[OSM-talk] HTTP Server Error (500) when using JOSM
Hi, I have been getting server errors when fetching map data on JOSM. It happens on most areas in Curitiba. The JOSM output on the console is: """ download: http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/map?bbox=-49.39108143092784,-25.64266861786942,-49.094597069072165,-25.363351582130583 got return: 500 java.io.IOException: Server returned HTTP response code: 500 for URL: http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/map?bbox=-49.39108143092784,-25.64266861786942,-49.094597069072165,-25.363351582130583 """ The error happens on smaller areas, also. Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/map?bbox=-49.208773638563834%2c-25.472306120079054%2c-49.20397239352369%2c-25.46778288140274 There is a ticket reported on trac about this problem, but I don't know if anybody is looking at it. (http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/910) Any suggestions on how to work around this problem? I have been using Potlatch to edit the map after I started getting this error, but I would like to be able to use JOSM again. -- Eduardo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] HTTP Server Error (500) when using JOSM
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 05:06:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I was having a similar issue with an area containing a corrupt relation > (Potlatch relation node member number bug). > > Knowing the relation reference number I was able download the relation > from the API/history page, manually correct it and upload it again. Being able to fix the broken relation myself would be awesome. :) I think I have found it: http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/relation/14680/history [...] It looks like it is the ref="0" node above. I will try to upload the relation without the bogus node. Thanks! -- Eduardo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Ways on bus route relations
I am trying to figure out the conventions used to map bus routes. I am trying to find out how the ways making up the relation should be drawn or used. Do the "ways making up the route" (as defined on Relations/Routes proposal) must be actual highway-tagged ways, or they may be distinct (maybe untagged) ways drawn over the highway ways? I am asking that because on some streets there may be many different bus routes going through it with different entry/exit points. If the ways making up the bus route must be the actual highway ways, those streets will need to be splitted on many tiny little ways, so that each section will belong to a different set of route relations. Did I understand it correctly? Being able to draw a separated way for each bus route instead of splitting the highways on small segments would avoid this, but I don't know if it would be recommended. Do you have other suggestions on how to avoid splitting the highway ways into small pieces on those cases? -- Eduardo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ways on bus route relations
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 08:53:53PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > >> Do the "ways making up the route" (as defined on Relations/Routes >> proposal) must be actual highway-tagged ways > > Yes. > >> or they may be distinct >> (maybe untagged) ways drawn over the highway ways? > > To re-use a popular exclamation of the last few weeks: "Ye gawds no!" ;-) Okay. :) > >> I am asking that because on some streets there may be many different bus >> routes going through it with different entry/exit points. If the ways >> making up the bus route must be the actual highway ways, those streets >> will need to be splitted on many tiny little ways, so that each section >> will belong to a different set of route relations. Did I understand it >> correctly? > > Yes. This is somewhat of a shortcoming but that's the way it is currently > done. This doesn't seem to be a problem only when making bus relations: streets with lots of tunnels or bridges need to be splitted also. So, it is a more general issue. I will try to live with it, by now. :) > [...] > > Or you simply ignore the fact that the bus route does not use the full > length of the way; it would still be possible algorithmically to find out > which part of the way the route uses (except from circular road layouts). > Won't look nice on today's renderers but who says they cannot be improved? That is an interesting idea: maybe I can do this to enter data about the bus routes more easily and later algorithmically split the ways on the right places. > > A third option would be inventing a special kind of relation that's called > a "way section"; it would contain the start node, end node, and way and > model that part of the way that lies between the two nodes. Then make your > bus route relation use these way sections as members wherever the bus route > doesn't use the full way. But this would also be something new and not yet > supported by renderers. I have seen two proposals that would handle the current cases of massive splitting: "tag section" relations (similar to what you mentioned above)[1] and "collected ways"[2]. Both seem to sove the same problem using different approaches. At first I thought the collected-ways approach to be better and more intuitive, but the way-section approach now seems to be better, the more I think about it. (The collected-ways proposal may be useful on other cases, but I was thinking about the cases of splitting due to bridges/tunnels and bus routes, only) [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Segmented_Tag [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways -- Eduardo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ways on bus route relations
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 09:04:12PM +0100, Thomas Wood wrote: > > [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Segmented_Tag > > [2] > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways > > > > The issue here is that both these proposals take us back towards the old > segment model. Even towards removing ways, everything just being a > collection of nodes. I have not seen older discussions about this, but this argument doesn't look valid to me: they are not proposing going to the extreme of removing ways or going back completely to the segment model. That would be like saying the current approach goes towards the extreme of making all ways to be split until all have only two nodes, that wouldn't be a valid argument either. I think there were good reasons for removing the segment model, but this doesn't mean that anything resembling the segment model is forbidden. If the proposals above have problems, they should be weighted and compared to the current problems (e.g. the duplicate information due to the splitted ways resulting from bridges tunnels and bus routes and difficulty to add tags to a street when it is splitted in many small sections), not rejected only because they share some features of the segment model. > (Let's _not_ talk about that again...) I really hope I won't trigger a flamewar[1]. But I think it would benefit everybody discussing those proposals to see the real pros and cons of the proposals (and I mean the pros and cons of those proposals, not the pros and cons of the old segment model; they are different things). [1] That would bad for my first month contributing to OSM and my third message to this mailing list. :) -- Eduardo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Relations + splitting ways on JOSM (was Re: Ways on bus route relations)
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 03:04:33PM +0200, Ben Laenen wrote: > On Monday 16 June 2008, Jo wrote: > > What is a bit problematic with how it is done now, is that when one > > splits a road that is already part of a relation. This other relation > > becomes broken, so one should be careful to fix it/them as well. > > If you split a way which is a member of a relation in Potlatch, both > parts will be part of that relation after the split. That's exactly how > I'd expect it... This is what I would expect to happen, too. But I have just tested it and it didn't happen on JOSM (Version 645). Can we say this is a bug? -- Eduardo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations + splitting ways on JOSM (was Re: Ways on bus route relations)
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:15:14AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 03:04:33PM +0200, Ben Laenen wrote: > > On Monday 16 June 2008, Jo wrote: > > > What is a bit problematic with how it is done now, is that when one > > > splits a road that is already part of a relation. This other relation > > > becomes broken, so one should be careful to fix it/them as well. > > > > If you split a way which is a member of a relation in Potlatch, both > > parts will be part of that relation after the split. That's exactly how > > I'd expect it... > > This is what I would expect to happen, too. But I have just tested it > and it didn't happen on JOSM (Version 645). Can we say this is a bug? Oh, it is a bug: http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/701 -- Eduardo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
