Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines review
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 07:18:04AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Sorry, where was I? I don't know about you, but I was in mid-Wales. It was very sunny. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Map Co-ordinates for towns, etc in UK
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 09:15:34AM +1000, mick wrote: > > That make a lot of sense to me, the church has been the focal point of the > village since Saxon times while the Post Office didn't appear until the 19th? > century. Except there are cases where the village moved and but the church didn't. I'm sure there's an analogy there, but the story is usually to do with the plague. http://osm.org/go/eu4ZR1EK http://osm.org/go/euIt96kj http://osm.org/go/0EBodHMD http://osm.org/go/eue~gzbb s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Mobile Oxford
I think the official launch is soon, but Oxford University's new Mobile Oxford website is looking pretty good and makes extensive use of the OSM data we've collected for the city. I think it rocks (and I'm not involved, except for having given a ton of feedback!) The site's at http://m.ox.ac.uk/ with a news article at http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2009/091012.html As the article says, it's still a work in progress (it's still not ideal on any of the browsers I have on my Windows phone), but it's really nice to see our hard work gathering local data getting built on to produce something really useful! s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cathedral or chapel
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:02:08PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2009/6/8 Stephen Gower : > >> > >> The chapel of one of Oxford University's colleges, Christ Church, > >> is also a cathedral. A rather unimpressive cathedral, but a > >> cathedral nevertheless. > > this means, churches should always be tagged by their highest possible > rating. Not if you think the data on every college chapel in the city might need to be extracted. OK, this is exceptional, and you'd probably just manually add in Christ Church's chapel if you wanted that data. It is, as I said before, an edgecase, and I'm posting mostly for the sake of interest, but it's not a heirarchical thing - the building's role as College Chapel is distinct, important, and not lesser than its role as cathedral. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Cathedral or chapel
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 11:12:13AM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote: > > You could have done church_type=cathedral, church_type=church, and > church_type=chapel (arbitrary tag name choice... probably not a good > one) and let the renderer figure out that for itself. [Digression into an edge-case, probably best just to ignore me :-)] The chapel of one of Oxford University's colleges, Christ Church, is also a cathedral. A rather unimpressive cathedral, but a cathedral nevertheless. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Shakespeare on OSM
OK, this needs a wider audience than just those on IRC: 15:49 even Shakespeare is an OSM contributor. look at king henry IV: 15:49 Bardolph: We first survey the plot, then draw the model // And when we see the figure of the house // Add the tags "building=yes, addr:housenumber=1" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC :left/:right (asymmetrical roadside features)
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:45:00PM -, Ed Loach wrote: > > Oneway is strange in that as well as yes/no you can have oneway=-1 > for one way in the opposite direction of the way, and I still can't > work out why that is necessary. It used to be the case that the renderers wrote the name of the street in the direction the segments were drawn, so you'd always try to draw a street starting from the west and heading east. If the same street was one-way from east to west, we needed a way to indicate this without having the street label upside-down. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Oxbridges of Konigsberg
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:47:10AM +, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote: > Stephen Gower wrote: > >> What's the most efficient route for visiting all Oxford's > >> colleges? > > > > So, since the data for Oxford is pretty much there, is this a > > challenge any of the routing engines can help with? > > Not purely based on OSM data, you'll need OXPOINTS information for the > lodge locations too. Given who the friend is, I suspect the reason for asking is that they want to improve the OXPOINTS data, which, if this is the case will also have the advantage that it won't have been derived from GoogleMaps like the current dataset is. But, can it be done? s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Oxbridges of Konigsberg
A friend asks: > What's the most efficient route for visiting all Oxford's > colleges? > > Method of transport: bicycle. No other restrictions except that > you must pass the lodge of each college. Doubling back on > yourself is allowed (despite the title of the post!). So, since the data for Oxford is pretty much there, is this a challenge any of the routing engines can help with? s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] name tags on place=country and how they're rendered on lowzoom
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 02:13:25PM +, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: > > I think there is a misunderstanding going on here. If I speak English, I > want and English map of the world. If I speak French, I want a French > map of the world. In neither case do I want a map that has England in > English and France in French. Actually, as an English speaker, I want a bi-lingual map when abroad - I'm going to be thinking of my destination as Munich (for example) but want the reassurance of knowing the signposts to München are pointing the direction I'm going. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its strangleholdover "derived" geographic data in the UK
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 01:58:43PM -, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: > > The problem here is who says it's a public right of way. If you ask your > local authority they will bring out there plans which give the details and > reference numbers but these of course exist on OS mapping. Not easy to be > definitive. The Definitive Map (DM) exists on OS mapping, but the other legal document The Definitive Statement (DS) is purely textual descriptions of each path. Those for Hampshire are on-line at http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/locating-row/definitive-statement.htm and look very similar to the Oxfordshire ones I've seen at the library. I think it would be possible to take *just* the DS and an on-the-ground survey and have something close-to definitive in itself. This of course raises futher questions :- The DS and DM are closely related, is the DS contaminated by the OS licence, even though it is not a map? By using the DS and a survey, would we just be recreating the DM and somehow infringing the OS copyright? The "Public Footpath" signs will have been placed based on infomation in the DM - do we risk infringing OS copyright by using these to map RoW? s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Left and Right - a proposal
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 08:57:01PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: > Stephen Gower wrote: > > I see from later posts that you also suggest using this scheme for cycle/bus > > lanes to indicate which side of the road they should be rendered. > > Did I? I thought it was you - it certainly came up in the discussion. > > > To derive a travelling direction from the Left/Right terms a routing > > engine is usually going to need to know the local "rule of the road" - > > do we just leave this to the routing engine to factor in (needing to > > work out where in the world it is), or is there another simple solution > > I've missed. > > Surely the routing engine needs to know this already, for example to > take you up or down the correct ramp at a motorway interchange? I'd have thought there's already an implied oneway=yes for motorway ramps, so the routing engine just follows that. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Left and Right - a proposal
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 12:26:49PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: > > I propose that it be possible for features to be tagged using a generic > left/right scheme, with left and right being relative to the direction > of the way. > > So you might have a road way with a node somewhere in the middle with > (for example): > left:highway=bus_stop > right:parking=pay_and_display I see from later posts that you also suggest using this scheme for cycle/bus lanes to indicate which side of the road they should be rendered. This highlighted to me a general problem with the scheme. For rendering the scheme is perfect - drawing a bus stop or a cycle lane on one side of a road is exactly what is needed. However, for routing you need to know which direction a bike may travel along a cycle lane, or which direction buses from a stop will be heading. To derive a travelling direction from the Left/Right terms a routing engine is usually going to need to know the local "rule of the road" - do we just leave this to the routing engine to factor in (needing to work out where in the world it is), or is there another simple solution I've missed. Sorry if this has been covered already - I'm 400 posts behind in talk/legal combined. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenCycleMap: outreach to local group and council: any HOWTOs or pointers? [Oxford and general content]
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 02:45:27PM +0100, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote: > Out of the blue, I've been asked to advise Cyclox, a local cyclists' > advocacy group about improving [upon] the Oxfordshire County Council's > cycle map for the city of Oxford[1], and I've said I'll help out. That's great - there's been some discussion of this on the Cyclox mailing list (for example at http://tinyurl.com/cycloxmap AKA http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cyclox-forum/browse_thread/thread/a237464df3618a56# ) It's worth noting there's conflicting interests behind the supporting groups: * Oxford University (whose representative is actually who has contacted you, not a Cyclox person at all) will want something that is suitable for Staff and Students - so College and Department names will need to be clear, for example * Oxfordshire County Council will want something that highlights all the cycle facilities they've invested in, whether or not the facilities are actually useful to cyclists * Cyclox will want something that is useful to their membership, who are actual cyclists from all walks of life in Oxford. This sounds great until you start listening to Cyclox member opinions (see that post refered to above for example) when you find there's a subtle conflict with... * OSM who only want facts in the database, not subjective opinions. I'm not sure what would go into making a really useful local cycling map, but I think at some point it's going to need some subjective tagging. When this has cropped up before some people have said we just need to add lots of factual tags and the rest can be calculated from that. This is good theory, but imagine how hard it would be to render the current map if instead of highway=motorway we instead had car=yes, lanes=3, oneway=yes, hard_shoulder=yes, foot=no, bicycle=no, horse=no, learner_driver=no, etc! highway=motorway is great for a traditional road map, because the classification of roads for motorvehicles by officialdom is generally quite sensible. Sadly the same is not true of classification for cycling. > (I really like the look of the so-called "Cheltenham Standard", > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Cheltenham_Standard , which > RichardF dredged up a while back on #osm. I wonder how/if that could be > implemented in a Mapnik ruleset...) What goes around comes around - I *believe* Richard came across the Cheltenham Standard after it was posted on an earlier Cyclox thread about creating an Oxford map, and I mentioned it here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-August/028438.html I like the Cheltenham Standard, and think tags based on it would make a fine basis for a local cycle map. I'd probably not use the colours they've suggested, but that seems to be the first comment from everyone who sees it. I particularly like the healthy disregard it has for official cycle facilities - cycle lanes/etc are simply taken into account when assessing the level of any road, rather than being depicted on the map themselves. The problem is, and remains, the subjectivity - we can probably get good agreement in and around Oxford on what roads are what level, but if someone else tries to tag somewhere else, they might have a different baseline. The stuff you've added to the "discussion" page of the wiki page you refer to above is a good start to helping everyone use the same baseline, so lets keep working in that direction! s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] FW: BBC 'Britain From Above'
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 12:13:00PM +0100, Paul Jaggard wrote: > Interesting clip from the BBC: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7539529.stm > > It's a plug for a programme, 'Britain From Above', which starts 10th August, > but the trailer alone is worth watching for some lovely GPS-derived > visualisations. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/08/britain_from_above.html says the main site at http://www.bbc.co.uk/britainfromabove has gone live - there's quite a lot there! s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging trailblazes / marked paths
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 06:33:10PM -0500, Alex Mauer wrote: > > So it really depends on interpretation. In particular, footways have a > particular legal status in the UK which doesn't apply to every place > that you can walk. Just as a point of information, this isn't actually true. As far as I am aware, the only UK legal use of the term footWAY is to refer to what I would call a pavement and you might call a sidewalk. The "particular legal status" to which you refer is actually applied to the legal term "footpath", and the OSM tag highway=footway in the UK does not, of itself, imply that a path is a Public Right of Way (and hence a legal footpath). s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] (Proposed UK) National Cycle Map standard
I'm not quite sure who is considering this, but http://www.cyclecheltenham.org.uk/map_standard.html claims to be "being considered as the basis for a national standard." The actual map looks pretty good for an end-user and exactly the sort of thing I want to see. However, I can see that trying to incorporate the data into the OSM model will be scuppered by people saying it involves too may subjective decisions. Anyone got any suggestions for a tagging scheme that would allow us to use OSM data to produce maps to this Cheltenham Standard? s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Australia has Google Street View!
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 10:36:14AM +0200, Erik Johansson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Stefan Holst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 11:58 +1000, Joseph Gentle wrote: > >> > >> Good for filling in all the missing street names. > > Interesting question. Are we allowed to use street view images [...] > [...] > And since they are facts and not *indexed* in a database so it should be ok. That argument surely applies to aerial images also, and yet consensus is that getting facts from them would create a derived work incompatible with our licence. I'd suggest we should keep clear of the temptation to use Street View images, unless we get a cast-iron guarentee that there's no legal implications - and stick to surveying in person until then. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] mapping grass
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 02:37:19PM +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > Hi, > > I have been facing problems mapping grass. The only mention of grass > in map features is village_green. My Josm also shows landuse=grass, > but this is not on the map features page. [...] > I feel all these can be brought under one scheme - but not sure how > to do it. Suggestions? There's a proposal for Golf Course grass at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Golf_course#Grass__.28areas.29 For the cricket pitch, sport=cricket would seem obvious, otherwise the proposed landuse=grass is already rendered by osmarender http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Misc._urban_open_space and you could add a further tag grass=mown/wild/whatever if you really wanted to differentiate. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM maps in 3D
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 09:19:02PM +0200, Igor Brejc wrote: > > I've started playing around using DirectX in combination with SRTM data > to draw 3D relief OSM maps. The plan is to add this feature to Kosmos. > Please visit http://igorbrejc.net/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-in-3d if > you want to see some initial results. Wow - that's amazing. One feature request from a hilly, but not mountainous part of the world - can you include an option to exaggerate the relief? On the wall at work is a physical relief map of Oxford in plastic made by the Ordnance Survey in the 1970s. I recall from the small print that the scale of the vertical axis is three times that of the horizontal plane - and that gives a map where the hills look like they feel as I cycle up them! s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 03:53:40PM +0100, Andy Allan wrote: > > ... but to be honest, I'm not entirely comfortable with it, and I > still think the lane/lane_opposite doesn't handle things fully either. > I found a bit in Hyde Park where there was a one-way road with cycle > lanes on both sides - with all three lanes going in the same direction > - and I don't know how to model that in OSM either. Oxford's Donnington Bridge has in different sections <-> Pavement <-> Pavement -> Cycle lane -> Cycle lane <- Cycle lane <- Cycle lane -- -> Cycle lane -> Main carriageway -> Main carriageway <- Main carriageway <- Main carriageway <- Cycle lane <- Cycle lane -- <-> Pavement <-> Pavement Where indicates a kerb. I'm afraid my ascii art isn't up to describing how they join, but be assured it doesn't involve car drivers having to make last minute decisions at speed. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enabling communities to use OSM as a planning tool
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 08:54:53AM +0100, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: > > This brings me to the point though. Currently we map physical features as > they exist and in some cases the alignment of known construction, what we do > not do is use OSM as a planning tool. What are people's views on this? You can, of course, do what you like, but I'd urge you not to do this without an improvement in the editors. If I come to edit near a junction and find 15 people have sketched out how they see the junction could be improved, that's a lot of ways that don't render that I'm going to have to pick through to find the actual ways and nodes for whatever it is I'm editing. We'd need a way to quickly remove all the virtual ways in order to get through to the valid OSM data. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Non-nesting administrative borders (Was: National borders in the British Islands)
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:42:22AM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The 'nesting' rule does not exist. We have already had enough examples of > > where boundaries form different 'sets' of areas so there is no way to insist > > that the 'admin' boundaries are mutually exclusive :( > > Do you have an example if such a jurisdictional anomoly? In Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloydminster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flin_Flon s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] area topology
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:31:32PM +0100, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote: > > I subscribe to the view that areas should correspond to the real area on > the ground and mostly be kept clear of roadways. Placing an Area's Nodes > near the adjacent Way's nodes helps make the map easier to maintain. I > will often abut adjacent areas that are separated only by something thin > and make their nodes share, however. Putting the other side of the argument, as Andrew I'm sure knew I would: A road is represented by a single way. Although the way has zero width in the database, it represents the whole width of the carriageway (pavement) and well as the pavement (sidewalk). If a minor road meets a more important way at a T-junction, we do not put the last node where the minor road ends, instead we extend it to the centre of the more important one. In the same way, if an area comes right up to the edge of a road (including its pavement, etc), we should extend the area to use the same defining nodes. If we do not do this, we have an undefined space between the area and the road. This undefined space is of variable width and, without knowing how every renderer is going to treat the highway, there is no way of knowing if it will appear or not, unless it is arterially small (aka 0!). There is some merit to the argument that seperation would help with routing. We could have a convention that if an area is accessible from any point on the highway they should share segments, but if that's not the case (there's a fence between, for example) they should be seperated. While I can see how this would work, it feels like an ugly hack. It's not my itch, but there's got to be a better way of expressing the boundary between highway and area - I guess with a relation. > Rectilinear buildings in particular should be kept rectilinear: there's > no excuse for trapezoidal buildings with the new extrusion stuff now in > JOSM :) I agree with that as a potential stumbling block, and was concerned about this until I actually started mapping buildings. In practice, the resolution of accuracy in OSM is such that you can make a fair representation of the shape of the building and still share nodes with the highway it abuts. > However, rivers are Interesting: quite often an Area whose edge is > defined by a river may change over time as the river meanders... In that > case, it probably does make sense to abut a Way to an Area. It should be noted that roads also change position sometimes, affecting the areas that are defined by them!. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Overhaul of voting process (was: Road crossings proposal - status?)
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:01:33AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > > * Some people started tagging *and rendering* crossings, using a > > particular tagging scheme. > > * Some other people, who weren't actually out doing the work, started > > complaining about what was going on [1] > > May I take this as a cue to suggest a complete overhaul of the whole > RfC/vote/etc. process. That sounds eminently sensible, and in general I agree with your proposals. For those who think the RFC/vote process represents the consensus on how things should be done, what needs to happen to change that process? s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 08:39:15PM +0100, 80n wrote: > > bicycle=yes and surface=gravel are an incompatible combination in my book ;) There's gravel and there's gravel though - pea gravel like my grandfather had on his drive (in the New Forest!) and had to rake after cars had been over it is absolutely no good for cycling, while a self-binding gravel such as seen on http://www.pavingexpert.com/gravel05.htm is perfectly fine. I cycle a section of the Thames Path on my daily commute that comes into the latter category, and apart from the puddles tending to get larger each time it rains, it's just as good as the asphalt sections. The cycle paths in the New Forest are somewhere in between these two categories - while the Thames Path one could reasonably be labeled surface=dirt, the New Forest ones are definitely gravel, but it's well compacted and many of them will be cycled on by hundreds of people a week during the summer. http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/35904 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/388784 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/35915 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/87018 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/381057 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:New_Forest_Cycle_path.jpg From these photos it can be seen that there's quite a variety even within the National Park and depending on your style of bike you might want to avoid some or all of them. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 12:31:02AM +0100, Bruce Cowan wrote: > On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 14:57 +0300, SteveC wrote: > > Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no > > election) ? > > I'm a pedant [...] Oh, if we're being pedantic, I'd like to point out that the British convention is that he's "The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown" or "Mr Brown" or "Prime Minister" (as in, "Yes, Prime Minister"), but not any variation on the American "Prime Minister Brown" or "Mr Prime Minister" formats. Sorry, off topic and I managed to resist for a couple of days, but it's just one of those niggly things. And as for Chef Ramsey, he can f*** right off. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] "A List Apart" does "Why Mashups Suck"
"A List Apart" does "Why Mashups Suck" and briefly mentions OSM: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/takecontrolofyourmaps s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 11:46:10AM +0100, Steve Hill wrote: > > In this example, as far as I can tell we have 2 roads called the A11 and > a road joining them called the A14 - route planners can deal with this > just the same as they can deal with A11 -> A14 -> A134. > > Route planners shouldn't be directing you along the A14 just because it > happens to also be part of the A11 - they should be directing you down it > because it is the best road to get you from A to B. Our data's only for route planners? Suppose I wanted to walk the whole of the A34 while I was 34 as a charity gig? OK, that's contrived, but beware of arguments that apply to just one use-case (for what its worth, I'm undecided about if relations in this situation are brilliant or not brilliant). s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] linz dataset for nz - attribution methods summary
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 08:48:18PM +1200, Robin Paulson wrote: > > if we are going to have an 'attribution' page on the wiki[1], with the > fine print regarding sources of various chunks of data, would a link > to it be possible, on the main map page? titled say 'data attribution' > or 'data sources'? Have you got a definition of "main map page"? If the cycle map became more popular than the main site (generally, or in NZ) would the agreement you're after force its admins to add links? Or on the other side, if you specify "on www.openstreetmap.org" what if the project renames? s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] xkcd does GPS
A cartoon on satnav: http://xkcd.com/407/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF announcement: Copyright Easter Eggs
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 08:53:49AM +0100, SteveC wrote: > http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=287 I see this has been referenced with a useful Editors Note at http://industry.slashgeo.org/industry/08/04/01/1059213.shtml s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey: Bad Map Rendering
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:23:57PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > I suggested to look into the rendering topic: Where are our current > problems in rendering For me it's the routemap problem - how to represent multiple routes sharing the same street/line/etc, for example bus routes, named or numbered cycle routes, or metro lines (like the shared section of the Central and District lines in London). The expected traditional solution to this is toothpaste stripes - the colours of each route running alongside each other, but I don't know of a renderer that can do this automatically. I'd also like a quick and easy way to render printable streetmaps with street and point of interest indexes refering to an overlaid grid. I'm not sure if either of these fit your question! s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] import of dataset for new zealand
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 10:44:00AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > We don't manage other people's data on their behalf. We assimilate it > into the collective, and it thereby becomes everybody's data. We > modify it, delete it, replace it, change all of its properties and > tags as we see fit. If people are not happy with this then they > shouldn't give us their data. I absolutely agree with this (aka "+1"). OSM's baseline is user-collected data, freely given to project. Imports of large datasets are nice, but if they can't be given under the same terms as my GPS tracks, OSM should have to use alternative sources. I believe the proof of large-scale useful coverage in the UK and other places, entirely contributed by user-effort, should give the project confidence to walk-away from incompatable data sources, rather than try to jump through hoops to get them. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Map_Features not loading
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 12:54:53PM +0100, Pieren Pieren wrote: > > FULL ACK - the current page is a PITA! > > > +1 > I restored the single page. -1 The full page has got way too long to actually be useful. In my opinion, it should include the main options for highways, perhaps the top 12 most used, and then a link to the rest of the key on a seperate page. Some of the other useful keys (by which, again, I mean most used) could have 5 or 6 values detailed on the page and their own subpage for the rest of the values, but most keys should just be a link to a subpage with the detail. Do we really need a list of every type of shop in the world (and another with every type of sport) on the main map_features page? What purpose does that serve? I'll probably be shouted down by those who spend their time managing the wiki, but my practical experience when it comes to actually making maps is we need to keep it simple, and map_features has gone way beyond that. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Voting - skyhook
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 02:28:20AM +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote: > > I'm still not sure if this proposal was actually *intended* to > discourage anyone spending his time to work on the current mess of > proposals and to improve the map features page - or if it only was a bad > joke with an unwanted side effect. Neither, obviously. I don't think it's a great joke, but neither is it a bad joke. Best wishes s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Voting - skyhook
Voting is now open on the Skyhook proposal - please add your support: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Skyhook s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC - skyhook
I don't think there was a formal announcement here when the proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Skyhook was made. Please comment on this proposal which will be opened for voting two weeks from now, if appropriate. Best wishes s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 12:04:58AM +, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: > > The idea that > someone in around 100 years time will still have to struggle with the > license issues we are setting up now on my data really worries me With your own data, you can make it PD (or the equivalent - http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ perhaps!) any time you choose of course. -- http://www.gowerpower.org.uk/henry/ <-- new baby! ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship: wayside crosses
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 08:18:34PM +0100, Christoph Eckert wrote: > > I bet you'll find them in other catholic regions as well. > BTW: you'll even find wayside_shrines in Greece, which isn't that > catholic :) . Oh, but it is. (second point of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic ) s -- http://www.gowerpower.org.uk/henry/ <--new baby! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] "Crudely-drawn pint glasses"
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 10:09:00PM +, Gervase Markham wrote: > > You feel like you're looking at the map with double > vision. After drinking from a Crudely-drawn pint glass? s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Copyright and old maps
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 08:51:35PM +0100, Mike Collinson wrote: > > Unless someone corrects me: No, as it is (I assume) an original map > and not a facsimile made by them. Just as a reference, all maps made available at Oxford's Central Library are facsimiles of the original collection and they apply a non-commercial licence to all useage of them (may or may not stand up in law, but I can't afford lawyers). Oxford University Library's Map Room bans cameras/etc and will only allow copies to be made by staff, with a similar licence applied. In other words, although there are collections of out-of-copyright maps available to view, it's not always as easy to get electronic copy free of restrictions. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Units convention (Was: Mapping canals)
CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE, GUYS! On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 04:08:21PM +0100, Michael Collinson wrote: > > maxheight= 3 ft - original-easy-to enter "folksomomic" key (defaults > either to metric or local usage, there are arguments for both) > > maxheight:metric = 0.912 - added either by power users or by post-processing "I heartily endorse this event or product." Seriously, this feels like the OSM way, and therefore is right. 1) Existing tags are already "dirty" with respect to units - they can, and *do* contain mixed units. 2) This is analogous to the language keyspace - the unspecified key contains the local "what's on the ground" data, but specific languages are in the approriate key. So as Michael says, maxheight could be anything, but maxheight:metric would be in metres. And maxspeed:metric would be in metres per second. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] travel-time-maps
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 01:32:47PM -0800, Tom Carden wrote: > > > > This is something I know a little bit about. I've CC'd the > > mysociety-maps list too so they know that other people are still > > thinking about this. A recent post on that list... > > Happily I can inform you that this work has recently been picked up again. ...indicates that some progress is public, (bar the press release) at http://www.mysociety.org/2007/more-travel-maps/ And yes, they are using OSM data! s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping canals
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 11:43:25AM +, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Amenities > > - > > New tag value: amenity=sanitary_station > > Sanitary station is a really misleading (but sadly widespread) term. > Better to group all the constituent services > (amenity=pumpout;water_point), and to come up with a separate tag for > what we refer to as "Elsan disposal" (a drain where you can empty your > Porta-Potti!). amenity=poo_hole could be misconstrued. That reminds me of something else I meant to add, which you've partically gone into here - nto all "sanitary_stations" are equal. You've mentioned some difference, but even with pumpout there's the question of if it's self-operated or not. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping canals
Hi Gerv - I've snipped lots below - if I haven't commented on any part, I pretty much agree. On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 06:36:48PM +, Gervase Markham wrote: > > Narrow sections are denoted by maxwidth. One narrowboat (just over 7 > feet) is given as 2.5m. Two boats is 5m. It's not necessary to mark a > two-boat width restriction for bridge holes, which are implied narrow. I don't mind there being an assumption that unspecified units are metres, but the UK canals are done in feet, and if I'm going to put any dimensions in, it'll be in feet, so I'd need a way to specify that's what I'd done. > "boat=private" is used for private parts of the canal. I see no reason not to use access=private, myself, since the towpath can have a seperate access tag. > The "lock=yes" way(s) takes various lock-related information, including: > > - the lock name, if it has one, with "name=". since this way is also part of the waterway, name= is already in use for the name of the waterway - we need something else for the lock names. > A flight of locks with a unifying name (e.g. "Hatton Locks") is denoted > with a node placed in an appropriately central position with new tag > value "place=lock_flight" and "name=". Better to group them with a relation, I'd have thought. > Moorings > > > Mooring info should be attached to the relevant stretch of towpath [...] On UK canals, mooring is generally allowed everywhere, except where explicity signed otherwise - do we need a tag for mooring-not-allowed? Thanks for thinking this through! s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Render icons for parking areas
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:14:09AM +0100, Knut Arne Bjørndal wrote: > > I've now implemented an algorithm for finding a good center-point for > areas. It's already commited to svn as revision 6390. That's great - I think most people would prefer not to have rendering instructions (such as a node as well as the area) in the database, and I for one don't intend to have more than one entity (a node and an area) for one thing - knowing the renderers can handle this makes me more happy about my choice only to draw the areas. Keep up the good work! s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've removed historic=icon from map features
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 07:58:20PM +1300, Robin Paulson wrote: > > i'll second that, but unless bildstock is an english word, we > shouldn't use it - current protocol is british english words only. > > Marc, does this have a direct english equivalent? is icon correct, or > does that relate to something subtlety different? Possibly "Shrine" unless I've missed some subtlety of what Bildstock is. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] administrative boundaries and is_in
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:11:35PM +1300, Robin Paulson wrote: > > the boundary data should be relatively easy to come by Not where it isn't marked on the ground, and is only defined by reference to the Copyrighted national mapping. The is the case in many places in the UK. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
