Re: [OSM-talk] additional layers on osm.org
Hi Tom! 2013/2/21 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu Well öpnvkarte was considered along with the current transport layer and the decision was that having two transport layers would be silly and that we preferred the one that we are currently offering. OK, (what I remember reading on the list was that, primary, it was because the transport map was easier/quicker to implement and it was made by Andy Allan(but possibly this was for the same reason: quick implementation)) but when directly comparing the two, I find that öpnvkarte offers a lot more information, including train lines, tram lines, underground lines and directional information. Look at this map from Frankfurt (one of the few German cities with real underground lines): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.10744lon=8.66401zoom=16layers=T and http://öpnvkarte.de/?zoom=16lat=50.10744lon=8.66401layers=TBTTThttp://xn--pnvkarte-m4a.de/?zoom=16lat=50.10744lon=8.66401layers=TBTTT It would be cool to have this stuff on the main page - I don't really care which map provides it, but the information is IMHO important. Nobody has ever asked OWG to consider hikebikemap. OK, what I personally ike about it is that it's a rather light style that works great with hill shading. -Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] additional layers on osm.org
On 22/02/13 10:10, Martin Simon wrote: OK, (what I remember reading on the list was that, primary, it was because the transport map was easier/quicker to implement and it was made by Andy Allan(but possibly this was for the same reason: quick implementation)) but when directly comparing the two, I find that öpnvkarte offers a lot more information, including train lines, tram lines, underground lines and directional information. I have no idea where you got that idea as I don't recall that being discussed at all in the meeting, and I don't see why either one would have been any quicker to implement than the other. The actual vote was done by a secret ballot, so we can't know for sure why people made the choice they did, but the discussion as I recall it largely centred on the cartography. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] additional layers on osm.org
So I don't know if that will be good enough for most people (outside the US). Fair enough. Truth be told, I had originally wondered if Jason's resources would be best used by acting as a cache on the existing GeoDNS network rather than hosting any new tiles. Cheers, Joseph On 21 February 2013 17:11, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: On Thursday 21 February 2013, Joseph Reeves wrote: MapBox? http://mapbox.com/blog/open-aerial/ If you look at the phases table at the bottom of http://mapbox.com/blog/mapbox-satellite/ From what I can tell, only Phase 1 is going to be open. So I don't know if that will be good enough for most people (outside the US). robert. ___ 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] additional layers on osm.org
On 21/02/13 15:05, Jason Remillard wrote: I wanted to confirm the major reason we only have 4 layers on osm.org, is a resourcing issue, rather than a political issue. It's a nobody has proposed a layer that meets the criteria laid out in the policy issue. This is (astonishingly) one area where we do actually have a well defined written policy: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] additional layers on osm.org
Am 21.02.2013 16:08 schrieb Jason Remillard remillard.ja...@gmail.com: - an overhead image layer + mapnik style. We could reproduce the work that MapBox did collecting existing images. - a hiking map, like cycle map, show information posts and route relations on paths, trails, etc. - a public transportation map The hikebikemap for hiking/biking/terrain and öpnvkarte for public transport would be great! :) -Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] additional layers on osm.org
Hi Tom, Yes, I know about the process. It is good that it is setup :-) It seems like the technical aspects are addressed by hosting them on the us OSM servers. The soft / arbitrary criteria are judgment questions about where the OSM community is at. However, what I was really asking was given the context I described combined with the process as currently defined, would any of these layers have a chance of getting approved? Thanks Jason On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 21/02/13 15:05, Jason Remillard wrote: I wanted to confirm the major reason we only have 4 layers on osm.org, is a resourcing issue, rather than a political issue. It's a nobody has proposed a layer that meets the criteria laid out in the policy issue. This is (astonishingly) one area where we do actually have a well defined written policy: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] additional layers on osm.org
On 21/02/13 15:57, Jason Remillard wrote: It seems like the technical aspects are addressed by hosting them on the us OSM servers. The soft / arbitrary criteria are judgment questions about where the OSM community is at. However, what I was really asking was given the context I described combined with the process as currently defined, would any of these layers have a chance of getting approved? Well that's more or less impossible to say in advance... I didn't read the list in detail but I didn't notice anything which sounded like it would automatically fail to meet the criteria. Some of the criteria - like whether it's so garish it makes our eyes bleed when we look at it - are of course impossible to evaluate without a concrete implementation. There is of course the question of exactly how much choice we want to offer - there is some sort of limit on how many options you can show to a user without being completely overwhelming. So layers with a larger target audience would obviously better than those which looked like they would have a very niche audience. It's also worth bearing in mind the general mantra that the site is not intended as an end user destination - so this should be about show casing what can be done with OSM data rather than providing a service to a people engaged in a particular sport or whatever. Much of this is of course just my own thoughts, and at the end of the day it would be up to the whole of the operations group to decide. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] additional layers on osm.org
On 21/02/13 15:56, Martin Simon wrote: The hikebikemap for hiking/biking/terrain and öpnvkarte for public transport would be great! :) Well öpnvkarte was considered along with the current transport layer and the decision was that having two transport layers would be silly and that we preferred the one that we are currently offering. Nobody has ever asked OWG to consider hikebikemap. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] additional layers on osm.org
On Thursday 21 February 2013, Jason Remillard wrote: - an overhead image layer + mapnik style. We could reproduce the work that MapBox did collecting existing images. I don't think you will have much success with the licensing here. Aerial imagery rights go for muchos $$$. I think you're forgetting we don't have things like bing imagery. We are granted the right to use it for a very specific (rather obscure in commercial terms) purpose. robert. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] additional layers on osm.org
MapBox? http://mapbox.com/blog/open-aerial/ On 21 February 2013 16:36, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: On Thursday 21 February 2013, Jason Remillard wrote: - an overhead image layer + mapnik style. We could reproduce the work that MapBox did collecting existing images. I don't think you will have much success with the licensing here. Aerial imagery rights go for muchos $$$. I think you're forgetting we don't have things like bing imagery. We are granted the right to use it for a very specific (rather obscure in commercial terms) purpose. robert. ___ 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] additional layers on osm.org
From: Jason Remillard [mailto:remillard.ja...@gmail.com] Subject: [OSM-talk] additional layers on osm.org Hello Everybody, I wanted to confirm the major reason we only have 4 layers on osm.org, is a resourcing issue, rather than a political issue. Basically, we do not have enough disk, cpu, bandwidth, and people to host them in the UK. The only layer which uses OSMF resources is the layer labeled Standard, also known as osm.org mapnik. Given that others[1] are successfully providing a wide variety of layers, it doesn't seem like devoting OSMF resources to another worldwide non-debug layer is necessary. So assuming: we can host them on the US OSM servers, the servers can handle it, and the map quality is good, etc, etc. Would there be any problem adding the following map layers to osm.org? I don't think these concerns should impact if it goes on osm.org, but a world-wide tile layer can take substantial resources, and is this what local chapter wants to be doing? [1] e.g. http://mapstyle.petschge.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] additional layers on osm.org
On Thursday 21 February 2013, Joseph Reeves wrote: MapBox? http://mapbox.com/blog/open-aerial/ If you look at the phases table at the bottom of http://mapbox.com/blog/mapbox-satellite/ From what I can tell, only Phase 1 is going to be open. So I don't know if that will be good enough for most people (outside the US). robert. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] additional layers on osm.org
Somewhat off topic, but there is http://www.opengeoserver.at/ which is financed at least partly by wikimedia and I expect that they would gladly include further open imagery sources. Simon Am 21.02.2013 18:11, schrieb Robert Scott: On Thursday 21 February 2013, Joseph Reeves wrote: MapBox? http://mapbox.com/blog/open-aerial/ If you look at the phases table at the bottom of http://mapbox.com/blog/mapbox-satellite/ From what I can tell, only Phase 1 is going to be open. So I don't know if that will be good enough for most people (outside the US). robert. ___ 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] additional layers on osm.org
I have been working on an indoor editor for OSM. Using a new indoor-specific editor or not, it is easy to add indoor map data to OSM. But doing this places a lot of data in the database that appears very ugly and very difficult to work with for a person not well versed in indoor maps in osm. Basically it looks like garbage. Indoor map data is a good candidate to use for an additional Layer in OSM. And by layer here I don't mean a tile layer on the OSM slippy map, as was used in this thread, or data tagged with the layer property tag. I mean a separate database layer. There has been talk about layers a number of times. I looked up one of the most recent discussions and pulled out this link from Jochen Topf discussing the idea. http://blog.jochentopf.com/2012-09-23-multiple-layers-for-osm.html Jochen's proposal is to implement Layers of the data by just using a different instance of the database. The same idea was suggested to me by John Novak, of using a new instance of the database to host indoor map data. And he specifically suggested petitioning to use the US servers to host this database. If nothing else, the separate database could be used as a staging area to test the idea of indoor map data and allow it to get some support in other editing tools before introducing the data into the regular database. Or maybe it would just stay as a separate layer. So if there are resources available I'd propose using them to create a copy of the database and the associated infrastructure to serve as a Indoor Map database. And I am sure there are other layers that would also be useful. Dave On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: From: Jason Remillard [mailto:remillard.ja...@gmail.com] Subject: [OSM-talk] additional layers on osm.org Hello Everybody, I wanted to confirm the major reason we only have 4 layers on osm.org, is a resourcing issue, rather than a political issue. Basically, we do not have enough disk, cpu, bandwidth, and people to host them in the UK. The only layer which uses OSMF resources is the layer labeled Standard, also known as osm.org mapnik. Given that others[1] are successfully providing a wide variety of layers, it doesn't seem like devoting OSMF resources to another worldwide non-debug layer is necessary. So assuming: we can host them on the US OSM servers, the servers can handle it, and the map quality is good, etc, etc. Would there be any problem adding the following map layers to osm.org? I don't think these concerns should impact if it goes on osm.org, but a world-wide tile layer can take substantial resources, and is this what local chapter wants to be doing? [1] e.g. http://mapstyle.petschge.de/ ___ 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] additional layers on osm.org
On 21/02/2013 15:05, Jason Remillard wrote: - Boating/Water recreation layer The water sports layer that is currently in OpenSeaMap could use a wider audience. This covers all sport=... features that are in-water as well as the whitewater features. The current location is somewhat obscure and inclusion as a layer in the OpenStreetMap main map would be a much better place for it. To view it, go to http://map.openseamap.org/map/ and from the View drop-down de-select everything except Sport. Then browse to an area where mapped water sports are known to exist. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] additional layers on osm.org
PS: See http://map.openseamap.org/map/?zoom=14lat=54.42942lon=10.2249layers=BFFTFFF0FF ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] additional layers on osm.org
Resources invested in hosting various useful tile layers and tools would only help in getting more people to switch to openstreetmaps and support the project. Why can't we have a larger donation drive and support such services which are central to the project and helps its growth? -- Arun Ganesh (planemad) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Planemad http://j.mp/ArunGanesh ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
