Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
[sorry, just noticed this one] Lennard wrote: the editor can hide all nodes with a certain tag Potlatch doesn't do it, but it seems it's a feature just waiting for a developer. Potlatch can do it fairly trivially; just give it a MapCSS stylesheet that doesn't render said tag. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Airspace-Co-tp6448447p6466017.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
Hi, On 06/08/11 07:37, Russ Nelson wrote: It should go on http://openairspace.org, which would be edited using JOSM, with mapnik tiles as a background layer. The only real disadvantage is that there would be no database-level connection between the end of the runway and the beginning of the airspace. I have yet to see a section of airspace that coincides, in any form, with an end of a runway! That's the nice thing about airspace. It tends to be defined without regard to features on the ground - the most you'll get is a radius of x around the nuclear power plant or so. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
Hi, we have this recurring topic in various parts of OSM - airspace mapping. I'm strictly against it. (For those not familiar with airspace, here's an example of a VFR airspace map: http://www.rc-network.de/magazin/artikel_02/art_02-0001/ICAO-Karte-Ausschnitt-Bild2.jpg) My arguments against airspace mapping are: 1. Imports of un-observable things that are defined by other people should be kept to an absolute minimum in OSM. Airspace definitions change regularly and the only way to have them in OSM is to import them again and again. 2. Airspace (since it only rarely has any connection to features on the ground) is perfectly suited for an overlay; very little would be gained by having it in OSM rather than in a parallel system maintained by a flying enthusiast. 3. For the same reason, airspace boundaries cut right across the country, through cities, and so on, and provide an unnecessary distraction to mappers. 4. 99% of Airspace is of almost no significance to non-pilots. Arguments like one would like to know if the house one intends to buy is within some kind of airspace are fantasy. 5. Pilots would not use a crowdsourced airspace map; they are legally required to have a current official map anyway when they fly somewhere. It seems to me that people who would like to have airspace in OSM are mostly flight simulator aficionados, and while I find that an interesting pastime, one has to be honest about it: Flight simulators are computer games. 6. The usual form in which airspace is published is on printed, copyrighted maps; it is difficult, if not impossible, to actually get your hands on airspace descriptions that are official and not copyright encumbered. There was limited discussion here recently: http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/3684/mapping-for-aviation although this question was a little broader, concerning not only airspace but also other aviation-related items such as beacons. My position in that discussion was: If a feature is observable on the ground and doubles as an aviation reporting point - no problem, tag it. But if something is defined just by its coordinates or a mark on an airspace map - don't. The beast rears its head in this proposed feature from 2009 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Airspace and in its German counterpart, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Luftraum and on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Aeroways the topic is briefly referenced. Also there was discussion about aviation tracks on help.osm last year: http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/297/does-it-make-sense-to-upload-aviation-tracks-to-osm There are currently 21 airspace objects in OSM. I would like to end this discussion once and for all, or at least for the near future, and create a wiki page named Aviation, to which I would link from the Aeroways page and from Airspace, and I would also close the Proposed Feature with a link to that page. On the Aviation page, I would write up the reasons against airspace mapping, basically as given above and on the mapping-for-aviation help page, concluding that mapping for aviation is discouraged On that page I would also suggest that someone who is reasonably interested should set up a rails port instance of their own, complete with a rendering chain to generate half-transparent tiles that can be overlaid over a standard map. And I would even offer them my help in doing that. But before I do all that, I would like to hear from the community at large - you - whether you share my view. Do you agree that airspace should be elsewhere but not in OSM? Or do you think that airspace should have a place in OSM after all? Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
On 07/06/11 08:41, Frederik Ramm wrote: But before I do all that, I would like to hear from the community at large - you - whether you share my view. Do you agree that airspace should be elsewhere but not in OSM? +100 Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
Tom Hughes wrote: But before I do all that, I would like to hear from the community at large - you - whether you share my view. Do you agree that airspace should be elsewhere but not in OSM? +100 Perfect example of something that should be possible to implement as a completely separate database, but which can overlay any other OSM data? -- 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// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
Frederik, On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, we have this recurring topic in various parts of OSM - airspace mapping. I'm strictly against it. [...] But before I do all that, I would like to hear from the community at large - you - whether you share my view. Do you agree that airspace should be elsewhere but not in OSM? Or do you think that airspace should have a place in OSM after all? I do, but what more can you do than dissuade people from doing it and laying down your arguments? (And have a secret 'feature' in JOSM that sends all airspace-related edits to /dev/null of course :) -- martijn van exel schaaltreinen.nl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:41:29AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: But before I do all that, I would like to hear from the community at large - you - whether you share my view. Do you agree that airspace should be elsewhere but not in OSM? Or do you think that airspace should have a place in OSM after all? I agree to strongly discourage airspace tagging. Its nice that OSM has this open tagging structure and all. But at some point we have to draw the line, otherwise OSM will devolve into a total mess that nobody can understand and handle any more. I would like OSM to be open do all these things, but with the current data structure and tools we simply have to limit ourselves. I'd love to have a more powerful data structure in OSM with some kind of layering and better tools to handle the amount of data. But currently we don't have that and I don't see it appearing anytime soon. So I think its better to voluntarily limit OSM a little bit. I don't know where the line is, between what we, as a community want, and what we don't want. We will have to discuss that again and again. But I am pretty sure that airspaces are very far on the other side of that line. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
On 2011-06-07 09:41, Frederik Ramm wrote: ... Do you agree that airspace should be elsewhere but not in OSM? I fully agree with all of your points. Bye, Andreas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
On 07/06/11 11:15, Ed Avis wrote: I think the important question is whether mapping airspace causes any harm to people who don't care about airspace. I believe Frederik covered that when he mentioned the problems of having lots of objects criss-crossing areas that people are trying to work on and how the pollution of the airspace things make that hard. If not, best to let the people who are interested get on with it, however misguided they may be. That way lies madness - there are already far too many people that think we're some kind of storehouse for any data that happens to have coordinates attached, rather than a database of map data. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:15:59 + (UTC), Ed Avis wrote: I think the important question is whether mapping airspace causes any harm to people who don't care about airspace. If not, best to let the people who are interested get on with it, however misguided they may be. IMHO this is already the case. The import of 3dshapes in the Netherlands, useful as it is, does cause a lot of clutter if you only want to edit roads. In the same way airspace information will clutter the editor and will be annoying if you're not editing that. If on top of that, airspace information is not something you want in the map (because it apparently is not useful for people using such data), then it causes harm. Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
Tom Hughes tom at compton.nu writes: I think the important question is whether mapping airspace causes any harm to people who don't care about airspace. I believe Frederik covered that when he mentioned the problems of having lots of objects criss-crossing areas that people are trying to work on and how the pollution of the airspace things make that hard. That is a good point. I experience the same thing with underground railways and other miscellany. The proliferation of extra nodes and ways makes editing difficult. However, I would suggest that this is not a particularly hard problem to solve; the editor can hide all nodes with a certain tag or put them in a different layer. Currently, available editors don't do that. The question is whether to forbid tagging airspace (or water pipes, or contour lines, or whatever) for the time being until editor support is available for keeping the work separate - or whether to let it be for now and wait for editors to catch up in due course. Telling other people to stop mapping something which they are interested in needs a very good reason and a high burden of proof. And while airspace does seem a bit pointless to you and me, no doubt the people mapping it have good reasons. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
On 07/06/11 11:46, Ed Avis wrote: However, I would suggest that this is not a particularly hard problem to solve; the editor can hide all nodes with a certain tag or put them in a different layer. Currently, available editors don't do that. The question is whether to forbid tagging airspace (or water pipes, or contour lines, or whatever) for the time being until editor support is available for keeping the work separate - or whether to let it be for now and wait for editors to catch up in due course. Why only those two options? Why not just decide that we're not interested in airspace, or water pipes, or contour lines? Contour lines certainly are, like airspace, something that we're always said we don't think is appropriate. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
However, I would suggest that this is not a particularly hard problem to solve; the editor can hide all nodes with a certain tag or put them in a different layer. Currently, available editors don't do that. JOSM does that. Particularly well, too. Have a look at the Filter stuff. Can't speak at all about Merkaartor. Potlatch doesn't do it, but it seems it's a feature just waiting for a developer. -- Lennard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
On 6/7/2011 7:04 AM, Lennard wrote: However, I would suggest that this is not a particularly hard problem to solve; the editor can hide all nodes with a certain tag or put them in a different layer. Currently, available editors don't do that. JOSM does that. Particularly well, too. Have a look at the Filter stuff. I've not done much with JOSM filters, even when working with messy landuse or administrative boundaries. This is because they often share nodes with a road (or whatever) that I need to edit. Hiding the underlying object can easily result in a self-crossing polygon. So actually, that's an argument for having such things to a separate data space where the data consumer can mash them up. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: we have this recurring topic in various parts of OSM - airspace mapping. I'm strictly against it. I'm not 100% for it, and my feeling when reading this mail was that you are too categorically against this type of mapping. I will first comment on you action plan that you hid on the bottom: I would like to end this discussion once and for all, or at least for the near future, and create a wiki page named Aviation, to which I would link from the Aeroways page and from Airspace, and I would also close the Proposed Feature with a link to that page. Yes, but can I add docs about it on Key:airpace=* On the Aviation page, I would write up the reasons against airspace mapping, basically as given above and on the mapping-for-aviation help page, concluding that mapping for aviation is discouraged Yes, but I think the most important question is about the copyright and the discouragement of too large and unhandleable imports. (neither which seems to be a problem atm.) On that page I would also suggest that someone who is reasonably interested should set up a rails port instance of their own, complete with a rendering chain to generate half-transparent tiles that can be overlaid over a standard map. And I would even offer them my help in doing that. Considering how vital the OSM sysadmin team is I'm sure that is going to be a bit of a problem.. ;-) If it is a standard procedure that the OSM-F will host other free geographic data on their servers then sure this is a good idea. Here is what I think: First of all, years ago I was dead set against cluttering OSM data[1], but things change. Are you sure you guys are argumenting for OSM instead of just wanting to keep your data unecessarily clean, considering that Openstreetmap strives to provide free geographic data. The only valid arguments against would be as someone said, I think it ws JRA, the *import* of Corine Landcoverage and other huge easily accesible datasets into Openstreetmap database is troublesome. 1. Imports of un-observable things that are defined by other people should be kept to an absolute minimum in OSM. [paraphrase] But let say 0.1% of them are observable can I map that? Adding flight paths for my local airport most certainly would be a usefull thing to have, since it really is very noticeable that planes fly by every ~15min every morning and evening. That seems to be a very valid type of free geographic data. And I thought the idea about crowdsourcing was good enough. 2. Airspace data should be in a parallel system maintained by a flying enthusiast.[paraphrase] To me that just seems like a very subtle way to blow people off, 3. Airspace boundaries cut right across the country, and clutters [paraphrase] Clutter in the database is also very subjective, there are several things that clutter the DB.. e.g. * 3dShapes * bus routes * turn restriction * landuse * buildings * abutters=residential * boundaries But since Openstreetmap strives to provide free geographic data, not specifically a map, they are included. Hence it is already a storehouse for stuff with coordinated that change a lot by external parties.. It really is a pain to edit OSM when all these cluttering features are there on the map. I don't see a problem with adding another layer of clutter just because you guys are used to it doesn't mean it's easy. 4. 99% of Airspace is of almost no significance to non-pilots. [paraphrase] But then that 1% (or 0.1%)is what is causing the concern, it's that 0.1% that actually is mappable. 5. Pilots would not use a crowdsourced airspace map;[paraphrase] Bad argument, same goes for many things in OSM. 6. airspace is published is on printed, copyrighted maps [paraphrase] Big problem. [1] I thought adding abutters=residential was cluttering the data ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: 4. 99% of Airspace is of almost no significance to non-pilots. Arguments like one would like to know if the house one intends to buy is within some kind of airspace are fantasy. I agree with all the rest. I would say here that it might be ok to have *some* limited airspace (or more specifically, flight path) objects that have broader relevance. It is not unknown, to mark flight paths near airports on street maps (street-directory.com.au does this - sorry direct links don't seem to work well). The best long term solution to this, and other problems, would be to have better facilities for creating and integrating overlays. Just like Wikipedia solved some of its scoping problems by telling people to stick it all on Wikia, it would be easier if we had another solution: don't put airspaces in OSM, put it in storage solution and then overlay it with overlay solution. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
On 7 June 2011 13:58, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: The best long term solution to this, and other problems, would be to have better facilities for creating and integrating overlays. Just like Wikipedia solved some of its scoping problems by telling people to stick it all on Wikia, it would be easier if we had another solution: don't put airspaces in OSM, put it in storage solution and then overlay it with overlay solution. Or maybe put it in OSM airspace db or historic db. I can imagine a set of OSM api servers for different purposes all under the name of OSM. You could then have the editor's Download dialog have a dropdown list right there instead of hidden inside the Preferences dialog, with an (editable) list like the imagery sources list. Would it be confusing? I don't think so, while it could make OSM reacher and useful in more specific mapping projects. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
2011/6/7 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: Perfect example of something that should be possible to implement as a completely separate database, but which can overlay any other OSM data? +1 cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
Tom Hughes writes: On 07/06/11 08:41, Frederik Ramm wrote: But before I do all that, I would like to hear from the community at large - you - whether you share my view. Do you agree that airspace should be elsewhere but not in OSM? +100 It should go on http://openairspace.org, which would be edited using JOSM, with mapnik tiles as a background layer. The only real disadvantage is that there would be no database-level connection between the end of the runway and the beginning of the airspace. I wonder ... what about tagging the node at the end of the runway in OSM with a pointer to the node number on OAS.org? And vice-versa. It would be straightforward to do a merge of the two databases if/when you needed to treat them as one. Or you could just follow them as if they were a symlink. You could do the same thing with subway lines and pipelines. But there I go, reinventing layers. Maybe we finally need them? -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
