Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Imports du cadastre et compte dédié
Christian Quest a écrit: Ce n'est effectivement pas très diplomatique de la part de Pieren, mais ce n'est pas plus diplomatique de la part du DWG d'auto-proclamer des règles sans discussion préalable et de bloquer des comptes pour la seule raison qu'on ne prend pas en compte leurs messages issus de ces règles auto-proclamées. Please, please, please stop arguing like this. There are suggestions I can envisage bringing forward that could potentially be an improvement for both parties. But it's very difficult to get anyone to listen to any degree of compromise when you are saying, as above, na na na, he started it. All you are doing is making the positions on either side more entrenched. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Imports-du-cadastre-et-compte-dedie-tp5727181p5727416.html Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Imports du cadastre et compte dédié
Christian Quest a écrit: Il faut prendre en compte l'aspect très peu pratique et l'utilité très très limitée de ce compte dédié pour les imports faits de façon parcellaire comme c'est le cas pour le cadastre, mais aussi pour beaucoup d'import de données opendata comme nous le faisons depuis quelques temps. Oui, je comprends vos raisons, et aussi je comprends que (selon DWG) 20,000 noeuds n'est pas entierement de façon parcellaire. DWG n'a pas bloqué la plupart d'utilisateurs de cadastre, seulement les auteurs des changesets très grands. Alors, c'est difficile d'écrire les regles qui sont applicable à tous les situations. J'espere qu'on peut trouver une solution, mais ça prend du temps et peut-être du travail technique. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Imports-du-cadastre-et-compte-dedie-tp5727181p5727429.html Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Imports du cadastre et compte dédié
Jean-Marc Liotier a écrit: Ok - alors peut-être qu'une limite explicite pour la dimension d'un changeset serait intéressante pour apporter une discrimination objective entre import mineur et import massif. Un peu comme http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2012-September/064482.html peut-être? :) Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Imports-du-cadastre-et-compte-dedie-tp5727181p5727454.html Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Imports du cadastre et compte dédié
Christian Quest a écrit: Si je comprends bien, cette proposition permettra le blocage si l'on n'utilise pas de compte dédié, et permettra aussi le blocage si on ne met pas les bons tags dans le changeset... de mieux en mieux ! Oh for goodness' sake, Christian. There are two opposing points of view which are incompatible here. I have tried to suggest a compromise that would (as I understand it) permit 90% of cadastre-based edits to continue, exactly as is, from the user's main account, with just a tiny modification to Pierre's JOSM plugin source code. In addition, it would improve visibility of automated edits worldwide so that the community can police them, not just DWG on its own. Il y a vraiment des moments où l'on a l'impression de perdre son temps à expliquer son point de vue quand celui-ci n'est absolument pas pris en compte. :( If I wasn't interested in taking account of your, and others', point of view, I wouldn't be reading and posting to talk-fr. Nor would I be suggesting a solution which is different to the current import guidelines. But taking account of your point of view does not mean submitting to every aspect of it unquestioningly. As I say, there are two incompatible points of view here. We clearly need to find something that will keep both sides happy, and that 'something' is clearly not either of the two opposing points of view right now. If you're not interested in working towards a solution where both parties can agree, but instead, you want to continue writing angry mailing list messages because your point of view hasn't been 100% accepted, then sure, carry on as now, and rebuff all attempts at compromise. And I can guarantee we will still be having the same argument in a year's time. Your choice. Yours, rather exasperated, Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Imports-du-cadastre-et-compte-dedie-tp5727181p5727467.html Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Imports du cadastre et compte dédié
Christian Quest a écrit: J'ai proposé sur talk@ d'utiliser les tags, mais sans le compte dédié qui n'a plus d'intérêt avec les tags. Rendre les deux obligatoires ce n'est vraiment pas aller vers un compromis mais rajouter une couche dobligation supplémentaire. Ah, non, tu n'as pas compris mon proposition. J'ai proposé: - les tags pour la plupart d'éditions en masse; - le compte dedié _seulement_ pour automated edits of a high-volume, sustained or continuous nature (par exemple, xybot) Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Imports-du-cadastre-et-compte-dedie-tp5727181p5727475.html Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Imports du cadastre et compte dédié
RÉAU Simon a écrit: S'il te plaît Richard pourrait tu écrire en français sur la liste française. J'essaie, oui, mais mon français n'est pas très bon. Ma première petite amie était française et en ce temps-là je pouvais parler français assez bien... mais c'était 1992, et maintenant, 2012, je suis marié à une anglaise. :) Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Imports-du-cadastre-et-compte-dedie-tp5727181p5727480.html Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Imports du cadastre et compte dédié
Christian Quest a écrit: Un import de bâti de plus de 2 nodes est-il concerné ? Quand je lis ta proposition, c'est oui, ou alors il faut que je retourne en cours d'anglais. Alors, si tu penses pas 20,000 mais 200,000, dites ça sur la liste talk@! Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Imports-du-cadastre-et-compte-dedie-tp5727181p5727481.html Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
[OSM-talk] Can you translate the Legal FAQ?
All the translations of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ are currently out-of-date and refer to the CC-BY-SA, with the exception of the Japanese one (at least I think so... :) ). This is a page that people often refer to for their can I do this...? answers. So if you have the time to translate it into your local language, please do. It's not too long so shouldn't be a mammoth job. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [possibly OT] Apples IOS 6 Maps and the response
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Didn't find a hint for osm data in it so far. It certainly isn't OSM in US, UK etc. But I've seen a screenshot of iOS Maps in Islamabad that looks very very much like OSM data. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/possibly-OT-Apples-IOS-6-Maps-and-the-response-tp5726581p5726859.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] If you're on Twitter
...you might like to retweet this: http://twitter.com/openstreetmap/status/248759285801185281 :) cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] La fondation knight attribue 575 000 $ pour l'amélioration de l'infrastructure OpenStreetMap
Nicolas Dumoulin a écrit: 1. un éditeur facile et performant. Il parle de partir de potlach, dommage j'aurai préféré la solution javascript en développement. Tu as vu iD (http://www.geowiki.com/) ? Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/La-fondation-knight-attribue-575-000-pour-l-amelioration-de-l-infrastructure-OpenStreetMap-tp5726550p5726590.html Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Pieren wrote: The one who never made a mistake in JOSM can be the first to throw a stone. *waves* cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Import-guidelines-OSMF-DWG-governance-tp5725810p5726047.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Christian Quest wrote:
As you're joining this topic, can you explain why you changed
the guidelines in the wiki to make the dedicated account a
requirement and not a recommendation anymore ?
As a few people have already said (Michael, Frederik, Simon etc.) this was
basically codifying existing best practice; there was a widespread
understanding among the worldwide community that this was the way to do it.
At the time, I recall that we were having difficulties with a succession of
bad, unregulated and undocumented imports from newcomers - time dulls the
memory but I think there were several in Canada.
It's also been observed, quite rightly, that the nuances of British English
- which tends to gently suggest when other languages would say you
MUST!!!?!1 - are not easily appreciated by non-native speakers. We had a
case on talk-gb at a similar time where the wiki explained don't do it
with typical British understatement; a chap of Polish origin completely
misunderstood this, imported some unwanted data (in the UK) without
discussion - and incorrectly - and then got very aggressive when challenged.
Firming up the language is an attempt to avoid this type of
misunderstanding.
The Cadastre 'imports' are an unusual case, and the enthusiasm with which
Marc has taken to them is more unusual still. Clearly someone who just
traces building outlines in their village should not need to set up a
dedicated account just for that. On the other hand, an import of 115 948
nodes (changesets 12758927, 12759290, 12759667) is heavy-duty stuff on a
TIGER/Canvec scale, and the community consensus - outside France, at any
rate - has generally been that a separate account is required for this.
It's an interesting question as to whether local practice trumps general
community consensus. But I would caution against taking this concept of
'subsidiarity' too far. It's great when global norms are extended within the
spirit of OSM: for example, the German community has adopted the additional
tag motorroad=yes because OSM's long-established highway tagging didn't meet
their needs, and I applaud them for this.
But if, for example, the Moldavian community decided not to use
highway=motorway/trunk/primary at all, but chose road=1/2/3 instead, this
would damage every consumer, every newcomer, and lead to fragmentation and
unnecessary complexity. Saying the local community has decided this can
potentially lead to fossilisation: a group of 50 experienced users establish
a way of working that suits them, but which may not be in the interests of
newcomers. It isn't a silver bullet. (It's a similar situation to some of
the more relation-heavy tagging concepts that are introduced, whose users
then get annoyed when well-meaning newbies come along and inadvertently mess
them up.)
I think there are two things we can take from this.
Firstly, the status of the import guidelines needs to become less ambiguous.
At present we have three largely overlapping policies ('Mechanical Edit
Policy', 'Automated Edits code of conduct', and 'Import/Guidelines') on the
wiki, which are not always easy to find or understand. These need to be
abbreviated into one short, simple, unambiguous document, one that reflects
both the majority will of the existing community and OSMF's responsibility
to encourage future mappers, and then signed off by the OSMF board.
Secondly, we've just finished the licence change and I realise that some
people might miss the arguments... but could I gently suggest (there's that
British English reserve again) that a debate is more likely to reach an
amicable resolution if carried out in a less combative fashion? Assume good
faith and all that. Rabble-rousing on talk-fr@ to say come to talk@ and
argue with people is not really helpful, though I will admit to laughing
out loud at
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2012-September/047956.html
:) A friendly this policy doesn't accord with our local practice, can we
work something out? message to start the thread would have been less likely
to get people's backs up than a long screed with a series of pointed
questions at the end.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Import-guidelines-OSMF-DWG-governance-tp5725810p5726103.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines proposal update
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I believe that dedicated accounts are generally better for imports than using mixed ones which are also used for original data. This really helps a lot in sorting data according to its intellectual properties holders. Yes, absolutely. The really obvious example of this is the Polish UMP data, which was licensed CC-BY-SA and could not be kept post-licence change. If dedicated accounts had been used, removing this data would have been relatively easy; in reality, it has been (and continues to be) a nightmare. :( So although I understand the motivation behind sly's suggestion that In the case of regionaly limited imports (inside a country), it is highly recommanded to get in touch with the local community to discuss your planned import and ask them if you should, shouldn't or must use a dedicated account, this approach has proved problematic in the past and I would caution against repeating the same mistake. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Import-guidelines-proposal-update-tp5726210p5726241.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines proposal update
Pieren wrote: I thought that such issue is not possible anymore with ODbl. No, the Contributor Terms simply say You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current licence terms (1a). If the licence changes to one which is incompatible with the import, OSMF may remove Your contributions from the Project (1b)... and that rather requires being able to identify what these incompatible contributions are. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Import-guidelines-proposal-update-tp5726210p5726248.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] SotM 2013
Nick Whitelegg wrote: Thirded because it's close to me. All the suggestions so far sound great, but having a keen volunteer team is absolutely crucial to the success of an event like this. So if there are three people raring to go with a Guildford event (and maybe some of the London people might want to help too?) then that's sounding good already. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/SotM-2013-tp5724945p5725093.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Mapnik attribution
Shu Higashi wrote: Map data (c) ODbL 1.0 OpenStreetMap contributors and Map tile (c) CC BY-SA 2.0 OpenStreetMap That would be fine, but you could also do: (c) OpenStreetMap contributors: license where license is hyperlinked to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Mapnik-attribution-tp5724875p5724876.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] Licence change
Hello all, If you go to: http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright you might notice a slight difference. :) OSM data downloaded after 9am today is now licensed under the Open Database Licence. The first ODbL-licensed planet.osm file is currently being generated. These pages summarise the main changes: http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/ODbL/License_Transition/Guidance_To_Data_Consumers The main supporting documents on the wiki have been updated but translations and some of the more obscure documents will need attention. Our recommended attribution is now © OpenStreetMap contributors plus a link to www.openstreetmap.org/copyright . That page then gives further details of the ODbL and other relevant information. cheers Richard [Please check follow-ups when replying. Feel free to forward to local mailing lists/forums.] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] SotM 2013
Hello all, This is just a little heads-up, nothing more. Before too long it'll be time for OSMF to start soliciting bids to host the State of the Map conference next year. This year was of course Tokyo, and last year Denver. So it might seem sensible that it returns to Europe for 2013 - and we haven't had a UK SotM since the first one (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_Of_The_Map_2007). The open source GIS conference, FOSS4G, is also coming to the UK next year - to Nottingham in September. Perhaps some of you might like to start thinking about organising a bid? Lots of potential in the country where OSM was founded and which, in coverage terms, is only rivalled by Germany. Personally I'd love to see it in Oxford but don't have the time to help organise it, sadly! cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Modération de la liste talk-fr [Etait : Potlatch, utilisable avec le cadastre ?]
verdy_p a écrit: Pour revenir au sujet, si Potlatch était développé sans Flash, en HTML5+Javascript, il serait plus viable à long terme. Si Flash est en fin de vie, Potlatch 2 aussi est condamné à disparaître dans sa version actuelle. Il est peut-être temps d'envisager Potlatch 3... https://github.com/systemed/iD :) Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Moderation-de-la-liste-talk-fr-Etait-Potlatch-utilisable-avec-le-cadastre-tp5724714p5724784.html Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk] Shoud OSM Help move to Stackexchange community?
Mike wrote: One thing that always bothered me on OSM is that for every new section of the OSM I had to open new account. That is ridiculous. You don't. Honest. We just have two logins: the main login, and the wiki. trac.osm.org, help.osm.org, and forum.osm.org all use the main login. cheers Richard who is slightly bemused by this whole thread and not quite sure what's wrong with _both_ OSM having its own help site, and people being available on StackExchange to answer OSM-related questions -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Shoud-OSM-Help-move-to-Stackexchange-community-tp5722517p5724504.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Potlatch, utilisable avec le cadastre ? [Etait : Potlatch, mauvais outil ?]
Pieren a écrit: You can find more details about the special WMS protocol on the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ WikiProject_Cadastre_Fran%C3%A7ais/Aspects_techniques_du_cadastre_en_ligne). I could expand it with the details about how to retrieve CODE field (the municipality ID within the cadastre system). Thanks for all the details - greatly appreciated. I'm pretty sure we can do something with that, though we might have to queue requests given the IP limitation. Projection shouldn't be too much of a problem though. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-Potlatch-mauvais-outil-Etait-Import-batiment-tp5394283p5724588.html Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [Talk-us] how to select overlapping objects in Potlatch 2?
Peter Dobratz wrote: Looking at the area in Potlatch 2, I can't figure out a way to select just one of the overlapping objects Select the shared node, press / . It'll select the other way. (If there are several sharing the node, keep pressing / until you get to the one you want.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/how-to-select-overlapping-objects-in-Potlatch-2-tp5724091p5724121.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Potlatch, utilisable avec le cadastre ? [Etait : Potlatch, mauvais outil ?]
Pieren a écrit: Ces deux points nécessitent du développement assez conséquent Je serai heureux d'ajouter réprojection Lambert-spherical Mercator à Potlatch 2. L'accès aux images avec cookie sera moins facile, mais on peut créer un proxy cadastre_tools (sur dev.osm.org peut-être). Malheureusement quand j'essaie richard@errol:~/cadastre$ ./cadastre_client.py 399409.28@165107.11 405833.71@171964.30 3800 Caen 14 caen_city.png le resultat est entierement blanc (http://richard.dev.openstreetmap.org/caen_city.png). Peut-etre vous pouvez m'aider? Un dernier point : P2 utilise Flash et son language ActionScript3. On sait que de récentes décisions de grands acteurs industriels font que cette plateforme n'a plus d'avenir. Oui, elle a un avenir, mais pas dans le navigateur. Adobe AIR utilise ActionScript 3 pour les apps iOS, Android, OS X et Windows (mais pas Linux). Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-Potlatch-mauvais-outil-Etait-Import-batiment-tp5394283p5724004.html Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [Talk-us] Announcing Remap-a-tron
Martijn van Exel wrote: Let me know if it's useful / how it can be improved. Very very nice indeed. If someone could figure out a JavaScripty way to tell a currently-open Potlatch instance to jump to this location, rather than firing up a new instance each time, that'd be great. I'll happily do the P2 bit if someone smarter than me can do the Rails/JS bit. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Announcing-Remap-a-tron-tp5723115p5723496.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] horrible job in gjilan,kosovo
Peteris Krisjanis wrote: I'm not the person who can fix this, but can you be more precise why do you think this is error from rectration bot? Do you claim that license of data were ok? Some of Mike's imports may have had compatible licences. However, as he says at http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Michael%20DuPont/diary/15777 , he a) wasn't willing to volunteer information as to which imports these were (point 2) b) didn't use separate, documented accounts for each import source, as per the Import Guidelines (second comment, more than half my edits are imports) Consequently unless the bot magically gained psychic powers and could guess the licence of each changeset, his non-acceptance stood. The bot is clever but it's not _that_ clever. Mike - all your edits appear to be preserved at fosm.org so I suggest you use that. And the FOSM lists. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/horrible-job-in-gjilan-kosovo-tp5721531p5721579.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Footway to Sidewalk?
Tom Chance wrote: I see Peter Ito has made some changes to tighten up this policy (surely guidance?) It's a policy of the OSMF Data Working Group. I made the clarifications, not Peter. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Footway-to-Sidewalk-tp5721410p5721512.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Cycle routes - please document your relations!
Hi all, There is a very useful wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_National_Cycle_Network/National_Routes which documents ids for each route relation on the NCN. Please use it! Before creating an NCN relation, check if one exists already; and after you've created one, please add the id to the table. Otherwise we end up with the situation that routes get accidentally mapped with three or four separate relations, sometimes even on the same way. And yes, we should have an awesome search-by-tag function for relations in the API, but patches welcome etc. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Cycle routes - please document your relations!
Graham Stewart wrote: - Should ALL NCN route relations be in this table Yes. I don't think we're at any risk of out-boggling Map Features quite yet. ;) - Does the 1x, 2x, 3x etc numbering system still apply? Yes. It's just that there's now also 1xx, 2xx, 3xx etc. The Sustrans numbering system has always seemed a little broken to me. NCN10 is apparently Eastern despite being a Coast to Coast route, and doesn't qualify as 7x. Scotland and Northern England despite being further north than the NCN72. Very odd. AIUI that's because it was originally Regional Route 10. Re-signing it (last year, I think) as NCN10, which hadn't been taken, was an expedient way of getting rid of a Regional Route without causing much confusion. It's certainly no more broken than the A-road numbering system where out-of-zone roads such as the A14 etc. are now incredibly commonplace. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Cycle-routes-please-document-your-relations-tp5721062p5721069.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Potential Vandalism - AGAIN
David Groom wrote: Can we get this reverted and block his account Dreedled. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Potential-Vandalism-tp5720594p5721082.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-us] Another random road reclassification
Richard Weait wrote: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/expressway expressway=yes, seems to be a fringe tag at best. I believe our German friends use motorroad=yes for this. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Another-random-road-reclassification-tp5720723p5720800.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Another random road reclassification
Paul Johnson wrote: Not quite. American expressways sometimes, but not always, have driveways, tracks and service roads connecting, German motorroads don't. Oh, sure. But you don't need me to tell you that slight national variations in the exact meaning of OSM highway tagging are nothing new. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Another-random-road-reclassification-tp5720723p5720804.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[OSM-talk] New Potlatch feature to aid remapping
Hi all, I've added a small feature to Potlatch 2 which should be generally useful but will particularly help in remapping. When you've selected a way, you can now add intermediate points just by shift-clicking a blank area. P2 will work out where to put the node in the way, and do it. Exactly like shift-clicking the way to insert a node then dragging it, but quicker. (It's a bit like JOSM's ImproveWayAccuracy feature, I think.) You can also incorporate existing nodes by shift-clicking them. This is useful for those times when a bunch of orphan nodes are hanging around, but the way itself has been straightened. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Re: Post bot cleanup
Bryce Nesbitt wrote: I rather think the non-responders could have been a separate category, and their data could have been kept. Doesn't fly legally, sadly. You can't say I'm ignoring any rights on this item just because the rights-holder hasn't responded to my e-mails. That said, I did once live near a tiny village (population 41) that claimed to be Twinned with Paris on the basis that they'd written to Paris asking for a twinning, and received no reply. I guess that's a similar idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitwell,_Rutland The license bot damage will take decades to recover from. Not at all. OSM has only existed since 2004, and the redaction affected 1% of the database globally. At a very conservative estimate it's 29 days' work (8*365*0.01); in reality, we _already_ have more nodes in the database than we did before the redaction started. Such is the rate at which the map is growing. cheers Richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Very Happy - Looking forward
vegard wrote: What about editor facebook support for editors? :) No, I'm actually serious - Vegard Engen mapped insert changeset comment here, near . ? Potlatch 1 actually did that with Twitter. But then Twitter started requiring OAuth and I really couldn't be bothered to code an OAuth library in ActionScript 1. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Very-Happy-Looking-forward-tp5717753p5718196.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL Attribution
Jochen123 wrote: In preparation for the release of an ODbL-Licensed planet I have been looking around what the official proper attribution will be, so that I can update all sites where I am using OSM data. I didn't find anything on the Wiki. A couple of months back I wrote http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ/ODbL and threw it out for review by people. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/ODbL-Attribution-tp5717937p5717949.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Revert de changesets pour vandalisme ?
Jo a écrit: Maetma, Je n'ai pas réussi de restaurer ce changeset: 12394958 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12394958 Je l'ai fait: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12447296 J'ai trouvé Maetma trés impoli sur trac.openstreetmap.org, alors cette vandalisme ne m'étonne pas. Bon débarras. amitiés Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Revert-de-changesets-pour-vandalisme-tp5717934p5717951.html Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [Talk-us] LA part of the map essentially is unusable
Charlotte Wolter wrote: Got it. Thanks for the explanation. So, how do I load shapefiles into a separate layer? I need someone to walk me through it. How would I do that, if I wanted to get things like street names (and the other TIGER data)? I'll post a how-to at the start of next week - the new version of P2 needs to be deployed on the servers, but once that's done it'll be easy. And yes, it'll include pulling through street names. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-LA-part-of-the-map-essentially-is-unusable-tp5717315p5717484.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[OSM-talk] Redaction progress
Current state of affairs: - North America is mostly complete. The bot is still working in Los Angeles and Victoria (Canada). There are one or two failed or incomplete areas which are marked in red on the progress map; these are being retried individually. Haiti/Dominican Republic has been left out of this initial run to give a little more time for remapping. - Western Europe is also mostly complete. Some complex areas in Germany are still being processed. Redaction in Poland has paused after initially being processed with a whitelist missing (with the associated changes now reverted) and will resume as part of the final whole-world pass. - Belarus is complete. - Redaction is now underway in Australia, starting from the south coast. - Progress map link: http://harrywood.dev.openstreetmap.org/license-change/botprocessing.php Please edit the To: line and make sure any follow-ups go to the relevant local mailing list only. :) cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Further redaction update
The global pass has now started. The redaction bot is at 180° longitude and working east. The North Pole, South Pole and Poland have been exempted from this pass and won't be redacted until Tuesday at the earliest. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-us] Redaction progress
Current state of affairs: - North America is mostly complete. The bot is still working in Los Angeles and Victoria (Canada). There are one or two failed or incomplete areas which are marked in red on the progress map; these are being retried individually. Haiti/Dominican Republic has been left out of this initial run to give a little more time for remapping. - Western Europe is also mostly complete. Some complex areas in Germany are still being processed. Redaction in Poland has paused after initially being processed with a whitelist missing (with the associated changes now reverted) and will resume as part of the final whole-world pass. - Belarus is complete. - Redaction is now underway in Australia, starting from the south coast. - Progress map link: http://harrywood.dev.openstreetmap.org/license-change/botprocessing.php Please edit the To: line and make sure any follow-ups go to the relevant local mailing list only. :) cheers Richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Re: Post bot cleanup
Toby Murray wrote: The good news is that TIGER data is still available to help in remapping. The TIGER 2011 tiles were recently discussed on this mailing list: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TIGER_2011 Indeed: and Ian, Andy and I have this afternoon briefly discussed making this available on a server so it can be pulled through into OSM by mappers. I've also done some work today on getting Potlatch 2 to load _big_ shapefiles, and tested it on the 55Mb shapefile for LA County. It's not fast, but it works. This too provides a really easy way to get the latest TIGER data into OSM, and once the new version is deployed I'll post some instructions here. Charlotte Wolter wrote: Do we think that the US map can have any validity if it doesn't include LA? Depends whether you visit LA I guess ;) , but assuming you do, let's roll up our sleeves and fix it. I don't think that one self-proclaimed viking deciding not to agree to the new licence completely damns OSM! cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-Fwd-Re-Post-bot-cleanup-tp5717309p5717318.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Post bot cleanup
jerjozwik wrote: is anyone else noticing some ways have a name, a one way direction, some other info, but no highway tag. so they dont actually render in potlatch 2. the only reason i noticed them way due to the oneway arrows being drawn on top of the satellite image. Everything's rendered in P2 - there's a special rule in the stylesheet that says if it's not been rendered, draw it as a plain black line. _But_ if you have the full satellite display, you might not be able to distinguish it easily. Use the Dim checkbox in the Background menu - that'll help you see it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Post-bot-cleanup-tp5717182p5717408.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] LA part of the map essentially is unusable
Charlotte Wolter wrote: So, are you volunteering? Anyone else? I spent a couple of hours this morning reworking the P2 source code so that it can load the entire TIGER 2011 road files for LA County in one go without crashing. So yeah, that counts as volunteering to fix it in a way, I think. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-LA-part-of-the-map-essentially-is-unusable-tp5717315p5717409.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] LA part of the map essentially is unusable
On 19/07/2012 23:58, Charlotte Wolter wrote: Richard, I spent a couple of hours this morning reworking the P2 source code so that it can load the entire TIGER 2011 road files for LA County in one go without crashing. That's great, but will it overwrite work that we've already done? Also, is this something that works only in JOSM, in which case many of us couldn't use it? P2 = Potlatch 2. I'm the maintainer of the Potlatch code. I don't use JOSM unless someone threatens me with a cheese-grater. As I understand it, it's something that only works in Potlatch 2. :) P2's background layers feature allows you to have TIGER data showing up as a background layer, and to alt-click it to bring it through to the main map. There is nothing automatic about it: you choose what you want to bring through. It's a fast, efficient way of working with third-party data sources without the disadvantages of automated imports. As soon as the new version is available on openstreetmap.org I'll post further about how to use it (subject to being away from the computer this weekend). Also, I still don't understand why all the TIGER data was deleted on ways that were partially deleted. I just found a piece of a motorway link to I-5 where the bridge part was deleted, but the road still was visible in Potlatch. All the other TIGER data also was gone (luckily, I knew what it was). Why was that done? The redaction bot reverses changes made by decliners, _but_ it does not automatically undelete data that was deleted by decliners. Believe me, if it did the latter, the mess made of the map would be something to behold; there'd be random bits of road doubling up on existing highways here, there and everywhere. Neither option is easy but I'm certain that this one is the better. cheers Richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Update on redaction bot and minutely diffs
NopMap wrote: It's good that most of Britain has been processed, but it appears that the two areas containing London have failed repeatedly. As they probably contain the most complex data and highest density, I think they are critical and if they cannot be processed I'd expect the bot to run into trouble in most large metropolitan areas in Europe. I believe the London (west) one was an issue with an odd relation: there's special-case handling in the code for multipolygons, and this relation had been a multipolygon at one point in its history but not at another. This has been fixed so will should succeed on a future pass. As Robert has mentioned, London (east) has succeeded. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Update-on-redaction-bot-and-minutely-diffs-tp5716307p5716818.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Redaction progress
[posted to talk-gb@, announce@ and talk@; please choose follow-ups carefully; please also translate and forward to your local mailing list if relevant] The redaction bot has started on the 'Western Europe' area. Because continents are annoyingly not shaped like rectangles, this inevitably includes some overlap with North Africa etc. The UK is finishing off as we speak. You can monitor its current location at a site set up by Harry: http://harrywood.dev.openstreetmap.org/license-change/botprocessing.php As you'll see, the internal checks of the bot and the API occasionally throw up errors which cause a region (1 degree square) not to be fully processed. The coders working on the bot are tracking these failures down and fixing them as we go: if you'd like to help or find out more, they're in #osm-dev on IRC (irc.oftc.net). When a failure is fixed then the bot is rerun for that area. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] Redaction progress
[posted to talk-gb@, announce@ and talk@; please choose follow-ups carefully; please also translate and forward to your local mailing list if relevant] The redaction bot has started on the 'Western Europe' area. Because continents are annoyingly not shaped like rectangles, this inevitably includes some overlap with North Africa etc. The UK is finishing off as we speak. You can monitor its current location at a site set up by Harry: http://harrywood.dev.openstreetmap.org/license-change/botprocessing.php As you'll see, the internal checks of the bot and the API occasionally throw up errors which cause a region (1 degree square) not to be fully processed. The coders working on the bot are tracking these failures down and fixing them as we go: if you'd like to help or find out more, they're in #osm-dev on IRC (irc.oftc.net). When a failure is fixed then the bot is rerun for that area. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Redaction progress
Andrew wrote: Has redaction failed in London and Surrey? I was hoping to clean up afterwards. Failed first time round but is now being re-run. Keep an eye on Harry's site and it should let you know when things are ready. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Redaction-progress-tp5716333p5716692.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] Building a friendly new editor in JavaScript
Hi all, Potlatch is five years old and JOSM is over six years old. Scary, isn't it? Lots has changed in those five years. Browsers now do natively things that used to require a plugin - indeed, you might not even have the plugin anymore. OSM's changed, too, from a little-known geek project to this behemoth of map data used by millions every day. So we need another editor. Not to replace what we have now: Potlatch fulfils the intermediate editor role and JOSM fulfils the advanced editor role very nicely. What we don't have, yet, is a simple, friendly editor as a welcoming way into OSM. I thought I'd start writing one. So: iD. Pure JavaScript, using the Dojo toolkit (which is really nice). It's at a really early stage of development. It doesn't save anything yet, nor do any tagging, nor even let you delete things - that's how early it is. After all, it'll be much better if the collective brains of OSM and elsewhere apply themselves to the challenge, rather than just me sitting in a room in Charlbury. Fancy getting involved? Here's the project page: http://www.geowiki.com/ And here's the source: https://github.com/systemed/iD Throw questions at me (on dev@) or just get started and hack away. Between us we can build something really good. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Redaction process is hogging up the tile rendering
Roland Olbricht wrote: This is not a problem of the rendering server backlog. It is a problem of the minute diff generation. ...which has now been fixed. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Redaction-process-is-hogging-up-the-tile-rendering-tp5716254p5716263.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Redaction process is hogging up the tile rendering
On 12/07/2012 14:24, Roland Olbricht wrote: Thank you very much. Now it works fine, great work. Thank Andy, Tom and Frederik. I'm just the messenger! cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] Redaction progress
Hi all, After a couple of delays earlier today caused by technical issues (with the setup, not with data integrity), the redaction bot is now running smoothly, has completed its run across Ireland, and is starting on Great Britain. You can follow edits here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/OSMF%20Redaction%20Account/edits and see a visualisation of which squares have been processed here: http://harrywood.dev.openstreetmap.org/license-change/botprocessing.php cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?
Peter Dobratz wrote: I'm trying to get a better understanding of the railway=abandoned tag and see what the community thinks about it. FWIW there's been a similar discussion on talk-gb recently. The consensus seems to be railway=abandoned for railways where there's still some physical trace (and you can see it from the air includes that!), and railway=dismantled used fairly sparingly where there's no trace left. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/railway-abandoned-and-mapping-things-that-are-not-there-any-more-tp5716334p5716341.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?
Mike N. wrote: So they are present, and don't hurt anything. None of the 'standard maps' will bother to render them. A railway map could use them if it needed to. I delete them if they go through current buildings or parking lots also. Yes, that's a sensible attitude. I think it's also worth noting that what's on the ground is slightly in the eye of the beholder. I'm not really a railway archaeologist, but I do know quite a bit about old canals. There are places, even in redeveloped town centres, where the canal seems to be obliterated to the untrained eye; but if you know what you're looking for, the clues are there to see, even amongst the car parks. In those circumstances, a =dismantled tag makes sense. I guess one railway equivalent is where a bridge across a river has been removed. It's not railway=abandoned, it's clearly more than that. But there are usually bridge abutments still standing on either side, maybe even some stonework left in the river. Again, railway=dismantled seems appropriate there. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/railway-abandoned-and-mapping-things-that-are-not-there-any-more-tp5716334p5716356.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[OSM-talk] Redaction underway
[posted to talk-ie@, announce@ and talk@; follow-ups to talk@ unless Ireland-specific] Hello all, The redaction process is now underway with Ireland as planned. Further updates will be posted to relevant lists as and when each phase starts and ends: - to talk-ie@ and talk-gb@ when Ireland ends and Great Britain begins - to talk-gb@ and talk@ when Great Britain ends and Western Europe/Belarus begins - to talk@, talk-us@ and talk-ca@ when Belarus ends and North America begins - to talk-us@, talk-ca@ and talk-au@ when North America ends and Australia begins - to talk-au@ and talk@ when Australia ends and the rest of the world begins - to talk@ when the rest of the world ends ...and, of course, if anything interrupts the progress of the redaction more than briefly. All updates will be cc:ed to announce@. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-dev] Licence redaction ready to begin
Frederik Ramm wrote: I have been informed that I have no clue Actually the phrase I used was that Frederik clearly knows as much about Potlatch as I do about JOSM. (But I suspect more.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Fwd-OSM-dev-Licence-redaction-ready-to-begin-tp5715740p5716138.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-ca] Creating a relation
James Ewen wrote: What would be making it impossible to create a lake with two islands with Potlatch2? In that example, the outer way isn't closed. If you close the outer way (i.e. same node at the start and end) then it'll work fine. cheers Richard ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-GB] Licence redaction ready to begin
Ed Loach wrote: Does later this week suggest that we have some idea of how long the bot will take, and there is a rough estimate of when IE and GB will be completed? We are expecting the bot to take around a month for the whole world, but there are so many variables it's impossible to say. In particular, the test runs have run on test hardware, and we don't know what speed it'll run on the live hardware/database - which is faster, but also has the slight complicating matter of people using it for mapping! :) There is also some uncertainty about whether monster planet-spanning relations will have an adverse effect on the run. However - and I'm sure those who know more about the technicalities of it will correct me if I'm wrong - I think it's entirely plausible that the British Isles will be complete by the end of this week. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Licence-redaction-ready-to-begin-tp5715730p5715766.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] Licence redaction ready to begin
Hello all, I'm pleased to announce that the licence change bot is ready to get underway. Starting this week, we will be 'redacting' the contributions (less than 1%) from the live database that are not compatible with the new Contributor Terms and Open Database Licence (ODbL) - in other words, they will no longer be accessible. We are expecting to begin on _Wednesday_ (9th July) assuming a couple of final setup details are completed by then. The bot will run in the following order: 1. Ireland 2. UK 3. Western Europe 4. North America 5. Australia 6. rest of the world Once it is complete, we will be ready to distribute data under the ODbL and we'll advise of that with a separate announcement. The final pre-redaction dataset available under CC-BY-SA has now been generated at http://planet.openstreetmap.org/planet-120704.osm.bz2 . Where data has been redacted, any attempt to access it from the API or the site's 'browse' pages will return a response to that effect. Test runs have shown that the bot is functioning as we want it to, but we will of course be monitoring its progress. We are currently expecting it to take in the order of one month to complete; given the many variables I'm afraid we can't give a more precise steer yet, but we'll aim to keep everyone updated as it runs (via the announce@ and talk@ lists). There will be _no_ API outage and no other interruption to editing. When the bot is running in your area, please do save your edits frequently to minimise the likelihood of conflict. (Separate messages are going to talk-ie@ and talk-gb@ as the first two areas to be affected. Please do forward and translate this for your local mailing lists.) As you know we were expecting this to start just after 1st April and the complexity of the task incurred the delay. Thank you all very much for your patience in waiting for it to get underway. Thank you especially to those who have contributed to the code, whether by patches, suggestions or just helping to firm up the workings. Richard for the OSMF board ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence redaction ready to begin
We are expecting to begin on _Wednesday_ (9th July) 11th July. You knew what I meant really. :) Yours in a state of temporary temporal confusion Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk-ie] Licence redaction ready to begin
Hello all, This is a special heads-up to the British and Irish mailing lists that the licence change bot is ready to get underway, starting in our areas. Starting this week, we will be 'redacting' the contributions (less than 1%) from the live database that are not compatible with the new Contributor Terms and Open Database Licence (ODbL). We are expecting to begin on _Wednesday_ (11th July) assuming a couple of final setup details are completed by then. The bot will run with Ireland first of all, then the UK, then the rest of the world. Consequently please expect to see a few changes to your local area later this week. There will be _no_ API outage and no other interruption to editing, but please do save your edits frequently to minimise the likelihood of conflict. Once the bot has finished the UK we'll send a further message to both these areas. When the whole world is complete, we will be ready to distribute data under the ODbL and we'll advise of that with a separate announcement. The final pre-redaction dataset available under CC-BY-SA has now been generated at http://planet.openstreetmap.org/planet-120704.osm.bz2 . Where data has been redacted, any attempt to access it from the API or the site's 'browse' pages will return a response to that effect. Test runs have shown that the bot is functioning as we want it to, but we will of course be monitoring its progress. We are currently expecting it to take in the order of one month to complete the whole world; given the many variables I'm afraid we can't give a more precise steer yet, but we'll aim to keep everyone updated as it runs. As you know we were expecting this to start just after 1st April and the complexity of the task incurred the delay. Thank you all very much for your patience in waiting for it to get underway. Thank you especially to those who have contributed to the code, whether by patches, suggestions or just helping to firm up the workings. Richard for the OSMF board ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [Talk-ca] [talk-ca] Merging ways
James Ewen wrote: So, do dig up an old thread again... is there a way to merge adjoining areas in Potlatch yet? I got a great answer from Adam Dunn on using the JOSM join ways feature. I'd like to be able to do this in Potlatch as it is annoying to have to switch to another editor just to be able to merge these adjoining nodes, and then join the two adjoining areas into a single common area. As David said, there isn't, but I'd be happy to look at adding one. Assuming that (as ever with Potlatch) we go for a 90% solution rather than covering every possible combination... am I right in thinking that you'd like something that combines two areas, with a shared sequence of nodes, into one? In other words: A-B-C-D-E-F-G-A and H-I-J-C-D-E-K-L-H become A-B-C-J-I-H-L-K-E-F-G-A (and D is deleted) cheers Richard ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER 2011 Data
Evin Fairchild wrote: I click the down-arrow next to where it says background, and then click Vector file. The http://a.tile.openstreetmap.us/tiger2011_roads/$z/$x/$y.png isn't a vector background, it's a standard tiled imagery background. You add these just by clicking 'Add' at the bottom of the imagery list, without going into the 'Vector file' dialogue. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/TIGER-2011-Data-tp5714968p5715143.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-ca] Canvec in Potlatch 2
Hello talk-ca people, I've made a little change to Potlatch 2 that will ease the process of loading Canvec data. Potlatch's approach is very much here is some data that you can use to help your mapping, rather than here is some data you can upload in bulk, and the idea is that you load the data as a vector background then pull through the bits you want. You can find out how to do this at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canvec#Using_Potlatch cheers Richard ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags
Peter Miller wrote: I started using railway:historic=xxx in place of railway=dismantled for cycletracks etc in response to a comment through OSM messaging that one editor had found it confusing to suddenly have cyclepaths being rendered as railways in Potlatch due the railway=xxx tag (although that is not a good reason to make the change in itself.) Indeed not. That's a 30-second change to P2 to change the rendering order. Put a trac ticket in and someone will change the stylesheet! As for the best venue to discuss tagging, I signed off the main talk a long time ago as it took far too much time to keep up with. I now use the wiki as my main place for global tagging discussions. There is a tagging@ list now, of course. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/railway-historic-rail-tags-tp5714652p5714762.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] How to move Potlatch map to specific coordinates whilst editing (without zooming out)?
Spod wrote: Is there any way to move the map to a specific coordinates whilst editing in Potlatch and stay at the same zoom level? You can use Potlatch's own search function - the little magnifying glass below the +/- zoom icons. It doesn't have any specific co-ordinate handling (I guess we could add that if desired) but just hands your search string off to Nominatim. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/How-to-move-Potlatch-map-to-specific-coordinates-whilst-editing-without-zooming-out-tp5714535p5714536.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Icons
john whelan wrote: Could someone or a group come up with a more standard set of icons please? http://sjjb.co.uk/mapicons/ Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Icons-tp5714357p5714433.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM use around Nailsworth
ael-3 wrote: KMS is already using our maps in Oxfordshire. Excellent. FWIW there is a local list for Oxfordshire and the Cotswolds: talk-gb-oxoncotswolds cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-use-around-Nailsworth-tp5714442p5714456.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] New Bing imagery blog post
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2012/06/25/released-our-largest-satellite-publication.aspx cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Rebuild] Progress update
[followups set to legal-talk, but you may want to adjust to talk-us if focusing on LA etc.] On 21/06/2012 17:57, Alan Mintz wrote: Richard wrote: ...Given people's constraints on time and the community's (understandable) desire for the redaction to get underway asap... I've seen no such demonstration of desire. The only thing we real mappers are discussing is anxiety over exactly what will happen and when, and the huge amount of data that is tainted and will be lost when this thing is shoved down our throats. Ok. I am struggling not to get cross here at your caricature of we, unlike you, are real mappers, but given that I still have tingling in my hands from cycling down 25 miles of bumpy, muddy track yesterday to get some GPS tracks and waypoints... well, yeah, I am a little cross. But in an effort to be civil (hey, first time for everything), I'll confine myself to this: The huge amount of data is globally not that huge. It is 1.2% of nodes (or so odbl.poole.ch tells me, and the guy behind that is cleverer than me, so I have no reason to doubt it). In the US it's 0.2%. I know, for LA people, that's a bit like the old saw that 0.2% unemployment is no consolation if you happen to be in that 0.2%. But: with my Potlatch hat on, I am very very very happy to build/adjust tools to help you fix LA quickly in exactly the same way that I fixed the Llyn Peninsula and Cornwall/Devon, neither of which have been a problem for months. I'm sure there are others who are equally happy to help. If you want to have that conversation, that's great. _But_ one request: please leave out the aggressive stuff about real mappers. About the one way in which you could make me crosser is by going on to assert that real mappers use JOSM. ;) Anyway, I ought to go and clean my bike. cheers Richard personal opinions only yadda yadda ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Rebuild] Progress update
[followups set to legal-talk, but you may want to adjust to talk-us if focusing on LA etc.] On 21/06/2012 17:57, Alan Mintz wrote: Richard wrote: ...Given people's constraints on time and the community's (understandable) desire for the redaction to get underway asap... I've seen no such demonstration of desire. The only thing we real mappers are discussing is anxiety over exactly what will happen and when, and the huge amount of data that is tainted and will be lost when this thing is shoved down our throats. Ok. I am struggling not to get cross here at your caricature of we, unlike you, are real mappers, but given that I still have tingling in my hands from cycling down 25 miles of bumpy, muddy track yesterday to get some GPS tracks and waypoints... well, yeah, I am a little cross. But in an effort to be civil (hey, first time for everything), I'll confine myself to this: The huge amount of data is globally not that huge. It is 1.2% of nodes (or so odbl.poole.ch tells me, and the guy behind that is cleverer than me, so I have no reason to doubt it). In the US it's 0.2%. I know, for LA people, that's a bit like the old saw that 0.2% unemployment is no consolation if you happen to be in that 0.2%. But: with my Potlatch hat on, I am very very very happy to build/adjust tools to help you fix LA quickly in exactly the same way that I fixed the Llyn Peninsula and Cornwall/Devon, neither of which have been a problem for months. I'm sure there are others who are equally happy to help. If you want to have that conversation, that's great. _But_ one request: please leave out the aggressive stuff about real mappers. About the one way in which you could make me crosser is by going on to assert that real mappers use JOSM. ;) Anyway, I ought to go and clean my bike. cheers Richard personal opinions only yadda yadda ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
David Earl wrote: quite why they didn't renumber the continuation of this road to Peterborough also A45 I don't know - it remains A605 Curiously they did - and then changed their mind. For several years there was new signage saying A45 underneath but with an A605 patch on the top. But the patch was never removed. I've not been that way for a while so don't know what the current situation is. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/England-Cycling-Data-project-DfT-cycling-data-now-available-for-merging-tp5713108p5713727.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
Andy Robinson wrote: Basically any route to or deprecated braid should have a bracketed number, though in many locations this may not have happened yet. There's a slight tagging ambiguity when a link route connects two numbered routes, of course: often these will be signed as, say, '(5)' in one direction but '(51)' in the other. For the example in my group's 'patch', I chose to switch over the tagging at the railway station roughly halfway: http://osm.org/go/eutSPzu?layers=C cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/England-Cycling-Data-project-DfT-cycling-data-now-available-for-merging-tp5713108p5713637.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road
David Groom wrote: However at the north end there is a (newly erected) public footpath sign showing a footpath ref of B64, pointing straight down this road, and the definitive map shows this as a footpath. I use admin:ref for refs that are predominantly intended for administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage. (The obvious example of this in the UK is C roads.) That would seem to work here too: granted, the one you mention appears to be signposted but I presume that's more for fault-reporting purposes - dear County Council, the farmer has a bull roaming free in the field crossed by B64, that sort of thing - rather than actually expecting people to say oh, I went for a nice walk on B64 today. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-PRoW-Ref-codes-WAS-Hampshire-Rights-of-Way-Data-released-under-OS-OpenData-licence-tp5710929p5713398.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road
Gregory wrote: On 19 June 2012 14:07, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I use admin:ref for refs that are predominantly intended for administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage. Now that sounds like tagging for the renderer. How dare you! :p In road terms, there is a big difference between the C64 and the B2018. The former is of no use to man nor beast, unless man or beast happens to work for the County Council. Tell me, what would you think if your satnav suddenly told you at the next roundabout, take the [unsignposted] C64? cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] streetmap.co.uk
www.streetmap.co.uk - one of the two first UK mapping sites (along with Multimap) - has started using OSM. Their 1:5k layer is now OSM-based outside London, where they still use A-Z. Custom cartography in quite an A-Z-like style! cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap
Steve All wrote: Now, when and how will this bot run? Over the entire planet.osm? In something like one-degree of latitude at a time swaths? (That's just a guess). Can you sense my frustration when I feel like I should be able to just go and find these things out (maybe in a big, all-encompassing License Change -- what you need to know, do and not do wiki page), but it really does appear to be a challenge? I believe the intention is to do a trial run over Ireland first. Ireland is almost completely ODbL/CT-compliant (http://odbl.poole.ch/ireland-20120601-20120531-poly.html) so it should prove a safe testing ground. This should hopefully be in early July, but we've not had a great track record on dates so far. ;) The decision on how to proceed for the rest of the planet will then be taken in the light of that. As with everything in OSM, our internal comms are limited by manpower and willingness to step up to the plate. Generally the people doing the work are too busy doing the work to write a wiki page... twas ever thus. So I'm telling you what I know, but there's always scope to get involved - even if it's just by stopping in at #osm-dev from time to time and finding out what's going on. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-Special-issues-in-LA-remap-tp5711500p5712872.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines review
Russ Nelson wrote: I think that the people who wish that the USA had been mapped just like Europe have NO IDEA how big the USA is, nor how empty it is. True enough, but then, I often think that the people who scoff at the people who wish that the USA had been mapped just like Europe and who have NO IDEA how empty the USA is... have never been to mid-Wales. Which is a shame, because mid-Wales is lovely. Sorry, where was I? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Import-guidelines-review-tp5711550p5712204.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
Nick Whitelegg wrote: Some good news! As from yesterday, Hampshire County Council have released their Rights of Way data under the OS OpenData licence. \o/ If so, I'd imagine what we need to do is: - convert this data to .osm files with OSM tagging, and - manually (not automatically!) add any paths not already in OSM to OSM. I could develop a tool for the former If you use Potlatch 2 there's probably no need to develop a special tool: you can load shapefiles directly as a background layer (including reprojection from OSGB), and use MapCSS to remap tags. Details at http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/16951 cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Hampshire-Rights-of-Way-Data-released-under-OS-OpenData-licence-tp5710823p5710833.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us
Nick Whitelegg wrote: Whatever. I've certainly seen footpaths classified as roads in commercial online maps for instance. It's basically a misreading of how OSM data works. Essentially they're saying that the fact we use the highway=track tag means OMG OSM MISCLASSIFIES FOREST TRACKS AS HIGHWAYS. *facepalm* I've written a bit more about it at http://www.systemeD.net/blog/index.php?post=23 cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/TomTom-is-thumping-us-tp5710461p5710467.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Admin Boundaries and OS OpenData BoundaryLine
Colin Smale wrote: My questions to the community: 1) Would a bulk upload of any or all of this data be interesting? I think uploading the files somewhere for people to use would certainly be interesting, yes. You could find some webspace and upload (say) leicestershire.osm and cumbria.osm and so on. Because so much boundary data (of varying accuracy) is already in OSM, updating the geometries using OS OpenData would be by necessity a manual task - which is as it should be. But having the data easily available is the first step. With P2, either .gpx or .osm is fine. One file per admin unit would be better than one 300Mb file... the latter is almost certain to boggle the amount of data you can load in-browser! cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Admin-Boundaries-and-OS-OpenData-BoundaryLine-tp5710573p5710577.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Admin Boundaries and OS OpenData BoundaryLine
Colin Smale wrote: I realise I probably caused some confusion by using the words bulk upload when I really intended bulk import. Sorry about that... I was thinking about a way of getting all the data into OSM without having to do too much manual work. That won't really fly, I'm afraid - most of the boundaries are already in there (albeit in imperfect form), so if you import them you'll have duplicate data. Better to use the enthusiasm of the community to bring the data in properly. But if people would prefer me to dump the individual GPX files on a server somewhere so people can grab their local councils and get them by hand into OSM, that's fine by me as well. Yes please! cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Admin-Boundaries-and-OS-OpenData-BoundaryLine-tp5710573p5710619.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
Ian Dees wrote: Worst Fixer wrote: It is absent from following web page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue There are dozens of imports absent from the Import Catalog. If you'd like to add it to the catalog, be my guest. Without wanting to validate Worst Fixer (though I'm pleased he's stopped the Ich double-bluff ;) ), we need the smart guys like you, Ian, to do things _properly_ - which includes documentation on the wiki - so that we can exert pressure on the less skilled to follow your lead. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Import-of-buildings-in-Chicago-tp5710269p5710343.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] National Rail as a brand (was: Bulk railway station changes)
AJ Ashton wrote: So what I'm wondering is, could 'brand=National Rail' be an appropriate tag for stations that would be marked with the double arrow in signs, etc? That seems good in a tag what's on the ground fashion, and more appropriate than network=. Two particular cases I'm unsure about: 1. ScotRail is now, as well as a TOC name, the Scottish Executive-mandated brand for rail services north of the border. I'm not sure whether the double-arrow is still used in the new branding scheme. (Examples: http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/rail/role/the-brand/implementation - there don't appear to be any double-arrows in the Queen Street pic, but there may be outside, and I presume that it's still signposted from roads etc. the same way.) 2. London Overground (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/15359.aspx). Officially part of the mainline rail network, I think, but uses the TfL roundel. I'm honestly not sure whether a map would _want_ to show LO stations with double arrows or with roundels these days. Any Scots or Londoners able to advise? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/National-Rail-as-a-brand-was-Bulk-railway-station-changes-tp5709700p5709992.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycleways and Access tags: Left, Right, Forward, Backward?
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: simply draw cycleways with separate carriageways like any other highway with its own way in OSM and you resolve lots of issues, including distinct surfaces and restrictions. Yes. Absolutely that. Things like cycleway=track were a hack back in the day when we only had a few mappers and barely usable tools, and we needed to grow our coverage as fast as possible. That's not the case now. We can spend the time to map things properly (hippy), and we should. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Cycleways-and-Access-tags-Left-Right-Forward-Backward-tp5709253p5709424.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Bulk railway station changes
AJ Ashton wrote: We've found that the lack of familiar London Underground and National Rail icons is a particularly strong sticking point with people who would otherwise happily switch to OSM, which is partly why we chose to focus on it. Absolutely. It does look really good. :) I guess our excitement to make awesome maps tripped us up here. Richard pointed out specifically that 'the network=National Rail tag is of debatable value and relevance'. I'm curious about the details of why. Sadly anything to do with our godforsaken privatised railway system is always more complicated than it needs to be! For me I think the most problematic aspect is that there are actually several things that could be called networks, particularly in urban areas which have PTEs (Passenger Transport Executives) or similar. For example, there's Network West Midlands around Birmingham, Metro in West/South Yorkshire, Merseytravel/Merseyrail in Liverpool, and so on. (London has its own peculiarities.) So you end up with network=National Rail;Metro which is nasty, and breaks most toolchains which don't understand multiple values for one key. It may lend itself to an ncn/rcn/lcn or nwn/rwn/lwn solution, or Richard M's idea of using a distinct tag, or tagging station operators (e.g. operator=First Great Western) and rendering based on a set of those. I'm tempted to suggest a generic tag for any country's national railway system (mainline=yes|no or somesuch), and then you could render based on this tag and the UK polygon. Or indeed we could just go with network=National Rail as a good enough solution. I'd be interested to hear what others think. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Bulk-railway-station-changes-tp5708989p5709044.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways
Nathan Edgars II wrote: I'm trying to do something like the European tagging: http://www.itoworld.com/map/24 But there they have some sort of international treaty that defines configurations. (puts day-job hat on) For users of a waterway, the European (CEMT) waterway classes describe, rather than define, the size of the limiting structures. They're information, rather than regulation. In other words, although a class Va waterway has a stated length of 110 metres, that doesn't mean that a river policeman will come and flag you down for taking a 115m boat along the river. It's very possible that the locks are (say) 120m long, and if you can get your boat through them, you're absolutely entitled to do so. This is particularly important at the smaller end of things where locks and bridges may be a zillion and one different sizes. (Here in Britain people routinely build boats to 60ft because there are certain locks that are 58ft 6in long... and if you put the boat in the lock diagonally, you can squeeze that little bit of extra accommodation. There are other locks that have subsided to become 1in too narrow for certain historic craft that would once have used the locks. And so on.) So the ideal is to tag each structure with its limiting dimensions, using the familiar maxwidth=/maxheight=/etc. tags. This is never going to be completely achieved, of course, because draught varies for each bit of the riverbed. ;) The next best thing is to tag the 'gauge' of a waterway - in other words, the largest dimensions that will fit through all the structures on that waterway. In Europe, tagging a waterway with the CEMT class would be a quick-and-dirty-though-not-particularly-accurate way of stating the gauge. (That said, the CEMT class would fit very well in the designation= tag.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/U-S-inland-waterways-tp5709017p5709046.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-GB] Bulk railway station changes
SomeoneElse on IRC noticed a big heap of debatable bulk changes to station nodes in the UK, seemingly made by people outside the UK and using Wikipedia as a source. I've reverted these (well, actually, at the time of writing the revert is running!). If the users would like to discuss the changes here first, then maybe we can arrive at some agreement. I'm not sure whether they're reading this so will write to them via the OSM messaging system too. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bulk railway station changes
I wrote: SomeoneElse on IRC noticed a big heap of debatable bulk changes to station nodes in the UK Someone else (not SomeoneElse... hell this is confusing) has pointed me, off-list, to this: http://mapbox.com/blog/improved-british-rail-icons/ which obviously looks cool. I guess this is probably the source of the bulk edits. Without wanting to copy out the Mechanical Edits Policy word-for-word, I'd strongly reiterate the need (and, besides that, desirability) of consultation before making big changes like this. With great power comes great responsibility and all that. Most importantly, local insight gives better answers - that is, after all, the USP of OSM. The RoW tagging thread running at the moment on talk-gb is an excellent example of how it should work: something that might seem simple from afar actually turns out to be a bit more nuanced, but by giving careful consideration to the nuances, we're making what is hands-down the best map of the world. I hope we can have a similarly useful conversation about the stations too. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Bulk-railway-station-changes-tp5708989p5708995.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Anyone near Bury?
Here's a new viaduct that needs mapping! http://www.bury.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=7579 http://www.sustrans.org.uk/what-we-do/connect2/schemes/north-west/bury-the-woolford-gap cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
Richard Mann wrote: My point is that tagging should allow both types of routes to be recorded We tag what's on the ground, whether it's route signage, cycle-specific infrastructure, or a giant woolly mammoth (http://url.ie/f9ts). Are you suggesting a deviation from that? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-cycle-map-excessive-focus-on-long-distance-routes-tp5697183p5697391.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
Richard Mann wrote: You'd have to ask the City of Utrecht whether their main cycle routes are signed. Well, ok, I wasn't really asking what I'd have to ask, more what your point is. :) If the routes are signed, that's good. If there are measurements that can be tagged in OSM (vehicles per hour, or surface quality, or whatever), that's good too. Anything objective can be tagged, and rendered by a Maperitive guru such as yourself. openwoollymammothmap.org is still there for the taking. But as yet I haven't understood what point you're trying to make in this thread. Without trying to be obtuse... can you explain? cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage relations, in particular 1298962
Someoneelse wrote: Regardless of the perhaps the map shouldn't render unknown things just because of name=blah issue, I'd argue that metadata such as this really doesn't belong in OSM. Agreed. OSM is not the world's sole repository of co-ordinate data, and nor should it be. This would be much better stored in an externally hosted .osm file or shapefile, which can be loaded into the editor/tool of your choice, than in the main database. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Bing-coverage-relations-in-particular-1298962-tp5669039p5669972.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence status in Potlatch2, and data deletion?
Steve Bennett wrote: The show licence status in Potlatch2 is no longer working for me. Works fine for me. You might just have hit a temporary WTFE outage. Also, could we have an update on what is happening with data deletion? Henk has just posted http://blog.osmfoundation.org/2012/04/26/license-change-still-ongoing/ . cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Licence-status-in-Potlatch2-and-data-deletion-tp5667829p5667847.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence status in Potlatch2, and data deletion?
Steve Bennett wrote: It's been like this for at least a week for me, I think. Can you definitely see licence info in, say, Melbourne? I see no red outlines, and no no/partial etc above the advanced editor. Presume that's Melbourne, Australia rather than the nice little Derbyshire town ten miles down the road from where I am now. :) But yes, I can go to Melbourne and see that way 4308541 (for example) is 'partial'. It could be that your Flash Player has cached a faulty crossdomain.xml and is therefore refusing to load, or something. I'd try manually opening (and reloading) wtfe's crossdomain in a browser window to refresh the cache, or experimenting with a different browser to see if that works. The bad news: the electric chair is *still* out of action, but we're trying as hard as we can to fix it. The good news: one of the prisoners on death row turned out to be innocent while we were fixing it. :) Caedite eos - novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius... cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Geofabrik downloads post-licence-change
Stefan Keller wrote: Am I right that there are currently no updates available since April 9th at /osm/ and there doesn't exist the new /openstreetmap/ directory neither because we are waiting for the OSM board's approval of the new license? No, it's nothing to do with OSM(F) board approval. As explained at http://blog.osmfoundation.org/2012/04/05/license-change-update-getting-it-right/ , the coders working on the rebuild code are ironing out a few final issues before the process can begin. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Geofabrik-downloads-post-licence-change-tp5588668p5635061.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] Trunk, primary and secondary roads...
All safe. :) Compare and contrast our German friends: http://odbl.poole.ch/de_south_major_and_secondary_roads.txt http://odbl.poole.ch/de_north_major_and_secondary_roads.txt Obviously this is only the ways themselves, not the constituent nodes, so if you have the time to browse OSMI and look for red spots, you can still improve things. I've been intermittently working on Cheshire recently where we have an untraceable non-responder. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Trunk, primary and secondary roads...
Andrew wrote: Time for a list of tertiary roads? My personal preference would be to move to area-based remapping in the limited time available. Choose somewhere and fix it up. Tertiary roads often really only make sense within a local context, especially given that some people are IMHO rather over-enthusiastic with them. But, as ever, do what you will! Frederik Ramm wrote: There's also an advanced way of checking highways (or other objects) that, like all advanced editing, requires JOSM ;) I think you misspelt like all large-scale fiddling without any knowledge of the area ;) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Trunk-primary-and-secondary-roads-tp5635332p5636887.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwest Coast Path (relation) has mostly disappeared.
Jason Cunningham wrote: Last nights check showed almost the entire route has gone! :( Disturbingly I've been mapping around Brixham for the last six months and I'm therefore concerned I may have done the dirty deed. No, you didn't. It appears to have been deleted by user Sailor Steve (http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/69318/1747) in changeset 10773722. Possibly the age-old too easy to delete large relations in JOSM issue. I guess it makes a change from the National Byway and poor old NCN 4 which are the usual fallguys... If there's anyone here who's confident in wangling .osm files (not really my thing) and can reinstate the old version, please do. For other routes your able to access a history, but when I seek the history of the 'Southwest Coast Path' things just hang and eventually result in an error message. Some big relations are just too big to show the whole history without boggling the server, but you can always look at the raw XML: http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/69318 Then check the version attribute, and page back like this: http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/69318/1750 http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/69318/1749 http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/69318/1748 etc. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Southwest-Coast-Path-relation-has-mostly-disappeared-tp5620160p5620205.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
