Re: [OSM-talk] Contour lines
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Andrew Errington wrote: > My GPS accuracy (reported > by the device itself) is at best 4m, but in mountainous regions or in cities > it is 5m or 6m at best, often worse. How accurate is my mouse when I click > on a pixel? Visually I am interpolating the (inaccurate) GPS trace to get a > smooth, pleasing curve or shape. Although we strive for accuracy you have to > remember we are not surveying, we are making a map; there is a difference. Well yes, but the SRTM DEM has 90 metre pixels. If you're using the data that has been processed into contour lines then that is going to be a whole lot worse even before you start taking into account stuff like void filling and contour smoothing. Like it or not, tracing SRTM contours is probably going to leave you a couple of orders of magnitude away from GPS accuracy. -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Contour lines
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Gregory wrote: > I've always wanted to fix up a pole about 6-10ft with a secure GPS mount on > one end, and possibly a harness or neck strap to carry the other end on me. > Then walk along the side of a river/lake at a safe distance with my GPS > hovered above the line where the water meets the bank. You could just walk 3m from the water all the time and then when you trace the track just offset the trace by 3m. :) -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Contour lines
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Gregory wrote: > What makes you think the Yahoo! imagery and/or the contour lines shown on > the Cycle Map(these contours are from SRTM data, not OSM) are more up to > date or more accurate/precise than the existing water body drawn in OSM? Indeed. Also, ISTR the cycle map fakes up realistic looking contours for void-filling doesn't it? I don't think the SRTM contours are accurate enough to use for tracing bodies of water - you need to walk the perimeter with a GPS or use aeriel photos. SRTM data _may_ be useful for guestimating flowing water courses that can't be otherwise surveyed, but for this I think you'd really want to be computing stuff off the raw DEM rather than manually adding features using the (already quite heavilly processed) contour lines. -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Important information for OpenPisteMap users
Some OpenPisteMap bits are changing and this may affect third party software. 1. The tiles have moved to http://tiles.openpistemap.org. They are currently being served from the old location as well, but this will be discontinued in the following phases: i) After a few weeks, tiles served from the old location will get a "please update your software" watermark applied to them. ii) A few weeks later, the old location will start returning "404 Not Found" If you are operating a web site that embeds OpenPisteMap using the map.js and opm.js scripts served directly from the OPM server then you *probably* don't need to do anything. Other software will need updating. 2. Owing to abuse by a small number of users (no, using a robot to pull down a third of a million tiles a week is not acceptable behaviour), OpenPisteMap will start banning people who download more than 20,000 tiles in a day or 40,000 in a week. As a point of comparison, the whole 3 Vallies resort at all zoom levels covers around 9,000 tiles, so there shouldn't really be much need to exceed these limits. If you have a specific reason why you need to then please discuss it with me - bandwidth isn't free and a small number of users are disproportionately using a lot of it. Also, a polite request to robot writers: it is generally considered good practice for robots to identify themselves in the UA string of their requests. This is desiarable so that the authors of buggy/misbehaving robots can be contacted and therefore fixed, and also so that website operators can properly estimate the cost associated with various clients. The vast majority of robot traffic that hits OpenPisteMap spoofs a "real browser" UA string (most commonly Opera, but most of the common browsers are represented too). If you're responsible for writing one of these robots, please consider fixing your software and presenting a suitable UA string. -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Peter Körner wrote: What's left to be clarified is how lanes are numbered. I'd suggest to be the inner one to be 1, ascending the more you're going to the border The police tend to number them with lane 1 being closest to the footway (i.e. the left lane in the UK, the right lane over much of the rest of the world). Although there could be something to be said for making it region-agnostic so that satnavs don't have to know what side of the road you drive in a specific region. -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Yann Coupin wrote: > I once started a proposition to do just that but it didn't get much traction, > feel free to discuss it. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Droute_instruction I've not read the discussion page yet, but some initial thoughts: Your first examples aren't topologically identical - the first is a 2 lane road with a short 3 lane section followed by a right hand turn whilst the second is a 3 lane road with a right hand turn immediately followed by dropping down to 2 lanes. Of course, this doesn't give you enough detail to know what lane you've got to be in (although you could make some educated guesses). I also don't see the need for phonetics to be tagged (in fact, it seems harmful because it breaks multi-language support). We don't know what kind of display device is going to be used (whether it be on-screen instructions, text to speech, etc.) and it should be up to the software to decide how to present it to the user rather than being explicitly tagged like that. Overall, the proposal seems a bit too complex - I had envisaged a simpler system whereby you could set a relation similar to a turn restriction, such as: TAGs: type: lane_restriction lanes: 1,2 Members: from: to: via: Whereby that marks a restriction that lanes 1 and 2 (the left two lanes, in the case of the UK) cannot be used in a route using the , and members. It would actually be nicer to be able to tag which lanes are allowed rather than which are disallowed, but that would be inconsistent with the existing turn restrictions (maybe that isn't a problem? comments?) -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
I looked on the wiki but couldn't see anything... Is there any suggested way of marking up turn restrictions for individual lanes of a road to enable sat navs to provide lane guidance (e.g. "keep right", "move into the left lane", etc)? -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crazy routing in OpenRouteService
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Pascal Neis wrote: > please, could you try it again? > For me it works, http://bit.ly/HDgbO The coordinates you've gone to there are different from the ones I gave in my original report - you've gone to -4.1307375,53.1501034 whereas I used -4.119322,53.145316. I have just retested and now get an error that there isn't a street within 300 metres, which is rather more sensible than the route I was given before. > It seems, that it was a OSM data problem, thx! I'm not sure how this can be put down to an OSM data problem - the destination point should have been projected onto the nearest road (i.e. something that wasn't highway=road, since OpenRoutingService doesn't treat these as roads). This isn't what happened - instead it sent me on some crazy route via Europe and hundreds of miles into the middle of the North Sea. This has now been "fixed" by disallowing destinations over 300 metres from a road. The underlying problem is still there though - for example, this route projects the destination point (just North of Swansea, Wales) onto a shipping lane in the middle of the Irish sea instead of a nearby highway=tertiary: http://data.giub.uni-bonn.de/openrouteservice/index.php?start=-3.9440128,51.680206&end=-3.946695,51.6843037&pref=Fastest&lang=de&noMotorways=false&noTollways=false So there is something rather wrong with the algorithm that finds the nearest road to project the destination point onto. > the highway=road tag is a a temporary tag, or? > "A road of unknown classification. This is intended as a temporary > tag to mark a road until it has been properly surveyed. Once it has > been surveyed, the classification should be updated to the > appropriate value." [1] Yes, it is a temporary tag to allow roads to be added without being properly surveyed (e.g. "I know I drove down here, I have a GPS track but I didn't spend the time to note down what the road was like so I can't give it a classification"). It is used quite a lot by people who collect tracks as they drive around, even when they can't spend the time to properly survey an area. It was added to prevent unknown classifications being added as highway=unclassified (which is what was happenning a lot previously). There might be some sense in trying to avoid routing people via highway=road since we don't know what they are like (could be anything from a tiny single track road to a big dual carriageway). However, where the only possible way to reach a destination is via a highway=road or highway=track, the routing algorithm probably needs to allow this. i.e. if you are trying to get to a farm that is connected to the road network by a dirt track (highway=track), you want the route to take you down that track - this isn't an error in the data that should be fixed. The only other alternatives are: 1. Tell the user that their destination is unreachable - this is wrong. 2. Project the destination onto the nearest road that isn't a highway=track - this could lead the user onto completely the wrong road, rather than the road that has the track connected to it. -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Crazy routing in OpenRouteService
A recent purchase of an Android phone has lead me to play with AndNav2 and OpenRouteService. However, in some cases I get some unexpectedly crazy routes. OpenRouteService doesn't seem to understand the highway=road tag. So presumably if your destination is on a highway=road, it should be projected onto another nearest road. However, plotting a route from Swansea to -4.119322,53.145316 (North Wales) ends up routing via Calais, Rotterdam, way out into the North Sea and then directly to the destination. Moving the destination slightly closer to another road causes sanity to be resumed. -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Odd rendering at 0,0
I noticed that there seems to be something odd with the rendering at lat=0, lon=0: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0&lon=0&zoom=14&layers=B000FTF At zoom 14 it tells me that it is the North Pole... Zoom in a bit mnore and you get a bunch of parking spaces. Both Mapnik and Osmarender seem to be affected - I had assumed that some editor software had got a bug and actually uploaded objects at 0,0 but the API seems to think there's nothing there... -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPisteMap Down?
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Tom Hughes wrote: > You need to use OL 2.8 - either that or use an older copy of > OpenStreetMap.js. > > Basically mixing our hosted file with your own OL is a bad idea - either pull > both from us or host both yourself. That way you won't get a mismatch. It was the other way around - I was mixing my own OpenStreetMap.js with the OSM hosted OpenLayers. Originally they both came from the OSM servers, but I later modified the OpenStreetMap.js for some reason I forget. Anyway, yes - it turned out to be a really stupid idea, and mainly down to my lazyness. :) I've now fixed it so all the scripts come from the OpenPisteMap server instead, so this shouldn't happen again. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenGolfMap? - was OpenPisteMap
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Peter Miller wrote: > Any chance of opengolfmap? I am needing a map to show the interaction between > an existing golf course and a proposed cycle route. I can add the data to the > map but I am not aware of anything that will render it. I'm not a golfer, so don't have a lot of interest in adding golf maps to the (already rather overloaded) OpenPisteMap server I'm afraid. However, all the source is available from my Subversion, so you could set up your own. For a one-off map you might be better off using one of the "easy" map renderers though. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPisteMap Down?
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Lars Ahlzen wrote: > It appears that the OpenLayers.Layer.OSM class now expects a full URL > template for the tiles, rather than just the directory... i.e. something > like: Nope, that didn't fix it. :( Looks like I'll need to do a bit more debugging. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPisteMap Down?
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Hurricane McEwen wrote: > I just went to visit openpistemap.org and I get a blank map. Anyone run > in to the same issue? Errm.. yes, damn. :( I am using the OpenLayers code hosted on the OSM servers - looks like this has changed and it is now breaking. I'll try and have a go at fixing it tomorrow. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Open*Map.* ?
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Russ Nelson wrote: > Is there a comprehensive listing of all Open*Map.* sites anywhere? Not comprehensive, but there is a list on the Wikipedia page. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Delay before the data is visible?
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Brett Henderson wrote: > I've just checked now and unless I'm confused by timezones it seems to be > running 5 minutes behind as per normal. Oops, You're right - it looks fine, I was being an idiot with respect to daylight savings. :) - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Delay before the data is visible?
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote: > The renderers are delayed until the minutely diff are working again. > There are some bugs there that need to be resolved first. Then there > will be a delay of a few hours/days once the diffs come back up. Some curiosities/observations: 1. Is OSM now using the tile expiry code I implemented in osm2pgsql to work out what to re-render, or is it using something different? 2. I noticed the minutely deltas are now delayed by an hour (used to be about 5 minutes). Is this down to server load? If so, why are the servers suddenly so much busier than before the API change (there don't seem to be that many uploads happenning and I wouldn't have thought there would be a big increase in downloads since the API change). 3. The deltas are much smaller than they used to be and there are long periods where they are completely empty. A look at the "recent changes" page seems to show that there really are long periods when no one is committing any data. Is this down to people actually not trying to upload anything or is the API undergoing periods of breakage so that people can't upload anything? - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Delay before the data is visible?
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > It could be that you get no warning when the upload fails under certain > circumstances. Hasn't happened to me on the latest SVN build, though. I noticed the exact opposite to this on Tuesday - JOSM thought the upload had failed, the OSM servers thought it succeeded. The result was that the next attempt the upload successfully re-uploaded the same data. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We're back
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > ...with API 0.6, Postgres and the new server. But everyone's uploading > at once, so don't expect to do much serious editing for the time > being. :) The deltas in http://planet.openstreetmap.org/minute aren't being updated at the moment - what's the plan for these (I notice that the test06 directory has more up to date deltas, but these have stopped now too)? I assume the deltas for the new API are different (so will need a osm2pgsql upgrade) - are they going to be served from the same URI, or is the API version number going to be included in the URI so that people don't end up with 0.6 deltas when they were expecting 0.5? > The new changeset stuff is really superb. Have a browse: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changesets The changeset stuff looks really good, and I note the welcome addition of a "comment" field. Is there any way of getting an RSS feed (or similar) of recent changesets and their comments within a specific bounding box? That'd be really good to get an at-a-glance idea of what the latest changes in your area are all about. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPisteMap: Cross Country Ski Trails.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Simon Wood wrote: > I have tagged the trails a 'highway=footway' and 'piste:type=nordic' as > these trails are multi-use; cycling and walking in the summer and > groomed cross country trails in the winter. > > At present OPM does not render these as ski-trails. Is this the correct > way to tag this situation, or can someone suggest a better method? At the moment, OPM only renders alpine (downhill) pistes. Other types of piste are on the (ever lengthening :) todo list. I think the rendering styles need a fairly major overhaul before I go much further with adding more features though. > Also there is no mention of the following on the OpenPisteMap wiki page > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Piste_Maps): > > 1) Direction of Way: I assume that 'forward' is meant as 'generally > downhill' as the 'piste:type=downhill' implies one-way. Certainly for alpine pistes the way should go down hill and we assume they are one-way so the direction arrow rendered on the map points down hill. For most alpine pistes this is going to be the normal state of affairs, although there are a few notable exceptions, such as some flat sections where it should probably be explicitly set to oneway=no. For nordic routes, I guess things aren't quite so clear cut. I don't really have any experience with nordic routes so I'm going to avoid commenting too much on this. :) > 2) Steep Sections: Is there a method of marking a steep section? The > maps posted on site > (http://www.crowsnestguide.com/allisonwonderlands/allisonmap.html) draw > a little '|---' line next to the trail at the appropriate places. This > could be marked with a short way marked 'piste:steep=yes'. Where this is > against the general direction of the way should we reverse the way or > use a 'up/down' or 'forward/backward' tagging (ie. > 'piste:steep=backward')? Whether a piste is "steep" is pretty subjective and more or less covered by the "piste:difficulty" tag. Ok, so the difficulty covers other stuff like narrowness, moguls, etc. but I still don't think we want a subjective "steep" boolean attribute. A non-subjective "incline=30%" type tag would be better, and matches up with what is often used on highways: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Incline > I would like to add a 'ele=xxx' tag to the markers tag at the junction > of the trails to give some indication of height gain/loss between > markers. This would enable a person unfamiliar with the trail to gain a > sense of the workout they are about to get I think using gps elevation data for this purpose would be a very bad idea due to the inaccuracy. GPS elevation data can easilly be over 100 metres out, and that kind of inaccuracy would produce very different inclinations of the tracks. The _differences_ in heights between 2 points might be reasonably accurate if they are taken by the same GPS receiver at a similar time, but once you start combining elevation data from many different receivers over a period of months or years I think the data will be worse than useless. Even though the SRTM3 data is reasonably low-res, I think it would be better to use that rather than GPS elevation data. The problem with SRTM3 is that it doesn't cover high latitudes. I'm certainly opposed to adding an "ele=" tag containing data that is known to be extremely inaccurate anyway. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping the sea
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Andy Deakin wrote: > * Navigation whilst at sea (naval charts) I've added a (very small) number of buoys to OSM over the past couple of years. ISTR someone added a load of public domain data for Irish lighthouses too. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Openstreetbugs source code
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Matthias Julius wrote: >> Yes it's useful, but I don't see how this addresses the problems of >> OSB being closed. Is this not a third party implementation of the OSB >> JS interface which is not running on the main OSB site, and is the OSB >> bug DB not still closed with no dumps available? > > But now, since the code is available, someone could set it up as > bugs.openstreetmap.org or so and integrate it with the OSM main site. I find OSB very useful (especially with the JOSM plugin), but I'd be really interested to know what the rationale is behind having a separate database rather than storing the bugs as nodes in OSM itself? - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenHikingMap - OpenCycleMap
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Dave Stubbs wrote: > For the contours we haven't figured out how to prevent those > irritating joins on the srtm tile boundary yet. They're not that > noticable. If you figure it out do let me & andy know :-) This shouldn't be too hard - possibly even as a post-processing step once the contour lines are in a PostGIS table: - For each tile boundary, select all the contours that intersect it. - Iterate through all the contour lines which extend away from one side of the boundary line and match them up with the lines that extend away from the other side by looking at their heights (and probably also the heights of the surrounding contours). - Trim off the ends and glue the matched up lines together. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Own maps with hill shading and routes using mapnik
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Keith Sharp wrote: > I never got round to implementing anything because I discovered most of > the bodies of water in Scotland had been mapped. I imagine the NPE maps cover most of the natural bodies of water. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > * though with NPE the reasonably large area is pretty clearly going to > be talk-gb, not talk :p Ok, good point :) - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote: > * you suspect that the criticism you have is not shared by everyone > so you want to give them a chance to voice their opinion; > * you think that whatever you're unhappy with is not only done by one > mapper, but general practice (or might become general practice) > * you're not comfortable enough with history access to find out > exactly who did the bit you're unhappy with (and who perhaps only > changed something else later) * the changes cover a reasonably large area and thus a large number of editors are affected and may wish to contribute to the discussion. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Steve Chilton wrote: > As Andy notes it is not always easy to see small sections of data at z14 > in Potlatch (which you have to use for NPE work). No problem - I just thought I'd mention that some on-the-ground review is needed for these waterways at some point (although it is better to have something there rather than nothing - many of the streams would be very difficult to survey unless someone feels like wading the length of them :). Something that would be very useful in Potlatch would be the ability to have the background zoom beyond it's highest resolution and just get interpolated to fit - the yahoo images are virtually unusable in Wales and over-zooming them might make them a bit more useful. > Could you please use your local knowledge to rectify that particular > error/alignment? I'll prod Steve Hosgood (who's sitting opposite me at the moment) since he surveyed the area originally. :) Unfortunately I'm not especially familiar with that area (although if necessary I can make a diversion that way one evening on my way home from work). > Because of the problem noted above I actually skipped the main urban > area of Swansea - as the NPE was too difficult to interpret and the OSM > data so thick on the ground to make it difficult to work there. I can imagine. Also, in city centres, the NPE data is more likley to be out of date and doing on-the-ground surveying will be easier so it probably isn't as worthwhile anyway. > Incidentally they are the only two > significantly densely urban mapping encountered on a virtual trip round > the whole coastline of Wales so far. I believe Cardiff has some reasonable Yahoo photos and people have been tracing them, so most of the roads are mapped, but I'm not sure how good the detail is. There are a couple of people working the Bridgend/Pencoed area (one of whome works as a courier I think, so is doing a lot of on-the-job surveying) and they seem to be doing a pretty good job. It's good to see 9 people in Swansea within a 12Km range of me now - when I started mapping I think there were about 3. Chris Jones (rollercow) can be blamed for many of them I think - he's been doing a good job of introducing members of the uni's computer society into the mapping effort. :) > Finally, it is my view that source=NPE is implicitly tagging "for > review". It is now possible to use the OSMmapper tool from ITOworld to > check where the tag has been used in your area and consider reviewing > data there. Ok, fair enough. Is the expectation that the source=NPE tag will be removed after someone has reviewed the way, even if they didn't need to alter it? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] NPE waterways
I noticed that a lot of waterways have recently been added with source=NPE. Were these traced, or was this an automated import? It seems that some of the existing (surveyed) work has been either ignored or broken in the process. i.e.: An existing section of stream with a bridge over it has been ignored rather than the newly added waterway being connected to it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.685369&lon=-3.9486&zoom=18&layers=B00FTF And a stream has been moved so it is nolonger under the associated bridge: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.4982&lon=-3.52711&zoom=16&layers=0B0FTF Also, a number of streams are now marked which have been culverted since the NPE maps were produced. Maybe these should be tagged as needing a review? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > And that's fine: you seem to place more of an emphasis on the Gospel > According To Map Features than I do If you don't go by the definitions in Map Features, what definitions do you go by? As far as you are concerned, what is the difference between an unclassified and a tertiary? If we don't have some agreed definition, the tags become meaningless since the meaning will vary widely depending on who surveyed the road. For example, if someone is writing a route planner for HGVs, it is wise to have it try and avoid unclassified roads as they are defined by the wiki. But it is not sensible to avoid a high quality dual carriageway (which seems to match some other people's definitions of an unclassified road). > What _isn't_ fine is going round removing others' work because you > disagree with it. Ok, so maybe I shouldn't have changed the classification of some of these roads until I had resurveyed them. I certainly don't consider it to be "removing someone's work" though - the way is still on the map. All I'm trying to do is standardise the tags a bit so they match the _only_ documented definition. > As for C, that's pretty much immaterial: I've spoken at a public > inquiry to get a landowner to remove an obstruction on a C "road". I > say "road", actually it was a foot-wide path from one village to > another three miles away. That was exactly my point - no one cares whether a road has a C number or not, map users just care what the road is _like_ - I don't see how you can say that a relatively narrow road with no centre line is "like" a big dual carriageway. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Gervase Markham wrote: > Well, there was a note on Map Features saying not to do it, but until > recently it didn't say what you _should_ do. Until recently there was no approved tag to do it. A lot of people promoted the idea of just never adding roads without knowing their classification, which to many of us wasn't really acceptable (as far as I'm concerned, it is better to have a road on the map than not, even if you don't have all the information). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Er, I've driven past that one a handful of times (some friends used to > live in Pontardawe) and if it's the road I'm thinking of - down > towards the KFC - it _is_ unclassified. Well, either that or tertiary; It can't possibly be unclassified - an unclassified road is a single carriage way, usually with no centre line. This road is a dual carriageway with two lanes in each direction. I need to go and survey the area to see if it has an A or B number - if it doesn't then it's a tertiary, definately not an unclassified. (and given the size of the road I would be *extremely* surprised if it didn't have an A B or C number). > Why not just leave them alone until you have the time to properly > survey them, rather than assuming you know better than the original > mapper? Two reasons: 1. Informing people who are using the map that the classification is unknown rather than giving them an almost certainly incorrect classification is a Good Thing. 2. Making it more obvious that the road need surveying means that it can be done systematically (possibly by more than just one person too). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote: > At least the rules governing 20mph areas (not specifically Home Zones) have > been relaxed a bit to make them easier to implement (though Cambridgeshire is > till very reluctant, places like Hull and Portsmouth have been really > progressive on this). To be honest, I'm very surprised that councils haven't been sued under the disability discrimination act for "speed cusions" since they can cause people with back problems a lot of pain as the car goes over them. (And besides, they are pretty useless since anyone driving a 4x4 has a wide enough wheel-base to blast over them at whatever speed they want). I've also read that they can cause hidden tyre damage that can lead to blow-outs at high speed, so whilst the statistics may show that they reduce low-speed accidents on housing estates they probably increase the number of very serious high-speed accidents on other roads. > but have a plate underneath which is a children's drawing all about > slowing down (e.g. a snail). I drove through Neath a few days ago and noticed that they had similar signs - certainly an interesting idea (I have no idea how well it works though) > Anyway, this is all rather off topic, sorry. Indeed - interesting none the less though :) - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote: > I don't see the problem in that example: > > highway=residential > maxspeed=50 Yes, in that case. Although I think tagging roads lined with houses as "highway=tertiary, abutters=residential" is better - really the only difference between a tertiary road and a residential road is that the residential one has houses along it, and you can get houses along primary and secondary roads too so it would seem more consistent to move the existence of houses along the road off onto a separate tag rather than overloading the highway tag. > (and personally, I use units - maxspeed=40mph - but that's another discussion > we've already done to death; and I haven't been as rigorous as I should have > been in recording non-default speed limits). I've certainly not recorded any speed limits to date, although I probably should do. My priority has mainly been to get the roads on the map, since the area that I'm in has had very few mappers (although my "other mappers in the area" list is now full, which is a nice change :). The absence of any decent aerial photography also slows things down a good deal because you have to go out and resurvey things you aren't sure about rather than being able to have a quick glance at the photos. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote: > The equivalent here, to which the tag would be applied, is known as > "Home Zone", and it has a specific sign: > http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/general/coll_newroadsignsandmarkingsleaf/dft_roads_022863-16.jpg > (which is taken from this page > http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/general/newroadsignsandmarkingsleafletb?page=1 > ) Interesting... I've never come across one of those signs (although the description makes it all sound like common sense - I would think that in any residential area you should expect kids to be playing in the street, no need for a special sign :) - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > But from the your description here, what do you tag > roads that are 30mph and don't have a centre line? i.e. the single > most common type here. That's a bit of a judgement call depending on the situation I think. Most of the streets on housing estates around the UK are wide 20-30mph and many have no centre line. However, they are wide enough to have a centre line - I guess the council don't bother painting the lines because they see it as unnecessary on a low-speed, low-traffic road and don't want the extra costs involved. I tag these roads as "residential" if they are lined with houses. If the road is for just for non-residential access (e.g. access to a school, or for deliveries to some shops) and it isn't a through road, I tag it as "service" Some housing estates have quite narrow roads (just wide enough for 2 cars to pass) and no footways (so it is a shared surface for cars and pedestrians) - I'd tag these as residential. Rural areas are a bit more problematic - they sometimes have fairly narrow roads which are most definately not residential but may have fairly low speed limits (30mph), especially around village centres. I guess I'd err on the "unclassified" side even though the speed limit is low. I hit a problem a few days ago of not quite knowing how to handle the difference between an unclassified road (high speed limit, just wide enough for cars to pass each other but no centre line) and a very narrow road (still a high speed limit, but only 1 car wide and with no passing places - if you meet someone coming the other way you'll be reversing for a couple of miles!). In the end I settled on tagging them both as unclassified, but setting lanes=1 on the narrow one, but I'm still not entirely happy with this since it renders the same. There was some debate as to whether it should be marked as a "track" instead, but tracks are supposed to be unsurfaced (and also, they render very similar to footpaths which gives the impression that you can't drive down them unless you look at the map key). > Ok, as long as you change nothing in NL I don't really mind one way or > the other :) :) - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > I don't want to be annoying, but what about the ordinary roads, which > don't fit in the above classification. With houses on both side but > limited to 50km/h for example. Well, this is why I don't like the highway=residential tag. > Inside housing estates sounds like > living_street me. Maybe the word 'estate' means something else in the > UK than I think. The definition of living_street is a bit vague in the wiki. A relevant bit seems to be: "Simply tagging them with something like highway=residential, max_speed=7, motorcar=yes, motorcycle=yes, bicycle=yes" Which implies to me that the living_street tag almost never applies in the UK - The vast majority of our residential roads have a speed limit of 30mph, with newer ones tending to have a 20mph limit. Just about the only roads you'll see in the UK with a 5-10mph speed limit are service roads to amenities such as schools. I don't know enough about the road systems in other countries to comment - from your description, it sounds like maybe you have living streets (very low speed limit) rather than residential roads (20-30mph speed limits). As I said, I really don't like the residential tag (although I do use it in order to be consistent with the rest of the map). For roads with speed limits over 30mph I don't tag them with highway=residential, even if they have houses along them. > the UK and is totally meaningless elsewhere. So we denoted something > FTLOG don't go changing them all because you think they're wrong > according to some classification you came up with on your own. As I've said before, I have no intention of changing any areas I'm not involved with - I'm just bringing a problem to the attention of everyone else since I suspect that Swansea isn't the only place affected. The roads I am retagging in Swansea are not wrong "according to some classification I came up with on my own" - they are wrong according to the definitions in the wiki - things like 50mph 2 lane dual carriageways are _not_ unclassified roads by any stretch of the imagination. The problem is simply that highway=unclassified has been used by a lot of people as a general "I don't know what the classification of this road is" tag because up until recently there was no other tag to use for this purpose. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: > If you know they are truly residential roads, then why not retag them as > such? Because they are part of a large number of roads that I know are not unclassified, but were tagged as such. So I have retagged them to highlight the fact that they need resurveying and I am trying to take a vaguely systematic approach. I know that some of that cluster of roads are residential and I'm pretty confident that none of them are unclassified, but I don't know which of them to tag as residential and which to tag as tertiary without going and resurveying them, which I haven't yet had time to do. > Just don't > go mad and change areas you have no intention of visiting. I'm certainly not planning on changing areas that I have nothing to do with. But I was trying to bring the problem to the attention of people in other areas since they may have a similar situation. The retagging I've done was based on my knowledge of the specific areas, rather than the roads themselves (i.e. given the type of area the roads were in, I deemed it extremely unlikely that they were really unclassified roads, so retagged them to make it obvious they need to be resurveyed). Since I can't tell you the classification of all the specific roads off the top of my head, I can't necessarilly correct the tags immediately, but I can retag to show that the unclassified tag is almost certainly wrong and then resurvey them when I have chance (and hopefully it might also encourage other people in the area to help with the task) Obviously there are many more roads which really are unclassified in rural areas - So far I've been mainly working on the city and a different approach may be needed for the rural areas. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: > You keep saying that but you haven't given a good example. Can you? A dual carriageway that was tagged as highway=unclassified: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.67075&lon=-3.91377&zoom=16&layers=B00FTF A bunch of residential roads that were tagged as highway=unclassified: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.62323&lon=-3.94775&zoom=15&layers=B00FTF There are plenty more where they came from - I have retagged them as highway=road with the intention of going back and properly resurveying them when I have time. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: > But any automatic retagging would change those roads which are truly > unclassified (and maybe have been surveyed by others) to highway=road. Yes, and they would have to be resurveyed because at the moment it is impossible to tell which roads are truely unclassified and which are mistagged. > If there is doubt on specific roads then either get out there and check them > or add an extra tag giving your reasons for querying them. The problem is that it isn't specific roads - the vast majority of roads tagged as highway=unclassified seem to be in question. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, elvin ibbotson wrote: If you believe they are wrongly tagged (I would avoid the word "misclassified" when referring to an unclassified road ;-) presumably you have a good idea what classification they are, so why not just re-tag them as primary, tertiary or whatever? I know that they are not unclassified, but couldn't tell you what they really are without actually going and surveying them. So my plan was to retag them as highway=road so that it would then be easy to see which ones still need to be resurveyed to fix the classification. But whilst doing this I realised just how many such roads there are and wondered if it would be better to just retag them all to highway=road and then resurvey them. How on earth did you arrive at this figure? Wouldn't 'guess wildly' be a better verb than 'estimate'? No, it isn't a wild guess, it is an estimate based on looking at which roads are tagged as highway=unclassified and using my knowledge of which ones definately aren't unclassified roads. No way! I personally have mapped hundreds of roads, a high proportion of them unclassified (and I suspect I am not the only one who knows what this means) and would not want anyone 'aggressively changing' them. So how would you go about making highway=unclassified a meaningful tag, given how many roads on the map are tagged as highway=unclassified even though they definately aren't unclassified roads? What are peoples' views on this? Thats what I hoped to find out by starting this discussion. :) I expect a lot of "no, we don't want any bulk changes" responses, but I'm interested if anyone has a better idea. The grey area for me is in the tertiary/unclassified/service/residential area. Yes, this is certainly a grey area. For me, I interpret them as: Tertiary: A minor road, usually with a dotted line along the middle. Unclassified: Narrower than a tertiary, usually without a dotted line along the middle and usually with a relatively high speed limit (although you might not want to drive anywhere near that speed :) Residential: Roads in housing estates - they probably look like tertiary roads, but have houses along them (I actually don't like this classification and think they would be better tagged as highway=tertiary and abutters=residential) Service: Something similar to an unclassified road, but used for access rather than a through road. Usually with a low speed limit. However, despite the grey areas, I'm not really discussing the classifications themselves, I'm trying to work out the best way to "fix" the problem that for a long time highway=unclassified has been used by a lot of people as a "catch all" for "a road, I don't know the classification" (maybe because they were traced from Yahoo rather than surveyed, or the submitter couldn't remember what the road was like when tracing the GPS track). C-class roads in the UK are not labelled as such on road signs or maps (and of course we shouldn't look at maps as this might infringe copyright ;-) so if you don't work for the local highway authority you can only guess at what's tertiary and what's unclassified. From Map Features: Tertiary: Generally for use on roads wider than 4 metres width, and for faster/wider minor roads that aren't A or B roads. In the UK, they tend to have dashed lines down the middle, whereas unclassified roads don't. So the difference between highway=tertiary and highway=unclassified is defined - you don't need road signs for this. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote: > We've gone round and round the issue of what road classification means many > times before. With a few dissenters, the consensus has generally been that > you tag what you find on the ground. This sometimes contradicts the > "official" classification. Some people who have had access to this > information have used different tags to apply the "official" classification > (though I do wonder about the copyright status of such information). You misunderstand the problem - the problem isn't that the classification on OSM doesn't match the official classification. The problem is that until highway=road was approved, there was no classification for "it's a road but I can't remember what type", so people have used highway=unclassified so that the road at least gets rendered. This means that most roads tagged as highway=unclassified are most definately not unclassified roads "on the ground" - they are residential, tertiary, secondary or even primary roads. If a road is tagged as highway=unclassified, it should be a relatively narrow road - it should not be a wide residential road with houses down both sides, or a dual carriageway. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Chris Hill wrote: > I would be strongly against a global change of highway=unclassified - all of > the roads I have tagged as unclassified deserve to be so. I have been > working partly on a very rural area, where many of the roads are unclassified > (country lanes). To have to retag them from road to unclassified would be a > very annoying waste of time. I agree that there are areas where the classifications are accurate, but is there a good solution to the problem? I'm starting the discussion because I think there is a real problem here - I don't have the solution, I'm hoping that a discussion might produce one. :) - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
Following the approval of the highway=road tag, I've set about aggressively changing a lot of the highway=unclassified roads around Swansea, that I believe are misclassified, to highway=road, with the intention that they can then be surveyed and reclassified correctly. However, after starting to do this, I've realised just how many of the roads are misclassified - I'd estimate that well over 80% of the roads tagged as highway=unclassified are, infact, not unclassified roads. So I'm wondering about the merits of changing *all* the highway=unclassified roads in the area to highway=road so that the whole lot can be classified appropriately from scratch. This would make it obvious which roads really are unclassified and which need to be checked. What are peoples' views on this? I imagine that much of the OSM world is affected in the same way, and this renders the highway=unclassified tag relatively meaningless in it's current state. Should there be a global reclassification to fix this, or is there a better way? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Map Maker
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > Is there not a law against unauthorised reading of > emails? It isn't exactly unauthorised if you agreed to the contract when you signed up for the service... Whether they can read _inbound_ emails is a quite different question though, since the sender did not agree to the contract. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008, OJ W wrote: > Would it be worth moving the introduction, links, wiki, shop, > conference advert, and donation buttons from the front page to an > "about" tab in the view/edit/export.. tab strip? The left-hand edge > of the main page seems to be getting quite long, so the search box > isn't visible without scrolling on some screens. What about moving the search box? Maybe right under the OSM logo, or even on the tab-bar between "User Diaries" and "log in"/"Welcome" (although that may make the page too wide). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OT] OSM based photo catalogue
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, John McKerrell wrote: > Indeed, flickr's great and can do most of this stuff well. I like to > use this site[1] to geotag my photos on flickr just because it's > really nice and easy but there's lots of other ways to do it. I use DigiKam to geotag my photos - it is about the only photo manager I've found which is actually any good. I set up my website to embed a slippymap with markers for each photo. e.g. http://www.nexusuk.org/photos/skiing/switzerland/verbier/2008/02/23/ - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] osm talk at local LUG
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, SteveC wrote: > Isn't it easier with such a group to ask 'why not use windows?' Quite possibly, but that isn't quite the same thing. Windows is not free (as in beer), so a lot of people (even LUG attendees) often get hung up on the zero cost side of things, so when faced with two zero cost solutions (Google and OSM) they must be poked into realising that there is also the Free (as in speech) aspect to consider. I consider the freedom I get from using Linux to be one of the main reasons for using it, but one must accept that not everyone thinks the same way, so being quite explicit in the explanation of _why_ to use OSM instead of Google is a Good Thing. As far as Linux is concerned, there are other reasons to use it instead of Windows - i.e. it costs nothing, it is more secure, it comes with more powerful tools, it is generally better. Whilst a lot of these things may have come about _because_ of the freedom that Linux gives people, that fact may not be directly evident to a lot of people. Just my 2 pennies worth... - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] osm talk at local LUG
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: >> From my experience you get lots of questions so best keep the presentation > simple and allow enough time to answer stuff. You might also find you get > questions regarding the "free" aspect of the project and the licence. Yes, be prepared for the usual "why not just use Google?" questions. I did a short lightning talk on OSM at my local LUG a few months ago and being able to cite uses of the data other than the plain slippymap was quite good (such as the Welsh language version (as I am in Wales :), the cyclemap, the pistemap, the ability to use the data for satnav projects, etc.). The level of interest seemed quite high at the time, but sadly I don't think we've got any new mappers from that group. :( I shall try and dig out the slides I wrote, but basically I briefly talked out the benefits of the project over commercial maps and how the surveying is actually done. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Don't you just hate it when part 2...
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > Same with me too, though I might have gone somewhere else if I'd known! Guess > the lesson is to make sure you know what the others in your area are doing... It is useful to have a wiki page for your area where people can state what areas they are working on... of course it also helps if people actually use it (only two people are using the Swansea wiki page, even though there are more than two of us mapping Swansea) :( - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: highway=road (Generic road)
The highway=road proposal has now been approved. It received 27 votes, 17 of which were approvals. The relevant wiki pages have now been updated. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Nested areas
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, spaetz wrote: > Why should it work differently? If I want a tunnel under a forest, a > layer=-1 *should* draw the tunnel under the forest. It isn't in a tunnel though - if it was, it would have tunnel=yes. layer=-1 is often used for waterways for a couple of reasons: 1. It indicates it is below the _general_ level of the local ground (note: this does not imply it is a covered tunnel) 2. It means that ways which pass over the top don't need to explicitly be moved to a higher layer, which makes editing easier. I don't think areas, such as landuse, natural, etc. should be considered as something physically laid on top of the land - they merely describe the use of the land within them and thus should not obscure other objects any more than the land itself should. If the land itself isn't obscuring objects, why should an area tag, which effectively just describes some properties of that land. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Nested areas
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote: > If the 2nd area is meant to replace the 1st rather than just say > something extra about the land/water then you should probably make a > hole. Hmm.. ok. Looks like I need to investigate the multipolygon relations stuff. > osmarender rules pay attention to the layer tag even when dealing with > areas. In this case the river is on layer=-1, and the industrial area > has no layer tag (so defaults to 0). osmarender is rendering all -1 > objects first, then moves on to the layer 0 objects. This seems wrong to me. An easy fix would be to subtract a number (e.g. 10) from the layer value of areas so they always get rendered under non-area objects. Maybe I'll look at doing this when I don't have a hundred and one other things to do. :) I suspect there's no easy way of doing the surface-area calculation to keep small areas on top though. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Nested areas
Can areas be nested? i.e. if there is a large amount of farmland with a wooded area in the middle, can you just draw a large area for the farmland and a smaller area within it for the wooded land, or do you have to make sure the areas don't overlap (e.g. by leaving a hole in the middle of the farmland). This applies to many other areas, such as lakes within parks, schools within residential areas, etc. To a human, it is fairly obvious that a small areas which is completely enclosed within a larger area should take presidence, but are the renderers expected to understand this? As a side note, I noticed that whilst Mapnik appears to be quite good at rendering areas (e.g. industrial landuse) under the ways, Osmarender doesn't seem smart enough and areas sometimes obscure ways. For example, the river is obscured by an industrial area here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.68998&lon=-3.9007&zoom=16&layers=0B0FT - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: path, designated. Rejected: *way deprecation
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Karl Eichwalder wrote: > You are _forced_ to > make use of this way if it accompanies the street. In this case, shouldn't the street itself be marked as bicycle=no? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways warning for areas
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Thomas Wood wrote: > Ignore the warnings, they were mostly as a warning to inform you that > there happen to be two ways there rather than as an error. Ok, I thought as much, thanks. Would there be any bad side effects of the validator never warning of overlapping ways where one of those ways has area=yes? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Overlapping ways warning for areas
I have created a number of "landuse" areas which are divided by ways. E.g. a "natural=wood" area abutting a "landuse=farm" area with a "highway=footway" running along the join. Where they join, the two areas share the same nodes, as does the footway which goes along the join. However, JOSM's validator is complaining of "overlapping ways". I know there is some contention as to whether sharing nodes is necessarilly the right thing to do, but in this case the footway really is the thing that divides the woodland from the farmland - should I take notice of the validator and change the way I have drawn the land use areas (I guess I could move them to layer -5, but shouldn't landuse areas default to being on the lowest layer anyway?), or should I just ignore the warnings? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Update OSM PostGIS DB with .osc files?
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Ian Dees wrote: > Has anyone experimented with using the hourly, daily, etc. OSC files > available on planet.openstreetmap.org to update their live PostGIS > database? Ideally, I'd like to also kick off mapnik re-rendering of the > tiles that have changed. > > I'm looking at it, but wanted to make sure I'm not duplicating someone's > work. I got part way through writing code to do it, but didn't have time to complete it. I did hear rumour that osm2pgsql might be gaining support in the future to do this (not sure how likely/soon that is). My experience has been that storing all the data in the DB can be very slow and use a lot of disk space, so fairly careful design of the database is needed. Also, I made the mistake of doing it in Python - I really think it needs to be done in C to get a decent efficiency. I'll be extremely interested in anything you can come out with though - it'd be very useful to be able to import the changes since it would allow minutely updates. You should also be able to calculate which tiles need updating while importing the changes, allowing the old tiles to be easilly expired and updated. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] simplifying mapnik layout definition
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Andy Allan wrote: > Now, if someone is volunteering to make a concise definition format > that can be pre-processed into the mapnik XML format (or mapnik python > code, or even just read by a modified mapnik directly, or whatever) > then I'd absolutely love to SEE THE WORKING CODE. That osm.xml is an > unwieldy beast isn't in question, nor are the myriad of possibilities > to improve it - what is lacking is working alternative. For OpenPisteMap I create the XML using some PHP code: https://public.subversion.nexusuk.org/trac/browser/openpistemap/trunk/scripts/mktemplate.php I've not converted the entire XML file yet, and I don't pretend it is a universal solution, but I find it easier to work with than the raw MapNik XML file. It would be nice to have some kind of cascading language so that styles can be defined for each object at the top level and then modified for each zoom level, but I suspect no one has the time to do it (I certainly don't). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > (It's reasonably easily settled - either get Google to give the ok, or > rerectify against OSM. Better still, rerectify against OSM's GPS > traces alone, thereby sidestepping potential CC-BY-SA issues.) Aren't OSM's GPS traces considered CC-BY-SA as well? I haven't seen anything specifically licensing them, but they are in the OSM database, accessible via the OSM API so I err on the side of assuming the CC-BY-SA licence applies to them too. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Vote: highway=road
Please read and vote on the proposal at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Generic_road
Vote with {{vote|yes}} or {{vote|no}}.
Thank you.
- Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/
Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC: Proposed feature, generic road
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Steve Hill wrote: > I'd like to draw attention to the highway=road proposed feature and > request comments: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Generic_road Does anyone mind if I raise this for a vote? (Commenting seems to have ceased) - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [EMAIL PROTECTED] style updates
On Tue, 20 May 2008, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote: Yes and no. it's completely up to the people running the client, when or how often they update, unless there is a version change in the client, where an update is often forced by deprecating the old version after a while. Ah, ok. So why don't you get horribly inconsistent tile renderings where someone has the latest styles and someone else has ancient ones? (I'm guessing the answer here is "you do" and I just haven't noticed :) - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [EMAIL PROTECTED] style updates
Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] pull the latest Osmarender styles from svn every so often? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping Ways - Embrace or Avoid?
Lester Caine wrote: > But it is an area that needs to be fine tuned in the guides! > In reality at smaller scales they are never in the same place This depends what you are mapping. For example, I have used shared nodes on beaches - below the high water mark I have mapped a beach with a water=tidal tag, above the high water mark I have mapped a nontidal beach. Where the tidal and nontidal beaches join, they share nodes - this reflects reality since there really is no gap between tidal and nontidal bits of beach. Similarly, where beaches change from sand to rock, there is no gap and so the nodes should be shared. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping Ways - Embrace or Avoid?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 1. The area shares some nodes with the highway, creating overlapping ways. > 2. The area shares no nodes and was drawn as close as possible to the road. > > I couldn't find any recommendations in the wiki on which option to prefer. I prefer sharing nodes. > Overlapping ways allow a cleaner data model and saves nodes. But editing such > ways is quite a hassle. There is currently no function to split nodes so that > ways can be separated again. So if the border of the area needs to be > changed, the complete area has to be redrawn (at least to my knowledge). JOSM handles overlapping objects reasonably well (using the middle-click menu). If you need to separate the ways you can add a new node to each way individually and then delete the shared node - could be neater, but it isn't bad. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
Nick Whitelegg wrote: > But that's what foot and horse are for. > highway=path could easily be used to distinguish public and permissive > footpaths and bridleways. Would it be better to have something other than "yes" to mean "legally enshrined access permission" to protect against people tagging stuff as "yes" without fully understanding what it means (i.e. people not reading the wiki)? -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Notability (was OpenPlantMap)
Peter Miller wrote: > However, imho Wikipedia > does need a notability policy given its tendency to turn up on the first > page of google and ability to generate 'google juice' for referenced web > pages giving people a huge incentive to add information about minor people, > projects and events that they support. My attitude to this is, why is it a problem? So what if people add information about minor people, projects or events that they support so long as the information is accurate and maintained? Yes, it shows up on Google, but if the information is accurate isn't this a Good Thing? > once when I asked about flight paths > and was told they didn't belong in OSM because they would be confusing and > belonged somewhere else, Whilst I agree they may be confusing, I think this is fundamentally a problem with the editors (which don't let you exclude certain features from view) rather than a need to keep the data out of the database. > and again regarding a proposed road for which I > entered the route (a trunk road in the middle of a very expensive > controversial public enquiry that the government is determined to build but > which might not get built). There are tags for proposed roads, so I'm not sure why this would be a problem. So long as the database is updated when the road is either actually built or the government's project is canned, this seems ok to me. > Let's try some particular cases and see if they should be in or out. All of these things seem fine to me, so long as they are appropriately tagged and kept up to date. But as mentioned above, I am in favor of the editors being able to exclude features which are of limited interest (and doing this by default so new mappers don't get confused by the mass of data they are presented with) > Personally I support a 'layering' approach where minor interest information > is available in the DB but not part of the main roads planet file, but is > accessible as a special interest file. Well, this is more a question of how to process the data for public consumption than what data should be in the database. I do agree that filtering some of the data off into separate files rather than making everyone get it in the planet file might be a Good Thing. > Over time I suspect that people will create versions of OSM for special > interests such as historical views of places, possible futures for places > and information of interest to only a small group By "versions of OSM" do you mean just the web interface, or forks of the database itself? I'd consider forking the database to be a terrible idea since keeping all the different versions in sync would be a real problem. As for creating new "special interest" renderings, I agree entirely and this is already happening (cycle map, piste map, whitewater map, etc). -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap
Peter Miller wrote: > I agree. I think we need to adopt a Wikipedia concept of 'notability'. For > example... A wood is notable, a large established solitary tree in a park > might be notable, but a nettle is not. Is a rare plant notable? I would > suggest it is not notable in OSM itself. I'm afraid I see the notability criteria as one of Wikipedia's biggest problems so I would hate to see OSM go the same way. I've seen too many genuinely useful articles get blown away because someone decided they covered non-notable subjects, to the point that I gave up editing Wikipedia. The point is: why should anyone care about notability so long as the data is useful, accurate and maintained? Wikipedia's deletion policies are deeply flawed: There are a group of users who make it their mission to delete articles. When they nominate an article for deletion, most of the people who vote either wrote the article, or one of the group who's sole mission is to delete stuff - no one else cares enough about the deletion procedure to take part. So the majority of the time, well written articles get deleted purely because of the massive bias in the quorum who vote on deletions. I sincerely hope OSM doesn't decide to go down a similar route. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] RFC: Proposed feature, generic road
I'd like to draw attention to the highway=road proposed feature and request comments: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Generic_road Thanks. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
On Wed, 14 May 2008, Shaun McDonald wrote: > I find it interesting that you use motorcar, as I generally just use > car, as that is what I think is on the wiki (unless someone has > decided to change it). The wiki uses "motorcar" as the access restriction tag. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Crossing access types (was: Road crossings proposal - status?)
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote: > * If two ways cross at a crossing Node, access keys would logically > apply to both. Declaring that crossings are somehow special and that > access tags on them apply only to the crossing traffic is worse. Ok, sounds like we would need a relation for this so you can specify which way it applies to. > * The access tag is not documented as being applicable to Nodes. Most > crossings will be Nodes. It probably should be applicable to nodes so that you can apply it to things like gates - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > (The High Street in Oxford is nominally the A420, so we tag > ref=A420, but it's no good as a through-route - the bollards are a bit > of a giveaway - so we tag highway=tertiary.) I'm left wondering why they haven't removed the A-road designation if they put bollards in... Anyway, I'm going a bit off topic now. :) > Skimming the thread, your road sounds like highway=unclassified; > designation=bridleway. Or something - finding a consensus for > designation= is left as an exercise for the reader. horse=yes seems as descriptive as designation=bridleway. I think I will settle on "highway=unclassified, access=private, foot=yes, horse=yes, bicycle=permissive, motorcar=permissive". I don't actually know the status of bike and car access, but the fact that it has been signed as a bridleway indicates to me that pedestrians and horses have a legal right of way along there. Thanks for the input folks. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: > This is an example of confusing the physical space with the legal > administrative description. Yes, but sadly the highway tag is defined in Map Features to encompass that confusing mixture of physical and legal descriptions. :) (It is something we should probably try to move away from, but that's another discussion). > Just because it's a bridleway does not necessarily mean car=no. The wiki indicates that OSM considers highway=bridleway to be a footpath which horses are permitted on (I would think highway=footway, horse=yes would be better and am in favour of getting rid of highway=bridleway entirely. However, I also want to be consistent with what other people are doing.) > The landowner will almost certainly have access over the route. Since > it's a bridleway however the public probably do not (unless its > permissive). In this case, I imagine the highway belongs to the National Grid, since it provides access to the Swansea North substation and some of their offices. However, at the west end of the highway there is no "private", "no cars", etc signs, just a "No through road" sign (which makes sense since there is a gate at the other end... probably to prevent people rat-running). Also, there are currently some roadworks on the highway, which are signed as you would expect them to be if they were on a public road (the normal red-triangle "roadworks" and blue-circle-with-white-arrow "keep right" signs). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
I've come across a problematic way near me: It is a reasonably wide road, but the signs at each end say it is a bridleway. It has a gate across the east end end so you can't drive along it from the east, but you can drive along it from the west end. The west end has no restrictions other than a sign saying "No Though Road". There are a couple of buildings down there, so someone might have legitimate reason for driving along it even though they can't get out at the other end. So I'm a bit unsure how to tag it - any suggestions? Thoughts that spring to mind are either "highway=bridleway, motorcar=yes" or "highway=unclassified". Presumably with a "highway=gate, motorcar=no" node on the gated end, or maybe "highway=gate, horse=yes, foot=yes". - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unknown road classifications
On Mon, 12 May 2008, Alex Mauer wrote: > IMO if it's sufficiently unknown that it will have to be revisited > anyway for more accurate classification, marking it as a road rather > than a complete unknown isn't really going to be helpful to anyone. Sure it is - I know I can drive down a road, I don't know that I can drive down any arbitrary highway feature. > I don't think it's a good idea for the highway tag to be used for so > many non-road things -- but that's probably a discussion for another time. Yes, I dislike the current overloading of tags, but I don't think that is going to change soon. Andy Allan asked me to put together a wiki page with respect to the namespacing discussion, which I haven't had time to do yet, but overloading tags like "highway" is one of the things I'd like to address on that page when I get chance. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?
Dave Stubbs wrote: > Some of us really couldn't care less either way. Frankly, please stop > talking about it -- you're not getting anywhere. Actually, I think some fairly insightful suggestions have been made and it is a useful discussion. You don't _have_ to read this thread if you don't care about it, but I dare say that some of the people who are taking part in the discussion do care. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unknown road classifications
Alex Mauer wrote: > Isn't a value of "unknown" in use on several other tags? It is at least > on the whole "access" series of tags > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:access) > > So highway=unknown would make sense to me. Something like road=unknown might make sense, but because the highway tag is used for lots of non-road things, highway=unknown could be talking about any kind of highway, such as a footway. Quite a lot of the time you know it is a road because you drove down it, but you don't necessarily know what class of road it is. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?
Brian Quinion wrote: > The only problems I can see is that because it > is centralised it is somewhat out of user control - so maybe it should > make sense to pull the list of presets from a wiki page (once a day?) > and there would be a small amount of server side load to implement it. That would certainly be do-able. People do need to be aware that exactly what a preset tag sets can change without notice as the wiki is updated, and that the changes will only affect new uploads though. > I think some sort of quick marco language would be a bonus for all the > editors esp. if they shared a standard format for defining them, > although at that point I wonder if an api change is needed - > downloading a formatted page from the wiki might be as easy esp. if it > was cached by the editor. That could be quite cool. One thing that would be really useful is for the editor to tell me what options could be set for an object, and what their defaults are. I.e. when I set a way to "highway=tertiary" it can tell me that I can set a name, ref, access restrictions, etc. Maybe ordered by the popularity of the various tags and with tags that are semi-mandatory (such as the name of a residential road) in bold. All that data can be pulled from wiki pages and tagwatch. Sadly my Java skills are nonexistent. :( > This might be a viable way of handling some country specific presets > too, so pre:de:highway=autoban That would be extremely useful since it would allow us to (more easily) throw away country-specific bits from the real data and move them out to a translation system to make editing easier. > TBH regardless of the current discussion I think this would be a nice > feature so I'll write it! Neat - I look forward to it! :) -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?
On Mon, 12 May 2008, Brian Quinion wrote: > OK - but this means that even for the simple cases you have to enter 4 > times as many tags. People are lazy (well I certainly am!) and tend > to use the easier method - which means people stick with the existing > solution and ignore the new method. ... > Implementing presets for this in the editor is a viable alternative. > But they need to be implemented in all editors - which could be > tricky? An alternative is to have server-side processing, so the editor can upload data with something like "preset:crossing=toucan" and the server could translate any such "preset" tags on upload automatically. If we were to go down this path, I'd suggest that rejecting an upload outright if it has any unknown/untranslatable tags starting with "preset:" so that the submitter _has_ to fix it so that it can be translated properly. > Presets could also be implemented centrally server side as part of the > 0.6 api change - i.e. an uploaded tag of > crossing=zebra|toucan|pelican|... could be 'fixed' on the server and > returned back to the client for display (I'm sure almost everyone will > absolutely hate this idea!) Oops, great minds. :) If this is done as a true API change rather than a backwards-compatible kludge, I'd suggest it might be better to allow the editors to retrieve presets data from the server and do the translation themselves. e.g. we could have a "presets" URI which the editors can download information from the server about what presets are possible. This would require the editors are extended to support this, but it does mean that once the support is there new presets can be added for *all* editors by updating the database on the server. > Unfortunately the only centralised location in > the current system is the database and I suspect most people will not > be happy with the DB changing the data any more than mass search and > replace. I imagine they would be unhappy about doing translation on arbitrary tags, such as "crossing", but people might be ok with having a certain tag prefix that gets translated - i.e. anything starting with "preset:" will get removed from the uploaded data and converted into real tags. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Brian Quinion wrote: > I like this - but would suggest a small change: > > highway=crossing > crossing=zebra|toucan|pelican|... No, get rid of the UK specific classifications of crossing completely - they require too much background knowledge to interpret and are pointless if you have already split out the various properties into separate tags. > Where crossing=zebra is explicitly defined (on the wiki?) as a short cut for: > > highway=crossing > crossingcontrol=uncontrolled > foot=yes > horse=no I'm not a big fan of having many alternative ways of defining exactly the same feature. A better way to implement "shortcuts" is to have presets in the editors which automatically set the appropriate tags. > My feeling is this leaves lots of room for future expansion without > breaking backwards compatibility with most of the existing data. > What do people think? IMO It just adds lots of redundent data, which massively complicates anything interpretting it (e.g. the renderers). A clean change over to a totally new system would require no more complexity, but would make it possible for the complexity to eventually be reduced since the old tags could gradually be replaced with new ones (or there could be a bulk search/replace, but I know some people are opposed to this). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unknown road classifications
On Mon, 12 May 2008, 80n wrote: >> Ah, ok - does this get rendered? (It isn't on Map_Features - maybe it >> should be). > > No. But you are welcome to add it to any of the rendering engines. Ok, I'll look into doing so. What is the procedure for adding this sort of thing? Just post a patch on the dev list? > It would be particularly useful if Yahoo tracers were to use highway=road as > I'm sure they can rarely tell what kind of road it is from 30,000ft. That's exactly what I thought. Also people who are just driving around with a GPS without paying particular attention to the information they are collecting (I am guilty of this since I think it is better to collect _something_ when you're driving on unmapped roads, even if you aren't in a position to collect all the information you would usually need from a full survey). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unknown road classifications
On Sun, 11 May 2008, Jeffrey Martin wrote: > Did we ever decide what to do when a road continues but > we didn't continue down the road? I tend to do "fixme=Road continues" or "fixme=Footway continues". Although to be honest, in most cases for roads I either follow them as far as they go (when I am doing real OSM surveying), or I am just collecting a track as I drive on some other business so I don't get any detail other than the road's position (and thus won't know if the road continues when I review the track later). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unknown road classifications
On Sun, 11 May 2008, 80n wrote: > highway=road > > This is suitably vague, but has a clear enough meaning. Ah, ok - does this get rendered? (It isn't on Map_Features - maybe it should be). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Unknown road classifications
When adding roads, you don't always know what classification of road it is (e.g. primary, secondary, tertiary, unclassified, etc). Quite a lot of people seem to add these sorts of roads as highway=unclassified, with the idea that these can be fixed in the future when the status of the road is discovered, but this is wrong since "unclassified" is a real road classification. Is there a recommended way of tagging these roads? Leaving them untagged has a couple of problems: there is no way to later determine that the way is a road if it is left completely untagged, and the road doesn't get rendered. It seems silly to take the attitude that this data shouldn't be rendered until it is complete - the submitter probably knows lots of useful data about the way, such as that it is a road which is accessible to cars, the actual classification of the road isn't really as important as knowing it is there and that you can drive down it. Having a highway=unknown_road or similar would also help with people tracing yahoo images - render them in a lighter colour so it is obvious that the road hasn't been fully mapped. There are probably 2 groups of users who want different things from OSM in this regard: Mappers want to be able to easilly see which bits of the map are complete, so having roads which haven't had a proper survey tagged as such is helpful. Map users want as complete a map as possible - knowing that there hasn't been a proper survey is useful, but seeing a road with questionable accuracy is often more useful than no road at all. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] contours on main map
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Robin Paulson wrote: > maybe i'll do it myself; some transparent png laid over the top of the > osm tiles can't be so difficult Have a look at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Contours This tells you how contour rendering has been implemented on the piste map and cycle map. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] contours on main map
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Robin Paulson wrote: > alternatively, are there any world wide maps out there with contours > and osm data, that update regularly? The cycle map and the piste map both have contours for selected areas. I'm generally doing monthly updates to the piste map data. As far as I know, no one is serving contours for the whole planet - there are a couple of reasons: 1. The SRTM3 dataset for the whole planet is pretty huge once it has been processed into contour lines and put into PostGIS (probably about half a terabyte). 2. It isn't as simple as just rendering the same contour lines everywhere - for example, the piste map uses much wider spaced contour lines than the cycle map because the terrain is (generally) more mountainous. To make a global contour map you would need to make the renderer vary the number of contour lines used depending on how mountainous the terrain is. Also, whilst having the ability to turn on contour lines would be useful, I certainly wouldn't recommend having them on by default since the tiles are usually quite large compared to the average contourless tile (so a bigger bandwidth bill, more disk space needed for the tile cache, slower navigation around the map, etc). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > Heh. While in london someone tried to explain to me what was so > special about all these crossing types. They have names for crossings > that here in NL would "normal". A crossing with a separate light for > bikes, that's like every crossing in NL. All sorts of variations. I > don't think I've ever seen a crossing for horses, they just cross. It seems to me that instead of referring to a crossing by name, we should just list its properties. e.g. comething like: highway=crossing crossing=uncontrolled|traffic_signals island=yes|no bicycle=yes|no foot=yes|no horse=yes|no That way you don't need to know about the specific types of crossing (which vary from region to region anyway) - the properties of the crossing are pretty obvious from just looking at the tags with no further knowledge needed. The various (UK specific) crossing names do give you further information such as whether the signal lights are on the near/far side of the road, whether it does anything to detect the presence of pedestrians on the crossing, etc. But if people think this level of detail is important, those sorts of properties can also be added as individual tags. For the record, the common crossings in the UK are: Toucan crossing (Two-Can): cyclists and cycle across at the same time as pedestrians walk across. The lights show both a "green bicycle" and a "green man" on the far side of the road, which is activated by a push-button with a time delay. Puffin crossing (Pedestrian User-Friendly INtelligent): pedestrians only (obviously cyclists are considered pedestrians if they are walking with their bike instead of cycling). The lights show a "green man" on the near side of the road, which is activated with a push-button with a time delay. These also detect the presence of the pedestrian so that the lights won't change if the pedestrian is nolonger there (e.g. the pedestrian crossed early). They detect the presence of a pedestrian on the crossing so they shouldn't turn green for the traffic while you are still crossing. Pelican crossing (PEdestrian LIght CONtrolled crossing): pedestrians only. The lights show a "green man" on the far side of the road, which is activated with a push-button with a time delay. Pretty-much the same as a Toucan crossing, but cyclists can't ride across it. Pegasus crossing: Like a pelican crossing, but for horse riders. They have two push-buttons at different heights so that horse riders can reach them easilly. Instead of a "green man" on the far side of the road, they have a "green horse". Zebra crossing: Pedestrians always have the right of way. (Wikipedia has some fairly good descriptions of these). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?
On Tue, 6 May 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote: >> Chris Jones (who runs the Welsh language OSM) has been working on an AJAX >> thing to make fixing road names easy without having to understand the >> editors - I see this as a really good thing since it gets more people >> contributing to the project, but it does require that the roads themselves >> are in the database. > > It requires they're in the database correctly. While in theory this > seems like a great idea, I don't think it's that simple in practice. > I'd be interested to see what he comes up with though. Ok, this is a good point. I guess he's trying to aim at a slightly different problem - he is trying to make it easy for people to put in Welsh language names for objects, so the assumption is probably that they already have English names (and thus the objects themselves are already quite sane in terms of their structure, connectifity, etc.). > Tracing has other problems... there's a possibility it actually > reduces new mapping as people mistakenly think an area is complete and > we're having to invest time and effort now in coming up with ways of > figuring out what's not really been mapped ie: > http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/ I can see your point, although MapLint _should_ help with this (but generally I find that it just clutters up the map with lots of not-in-map-features warnings for stuff that _is_ in Map_Features). It would be nicer to be able to turn certain LINT warnings on/off, but this would obviously be a lot more heavy-weight in terms of CPU and storage since you'd need many layers. > PS. Please note I'm talking about tracing with no intention of > surveying yourself to collect on-the-ground data. The aerial imagery > is an incredibly useful tool in editing the map. Indeed - I'm constantly wishing that there were decent Yahoo photos for Swansea since it would be extremely useful for tracing park boundaries private drives, etc. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Track offsets
On Tue, 6 May 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote: > Converting the track within GPSUtility before then saving as a gpx I think > finally fixed the problem, but it was too long ago now to be sure exactly > what I did. Hmm, ok - thanks, I might see if that helps correct the error. The thing is that I'd be very surprised if gpsd and Kismet were smart enough to do anything with the NMEA data other than copy the lat/lon from one place to another, but similarly I'd be very surprised if Garmin had screwed up something as fundamental as the NMEA output. :-/ - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Track offsets
I've come across a problem with one of my methods of collecting tracks - I'm hoping someone might have some input: I've got a computer in my car which connects to my (old style) eTrex Venture GPS via a serial cable. The computer runs gpsd to talk to the GPS. It also runs Kismet which does things like logging 802.11 networks, but most importantly Kismet talks to gpsd and logs the GPS track. I then process the .gps file Kismet produces into a GPX file to use with OSM. Now the problem - I recently compared the track downloaded from the GPS itself (using gpsbabel) with the track produced by Kismet and found they were fairly consistently offset from eachother by 100m or so. I haven't worked out where this error is being introduced yet, but the GPS is set to WGS84 so I would expect the NMEA stream and the GPS's tracklog to match. My next step is to look at the NMEA stream itself and see if that is correct, but has anyone else here had any similar problems that could shead some light onto what is going on? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?
On Tue, 6 May 2008, Andy Allan wrote: > [2] Another brilliant example of how people make themselves feel > useful by doing the trivially easy bit, c.f. tracing from Yahoo with > no intention of naming the roads. I'm just going to voice an opinion (feel free to ignore it :) - putting roads on the map by any means (e.g. wandering with a GPS, tracing Yahoo, etc) is always very useful, even if one doesn't name the roads: 1. If you're doing something like route planning, you don't need to know all the names of the roads - just knowing that you can get from A to B via this road is useful (although some information about the quality of the road is required so you don't direct HGVs up a tiny 1-track lane :) 2. If the road is on the map it becomes much easier for people who are familiar with the area to fill in the details such as the name - no equipment is needed (such as GPS), they don't need to get off their backside and go out to walk/drive the road and there is next to no effort in putting a name on a road if you know the area. I can see that in many cases, _users_ (i.e. people who just want a map and would otherwise just be using Google) might be happy to add names when using the map themselves, but aren't going to spend the time and effort tracing roads from Yahoo themselves (for one thing this involves somewhat more experience with how OSM works than just adding a name). Chris Jones (who runs the Welsh language OSM) has been working on an AJAX thing to make fixing road names easy without having to understand the editors - I see this as a really good thing since it gets more people contributing to the project, but it does require that the roads themselves are in the database. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM in Europe Statistics
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Of course this is very simplistic and I believe you will come up with > much better measures of progress. Let's hear your numbers ;-) Interesting numbers. I suspect "objects per capita" would be more meaningful than compressed bytes though (but more effort to calculate, of course :) - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] mapping while hiking
Charles Basenga Kiyanda wrote: > This is slightly off-topic, but does anyone have a trick to deal with > the gps when tagging while hiking trails? I carry a garmin etrex legend > Cx (unfortunately not the H version) and I find that it has to be > "looking" directly up and flat to get best reception. Especially around > here with often good tree cover and canyons. I've got an old style eTrex Venture. Generally when walking, skiing, etc. I clip it to a shoulder strap of my rucksack and it is ok most of the time. Dense tree cover does harm the accuracy (noticable if you compare tracks over several walks of the same path). I think Garmin receivers probably do a bit of dead-reconning even when they can see the satellites when they aren't in a good constellation because the direction you walk a route in seems to affect where the inaccuracies lie (i.e. if you walk along a right-hand bend under tree cover it will often estimate your position too far to the left, but if you walk around a left-hand bend it'll probably show you too far to the right). The best advice I can offer is to make sure it has "seen" as many satellites as possible (i.e. shown them as black bars) before getting into a poor reception ares - the receivers seem to be able to hold onto reception from satellites they have previously locked onto much better than locking on to new satellites when under tree cover. You might also think about putting the receiver in the top-pocket of a rucksack or something, which might give it a better view of the sky. But this obviously means you can't look at it without stopping and taking it out of the rucksack. > something that > would look like an arm-band mounted pouch that I could strap to one of > my forearm, since they stay pretty level constantly during the hike. When walking, I put my eTrex in an official Garmin eTrex case - looks like a cellphone case, with a clip on the back, etc. That can be clipped to the rucksack straps, but I guess you could put a band around your arm and clip it to that instead. On the odd occasion I take a GPS when I go windsurfing, I put it in an Aquapac, which has an arm-strap (the Aquapac I use is actually designed for VHF radios, but it (just) fits the eTrex). This might not be what you want though - it does make it quite difficult to push the buttons on the receiver. > I've tried > every possible permutation of having the gps stick out of one of my > pockets on pants(trousers)/coat/etc to no avail. I think putting a GPS in your pocket is a bit of a no-no - the only time I've got a reasonable signal with the GPS in a pocket is when putting it in the wrist-pocket on my ski jacket. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] namespaces and copyright
elvin ibbotson wrote: > Chris Hill is worried about copyright issues with climbing routes and > this is like lots of concerns I have seen expressed such as taking > street names from actual street signs rather than from copyrighted > material. If it's the name of the street, it's the name of the street, > no matter how or where it is communicated. Street names and data on climbing routes are unfortunately a bit different though. Street names are generally hard fact - there is some government database somewhere saying what it is called, there are signs up with the name on, signs with access restrictions (one way, etc). On the other hand, on a rock face there are no signs - things can become much more subjective. Climbing (difficulty) grades, for example, are estimates - there is no hard fast rule about what makes a route a specific grade. A bunch of people climb it and make a guestimate on how hard they think it is. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Climbing routes
Chris Hill wrote: > Leaving the namespace issue aside, how would one collect the information > about > climbing routes? The routes I climbed didn't have signs or the like to > gather > from the site. All of the climbing guides I have that describe the routes, > including their name, grade, number of pitches etc are copyright. Are there > copyright free sources of this information? The information I put on the one route I've done so far came from "common knowledge" amongst the local climbers. Of course the local guide book also contains the same information, also gleaned from "common knowledge" so it is a rather fuzzy issue when you start to question where the original information came from, whether it can even be copyrighted by anyone, etc. I don't think the problem is a lot different to normal mapping though - if you ask someone "what is that road called" (maybe it doesn't have a road sign) and they tell you, you have no idea if they previously read it off a map, or if the Ordnance Survey asked the same people the same question (thus their map contains the same data), etc. Seems a difficult question - at what point does copyright end and common/local knowledge begin? Some of the information is hard fact though - if you've climbed a route then you can estimate its length, etc. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging climbing routes and scrambles
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote: > a Good Thing, but you can't tell me why, and you ignore my reasons why not. Nope, I told you why, as did other people. > This is the problem dude, you don't get why you're doing it. I understand exactly why I'm doing it. > I like to know why I'm doing something, and dislike being told "because". > So far you've not actually come up with anything except statements of > belief, and a few potential non-uses. I'm in the same boat - I think the flat namespace is a really really bad idea and yet no one has actually come up with any good explanations as to why it is the right way to do things. The only explanation that seems to keep coming up is that new users find name spaces "difficult" - I am certainly not in a position to evaluate whether this is the case (although from my own perspective they are easier), and I don't believe you are in a position to comment on whether this is actually the case. In fact, the one relatively inexperienced user who has made a comment in this discussion seemed to indicate that nameapaces made things easier. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging climbing routes and scrambles
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote: > It would probably have a tag like man_made=fishpond. I don't know > there's a tagging schema for that. How did you know that the man_made tag defined the context? > Seriously, I've had enough of this. That's fine, but I'm afraid you haven't convinced me to change my position: name spaces are a Good Thing, and I'm clearly not alone in this belief. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging climbing routes and scrambles
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote: > And if the occupancy is on a fish pond then it likely does How do you know it's a fish pond? There is no tag that unambiguously identifies the type of object it is. Instead there is a whole load of tags to identify the object, and you have to have a lot of background knowledge about the structure of the data to know which tags identify the object type (and thus the context of the other tags) and which tags are just describing attributes of the object. > if [piste:lift] is not null and [occupancy] is not null then: > print "piste:lift:occupancy = [occupancy]" > > wow. that was hard. And also demonstrates how completely pointless the > namespace was. How did you know that the piste:lift tag declares the object as being a lift? That's right, you didn't unless you already had an underlying knowledge of which tags identify the context and which don't. >> This is completely stupid - yes, they might avoid coming up with new >> unnamespaced tags and *shock* propose new namespaced tags instead. Why is >> this a bad thing? > > you snipped the or: they'll attach meaningless drivel to the start of > every tag as a substitute What sort of meaningless drivel? > which is effectively what you're doing anyway. Except it is neither meaningless nor drivel. > What you're doing provides nothing extra: I can throw it away and be > left with the same information. No, you can't - if you throw it away you lose the context of the tags. The *only* way to recover the context information is to know which tag to retrieve it from, which is not something you can do from the data alone. Thus you have lost something which is not recoverable from the data you have - you now need to go find an external data set as well. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging climbing routes and scrambles
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Christopher Schmidt wrote: > It almost sounds like the proposal is to use namespaces in place of a > 'type' property on the object... which I personally think would be a > better way to go than to namespace every tag... The idea is to make the context of the tag much more obvious. This can be done by either using namespaces on the tag itself, or having a method of unambiguously identifying the context of the object itself. I don't pretend to understand what was wrong with the old class system, which seemed to achieve this to some extent. On the other hand, having namespaces in the tag name itself does have the advantage that it gives people clues that they might be using the wrong tag.. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging climbing routes and scrambles
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Christopher Schmidt wrote: > I can't claim to have the right answer, but I will state that it is not > common in geographic software to have namespaced attributes: in general, > when this is the case, it is a namespace based only on the object type > which has a specific schema. (In this case, that would be something like > pisteLift, since the dataset would be a list of pisteLifts.) But in common software, do the objects have an explicit type? In OpenStreetMap they do not - the type is determined by a bunch of arbitrary tags, for which you need background knowledge of which tags define the object type and which just define attributes (e.g. there is no unified "type" tag which you know will always define what the object is). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
