Re: [Talk-GB] Gun Location Sensors
I googled and found that the brand name is Secures. I also found this article with a picture. http://media.www.jhunewsletter.com/media/storage/paper932/news/2009/12/03/NewsFeatures/Gun-Detection.Sensors.Installed.Around.City-3845405.shtml This article says they may be disguised as vents or bird houses. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/fs000201.pdf On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Millar wrote: Sent: 12 December 2010 5:40 PM To: Jonathan Bennett Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Gun Location Sensors I don't know if this is what Birmingham is using: http://gizmodo.com/5489449/tiny-sensor-listens-for-gunshots-identifying- the-gun-and-location If so, it doesn't look like verifying on the ground is going to be very practical. The area covered by the system would be more interesting if it were obtainable. The news items I saw were referring to triangulation methods so perhaps they have gone for some other system than these clever devices. Cheers Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Jeffrey John Martin dogs...@gmail.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
I haven't been participating for awhile, but wasn't some committee going to come up with a solution? Ideally there would be separate tagging systems for all the different classes of information, e.g. surface type, width, number of lanes; route numbers and codes, government classification, popularity, etc.; and then the renderer would figure out how to display the information. However, in a given area there may only be five or six kinds of roads and it obviously easier to collect some kind of general description, e.g. four lane state highway, then to type in all those details. Unfortunately people in different areas simply apply whatever label will give them the rendering they want instead of fixing the rendering. On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/8/7 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Richard Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified I've added my thoughts to the discussion page. Replicated below: Presently IMHO it's an absolute mess. Try reading the whole page through once, then see if you can explain to someone what it means. Or better yet, get a non-OSM'er to read it and see if they understand. Here's another idea: there appears to be several distinct definitions of the tag in current use, according to talk and talk-au mailing list discussion e.g. 1. urban roads in industrial areas less important than highway=tertiary 2. something bigger than highway=residential but smaller than highway=tertiary 3. rural roads less important than highway=tertiary 4. a road equal to a residential road, but outside residential areas; a road roughly equal to residential but without people living there 5. the lowest street/road in the interconnecting grid, be it in urban or rural areas Rather than trying to unify the different usages into one big confusing mess, maybe it would be better to separately explain each current usage? i.e. This tag is used if the road is A or B or C or D or E. This more closely reflects reality and IMHO will not be any harder to read than the current mess. This could also lead the way to *eventually* replace each different usage with a tag of its own. I completely agree with Roy. Be it for the mess created as for the summary of current use. Let's use this. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Jeffrey John Martin dogs...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Liam123 again
Maybe we want different policies for different areas and different kinds of data. For example once all the roads are mapped we freeze the roads, but we allow free changing of street names until they reach a freeze point. Here in Korea I just want data and the more the better. In downtown London I would assume all the roads can be frozen except for major construction. On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Russ r...@phillipsuk.org wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: Oh yeah, and let's also get their addresses and hang them! I am amazed at how much hostility this Liam123 is able to provoke. I'm not. I think it's similar to the way people react to virus writers after their computer is infected. I've heard plenty of people suggest that they should get all sorts of severe punishments, up to and including hanging. I'd guess it's frustration at the sheer mindlessness of the attacks. We must improve our means to detect and deal with vandalism, not circle the wagons and make participation more difficult for the 99% of well-meaning users just because there's 1% of killjoys. That would be the worst thing we could do. I agree. I'd like to see a situation where someone can see something is wrong (their road name is spelled wrong, say) and they can fix it, easily. I haven't made major changes in Wikipedia, but I've made plenty of small changes, fixing typos and things, and I did it because it was drop-dead simple. I've got an account, but I didn't even bother logging in to make most of those changes, because it wasn't worth the hassle. A few fixed typos can make an article significantly more readable. In our case, if a town has been mapped using Yahoo, we may not have road names, but if locals can log in and each fill in a few names, the map becomes much better. Russ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Jeffrey John Martin dogs...@gmail.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Foundation acknowledged as non-profit?
I think most international organizations create a branch in each country and then you can just donate to your local branch. The branch in each country can then pay dues to the international organization or in some cases the international body can provide funding for projects in the local countries. On 2/6/09, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 5 Feb 2009, at 19:54, Jens Müller wrote: Is the OSMF acknowledged as a charity, non-profit organisation, or whatever is necessary under UK law to make donations tax deductible? I'm asking because of C-318/07, which makes this relevant for other Europeans, as well .. It is not currently a charity. I understand that it is currently a not-for-profit company. Possibly a foundation director would like to give their position on conversion to charitable status? Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- Jeffrey John Martin dogs...@gmail.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] firefox upload utility
I just saw this upload utility for Firefox. It looks like something cool to add to the website. http://www.fireuploader.com/#fupHome ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] vandolism on OSM
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, vegard wrote: But we'll need a more permanent measure against vandalism. Something that'll make it easy to reverse things. We have some good changes in store with API 0.6. An idea I've had, is to add revised-tags to OSM data. Which is what Wikipedia is currently experimenting with. But note that our most potent weapon against vandalism is the ease and speed with which it can be undone. unless we put up a way to avoid random vandalism to pollute the production set of data, noone is gonna dare use our data Every day someone says noone is going to use our data unless I don't really take that seriously because reality proves them wrong. If anyone wants to have a strictly quality controlled OSM they can easily do that and sell it as a paid service. But I believe it is going to be much more expensive than just buying a set of TeleAtlas data, and will have all the disadvantages of commercial geodata (errors take long to get fixed, data is a year old, etc.) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Here is my proposal for Wikipedia. I hope they someday adopt it. Have a variety of tags concerning quality and let people filter with those tags. Anyone can form a group and each group would have its own tags that only that group can change. In this specific case some people can form a no vandalism group and tag data that looks to be vandalism free. People looking at the data could then filter based on the reputation of the groups. -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] vandolism on OSM
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Barnett, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: vegard wrote: But we'll need a more permanent measure against vandalism. Something that'll make it easy to reverse things. But note that our most potent weapon against vandalism is the ease and speed with which it can be undone. Frederick, That's only the case for OBVIOUS vandalism or accident, as in the OP, that can be seen in a casual 'fly-over' the map. What about subtle vandalism (renaming random streets, changing one-way directions etc) Even in areas that I have personally mapped, I doubt that I'd be able to tell at a glance that this had happened without digging out my original notes and comparing street by street(in effect, remapping the area) which I wouldn't do without a huge visual clue. Well, none of the schemes proposed so far actually deal with the case of subtle vandalism. They're all assuming it's possible to determine whether an edit is good or not. The only fool proof way of doing that is to send someone to check it out in reality, which is going to be a fairly intractable problem. The obvious vandalism is the low hanging fruit, and the obvious place to start if you're aiming for a more stable map. I'd imagine people will do this for smaller areas in a similar fashion to how we handle the coastlines for the cyclemap (ie: we grab the data every so often, and just keep the old data if the new looks too broken in a critical place -- at that point I usually try and fix it of course). Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk I think my idea deals with non-obvious vandalism very well. A user of the data can choose to use data that has only certain tags by certain groups or individuals and therefore have an idea of how accurate that data might be. -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Beijing weekend
There has been some discussion on this list before about the law against collecting geographic data in China. 2008/9/23 Hiroshi Miura [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, I have a chance to go to Beining this weekend. There will be mapping chance this Saturday morning. One idea is that I have a chance to map the new transportation in Beijing, which is opened just before Olympic! eg. Airport to city. http://www.urbanrail.net/as/beij/beijing-map.htm Could you suggest me where I should map or your POI? # It's not possible to clime onto the great wall ! :-) A hotel staying will be here; http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.97589lon=116.33864zoom=17layers=B000FTF -- HIroshi Miura NTT DATA Corp. and IPA OSS center （株）NTTデータ /（独）情報処理推進機構 三浦広志 ___ 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] High-Precision GPS Survey Equipment?
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Tim Waters (chippy) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/25/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Just to give a hint at what is possible, the company I work for flagship receiver (L1/L2 dual frequency) can achieve sub-cm accuracy for static observations when tied into a nearby reference station (or other receiver). Anyone know if the very high accuracy receivers can maintain their accuracy whilst on the move, in a car for example, or whether you'd need to be static or do frog-jumps from point to point? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Here's how John Deere does it. I don't think it will do any good for interference from buildings though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarFire_(navigation_system) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Map Maker
I'm using gmail. The way I read my user agreement google pretty much has the right to do anything they want with any information I give them. For that reason I'm careful not to put anything really important in my emails. I'm guessing that google would have the rights to the aggregate mapping data while any individual would only have the rights to their own contribution, unless they access it through google. On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 1:54 AM, X [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.google.com/mapmaker/mapfiles/s/support.html Ready ... Fight ! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Don't you just hate it when part 2...
Don't have that problem in South Korea. There are lots of English teaching jobs here if any mappers map the unmapped. -Jeff On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Shaun McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8 Jun 2008, at 23:35, Nick Whitelegg wrote: On Sunday 08 Jun 2008 22:35, you wrote: yes! I do hate it,. but not because I don't regret walking or being outside, Same with me too, though I might have gone somewhere else if I'd known! Guess the lesson is to make sure you know what the others in your area are doing... I think I may have met the guy out mapping today actually. About 17.30 I passed someone with a yellow Etrex but thought nothing of it, but it was in the common area. Good side of the coincident mapping isthat it looks like that area is pretty well covered now... The way I look at it, is that you will often find that if two people survey an area, they will both think different things are more important, or one will miss something. You can also use it as a way to check what is already there, as there may be something missing or wrong. It has happened to me before many times, but as I've been able to add to the data, and verify that what I have is the same as what is there (or discover that there is a discrepancy and either change or resurvey depending on my certainty). Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] layers or multiple databases or datasets
There was some post about tree information and another one about business hours. Maybe there should be more than one dataset? One just for streets and the things you would find on a typical navigation unit, and others with other stuff? Just a random thought. -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide completeness tools
I'm very far from this in Korea, but I would guess in time some parts of the UK will need to be rechecked at some point. How can we make a system for rechecking an area? Maybe the completeness should be retired after a period of time. -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Mapping distant objects by triangulation.
I couldn't find the other thread on this topic. How do you map an object, like a tower on top of a mountain, that you don't have access to without expensive survey equipment? My thought is to use a plumb bob to line up the unknown object with some known objects. I would find something like a phone pole between me and the mountain tower. I would move along a road until the pole and the tower line up. Now I have a straight line. Do it again with another strait line and I have two lines to define the location. Would that work? -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Political Change
I agree with the judgment. You can't make a derivative work without permission. OSM and other open source projects give people permission to create derivative works provided they follow the license rules. If they could make derivative works without permission then there would be no way to require compliance with the license. On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Liz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there has been a major win in Australia against the use of derivative works http://vogelross.com.au/vrblog/?p=18 I would like to start political moves to free up this part of the copyright law in Australia. This is possible because we have had a change of government. While I understand political lobbying, I don't understand what law I want changed and exactly why. Can this list assist me with the creation of about 1/3 of a page summary of what we do how we are unsure of our rights to accumulate facts and present them as Free Information the changes required in the law to provide certainty to our work and a longer set of briefing papers that is, something which the experts can read and follow on the above. I have about 4 months before I will be actually in parliament seeing parliamentarians, so I don't expect assistance in a great rush thanks ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk -- http://bowlad.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Political Change
I just read through http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2008/71.html In 128 the appellate court is saying that they did not copy facts, but instead they copied the guide created by Nine, because the aggregatators had pretty much copied the guide created by nine. In 123 Ice is saying that because the aggregators had recompiled the information that what Ice took was individual facts free of copyright. Is this the issue you want addressed in your new law? -- http://bowlad.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unknown road classifications
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Steve Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When adding roads, you don't always know what classification of road it is (e.g. primary, secondary, tertiary, unclassified, etc). Quite a lot of people seem to add these sorts of roads as highway=unclassified, with the idea that these can be fixed in the future when the status of the road is discovered, but this is wrong since unclassified is a real road classification. Is there a recommended way of tagging these roads? Leaving them untagged has a couple of problems: there is no way to later determine that the way is a road if it is left completely untagged, and the road doesn't get rendered. It seems silly to take the attitude that this data shouldn't be rendered until it is complete - the submitter probably knows lots of useful data about the way, such as that it is a road which is accessible to cars, the actual classification of the road isn't really as important as knowing it is there and that you can drive down it. Having a highway=unknown_road or similar would also help with people tracing yahoo images - render them in a lighter colour so it is obvious that the road hasn't been fully mapped. There are probably 2 groups of users who want different things from OSM in this regard: Mappers want to be able to easilly see which bits of the map are complete, so having roads which haven't had a proper survey tagged as such is helpful. Map users want as complete a map as possible - knowing that there hasn't been a proper survey is useful, but seeing a road with questionable accuracy is often more useful than no road at all. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk Did we ever decide what to do when a road continues but we didn't continue down the road? -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging and rendering
The rendering should be separate from the data. Marking a hiking trail as an autobahn so it will be a different color or be visible on higher zoom levels I think we all agree is wrong. Provided the data is correct, I don't see a problem with altering the way data is collected and recorded to make it easier for renderers, and those who program them and write the rendering rules. I can see the attraction to the use of numbers for the values of the highway tag. Having a new system that does not use terms that have other meanings can force people to think about the OSM definitions of the values. The UK centric terms have this effect for me. I have to think about what motorway means for the US or Korea in terms of the OSM definition because I have no competing definition of the term motorway in my mind. For me motorway only has an OSM definition. People in countries with roads called motorways have a conflict in their minds. If a section of a UK motorway is a single lane dirt track then someone in the UK may be tempted to label it as a motorway because it has a motorway sign. (That's just a hyperbole to make a point. Let's keep discussions of the highway tag itself on a separate thread.) One solution to this psychology problem is to use terms that do not have a local meaning. Numbering might be one way to do that for some tags but not for others. Another way to solve this psychological problem is to hide the recorded data from the user. Something like presets was suggested. Having different terms being used by the person who writes the rendering rules and the person collecting the data might cause other problems. On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 6:27 PM, elvin ibbotson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Much debate centres around the way features are tagged and how they are rendered (for example recent discussion of golf course tagging, the term 'highway', rendering power lines,...) and it seems that much of this is inextricably involved with the OSM data itself. I wondered if it was time, while OSM is still relatively young and before it becomes too ossified and institutionalised, for the approach to be reviewed. My own thoughts, for what they are worth, are that the data structure should be language/locale agnostic. For example, ways could have a numeric type field with, hypothetically, 10-19 being used for roads. In this scenario 11 might be a UK motorway, an Italian autostrada or an American interstate, while 19 might be a rough track (10 being reserved for some not-yet-invented super highway, after all some of us were here before motorways). The editors used to input data (Potlatch, JOSM, whatever) would hide this structured data from the user and translate it to/from human language. One immediate advantage is that a German user could tag an autobahn rather than a motorway and global users would not have to use language clearly derived from the British motorway/trunk road/A/B (and little-known C) road classification system. Instead, local nomenclature would be mapped (no pun intended) to the underlying data structure by the local edition of the editor. Highways are an obvious example we are all familiar with, but the principle would apply to all feature types. Places of worship could be mapped as cathedrals, churches, chapels, etc in Britain or as mosques, temples, shrines, whatever in the east. Rendering of the data is I think less tied up with the data itself, but again could be implemented differently by different map viewers. My paper road map of Ireland shows primary roads red in Ulster and green in Eire. Autbahns are green on my map of the Alps while autopistas are patriotically red and yellow on my Spanish map. Local or customisable viewers are possible with the current OSM but not, as far as I know, implemented yet, but the principle of separating the core data from the way it is described and depicted is, I believe, important. Another aspect of the base data structure is that of level-of-detail (LoD) filtering. This is obviously done at present (villages and footpaths disappear as you zoom out) but is dictated by the people who code the viewers and is not, as far as I know, very well addressed in the API, so LoD filtering has to be done after data has been acquired, when it should be possible to specify LoD when requesting data. If LoD were considered in structuring the database it would be easy to filter data (eg. road types 10-13 only or for major ways of all types *0-*3). This is simpler for programming than clumsily using named tags (highway=motorway|trunk|primary) and would be invisible to users who might see autopista, autovia or carretera general. elvin ibbotson ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging and rendering
Maybe what we need are some guidelines for making tags. You can make any tag you want, but here are some general principals about what makes a good key and what makes good values for those keys. At the very least we would have a framework for discussion. Someone type something up on the wiki. On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see the attraction to the use of numbers for the values of the highway tag. Having a new system that does not use terms that have other meanings can force people to think about the OSM definitions of the values. The UK centric terms have this effect for me. I have to think about what motorway means for the US or Korea in terms of the OSM definition because I have no competing definition of the term motorway in my mind. For me motorway only has an OSM definition. People in countries with roads called motorways have a conflict in their minds. If a section of a UK motorway is a single lane dirt track then someone in the UK may be tempted to label it as a motorway because it has a motorway sign. (That's just a hyperbole to make a point. Let's keep discussions of the highway tag itself on a separate thread.) One solution to this psychology problem is to use terms that do not have a local meaning. Numbering might be one way to do that for some tags but not for others. Another way to solve this psychological problem is to hide the recorded data from the user. Something like presets was suggested. Having different terms being used by the person who writes the rendering rules and the person collecting the data might cause other problems. There are some genuine problems that need solving -- tag translation, tagging hierarchies, tag documentation and guides, and some bad tags in common use to name but a few. Unfortunately people seem most interested in solving these problems via the magic bullet approach. This basically involves turning everything on it's head, adding a level of indirection or two, putting in some extra technical elements, and finally hoping that someone will take the opportunity of the wholesale change to actually fix the problem. The highway tag has well known problems; mostly that it's a highly subjective short cut for lots of tags and widely differing concepts, of which nobody is entirely sure which takes precedence. This doesn't get fixed by making everyone use numbers. Numbers are not an intrinsicly better model of road types, nor do they make it easier to create such a model. Tags can be translated from English just as easily as they can be translated from numbers. Presets can be created using english tags as well as they can for numeric tags. Numbers do not possess a natural hierarchy of feature types, nor do they make such hierarchies easier to create. Numbers are an abstraction, that's all they are. The present tag names/values are also generally abstractions... just human readable ones. Dave PS. This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just a general observation. -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging and rendering
Typos in real words are easier to detect than a mistake in entering a number. On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 2:45 AM, elvin ibbotson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9 May 2008, at 12:21, Dave Stubbs wrote: The mapping to numbers doesn't gain us anything. It doesn't let us do anything we can't already do, or make it any easier as far as I can see. If the database, which is accessed by programmers, was numerically based, it would be be more amenable to algorithmic logic. At the simplest level, selecting elements with values above/below certain levels. The numbers would of course have to follow some logical pattern. Similar procedures using the current tags involve clumsier code like 'motorway OR trunk OR primary' and, if users are actually typing these words in (rather than selecting from human-friendly menus presented by the editor) a typo such as 'secodnary' cold corrupt the database and prevent the feature being seen by map viewers or routing engines for example. I think you were actually suggesting something like type=11 -- where 10-20 means roads, 30-40 could mean railways etc. But as far as this argument goes it doesn't really make much difference, other than leaving us with a massive allocation problem which has been neatly sidestepped by using free-form tagging. Yes free-form tagging avoids having to decide on a pattern and allows for open-ended evolution, but it doesn't work if it's completely free-form. I could describe many roads around here as 'highway=country lane but would they get rendered? The fact that there are tagging recommendations acknowledges that anarchy would not work. But a data structure would have to allow change and evolution (at the simplest level, leaving spare numbers for future use) and this is a challenge. Indeed point missed again. We DON'T DO (sorry Richard) highway=red. We do highway=primary and you can make that any colour you like... same as you can do with highway=13/type=13 -- it makes no difference is my point. Numbering the highways won't help. Now I'm confused. I'm not suggesting numbers to avoid red highways for goodness' sake! It could yes. There are a couple of issues with this mostly to do with actually maintaining the style sheets and providing the processing power/disk space. Moore's Law should take care of those :-) No problemo! Special viewers like the cycle map would simply apply their own filters. And with well-structured data a map viewer could even have settings (eg. cycle routes on/off) allowing it to be customised by the user, making a proliferation of specialist viewers unnecessary. Hmm.. yes, maybe. But the point of your e-mail was essentially numbering everything, and that really doesn't help us with this goal. It's just that numbers are easier for programmers (see above). Users would never see them. They would see words in their own language and the viewer/editor would map words to numbers. elvin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] street traits
I was thinking about classifying roads in Korea. What criteria am I using when I put a road in a classification? I'm starting to think that my support of the current use of the highway tag was misguided. Maybe we should be more specific. I know some people say they don't want to be stringing tape measures across the road, but for most countries I think there are only a handful of standard sizes for lanes and shoulders. Once you know the sizes for your country you can pretty much just eyeball it. A name for each kind of road in a person's country could be set up as an editor feature. I select mountain road 2 from my list and it fills in the number of lanes, lane size, shoulder size, etc. for me. Another option might be to have some kind of bot that fills in specific data based on country specific highway tags. I think the first option is probably better. Would it be too complex to base rendering on a combination of specific road traits? -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] street traits
Here is my list of traits. Lane width. Number of lanes in each direction. Number of bidirectional lanes not controlled by signals. Number of bidirectional lanes controlled by signals. size of shoulder Center turn lane. In lane parking. Separate parallel parking. side of street Separate diagonal parking. side of street parking on shoulder parking partially on shoulder parking partially on sidewalk access: ramps only, ramps and full intersections, intersections, t intersections (divided highway). divided by barrier divided by median divided by park median width pavement On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 3:30 AM, Jeffrey Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking about classifying roads in Korea. What criteria am I using when I put a road in a classification? I'm starting to think that my support of the current use of the highway tag was misguided. Maybe we should be more specific. I know some people say they don't want to be stringing tape measures across the road, but for most countries I think there are only a handful of standard sizes for lanes and shoulders. Once you know the sizes for your country you can pretty much just eyeball it. A name for each kind of road in a person's country could be set up as an editor feature. I select mountain road 2 from my list and it fills in the number of lanes, lane size, shoulder size, etc. for me. Another option might be to have some kind of bot that fills in specific data based on country specific highway tags. I think the first option is probably better. Would it be too complex to base rendering on a combination of specific road traits? -- http://bowlad.com -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] TIGER mapping party
Why are there so many problems with the TIGER data? Where do the extra roads come from? Are they planned roads? Will they be releasing new data? What happens then? On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 6:13 AM, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SteveC wrote: I and others have been doing a lot of fixing of TIGER data all over the US. Here's a very good example with before and after shots: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Bridger/diary/1550 cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] When is a B road still a B road?
In the US the old Route 66 is marked with little historical signs. You can drive basically the same route as Route 66 by driving on other highways, it's just not officially Route 66 anymore. Are you talking about roads you can drive or roads which are gone? On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Mike Paley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Andy Robinson (blackadder) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] When is a B road still a B road? I'd follow the golden rule and tag what is on the ground. The fact that some 50 year old map called it the B2032 doesn't help much if the LA have decided not to bother maintaining signposts that also say this. If its still a significant through route, but is consistently not signed as a B road, then I'd probably mark it was tertiary in this case. Possible with a note (or old_ref tag) referring to its historical B status. 80n We didn't get where we are today... ...without history. Are OSMers sentimental type folks ? I know I'm interested in maps, GPS and 'old roads' - for the likes of 'Blackie', to me, the A47 still goes from Birmingham to Great Yarmouth (via villages like Leicester) and whether you take the old road through Aston University, along Alum Rock Rd or take the newer A47 route past St Mark's Church and the end of Drews Lane or the current route along the 'spine road'. After all, OS maps still show the paths of Roman roads ! IMO, OSM should be up to date and reflect the current situation. However, there maybe a case for a historical version of OSM to show what used to be. Mike. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb -- http://bowlad.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] WTF ! (about gps traces)
When I download in JOSM I would like each track to be a separate layer. I find it helpful when working with my own tracks to make them different colors or turn individual tracks on and off. On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Shaun McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3 May 2008, at 16:58, Sven Grüner wrote: Karl Newman schrieb: Or maybe the tracks need a moderation/voting system. If the tracks are voted down below a certain threshold, they won't be downloaded? Would need some careful thought to prevent malicious voting down of good tracks, though. Even if the editors had a way to hide certain tracks, that would be helpful. I've seen a few low-quality tracks in my area that I would like to make go away. The user could (optionally) specify this threshold when requesting data. This way one could avoid bad tracks when enough good ones available and fall back on the bad ones when there's no alternative. Alternatively a request would still return all Tracks but each track is returned along with it's quality level so that the editors can blank out certain levels on demand. I believe that somewhere in the distant future when data maintenance becomes more important than data creation the track handling will improve dramatically. Talking of optional downloads, I'd like an option to not download any trace made before date x, within bounding box y due to the fact that there is a change in the road layout in the area. Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] WTF ! (about gps traces)
I have few track where on part is good and another part is bad. I should probably edit those tracks and cut out the bad part, but I haven't found an easy way to do that. On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Sven Grüner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Karl Newman schrieb: Or maybe the tracks need a moderation/voting system. If the tracks are voted down below a certain threshold, they won't be downloaded? Would need some careful thought to prevent malicious voting down of good tracks, though. Even if the editors had a way to hide certain tracks, that would be helpful. I've seen a few low-quality tracks in my area that I would like to make go away. The user could (optionally) specify this threshold when requesting data. This way one could avoid bad tracks when enough good ones available and fall back on the bad ones when there's no alternative. Alternatively a request would still return all Tracks but each track is returned along with it's quality level so that the editors can blank out certain levels on demand. I believe that somewhere in the distant future when data maintenance becomes more important than data creation the track handling will improve dramatically. regards, Sven ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] clipboard on handlebars
When I got home some of my notes for my waypoints didn't make sense. I realized I was trying to take note only every third or forth waypoint and misremembering them. Sometimes the simple solution is the answer. I grapped some big clips from the office and a folder with a lever action clip. I bent back the cover, trimmed it down to a triangle shape, cut a notch for the speedometer cable etc. My data is much better. -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Meaning of
Some things I have read on the internet say that in some jurisdictions it may not be possible to place things in the public domain. There are two big problems I've read about. (You might want to move this to OSM-legal.) First is that someone can include public domain material in their own work and not tell the reader. The reader then does not know that they can copy or make derivative works from those public domain portions without permission. Second, derivative works are now under a new copyright and no longer free (libre). On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Jukka Rahkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I concluded that I'd rather see my contributions in public domain and added the PD-user template to show that. I wonder what does it mean in practice. Is it now possible for me or anybody else to extract all features I have created and which have never been touched by other users? How about ways created originally by me but edited later by others? How should I work in the future to guarantee that my edits will be free? Should I do all new work in some other environment and store it there before donating it to OSM or what? I am now only speaking about creating totally new features, not editing anything done by others. -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Vandalism, was Vandalism in Trumpington
Does the project have any long term plans on how to deal with vandalism? Should some features be locked? Do we need some kind of hierarchy with block captains and country coordinators? (I don't want that.) On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:36 AM, David Earl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it be possible to roll back changes made by user Katie after 17:40 on April 16? This user has removed or overlaid quite a few roads around Trumpington, Cambridge, and replaced several streets with cycleways, run a tertiary road along the river and across a farm track, and generally made a complete mess of my careful mapping in that area. I could undo it manually, but the changes are significant and it would be easier if this could be done automatically. I will send her (presumably) a message. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bus Stops
Some people advocate nodes off to the side of the way to represent the location of the pole or shelter in relation to the road. Near where I live (Korea) there is often a shelter on one side of the road for buses going both directions. In that case I'm guessing I would put a shelter node on one side of the road and a node that is not a shelter on the other side. How do I relate these nodes to the way? I don't like the idea of short segments perpendicular to the way. On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The EU standard Transmodel defines a Stop Point as 'A POINT where passengers can board or alight from vehicles'. For bus stops this means a single pole, shelter etc and for a place where there are three poles for different services close together then there would be three entries. There are also places where buses stop where there is no physical infrastructure but where buses stop which also need Stop Points. In rural areas there might be a pole on one side of the road but buses stop in both directions, or in some places there is not infrastructure on either side of the road. For there are a number of Stop Points close to each other then these can be grouped into Stop Areas that are 'A group of STOP POINTs close to each other'. I suggest that we achieve this with a relationship call a 'Stop Area' is people are keen to model it. For railway stations it can get more complicated as a platform can be made up of sub platforms (long trains stop at platform 4 and two short ones can stop at 4A and 4B etc). In this case I believe there should be a Stop Point for 4, 4A and 4B. http://www.transmodel.org/en/transmodel/gloss/s.htm This interpretation is now being discussed as ISO level so is probably the one to go with. Are we agreed that this is the appropriate interpretation for the feature going forward. In which case shall I add this clarification and interpretation to the relevant OSM tag page? Btw, Someone might like to ask the DfT in the UK at some point for a copy of the DB they have with the location of over 350,000 bus stops with their names and the name of the associated street. I know the people but it might be better if it came from someone else, possibly from the foundation? Regards, Peter Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:03:14 +0900 From: Jeffrey Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Bus Stops To: Mike Collinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 How am I supposed to do bus stops? If two bus stops are on opposite sides of the road then I think maybe they can share a node? I found in some email that you can make little short service links. I don't like that. The bus pulls over to the side of the road where I'm at. Sometimes they aren't exactly across the street from each other. Where I'm at there are lots of wood and concrete bus shelters. On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 12:07 AM, Mike Collinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excellent background information for basing our models. Thank you Peter. Mike At 07:21 AM 11/08/2007, Peter Miller wrote: The conventional way of handling Bus Stops in the public transport industry is to have a node for each individual point at which one can get on a vehicle, so if there are two bus stops on opposite sides of the road then they are represented as two nodes. If there are three bays in a row on one side of the road then they are represented a 3 nodes in a row. Every Bus Stop in the UK has a unique code, and this is sometimes printed on the bus stop itself. In the EU standards they are called 'Stop Points' (rather than Bus Stops) so they can cover buses, tram, rail, ferry planes etc. In railway stations there is a Stop Point for each Platform (and each bay in a bus station, each Gate for an Airport and each quay in a Ferry terminal). Groups of local Stop Points (as they are called) are then arranged into Stop Areas where they are very close to each other. These Stop Points are not within the road layer because Stop Points are a distinct dataset managed separately; they are then associated with a street, sometimes using the Street Name and sometimes based on proximity. I recommend that we use 'Bus Stop' and 'Stop Point' for this low-level purpose and construct entities as we need them. The database of all these points in the UK is called 'NaPTAN' (standing for 'National Public Transport Access Nodes'), there are about 350,000 of them, and keen people can find additional information here: http://www.naptan.org.uk/ A new CEN standard is in the process of being ratified, called IFOPT which can be used for describe much more complex transport interchanges, such as major airports and railways stations
Re: [OSM-talk] Bus Stops
I've made a decision for what I am going to do. If I wait until there is some standard way it will be a hassle to find all these stops later instead of putting them in now with all the other data, and I might loose my little scraps of paper. Here's my plan of action. I'm going to put a node on the exact location of each bus stop offset from the way. I don't want to loose that location data until I'm sure we want to throw it out. Putting a node on the way instead would essentially erase the location of the stops and shelters. If someone wants to come along later and put a node on the way or make some kind of association they can do that. On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeffrey Martin wrote: Sent: 24 April 2008 9:06 AM To: Peter Miller Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Bus Stops Some people advocate nodes off to the side of the way to represent the location of the pole or shelter in relation to the road. Near where I live (Korea) there is often a shelter on one side of the road for buses going both directions. In that case I'm guessing I would put a shelter node on one side of the road and a node that is not a shelter on the other side. How do I relate these nodes to the way? I don't like the idea of short segments perpendicular to the way. Because a bus stop is a highway feature it really in my view should be part of it. And because we map what we see on the ground then logically if there are two bus stops not quite opposite each other then I place two nodes, one for each and tag them appropriately. Placing short links from a bus stop node placed off the highway to the highway itself is I guess fine if those links are tagged as highway=footway, but personally I think that's a lot of unnecessary effort and complexity in the map. Where as I think of bus stops as a pavement feature -- I really don't care which road it's on, that's the bus driver's problem ;-) I get the feeling we should be tagging both (if you can be bothered) and linking the two -- but I'd prefer this didn't happen with short footways... they come across to me as a bit fake. It's a virtual link, so just keep it virtual: bus_stops=here or something. Alternatively get out the relation box of tricks, but that might be unnecessarily complicated. It's certainly the better option than hacking someone's nice bus stops into your own preferred style, even if you aren't going to do it that way for new mapping. The remaining issue revolves around the direction of the bus at a particular node. I didn't have an answer to this until I looked at what the signage was on my local bust stops. Now I find it easy to tag because each one tells me in which direction the bus is travelling (eg towards Birmingham). So I add a towards= tag and jobs a good un. This works! I generally find I need the help of a timetable to figure out if I'm at the right stop as it's quite normal for the bus to be heading in the wrong direction for the place stated if it's trying to catch another stop on the way, but given the whole route information you should be able to figure it out. I'm not going to worry at the moment about how I might use this tag to make bus route information, the important aspect is that the data that's needed to work that out later is in the database And lets face it, the moment someone actually starts using this data we'll probably decide to do something completely different anyway :-) Dave -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bus Stops
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Lester Caine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeffrey Martin wrote: I've made a decision for what I am going to do. If I wait until there is some standard way it will be a hassle to find all these stops later instead of putting them in now with all the other data, and I might loose my little scraps of paper. Here's my plan of action. I'm going to put a node on the exact location of each bus stop offset from the way. I don't want to loose that location data until I'm sure we want to throw it out. Putting a node on the way instead would essentially erase the location of the stops and shelters. If someone wants to come along later and put a node on the way or make some kind of association they can do that. That does seem to be the sensible way of doing it, in the absence of any other guidelines. What of cause is missing is some means of relating it easily to the way that then are actually linked to ? A nice 'is_in' link to the 'unique_id' of the way so that one can actually find all the bus stops on a route ;) Looking at the way things have developed, is there any reason we can't set a tag for is_in, and then select a way, so that the key becomes is_in=# ? I don't think Relations has the necessary structure yet to be useful here? If you want to link two nodes together, then the easiest most obvious way of doing it is to use a way. A way is an object that links two or more nodes afterall. If you want to link a node and a way, the a relation is your tool. This is exactly what relations do, they link and relate objects -- the advantage over putting IDs in tags is that any editor that supports relations in general will know about the connection as will the API, and the DB can maintain referential integrity so you don't end up with hanging links. You can do nice things with the API such as http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/way/way_id/relations -- which tells you what relations the way belongs to. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk Short perpendicular ways leading to a bus shelter seems wrong to me. I'll read up on relations, but could you elaborate on how it might be used with bus shelters and stops? -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bus Stops
That link is broken. Try: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OSM_Protocol_Version_0.5 On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Lester Caine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeffrey Martin wrote: I've made a decision for what I am going to do. If I wait until there is some standard way it will be a hassle to find all these stops later instead of putting them in now with all the other data, and I might loose my little scraps of paper. Here's my plan of action. I'm going to put a node on the exact location of each bus stop offset from the way. I don't want to loose that location data until I'm sure we want to throw it out. Putting a node on the way instead would essentially erase the location of the stops and shelters. If someone wants to come along later and put a node on the way or make some kind of association they can do that. That does seem to be the sensible way of doing it, in the absence of any other guidelines. What of cause is missing is some means of relating it easily to the way that then are actually linked to ? A nice 'is_in' link to the 'unique_id' of the way so that one can actually find all the bus stops on a route ;) Looking at the way things have developed, is there any reason we can't set a tag for is_in, and then select a way, so that the key becomes is_in=# ? I don't think Relations has the necessary structure yet to be useful here? If you want to link two nodes together, then the easiest most obvious way of doing it is to use a way. A way is an object that links two or more nodes afterall. If you want to link a node and a way, the a relation is your tool. This is exactly what relations do, they link and relate objects -- the advantage over putting IDs in tags is that any editor that supports relations in general will know about the connection as will the API, and the DB can maintain referential integrity so you don't end up with hanging links. You can do nice things with the API such as http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/way/way_id/relations -- which tells you what relations the way belongs to. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GPS recommendations
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 4:48 AM, David Earl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 24/04/2008 19:57, Laurence Penney wrote: I quite liked my Nokia N70 + BlueGPS (Sirf3, non-logging) + nmea_info.py combo. So much so that I bought another BlueGPS when I left my first one on a train in a good position near the window. I can't find its replacement now, so wonder if I left that in a taxi, bleary-eyed after some flight. Having an all-in-one is quite a bit less hassle so I'm sticking with my N95 + SportsTracker for now - will be good for a day out when I buy a spare battery. I've been very happy with my Nokia N810 internet tablet. The built-in GPS seems pretty good - I thought it had lost it going through some light woodland the other day, as I was on a bit of already mapped road, but in fact mine was right and the existing was wrong. Of course it does lose signal sometimes. When I bought it I did some side-by-side session with my Garmin Geko 301 and I think the Nokia was more accurate and lost the signal less often. I've adapted the in-car holder to be a handlebar mount on my bike, and made some minimal changes to its Maemo Mapper application so that I get one-touch-anywhere-on-the-screen auto-numbered waypoints (which means I can wear gloves in winter and still get waypoints). I can use a bluetooth earphone/mic to take an audio commentary on the device, and when I get home the WAV files and GPX files can just be copied over the network on WiFi and synced in JOSM using the continuous audio features I added. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk I bought a Garmin HCx Vista. Does the high sensitivity mean that it's better than other receivers or that they are just now catching up to other receivers? -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GPS recommendations
It works for me also. I usually get 8m in Korea. I just have no idea if that is good or not. I don't think WAAS makes a difference here. I see no difference if it's turned on or off. On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Dermot McNally [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 24/04/2008, Jeffrey Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I bought a Garmin HCx Vista. Does the high sensitivity mean that it's better than other receivers or that they are just now catching up to other receivers? I have exactly this device and I love it. Its sensitivity is very high, to the extent that it routinely gets a fix from indoors. Heavily wooded areas or tall buildings don't bother it. I'm also very happy with the accuracy and consistency of the trails it makes. Dermot -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GPS recommendations
I think that either of these units will serve you well and, in my opinion, any purchasing decision should be made on the basis of features, not the brand of chipset. I think he could also add that chip manufacturers don't have a lot of control over things like antenna placement, and case design when someone puts one of their chips in a device. I bet that could make a lot of difference. On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Karl Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Andy Robinson (blackadder) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeffrey Martin wrote: Sent: 24 April 2008 10:50 PM To: David Earl Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] GPS recommendations I bought a Garmin HCx Vista. Does the high sensitivity mean that it's better than other receivers or that they are just now catching up to other receivers? It should mean that its better than the sirf star II chipsets which you find in many older devices but its not as far as I am aware the sirf star III chipset that everyone raves about. I've not seen any comparison between the sirf star III and the chipset used by Garmin in their H devices. Cheers Andy The Garmin eTrex H series use a MediaTek chipset. I've seen a few comparisons with the Sirf Star III, such as this one: http://gpstracklog.typepad.com/gps_tracklog/2007/08/mediatek-gps-ch.html Generally the conclusions from the reviews I've read are that the MediaTek performs equal to if not better in some cases than the Sirf Star III chipset. Karl -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway tagging in the USA
What you have on the highway tag (which I may move to a usage page) looks fine to me. I couldn't give you an opinion on how to apply them to roads in California because I've never been in that state. I drove a truck for awhile in the US and there are quite a few roads that won't fit nicely into those categories. That's OK. Just make sure that the highway tag represents what the road looks like in general. Later you can add tags for number of lanes, size of shoulder, shoulder type, divider type, etc. I don't know how the rendering rules work exactly. I would like it to use the highway tag if other data is not available. I remember a state highway that looked like an Interstate except that it had turn lanes and stop signs for the traffic on the crossing roads. I think I would tag it as motorway even though it didn't have ramps. On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:46 AM, Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought it might be useful to have a concrete (literally) example of USA tagging to talk about. So…. think I have tagged the highways from San Francisco down to San Jose as described on the highway tagging page, with a few exceptions. My reference was the international section of the highway tag article: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Highway_tag_usage#International_equivalence The exceptions are as follows: 1) I upgraded the Golden Gate Bridge from primary to trunk, but I think it should be motorway because it has ramp-only access. 2) I upgraded most of the 'braided' highways in the San Francisco area and other main arteries further south to primary. Some of the ones I coded as primary in the San Francisco area have now been retagged as tertiary. I have sent am email to the author of these changes to see if the motivation is to get the roads to render yellow or if I have missed something. 3) IThere are many roads that are currently still tagged as residential which should probably be tertiary, secondary or primary and there are of course many areas of grey between primary, secondary and tertiary, however I think it would be good to get some feedback and discussion first. Could people take a look and see if I have got it about right and suggest or execute changes where required. Also… please could someone to a 'trial render' of the area using one or more potential 'USA friendly' colour schemes so we can see what it would look like. Personally I would be interested in something along these lines: Orange and wide: Motoroway/trunk Yellow and wide: Primary Yellow at narrow: secondary Fainted yellow and narrow: tertiary Could this be done off-line and then posted as an image on the wiki for discussion? Could anyone have a go at this? Btw, I have been copying some emails from talk onto talk-us over the past few days but they haven't made it onto the list, not sure why. Possibly it was because I was not a member of the list (which I now am). Regards, Peter Peter Ito ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bus Stops
How am I supposed to do bus stops? If two bus stops are on opposite sides of the road then I think maybe they can share a node? I found in some email that you can make little short service links. I don't like that. The bus pulls over to the side of the road where I'm at. Sometimes they aren't exactly across the street from each other. Where I'm at there are lots of wood and concrete bus shelters. On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 12:07 AM, Mike Collinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excellent background information for basing our models. Thank you Peter. Mike At 07:21 AM 11/08/2007, Peter Miller wrote: The conventional way of handling Bus Stops in the public transport industry is to have a node for each individual point at which one can get on a vehicle, so if there are two bus stops on opposite sides of the road then they are represented as two nodes. If there are three bays in a row on one side of the road then they are represented a 3 nodes in a row. Every Bus Stop in the UK has a unique code, and this is sometimes printed on the bus stop itself. In the EU standards they are called 'Stop Points' (rather than Bus Stops) so they can cover buses, tram, rail, ferry planes etc. In railway stations there is a Stop Point for each Platform (and each bay in a bus station, each Gate for an Airport and each quay in a Ferry terminal). Groups of local Stop Points (as they are called) are then arranged into Stop Areas where they are very close to each other. These Stop Points are not within the road layer because Stop Points are a distinct dataset managed separately; they are then associated with a street, sometimes using the Street Name and sometimes based on proximity. I recommend that we use 'Bus Stop' and 'Stop Point' for this low-level purpose and construct entities as we need them. The database of all these points in the UK is called 'NaPTAN' (standing for 'National Public Transport Access Nodes'), there are about 350,000 of them, and keen people can find additional information here: http://www.naptan.org.uk/ A new CEN standard is in the process of being ratified, called IFOPT which can be used for describe much more complex transport interchanges, such as major airports and railways stations, detailing every corridor, lift, check-in desk escalator etc. CEN standards are used throughout the EU and beyond. http://www.naptan.org.uk/ifopt/ There is also a modelling standard for public transport in general published by CEN called transmodel which covers the modelling in general and is used behind most professional transport products used in Europe. www.transmodel.org Of course, I am not proposing that we 'implement' all of the above, but where we choose modelling approaches and terms for entities it would be sensible to choose the same names. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GPS recommendations
I think OSM should stay away from direct recommendations. However, I could see OSM providing a forum for users to give their own personal recommendations. I think the problem with user reviews is that few users have access to many different products. If you are writing for a car magazine then you get to drive lots of different cars. The GPS I have now is pretty much the only one I've every used. I have no idea how it compares to other GPS units. On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:07 AM, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/GPS says: Thinking of getting a GPS Receiver to add data to OSM? These reviews are here to help. Well, if you have a particular model in mind, and want to know if it's any good, then they are some help. But if your mother has told you I want a GPS with a screen for my motorbike, which I can also use for gathering OSM data, then trying to read through and compare 50 different models is impossible. Would it be really too controversial for OSM to have a we particularly recommend these N models page, where N is small? Clearly, the NaviGPS (which I own) would be one, because it's good and OSM gets some money. But it would be great to have some sort of consensus on models in other price/capability brackets, perhaps a little more than a few mailing list messages saying I have a Foo GPS, and it's fine. What do people think? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] bus stop tagging
Where there are two bus stop shelters directly across the street from each other can they share a node? If I do that then I need a way to indicate the direction of each stop for the destination information. If I put a separate node for each one then I need to indicate the side of the road. -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] bus stop tagging
In other posts I've talked about keeping data separate from rendering, but I recognize that you don't want the data so complex that it is too difficult to render. Here is an idea: for two shelters across the street from each other shelter=dual destination:left=Shinli destination:right=Daehwa a shelter on one side of the road, but the bus also stops across the street where there is no shelter shelter=left destination:left=Shinli destination:right=Daehwa On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Jeffrey Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where there are two bus stop shelters directly across the street from each other can they share a node? If I do that then I need a way to indicate the direction of each stop for the destination information. If I put a separate node for each one then I need to indicate the side of the road. -- http://bowlad.com -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GPS recommendations
google email brings up ads related to your email This one came up for a waterproof pda: http://www.durateq.com/ On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Stephen Hope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it's just as important to have a list of models NOT to buy. Of course, this may get us into trouble with those manufacturers, but as long as we stick to facts and not opinions, we should be fine. If a particular model only records data points every 10 seconds (or not at all), we need to know it's not suitable for this purpose. Unless I order online, any shop around here is going to carry maybe 5-6 models, and probably on have 3-4 of those on hand, so my choice as a shopper would be limited. If the recommended ones are not in the few available, it would be nice to know if any lemons are. Stephen 2008/4/24 Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/GPS says: Thinking of getting a GPS Receiver to add data to OSM? These reviews are here to help. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging and rendering highways in the USA and elsewhere
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Major non-interstate highways that have traffic light free multi-level junctions etc should be tagged as 'trunk' and possibly also be rendered orange but with less grand route numbers to differentiate them from interstate routes. This statement really bothers me. First, we must make every effort to keep the data separate from the rendering. Consider a section of Interstate Highway that structurally resembles a UK motorway. This section of road may also be part of a state highway. It's not uncommon for a section of road to have both a state highway sign and an Interstate sign. In some very barren areas an Interstate may have standard intersections without ramps. As in your example above a road that is not an Interstate may have multiple levels and ramps. Whatever scheme we agree on must keep the road's structure separate from legal classifications. I checked and the wiki still says that the highway tag should be used to indicate what the road looks like. My reasoning can be found on the talk page. Whether a road is an Interstate, state highway, county road, etc. should be indicated in another data field. I haven't been following all the conversations lately, but I remember an Australian was tagging a gravel road as a motorway because it was the main road between two rural cities and he wanted it prominently rendered. Perhaps in this case some kind of importance tag should be used. I think free tagging is great, but we should not allow multiple definitions for each tag. A tag should not indicate both it's legal status and it's structure, although one might imply the other under certain circumstances. -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Higway tag wiki
I've been working on other projects lately and not been following the latest discussions. While responding to a recent discussion on the mailing list I noticed that there is a lot of duplication between http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Highway_tag_usage and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:highway I like the idea of having a separate usage page, but if I go back to that then the info from Key:highway needs to be merged, or vis versa if we want to drop the usage page. -- http://bowlad.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] wrist straps
shop=wrist strap On 8/20/07, Steve Coast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a convert to mapping with photos and getting JOSM to match them to the GPS trace. Now where can I get wrist straps for my cameras? Call me tight but ebay is a bit excessive at 3-4 quid per strap (including postage). Pretty funny though - deluxe nintendo wii leather straps can fetch a few quid :-) have fun, SteveC | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.asklater.com/steve/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb -- http://bowlad.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
