Re: [Talk-us] TIGER 2010 Imports
I just tried this tool and the results it gives are incorrect. For example, it shows this area as unedited and that is 100% incorrect. http://open.mapquestapi.com/tigerviewer/index.html?zoom=17lat=37.82347lon=-122.19419layers=B -Dave On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: OSM: http://open.mapquestapi.com/tigerviewer/index.html?zoom=9lat=40.07546lon=-76.32layers=B ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Automatically adding open wireless access points
I think putting these on the map would be a good thing. I would like to see them on the map. They should be identified and there should be an application that removes stale ones (part of the job of the app that adds them). -Dave On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@googlemail.com wrote: I think that public access points are reasonable for the main db. It would be a lot of effort to set up a separate system, and they are only nodes after all. We do include bus routes after all, which would also be candidates for a different db. Graham Graham Jones (from my phone) On Mar 25, 2010 10:53 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: It's sometimes a tough call what belongs in the database, but all open access points seems to me not to fit. It certainly seems like a good candidate for a separate database also under a cc license. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ 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] Google Street View copyright question
Perhaps the OSM database should be moved out of the EU to a location that doesn't suffer from a Database Rights law.Extracting from no-EU data source by people not in the EU would then be okay for sure. Extending the Database Rights law to extracting turn restrictions from Streetview is a stretch anyway: they turn restrictions aren't part of the original data. -Dave On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Tom Hughest...@compton.nu wrote: On 09/09/09 11:46, Roy Wallace wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan Bennettopenstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: There's a difference between using one fact from a newspaper article, and systematically extracting data from a database to reuse in another database. Is there a difference between 1) using one fact from a newspaper article to use in another database, and 2) using one fact from a database to use in another database? Can you clarify exactly what that difference is why one is legal while the other is not (if that is indeed what you're implying)? Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits substantial extraction. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ 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] Google Street View copyright question
Has anyone set a letter to Google's legal department asking for clarification or permission? -Dave On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Anthonyo...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, there is some other, more practical arguments why such checking isn't healthy thing to do. First of all, it's still just another source, not field check. Second, it is quite interesting what happens when you *check* that name of the street you wrote down is wrong. Can you write down name in Google Street View? I guess it is copying. Fact copying, but nevertheless. Fact copying en masse = substantial extraction. So it is still if you find name wrong, you theoretically can't copy name from GSV and still have to go outside and check it yourself. So it's a little self-defeating. If the fact is binary (can turn left/can't turn left), then checking is equal to copying, right? It'd definitely help when turning a single Tiger way into a dual carriageway, to be able to use Google Street View rather than finding someone willing to drive me around while I take pictures of every intersection, or, I guess more realistically, just zooming in on the Yahoo aerial and guessing. ___ 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] Google Street View copyright question
Google's forbids many things, but looking at an image and noting the turn restrictions (or other content) that you can see within it is not mentioned. Such a use is not covered by 2 (b) copy, translate, modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof; since the turn restrictions are something that you can see in the image -- not the image itself. -Dave On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Jonathan Bennettopenstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: Anthony wrote: Is it okay to use Google Street View to confirm turning restrictions, street names, etc? This seems like an obvious yes to me, but then, I would have said the same thing about tracing from a satellite photo, so I'm not going to try to guess international copyright law. The simple answer is that Street View is still protected by copyright, and that by using it you agree to Google's terms and conditions, so unless you have specific permission to derive data from it, it's safest to assume you can't. We're generally paranoid about copyright infringement because we don't want to jeopardise the entire project for the sake of a relatively small gain (Street View tends to cover urban areas, which are easier to survey in person anyway). You also need to consider that Street View still uses Google Maps as part of its interface (and possibly for the overlaid navigation data), so it's affected by the licence on that data. However, Google does own the Street View pictures themselves in their entirety. If they, with the location and bearing of each one was made available to OSM under terms compatible with CC-BY-SA (or ODBL), then we could use them. We would need a way of accessing the images that made no reference to any other geodata (so the standard web interface would be out). It's something we'd need to negotiate, but we can't do it at present, unfortunately. J. ___ 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] How can wide intersections be mapped?
I walk past the junction frequently. I could take a photo. The aerial imagery is quite good: what it doesn't capture is that cross rd goes steeply down-hill and that there is a no-car zone near the tree. -Dave On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Shaun McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you have some photos of this junction? On 23 May 2008, at 01:01, David Muir Sharnoff wrote: I'm trying to figure out how to represent an intersection that is very wide: a traffic circle could placed in the middle without moving the edges. I've tried adding extra ways for various ways across the expanse but it doesn't look right. Suggestions? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.845598lon=-122.236367zoom=18layers=B0FT Thanks, -Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] How can wide intersections be mapped?
I'm trying to figure out how to represent an intersection that is very wide: a traffic circle could placed in the middle without moving the edges. I've tried adding extra ways for various ways across the expanse but it doesn't look right. Suggestions? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.845598lon=-122.236367zoom=18layers=B0FT Thanks, -Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] zoom yahoo data in potlatch?
You're right: that OAM imagery is very detailed. Unfortunately, it's not that good where I'm mapping. In Oakland, California, Yahoo! has two zoom levels beyond what Potlatch will display. It would be very helpful to me if Potlatch would display those zoom levels. Google has one (or two) more beyond Yahoo! Richard, can you add the please? -Dave On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Christopher Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 12:51:43PM +1200, Robin Paulson wrote: 2008/5/3 micha ruh [EMAIL PROTECTED]: in options, choose 'Aerial - OpenAerialMap' as background and you'll be fine hmm, i'm slightly baffled by that. the oam coverage for nz is appalling at best and as an aside, i'd be very surprised if it was better resolution than the yahoo imagery anywhere on the planet In the majority of the world, OAM and Yahoo! imagery are the same -- both based on Landsat. The difference, in those areas, is that OAM will display tiles far above 1:1 ratio, as opposed to just giving a 'no data' message. Additionally, I highly doubt you will see anything higher resolution than http://openaerialmap.org/map/?lat=37.79202lon=-122.32715zoom=21layers=BF in Yahoo! anywhere on the planet. Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt MetaCarta ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crazy ways after editing - A real argument for changeset data
I've now fixed the trouble. I used JOSM to do it. Here's what I did: 1. Figure out how to install JOSM, install/enable YWMS, download data. 2. Figure out how to use JOSM a bit. The key things for me where the select mode, the edit mode, zooming and panning with the keyboard. 3. Using potlatch, place a reference dot where the end of one of my broken ways should be. 4. Select all the broken stuff. For me that was both whole ways and selected points from partially-broken ways. 5. Tag them with notes3: Oakland Potlach Fubar 6. Using the scrolling keys, drag the whole lot of them half a screen at time back to where they should be. Since it's a problem that's created by Potlatch but needs JOSM to repair, it's going to be hard for anyone else who gets hit. That all said, I wish flash-zoom worked. I like Potlatch. In the hills of Oakland, it's really hard to see where the streets are even with flash-zoom. Often impossible without. Sometimes I have to compare to Google imagery which is MUCH better. -Dave On Feb 6, 2008 4:46 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David, I took a look at this area a little more closely with JOSM and I can see its not straight forwards to correct because it's not just one way that got moved but blocks of connected ways from what I can tell. Unfortunately they now lie over the top of other exiting ways so its difficult to select the ones effected so that they can be simply slid back. I think the only way to sort it will be to evaluate the history data for the nodes in the whole area. From this you can see which nodes (and hence ways) were moved at around the same time instance. For instance if I look at two connected ways that are displaced (6331826 and 6397132) and look at the node history for some of their nodes I can see that their position was last moved at a timestamp around 2008-02-04T04:32:24+00:00 they vary by some minutes in some cases so perhaps it took a while for all the changes to update to the database. Anyway, if a bit more checking was done it should be possible to automate a rollback for all the affected data. Would need someone perhaps to help with scripting that so perhaps David Hansen can assist with ideas. Another option might be to use last week's planet dump and do a compare and revert between the state last week and the state now. This will though mean you loose data from the time of planet last week to Feb 04 if a delete and re-insert is done. Lets hope the folks that are looking at change set info via the API can find us a long term solution to this problem as I'm sure its going to happen again soon. Hope this helps move things along for you. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of SteveC Sent: 06 February 2008 11:11 AM To: David Muir Sharnoff Cc: OSM-Talk Openstreetmap Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Crazy ways after editing David, There is also a talk-us list which may be of help in future. On 5 Feb 2008, at 18:46, David Muir Sharnoff wrote: The area of Oakland, California I've been editing (with Potlatch) suddenly changed in a very bad way. There are a whole bunch of ways (at least 50, perhaps a lot more) that have had one or more of their points move several miles south-east. A major street, Park Ave, seems to have disappeared entirely. Or, at least, I can't find it any more. Edit at this location to see: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.81886lon=- 122.21229zoom=16layers=B0FT Some example ways that are messed up: 6403309, Saint James Dr. 6380125, Somerset Rd 6365079, Pershing Dr 6391271, Indian Rd 6381464, Hampton Rd 6374990, Excelsior Ave 6359191, E 33rd St 6390297, Everett Ave Does anyone have any idea what happened or how to fix it? Thanks, -Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk have fun, SteveC | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.asklater.com/steve/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Crazy ways after editing
The area of Oakland, California I've been editing (with Potlatch) suddenly changed in a very bad way. There are a whole bunch of ways (at least 50, perhaps a lot more) that have had one or more of their points move several miles south-east. A major street, Park Ave, seems to have disappeared entirely. Or, at least, I can't find it any more. Edit at this location to see: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.81886lon=-122.21229zoom=16layers=B0FT Some example ways that are messed up: 6403309, Saint James Dr. 6380125, Somerset Rd 6365079, Pershing Dr 6391271, Indian Rd 6381464, Hampton Rd 6374990, Excelsior Ave 6359191, E 33rd St 6390297, Everett Ave Does anyone have any idea what happened or how to fix it? Thanks, -Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] : Crazy ways after editing
I've found my missing street. The many (all?) of the moved points are attached to it. Is there a way to move all the points in a way by several miles? It will be difficult to do manually. I wish Potlatch had a bookmark feature so I could teleport back and forth... The way is 6331826, Park Blvd. For example, point 53032784 needs to be moved on top of 24596866 and the rest of way 6331826 needs the same change. Thanks, -Dave On Feb 5, 2008 1:14 PM, Jukka Rahkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Muir Sharnoff lists at dave.sharnoff.org writes: Should I attempt to manually fix these ways? Since I don't know what caused the problem in the first place, I'm afraid to touch anything. Looking at the specific problems, I think that most of the points I touched during one longish editing session got moved several miles away (and all by the same amount). Some points from the session did not get relocated. For example, 6346890, Sotelo Ave is still fine. Yes, and that Flash zoom stopped working with the update to Potlatch 0.7, as has been discussed lately. It is dangerous now to use that otherwise very useful zooming option. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
