Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Markus]

On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 16:48, Jo  wrote:
>
> This has been discussed on the public transport list very recently, but as 
> usual, without any resolution one way or the other. Status quo rules.

OT: I haven't forgotten that topic, i'm just a bit too busy right now
(private and on OSM). I'll resume the discussion soon.

Regards

Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Markus]

Hello Bryan, hello everyone,

I'm posting this reply to Bryan's message on GitHub
(https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649)
here, as the issue has been locked by Bryan.

> Hey all, I've locked this topic. Inviting other people to jump on the thread 
> just to express disagreement is not very helpful.

While i really appreciate the work you and the other developers have
put into iD, i find it demotivating and harmful that you refuse other
opinions.

> Some people will disagree, and that's ok.

So far, everybody except you disagreed. If there is a clear majority,
i expect the iD developers to follow it.

Moreover, this validation rule infringes upon these policies or guidelines:

* Automated Edits code of conduct
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct):
You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway to
platforms. This is an automated edit.
* Map what's on the ground
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground):
A platform is not a footway.
* Don't map for the renderer
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer):
It's rater "don't map for the router", but the effect is the same.

> There exists no master list of all the routable features in OSM. This is 
> because people are always making up tags. It is unreasonable to expect 
> mappers and data consumers to "just know" what all the tags are that are 
> routable.

If the problem is the lack of a list of all routable features in OSM,
then it should be solved by creating such a list, not by mapping for
the router. (By the way, routable tags aren't added very frequently.)
I guess it should also be possible to create a "routable" property for
Wikibase (data items).

I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision, to not block opinions
that differ from yours and to listen more to the community.

Best regards

Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Overpass query for tags of previous object version?

[Markus]

Hi Mateusz,

Thanks for your reply!

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 20:52, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
> I know that it should be fairly easy to find object with crossing=zebra
> tag last edited by this user.

This gives me over 800 results. I hoped that i don't have to look
through all of them, but maybe its better nevertheless.

> Alternative method is to just revert edits made by that user.

That's also a bit difficult because there are over 400 changesets and
the user has been very active since. (My computer freezes after
clicking multiple times on "Load more".)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Overpass query for tags of previous object version?

[Markus]

Hello

Is there an overpass-turbo query that finds crossing=zebra that were
previously (i.e. version - 1) tagged crossing=traffic_signals?

(Unfortunately a user unaware that pedestrian crossings with traffic
signals also have zebra markings in some countries wrongly changed
many crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=zebra in a Maproulette.)

Regards

Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Rendered boundary not present in data

[Markus]

Hello,

I've come across a boundary rendered on both OSM Carto and the
Humanitarian layer that isn't present in the OSM data:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=47.50350&mlon=-3.13473#map=19/47.50350/-3.13473&layers=D

The correct boundary, which is present in the data, is also rendered:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38707921

(Note that the incorrect boundary was already rendered before my
recent edit to the correct one.)

Any idea where that ghost boundary might come from?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Regards

Markus

PS: I hope that this is the right mailing list for this kind of problem.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing road geometry Australia

[Markus]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 13:23, Jem  wrote:
>
> I agree. And a supplementary question... would you also add a no-left-turn 
> restriction from https://osm.org/way/581948344 at 
> https://osm.org/node/5680879176? I would, and have done in the past. But to 
> be honest, I'm not sure if a turn like that (having already passed the slip 
> lane designated for the turn) is legal or not.

I would only add a no-left-turn restriction if there is a sign on site.

A routing app would likely not lead via this node onto the motorway
anyway, since  is the
more direct way.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing road geometry Australia

[Markus]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 07:40, Maarten Deen  wrote:
>
> On 2019-01-11 07:16, Petra Rajka - (p) wrote:
>
> >
> > See below two cases where we would simplify the geometry:
> >
> >   * -32.0914374, 116.0129206
>
> Is seen no big problem in how the roads are layed out there. Coming from
> the motorway there is a clear divider where the offramp connects to the
> Albany Highway.

<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/596272469> and
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/596272466> form a double-rectangle,
but there isn't such a divider. I'd map that place like that:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:ID_Screen_Shot_from_-32.0914374,_116.0129206.png

> I have more problems with the tags of the on- and offramp. They are
> mapped as motorway when they should be mapped as motorway_link. The two
> bridges in the on- and offramp are mapped as motorway_link.

+1. I'd also delete the descriptions like Tonkin Highway Southbound
Ramp off to Albany Highway in the name tag unless the ramps are signed
like that on site.

> >   * -35.3409195, 149.1616891
>
> Ways 77001149 and 77000891 should IMHO not be mapped like that but
> mapped with turn:lanes.

+1

Regards

Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Markus]

As long as state borders need to fulfil ground truth and broad
international recognition, which are in conflict with each other, this
inevitably requires arbitrary decisions.

It seems to me that the solution that agrees the most with our
principle of ground truth is to abandon the broad international
recognition criterion and to set up independent and verifiable
criteria for states (or rather admin:level=2 boundaries).

I'd suggest to adopt the first three criteria of Article 1 of the
Montevideo Convention [1] (also known as the declarative theory of
statehood [2]), which are

  1. a permanent population,
  2. a defined territory,
  3. a government.

(I'd leave out the fourth criterion – capacity to enter into relations
with the other states – because it leaves too much room for
interpretation.)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state#Declarative_theory

Regards
Markus


On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 13:43, Vladimir Agafonkin  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:52 PM Guillaume Rischard  
> wrote:
>>
>> The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is no 
>> other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in Crimea, 
>> without any justification, opens Pandora’s box.
>
>
> All of these statements are misleading. If Crimea is an exception, how is the 
> ground-truth rule applied in South Osetia and Abkhazia, both of which are 
> included in the Georgia boundary which has absolutely no control over those 
> territories (de-facto controlled by Russia)? Why is Transnistria included in 
> the boundaries of Moldova? Why does the Cyprus boundary include a large area 
> fully controlled by Turkey? What police and tax authority is there in large 
> areas of Iran and Iraq controlled by ISIS, and why are these areas still 
> included in the respective countries?
>
> The only major difference in those cases compared to Crimea is that applying 
> the ground-truth rule there would require mapping respective areas as 
> independent countries. But — big surprise! — OSM community by convention 
> limits the list of countries to those recognized by the UN, because, as it 
> turns out, a country is a political entity after all. How ironic is that?
>
> In practice, OSM never fully adhered to the ground truth rule when it comes 
> to country boundaries, but at least the policy was vague enough to make 
> arbitrary decisions, with either "ground truth" or "widely internationally 
> recognized" bit taking precedence depending on how the DWG members feel about 
> the world on a particular day. Pretending OSM is out of politics when solving 
> an inherently political issue does not help, because then you take a 
> political side implicitly (becoming a welcome tool of Russian regime 
> propaganda in this case).
>
> There are reasonable and possible alternatives, such as this in-progress 
> disputed boundaries proposal, but due to the complexity and emotional charge 
> of the issue, fleshing them out to a practical consensus will take a 
> considerable time. Until such a common ground is found, the most practical 
> thing you can do is to revert to a balance point that prevents never-ending 
> edit wars and worked well in practice for the last 5 years. It's unfortunate 
> that this issue wasn't taken seriously in that period, but hopefully this 
> crisis, however damaging, will facilitate coming to a universal solution soon.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Any suggestions on how to handle these errors?

[Markus]

Hi

I've added the missing building=yes tags, closed some unclosed
building ways and deleted some duplicate nodes. However, i've found a
lot of other problems, including:

- A lot of buildings (especially around
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/9.96332/-84.14667) that don't
match at all with what i see on the aerial imagery. (See Esri, which
seems to have the best imagery.) I'd suggest to delete and redraw
them.
- Buildings glued to highways
- Highways running through buildings
- Overlapping buildings

Regards

Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.17.0

[Markus]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 01:40, Daniel Koć  wrote:
>
> BTW: what do you consider to be a progress here? What do you like the
> most in recent changes and maybe what problems are the most visible?

It's nice to see that nature gets more importance!

My wish were that land cover be rendered from the lowest zoom level
(like on OpenMapSurfer [1]) and that land cover were less simplified
at lower zoom levels (like on Humanitarian, e.g. compare rendering of
lakes at [2]).

[1]: http://korona.geog.uni-heidelberg.de
[2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=5/70.267/147.612&layers=H

Anyway, many thanks to all OSM Carto developers, to all mappers and to
all the others who make this great project possible and improve it!

Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Routing through access=delivery

[Markus Heidelberg]

Am 16.02.16, 05:55:32 CET schrieb Gerd Petermann:
> Hi Markus,
> 
> access=destination doesn't mean that residents cannot reach their home,

But it means bikers and pedestrians cannot be routed through, but will
be routed around that street, which wouldn't be necessary if
motor_vehicle=destination was meant.

> my understanding is that access=delivery means you have to deliver 
> something to a location at that road to be allowed to use that road.

That's mine, too.

> So it means access=no for anybody else, doesn't it ?

After having read some short articles about the German sign
"Lieferverkehr frei" (free for delivery) I guess you are right. Then
translating it to =no is more correct than to =destination for mkgmap
within the limits of the Garmin access model.
One kind of traffic has to be disadvantaged and I guess that should
better be delivery than private traffic for the default style.

> I am sure that some roads are only used for delivery, but
> those should be highway=service roads, not residential.

I don't think that's necessarily true, but don't have a feeling for how
the number of delivery traffic signs divide between those street types.

> Anyway, I'll try to find a set of rules to for mkgmap.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Routing through access=delivery

[Markus Heidelberg]

Hi Gerd,

Am 15.02.16, 21:29:59 CET schrieb Gerd Petermann:
> Hi Markus,
> 
> I agree that forestry should be handled like agricultural, I'll
> try to create a patch for that.

Thank you.

> Reg. delivery I am a bit unsure because it seems that this this
> value is very often used in invalid combinations, e.g. 
> highway=residential + access=delivery
> without further access tags. In my eyes this tagging is wrong,
> and my quick check showed > 50%  of the access=delivery tag
> was wrong like that. 
> I am not sure how to proceed here.

Wrong data is nothing new. Did you compare with highway=residential +
access=destination? There are way more streets tagged like this and this
access restriction is in use already. I checked with Overpass turbo
around Germany: 12000 vs. 300 ways.

Someone commented on https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/238113 that
OsmAnd interprets the delivery value.

Markus


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Routing through access=delivery

[Markus Heidelberg]

Am 15.02.16, 07:57:26 CET schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 10:13:45 +0100
> Markus Heidelberg  wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > last week after missing the exit on a highway=motorway, a Garmin Nüvi
> > 300 with a Lambertus map tried to turn through a service road mapped
> > with motor_vehicle=delivery. This road connects the motorway
> > directions via service area on each side.
> > 
> > I thought this might be a problem with mkgmap (which creates the
> > Garmin maps), but Mapzen and OSRM routing behave the same:
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car&route=49.31689%2C8.57541%3B49.31659%2C8.57453#map=17/49.31827/8.57205
> > 
> > Is this on purpose or do all three maps/routers ignore the
> > access=delivery tags wrongly?
> > 
> > Additional info on an already existing note at the concerned location
> > (in German):
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/238113
> 
> It is more likely that motor_vehicle tag is ignored.

I had a look into the mkgmap sources before writing this mail.
All *=delivery are unhandled.

> > This road connects the motorway
> > directions via service area on each side.
> 
> Can you link it? It seems that maybe access=delivery may fit it.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/10521868#map=18/49.31841/8.57378
access=delivery is not appropriate here, foot and bicycle are allowed.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Routing through access=delivery

[Markus Heidelberg]

Hi Gerd

Am 15.02.16, 01:24:31 CET schrieb Gerd Petermann:
> If I got that right you talk about this way:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/10521868

Yes.

> whch is tagged
> description=Zufahrt Hockenheimring
> highway=service
> motor_vehicle=delivery
> 
> I agree that routing software for cars should not route you through this
> way.
> 
> Reg. mkgmap: The evaluation of these tags is not hardcoded in the program,
> it
> depends on the so-called style, but the default style which is provided with
> mkgmap
> seems to ignore the tag. I am not sure what style you map used.

I don't know which style Lambertus (http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl/)
uses for the maps, but I could imagine that it is unchanged regarding
the access configuration.

> Please follow this thread on the mkgmap-dev list:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/motorvehicle-delivery-seems-to-be-ignored-tp5867658.html

I would also suggest mapping the access value "delivery" to
"destination" as Colin did on the mkgmap-dev list.

Related to this topic: While looking at the mkgmap sources, I noticed
that the word "forestry" cannot be found in the whole tree.
access=forestry should probably be handled like access=agricultural.

Markus


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Routing through access=delivery

[Markus Heidelberg]

Hi,

last week after missing the exit on a highway=motorway, a Garmin Nüvi
300 with a Lambertus map tried to turn through a service road mapped
with motor_vehicle=delivery. This road connects the motorway directions
via service area on each side.

I thought this might be a problem with mkgmap (which creates the Garmin
maps), but Mapzen and OSRM routing behave the same:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car&route=49.31689%2C8.57541%3B49.31659%2C8.57453#map=17/49.31827/8.57205

Is this on purpose or do all three maps/routers ignore the
access=delivery tags wrongly?

Additional info on an already existing note at the concerned location
(in German):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/238113

Markus


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Markus Lindholm]

On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 17:33 +0100, Simon Poole wrote:
> Ahemm that was the whole point: is it about completing  information
> (the
> website URL) in OSM by systematically (as in going through "all
> schools"
> in the UK) querying google and not about retrieving information from
> the
> website returned in the query.
> 
> I can't see any fundamental difference between the above and say
> getting a phone book and extracting all the phone numbers of schools
> from it

There's at least one fundamental difference; the user of google search
results has to do an evaluation of the result set returned and make a
judgment call to select the one he's actually interested in.

/Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Changes in the rendering

[Markus Lindholm]

Thanks for fixing it, but there's one problem remaining. There's a
quite visible gap in rendering when moving from a highway+railway to a
highway+railway+bridge. E.g.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=59.33140&mlon=18.09368#map=19/59.33140/18.09368

/Markus

On 10 August 2014 14:33, Matthijs Melissen  wrote:
> On 10 August 2014 10:09, Markus Lindholm  wrote:
>> - highway=platform is no longer rendered
>> - railway=tram is no longer rendered if it shares a way with highway=*
>>
>> Are these bugs or a deliberate change?
>
> These are bugs, thanks for reporting. I created issues on Github for them:
> - https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/871
> - https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/874
>
> In general, if you want a quick response, it is easier to create the
> issues directly on Github as not all stylesheet maintainers follow the
> talk mailing list.
>
> -- Matthijs
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Changes in the rendering

[Markus Lindholm]

Hi

I just noticed a couple of big changes in how the map is rendered

- highway=platform is no longer rendered
- railway=tram is no longer rendered if it shares a way with highway=*

Are these bugs or a deliberate change?

/Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Announcement of the release of a new set of POI icons

[Markus Semm]

Hi,
a feedback menu option was added to the osm-icons.org wiki.
This is the direct link to the feedback wiki page: 
http://osm-icons.org/wiki/Public:Main .
Cheers Markus
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Announcement of the release of a new set of POI icons

[Markus Semm]

Hi all,

a set of more than 1000 POI icons for OSM maps and OSM editors has been 
released today.

The main purpose of this icon set is
a) covering all OSM POI tags with at least 1000 occurrences according to TAGINFO
b) provision of the most common key-value combinations for each icon
c) assignment of each icon to one or multiple map feature groups

This icon set can be used for the following purposes:
a) integration into existing or future OSM editors
b) to display POIs on any OSM map

My hope is receiving some feedback from the community in order to further 
improve this icon set including the related metadata.

The icon set can be downloaded here: http://osm-icons.org

Thank you very much in advance for your feedback!
Cheers Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Timezones (was: Deleting data)

[Markus Lindholm]

On 21 October 2013 16:41, Toby Murray  wrote:
> Having edited over a thousand of them, I would not be sad to see admin
> boundaries removed from the general OSM database. I think Russ is on to
> something with his "ClosedStreetMap" concept although that is some terrible
> branding so we need another name :) But at the end of the day, we are
> terrible at maintaining such boundaries and very good at breaking them in
> OSM, mostly because they are usually hard/impossible to spot on the ground
> and verify. So people see random lines going through the area they are
> trying to map and either don't pay attention when they touch them or just
> delete them outright. Essentially what we need is the concept of layers. If
> all the admin/timezone boundaries were in their own "layer" and didn't
> interact with roads, rivers, etc in OSM then they would be much easier to
> keep up to date from external sources.
>
> Yes, OSM *can* contain just about anything. But if we are terrible at it and
> there are other datasets available that aren't terrible then why should we
> try to poorly duplicate others efforts?

I think you're overlooking a key strength with the osm database, that
all the map features are integrated, e.g. if a kiosk is mapped to be
three meters to the left of the entrance to the building, and that is
also the ground truth, then you have that fact of their interrelation.
With different datasets from different sources, you lose it.

/Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Keypad-Mapper version 3.1 released

[Markus Semm]

Hi all,

the new version 3.1 of the Android App Keypad-Mapper has been released.

 
Keypad-Mapper is an Android App highly dedicated to efficiently mapping house 
numbers and addresses.

 
Here are the new features:

 audio note button allows the user to record a voice memo and save it along 
with a GPS coordinate

 RECORD button allows the mapper to start/stop recording

 optimised screen layout for larger devices / tablets (7" and up)

 improved usability (bigger characters, better contrast, R/F/L on keypad screen 
replaced by arrows)

 additional settings options: turn off GPS, vibration at data entry, usage of 
the compass

 supports now devices with only one camera (e.g. Nexus 7)

 Russian wiki page

 bug fixing

 
Details can be found in the new help text inside the app or here: 
[url]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keypad-Mapper_3[/url] 
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keypad-Mapper_3%5B/url%5D> 

Have fun with this new version!

 
Pls add your ideas and whishes to the Keypad-Mapper wiki page.

 
Cheers Markus

 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] JOSM plugin for Keypad-Mapper 3

[Markus Semm]

Hello,


 

the implementation of the improvements of the Keypad-Mapper 3 Android app makes 
good progress:
I am planning to provide a 3.1 beta test version on Jun 10th, so in 2 weeks 
from now.


 

With this new version the app has reached a very good degree of efficiency 
regarding quick and accurate mapping of house numbers and addresses.


Details can be found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keypad-Mapper_3 
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keypad-Mapper_3> 


 

Currently not yet optimal is the time needed for post processing the mapped 
data in JOSM before uploading it to OSM.


Due to the huge amount of house numbers and addresses missing in OSM it makes 
sense to address this topic and to provide an improved solution.


 

With this message I would like to initiate a discussion regarding the features 
of a potential JOSM plugin that could assist in post processing the 
Keypad-Mapper 3 data as quick and accurate as possible.


 

I have setup a new WIKI page at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keypad-Mapper_tools 
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keypad-Mapper_tools>  serving as a starting 
point for this discussion as well as serving as a container for compiling the 
outcome of the discussion.


 

Thanks a lot for supporting Keypad-Mapper 3!


 

Cheers


Markus

 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Keypad-Mapper 3 released - highly efficient app for house number mapping

[Markus Semm]

Hi,

the new version 3 of the well known Keypad-Mapper Android app for mapping house 
numbers and addresses has been published on Google Play.
Lots of new features, an optimized user interface and some bug fixes turn this 
app into the perfect tool for all those enjoying mapping of house numbers.

Here you can download the app from Google Play:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.enaikoon.android.keypadmapper3

Details regarding this app can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keypad-Mapper_3 
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keypad-Mapper_3> 

And here is the link for the Keypad-Mapper 3 user template which can be used 
for your own OSM user profile:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:User_Keypad-Mapper_3 
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:User_Keypad-Mapper_3> 

Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Tagging Live indoor music venues

[Markus Lindholm]

On 25 February 2013 16:58, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> Ok, I can agree that having a concert_hall tag is valuable because it's
> easier for mappers to remember it. But then how should we call other music
> venues? If you look for "music venue" on wikipedia, the first picture is a
> concert hall:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_venue
>
> I suggest we use amenity=music_venue for each place where music is played,
> and we use amenity=concert_hall as a specialized type of a music venue.

Sounds good to me. There's also other specific tags like bandshell,
nightclub etc that I think should be used
instead of the generic music_venue when applicable.

/Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Tagging Live indoor music venues

[Markus Lindholm]

On 25 February 2013 12:13, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> I don't think separating rock music venues and concert halls is a good idea.
> They are basically the same thing, a big room where music is played.

I don't agree. For the same reason we have both amenity=cafe and
amenity=restaurant I think it's a better idea to have both
amenity=concert_hall and amenity=music_venue. Of course one could make
the argument that we should only have amenity=sustenance and
amenity=music_venue, but then then we would lose information just for
the sake of abstraction.

/Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMI Boundaries Views

[Markus Lindholm]

On 22 September 2012 11:30, sly (sylvain letuffe)  wrote:
> Hi Markus,
>
>> >  But osmi bundles together all relation
>> > above admin_level=4 (Swedish municipalities are on level 7)
>
> Just for you information in case that might suits your needs :
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Yet_another_validation_tool_for_osm_data
>

I didn't know, thanks for the info. It suits my needs very well,
spotted right away that Sollefteå needs a bit of attention. Thanks
again.

/Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Improved coastline view in OSM Inspector

[Markus Lindholm]

On 21 September 2012 20:52, Jochen Topf  wrote:
> I have just added a change to the OSM Inspector

Hi and thanks for your work with osmi. I hope you don't mind if I take
this opportunity to put forward a feature request; to separate
admin_levels in the boundaries view.

I've been using the boundaries view in osmi to check for problems with
municipalities i Sweden. It's been a convenient and easy way to
visually spot a blank area on the map where the municipality relation
is no longer self-contained. But osmi bundles together all relation
above admin_level=4 (Swedish municipalities are on level 7) and now
people are adding more and more boundary relation for lower level
entities (higher admin_level) which means that there's no longer a
blank area if there's a problem with the municipality but the lower
level entities are ok.

/Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Lightning fast car routing built on OpenStreetMap data, with draggable routes

[Markus Lindholm]

Had fun testing different routes, and it is fast.

I also came across a situation that it couldn't find a route for, from
Wallingatan 11 to Wallingatan 5.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=59.336906&lon=18.057388&zoom=18
Wallingatan is a oneway street that crosses a pedestrian street and
about ten meter before the intersection it changes also to pedestrian.

Is this a problem with routing engine or with how the street is tagged?

/Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Markus Lindholm]

2011/10/5 Frederik Ramm :
> Data Working Group's position on this is that the community - meaning all
> who live and map there - need to come to an amicable resolution and as long
> as they don't, the node will either remain nameless, or it will have both a
> Hebrew and Arab name combined in the "name" tag. This suggestion was met
> with either silence or attempts to drag us into a political disussion, which
> we refused.
>
> We will not participiate in this discussion on talk but we'll be interested
> to hear what the wider community has to say.

About the Data Working Group, where can one find more information
about its activities? It doesn't seem to publish any minutes like the
other working groups do.

Regards
Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Flash cookies

[Markus Lindholm]

On 22 June 2011 12:19, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>
> OSM per se doesn't store anything in Flash cookies. Potlatch does. That's
> because, oddly enough, it's a Flash app and wants to remember your
> preferences (selected background and stylesheet, TIGER highlighting,
> function key settings) from one session to the next.

But there's no need to store them on the client, as all users have to
log in the preferences can be stored server-side. Atleast I throw away
all cookies when I close the browser.

/Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] UK, Cardiff and Edinburgh, change capital=yes to capital=4

[Markus Lindholm]

On 5 February 2011 11:56, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Richard Mann  gmail.com> writes:
>
>>And Brussels should be capital=1
>
> Along with Strasbourg?

It's only the parliament that is expelled to Strasbourg from time to
time. And they are not the one with the real power in EU ;)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Steve Coast Joins Microsoft as Principle Architect ofBing Mobile

[Markus Lindholm]

Anyone read the fine print of the license under which M$ provides the imagery?

/Markus

On 23 November 2010 19:43, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>
> Grant Slater wrote:
>> Same answer for the Potlatch...
>> http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/1602/how-can-i-use-microsofts-aerial-imagery-in-potlatch
>
> Potlatch 2 can now, as of five minutes ago, display Bing-format tiles. We're
> waiting for the official "start tracing" announcement, and any provisos
> (only through this API, only with this copyright message, only on Tuesdays
> etc. etc.), before making it live.
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Steve-Coast-Joins-Microsoft-as-Principle-Architect-of-Bing-Mobile-tp5767431p5767827.html
> Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Amenity key

[Markus Lindholm]

On 25 October 2010 11:17, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 2010/10/25 Dave F. :
>
>> Tourism is a tag that shouldn't be used as a primary.
>>
>> Primary tags should be used to describe what it is, not whom it *might* be
>> used by.
>
>
> what about tourism=information with it's several subtags? Seems to fit
> perfectly IMHO as a primary tag.

What constitutes a primary tag? How should one know which tags are
considered primary when parsing the OSM database?

Regards
Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begin

[Markus]

On 12 August 2010 11:18, Peteris Krisjanis  wrote:

> What can I do I agree to relicense my stuff under ODbL, but I can't

> agree with CT Section 3? I hoped LWG will think about removing it, but

> it seems that relicensing is already started without investigating

> complain about section 3.

 

I assume you're worried about the the potential license

incompatibility caused _if_ the OSMF (along with a 2/3 majority of

contributors) decided to change the license to a non-SA license when

your data (perhaps from imports) has an SA requirement? If so then I

guess that it simply means that since there is an incompatibility then

the non-SA license cannot be used (i.e. it _can't/won't_ be voted in)

or the incompatible data will be removed.

 

No-one is going to violate any licenses (if that's what the supplies

of the imported data are worried about) since legally we _can't_. That

clause is simply there so that we have flexibility in the future to

re-license without so much of a hoo-ha as this time :)

 

 

Why couldn't this be added to CT Section 3 saying.

 

 

If the OSMF does decide to change the licence, any existing data that may
then not be compatible will need to be removed.

 

Markus_g

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] lazyweb: what linux-based wifi gps phone would you recommend

[Markus Lindholm]

On 19 May 2010 10:34, Jean-Marc Liotier  wrote:
> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>> here is a question from one of my friends,
>> *what linux-based wifi gps phone would you recommend?*
>> any suggestions?
>
> Most free : Openmoko.
> Best market potential : Android
> Best compromise : Maemo... Except that Nokia has orphaned Maemo.
> Best hope from my point of view is Meego... But there won't be anything
> on the market running it for at least a year.
>
> I would be most happy with a N900 running Maemo if there was not the
> nagging knowledge that it is a dead end. So for now I stick with the
> Android I bought long before the N900 came out - but I'm not quite
> satisfied with it, in part because it does not feel open at all.

As far as I've understood N900 will be able to run MeeGo when it comes.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] lazyweb: what linux-based wifi gps phone would you recommend

[Markus Lindholm]

On 17 May 2010 14:37, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> here is a question from one of my friends,
>
> what linux-based wifi gps phone would you recommend?
>

I have a Nokia N900 and love it. It's more of a
linux-computer-in-your-pocket, but it does most of the things a smart
phone does also. And works great for mapping.

/Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide

[Markus Lindholm]

2009/10/2 Jonathan Bennett :
> Markus Lindholm wrote:
>> Isn't it time that the governing board establishes a tagging council
>> of some sort
>
> See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy
> for what Another Plaice thinks of that idea.

There's also the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_anarchy

Now seriously, Wikipedia and OSM have much in common but are also very
different on many levels. Wikipedia have an Arbitration Committee that
exercises definite power over wikipedians, I hope OSM won't ever need
that. But I do think that OSM would need some sort of recognized
entity that would maintain an official set of keys and values. After
all the namespace we have for keys are finite.

/Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] SteveC should decide

[Markus Lindholm]

Isn't it time that the governing board establishes a tagging council
of some sort (SteveC can't possibly have time to take all decisions),
with the mandate to maintain an official set of keys and values (for
applicable keys). Wouldn't also be a good idea to establish a
convention that keys that are not in the official set should be
prefixed with an agreed upon string, e.g.
custom:my_very_own_key=

/Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tibetan characters

[Markus Lindholm]

2009/8/14 Colin Marquardt :
> 2009/8/13 Markus Lindholm :
>> I thought I'd spend some time on adding name:bo (i.e. in Tibetan) tags
>> for places in Tibet. I was thinking of copy-pasting the place names
>> from Wikipedia (guess that's ok), as my knowledge in Tibetan is just
>> as limited as everybody else's. It's just that I can't find a way to
>> enter Tibetan text. I tried Potlatch and Josm, but in both Tibetan
>> characters just show up as blank squares. There's at least one name:bo
>> tag in the database and it shows up ok in history and data views.
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/244082116
>
> I suppose neither Flash (Potlatch) nor Java (JOSM) have access to a
> Tibetan font, so they display the square, as they are not using
> fontconfig or equivalent which provides the fonts to the rest of your
> system.
> When you copy some Tibetan text from Wikipedia into JOSM, save the osm
> file and look at it with an editor that knows Tibetan fonts, does it
> look okay?
> In that case, it should also be okay to upload the data.
>

Thanks. That worked quite well. Now Lhasa has a name:bo tag.

Regards
Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Tibetan characters

[Markus Lindholm]

I thought I'd spend some time on adding name:bo (i.e. in Tibetan) tags
for places in Tibet. I was thinking of copy-pasting the place names
from Wikipedia (guess that's ok), as my knowledge in Tibetan is just
as limited as everybody else's. It's just that I can't find a way to
enter Tibetan text. I tried Potlatch and Josm, but in both Tibetan
characters just show up as blank squares. There's at least one name:bo
tag in the database and it shows up ok in history and data views.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/244082116

I can enter Chinese characters in Potlatch but not in Josm.

I'm running Fedora 11, Java 1.6.0_14, Josm 1788 and Firefox 3.5.2 and
Tibetan characters show up ok in firefox and on my command prompt.

Any suggestions?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier

[Markus Lindholm]

2009/8/8 Tobias Knerr :
> Mike Harris wrote:
>> And I still don't think turnstile is in any way a type of stile any more 
>> than a stile is a type of gate.
>
> +1
>
> The English word for turnstiles may end with "stile" for some reason I
> don't understand, but that doesn't mean it actually is a type of stile.
>
> barrier=turnstile is clearly the better solution. This really cannot be
> described by any of the existing barrier values. (Otherwise, I'd of
> course suggest a sub-tag.) After all, renderers can still use the same
> icon for different tags if the developers don't consider the distinction
> relevant for the rendering.
>

Another property that turnstiles have is that usually one can pass in
only one direction. But how that is going to be tagged if a turnstile
is just a node I have no idea.

/Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Vanishing buildings

[Markus Lindholm]

Hi

I tried the method in Potlatch, but I don't think I quite understood
it, it didn't work anyhow. I'm normally using Josm. There must be a
better way to revert a changeset. In another thread on this list there
was a mention of scripts that could do it. Anyone who knows more about
that or that could revert changeset
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/1790341

Regards
Markus a.k.a. Snusmumriken

2009/7/15 Mike Collinson :
> Thanks for looking at this ... I put in most of those buildings. There also 
> deletions like the carparks in Centralplan which have been ground-truthed so 
> I don't think this is a properly planned edit.
>
> The easiest way should be to use Potlatch U (show deleted ways) and H (show 
> history and has a revert option) but I can't get the undelete to properly 
> register, I hope you have better luck. The last good edits will probably be 
> Snusmumriken who I know has done some excellent work on buildings.
>
> If you have not done so, do join us on talk-se 
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Mailing_lists). Low volume in 
> Swedish; English OK.
>
> Mike
>
> At 09:29 AM 15/07/2009, Markus Lindholm wrote:
>>Ok, what can I do to get the data back?
>>I contacted the user who made this deletion 24 hours ago, but haven't
>>heard anything back.
>>
>>Regards
>>Markus
>>
>>2009/7/14 Shaun McDonald :
>>> The data has gone. It looks like it was this changeset
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/1790341
>>>
>>> Shaun
>>>
>>> On 14 Jul 2009, at 07:49, Markus Lindholm wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I just noticed that some buildings in central Stockholm has
>>>> disappeared, among then the main railway station. Here's a link of the
>>>> area
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=59.33046&lon=18.05936&zoom=17&layers=B000FTF
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if this because of vandalism or some software glitch.
>>>> Is there a easy way to get them back, and find out what else might
>>>> have gone missing at the same time?
>>>>
>>>> I've been following the area with itoworld.com, but it hasn't reported
>>>> any changes. Strange.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Markus
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> talk mailing list
>>>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>
>>>
>>
>>___
>>talk mailing list
>>talk@openstreetmap.org
>>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Vanishing buildings

[Markus Lindholm]

Ok, what can I do to get the data back?
I contacted the user who made this deletion 24 hours ago, but haven't
heard anything back.

Regards
Markus

2009/7/14 Shaun McDonald :
> The data has gone. It looks like it was this changeset
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/1790341
>
> Shaun
>
> On 14 Jul 2009, at 07:49, Markus Lindholm wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I just noticed that some buildings in central Stockholm has
>> disappeared, among then the main railway station. Here's a link of the
>> area
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=59.33046&lon=18.05936&zoom=17&layers=B000FTF
>>
>> I don't know if this because of vandalism or some software glitch.
>> Is there a easy way to get them back, and find out what else might
>> have gone missing at the same time?
>>
>> I've been following the area with itoworld.com, but it hasn't reported
>> any changes. Strange.
>>
>> Regards
>> Markus
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Vanishing buildings

[Markus Lindholm]

Hi

I just noticed that some buildings in central Stockholm has
disappeared, among then the main railway station. Here's a link of the
area
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=59.33046&lon=18.05936&zoom=17&layers=B000FTF

I don't know if this because of vandalism or some software glitch.
Is there a easy way to get them back, and find out what else might
have gone missing at the same time?

I've been following the area with itoworld.com, but it hasn't reported
any changes. Strange.

Regards
Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk