Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
On 27/02/2009 22:42, Andy Robinson wrote: David Earl wrote: Clearly you have run out of mapping to find time to spot this :-D Just monitoring the RSS feed for my area to spot breakages, which do happen from time to time. I recall the very early discussions and the first draft of Map Features that we said it really didn't matter too hoots whether it was yes/true/1 as there was enough understanding in the value to know what it meant. I'm still tagging most stuff with true and I can't give a reason why. I'm not even remotely coding orientated so why I should have picked true/false over yes/no I cannot say. I don't much care either. I'm generally in the standards rather than the anarchist camp, but I don't care what things are called. I'm just as happy with true, yes or 1 in this case. The problem here is that most of the tools are the opposite, so chances are these changes are pointless and will tend to drift back again over time. I'd still like to see a middle ground where tags can be added and amended at will but through a schema of some kind so the current position is documented and can be checked. But that's not what I was getting at here. But like you, the time making the change is wasted. Far more productive to go and map something. My point exactly. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:24 PM, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote: BTW, I added values-sections to the english, german and polish wiki-pages and stated that the semantics of other values are undefined and what cases may most likely happen. Thanks, translated. -- Łukasz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
I think that the important issue here is respect for others' edits. Personally I only use true/false 0/1 when coding computer programs. In real life I think that yes/no is much better. However all schemes are correct and therefore no one should modify someone elses edits just on the basis of a personal preference. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
Nick wrote: However all schemes are correct and therefore no one should modify someone elses edits just on the basis of a personal preference. It depends how you define correct. Anyone can tag anything any way they like, but it helps to follow the commonly accepted tags (such as those listed in the wiki, as well as probably many that are widely used that haven't made it there yet) so that other software can render meaningful maps from it. And it isn't just on the basis of personal preference. As sly wrote on this list recently: I can't rembember how many (oneway='yes' or oneway='true' or oneway='1') there are in the mapnik style's sheets I use. Having lots of different ways of tagging the same thing leads to unnecessary complexity for consumers of the data. Simplifying the data makes it more usable. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors are putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true would be better spent doing something more useful. JOSM's preset puts it in as 'yes' (and that's what nearly everyone was doing when I started). Who's to say what the right answer is when there is no right answer. Lewis Carroll said: They wept like anything to see Such quantities of sand: If this were only cleared away, They said, it would be grand! If seven maids with seven mops Swept it for half a year. Do you suppose, the Walrus said, That they could get it clear? I doubt it, said the Carpenter, And shed a bitter tear. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
David Earl wrote: I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors are putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true would be better spent doing something more useful. Eek - people are really doing this? 'yes' is English (and, as you say, in the editor presets). 'true' (in this context) is computerprogrammerish. Even if there was a need to standardise, which there isn't, it should be on the former. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/oneway-yes-or-true-tp22242216p22242397.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
True/false and Yes/No both give the same meaning to oneway, so there's only debate if the value should be leaning towards human- or machine readability. Personally I would lean towards human, shame on any programmer who's software cannot parse yes/no values. What would really add additional information to oneway is: 0, 1 and -1. These values additionally give a direction relative to the direction of the way. Imho only 0, 1 and -1 are the true options for the oneway tag. Richard Fairhurst wrote: David Earl wrote: I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors are putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true would be better spent doing something more useful. Eek - people are really doing this? 'yes' is English (and, as you say, in the editor presets). 'true' (in this context) is computerprogrammerish. Even if there was a need to standardise, which there isn't, it should be on the former. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
David Earl wrote: I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors are putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true would be better spent doing something more useful. Well, JOSM-search-type:way oneway:true A nice way to rest my brain. Who's to say what the right answer is when there is no right answer. I pretend to know and say (again) that the right answer is not to have duplicate tags for the same meaning. But, that's not that much about changing them for changing them I'm fighting for, but for that : http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2009-January/006179.html ( don't want to waste time translating, but get help from google translator if you want to read my story ) Eek - people are really doing this? I am -- sly Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
True/false and Yes/No both give the same meaning to oneway, so there's only debate if the value should be leaning towards human- or machine readability. Personally I would lean towards human, shame on any programmer who's software cannot parse yes/no values. What would really add additional information to oneway is: 0, 1 and -1. These values additionally give a direction relative to the direction of the way. Imho only 0, 1 and -1 are the true options for the oneway tag. I don't, for the exact same reason you gave above : Lean towards humans shame on software unable to parse yes/no -- sly Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote: David Earl wrote: I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors are putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true would be better spent doing something more useful. Well, JOSM-search-type:way oneway:true A nice way to rest my brain. Who's to say what the right answer is when there is no right answer. I pretend to know and say (again) that the right answer is not to have duplicate tags for the same meaning. But, that's not that much about changing them for changing them I'm fighting for, but for that : http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2009-January/006179.html ( don't want to waste time translating, but get help from google translator if you want to read my story ) Eek - people are really doing this? I am Whatever it is going to be: it would be nice if the validator plugin in JOSM will accept this. Currently it's programmed to accept yes/no as a proper tag and true/false is flagged as incorrect. That's why I change these tags to yes/no if I encounter them (with the validator). If I'm then in an editwar with Sylvain, I hope we can do it face to face with some wine and cheese ;) Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
Someone replied, asking: Eek - people are really doing this? You replied: I am I thought you were arguing for changing oneway=true to oneway=yes, which is the opposite of what David describes. Ed Ooops, mis-read that, but still my point stands, I don't care about yes or true, I care about avoiding duplicates. Coluche a french humorist approximatively said : If I have to disagree with some people, I prefere to disagree with less numerous I do tag oneway=yes -- sly Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:20 AM, sly (sylvain letuffe)
li...@letuffe.org wrote:
What would really add additional information to oneway is: 0, 1 and -1.
These values additionally give a direction relative to the direction of
the way. Imho only 0, 1 and -1 are the true options for the oneway tag.
I don't, for the exact same reason you gave above :
Lean towards humans
shame on software unable to parse yes/no
values in {0,1,-1} give more information than both {true,false} and
{yes,no}, so they may be worth choosing over them. Of course values in
{yes,no,reversed} would work as well, even if the reversed value
sounds less natural than -1 to me.
Anyway, while we are discussing this tag it may be worth to agree on
one standard, write it on the wiki, set it as the preset in all main
editors and let the alternatives fade into oblivion. To me anyone of
the three currently proposal would do, no preference.
--
Elena ``of Valhalla''
homepage: http://www.trueelena.org
email: elena.valha...@gmail.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
If I'm then in an editwar with Sylvain We won't need that because I use yes/no too (mis-read the david email), , I hope we can do it face to face with some wine and cheese ;) but let me know when you'll come to France, I'll keep a bottle and some terrible stinking cheese so we can still do a face to face (first under the table won) -- sly Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:36:18 +0100 (CET), Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: Whatever it is going to be: it would be nice if the validator plugin in JOSM will accept this. Currently it's programmed to accept yes/no as a proper tag and true/false is flagged as incorrect. That's why I change these tags to yes/no if I encounter them (with the validator). If I'm then in an editwar with Sylvain, I hope we can do it face to face with some wine and cheese ;) Just a note: As a developer I am accepting the following values in the Traveling Salesman navigation system (case ignored): no false 0 -1 all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a oneway-tag). Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:37:30AM +0100, Elena of Valhalla wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:20 AM, sly (sylvain letuffe)
li...@letuffe.org wrote:
What would really add additional information to oneway is: 0, 1 and -1.
These values additionally give a direction relative to the direction of
the way. Imho only 0, 1 and -1 are the true options for the oneway tag.
I don't, for the exact same reason you gave above :
Lean towards humans
shame on software unable to parse yes/no
Agree, yes/no or even true/false are more human friendly than 0/1
values in {0,1,-1} give more information than both {true,false} and
{yes,no}, so they may be worth choosing over them. Of course values in
{yes,no,reversed} would work as well, even if the reversed value
sounds less natural than -1 to me.
I dont understand the -1 or reserved value, what that means?
one way yes/true/1 but in the opposite direction of the way?
--
Celso González (PerroVerd)
http://mitago.net
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
Am Freitag 27 Februar 2009 schrieb sly (sylvain letuffe): Who's to say what the right answer is when there is no right answer. I pretend to know and say (again) that the right answer is not to have duplicate tags for the same meaning. right! as a software developer, I would prefer 0/1/-1, because it's the most flexible and easiest to parse style. but yes/no or true/false would be ok for me, too. the most important thing is to have only one style, not many for the same thing. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
no false 0 -1 all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a oneway-tag). Ouch ! While using your software, I'll be extreamly carefull on the road ;-) Don't want to be droven on an undefined or other or maybe oneway Europe counts : oneway | count + yes| 466883 1 | 104487 true | 100204 no | 35883 false | 3519 -1 | 2683 undefined |197 0 | 24 unknown| 11 both | 11 other | 9 y | 7 ???| 7 Yes| 6 yees | 6 variable | 6 morning to south, evening to North | 5 FIXME | 5 alternate | 4 2 | 4 True | 3 ye | 3 yes/-1 | 3 R760 | 3 true; 1; true | 2 yes; yes; true; yes; yes | 2 hy | 2 no;yes | 2 +1 | 2 maybe | 2 no?| 2 -- sly Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:55:26 +0100, sly (sylvain letuffe) li...@letuffe.org wrote: no false 0 -1 all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a oneway-tag). Ouch ! While using your software, I'll be extreamly carefull on the road ;-) Don't want to be droven on an undefined or other or maybe oneway The opposite is true. undefined it is either a oneway=true or not. In both cases I am allowed to drive it like a oneway=true and it is the safest thing to do, to ignore this way in the opposite direction as it is unclear if I am allowed to drive there or not. Barely 200 roads in all of europe are not something I would worry about. It's not like you can switch your eyes and brain off just because you have a navigation system. Well, anyway. We should better document these possible values in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway That's the place where mappers and developers look up the semantics of key-value -pairs. Marcus Europe counts : oneway | count + yes| 466883 1 | 104487 true | 100204 no | 35883 false | 3519 -1 | 2683 undefined |197 0 | 24 unknown| 11 both | 11 other | 9 y | 7 ???| 7 Yes| 6 yees | 6 variable | 6 morning to south, evening to North | 5 FIXME | 5 alternate | 4 2 | 4 True | 3 ye | 3 yes/-1 | 3 R760 | 3 true; 1; true | 2 yes; yes; true; yes; yes | 2 hy | 2 no;yes | 2 +1 | 2 maybe | 2 no?| 2 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
On Friday 27 February 2009 12:06, you wrote: A good way would obviously be to change the map features and then the mapnik and osmarender stylesheets. As much as we like it or not, the rendered map is a big incensitive to tag one way (no pun intended) or another. Renaud. Looks like Ed was faster than me doing it on the wiki. Also I would have prefered a bit of talking since some people seams to prefere 1/0 rather than yes/no -- sly Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote: no false 0 -1 all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a oneway-tag). Ouch ! While using your software, I'll be extreamly carefull on the road ;-) Don't want to be droven on an undefined or other or maybe oneway Europe counts : oneway | count + yes| 466883 1 | 104487 true | 100204 no | 35883 false | 3519 -1 | 2683 undefined |197 0 | 24 unknown| 11 both | 11 other | 9 Not oneway, not both ways, but... you can go down as well? true; 1; true | 2 yes; yes; true; yes; yes | 2 I've encountered some of those too. I'm all in favour of making lists like this on a regular basis with the node-id/lat-lon so that people can change it. Not the yes/true debate, but these obvious errors. I know we did something similar after the AND import in the Netherlands. Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:15:11 +0100, sly (sylvain letuffe) li...@letuffe.org wrote: On Friday 27 February 2009 12:06, you wrote: A good way would obviously be to change the map features and then the mapnik and osmarender stylesheets. As much as we like it or not, the rendered map is a big incensitive to tag one way (no pun intended) or another. Renaud. Looks like Ed was faster than me doing it on the wiki. Also I would have prefered a bit of talking since some people seams to prefere 1/0 rather than yes/no I guess the tagwatch-posting made all talking about preferences pointless. Mappers clearly favor yes and no. BTW, I added values-sections to the english, german and polish wiki-pages and stated that the semantics of other values are undefined and what cases may most likely happen. Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
The opposite is true. undefined it is either a oneway=true or not. True, we know nothing with undefined. In both cases I am allowed to drive it like a oneway=true and it is the safest thing to do Safety is not engaged in considering a default to yes, but that's what you could do on any roads without a oneway. Leading to an unusable, but secure software. It's not like you can switch your eyes and brain off just because you have a navigation system. True again, this is a driver's requirement. But I would prefer a software to consider an undocummented value to be the default when there is no value rather than making a guess. But your point is valid as well in the oneway case. That's the place where mappers and developers look up the semantics of key-value -pairs. Agreed -- sly Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
Hi! Lambertus schrieb: What would really add additional information to oneway is: 0, 1 and -1. These values additionally give a direction relative to the direction of the way. Imho only 0, 1 and -1 are the true options for the oneway tag. Actually, it would convey less information. Technically you are right, but by choosing an non-intuitive encoding that only people with some technical background and metainformation will understand, you are transporting less information by drastically decreasing the number of recipients - and people willing to deal with it. It seems to me that this is just the most basic example of a problematic tendency. Some people enjoy setting up very complicated structures because of the many things that can be expressed with them. But you need a lot of technical background to understand them and avoid their pitfalls and probably some advanced tooling to use them. On the other hand, the way I understood it OSM was a global initative and is happy for every additional mapper. If this is the goal, we need structures that you can understand and properly use without a degree in computer science. So back to the original topic: yes is definitely the most intuitive value and thus the most useful. My personal preference would be true ( but then I have a degree in computer science. :-) but I understand that it is less intuitive. But 0, 1, -1 needs an additional mapping table and is incomprehensible to most people, so I deem it unsuitable. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
Hi! marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb: Just a note: As a developer I am accepting the following values in the Traveling Salesman navigation system (case ignored): no false 0 -1 all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a oneway-tag). So you are treating -1 as no? bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:32:38 +0100, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb: Just a note: As a developer I am accepting the following values in the Traveling Salesman navigation system (case ignored): no false 0 -1 all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a oneway-tag). So you are treating -1 as no? No, I accept the value -1 (and interprete it as a oneway=yes in the opposite direction). That's what I believe to have written. Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
Sly: Looks like Ed was faster than me doing it on the wiki. Also I would have prefered a bit of talking since some people seams to prefere 1/0 rather than yes/no I meant to change it when we discussed it last in the doctors/doctor thread. At some point in the past before I started mapping it had been updated to yes/no/-1 to bring the 1/0/true/false alternatives more in line with all the other yes/no keys, to make it easier for mappers to learn what values to use. It was set at yes/no/-1 for ages, and only recently have people started adding the old values back into Map Features rather than updating the tagging. I'd argue that perhaps you should try simplifying the stylesheets and then people will understand why the maplint highlighting was important... ;) Sorry. Rather busy at work or I'd have chipped into this thread sooner. I was actually surprised that the wiki page updated as work reset my internet connection moments after I clicked submit and I never got confirmation of it going through. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
thread. At some point in the past before I started mapping it had been updated to yes/no/-1 The wiki's history might prove my guilt. But I wasn't aware of polls(voting?)/discussion needed to make such changes. When someone came to undo my changes, I realized I failed to follow the process so I let it like that. I'd argue that perhaps you should try simplifying the stylesheets and then people will understand why the maplint highlighting was important... ;) Your wishes are on their way, at least on my renderer where I don't repeat true/1 OR conditions. -- sly Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
Hi! marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb: On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:32:38 +0100, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb: Just a note: As a developer I am accepting the following values in the Traveling Salesman navigation system (case ignored): no false 0 -1 all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a oneway-tag). So you are treating -1 as no? No, I accept the value -1 (and interprete it as a oneway=yes in the opposite direction). That's what I believe to have written. Not quite, you wrote that you accept the value, but not how you interpret its meaning and all other values you quoted mean no. But now it is clear. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
El Viernes, 27 de Febrero de 2009, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com escribió: all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a oneway-tag). Reversible lanes on a separated carriageway... -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es Aviso: Este e-mail es confidencial y no debería ser usado por nadie que no sea el destinatario original. No se permite la reproducción mediante fotocopia, walkie-talkie, emisora de radioaficionado, satélite, televisión por cable, proyector, señales de humo, código morse, braille, lenguaje de signos, taquigrafía o cualquier otro medio. Bajo ningún concepto debe traducirse al francés este e-mail. Este e-mail no puede ser ridiculizado, parodiado, juzgado en una competición, o leído en voz alta con un acento gracioso llevando un bigote falso y/o cualquier tipo de sombrero, incluyendo pero no limitándose a pañuelos. No inciten ni provoquen a este e-mail. Si está medicándose, puede experimentar nauseas, desorientación, histeria, vómitos, pérdida temporal de la memoria a corto plazo y malestar general al leer este e-mail. Consulte a su médico o farmacéutico antes de leer este e-mail. Todas las modelos descritas en este e-mail son mayores de 18 años. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error es probablemente porque estaba bebiendo cuando escribí la dirección del destinatario. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true - reversible lanes
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:36:23 +0100, Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es wrote: El Viernes, 27 de Febrero de 2009, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com escribió: all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a oneway-tag). Reversible lanes on a separated carriageway... That is not something a routing enging can work with anyway as there is no rule as to when this is oneway=true and when this it oneway=-1. Usually is does not matter anyway as it's just one lane and there are free lanes for each direction at all times. So routing is not affected. (I route on streets, not lanes.) Even if the road is completely closed for your direction...well.. then you will have to calculate a different route. An inconvenience caused by seldom, undocumented values in the map. Do you have a schema to describe these that is in actual use? Then please document it. Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true - reversible lanes
El Viernes, 27 de Febrero de 2009, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com escribió: That is not something a routing enging can work with anyway as there is no rule as to when this is oneway=true and when this it oneway=-1. Agreed. It should be avoided unless you are starting (or re-calculating) the route on it (so you can suppose you're actually in there). Or rely on external, real-time sources of information. Usually is does not matter anyway as it's just one lane and there are free lanes for each direction at all times. So routing is not affected. Usually, until somebody builds a 5-kilometer-long reversible motorway tunnel... http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.71482lon=-4.16023zoom=16layers=B000FTF Yes, I realize this is quite rare, but there are also separated high-occupancy lanes that work the same way. Do you have a schema to describe these that is in actual use? Then please document it. Not really... I should find the time to make a proposal for the tag. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es Un ordenador no es un televisor ni un microondas, es una herramienta compleja. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:55 AM, sly (sylvain letuffe) li...@letuffe.org wrote: Europe counts : oneway | count + no;yes | 2 We have elves contributing? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
Nop wrote: On the other hand, the way I understood it OSM was a global initative and is happy for every additional mapper. If this is the goal, we need structures that you can understand and properly use without a degree in computer science. A good general principle: we should always optimise for ease of mapping. If we produce a wonderful world map but developers have to jump through a few hoops to use it, a) we have a wonderful world map, therefore b) people will - and are doing - produce the tools that jump through the hoops. If we make it unnecessarily complicated to add data (and that includes using jargon words like true when yes is obvious) then we don't get the mappers, so we don't get the wonderful world map. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/oneway-yes-or-true-tp22242216p22247133.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:40:44 -0800 (PST), Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: If we produce a wonderful world map but developers have to jump through a few hoops to use it, a) we have a wonderful world map, therefore b) people will - and are doing - produce the tools that jump through the hoops. If we make it unnecessarily complicated to add data (and that includes using jargon words like true when yes is obvious) then we don't get the mappers, so we don't get the wonderful world map. Actually it's the other way around. We have tens of thousands of mappers but are lacking developers on every corner. ..and every second mapper is screaming then add support for (whatever special case) in The (Routers|Maps|Whatever). (usually without an idea what list of programs is affected) Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: A good general principle: we should always optimise for ease of mapping. Yes Richard, but some things are best done in the editors. It's much easier for editors to highlight obvious mistakes, than it is for every single tool out there to support every possible spelling. If we produce a wonderful world map but developers have to jump through a few hoops to use it, a) we have a wonderful world map, therefore b) people will - and are doing - produce the tools that jump through the hoops. If we make it unnecessarily complicated to add data (and that includes using jargon words like true when yes is obvious) then we don't get the mappers, so we don't get the wonderful world map. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/oneway-yes-or-true-tp22242216p22247133.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
marcus.wolschon wrote: Actually it's the other way around. We have tens of thousands of mappers but are lacking developers on every corner. Nah. We don't have enough developers on the OSM core site, but that's immaterial in this context. The ecosystem, however, is thriving. There isn't a day when I don't see some new program released that uses OSM data. Yet we still don't have _enough_ mappers. I'm writing this from an only partly-mapped town. Vast swathes of Britain are still Here Be Dragons and we're the second most mapped country (by volunteers) in OSM. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/oneway-yes-or-true-tp22242216p22247514.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
Nic Roets wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: A good general principle: we should always optimise for ease of mapping. Yes Richard, but some things are best done in the editors. It's much easier for editors to highlight obvious mistakes, than it is for every single tool out there to support every possible spelling. Oh, sure, I wouldn't argue with that. Writing better editors is part of optimising for ease of mapping. But Potlatch autocompletes oneway only to yes/no, and from this thread it seems that JOSM is similar, so in this instance the editors are getting it right (hey, Potlatch got something right, break out the champagne). Slightly controversial suggestion: the quickest way to solve this would be to take or [oneway]='true' out of the Mapnik style file. ;) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/oneway-yes-or-true-tp22242216p22247591.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
Celso González ce...@mitago.net writes: I dont understand the -1 or reserved value, what that means? one way yes/true/1 but in the opposite direction of the way? Exactly. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
Celso González ce...@mitago.net writes: I dont understand the -1 or reserved value, what that means? one way yes/true/1 but in the opposite direction of the way? Matthias confirmed: Exactly. -yes anyone? Perhaps this should be oneway=forward/no/backward (where forward and backward are relative to the direction of the way in OSM). Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: -yes anyone? please no, it's even less intuitive than -1 -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' homepage: http://www.trueelena.org email: elena.valha...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
OSM2Go now automagically flips oneway tags, tags on ways like foo:left and foo:right, and forward and backward members in relations when the user reverses a way. Better explain what we do for oneway somewhere, this might as well be it. We inherit JOSM's presets system, so we use whatever UI-wise we don't get in your face about reversing stuff like JOSM does with the option set. Can't afford to on a tiny screen on a small device with a tendency to be slipped into a pocket and forgotten about. Simpler=better for us. You'll get a gentle notification, however (o hai; i fixed ur tags for u) sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote: Europe counts : oneway | count + yes| 466883 1 | 104487 true | 100204 These are all treated as true-and-forwards values. yes is the preferred true value, and is what -1 flips to. no | 35883 false | 3519 These are left as-is when reversing. They specifically *don't* mean -1. -1 | 2683 This is the one supported true-but-backwards value. It's what yes and all the other true-and-forwards values flip to. undefined |197 0 | 24 unknown| 11 both | 11 other | 9 y | 7 ???| 7 Yes| 6 yees | 6 variable | 6 morning to south, evening to North | 5 FIXME | 5 alternate | 4 2 | 4 True | 3 ye | 3 yes/-1 | 3 R760 | 3 true; 1; true | 2 yes; yes; true; yes; yes | 2 hy | 2 no;yes | 2 +1 | 2 maybe | 2 no?| 2 These are all left alone: OSM2go enforces no reversal policy for unknown tag values, and nor should it. Possibly it should flash a little ambient warning about it briefly. If somebody wants to enhance oneway, please do directions in terms of the way's node ordering. It's much easier to implement than compass directions etc. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
David Earl wrote: I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors are putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true would be better spent doing something more useful. JOSM's preset puts it in as 'yes' (and that's what nearly everyone was doing when I started). Who's to say what the right answer is when there is no right answer. Lewis Carroll said: They wept like anything to see Such quantities of sand: If this were only cleared away, They said, it would be grand! If seven maids with seven mops Swept it for half a year. Do you suppose, the Walrus said, That they could get it clear? I doubt it, said the Carpenter, And shed a bitter tear. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk David, Clearly you have run out of mapping to find time to spot this :-D I recall the very early discussions and the first draft of Map Features that we said it really didn't matter too hoots whether it was yes/true/1 as there was enough understanding in the value to know what it meant. I'm still tagging most stuff with true and I can't give a reason why. I'm not even remotely coding orientated so why I should have picked true/false over yes/no I cannot say. But like you, the time making the change is wasted. Far more productive to go and map something. Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
