Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] OSM is a right mess (was: Craigslist OpenStreetMap Rendering Issue)
On 5 June 2015 at 12:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > > > Am 05.06.2015 um 11:33 schrieb David Fisher : > > > > As for "landuse=residential" -- I agree that we could probably do > > without it. But it does add to the readability of the map, especially > > at low zoom levels, as it enables you to see at a glance where places > > are and how big they are. > > > residential landuse is often seen as "default", it is often used to mark > the built up area rather than just the residential areas (especially in > villages). We should encourage place polygons for this and restrict the use > of residential landuse to residential areas. > > It would help a LOT if they were rendered on the standard map ! WHY do we have this agony of stuff not being rendered ? Here's a map of the world. We've not marked on any places as we feel it would be too confusing. What's the flipping point. Flog the renderers I say. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to the country's ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SOTM-US: directions please
On 4 June 2015 at 16:38, Andy Mabbett wrote: > Ironic, given our subject of interest... > > I've searched online, but found no directions from JFK to the New > Shool's 13th Street Residence, nor walking directions from there to > the UN building. > > Could someone oblige, please? > > -- > Andy Mabbett > @pigsonthewing > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.6429%2C-73.7794%3B40.7491%2C-73.9679#map=12/40.7002/-73.8734 ? -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is a right mess (was: Craigslist OpenStreetMap Rendering Issue)
On 4 June 2015 at 19:39, Lester Caine wrote: > On 04/06/15 16:04, Paweł Paprota wrote: > > Could you please move this discussion to the tagging list? > While some elements being picked up on are simple 'tagging' questions, > it is the general structure we are discussing which in my book is the > whole point of OSM. I think there is still room to discuss the overall > framework of how the layers of tagging evolve? > > -- > Lester Caine - G8HFL > - > Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact > L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk > EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ > Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk > Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk > > Surely all OSM sub-discussion have a 'right' to be heard in the general OSM list and tagging is quite key to the whole project. It is perhaps a shame that these issues haven't been bashed out years ago - well they might have but if newcomers continue to question the logic there's clearly an issue that needs addressing. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is a right mess
On 3 June 2015 at 07:00, Maarten Deen wrote: > On 2015-06-03 02:04, pmailkeey . wrote: > >> iD shows oneway=unknown if it's not set. If it's unknown, iD should >> not show oneway at all. >> > > I agree. > > In OSM if oneway=no then it's not oneway and the oneway tag should not >> appear at all. >> > > Here I don't agree. > > The only time oneway should appear is in the case of oneway=yes - and >> the '=yes' is superfluous. >> > > Some roads are implied oneway. E.g. junction=roundabout and > highway=motorway both imply that the road is one-way only. If for some > reason the object in case is not oneway, a oneway=no tag is very much > needed. > > I agree that in every case where oneway=yes is not implied, oneway=no is > superfluous (in a network design way), but that does not make oneway=no > superfluous. > > There is also the occurence of oneway=-1 in case someone reverses the > direction of a way. What should be done when the only possibility for > oneway is either set or unset and the direction gets reversed? Should > reversing be disallowed? Should you get a warning "oneway street can not be > reversed"? > > Maarten > > Are the world of random renderers going to look for junction=roundabout and make the same oneway assumption ? Would it not be better for 'junction=roundabout' to cause a mechanical edit by adding the oneway tag - so that rather than saying =no, the tag could simply be removed ? What reason is there for reversing the way - as presumably all direction-dependent tags have + / - options ? Leads to the question as to why make oneway an exception to this rule - it seems most logical to have oneway as the direction as indicated rather than against. Them's my thoughts ! -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is a right mess (was: Craigslist OpenStreetMap Rendering Issue)
On 3 June 2015 at 09:45, Lester Caine wrote: > On 03/06/15 01:04, pmailkeey . wrote: > > OSM's k=v design is completely a serious and unnecessary flaw. Similarly > > are 'categories' like man_made', and 'amenity'. > > Why can we not simply stick to hard facts rather guessing what > > categor(ies) an object fits in > > This is a bit like saying XML is the wrong base format. and actually I > would agree with that, but the majority of material only works with a > k=v structure. While for a few VALUES there are potentially only one > k=v, they are very few and far between. > I'm not convinced. A value of yes as a stand-alone item is meaningless but a value of hedge is sufficient to indicate we're talking about a barrier. (please read below before responding to this item) > > That there are a few keys that are confusing even when one is used to > how they work is the real problem. > amenity===shop===leisure===sport===tourism===building===landuse > Just what combination is right for a single retail building with a > leisure facility on the ground floor and accommodation above? > > building=detached is another peculiarity where the closed way identifies > that fact and what is actually needed is simply building=residential > unless it's contained in an area of landuse=residential ... is the > building=residential now redundant? > A value of residential here seems to need a key to identify whether it relates to a building or landuse. However, you suggest building=residential as possibly being redundant. In fact, I'd turn this on its head and make landuse=residential (with the exception of moles) redundant. The only residential landuse is directly under a building but by using landuse=residential, such areas cover gardens and highways - which are clearly not residences. > > The discussion recently on how a 'university' should be tagged probably > encompasses all of the circularity with the current tagging practice, > and where the hierarchy of tagging could best be agreed. > > Campus area === landuse=university > Some universities are on several campuses, but there there are other > landuse areas between, AND there should be no other landuse areas > contained within the campus area, other tagging should identify water, > woodland, grass, building, and the like WITHIN the area. Same for a > shopping quarter, residential area and so on. (leisure=park rather than > landuse=park) > > A retail facility is a building=retail and it's 'amenity'=convenience > although a number of uses can be listed. So rather than > amenity,shop,leisure,sport,tourism we have use= attached to building= or > area= and we use landuse= to wrap the major function of the whole ground > area ... hospital, theme_park, school, and so on ... just need an > equivalent to building= for area= where there is no actual building so > area=park between the building=apartments of a residential area. > > -- > Lester Caine - G8HFL > - > Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact > L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk > EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ > Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk > Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough
On 3 June 2015 at 10:17, Chris Hill wrote: > Mike, > After our last exchange of messages I thought you were trying to fit in at > least a bit. Since then I have watched your emails steadily descend into > trolling and abuse. > > Time to either shut up (which I doubt you can) or leave before you're > thrown out, which I know you're used to. > > OSM learned a hard lesson about trolls in the past and we're not as > tolerant now. Carry on with abuse, bad-mouthing and extreme negativity and > you will get banned. At first I thought that would be a shame, you needed a > chance to fit in. Well you've had that chance and blown it. > > > What is wrong with you ? -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is a right mess (was: Craigslist OpenStreetMap Rendering Issue)
On 3 June 2015 at 01:37, Tom MacWright wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Please propose an alternative. > I see an awful lot of good in OSM and I think it's a great project. I've had it agreed with another about it being such a mess - but the fact it's such a worthwhile project it's worth battling on with it - even if, sadly, others have succumbed to the nightmares around every corner. An alternative would be wrong, it is this that needs fixing and it needs a lot of 'tricky' effort to see the good from the not so good. It's like one team at both ends of a thick 'tug of war' rope, not really sure which way to pull for the best whilst each has in their hand only a mere strand to that rope. I think everything is overwhelmed yet the whole thing is clearly in its infancy - with diseases, viruses and god-knows what being thrown at it at all times from all angles. The freedom to make up any tags is brilliant while likely being one of the biggest problems - that not simply throws simple problems but really complex multi-dimensional ones with 'language' issues for one thing, the fact OSM is secretly 2 maps (at least!!) in one where in the main the two are compatible and other places where clearly they're not. Computers frequently come up with an answer. OSM rarely does; likely many answers or none at all. Digital, analogue, fuzzy logic all put into a blender and whizzed for a few seconds - and each time this is tried a different result is found. Consistently inconsistent. I think in the end it will work - but the effort required to get there will be far greater than the sum of its parts. Take one aspect - quality - there's the whole gamut from true to false - anyone can't assume anything about OSM data - and if different people around the world wrote a report on it, none of the resulting reports would agree ! I can't produce some magic answer without some agreement :) -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is a right mess (was: Craigslist OpenStreetMap Rendering Issue)
On 3 June 2015 at 01:36, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > Perhaps http://wikimapia.org/ will better match your needs, and offer > more peace for your family, property and pets. > Well, on Monday the 'prison' idea went out the window. Having me and my brother accused of ill-treating our mother - two , nay, 3 visits to court in preparation for a trial - but now the prosecution say they've no evidence. It's a ton of worry off my shoulders Just another 19 similar tons to go. God, it's just so bloody awful what they do to 'vulnerable adults' (Mum has dementia) in this country. It was the National Health Service that caused severe distress to my cat - needing veterinary treatment. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM is a right mess (was: Craigslist OpenStreetMap Rendering Issue)
iD shows oneway=unknown if it's not set. If it's unknown, iD should not show oneway at all. In OSM if oneway=no then it's not oneway and the oneway tag should not appear at all. The only time oneway should appear is in the case of oneway=yes - and the '=yes' is superfluous. OSM's k=v design is completely a serious and unnecessary flaw. Similarly are 'categories' like man_made', and 'amenity'. Why can we not simply stick to hard facts rather guessing what categor(ies) an object fits in A fountain is a fountain. It does not matter if it is - an amenity - man made - natural water (???!!) etc. Such categorization is semi-ambiguous; people think differently and are happy to categorize differently - and more - argue over categories. OSM is 90% argument, 5% dead-end discussions and 5% progress. The whole is not a marketable product; it's not fit to be rated as 'beta'. Is this a significant cause of ex-mappers ? It's a flipping brilliant project but sadly lacking a great leader. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attributing others' errors to OSM data and what to do about it. Was: Craigslist OpenStreetMap Rendering Issue
Totally agree - the oneway(=no) is being misinterpreted. OSM's BIG ISSUE is what to do about others misinterpreting OSM data and attributing the error to OSM. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Tagging FOR the renderer
> > On Sat, 16 May 2015 19:19:20 +0200 > Kotya Karapetyan wrote: > > > I would like to ask you: is there a web-site and a smartphone app > > where I could see all OSM data and switch things on and off? > > That would probably be the answer to the question. > > That's what I think we should have for the base OSM.org map. That leaves me with one solution - OSM removes all its maps and instead promotes the idea of each of us producing and rendering our own 'personal' maps which OSM hosts. So we get things like cycle map, humanitarian map, my map, your map and her map all listed for us with an info panel as to what the map shows so people can choose which map they prefer to use/embed. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging FOR the renderer
On 16 May 2015 at 00:57, Rob Nickerson wrote: > >when a mapper invents something new, they can add tags for > >colour, opacity, line colour, line width, line opacity - for areas and > >similar attributes for lines and points (colour, opacity, size etc.) and > >obviously tags for name and description etc. What do people think to this > ? > > > > The people behind the default map render have put a lot of work in to > trying to develop a map style which works well for the average OSM mapper. > To have anyone come along and add their own styling for any map feature > they like would be chaos. We'd end up in a map style edit war!! Also even > if a mapper found a style and colour that worked for the default > OpenStreetMap render, it wouldn't work with other map styles (Humanitarian, > MapQuest, etc..). > I'm talking ADDITIONAL tags - so the other map styles wouldn't be affected. I'm also talking temporary tags - to be removed by the default map renderers after they've created a 'proper' render style for the object. Having said that, I wouldn't object if they became a feature of the db - for a 'natural map'. I'm sure that would result in a bizarre map - likely 'suitable' for an art gallery ! > > I know you'd love to have a map that renders everything but you will not > get that from OpenStreetMap. As all the data is available there is nothing > to stop you setting up your own map renderer and doing as you please > (although good luck making it look anything other than a mess). > > I'm sure folks will be happy to point you in the direction of guides for > setting that up. Perhaps look at MapBox Studio first. > All the map editors (iD etc.) render everything in a way. And yes, I'm all in favour of a map CAPABLE of showing everything yet allowing the viewer to choose what's not shown. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Tagging FOR the renderer
I don't know whether this has been discussed or even mooted before...
Tagging for the renderer is natural. Mappers, especially newbies will be
disappointed their pet new feature they've just added to the db does not
appear on the map. This situation is no use to anyone but has been allowed
to continue and 'enforced' with wiki et al going against the notion of
tagging for the renderer. The problem was likely there in the beginning and
is still there now - several years later - unresolved. In fact, the way OSM
is put together, it's completely unresolvable - as people are free to tag
how they like and the map shows only what the renderers choose to show. I
have considered that what we see in the editors is the real map and true
OSM isn't. If the editors had a 'read-only' mode, they'd be far more use
than OSM proper and mappers would be happier to see their work on the 'map'.
I therefore want to air the view that 'mapping for the renderer' is no
longer 'wrong' by actually adding a good set of basic tags for areas, lines
and points ("simple English" as opposed to technical English of 'nodes' and
'ways') so that when a mapper invents something new, they can add tags for
colour, opacity, line colour, line width, line opacity - for areas and
similar attributes for lines and points (colour, opacity, size etc.) and
obviously tags for name and description etc. What do people think to this ?
--
Mike.
@millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *
*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*
T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Release openstreetmap-carto v2.30.0
On 13 May 2015 at 21:32, Dave F. wrote: > Hi > > There already is an icon for shop=bicycle. > > Great to see amenity=bicycle_parking has been added > > It's made me add bike parking locally ;) There's already an icon for amenity=courthouse -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Broken coastline
Where should the coastline be ? HWM, LWM or MW. What about islands that only appear at low tide ! On 11 May 2015 at 17:47, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Monday 11 May 2015, Mike Thompson wrote: > > > > I don't have a strong preference for how they are represented > > (natural=coastline or natural=water), but I believe the mix and > > incomplete implementation of the two approaches is causing rendering > > issues. > > At least the OSM standard style does not have a problem with having both > coastline and a water multipolygon - the Caspian Sea, Lake Ladoga and > Lake Onega also all have multipolygon relations tagged natural=water. > > The 'half the lake' relation and missing inner rings of course call for > trouble. > > > I have seen a number of them on the Canadian side. Regardless of the > > number, finding and editing all of them is going to be tedious and > > error prone without a way to query for them. I can probably write > > something that will operate on the file JOSM downloads that will > > check to make sure I have fixed them all, but would like to leverage > > existing code as much as possible. > > You probably could save the islands after you tagged them as coastline > from JOSM (only the islands) and run them through osmcoastline as if > they were the only land on earth and see if there are any > errors/warnings. > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Please ban Xxzme in wiki
On 11 May 2015 at 17:39, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On 11 May 2015 at 10:08, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Andy Mabbett wrote: > >> In the absence of blatant vandalism or base abuse, I would > >> have expected, first, a recent, clear and unequivocal warning on > >> the user's talk page > > > > No. Please remember that the primary means of discussion and consensus in > > OSM is mailing lists, even when the subject is the wiki, and even though > the > > mailing lists suck. There is no precedent for obtaining consensus on > > community decisions via wiki talk pages. > > In that case: At what point was Xxzme advised of this? Or indeed any > new user - I certainly never have been. > > > Talk pages might be how it's done in Wikipedia, but we're not Wikipedia. > > I don't recall saying that we were (indeed, in another recent > discussion, I pointed out that we are not). > > > -- > Andy Mabbett > @pigsonthewing > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk > > > 1. If you know they're a wiki user - it seems the wiki is the best place to deal with the issue. They might not be involved with any mailing list. 2. Do you know that they understand your complaints or is there a 'language barrier' involved. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Junction assessment help
Hi All, This junction <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=51.33590&mlon=0.05398#map=19/51.33590/0.05398> to me is a T junction. It's complicated by the fact that one arm of it has a tree in the middle of the road - and therefore has been mapped as having 2 ways for the one road. Is this junction correctly mapped ? I'd have thought the T would be 'normal' and then the road split to pass either side of the tree. The two ways have been tagged as one way streets - which they're not - they're just 2 sides of one street. To add to the confusion, 'NO ENTRY' has been painted on the road surface - but this does not make it a one way street either! I look forward to comments, suggestions and even someone doing a correction on the junction, thanks. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Problems with the wiki (was "Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?")
On 8 May 2015 at 23:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/05/2015 7:57 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I appreciate that Xxzme has spent a lot of time trying to make the Wiki >> better and I believe they did manage to make improvements, but looking >> at the complete picture I would politely ask Xxzme to find another >> occupation, and stop editing on the OSM wiki altogether. >> >> This community would loose possibly valuable contributions from him if > this were to occur. > > A better outcome would be a more conciliatory attitude? How to get that is > difficult. > > > +1 There's not an easy answer - any restraint on enthusiasm can have a detrimental effect. Guidance is the best way forward. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?
On 7 May 2015 at 09:23, Andy Mabbett wrote: > Any and all of our "publicity pamphlets" should also be on the wiki, > for various reasons, including: > > * An archive for future reference, when the paper version is no longer > available > * Ease of access by people remote from the location of paper copies > > -- > Andy Mabbett If they're on the wiki, paper copies will always be available - anywhere - via the print function ! -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] contact: tags
On 3 May 2015 at 21:25, Andrew MacKinnon wrote: > (OSM ought to allow > commas in values to allow for more than one website or phone number). > > > It is suggested that semicolons are used to separate multiple data. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] contact: tags
On 3 May 2015 at 17:05, Bryan Housel wrote: > I like the `contact:*` tags, but only because it simplifies a few things > in the iD editor. When copying and pasting an object, we really want to > remove the name/address/contactinfo so that the pasted object doesn’t have > the same values. > > If all the custom keys are grouped under `contact:whatever` this is easy > to do, otherwise we need to build the logic into the editor to remove the > values. I’m certainly ok with having the keys either way, just saying this > is one area where a namespace helps. > > For the curious, the code to do this is here: > > https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/js/id/behavior/paste.js#L4-L18 > > Thanks, Bryan > > > Bryan, as a copy operation, I'd expect all the tags to be copied - it is after all the purpose of copying ! why should the contact details of a pasted object be different ? URL / website - If the thing has a website, then that should be tagged as website. If the URL is to a document, use URL. I'm happy both should stay. As for contact:*, I'm not bothered either way - but have a preference for choice - so that if there's a reason for its use, it can be used. I'd be interested in a response to the idea of an object having a 'data manager' tag - for one who should be consulted before editing an object - a person who has agreed to maintain that object in the db. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Chain Store Cleanup
On 2 May 2015 at 23:18, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On 2 May 2015 at 22:28, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > I know you have a Wikidata background and things may be different in > > Wikidata > > I've been editing OSM longer than Wikidata has existed. > > Even had I not, I don't think your attempt to analyse my "background" > has any place on this list. > > Frederik, Andy started out as a valve in ENIAC. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data Quality - was Re: Chain Store Cleanup
On 2 May 2015 at 23:05, Colin Smale wrote: > On 2015-05-02 23:28, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > We collect observations. >> > > ... > > There is >> no way for the mapper on the ground to know that the name on the >> building "should" be something else. >> > > I think that sounds rather disingenuous. We humans are perfectly capable > of correctly interpreting data which contains errors, and recognising what > the error is. And there are plenty of types of information in OSM which are > not (easily) verifiable on the ground - admin boundaries spring to mind. > The important thing in my mind is that the information should be > independently verifiable from publicly accessible (and appropriately > licensed) sources, thus making the information objective. Of course the > signs on the ground come into that category, but they are not necessarily > superior to other valid sources. > > There are plenty of spelling and grammatical mistakes on public signs, and > although we are not the world's signage police, we should not be in the > business of propagating obvious errors either. > > You mentioned "quality" in another post; that implies "the extent of > adherence to agreed criteria" it's a problem that we cannot yet measure the > quality of our data because there is no consensus on what is "good" and > what is not. That's why these discussions go round and round and round for > a couple of weeks and then die off. There seems to be little motivation or > drive to reach a clear conclusion. We don't even manage to work out *how* > to determine what is "good". It's time we grew the balls we need to have > the very painful talk about good data vs. bad data, followed by finding the > right balance between quality and quantity. Quality itself can be > subjective. What's fit for my purpose may break the data's usability for > yours. And yet there is only one OSM data set. What are we going to agree > to put in there, to keep the majority of people "happy"? What is our shared > definition of quality? > > //colin > > HERE HERE. Having said that, I fear the grey area is almost as large as a popular blue-green planet. I think whatever is decided as being the correct way can only end up being a guide. There's always the possibility the correct way will change in time as we learn. The correct way needs to be easily accessible too - to all - especially newbies to OSM. It seems iD is the preferred newbie editor so that needs to be designed to guide all in using correct ways. When we come across incorrect signs, how big a deal is it to point them out and at least start the ball rolling to get them corrected ? As a keen data observer, I'm doing it - even correcting Ordnance Survey. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Case study: Lloyds TSB (Was: Chain Store Cleanup)
On 2 May 2015 at 22:10, Rob Nickerson wrote: > Andy Mabbett wrote: > >I suppose it depends whether we want to map what (sometimes incorrect) > >store signs say, or what the stores actually are. > > > >I favour the latter, but if you want the former, I have a list defunct > >shops whose signs are still visible, which you can add > > > >Another issue to consider is that either method will incude some > >errors. Which will include fewest, and which will inconvenience our > >users less? How long will it take for all our entries for Domino's to > >be manually updated, even after the signs are changed? > > > > I also favour the latter too. I feel this is an area where the "on the > ground rule" is too strong. > > For an idea of how long it takes to *manually update* shop names take a > look at Lloyds TSB in the UK. In September 2013 the bank split into two > separate banks and they were quickly rebranded as Lloyds and TSB. As it was > impossible to say which branch became a Lloyds and which branch became a > Lloyds so a mechanical edit wasn't possible. > > Almost 2 years later we still have 400 "Lloyds TSB" in OpenStreetMap [1] > and this is despite the fact that a tool was developed for the UK mappers > to help them find the remaining incorrect instances of Lloyds TSB. Without > this tool I expect there would be many hundreds more. > > I don't want to say the UK mapping community is dead, but it is not big > enough to manage the volume of data we already have in OSM. Any tools that > can help this situation (tools to compare to external data sources, QA > tools, Maproulette type tools, apps for Android, Windows phone and iOS, and > yes, mechnaincal edits) would be welcome in my eyes. > > We need to grow our community and our toolset. > > Best, > Rob > +1 in all respects. If we map incorrect stuff on the ground it's only going to support incorrect names. Where mechanical edits (or better) is possible, it's a case of letting the world catch up to OSM rather than the other way around. At least we can change name to old_name as an edit and then create a new new name based on the name change - so the db reflects old and new - and hopefully a search for LloydsTSB branch at ** should still find it even as an old name. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BBC License Violation?
On 1 May 2015 at 22:53, Robert Banick wrote: > This: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32551499 > > Map at bottom > > > Not sure it's a BBC issue if they've had the image in good faith. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Chain Store Cleanup
On 1 May 2015 at 18:30, Imre Samu wrote: > > .. McDonald's problem... > > Please don't forget the true "McDonald's" problem! It is a content > encoding hell. > and very hard to detect by any ordinary field mappers. > > #1. > name="McDonald’s"( count=126 ) U+2019 ’ e2 80 99 "RIGHT SINGLE > QUOTATION MARK" > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/name=McDonald%E2%80%99s > http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/97c > > #2. > name="McDonald´s"( count=40 ) U+00B4 ´ c2 b4 "ACUTE ACCENT" > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/name=McDonald%C2%B4s > http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/97e > > #3. > name="McDonald's" ( count=14039) U+0027 ' 27 "APOSTROPHE" > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/name=McDonald's > > Regards, > Imre > > > Any hope of tracing the sources of #1 and #2 ? Such as Apple users ? and which editor was used? -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BBC License Violation?
Is that news article link still valid ? On 1 May 2015 at 22:18, Robert Banick wrote: > Hi All, > > I was reading the below linked article on the BBC today and came across > the map. It looks like they’re using OSM-derived internally displaced > person (IDP) camp data without attribution. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/20039682 > > Based on what I’m reading in the relevant coordination channels it appears > that HOT / Kathmandu Living Labs are one of the main sources for IDP > damage. This is confirmed by the obvious square shape of the southern camps > shown. The shape appears to align with bounds of HOT task #1008. > http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/1008 > > Likely this is an honest mistake from a BBC reporter who sourced the > derived data from the Nepali government. Nonetheless it’s a violation and > should be fixed. > > Is there anyone with BBC contacts who could try to have this sorted? I’ve > written them through the generic Contact button but personal contacts are > always quicker. > > Best, > Robert > > — > Sent from Mailbox <https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox> > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Chain Store Cleanup
Approaching bigchains.com and asking them stupid questions is only going to downgrade the quality of OSM in their eyes. Consequently, it'd be better for OSM not to contact them - unless you can offer them '*something*'. Google (maps) is a business - so has a significant advantage. As for variable data like opening hours, phone number etc. (even postal address is no use to them) their building needs to appear on the map with a one-click link to the outlet's website that shows phone number and opening hours. Feel free to go back to McD when you can offer them a flashing 'neon' building on the map and when the building is 'dim' replace it with their logo M. You just need to figure out what you'd charge them for this advertising. If you don't charge them they'll think it's a pointless gimmick and show no interest. On 1 May 2015 at 21:44, Rob Nickerson wrote: > On 1 May 2015 at 20:26, Johan C wrote: > >> >> 2015-05-01 13:36 GMT+02:00 Rob Nickerson : >> >>> >I think eventually chains will see the >light, and publish their >>> locations in an >open format compatible manner. At >that point a quick >>> cross check with >OSM would clear up most of the >issues. >>> > >>> >>> Agree. Has anyone actually asked the retail chains? >>> >>> That's a good question Rob. 'Seeing the light' possibly means >> maintaining your own platform/apps as a business. I did ask McDonald's back >> in 2012, I got the following reply: "We put focus on optimizing this >> McDonald's app and want to keep the management of the associated database >> as efficiently as possible. Keeping databases for others makes that >> ambition tricky. With the McDonald's app we also communicate information >> about McDonald's products, actions, nutrition values, different locations >> and opening times of the restaurants and the McDrives. Also, restaurant >> renovations and therefore temporary adjusted opening hours are regularly >> incorporated into an update. For the above reasons, we will not consent to >> the inclusion of McDonald's restaurants in Openstreetmap." >> >> Of course I was disappointed, because I still believe OSM can be the best >> platform. On the other hand, McDonald's has a point. Breaking the answer >> down: 1) It's not efficient trying to maintain more than one database 2) >> that single database serves more purposes than just geocoding 3) Other >> databases do not have the same quality. >> > > Glad to hear that you have had a go at contacting one of these big chains. > Their response is disappointing but I think we need to be looking at some > potential solutions and better explaining the benefits of being on > OpenStreetMap to them. > > Tackling the benefits of being in OSM first. I would point out that > because OpenStreetMap provides a rich database of geographic features there > are many apps that use OpenStreetMap's data. For example Maps.Me uses OSM > in it's SatNav style app for iOS and Android. Their app also displays > clickable points of interest including fast food outlets. Right now > OpenStreetMap includes some McDonald's stores (as contributed by our > community) but may be missing some. If McDonald's was to provide locations > of all stores then we could update our map data and as such all apps that > use our data would pick up these additional stores when they next update. > > As for tackling some of their concerns then first the opening hours > concern. We could offer to link to their website for each store via > opening_hours:url=http://bigchainstore.com?storeid=12345 . As for keeping > the database up to date this is where we would benefit from more conflation > tools. For example it would be great if we had a tool that compares > BigChainStores data dump month 1 against BigChainStores data dump month 2 > (should be easier as most entries will be the same). We would also want a > tool that compares BigChainStores data dump against what's already in OSM. > Currently there is no user firendly tool to do this (you end up back in > traditional GIS solutions which tend to go over my head). > > I think we can get there but we'd need someone to help in regards to the > comparison tools. > > Best, > Rob > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Chain Store Cleanup
On 1 May 2015 at 16:07, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Andrew, > > On 05/01/2015 12:04 AM, Andrew MacKinnon wrote: > > I am trying to figure out a way of cleaning up incorrect chain store > > data in OSM. For example there are 1422 instances of "McDonalds" in > > OSM (should be McDonald's) and 203 instances of "Tim Horton's" (should > > be Tim Hortons). > > That's a very "computer person" approach to take. In fact, the > "McDonald's" issue has already been tried by someone in the past with an > undiscussed mechanical edit, promptly falsifying a few non-chain > non-fastfood places that *really* were called McDonalds just as you > mention. > > I don't think that is something that really advances the quality in OSM, > and I would encourage you to grab a notepad and venture outside to do > some mapping. That way you wouldn't be scripting world-wide cleanup > operations but who knows, you might actually add real value to OSM. > > Leave the mis-spelled "McDonalds" to those who map in the area. Maybe it > encourages them. > > I'd go for the mechanical edit. Actually, I'd go for a central single point of maintenance for store names - so we change them all with one change. Doing manual edits, how long does it take OSM to reflect the name change globally ? It's my guess that this would be less accurate than changing them all in one move. The change should of course be name --> old_name and then a new name applied. I'm also in favour of being ahead of the game - gives a better impression that the map's well up to date. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Purpose of discussion facilities
I'm not quite sure of the purpose of places to discuss things when there are facilities to prevent discussion. https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/286#issuecomment-98117456 Would someone like to explain ? -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GeoHipster comment on OSM
I feel OSM has many flaws and one of them is that it's failing to address the flaws adequately. I think the fault lies with the OSM marketing department - what do you mean, we haven't got one ? Another fer instance: "ex-mappers" should be a swear-word around here. On 1 May 2015 at 10:12, Simon Poole wrote: > > > Am 01.05.2015 um 10:48 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > ... > > > > > > Of course big head at company A usually knows how to quickly get in > > contact with big head at company B, what really bugs them with OSM is > > that they are supposed to use the same channels as John Doe. > > > > > Well less that, because obviously given that we are talking about a > small group of people, they will actually typically know each other in > any case, the real irritation is that everybody gets the same usage > terms and you can't haggle a special deal. > > I don't want to make the impression that from "an OSMF business > operations" perspective everything is perfect, far from it. But the > issues tend(ed) to be more internal cultural kind of things than > "customer" facing. > > Simon > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Continent Oceania or Australia
You call Australasia whatever you like ! Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Next: Relation name (WAS: Removing redundant routing instructions)
On 28 April 2015 at 16:25, Colin Smale wrote: > The "give way" sign won't help to distinguish between the arms where two > roads diverge... > You mean neither has give way markings ? Can you provide an example ? It's sounding a bit like Russia ! > By the way, the sign is often a STOP sign, so the logic will have to check > for both. > > > Whether 'often' or not, that's true. That made me think of another peculiarity - but it's not a stop, just a give way on the through route. So yes, I've found a give way on the through route ! I guess this is a bit like the mini roundabout scenario. Can we accept the concept of not having a through route at a junction ? In the case I've found, there's no continuity - different number,different name, give way but is a continuation of the main route! -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Next: Relation name (WAS: Removing redundant routing instructions)
On 28 April 2015 at 16:05, Lester Caine wrote: > > My point is that this is not a 'relation' problem, but rather that the > through_route tag was getting mixed up with traffic management tagging. > -- > Lester Caine - G8HFL > Is there need for a through route tag as well as the give way tag ? How is the whole concept affected by roundabouts (mini) - where all '3' arms are 'give way' What if the junction has more than one through route ? I'm thinking one arm in, one arm out (effectively dual carriageway) and one arm that's both in and out. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Next: Relation name (WAS: Removing redundant routing instructions)
On 28 April 2015 at 13:15, Colin Smale wrote: > It's about that which cannot be inferred from the geometry and the > current tagging. The road name and number come under "current tagging", but > sometimes they are not enough to know how to describe the next > instruction(s) to the user. We are in the business of dictating the exact > text that a navigator should speak, but we need to provide the basic > information on which these decisions can be made. The ambiguity of a > T-junction where the side-road has the same name and ref as one of the > "straight through" legs is evident. > > Direction of travel is a good point - the "through route" may not be > symmetrical. > > //colin > > Are we then back down to the simple issue of failing to tag the arm(s) with the 'give way' markings ? - We're not tagging them in all necessary cases (where the 'side road' is in line with one arm of the main road) - Routers are ignoring the tags. Is this the solution rather than creating a new solution ? > > Is a 'through route' a continuation of > >- Road number >- Road name >- The lack of crossing white paint into/out of a 'side road' , or >- Direction of travel > > I'm concerned about ambiguity arising out of potential different > interpretations. > > I'm sure we will be able to find examples of all combinations of all of > the above! > > > -- > Mike. > @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - > For all your info on Millom and South Copeland > via *the area's premier website - * > > *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, > property & pets* > > T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> > > ___ > talk mailing > listtalk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Next: Relation name (WAS: Removing redundant routing instructions)
On 28 April 2015 at 11:05, Colin Smale wrote:
> The existing through_route proposal may not be perfect but IMHO is a
> good base. It will need weeding through to keep it on-topic.
>
> This is how I see the scope of the discussion (just to get the ball
> rolling, feel free to shoot):
>
> 1) it has to be about junctions, not about individual ways (it's not about
> warning of sharp bends in a continuous road)
>
> 2) it has to be about aspects which cannot (reliably) be derived from the
> geometry alone (see point 1 above)
>
> 3) it must cover factors which affect the way the route to be driven is
> explained to the user ("keep left" vs. "take the exit", "follow the road to
> the right" vs. "turn right" etc etc)
>
> 4) it *may* cover factors which affect the way the router chooses its
> optimum route (e.g. time penalties for a "give way")
>
> //colin
>
>
>
Is a 'through route' a continuation of
- Road number
- Road name
- The lack of crossing white paint into/out of a 'side road' , or
- Direction of travel
I'm concerned about ambiguity arising out of potential different
interpretations.
I'm sure we will be able to find examples of all combinations of all of the
above!
--
Mike.
@millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *
*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*
T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Next: Relation name (WAS: Removing redundant routing instructions)
On 28 April 2015 at 08:21, Rob Nickerson wrote: > Please refer to my first email to the list (removing redundant routing > instructions). Do you know how to view the mailing list archive online? > > Rob > Yes thanks - I viewed archive stuff before posting - and in any case I've got the thread as e-mail ! I've looked at the case and your comments but feel the instruction is actually valid. There is a turn which is mentioned but likely the main purpose of the instruction is to let you know the change of road name. If you continue the route <http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=52.45303%2C-1.48900%3B52.45434%2C-1.49086#map=18/52.45369/-1.48991&layers=Q>, you get the same message on a straight road but obviously without the 'turn' part. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Removing redundant routing instructions
On 27 April 2015 at 13:52, Lester Caine wrote: > On 27/04/15 13:17, pmailkeey . wrote: > > > > Is the 'through route' and 'the same road' the same thing ? and does it > > mean that the road number stays the same or that you do not cross the > > white paint ? > > One of the routes I follow regularly is an old Roman cross road which is > straight, but crosses several more major roads with give way or stop at > every junction. It is the one B class road, but crosses white paint at > every junction. So there is not a general rule that can be applied. The > place 'through route' would be helpful is where a road bends at a > junction, and the main route route is not straight on. In the example > given, the road name changed and if there is no road reference to > override that then either you announce the turn, or you need something > else to switch it off? > I think the answer is that less ambiguous terminology is needed. 'Turn off' and 'stay on' are ambiguous. Also, instructions relying on something else aren't good, e.g. Follow 'A1'. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Fwd: OSM OSM (or OSMSM (or something else better?))
-- Forwarded message --
From: pmailkeey .
Date: 26 April 2015 at 17:21
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM OSM (or OSMSM (or something else better?))
To:
Cc: "diversity-t...@openstreetmap.org"
On 26 April 2015 at 11:12, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Nice ideas, but impossible to realise IMHO.
>
> try finding a good rendering for
>
> highway = residential
> maxweight = 7.5
> cycleway:left = track
> cycleway:right = lane
> sideway=both
> lanes = 5
> lanes:forward=2
> lanes:backward =3
> lanes:bus:forward=1
> turn:lanes:backward=left|through|right
> lit = yes
>
> and perhaps add some access rules to the mix as well.
> and some parking lanes
>
> I constantly have to toggle different styles in JOSM to keep a clear
> picture of what's going on.
>
> Or didn't you mean "everything" with "everything" :-)
>
> I think you are not the first one with this idea, but as usual "who is
> going to do it"
> I guess the team behind the map is welcoming extra help, but they also
> have other priorities than showing everything (that's what I've read
> somewhere)
>
> regards
>
> m
>
I did mean everything with everything - if that's what the person wants to
view. Opting out of details of choice should be permissible by having ALL
selectable by checkboxes in groups of checkboxes. If I'm going on a bike
ride...
Highways (group) yes
motorways no (not permitted for bikes)
railways (group) No
Buildings (group) No
bike shops yes
POIs (group) no
Now let me recompute your hypothetical highway above (I take 'sideway' as
sidewalk) and am working left to right with driving on the left (UK)
Highway = residential - rendered as a way by showing houses along the way
('obviously fake' ones if no real ones present. Also, maxspeed assumed as
30 (in uk)
lit=yes - rendered as having street lighting at intervals - no additional
rendering of the way required. IF streetlights not present, to auto add
them at regular intervals. If some streetlights present, to auto fill in
gaps
Lanes=10 (not 5) (i.e. 5 plus all the others):
PCBffbbbCP
Pedestrian|Cycle|Bus|forward|forward|backward|backward|backward|Cycle|Pedestrian
Note the pink colouring to show an issue with the road. Hovering over the
issue should reveal the 7.5T limit
I'd propose a colouring scheme based on red/amber/green for the quality of
the road - so the 7.5T limit puts this road toward the red - hence pink
colouring. The distance between the lines representing the lanes should be
dependent on the line width. The line width could indicate lane width (6',
9', 12' [2,3,4m] narrow lane, wide lane, very wide lane)
I'm not sure why anyone needs to know the street is a residential road -
who cares as long as I can drive along it ? I've chosen a triangle for a
building as triangular buildings are so rare. The text 'fake house' would
be totally optional !
It's time we were mapping roads as they are, not as they're 'meant to be'.
Then maybe those people in London will realise just how bad the roads are
around the regions. It's also time we had a pothole tag
I think the point is, rendering with all the detail is easily possible -
and in a way that's easily interpretable by the COPs.
[COPs: Clapham Omnibus Passengers.]
--
Mike.
@millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *
*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*
T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail>
--
Mike.
@millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *
*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*
T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Removing redundant routing instructions
On 26 April 2015 at 12:35, Rob Nickerson wrote: > Hi all, > > In the UK (particularly in rural areas) it is common to find a road that > turns 90 degrees to the left or right without a junction (that is the road > just continues and white lines mark it as such). Meanwhile another road may > come in from the other side with a 'give way' style junction. > > Although the road continues round the bend "SatNav" systems often think it > is a junction and tell you to "turn right/left in 100 yards/meters". > > I wonder whether it is possible to indicate this in OpenStreetMap so that > routing engines can omit this redundant instruction. > > == Example picture == > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6J5ZA1hu93bZmx2NTIxaHdfMUE/view?usp=sharing > > In the example Oban Road [1] turns to the right to become the northern > section of Sydnall Road. All main routers tell you to turn right. In my > opinion this is a redundant instruction (or could be better worded). I've > tried to add extra nodes so that the road naturally bends but the main > routing engines still tell you to "turn". > > == Question == > > Could we benefit from a new route relation? For example a > "route_continues" relation? Would others find this useful? > > Regards, > Rob > > [1] > http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=52.45362%2C-1.48598%3B52.45341%2C-1.48944#map=18/52.45332/-1.48771&layers=Q > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > I think the instruction is sometimes required and it is therefore better to have it in than not. I'm sure without it, drivers would miss the turn from Holborn Hill into Moor Road <https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=54.2119%2C-3.2791%3B54.2112%2C-3.2735#map=18/54.21158/-3.27626> despite what's left of the white lines indicating this is how the main route goes. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM OSM (or OSMSM (or something else better?))
Hi All, OpenStreetMap =*O* *S*tandard *M*ap MapForTheRenderer=yes | I think the standard map should define how osm data is displayed (not what is displayed)*1 DisplayEverything=yes | I think the standard map should display all data*2 DisplayOptions=yes | I think the standard map should offer the viewer the options to not display data types and features - such as labels / symbols / both / neither.*3 Preset standard maps*4 *1 The SM should allow zoom in to two adjacent buildings such that the text for [name] for both is clearly and fully displayed. It should define what areas mask other areas. It should not define what symbols are used though. *2 I think the SM should be capable of displaying the entire contents of OSM *3 The SM should offer users a means of not showing certain information - for preferences and clarity. *4 Preset standard map options should be available - such as cycling shows the cycling info but still using standard map symbols. It should also allow the user to add or remove displayed data - just like the 'normal' standard map does. This should not interfere with user groups designing their own maps and symbols driven by osm data but merely allow a standard map view of the user's selected data. Them's my thoughts ! -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
On 25 April 2015 at 18:22, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> Another possibility is somewhat radical:
>
>- Non-routing or "decorative" ways for sidepaths.
>
> Maybe splitting routing tags ("how it connects") from rendering ("how it
> looks") has merit.
>
>
I've always considered OSM to be two maps - a geographic and a routing.
While an underlying routing line performs the routing function, an area
(highway residential) covers the actual reality. The joint between the two
can be a bit rough though. Having recently discovered area highway footway
- I'm filling in pavements/sidewalks locally now a bit as well.
--
Mike.
@millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *
*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*
T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
First point is the definition of sidewalk as such they should never be mapped as separate routes but tags for such added to the highway. If there is no direct access from the footway to the carriageway, it is not a sidewalk. Cartinus, cycleway=sidewalk is understandable by me as being a shared use cycleway with the pedestrians along the side of the carriageway - and should be dealt with the addition of tags to the highway and not by adding a new feature. On 25 April 2015 at 15:31, Cartinus wrote: > Hello, > > I have no problem with most of it, but can you please come up with > something else in stead of cycleway=sidewalk. This sounds like the cyclists > have to cycle on the part of the road reserved for pedestrians or if the > cycleway itself has a sidewalk. > > I don't know if cycleway=sidepath is proper English, but at least it fits > with the tagging scheme of bicycle=use_sidepath. > > cycleway=sidewalk used only 231 times: > <http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=sidewalk> > > (use_)sidepath used many more times: > <http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=sidepath#values> > > --- > m.v.g., > Cartinus > > > On 25-04-15 11:29, Roland Olbricht wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but >> instead only instructions like "look for the line on the map". >> To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately >> mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name. >> >> The suggestion had been widely discussed with the German community. >> Finally we found the following approach: >> >> Keep separation rules as already established: >> >> A sidewalk (or bike lane) shall be mapped as a separate way only if a >> pedestrian cannot cross the car lanes at any point, i.e. there are >> fences or grass strip between footway and the car lanes. >> >> Change the tagging suggestion for separated sidewalks and bike lanes: >> - Sidewalks should carry "highway=footway" + "footway=sidewalk" + >> "name=Name of the Street" (already in widespread use) >> - Bike lanes should carry "highway=cycleway" + "cycleway=sidewalk" + >> "name=Name of the Street" (similar problem) >> >> Currently, both the suggestion of "footway=sidewalk" (similar for >> cycling) and copying the name is not suggested consistenly in the wiki. >> Are there any objections to clean-up the wiki with that regard? >> >> Side effects on other tools are almost uniformly positive: >> - Having the name multiple times on the various chunks of a street is a >> standard OSM policy. >> - Renderers could handle abundant name tags by ignoring names on ways >> tagged with "footway/cycleway=sidewalk" >> - Routing engines actually can improve by having the name of the road >> - Quality assurance tools would also profit by having more hints for >> checking >> >> Best regards, >> >> Roland >> > > > _______ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging POI's - Nodes vs. areas
On 21 April 2015 at 16:21, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > If you use a relation shouldn't it be a site relation instead of a > multipolygon? > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:24 PM Bryan Housel > wrote: > >> `amenity=hospital` is what makes it a proper hospital. You can create a >> node where the hospital is, or an area around the property of the >> hospital. Drawing either a node or an area is ok, but drawing areas is >> preferred if you have time for it. >> >> If the hospital is just one building, you can add `building=yes` or >> `building=hospital` to the amenity. If the hospital is a campus of >> several buildings, you can draw each building as well. `building=*` >> (anything) should make it render like a building/structure. The actual >> value of the building tag is not really used often (it’s considered a >> description of what the building looks like, not what it is), so most >> buildings are just tagged as `building=yes` unless they are really special >> somehow. >> >> Thanks, Bryan >> >> No area should be plotted as a point. That's just one of OSM's nightmarish disasters. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing over areas
On 21 April 2015 at 15:52, Svavar Kjarrval wrote: > I wonder if similar adjustments could be made for streets with a low > speed limit, especially where there are no pedestrian crossings nearby > (be it imperfect data or there aren't any). Seems crazy to suggest that > pedestrians and cyclers get a routing suggestion to go around to the end > of the road and back to the other side instead of crossing the road *in > the cases where a sane person would do exactly that*. Of course, it > might need some extra tags to prevent suggestions like that where such > behaviour is prohibited. > > - Svavar Kjarrval > > On 20/04/15 21:25, Rob Nickerson wrote: > > Interesting article for any routing experts: > > > > http://anitagraser.com/2015/04/17/routing-in-polygon-layers-yes-we-can/ > > > > Rob > > > > If there's a direct route across the square, it should be on the route map as a route - then it'd be correctly included in routing software solutions. Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] iD Security
On 21 April 2015 at 15:58, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > Seeing the ticket, I think that the behavior here is what I'd expect > it to be, and what I think many people would expect as well. > > It doesn't seem like this is related to iD ignoring cookies, but about > how you were logged into an account and authorized iD to edit on > behalf of one of them. I'm not sure that iD could really be doing > anything radically different. > > This is no different than other sites which use cross site > authentication systems, ie Google, Facebook, etc. > > As for it being a security issue- if you logged out of osm.org before > authenticating yourself from iD, then yes, I see a potential serious > problem, but that's not what I see reported here. > > - Serge > > > So if I'm logged in to osm as FRED you think it's ok for iD to allow me to use DERF's account - as that is what happened. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] iD Security
Hi All, I've been using iD for a bit now to make map edits. I've been reporting back issues with iD to Bryan including a recent discovery that when you log out of iD, as it doesn't clear local cookies someone else can log in as you in your absence. Bryan isn't interested in remedying this issue so I wondered what other users felt about it. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
