc. work
> just a bit differently and it's possible that's where the problem lies.
>
> Karl
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Osmosis/Mkgmap: Missing ways at tile borders

[Christian Linder]

Hi everybody,

I am trying to split osm data into 1x1 degree tiles with OSMOSIS, then I
want to use MKGMAP to create maps for GARMIN devices, assembled from these
tiles. Although I use the flags "completeWays=yes" and
"completeRelations=yes" in OSMOSIS, there are always some segments missing
right at the border between tiles if I look at the map on my GARMIN device.
Before I investigate further, does anyone happen to know about this issue,
and wether it is a problem of OSMOSIS, MKGMAP or the GARMIN device?

Best regards
Chrischan
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tag proposal/approval system is too heavyweight

[Christian Linder]

IMHO, this great project only makes sense if tagging converges to one
logical and clearly defined schema in the end. The whole point of the
project is making one aspect of reality (geography) computer-readable. If
the tagging doesnt converge to a common schema, it is not understandable by
computers. I would then rather call it "reduced feature aerial photography".

In addition to that, IMO it is absolutely required to have a recommendation
for beginners. And this RECOMMENDATION is all we talk about, right? This is
what people on the proposed features page vote on. Everybody can tag
whatever (s)he wants, but what is the point in presenting the beginner 8
different possible tagging schemes? Some people just want to tag, they do
not want to read 4 pages of discussion just to make a conscious decision on
how to tag something. What we need AT LEAST is a list of whats rendered in
which renderer, but since there might be un unlimited number of renderers,
this will get very tedious.

I clearly believe that

> Frederik wrote:
> that we didn't have a fixed ontology from the start, because it
> would have (a) cost too much time to create and (b) turned out to be
> insufficient at the earliest opportunity

What I dont believe is

> Frederik wrote:
> The "evolutionary" way we
> tag the world is one of the key distinguishing factors between OSM
> and anything else, one of the big pillars of our success

If this means the evolution of the map, I agree. If it means the evolution
of the tagging schema, I dont.
In my opinion, if there would have been a good and complete tagging schema,
and adherence to this schema would have been enforced, the project would
have had even more success.
But this is a pointless argument, as it would have been impossible to start
off with a perfect schema.

> Richard wrote:
> Unfortunately Map Features may be diverging from the community. Tags
> are proposed and voted on by a very small subset of people

If they are diverging from the mapping community, I dont see a problem. As a
matter of fact there are people that enjoy discussing map features and some
others that enjoy looking up how something has to be mapped and just mapping
it. If the renderers adhere to the recommended map features, the mapping
community will either have to get involved in discussion or accustom to the
changes. Plus, in a project in its exponential growth phase, the number of
new members adhering to the recommendation will soon be higher than the
number of old taggers that havent realized the change.
If map features are diverging from the renderers *and* from the mapping
community, I definitely see a problem here.

I can see how voting is a PITA and not representative either. Still, it is
IMHO better than not voting, because it requires at least *some* agreement.
And after that, there is ONE recommendation. Ofcourse, the decision can be
challenged any time later, but thats the whole point of an open project.
Then, again, there would be ONE recommendation.

The only alternative I see is a page with a couple of *well-defined*
alternatives (that have to be voted on?), each accompanied by usage
statistics and information about which renderer supports it and which
doesnt.

Best regards
Chrischan
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] [tagging] Request for Comments: Hiking

[Christian Linder]

Hi everybody,

I propose a classification scheme for hiking trails.

Rationale:

   - Especially for mountain trails, it is crucial to know wether a trail
   can be done in sneakers or wether you need ice axe and climbing irons.
   - Since Google Maps and the like are pretty unusable for hiking
   (because they denote only very few trails), this is a region where OSM can
   be of great value soon and for a long time.
   - Many mountaineers already utilize GPSs. It would be great to win as
   many of them as possible as contributers to OSM.

As far as I know, there is no internationally standardized classification
schema. Thus, I propose to incorporate the classification of the Swiss
Alpine 
Club(source
in german). Not because I am from Switzerland (I am not), but
because in my humble opinion this one is easy to understand and well
defined.

Please comment the proposal at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Hiking

Best regards

Chrischan
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk