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

[Lester Caine]

Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

I don't think we really need layers, but could use editors that are
semantically aware of things like boundaries,
and put them in the background until needed.

As far as I see, if we just prevent certain ways or nodes to share nodes
with others, that is as good as a layer. So if we say "boundary=* can only
share nodes with each other", then that is a layer. I think those rules are
better then inventing some arbitrary fixed layers.

So many boundaries *are* the road.

I think we're better off finding a way to attach a landuse to a road edge
without necessarily sharing nodes.
And for that matter declaring certain boundary edges are co-incident, without
necessarily sharing nodes.


This is a growing 'requirement' ... parallel ways rather than simply 'shared 
nodes' ... so one can move the boundary independant of the 'road'. Just had a 
simple problem where I needed to tidy 'landuse' but it was all interleaved with 
other elements which certainly did not want to move :(


--
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

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

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

>  I don't think we really need layers, but could use editors that are
>> semantically aware of things like boundaries,
>> and put them in the background until needed.
>>
> As far as I see, if we just prevent certain ways or nodes to share nodes
> with others, that is as good as a layer. So if we say "boundary=* can only
> share nodes with each other", then that is a layer. I think those rules are
> better then inventing some arbitrary fixed layers.
>

So many boundaries *are* the road.

I think we're better off finding a way to attach a landuse to a road edge
without necessarily sharing nodes.
And for that matter declaring certain boundary edges are co-incident,
without necessarily sharing nodes.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Nick Whitelegg]

I guess I see admin boundaries as something typically shown on rendered maps so 
it makes sense having them in there to me.

To be honest I don't have a particularly strong view about time zones per se, 
but just expressing caution at getting into a theoretical situation where the 
database is so cluttered with all manner of stuff that those of us that just 
want to work with map data have a harder time extracting the data we want.

Nick

-Colin Smale  wrote: -
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
From: Colin Smale 
Date: 21/10/2013 10:25AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Timezones (was:  Deleting data)

  Nick, this can be done for admin boundaries as well. Would you advocate 
removing them from OSM as well? The change to the size of the planet file if 
timezones are included is absolutely microscopic in the big scheme of things. 
There are clearly many shades of grey. It's a question of where to draw the 
line (as it were). Can this be expressed objectively?
 It feels rather weird that some people are now advocating keeping certain 
things out of OSM. The traditional consensus is that anyone can put anything in 
OSM and that any attempt to limit people's creativity is met with much 
scepticism. In the continuum between the puritans and the pragmatists there's 
plenty of room for everyone.
 I for one think that data in OSM should be above all usable. Whether to have 
timezones in OSM is analogous to database normalisation. If taken to extremes, 
you can win a theoretical point while at the same time causing significant 
performance problems and extra complexity for the users of the data.
 Colin
 
  On 2013-10-21 10:55, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
 
I'd go the other way and abolish Winter Time. ;-)
No DST = dark summer evenings. Not nice!

Going on topic, not sure if something like time zones belongs in OSM. Would it 
not be better to use a more specialised web service to look up time zones for a 
given lat/lon? I'd prefer to minimise overloading OSM with things which are not 
"on the ground" data. For one thing, it means bigger planet files and more 
demands on software to extract the data you want.

Nick

-moltonel 3x Combo  wrote: - 
 

 Actually, I always wondered why timezones were kept out of OSM. I know DST 
complicates tagging (it'll be the first thing I abolish when I become World 
Dictator), ...
 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
   
 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
   
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Clifford Snow]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> It really depends on the legal situation, sometimes sharing nodes is the
> right thing to do (if the boundary is defined as being the river for
> instance), sometimes it is to be seen distinctly (when the boundary is
> defined by independent coordinates). In other cases it is even worse as
> there are several "official" versions for the same boundary ;-) (in the
> case of disputed boundaries, there are more cases than you might think).


Just because the boundary is defined being the road, doesn't mean the nodes
should be shared. The boundary may be aligned with a river or road, but not
necessarily connected. Connecting a boundary or landuse to a road or river
serves no useful purpose other than making it easy to add. But difficult to
change later. I would be very happy if the editor complained if a mapper
tried to connect roads/rivers and boundaries and landuse areas.

As was pointed out, borders may originally be defined as a river or road,
but once defined the river and road can easily change while the border
remains the same. For example here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"In March 1876, the Mississippi suddenly changed course near the settlement
of Reverie, Tennessee ,
leaving a small part of Tipton County,
Tennessee,
attached to Arkansas  and separated
from the rest of Tennessee  by the
new river channel. Since this event was an
avulsion,
rather than the effect of incremental erosion and deposition, the state
line remains located in the old
channel.[24]
"

When boundaries are tied to roads or rivers, a mapper could move both even
though only the road or river changed.


-- 
Clifford

OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/22 Janko Mihelić 

> I don't think we really need layers, but could use editors that are
>> semantically aware of things like boundaries,
>> and put them in the background until needed.
>>
>>
> As far as I see, if we just prevent certain ways or nodes to share nodes
> with others, that is as good as a layer. So if we say "boundary=* can only
> share nodes with each other", then that is a layer. I think those rules are
> better then inventing some arbitrary fixed layers.
>


It really depends on the legal situation, sometimes sharing nodes is the
right thing to do (if the boundary is defined as being the river for
instance), sometimes it is to be seen distinctly (when the boundary is
defined by independent coordinates). In other cases it is even worse as
there are several "official" versions for the same boundary ;-) (in the
case of disputed boundaries, there are more cases than you might think).

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

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

[Pieren]

On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:

> I think it might be easier to define a new boundary/multipolygon relation
> per time zone, containing all the boundary ways, in inner and outer roles as
> usual.


Or create a relation collecting all boundaries/multipolygons relations
(and only relations) being in the same timezone.

Pieren

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

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

[Lester Caine]

Janko Mihelić wrote:

I don't think we really need layers, but could use editors that are
semantically aware of things like boundaries,
and put them in the background until needed.

As far as I see, if we just prevent certain ways or nodes to share nodes with
others, that is as good as a layer. So if we say "boundary=* can only share
nodes with each other", then that is a layer. I think those rules are better
then inventing some arbitrary fixed layers.


I think that this is part of the 'problem'
Sharing nodes was thought to be a good idea, but that only works well when all 
of the data is tightly related. Once one introduces 'loosly' related data, then 
there is a need for separating nodes depending on their 'layer'.


I feel we are getting to the point where we need to think about 'sharing' ways 
rather than jst sharing nodes. Returning to the example of field boundaries, an 
existing 'way' that forms the edge between two other areas only needs to exist 
once, so drawing the next field can be done using the existing boundaries, and 
many areas simply become relations picking up a list of ways. Moving to the 
higher levels, boundaries of the smaller elements get used in a lest of ways 
bounding the bigger one. These shared ways would have their own set of nodes 
which may relate to underlying ways ... rivers for example ... but would not 
neceserally be the same way. Information would be managed in 'layers' but these 
may well be tagged by time rather than 'level' and just allow an easier way to 
filter what is being used?


Currently what we are doing with areas when used for objects like land use IS 
wrong?

--
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

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

[Janko Mihelić]

2013/10/22 Bryce Nesbitt 

> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Johan C  wrote:
>
>> > Essentially what we need is the concept of layers.
>>
>
> I don't think we really need layers, but could use editors that are
> semantically aware of things like boundaries,
> and put them in the background until needed.
>
>
As far as I see, if we just prevent certain ways or nodes to share nodes
with others, that is as good as a layer. So if we say "boundary=* can only
share nodes with each other", then that is a layer. I think those rules are
better then inventing some arbitrary fixed layers.


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

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

[Marc Gemis]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Johan C  wrote:
>
>> > Essentially what we need is the concept of layers.
>>
>
> I don't think we really need layers, but could use editors that are
> semantically aware of things like boundaries,
> and put them in the background until needed.
>
>
>
JOSM can do this (this was probably mentioned before).
so just 2 more editors to go :-)

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

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

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Johan C  wrote:

> > Essentially what we need is the concept of layers.
>

I don't think we really need layers, but could use editors that are
semantically aware of things like boundaries,
and put them in the background until needed.

---

Some boundaries effectively follow an other mapped feature,even if the true
boundary varies.  A nature reserve on one side of a
road, or one side of a winding river, may fall into this category.  The
conventional boundary is shared.  The actual legal
boundary must be established by survey and is less relevant to OSM.   If we
can make sharing boundaries less awkward to edit,
I think we'd unlock a lot of power in modelling the world as it really is
used.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 21/ott/2013 um 17:09 schrieb Clifford Snow :
> 
> Introducing layers, although difficult to implement, would certainly simplify 
> editing. Moving admin boundaries and land use polygons to a layer(s) would 
> simplify basic editing. No more connecting roads to boundaries and land use 
> edges.


while landuse really won't end in the middle of a road in low scales, 
boundaries might be defined by rivers or roads, so disconnecting them would be 
wrong.

Still you can simulate layers with the filter function, but you should be 
careful when using them.

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

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

[Johan C]

> Essentially what we need is the concept of layers.

Layers do have disadvantages, how to prevent data being mapped in the wrong
layer for instance. I however do see the point that mappers, especially
newbies, break administrative boundaries. If that happens a lot, it might
be easier to 'grey them out' in any editor by default, making sure that a
mapper has to use a check box or so to change these boundaries.


2013/10/21 Markus Lindholm 

> On 21 October 2013 16:41, Toby Murray  wrote:
> > Having edited over a thousand of them, I would not be sad to see admin
> > boundaries removed from the general OSM database. I think Russ is on to
> > something with his "ClosedStreetMap" concept although that is some
> terrible
> > branding so we need another name :) But at the end of the day, we are
> > terrible at maintaining such boundaries and very good at breaking them in
> > OSM, mostly because they are usually hard/impossible to spot on the
> ground
> > and verify. So people see random lines going through the area they are
> > trying to map and either don't pay attention when they touch them or just
> > delete them outright. Essentially what we need is the concept of layers.
> If
> > all the admin/timezone boundaries were in their own "layer" and didn't
> > interact with roads, rivers, etc in OSM then they would be much easier to
> > keep up to date from external sources.
> >
> > Yes, OSM *can* contain just about anything. But if we are terrible at it
> and
> > there are other datasets available that aren't terrible then why should
> we
> > try to poorly duplicate others efforts?
>
> I think you're overlooking a key strength with the osm database, that
> all the map features are integrated, e.g. if a kiosk is mapped to be
> three meters to the left of the entrance to the building, and that is
> also the ground truth, then you have that fact of their interrelation.
> With different datasets from different sources, you lose it.
>
> /Markus
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Markus Lindholm]

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

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

/Markus

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

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

[Toby Murray]

Yes, in that small fraction of cases there would be duplication of
positional data. But in some cases where you think this is the case, it
might actually not be. My county border was defined by a river. Now part of
the river is a reservoir and the other part has shifted over time and
through floods. The border was not moved with these changes and still
follows the original course of the river even though there is no way to see
this path on the ground at this point. So is the border really defined by
the river? Or was it defined by the river at a certain point in time which
may or may not be the same as it is now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting an edit to nuke all admin boundaries
tomorrow. They are a part of the core OSM database and will likely continue
to be for some time. I'm just pointing out that OSM is not good at them and
that there might be a better way to handle such things. Perhaps this
approach could be tried with time zone data since we don't already have a
large body of them in the database.

Toby


On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> It is not always possible to separate admin boundaries from real world
> features. Rivers, roads or even hedges often define a boundary.
>
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> --
>
>
>
> Sent from my Nokia N9
>
>
>
> On 21/10/2013 15:41 Toby Murray wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>>  Back on topic: how do you phrase an objective rule, or at least
>> well-worded guidelines, which allow admin boundaries but disallow time zone
>> boundaries? I wonder where the UK ceremonial counties, fire department
>> areas, national parks etc will end up. My point is, gut feelings aside,
>> that it is not reasonable to single out TZ boundaries for this deprecation.
>>
>>
>> Having edited over a thousand of them, I would not be sad to see admin
> boundaries removed from the general OSM database. I think Russ is on to
> something with his "ClosedStreetMap" concept although that is some terrible
> branding so we need another name :) But at the end of the day, we are
> terrible at maintaining such boundaries and very good at breaking them in
> OSM, mostly because they are usually hard/impossible to spot on the ground
> and verify. So people see random lines going through the area they are
> trying to map and either don't pay attention when they touch them or just
> delete them outright. Essentially what we need is the concept of layers. If
> all the admin/timezone boundaries were in their own "layer" and didn't
> interact with roads, rivers, etc in OSM then they would be much easier to
> keep up to date from external sources.
>
> Yes, OSM *can* contain just about anything. But if we are terrible at it
> and there are other datasets available that aren't terrible then why should
> we try to poorly duplicate others efforts?
>
> Some of my opinion may be due to some problems with the way they were
> imported here in the US but I suspect it isn't all that different in most
> other places.
>
> Toby
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Clifford Snow]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Toby Murray  wrote:

> Having edited over a thousand of them, I would not be sad to see admin
> boundaries removed from the general OSM database. I think Russ is on to
> something with his "ClosedStreetMap" concept although that is some terrible
> branding so we need another name :) But at the end of the day, we are
> terrible at maintaining such boundaries and very good at breaking them in
> OSM, mostly because they are usually hard/impossible to spot on the ground
> and verify. So people see random lines going through the area they are
> trying to map and either don't pay attention when they touch them or just
> delete them outright. Essentially what we need is the concept of layers. If
> all the admin/timezone boundaries were in their own "layer" and didn't
> interact with roads, rivers, etc in OSM then they would be much easier to
> keep up to date from external sources.


Introducing layers, although difficult to implement, would certainly
simplify editing. Moving admin boundaries and land use polygons to a
layer(s) would simplify basic editing. No more connecting roads to
boundaries and land use edges. Layers could even introduce the concept of
limiting permissions to edit.


-- 
Clifford

OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Philip Barnes]

It is not always possible to separate admin boundaries from real world 
features. Rivers, roads or even hedges often define a boundary.

Phil (trigpoint)
--

Sent from my Nokia N9



On 21/10/2013 15:41 Toby Murray wrote:

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Colin Smale  wrote:
Back on topic: how do you phrase an objective rule, or at least well-worded 
guidelines, which allow admin boundaries but disallow time zone boundaries? I 
wonder where the UK ceremonial counties, fire department areas, national parks 
etc will end up. My point is, gut feelings aside, that it is not reasonable to 
single out TZ boundaries for this deprecation.


Having edited over a thousand of them, I would not be sad to see admin 
boundaries removed from the general OSM database. I think Russ is on to 
something with his "ClosedStreetMap" concept although that is some terrible 
branding so we need another name :) But at the end of the day, we are terrible 
at maintaining such boundaries and very good at breaking them in OSM, mostly 
because they are usually hard/impossible to spot on the ground and verify. So 
people see random lines going through the area they are trying to map and 
either don't pay attention when they touch them or just delete them outright. 
Essentially what we need is the concept of layers. If all the admin/timezone 
boundaries were in their own "layer" and didn't interact with roads, rivers, 
etc in OSM then they would be much easier to keep up to date from external 
sources.


Yes, OSM *can* contain just about anything. But if we are terrible at it and 
there are other datasets available that aren't terrible then why should we try 
to poorly duplicate others efforts?


Some of my opinion may be due to some problems with the way they were imported 
here in the US but I suspect it isn't all that different in most other places.


Toby

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

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

[Toby Murray]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
> Back on topic: how do you phrase an objective rule, or at least
> well-worded guidelines, which allow admin boundaries but disallow time zone
> boundaries? I wonder where the UK ceremonial counties, fire department
> areas, national parks etc will end up. My point is, gut feelings aside,
> that it is not reasonable to single out TZ boundaries for this deprecation.
>
>
> Having edited over a thousand of them, I would not be sad to see admin
boundaries removed from the general OSM database. I think Russ is on to
something with his "ClosedStreetMap" concept although that is some terrible
branding so we need another name :) But at the end of the day, we are
terrible at maintaining such boundaries and very good at breaking them in
OSM, mostly because they are usually hard/impossible to spot on the ground
and verify. So people see random lines going through the area they are
trying to map and either don't pay attention when they touch them or just
delete them outright. Essentially what we need is the concept of layers. If
all the admin/timezone boundaries were in their own "layer" and didn't
interact with roads, rivers, etc in OSM then they would be much easier to
keep up to date from external sources.

Yes, OSM *can* contain just about anything. But if we are terrible at it
and there are other datasets available that aren't terrible then why should
we try to poorly duplicate others efforts?

Some of my opinion may be due to some problems with the way they were
imported here in the US but I suspect it isn't all that different in most
other places.

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

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

[Jukka Rahkonen]

> I'd go the other way and abolish Winter Time. ;-)
> No DST = dark summer evenings. Not nice!

> Going on topic, not sure if something like time zones
> belongs in OSM. Would it not be better to use a more 
> specialised web service to look up time zones for a 
> given lat/lon? I'd prefer to minimise overloading 
> OSM with things which are not "on the ground" data. 
> For one thing, it means bigger planet files and more 
> demands on software to extract the data you want.

A handful of polygons is no trouble to handle in the GIS world but our
self-made problem is that we must convert nice simple polygons into heavy
relations. Perhaps area primitives will come true one day and give some help
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Areas.

-Jukka Rahkonen-

> Nick


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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/21 Pieren 

> It was only a consensus in the group of contributors thinking that
> (which is then easy to reach a consensus).
> This remembers me similars discussions about:
> - hi-res aerial imagery coverage by huge polygons (Yahoo!)
>


agree that this is not really a datum suitable (from a puristic view point)
for osm, but on the other hand there are mappers in certain areas with
worse coverage than your average European Country, where they misuse the
osm db for this kind of information (and it makes it easy for them to
maintain this data together) and then improve the map with stuff we all
want to have (based on these boundaries their workflow is much easier).
Yes, you could say that there could be a different workflow suitable
without putting these polygons into our db, but maybe they don't have to
capacities, and surely the overhead of these few and simple polygons is
very low, so I tend to suggest to let them do it.



> - parcels
>


IMHO there is really no good reason not to put parcel data, as many of our
other data actually depends on them (landuse and addresses), besides that
we're probably not prepared currently because of the sheer quantity.


- underground facilities (sewer, parkings, phone cables)
>


are a little bit difficult (verificability unless there are public
datasets) probably also maintenance (as this is something that very few
people map and hence verify / correct).



> - geologic stuff (mountain strings, stratifications)
>


geologic stuff (stratifications) doesn't belong to OSM IMHO (data not
surveyable/verificable by the crowd,  resolution not adequate to the rest
of our data).
By "mountain string", are you refering to mountain ranges? IMHO ridges and
arêtes are suitable (simple lines, well defined, surveyable), making a
collection of these ridges to get a mountain range might be doable.


> All such features have the problem that they are often not verifiable
> (underground) or creates high density maps with many different layers
> where none of the OSM editors can handle easily and correctly
> different layers
>


Some of these are NOT different layers (except the geologic stratifications
and the aerial imagery coverage). As they depend one of eachother (e.g.
landuses depend on parcels, addresses depend (at least in some countries)
on parcels, even underground lines depend often on what is above ground and
vice versa) they should not be disjunct.


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

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

[Lester Caine]

Colin Smale wrote:

My point is, gut feelings aside, that it is not reasonable to single out TZ
boundaries for this deprecation.


Actually having accurate TZ boundaries in OSM is probably more important than 
some of the political boundaries. The reason I've been looking into this is 
simply because other sources of TZ data are badly broken near boundaries ...


--
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

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

[Colin Smale]

 

Another popular view is that these are problems for the renderer/editor,
not intrinsic issues with the data. Tag as you see fit and the
renderers/editors will catch up! The fact that coastlines are
difficult to maintain with the current toolset is not an argument to not
have them in OSM. 

Back on topic: how do you phrase an objective rule, or at least
well-worded guidelines, which allow admin boundaries but disallow time
zone boundaries? I wonder where the UK ceremonial counties, fire
department areas, national parks etc will end up. My point is, gut
feelings aside, that it is not reasonable to single out TZ boundaries
for this deprecation. 

Colin 

On 2013-10-21 13:14, Pieren wrote: 

> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
>> The traditional consensus is that anyone can put anything in OSM
> 
> It was only a consensus in the group of contributors thinking that
> (which is then easy to reach a consensus).
> This remembers me similars discussions about:
> - hi-res aerial imagery coverage by huge polygons (Yahoo!)
> - parcels
> - underground facilities (sewer, parkings, phone cables)
> - geologic stuff (mountain strings, stratifications)
> 
> All such features have the problem that they are often not verifiable
> (underground) or creates high density maps with many different layers
> where none of the OSM editors can handle easily and correctly
> different layers making the map "unreadable" and "unworkable"
> (parcels, sewer, air lines) or that polygons are so big that nobody is
> able to maintain them correctly (coastlines) or too fuzzy to represent
> something real with a sharp line (e.g. mountains strings, valleys). So
> no, you cannot say that OSM can be a garbage collector for all data as
> soon as you can draw them on a map.
> 
> Pieren
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1]
 

Links:
--
[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Pieren]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Colin Smale  wrote:
> The traditional consensus is that anyone can put anything
> in OSM

It was only a consensus in the group of contributors thinking that
(which is then easy to reach a consensus).
This remembers me similars discussions about:
- hi-res aerial imagery coverage by huge polygons (Yahoo!)
- parcels
- underground facilities (sewer, parkings, phone cables)
- geologic stuff (mountain strings, stratifications)

All such features have the problem that they are often not verifiable
(underground) or creates high density maps with many different layers
where none of the OSM editors can handle easily and correctly
different layers making the map "unreadable" and "unworkable"
(parcels, sewer, air lines) or that polygons are so big that nobody is
able to maintain them correctly (coastlines) or too fuzzy to represent
something real with a sharp line (e.g. mountains strings, valleys). So
no, you cannot say that OSM can be a garbage collector for all data as
soon as you can draw them on a map.

Pieren

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

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

[Colin Smale]

 

Nick, this can be done for admin boundaries as well. Would you advocate
removing them from OSM as well? The change to the size of the planet
file if timezones are included is absolutely microscopic in the big
scheme of things. There are clearly many shades of grey. It's a question
of where to draw the line (as it were). Can this be expressed
objectively? 

It feels rather weird that some people are now advocating keeping
certain things out of OSM. The traditional consensus is that anyone can
put anything in OSM and that any attempt to limit people's creativity is
met with much scepticism. In the continuum between the puritans and the
pragmatists there's plenty of room for everyone. 

I for one think that data in OSM should be above all usable. Whether to
have timezones in OSM is analogous to database normalisation. If taken
to extremes, you can win a theoretical point while at the same time
causing significant performance problems and extra complexity for the
users of the data. 

Colin 

On 2013-10-21 10:55, Nick Whitelegg wrote: 

> I'd go the other way and abolish Winter Time. ;-)
> No DST = dark summer evenings. Not nice!
> 
> Going on topic, not sure if something like time zones belongs in OSM. Would 
> it not be better to use a more specialised web service to look up time zones 
> for a given lat/lon? I'd prefer to minimise overloading OSM with things which 
> are not "on the ground" data. For one thing, it means bigger planet files and 
> more demands on software to extract the data you want.
> 
> Nick
> 
> -moltonel 3x Combo  wrote: - 
> 
> Actually, I always wondered why timezones were kept out of OSM. I know DST 
> complicates tagging (it'll be the first thing I abolish when I become World 
> Dictator), ... 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1]
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1]
 

Links:
--
[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Nick Whitelegg]

I'd go the other way and abolish Winter Time. ;-)
No DST = dark summer evenings. Not nice!

Going on topic, not sure if something like time zones belongs in OSM. Would it 
not be better to use a more specialised web service to look up time zones for a 
given lat/lon? I'd prefer to minimise overloading OSM with things which are not 
"on the ground" data. For one thing, it means bigger planet files and more 
demands on software to extract the data you want.

Nick

-moltonel 3x Combo  wrote: -

Actually, I always wondered why timezones were kept out of OSM. I know DST 
complicates tagging (it'll be the first thing I abolish when I become World 
Dictator), ...

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

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

[Lester Caine]

Janko Mihelić wrote:

It's even easier to add the tag on existing countries relations. No
need for extra ways, neither tagging on ways.

+1

Are there any timezones that don't follow country or some other administrative
borders?


This is unfortunatly part of the current problem WITH timezones ...
The timezone data currently ignores any changes in 'time' prior to 1970, and so 
if you use a current timezone, you have to know exactly how that zone was 
created. Just like the 'historic' map data we need to maintain an acurate DST 
database for the period before 'time' started as far as the TZ database is 
concerned, and at that time areas were using different rules even within the 
same country. The current simplification aligns timezones with country codes or 
sub=codes, but it's accuracy is basically 'undefined' prior to 1970 :(


--
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

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

[Colin Smale]

 

Some of the anomalies in TZ boundaries can be found here... 

http://efele.net/maps/tz/us/ [2] 

http://efele.net/maps/tz/world/ [3] 

Some boundaries are even "unclear" or "undefined". 

On 2013-10-19 22:58, Janko Mihelić wrote: 

> 2013/10/19 Pieren 
> 
>> It's even easier to add the tag on existing countries relations. No
>> need for extra ways, neither tagging on ways.
> 
> +1
> 
> Are there any timezones that don't follow country or some other 
> administrative borders?
> 
> Janko 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1]
 

Links:
--
[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[2] http://efele.net/maps/tz/us/
[3] http://efele.net/maps/tz/world/
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Colin Smale]

 
 On 2013-10-19 22:38, Pieren wrote: 

> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Dominik George  wrote:
> 
>> [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:timezone [1]
> 
> It's even easier to add the tag on existing countries relations. No
> need for extra ways, neither tagging on ways.

Countries, or other administrative areas, or possibly even parts of
administrative areas 

Taking the US as an example, if it is tagged on a state boundary, we
will need the ability to override the state default at the level of
counties and cities. If we tag at a lower level, that's a lot of
relations which will need tagging. 

I think it might be easier to define a new boundary/multipolygon
relation per time zone, containing all the boundary ways, in inner and
outer roles as usual. 

Links:
--
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:timezone
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Janko Mihelić]

2013/10/19 Pieren 

>
> It's even easier to add the tag on existing countries relations. No
> need for extra ways, neither tagging on ways.
>

+1

Are there any timezones that don't follow country or some other
administrative borders?

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

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

[Pieren]

On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Dominik George  wrote:

> [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:timezone


It's even easier to add the tag on existing countries relations. No
need for extra ways, neither tagging on ways.

Pieren

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

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

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Jason Remillard
wrote:

> Everybody has these rules of thumb about what OSM is and isn't. I
> could write a couple of pages with all of my "rules" about imports.
> But, my number one rule is that if there is a individual or group that
> want to maintain a specific set of data in OSM (timezones, ancient
> rail roads, protected zones in the ocean, etc), we should give them as
> much latitude as possible to do it. We have plenty of room in the
> database for everybody.
>
> Enhancing the community is priority one.
>

+1


-- 
Clifford

OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Russ Nelson]

Philip Barnes writes:
 > On Sat, 2013-10-19 at 10:10 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
 > > Philip Barnes writes:
 > >  > So we should not include country, state, principality, county, city,
 > >  > town, parish boundaries either as unless its an island aren't surveyable
 > >  > either.
 > > 
 > > If ClosedStreetMap.com was more than a figment of my imagination we
 > > would store them there, not in OSM, yes.
 > > 
 > A map that can't tell you what country you are in would be slightly
 > useless.

You are misconstruing the OpenStreetMap dataset for a map, I
believe. You can use the OSM data to make a map, but by itself, it is
not a map. For example, you need a style sheet to make a map, but OSM
contains no style sheets.

Goedel rears his head here and roars.

-- 
--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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2013-10-19 at 10:10 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Philip Barnes writes:
>  > So we should not include country, state, principality, county, city,
>  > town, parish boundaries either as unless its an island aren't surveyable
>  > either.
> 
> If ClosedStreetMap.com was more than a figment of my imagination we
> would store them there, not in OSM, yes.
> 
A map that can't tell you what country you are in would be slightly
useless.

Phil (trigpoint) 




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

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

[Jason Remillard]

Hi,

Everybody has these rules of thumb about what OSM is and isn't. I
could write a couple of pages with all of my "rules" about imports.
But, my number one rule is that if there is a individual or group that
want to maintain a specific set of data in OSM (timezones, ancient
rail roads, protected zones in the ocean, etc), we should give them as
much latitude as possible to do it. We have plenty of room in the
database for everybody.

Enhancing the community is priority one.

Jason.

On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Russ Nelson  wrote:
> Philip Barnes writes:
>  > So we should not include country, state, principality, county, city,
>  > town, parish boundaries either as unless its an island aren't surveyable
>  > either.
>
> If ClosedStreetMap.com was more than a figment of my imagination we
> would store them there, not in OSM, yes.
>
> For example, the NYSDEC_Lands data which I imported is not mapped and
> not mappable. DEC *specifically* says that you cannot map it, because
> there is no reliable indication out in the field of what lands they
> manage. When they buy or sell land, they don't immediately go out and
> post or unpost it.
>
> If somebody deleted the NYSDEC_Lands import, I would be unhappy for
> about ten seconds, maybe twelve at the outside. It's useful, and it
> improves the map, but it belongs in closedstreetmap.com.
>
> --
> --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
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

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

[Russ Nelson]

Philip Barnes writes:
 > So we should not include country, state, principality, county, city,
 > town, parish boundaries either as unless its an island aren't surveyable
 > either.

If ClosedStreetMap.com was more than a figment of my imagination we
would store them there, not in OSM, yes.

For example, the NYSDEC_Lands data which I imported is not mapped and
not mappable. DEC *specifically* says that you cannot map it, because
there is no reliable indication out in the field of what lands they
manage. When they buy or sell land, they don't immediately go out and
post or unpost it.

If somebody deleted the NYSDEC_Lands import, I would be unhappy for
about ten seconds, maybe twelve at the outside. It's useful, and it
improves the map, but it belongs in closedstreetmap.com.

-- 
--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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2013-10-19 at 09:28 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Frederik Ramm writes:
>  > Hi,
>  > 
>  > On 10/19/2013 12:04 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>  > > I'd
>  > > love to replace the unwieldy timezone selector of many programs with a
>  > > clickable map generated from OSM. So, do timezones really "make no sense
>  > > in OSM" ?
>  > 
>  > No they make no sense in OSM. Get/make yourself a shape file from 
>  > official sources and use that. There's nothing surveyable about time 
>  > zones and nothing mapper-maintainable.
> 
> They belong in closedstreetmap.com. That's a repository of information
> which isn't surveyable and isn't mapper-maintainable and is already
> being maintained by somebody else but which is available with the same
> syntax, semantics, and API as OSM. So you can easily render it on a
> map, but it doesn't "pollute" (a loaded word, I know) the OSM database.
> 
> It exists  in my imagination.
> 
So we should not include country, state, principality, county, city,
town, parish boundaries either as unless its an island aren't surveyable
either.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

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

[Russ Nelson]

Frederik Ramm writes:
 > Hi,
 > 
 > On 10/19/2013 12:04 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
 > > I'd
 > > love to replace the unwieldy timezone selector of many programs with a
 > > clickable map generated from OSM. So, do timezones really "make no sense
 > > in OSM" ?
 > 
 > No they make no sense in OSM. Get/make yourself a shape file from 
 > official sources and use that. There's nothing surveyable about time 
 > zones and nothing mapper-maintainable.

They belong in closedstreetmap.com. That's a repository of information
which isn't surveyable and isn't mapper-maintainable and is already
being maintained by somebody else but which is available with the same
syntax, semantics, and API as OSM. So you can easily render it on a
map, but it doesn't "pollute" (a loaded word, I know) the OSM database.

It exists  in my imagination.

-- 
--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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/19 Dominik George 

> oh, and what about opening_hours, service_times, collection_times ...
> those are normally given in the local time of the object being tagged,
>


usually they aren't in the local time but in the time of the local
timezone. ;-)

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

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

[Lester Caine]

Frederik Ramm wrote:

Time zones, in contrast, are

* orders of magnitude less useful than admin boundaries (most countries will
simply have one time zone for the whole country)
* not useful for mappers
* readily available in shape file form

so why map them?


Except that the currently available 'shape' files are totally useless near 
boundaries putting whole towns in the wrong time zone! The 'boundaries' we are 
looking for ARE in many cases the same as the political boundaries, so SIMPLY 
adding a timezone tag to these boundaries is all that is required ... except 
where there are specific variations in which case these NEED to be mapped. What 
we are currently pushing is that OSM provides the base for that information 
against the TZ database.


The current arguments on the TZ database are that variations in time prior to 
1970 are pointless and so should not even be recorded! Another area where 
historic data is being purged, but many of the details relate specifically to 
locational data which can only be accurately recorded as a map. Yes these are 
also political boundaries in many cases, but it is information that needs to be 
'surveyed' by access to historic material rather than simply looking on the 
ground. This is an area that OHM has been set up to complete the coverage, but 
in a large majority of cases, this material is still current, and so should be 
in OSM first ...


The major problem I've pointed out several times is where a higher level tag 
like 'timezone' is then attached to every element below the boundaries that it 
relates to. We need to develop the boundary relations in a manor that a search 
for a locations 'details' return all of the relevant higher level tags - if 
requested! - and where a higher level tag is applied to several adjacent areas, 
a single relation is created using the boundary of the whole area ... that is if 
one does not already exist. I've come to the conclusion that ADDING areas is 
where a lot of this is now breaking down when one needs to use the edges of 
those areas for other disjointed tagging. At a lower level fields and field 
boundaries where one has three ways all overlaying because two of them are parts 
of areas! Moving up to residential area and other small political boundaries 
which have been drawn as areas but need to be pulled apart to use existing ways 
in much the same way that nodes are automatically shared?


--
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

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

[Dominik George]

> > * not useful for mappers
> 
> oh, and what about opening_hours, service_times, collection_times ...
> those are normally given in the local time of the object being tagged,
> maybe users would want to be able to interpret that without having to
> use external data sources?

Then, the Wiki [1] says to add the tag to administrative boundaries, which
again makes more sense than an extra relation maybe.

-nik

[1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:timezone

-- 
 Auf welchem Server liegt das denn jetzt…?
 Wenn es nicht übers Netz kommt bei Hetzner, wenn es nicht
gelesen wird bei STRATO, wenn es klappt bei manitu.

PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Dominik George]

Hi,

> * not useful for mappers

oh, and what about opening_hours, service_times, collection_times ...
those are normally given in the local time of the object being tagged,
maybe users would want to be able to interpret that without having to
use external data sources?

-nik

-- 
* mirabilos is handling my post-1990 smartphone *
 Aaah, it vibrates! Wherefore art thou, demonic device??

PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 10/19/2013 12:56 PM, Colin Smale wrote:

So how does that differ from admin boundaries?


Admin boundaries are:

* generally much more useful than time zone boundaries
* especially, very useful for mapping as they are closely related to 
other stuff we map, e.g. a road ref will change at the boundary

* not readily available elsewhere

all this together means that even though admin boundaries are 
problematic in that they can seldom be surveyed, it makes sense to have 
them in OSM.


Time zones, in contrast, are

* orders of magnitude less useful than admin boundaries (most countries 
will simply have one time zone for the whole country)

* not useful for mappers
* readily available in shape file form

so why map them?

Bye
Frederik


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

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

[Colin Smale]

In the US I believe cities and counties can overrule state time, including DST 
rules. This is from memory as I am on the road at the moment though, so I might 
be wrong.

Philip Barnes  wrote:
>On Sat, 2013-10-19 at 12:04 +0200, 
 I am slightly confused by
>the idea put forward by Colin, that it can be a lower level than state
>or national.
>

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

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

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2013-10-19 at 12:04 +0200, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> 

> 
> Actually, I always wondered why timezones were kept out of OSM. I know
> DST complicates tagging (it'll be the first thing I abolish when I
> become World Dictator), but it seem like a very usefull "political"
> boundary that I'd like to have in OSM. Appart from classroom use, I'd
> love to replace the unwieldy timezone selector of many programs with a
> clickable map generated from OSM. So, do timezones really "make no
> sense in OSM" ?
> 
(The OSM bit)
I see no reason not to have timezone data, it is always going to follow
a political boundary, which we already have. I am slightly confused by
the idea put forward by Colin, that it can be a lower level than state
or national.

GMT was invented by the railways, until then every town and city had its
own time.

(The not OSM bit)
Daylight saving is a fantastic thing, in mid summer daylight at 4am is
not much use to most people, but daylight at 10pm is very nice.

As you move into autumn (fall to the Americans) it is nice not to be
coming home from work in the dark. Next week DST ends and straight away
it will be dark at home time, not much you can do about it, days are
short. But in spring and autumn, it extends the useable day and makes
life better.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

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

[Colin Smale]

So how does that differ from admin boundaries? I can survey time zones by 
asking a sample of people what the time is. On land at least the timezone 
boundaries will correspond to some kind of admin boundary, sometimes at a lower 
level than you might expect.

Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 10/19/2013 12:04 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> I'd
>> love to replace the unwieldy timezone selector of many programs with
>a
>> clickable map generated from OSM. So, do timezones really "make no
>sense
>> in OSM" ?
>
>No they make no sense in OSM. Get/make yourself a shape file from 
>official sources and use that. There's nothing surveyable about time 
>zones and nothing mapper-maintainable.
>
>Bye
>Frederik
>
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 10/19/2013 12:04 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:

I'd
love to replace the unwieldy timezone selector of many programs with a
clickable map generated from OSM. So, do timezones really "make no sense
in OSM" ?


No they make no sense in OSM. Get/make yourself a shape file from 
official sources and use that. There's nothing surveyable about time 
zones and nothing mapper-maintainable.


Bye
Frederik


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

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

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 19 Oct 2013 09:55, "Frederik Ramm"  wrote:
> I've recently deleted a large multipolygon that was tagged
"timezone=GMT+1" or someting like that. I admit that I haven't actually
gone there to check ;)

> The Wikipedia-deletionism-kind would be more like "No matter whether this
feature is there in reality or not, it makes no sense in OSM therefore I'll
delete it". This will be more difficult - it comes not from lack of
information, but from stubbornness.

Actually, I always wondered why timezones were kept out of OSM. I know DST
complicates tagging (it'll be the first thing I abolish when I become World
Dictator), but it seem like a very usefull "political" boundary that I'd
like to have in OSM. Appart from classroom use, I'd love to replace the
unwieldy timezone selector of many programs with a clickable map generated
from OSM. So, do timezones really "make no sense in OSM" ?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk