Re: [OSM-talk] Raw GPS layer
80n wrote: This would be an interesting thing to try. AFAIK its relatively easy to add a new layer to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] infrastructure and Osmarender could easily be adapted to render points from GPX files (perhaps using a pre-processor to convert GPX elements to OSM format nodes and ways). I do wonder, however, whether the [EMAIL PROTECTED] infrastrcuture is overkill, just for rendering tracklogs on a map. OpenLayers can render KML files as lines. (http://www.openlayers.org/dev/examples/kml-layer.html) I'd rather have something client-side like this rather than adding yet another layer to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] server (alternatively we could use a different [EMAIL PROTECTED] server for stuff like this). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Raw GPS layer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sebastian Spaeth wrote: | Guilhem Bonnefille wrote: | OpenLayers can render KML files as lines. | (http://www.openlayers.org/dev/examples/kml-layer.html) | | I'd rather have something client-side like this rather than adding yet | another layer to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] server (alternatively we could use a different | [EMAIL PROTECTED] server for stuff like this). | In my idea, offering a layer for GPS data allows really simple client | to display such info. | | What is difficult about | http://www.openlayers.org/dev/examples/kml-layer.html ? It's just a | webpage with javascript? We're talking about density mapping millions of points across huge areas. See this: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/gps/ Robert (Jamie) Munro -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHwtCyz+aYVHdncI0RAhdtAJwOJoai/KhWoj5XPO0tNKAtevWBCQCeLw1/ 3H8Brc6P7Kr+sTVbaBweuz8= =09dQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Raw GPS layer
This would be good. But even better, let me select a portion of a track log and upload it. My track logs tend to be a nightmarish tangle, with possibly hours of stuff before, after and during the interesting bits. I can use them because I was there, and know where I went, when and why (this is why I take notes). But somebody looking at the raw track would actually be confusing, and possibly wrong. However - bits that I'm actually mapping tend to be much better - actually tracking roads, paths etc. If I could easily select the bad bits of the track log (just points) in JOSM and remove them, then upload the rest, I'd be willing to put them up. I keep meaning to go back over my old track logs (all of which I have) and clean them up with some 3rd party tool, bit I always seem to have new stuff to work on instead. On 22/02/2008, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we should provide a track upload facility within JOSM. I started work on that once but got distracted, maybe its time to revisit that. Stephen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Raw GPS layer
Stephen Hope wrote: This would be good. But even better, let me select a portion of a track log and upload it. My track logs tend to be a nightmarish tangle, with possibly hours of stuff before, after and during the interesting bits. I can use them because I was there, and know where I went, when and why (this is why I take notes). But somebody looking at the raw track would actually be confusing, and possibly wrong. However - bits that I'm actually mapping tend to be much better - actually tracking roads, paths etc. If I could easily select the bad bits of the track log (just points) in JOSM and remove them, then upload the rest, I'd be willing to put them up. I keep meaning to go back over my old track logs (all of which I have) and clean them up with some 3rd party tool, bit I always seem to have new stuff to work on instead. On 22/02/2008, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we should provide a track upload facility within JOSM. I started work on that once but got distracted, maybe its time to revisit that. Stephen One other point is that a track layer will highlight all our homes in a very public way; at present you have to download something eg josm + GPX trackdata to see this at a meaningful scale (ie not Potlatch, for this purpose). This effectively reduces the casual browsers chance of noticing the possibility, but posting it publicly hangs out a banner. I am aware of at least one user with a node marking his home, so we don't all care, but it's worth considering first! Also, I don't really see the utility of this, even after reading the preceding posts. You can't use the data from a visual map of traces for much, and areas where doubt exists eg changes to roads, will have a mass of new old to make a mess there... Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Raw GPS layer
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Mark Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stephen Hope wrote: This would be good. But even better, let me select a portion of a track log and upload it. My track logs tend to be a nightmarish tangle, with possibly hours of stuff before, after and during the interesting bits. I can use them because I was there, and know where I went, when and why (this is why I take notes). But somebody looking at the raw track would actually be confusing, and possibly wrong. However - bits that I'm actually mapping tend to be much better - actually tracking roads, paths etc. If I could easily select the bad bits of the track log (just points) in JOSM and remove them, then upload the rest, I'd be willing to put them up. I keep meaning to go back over my old track logs (all of which I have) and clean them up with some 3rd party tool, bit I always seem to have new stuff to work on instead. On 22/02/2008, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we should provide a track upload facility within JOSM. I started work on that once but got distracted, maybe its time to revisit that. Stephen One other point is that a track layer will highlight all our homes in a very public way; at present you have to download something eg josm + GPX trackdata to see this at a meaningful scale (ie not Potlatch, for this purpose). This effectively reduces the casual browsers chance of noticing the possibility, but posting it publicly hangs out a banner. I am aware of at least one user with a node marking his home, so we don't all care, but it's worth considering first! Also, I don't really see the utility of this, even after reading the preceding posts. You can't use the data from a visual map of traces for much, and areas where doubt exists eg changes to roads, will have a mass of new old to make a mess there... 1) They prove the source of your contribution, in the same way that a good Wikipedia article cites its sources. Several of the reasons listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Why_sources_should_be_citedare equally applicable to OSM. 2) Track logs from multiple sources are aggregated. Different users, at different times, and using different equipment will result in a much better dataset than a single track log ever can. It is very common for parts of a single track to be off by a considerable amount, this type of error can be reduced and eliminated if there are multiple tracks to refer to. If you download the tracks for a part of the M25 motorway, for example, you will see that the aggregated result is much better than any one single track. You'll also notice outlier tracks which can easily be discounted. 3) There may be uses of the track logs in the future that have not yet been developed or thought of. For example, it might be that detection of edits in places that are distant from any track log could help to monitor for vandalism, or indicate a higher priority for peer review. Analysis of average speed and direction might help routing software to determine journey times and one-ways streets. etc. etc. You raise the point about some of your tracklogs being a bit of a mess. In my opinion you can and should still upload them. Any analysis of tracks will have to use statistical techniques to filter out noise, so anomalies will get removed as part of this process. In fact, many years from now, historians and archaeologists will be horrified that our enormous archive of GPS data was so badly mutilated before it was uploaded. 80n Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Raw GPS layer
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:47 AM, J.D. Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I haven't bothered with reviving my 300 part of the 55949581 orphaned gpspoints, since the perlscript supplied for that operation indicates I have to re-enter the detailed descriptions again, and that would probably mean re-entering descriptions for 200+ files. It was enough of an ordeal the first time around. Hmm, that sounds counterproductive. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to add a quick option to the script to just put in blank descriptions... Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Raw GPS layer
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Guilhem Bonnefille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Is there any layer presenting ONLY raw GPS data? Actually, we have Mapnik, Osmarender, Maplint, but what about a layer with only raw GPS data. This could be usefull (at least for me) to manage my own traces. Could be usefull to easily decide if a zone need some GPS traces or not. Have you seen this? http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/gps/ Maybe that could be adapted to provide a tileset in addition to static images. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Raw GPS layer
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Andy Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Guilhem Bonnefille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Is there any layer presenting ONLY raw GPS data? Actually, we have Mapnik, Osmarender, Maplint, but what about a layer with only raw GPS data. This could be usefull (at least for me) to manage my own traces. Could be usefull to easily decide if a zone need some GPS traces or not. Have you seen this? http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/gps/ Maybe that could be adapted to provide a tileset in addition to static images. Would need a pile of changes, for instance a local DB full of points, to work anywhere near efficiently -- those images were produced fairly ad-hoc and it wasn't exactly quick. And we'd need a GPS equivalent of the planet file too, because life is too short to try and query the DB through the API for any large area. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Raw GPS layer
80n wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Mark Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stephen Hope wrote: This would be good. But even better, let me select a portion of a track log and upload it. My track logs tend to be a nightmarish tangle, with possibly hours of stuff before, after and during the interesting bits. I can use them because I was there, and know where I went, when and why (this is why I take notes). But somebody looking at the raw track would actually be confusing, and possibly wrong. However - bits that I'm actually mapping tend to be much better - actually tracking roads, paths etc. If I could easily select the bad bits of the track log (just points) in JOSM and remove them, then upload the rest, I'd be willing to put them up. I keep meaning to go back over my old track logs (all of which I have) and clean them up with some 3rd party tool, bit I always seem to have new stuff to work on instead. On 22/02/2008, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we should provide a track upload facility within JOSM. I started work on that once but got distracted, maybe its time to revisit that. Stephen One other point is that a track layer will highlight all our homes in a very public way; at present you have to download something eg josm + GPX trackdata to see this at a meaningful scale (ie not Potlatch, for this purpose). This effectively reduces the casual browsers chance of noticing the possibility, but posting it publicly hangs out a banner. I am aware of at least one user with a node marking his home, so we don't all care, but it's worth considering first! Also, I don't really see the utility of this, even after reading the preceding posts. You can't use the data from a visual map of traces for much, and areas where doubt exists eg changes to roads, will have a mass of new old to make a mess there... 1) They prove the source of your contribution, in the same way that a good Wikipedia article cites its sources. Several of the reasons listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Why_sources_should_be_citedare equally applicable to OSM. 2) Track logs from multiple sources are aggregated. Different users, at different times, and using different equipment will result in a much better dataset than a single track log ever can. It is very common for parts of a single track to be off by a considerable amount, this type of error can be reduced and eliminated if there are multiple tracks to refer to. If you download the tracks for a part of the M25 motorway, for example, you will see that the aggregated result is much better than any one single track. You'll also notice outlier tracks which can easily be discounted. 3) There may be uses of the track logs in the future that have not yet been developed or thought of. For example, it might be that detection of edits in places that are distant from any track log could help to monitor for vandalism, or indicate a higher priority for peer review. Analysis of average speed and direction might help routing software to determine journey times and one-ways streets. etc. etc. You raise the point about some of your tracklogs being a bit of a mess. In my opinion you can and should still upload them. Any analysis of tracks will have to use statistical techniques to filter out noise, so anomalies will get removed as part of this process. In fact, many years from now, historians and archaeologists will be horrified that our enormous archive of GPS data was so badly mutilated before it was uploaded. 80n I wasn't saying not to upload them - just that I'm personally not that keen to see a raw GPS track layer on the map. I do upload them, that's why it would show up... Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Raw GPS layer
In particular, its very easy for JOSM users to trace from GPX files but then never upload them. In the past I've banged on about the importance of people identifying the source of their contributions. If the source is a track log then it really ought to be compulsory to upload that track log, otherwise we have no way of knowing that the data wasn't derived from some copyright source. It was suggested only a few days ago that JOSM could/should have a button to upload open tracks. Also I would personally like a drop down box at the top to select my current source (any ways/nodes I make/tag would be be tagged with that source. If I change it they're not edited but from then on it continues with the new source). But is it JOSM presets I should learn about for that? A mention on the wiki, Please ask for the presets on the mailing lists. is not too helpful. -- Gregory [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Raw GPS layer
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, In particular, its very easy for JOSM users to trace from GPX files but then never upload them. I think we should provide a track upload facility within JOSM. I started work on that once but got distracted, maybe its time to revisit that. If the source is a track log then it really ought to be compulsory to upload that track log I am very cautious when it comes to compulsory stuff. Such a measure would have we don't trust our contributors written all over it. We can *encourage* people to upload their traces, but trying to *force* them will annoy half of them, and the other half will just build themselves a JOSM plugin that synthesizes matching traces for anything you upload. Yeah, compulsory is too strong a word. Strongly recommended is closer to what I was thinking. But I wanted to get people's attention. otherwise we have no way of knowing that the data wasn't derived from some copyright source. Rather than the contributor having to prove that he's honest, I think the copyright owner should have to prove that the contributor isn't! Well, part of the deterrent against frivolous lawsuits is to have a visible and viable forms of defence. But its not only for defence against copyright infringement allegations. There are many things that track logs might be used for in the future. And its good practice in scientific and academic circles to quote your sources, we should at least aspire to such standards. At the moment we are not signalling clearly enough that *every* track log is valuable to the project, even for places that have already been mapped. Does anyone have any stats on number of edits vs. number of tracklogs by user? It might be quite revealing about who does and who doesn't upload their tracklogs (coastline uploaders and serial Yahoo! tracers excepted, of course). 80n Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33' ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Raw GPS layer
Hi, Does anyone have any stats on number of edits vs. number of tracklogs by user? It might be quite revealing about who does and who doesn't upload their tracklogs (coastline uploaders and serial Yahoo! tracers excepted, of course). If such statistics are compiled, may I recommend not to count those tracks marked as private; I believe there are people who do not want others to know that they're uploading tracks (e.g. those in China). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33' ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Raw GPS layer
80n skrev: At the moment we are not signalling clearly enough that *every* track log is valuable to the project, even for places that have already been mapped. Does anyone have any stats on number of edits vs. number of tracklogs by user? It might be quite revealing about who does and who doesn't upload their tracklogs (coastline uploaders and serial Yahoo! tracers excepted, of course). I can only speak for myself, but 98% of the edits I've made in JOSM, has been made from my gps logs. The remainder 2 % has been from yahoo imagery, mostly while fixing the danish coastline. My workflow generally is like this : 1) Open tracklog in JOSM. 2) Get OSM data for the area covered by the tracklog. 3) Make, tag and name new ways, correct possible bad ways along the tracklog. 5) Upload edits. 4) Gzip tracklog, and upload it via the website, tagging it with area, and give fairly detailed description of roads covered by the tracklog. 5) Drive out and cover a new area. 6) Repeat, rinse and lather... and lately 7) Hope TomH doesn't throw my logs away... Again... :P I used to have around 500 gpspoints in 512+ files in the stats, but since the last GPX Trace displacement, I'm down to 2763239. I haven't bothered with reviving my 300 part of the 55949581 orphaned gpspoints, since the perlscript supplied for that operation indicates I have to re-enter the detailed descriptions again, and that would probably mean re-entering descriptions for 200+ files. It was enough of an ordeal the first time around. But I concurr, the importance of GPS tracklogs tends to be forgotten, after we got the possibility to trace over the Yahoo imagery. I still feel that gettin' out there with the GPS is necessary. Both for my own enjoyment (and health), as well as for observing changes and getting street and POI names. So a GPS trace layer gets my vote, although technically we should look into some way of merging multiple tracks into a single line. I know that a lot of my tracks runs along the same roads a fsckin' great many times, with the inherent jitter of GPS tracks being different by a few meters due to sat constellation, H/VDOP, Receiver sensitivity and what not. I.E. a map layer plotting all the traces in for instance central Copenhagen, would end up being one black box in layers below 15. I've just for kicks plotted 12 months worth of gps traces using a trackwidth of 1 pixel with Kismet's gpsmap utility, and Copenhagen definitely is just a blur at what is equivalent to our Layer 10. Dutch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Raw GPS layer
When you say track log you mean a GPX file? It's very easy to convert a SHP file into a GPX file. I have done it myself many times, so the existence of such GPX file proves nothing. Am I misunderstanding the whole thing? :-/ Cheers, Lucas De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] en nombre de J.D. Schmidt Enviado el: vie 22/02/2008 2:47 Para: 80n CC: OSM-Talk Asunto: Re: [OSM-talk] Raw GPS layer 80n skrev: At the moment we are not signalling clearly enough that *every* track log is valuable to the project, even for places that have already been mapped. Does anyone have any stats on number of edits vs. number of tracklogs by user? It might be quite revealing about who does and who doesn't upload their tracklogs (coastline uploaders and serial Yahoo! tracers excepted, of course). I can only speak for myself, but 98% of the edits I've made in JOSM, has been made from my gps logs. The remainder 2 % has been from yahoo imagery, mostly while fixing the danish coastline. My workflow generally is like this : 1) Open tracklog in JOSM. 2) Get OSM data for the area covered by the tracklog. 3) Make, tag and name new ways, correct possible bad ways along the tracklog. 5) Upload edits. 4) Gzip tracklog, and upload it via the website, tagging it with area, and give fairly detailed description of roads covered by the tracklog. 5) Drive out and cover a new area. 6) Repeat, rinse and lather... and lately 7) Hope TomH doesn't throw my logs away... Again... :P I used to have around 500 gpspoints in 512+ files in the stats, but since the last GPX Trace displacement, I'm down to 2763239. I haven't bothered with reviving my 300 part of the 55949581 orphaned gpspoints, since the perlscript supplied for that operation indicates I have to re-enter the detailed descriptions again, and that would probably mean re-entering descriptions for 200+ files. It was enough of an ordeal the first time around. But I concurr, the importance of GPS tracklogs tends to be forgotten, after we got the possibility to trace over the Yahoo imagery. I still feel that gettin' out there with the GPS is necessary. Both for my own enjoyment (and health), as well as for observing changes and getting street and POI names. So a GPS trace layer gets my vote, although technically we should look into some way of merging multiple tracks into a single line. I know that a lot of my tracks runs along the same roads a fsckin' great many times, with the inherent jitter of GPS tracks being different by a few meters due to sat constellation, H/VDOP, Receiver sensitivity and what not. I.E. a map layer plotting all the traces in for instance central Copenhagen, would end up being one black box in layers below 15. I've just for kicks plotted 12 months worth of gps traces using a trackwidth of 1 pixel with Kismet's gpsmap utility, and Copenhagen definitely is just a blur at what is equivalent to our Layer 10. Dutch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
