Re: [OSM-talk] OSM on "factory" Macs
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am quite confused now about dragging the map. Many have said that > using the mouse with JOSM on the Macs does not work very well. But > then I am told you can use Ctrl "rightclick simulation" to do the > dragging, and others again say that some applications would use the > space bar a a modifier key. Why would they, if Ctrl is already built > in? If somebody can tell me exactly how you would like JOSM to behave > on a mousically challenged system then we could maybe fix that... my > first shot would have been supporting a modifier key but obviously > OSX does that already with Ctrl and it seems not to be what people want? > Really, the easiest thing to do is to re-map the right button on the Mighty Mouse to "mouse button 2", rather then it's default "mouse button 1" (like the left button). While I love my Mac, I'm much too used to conventional 3 button mice to accept the "one true button" philosophy of Macdom. I suspect even hardcore Mac fans click on the left side now for the most part. It's not huge magic, and I think it's even a user config option, if the dealer will be setting up users for the show. I don't think they'll even object, since most PC users (and they account for 90%+ of computer users) are used to "right-clicking". This way, the pretty mouse functions like most other mice. And it shows that OS X has flexibility. :) Gerald. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:24 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Because it would break every existing gate out there > relying on a "legacy" renderer. Leaving aside the question of the gate tags completely, I want to address this bit of your points. I hear lots about not tagging for display or the renders. I know it happens, such is life. But it's not a compelling argument to keep the status quo, and shouldn't be mentioned as such -- or else we should just use Google maps, because they are better/more complete/all that nonsense. Renderers should be following the project. If the community decides one tag over the other, or both, or even neither, the renders will catch up eventually. Or we should allow tagging for renderers, which I would be against. The discussions about tags should focus on the merits of the data, not outside factors. Thanks, Gerald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > It's nice to say that the renderer should follow the community, but > this does presume the community is moving in one direction. It's also > fairly presumptuous that the renderer author has the time or > inclination to code, test and deploy, every single community outburst > on a particular issue. I don't think they should follow every outburst, or even several outbursts. They should follow the tags eventually, though. And whether the tags get added by community discussion or people adding things to the database because they like to, if enough people (or tags) get added over a long enough period of time, then eventually they'll get rendered. So frankly renderers can show whatever they like. They don't really > have any choice but to follow the tagging conventions being used if > they want the best data displayed. But there's no good reason they > can't influence the tagging schemes we use, or that we shouldn't take > them into account when suggesting wholesale tag changes. > Well, this is a bit of chicken and egg, though. Once a tag has any traction, proponents can argue that a new tag will "break renderers", just by virtue of being first, rather then addressing the merits (or lack thereof) of the tag itself. Anyways, it seems that this particular tag (in some renderers) is moot, as both the new tag and the old tag are already being rendered. But my original point was that discussions about tags should focus on how they impact the data, not on how they impact the renderers, which we have no control over. Gerald. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM-to-PostGIS issues
Hi Juan, On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Juan Lucas Domínguez Rubio < juan_lucas...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hello, > Are you taking into account Windows XP's virtual memory (4 GB, I think)? > I meant 1.5 GB of physical memory. > I'm pretty sure they were talking about physical memory. Using virtual memory helps with some things, but recall how it works -- it is using your had disk to offload physical memory. Every time you dip into that mechanism, something in physical RAM has to be written to disk, then something else has to be read from disk into RAM. So, you incur 2 very slow (from RAM/CPU point of view) operations. With a memory footprint of 4GB, your 1.5 is more then twice overcommited (almost 3x). That means the process I described above will happen quite often, if not constantly. This is called swapping, and can take something that should take a few seconds and make it last minutes. If the overall operation is supposed to last 5-10 minutes, it can be hours. I think you see the point here. With RAM prices so inexpensive, if you are looking to work on this data on an ongoing basis, it makes sense to upgrade. (If this is a one-shot deal, see if you can rent/borrow a box with the requisite amount of RAM). You'll be much happier with the results on a machine with adequate RAM. Thanks, Gerald. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
Hi Johnny, On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Johnny Rose Carlsen wrote: > Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > > > You forgot to say that "talk" is for matters that mappers wish to > > discuss with the whole community. > > Perhaps you could respect this and stop hiding stuff [...] important > [info] on legal-talk > Just a small point -- legal-talk is an open and publicly available list. I don't think suggesting and steering the discussion to the topical list is "hiding". > Interesting topic and question raised, someone finds a reason to > mention the license change, most of the thread from there is bitching > about the license change. > [...] > Unfortunately I mostly miss the real and good answers to discussions, > because I end of ignoring 90% of the threads. > > If I am the only one who acts like this, then feel free to ignore me. > But if this is somewhat common behaviour, then the talk list is in big > trouble. > I too, am not fully decided on the license change at this point. I actually _did_ follow a bunch of messages where there was discussion about the license. Some good points were brought up, I'll admit. However, you are quite correct in stating that EVERY discussion has these same few points brought up, as well as general discussion and FUD, so that the original posting and any topics it has get lost in the noise. So, you are not alone. Personally, I think the constant repetition and ensuing flamewar does more harm then any license change might -- and it certainly isn't helping the people who are bringing it up all the time to win my vote. Thanks, Gerald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] the 70% , was Re: License graph
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Thomas Davie wrote: > On 19 Apr 2011, at 11:09, David Groom wrote: > > - Original Message - From: "Thomas Davie" > > Nor is it valid to simply switch these people over to the new CT's without > incident. OK, don't let these people edit without agreeing to the new CT's, > but to simply switch their accounts to the new CT's on the assumption they > would agree, and it doesn't affect ant data currently in the OSM database, > is not right. > > No one is proposing switching them to the new CTs – > > In an earlier post it was written "which is ignoring the 70% or so of all > of those people who never > edited and can be switched over without incident." I took this to mean > that someone was suggesting they could be switched to the new CT's. > > > My appologies, maybe they, or I have misunderstood. I would agree entirely > that it would be invalid to decide that these people have agreed to the new > license without letting them ever tick a box. It would however not be > invalid simply to block their account and force them to agree, and it would > be of no detriment to the project. > I try not to contribute to this bike-shedding, but I think the original quote was of Steve Coast -- and while I don't pretend to speak for him, I took his meaning to be that people will not be marked as accepting the CT and the ODbL, but rather since they have no actual contributions, we can "switch them over" to future phases without regard to data loss of any kind. I think we're now in the phase of "you have to accept or reject CT's", where this was a voluntary process before. So, even if all of this "70%" rejected the move, there would be a ZERO data loss. I don't believe he meant to imply that they would be automatiically marked as accepting; but rather that their acceptance or rejection wouldn't have a data impact. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
