Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 99, Issue 53
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:45:23 +0100 From: Celso Gonz?lez ce...@mitago.net To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] openBmap - open geodata project seems to need help Message-ID: 20121130104523.ga7...@mitago.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 09:50:14PM +, David Ebling wrote: Hi all, I'm new to the mailing list here, though a long-time OSM contributor (user daveemtb). I have tried to search the archives to check this hasn't been covered recently but sorry if I missed it. There's a really interesting project at http://www.openbmap.org/ which is an open database of WiFi access points and mobile phone cell locations, IDs etc. it also makes use of OSM maps. I think it has a lot of potential to allow location based services to operate on a wide variety of devices without relying on closed geodata from Google etc (sound familiar?) Unfortunately the project seems to be struggling from a lack of help from people with the relevant technical expertise. (I contacted the people currently running the project). They are currently unable to update the maps of cells etc - there seems to be plenty in the database that isn't showing on maps yet, and I know from OSM how important rendering data is in encouraging people to contribute. Is there anyone who would be able to help these guys out? Unfortunately my web coding and Android app writing skills are absolutely non-existant or I'd chip in myself. I've been looking the source code trying to help but they only have the binaries in sourceforge Its an interesting project and i will try to help -- Celso Gonz?lez (@PerroVerd) Celso, Great to hear that someone may be able to help. From looking at the Sourceforge page, I think the source is in GIT. Does this mean any more to you than to me? :-s There seems to be a link under code on sourceforge. As another poster mentioned off-list, maybe I should try and learn how to render a map using their data... Unfortunately I don't even know where to start yet... Regards, David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] openBmap - open geodata project seems to need help
Hi all, I'm new to the mailing list here, though a long-time OSM contributor (user daveemtb). I have tried to search the archives to check this hasn't been covered recently but sorry if I missed it. There's a really interesting project at http://www.openbmap.org/ which is an open database of WiFi access points and mobile phone cell locations, IDs etc. it also makes use of OSM maps. I think it has a lot of potential to allow location based services to operate on a wide variety of devices without relying on closed geodata from Google etc (sound familiar?) Unfortunately the project seems to be struggling from a lack of help from people with the relevant technical expertise. (I contacted the people currently running the project). They are currently unable to update the maps of cells etc - there seems to be plenty in the database that isn't showing on maps yet, and I know from OSM how important rendering data is in encouraging people to contribute. Is there anyone who would be able to help these guys out? Unfortunately my web coding and Android app writing skills are absolutely non-existant or I'd chip in myself. Also, it should be possible to run the openBmap Android app in the background while recording OSM traces. Being able to contribute data to two open data projects at once seems pretty neat to me! There are other databases (such as wigle.net) out there aiming to collect similar data via crowdsourcing, only to use the data for commercial purposes, which are getting more data contributions at the moment! :( I suspect this is because the tools and output are better. And I think people have debated integrating the data into OSM. I think this is impossible because triangulation between different observations over time is needed, even if it was desirable (which I'm not sure it is). Anyway, hope this is of interest to some of you! I've found mapping wifi and cell locations to be an interesting add-on to OSM mapping. David E ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Crawley, UK, streets completed
Just a little trumpet-blowing announcement ;) After about 18 months steady adding, I now believe I have completed Crawley, West Sussex, UK (population 100k+) in terms of streets and street names. http://osm.org/go/eurnrkJ?layers=000BFTF I'm planning to take a bit of a break from OSM for a while, though I'll probably make minor additions here and there. I've updated the status page on the wiki in case any one else wants to do any work there meanwhile: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Crawley Daveemtb ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Removing home point cloud(s) from multiple GPX files
Thanks Ian, What I would really like is not to remove clouds automatically, but to be able to specify several circles of exclusion; around but not quite centred on my home, my workplace, and certain relatives houses from which I have started and ended many tracks. I'd then like to be able to easily process large numbers of files in a batch with this. It's not necessarily true that there are massive clouds in each individual file (though some probably do), but you end up with a cloud from all the files added together that clearly indicate where you live/work etc, and produces an area on the map where a cloud hides useful data. Ideally users would be able to save the exclusion zones they have set, to make processing future files easier. It is rarely useful to save large numbers of points from route outside these locations as the chances are they will already have been thoroughly mapped. Regards, David --- On Sat, 18/4/09, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: From: Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Removing home point cloud(s) from multiple GPX files To: David Ebling dave_ebl...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Date: Saturday, 18 April, 2009, 12:21 AM [off-list] David, can you send me a sample file? I'd be happy to write something that consumes a GPX file and tries to pull out the points that are clumped together like that. Or maybe you've already figured out a solution to your problem and don't need such a thing. Let me know, Ian On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:21 PM, David Ebling dave_ebl...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: During the downtime I figured I should really catch up with cleaning up my huge backlog of GPX files and prepare them for upload. I have many many hours of tracks on my HDD that I have not uploaded because many of them are polluted with point clouds around my house and my relatives' houses. I am not happy to upload these for privacy reasons and also for data purity reasons. I am not very command line compatible, and can't find *any* gui tool for Mac or Windows that will let me do this. GPX Babel only seems to let you remove points outside a radius not inside the radius, unless you use the exclude option which appears to be command line only. It also takes lat and long in an annoying format (decimal minutes, neither decimal degrees nor degrees, minutes and seconds.) It also seems only to be able to process one file at a time on the Mac version I've played with. Is there any program out there that will do this easily? If not OSM would really benefit from one, as I think there are many people like me who aren't uploading GPX because cleaning them up is simply too much effort. Here's my idea for someone with more programming skills than me: -A dialogue box that uses an OSM slippy map to draw circles of exclusion on the map, with a guidance note suggesting that they are near and covering but not exactly centred on your home/work/other point cloud locations. -Ability to batch process that's user friendly -Output to a new folder -Ideally, upload direct to OSM, to be considerate to other users, perhaps over a specified time interval. Any programmers out there want to take up this idea while we have some down time? :D Please? :) I'll upload lots of GPX files in return! ;) Thanks, Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Removing home point cloud(s) from multiple GPX files
During the downtime I figured I should really catch up with cleaning up my huge backlog of GPX files and prepare them for upload. I have many many hours of tracks on my HDD that I have not uploaded because many of them are polluted with point clouds around my house and my relatives' houses. I am not happy to upload these for privacy reasons and also for data purity reasons. I am not very command line compatible, and can't find *any* gui tool for Mac or Windows that will let me do this. GPX Babel only seems to let you remove points outside a radius not inside the radius, unless you use the exclude option which appears to be command line only. It also takes lat and long in an annoying format (decimal minutes, neither decimal degrees nor degrees, minutes and seconds.) It also seems only to be able to process one file at a time on the Mac version I've played with. Is there any program out there that will do this easily? If not OSM would really benefit from one, as I think there are many people like me who aren't uploading GPX because cleaning them up is simply too much effort. Here's my idea for someone with more programming skills than me: -A dialogue box that uses an OSM slippy map to draw circles of exclusion on the map, with a guidance note suggesting that they are near and covering but not exactly centred on your home/work/other point cloud locations. -Ability to batch process that's user friendly -Output to a new folder -Ideally, upload direct to OSM, to be considerate to other users, perhaps over a specified time interval. Any programmers out there want to take up this idea while we have some down time? :D Please? :) I'll upload lots of GPX files in return! ;) Thanks, Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Sat Nav idiocy in Todmorden
I think a lot of you probably saw this news story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/7962212.stm I thought people might be interested to see the location on Multimap, which has some nice bird's eye photos too. http://www.multimap.com/s/10OO0OsQ Indeed, it seems TeleAtlas thinks it is a road, called Watty Lane. According to the BBC, it was passable by motor vehicles 50 years ago. I see that since the incident, Welshie has mapped the path concerned in OSM from NPE :) Great idea! http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.70574lon=-2.10938zoom=15layers=0B00FTF I notice the footpath is well tagged with : psv: no foot: yes created_by: Potlatch 0.10f highway: footway surface: dirt hgv: no bus: no source: NPE car: no hehe! I hope that the unclassified road that has been mapped from NPE next to it is correct! David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Yay! OSM maps on NoniGPSplot
Good news for windows mobile users! NoniGPSplot (donation ware) now displays OSM maps (amongst others) in real time if you have a data connection, and allows you to record tracks and waypoints, including voice points. Finally I have an all in one system that can show me what needs mapping and record tracks and waypoints that works on my HTC TyTN II! :D David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Yay! OSM maps on NoniGPSplot
Oops sorry, forgot the link: http://aeguerre.free.fr/Public/PocketPC/NoniGPSPlot/EN/index.php David --- On Fri, 27/3/09, David Ebling dave_ebl...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: From: David Ebling dave_ebl...@yahoo.co.uk Subject: Yay! OSM maps on NoniGPSplot To: talk@openstreetmap.org Date: Friday, 27 March, 2009, 7:49 PM Good news for windows mobile users! NoniGPSplot (donation ware) now displays OSM maps (amongst others) in real time if you have a data connection, and allows you to record tracks and waypoints, including voice points. Finally I have an all in one system that can show me what needs mapping and record tracks and waypoints that works on my HTC TyTN II! :D David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] (Accidental?) vandalism on Isle of Wight
I just spotted this on the Isle of Wight: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.6987lon=-1.3484zoom=14layers=0B00FTF It looks like an extra road added, but it could be an existing way has been damaged, as it appears to be marked as a tertiary road. I can't access the history/data/edit features from my computer at work, does anyone fancy taking a look and fix it and/or messaging the user concerned, and maybe point them to the play function in Potlatch, assuming the edits were done with Potlatch? Thanks, Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-newbies] Trunk and primary roads in Britain
Mike, I don't believe that all A roads will be re-signed with green signs. There is still a distinction between (former) trunk roads and other A-roads. Green signed roads are generally more important roads, and usually built to a better standard. I think the current OSM situation is far more sensible than tagging roads according to who maintains them, which is far harder to ascertain, and of little interest to people reading maps. Most other maps I've seen are similar to OSM (eg http://www.streetmap.co.uk/idl.srf?X=301500Y=525500A=YZ=120lm=1 for OS) or have a totally arbitrary mix of colours for green-signed roads, which often make no sense. (eg http://www.multimap.com/s/B2JuJ4Qw) cf OSM: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.6127lon=-3.5277zoom=14layers=0B00FTF Regards, David --- On Tue, 30/12/08, Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com wrote: From: Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com Subject: [OSM-newbies] Trunk and primary roads in Britain To: newb...@openstreetmap.org Date: Tuesday, 30 December, 2008, 9:10 AM Advice please for a relative newbie. Until the mid-1990s, trunk roads in Britain were managed by a central government agency (in England, the Highways Agency) and other roads, including other primary roads, were managed by local authorities. All primary roads were numbered A (n - up to 4 digits) - many maps (including the Ordnance Survey) further distinguished trunk roads by adding a descriptor thus A (T). OSM largely, but not entirely, reflects this historical situation with the separate tags highway:trunk and highway:primary being differently rendered (e.g. green for trunk and red for primary in Osmarender). The comment for trunk roads on the map features main page of the OSM Wiki reads: Important roads that aren't motorways. Typically maintained by central, not local government. Need not necessarily be a divided highway. In the UK, all green signed A roads are, in OSM, classed as 'trunk'. and for primary roads: Administrative classification in the UK, generally linking larger towns. Unfortunately, in the mid-1990s nearly all trunk roads in Britain were de-trunked and their maintenance transferred from central to local government (in England, for example, the Highways Agency). There are now very few trunk roads in the country - see map at http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/6151.htm . This change is reflected in most recent mapping (including the OS - note how the (T) suffix has disappeared from almost all A roads that formerly had it) - except OSM! If we take the current legal situation at face value, we should logically change in OSM most of the roads tagged as trunk to primary - and this would best be done wholesale rather than piecemeal (if this is possible). The current comments on the map features page are now at best confusing and perhaps incorrect. All A roads are green signed (or will be as older white signs are replaced) but almost all are maintained by local government - so the comment on trunk roads is now self-contradictory. AFAIK there is no administrative classification for primary roads other than as A roads - so the comment on primary road also contradicts the comment on trunk roads. Being a logical sort of person and wanting OSM to be up-to-date, I am tempted to change the advice in the Wiki and to change trunk to primary as I come across them via my GPX traces - but I don't want to act unilaterally. May I recommend strongly that we bring OSM up-to-date with the current administrative situation in Great Britain and reclassify trunk roads as primary wherever they have been detrunked? Is there a generic way of doing this centrally? (I am nowadays only a mapper and no longer a coder). mikh43 ___ newbies mailing list newb...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] data plucked from who-knows-where?
Large-scale I-plucked-this-out-of-my-ass creative mapping bearing no relation to the facts on the ground, like someone has just done in Cheadle, Staffordshire, UK: yeah, that probably deserves copyright protection. And taking outside and shooting. cheers Richard On a complete tangent to this conversation... I was curious about the area Richard mentioned, so looked it up: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.98283lon=-1.99189zoom=15layers=B000FTF And was amazed that someone has obviously put a lot of work into this, and yet it bears very little geometric similarity to this (for comparison only!): http://www.multimap.com/maps/?qs=cheadlecountryCode=GB#map=52.98372,-2.00288|15|4bd=useful_informationloc=GB:52.98896:-1.98721:14|cheadle|Cheadle,%20Stoke-on-Trent,%20Staffordshire,%20England,%20ST10%201 I know which I am inclined to believe... It also appears they have an unfortunate problem with caps lock on their computer, but that's beside the point. It seems someone is in desperate need of a GPS unit! :-s I wonder how easy it will be to improve the accuracy of data such as this, where the topology and road naming is probably mainly correct (I imagine they sketched maps as they went) but the geometry is way off. When I get a moment I'll have to look and see whether any GPS traces already in the system can be used to improve this area. Maybe we could even make a significant improvement with Landsat images? I do think innacurate data is better than none, but this area clearly needs some work! Regards, Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Recent changes to slippymap Mapnik rendering
I've noticed a lot of changes to the Mapnik slippymap rendering lately, and IMHO they are mainly not improvements. As the appearance of this map layer has a large impact on the public face of OSM, I think it's important to have lots of people discuss their views on this. Personally I don't like many of the recent changes because: -Everything's in pastel shades. Bold colours are clearer and look better. -Primary, trunk and secondary roads have no casing on them. This makes road junctions into a big mess, and you can't see what's what at all. -New icons are a bit pale. I think the old ones looked better. Although I can see reasons for making them smaller, I don't think they are as clear. -The road refs aren't centred properly in their boxes. This looks really poor. Also, they aren't as clear as the used to be. -Train stations were better in red than blue, as they stood out better. Again, I find the new colour too pale. -Road widths at z=17 seem too wide relative to other zoom levels. I appreciate the effort people are putting into trying to make the map look as good as possible, but I think we need more opinion input and discussion on what looks best. I'm really looking to spark discussion here, rather than be critical, though unfortunately all of my comments happen to be negative. I would go ahead and make what I think are improvements myself, but I don't know anything about tweaking rendering styles. Regards, Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Loading img file onto Garmin 60 CSx
I'm having trouble loading a map file onto a Garmin 60CSx for a relative. I've made a file using mkgmap, and loaded it onto the memory card in a folder called Garmin and placing it into it using a card reader. I put the card into the GPS, but it doesn't seem to recognise it as a map. I tried using the USB mass storage mode, and could see the map file in the Garmin file, as it should be according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Mkgmap#Installing Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong? Thanks! Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Loading img file onto Garmin 60 CSx
Many thanks - that was the problem! I hadn't renamed the file. I'll edit the wiki at some point to make this clearer. Most grateful! Dave --- On Fri, 3/10/08, Barnett, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Barnett, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Loading img file onto Garmin 60 CSx To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED], talk@openstreetmap.org talk@openstreetmap.org Date: Friday, 3 October, 2008, 9:40 PM Did you call the file 'gmapsupp.img' ? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OSM_Map_On_Garmin#Steps PHILLIP BARNETT SERVER MANAGER 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD LONDON WC1X 8XZ UNITED KINGDOM T +44 (0)20 7430 4474 F E [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://WWW.ITN.CO.UK P Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Ebling Sent: 03 October 2008 21:04 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Loading img file onto Garmin 60 CSx I'm having trouble loading a map file onto a Garmin 60CSx for a relative. I've made a file using mkgmap, and loaded it onto the memory card in a folder called Garmin and placing it into it using a card reader. I put the card into the GPS, but it doesn't seem to recognise it as a map. I tried using the USB mass storage mode, and could see the map file in the Garmin file, as it should be according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Mkgmap#Installing Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong? Thanks! Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Please Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. Thank You. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] no name map layer - no info on wiki?
I can't find any information on the wiki regarding the no name map layer that is now available on the home page. Is the search function useless or is this an omission that needs filling? If I knew how to create a new wiki page i'd start one... In particular I was looking for information on when the tiles are updated. Regards, Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] no name map layer - no info on wiki?
Thanks, I've added a very rudimentary wiki page. If someone with better wiki skills feels like some wikignoming... :) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/NoName I'm sure there's plenty more useful information that could be added too. Dave --- On Mon, 29/9/08, Shaun McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Shaun McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] no name map layer - no info on wiki? Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Date: Monday, 29 September, 2008, 1:16 PM David Ebling wrote: I can't find any information on the wiki regarding the no name map layer that is now available on the home page. Is the search function useless or is this an omission that needs filling? If I knew how to create a new wiki page i'd start one... A wiki page needs to be created for it. The best way to create pages on a wiki is to create a link to a non existent page, on a page that should link to it, then after you have saved that page, you can click the link to create it. In particular I was looking for information on when the tiles are updated. They are updated weekly, usually on a Thursday after the planet dump the previous day. Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Possible PD data source?
I stumbled across this on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Map_Library and wondered if it's a potential data source? They seem to be making available public domain GIS data for Africa and South America, but I don't know how much of it is useful. At the very least it seems to contain administrative boundaries that aren't yet shown on OSM maps. Regards, Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Madeira - calling all Yahoo tracing enthusiasts
A relative was looking for maps of Madeira the other day, and it struck me that Openstreetmap has infintely better coverage of Madeira than Google maps (non-existent) or Multimap/Live maps (turning on aerial views shows their Navteq/AND data to be massively innacurate) Yahoo maps on the other hand has decent coverage. It struck me that we could perhaps use Madeira as a showcase for OSM, but perhaps some further work is needed first. I also noticed that at least some of the island has reasonable quality high-res Yahoo images. I have started some *cautious* tracing work on the most obvious roads (I know it's easy to create hugely innacurate maps by tracing, putting roads where there are none - I've seen it in OSM first hand :( ) tagging as highway=road. If anyone else cares to join me, I think we could improve coverage quite rapidly. The aforementioned relative is soon travelling to Madeira with a GPS, and I think I can persuade him to bring back a bunch of track files, though I think they are unlikely to be annotated. It seems showing that OSM can provide better quality maps than some of the commercial offerings is likely to persuade him to contribute them. Now all I need to do is figure out how to make a decent Garmin format OSM map for him! Regards, Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 48, Issue 77
Peter, The same idea has occurred to me also. I think far from developing this being a waste of time, I think it is highly desirable from the point of view of avoiding multiple ways sharing a set of nodes, which makes editing a nightmare. It seems all round the most elegant solution for multiple areas to me, and I agree, it should include the multipolygon functionality. Regards, Dave ---original message follows--- Personally I prefer to recommend that you definer the area of grass using a separate way that uses the same nodes as the residential road, but which is certainly a separate way from the road. You may prefer to define it as a separate way using separate nodes as this can make editing easier in the short term, however Richard explained yesterday on talk how to use '/' to select from the different ways associated with the same node which I will investigate. Using the approach you have tried is definitely to be discouraged imho, and mixes up two different things into one way. As a longer term discussion I am interested in morphing the 'multi-polygon' relation into a 'polygon' relation so it can be used as an alternative ways of defining areas. The relation would need to allow a number of linear features to form the boundary of the area. The relation would then hold the tags that are associated with the area (in this case 'landuse=grass'). The relation could also be able to refer to zero or more 'inner' areas which can be defined in a similar way to define 'holes' in polygons. This approach allows a single 'edge' to be part of a number of areas (I gave the example of the edge of a park also being the boundary for the borough in a previous post). Currently the approach of using boundary:left=Ipswich for part of the boundary is not compatible with have a single way defining the area of the park. I am also advocating that we dump the current boundary left: and right: tagging in favour of using the 'boundary' relation for boundaries. I might come up with a technical demonstrator for this in the near future so explore how it might work in practice. There is more discussion on polygons and relations here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Talk:Relation:multipolygon And the boundary relation here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Boundaries If this approach was used we would be able to run with both coding systems in the short term and possibly then deprecate ways being used for areas and boundaries in the longer term. Any other thoughts? Am I wasting my time on this idea, or do others see value in it? Is so would it be useful to produce some trial rendering or would someone like to make osmarender or Mapnik handle it? Regards, Peter(Ito) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
Steve, I would suggest you reconsider doing this. I would strongly support the use of highway=road for new roads that no information is available for, eg from a trace that was done with a car but no notes were made. However, by retagging unclassified to road you are essentially deleting information from the database that you don't know to be incorrect. Sure, if you know the classification is correct, change it, but don't just delete it - it could be correct. For what it's worth, I work on the following basis for UK road classifications: * trunk/primary/secondary - as signed. * tertiary - other roads that predominantly have a white line of some sort down the centre. These tend to be wider roads used by more traffic. I believe OS maps use a similar distinction, and I think it's useful for planning routes, both with a map or automatically. * unclassified - roads without a centre line. If they are too narrow for passing, I add lanes=1. On this basis I have mapped a great number of unclassified roads. It would be a real shame if you deleted this information that I had carefully collected. I accept that there are a large number of incorrectly tagged roads out there, but correct them, don't delete info on the offchance. Regards, David Message: 2 Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:36:03 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads To: talk@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Following the approval of the highway=road tag, I've set about aggressively changing a lot of the highway=unclassified roads around Swansea, that I believe are misclassified, to highway=road, with the intention that they can then be surveyed and reclassified correctly. However, after starting to do this, I've realised just how many of the roads are misclassified - I'd estimate that well over 80% of the roads tagged as highway=unclassified are, infact, not unclassified roads. So I'm wondering about the merits of changing *all* the highway=unclassified roads in the area to highway=road so that the whole lot can be classified appropriately from scratch. This would make it obvious which roads really are unclassified and which need to be checked. What are peoples' views on this? I imagine that much of the OSM world is affected in the same way, and this renders the highway=unclassified tag relatively meaningless in it's current state. Should there be a global reclassification to fix this, or is there a better way? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ __ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Wiki server issues?
Not sure whether this is the right email list - can't check the wiki to find out, so sorry if not! I've been having intermittent problems accessing the wiki for the last few days. Have tried from different internet connections. Is the server up the creek? Thanks, David __ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 44, Issue 107
I don't know if I count as a new user (started late 2007) but I can't see any benefit from this namespace business. I'm technically minded, but not an expert geek by any means, and not familiar with the concept of namespaces. On this occasion I find Ockham's Razor convincing. i.e. K.I.S.S. If something adds no benefit, (and I've been following this bizarre discussion and have yet to be convinced of any benefit whatsoever) then why should we add a whole load more characters to loads of the tags we add to things? It will lead to more typos, more errors, more confusion about correct tagging, increase the size of the db, and raise the barrier to entry for OSM contributors. It's already quite challenging for some new members to get the hang of the editors, and getting harder with things like relations. We don't want OSM data to only make sense to people familiar with the concept of namespaces do we? Or was that the intention? Lets keep OSM as accessible as possible. Dave -- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:00:31 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging climbing routes and scrambles To: Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: OSM Talk talk@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote: a Good Thing, but you can't tell me why, and you ignore my reasons why not. Nope, I told you why, as did other people. This is the problem dude, you don't get why you're doing it. I understand exactly why I'm doing it. I like to know why I'm doing something, and dislike being told because. So far you've not actually come up with anything except statements of belief, and a few potential non-uses. I'm in the same boat - I think the flat namespace is a really really bad idea and yet no one has actually come up with any good explanations as to why it is the right way to do things. The only explanation that seems to keep coming up is that new users find name spaces difficult - I am certainly not in a position to evaluate whether this is the case (although from my own perspective they are easier), and I don't believe you are in a position to comment on whether this is actually the case. In fact, the one relatively inexperienced user who has made a comment in this discussion seemed to indicate that nameapaces made things easier. - Steve ___ Yahoo! For Good. Give and get cool things for free, reduce waste and help our planet. Plus find hidden Yahoo! treasure http://green.yahoo.com/uk/earth-day/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
I'm firmly with Richard so far on this discussion. On one of the issues, Robert, your understanding of what A14 (A11) means seems very different to mine. If I understand you correctly, you're arguing the road should be tagged A11 because it has signs saying (A11) on it, meaning that it's part of at A11 route. As I understand it the sign says (A11) only because the road leads to the A11. Thus many other roads that lead to the A11 will have (A11) marked on signs, which do not fill a gap between two roads that are *actually* the A11, but just lead to a junction with the A11. eg: A14 | | A11--+ | | ++---A11 || || A14 B(A11) This B road is not in any sense part of the A11, but could have signs saying (A11). The direction signs link at http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/Signsandmarkings/index.htm states the following: Motorways shown in brackets can also be reached along the route indicated. Thus a slip road onto the M23 northbound could have a sign with M23 (M25) on it. In no sense is the M23 part of the M25, nor should it ever be tagged as such, nor included in a relation as such. Signs next to the carriageway away from junctions are just confirmation signs of which route you are on, and road references in brackets are still merely indicating that the route you are on leads to that road. I still don't understand the need to have a single contiguous relation for the A11. The A11 isn't contiguous. You could make a route relation, but I'm unsure of it's value. Dave Message: 6 Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:51:43 +0100 From: Robert (Jamie) Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant It's not subjective, it is officially signed - the signs say A14 (A11). This happens all over the place in the UK A roads network. Going back on topic, fundamentally, I can't see how you can argue that it is wrong to connect all the ways forming a large numbered road with a relationship, which seems to be what Richard is arguing. It seems to me that it is exactly what relationships are for. Robert (Jamie) Munro ___ Yahoo! For Good helps you make a difference http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 44, Issue 6
well, the attribution they want is so close to that demanded by cc-by-sa as to have no real-world difference whenever we display NZ we would have to display crown copyright somewhere totally undermines the purpose of not necessarily - the settled upon option appears to be a link on the map page pointing to the attribution page, where all data sources are listed. the link doesn't change, nether does the text on the front page, or the attribution page the CC-by-SA licence - to make sure people know that the data is freely available. the two (copyright and cc-by-sa) don't have to contradict each other True, I acknowledge that, but requiring two seperate attributions for OSM data is going to be confusing to people who use the data. So far we have managed to get by on just one attribution. well, the license is the overriding point here, and it says anyone can do whatever they want, as long as the source of the data is acknowledged. anyone can change, add, remove, merge, whatever and they (linz) and we (osm) won't mind. I am not arguing about the license. I don't consider myself competent to say whether the licenses are compatible. What I am bothered about is having to change the attribution on all OSM derived data involving NZ. we're not proposing to undermine anything - anyone can still take the osm dataset and do with it as they wish, so long as they follow the (very brief) rules laid down in cc-by-sa. adding in the linz data does not change anything in that regard It changes the attribution which all data derived from OSM (where NZ is involved) must display to one which is considerably longer. At the moment you can just put (c)openstreetmap CC-by-SA in the bottom corner of a map, right? Won't all derivations and derivations of derivations have two licences and attributions applied to it, even if they are compatible? The fact that we can provide a set-up on the OSM home page that meets LINZ's requirements is one thing. Whether everyone who ever uses the data in future wants to have to display LINZ's copyright is another matter, and the one that concenrs me more. Imagine if we import data for many counries in the world, each with an extra attribution. Now imagine if I print a map and put it on a leaflet, incorporate the data or a map into some software, etc etc. There may not be easy attribution schemes that meet all the possible uses of OSM data. If we carry on down this path and keep adding attribution requirements, we will end up with a map that meets this description: maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive or unexpected ways. Does that sound familiar? It's things like this that make me wish that OSM was public domain not CC-by-SA. Unfortunately I know this will never happen. agreed, it is a big step - it does need to be discussed and analysed in great depth and of course, we can go back, if the data is labelled as being sourced from linz Except that all the other data in NZ will end up being linked to the Linz data set, surely? - for example, if someone adds a footpath that links to two roads that came from the Linz data set, what happens to the ends of that footpath? What if it only has two or three nodes? And if someone corrects the name of a road in the Linz dataset, or adds a bus stop to a node, etc etc. As soon as the dataset is imported, it will begin to be merged with OSM data. Removing it again will mean deleting peoples' hard work. So I believe we should be in no rush whatsoever to go ahead, even if we have agreement from LINZ with the proposed solution. Regards, Dave __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Inbox http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Garmin maps with SRTM countours and OSM data?
Hi all, just wondering if anyone can help me - I want to make a Garmin .IMG file of the whole of cumbria that includes NASA SRTM data, as the IMG files from here do: http://www.smc.org.uk/ContourMaps.htm but i'd also like to have OSM road, footpath, cycle path etc data on there too. The Garmin unit i'm trying to use it on is a 60Csx, which doesn't seem able to display more than one map for an area at a time, so i'm not able to have the SRTM data in one map file and the OSM/MapSource data in another, and show both at once. Can anyone help with this? I would like to do the same for the south downs area too once I've worked out how to do this? I'm not hugely familiar with the more technical aspects of this, and am working on windows. I am pretty computer literate though. Thanks for any help, David __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. More Ways to Keep in Touch. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Adding maps to wikipedia articles
Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote: Would there be a way to trigger automatic regeneration of maps? Perhaps on a monthly basis or something. Wasn't the hyperlink invented to solve this sort of problem? :-) Instead of putting up map graphics, why not just have a map link? Less pretty? Gerv Isn't there a way of making the actual map tiles from the tile server show up on wikipedia? Whether it's a type of slippy map or just a tile or four, is this feasible? Would it put too much load on the tile server? Dave ___ Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] relations in order not to
As far as I understand it, the idea is simply to qualify a tag with start and end node. I.e. you have a way that goes from node A, B, C to Z, but from B to D and from M to P it is a pedestrian road. So, old scheme: split way into 5 parts (3 non-pedestrian, 2 pedestrian) and tag accordingly. scheme with superway relation: split way into 5 parts and create one relation to contain them all; add all common tags to relation; add pedestrian tag to 2 ways. scheme with qualified tag relations: do not split way. create two relations that each contain the way, plus the start and end node (B/D for relation 1 and M/P for relation 2), plus the special tag (pedestrian). Am I the only one reading this discussion thinking that editing on OSM is going to get so complicated that we'll have very few new contributors, and certainly not many non-techies? I agree that segmenting roads is not ideal, but I'm just trying to think about the way that relation data will be presented to users for editing with either of these two models. Perhaps that's cart before horse, but it worries me. I started playing with OSM just after segments had been done away with, and sometimes I wonder why that happened, not having ever used them. It seems to me that the current proposals regarding ways/relations are somewhat similar to segments/ways. The qualified tag approach seems like ways become what was segments, except they cover more than one node, and the relations become what was ways... or am I misunderstanding somewhat? I feel that the term relation for something that is basically a meta-data-carrying way will be confusing for newcomers. The use of relation for saying that two ways are related makes more sense. Sorry for the rambling stream-of-conciousness, anyway! Dave __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Japanese place names not rendered in Mapnik
Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but Japanese isn't being rendered in Mapnik properly - I am just seeing a rectangle for each character. eg http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.711lon=139.869zoom=11layers=B0FT Anyone know what to do about this? Thanks, Dave __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
