[OSRM-talk] Time-to-destination on OSRM is too short
The time-to-destination shown on the public OSRM router seems to be much too short. e.g. For the route from Sheffield to Nottingham, via Chesterfield (UK), OSRM says it will take 42 minutes. That is not a realistic time at all. Even if you drive as fast as possible (breaking the speed limit on the motorway, where there are no speedcams) it is likely to take at least 60 minutes. Google's routing says it will take 58 minutes, which is much nearer the minimum possible time. However that is still shorter than the actual time it takes for a normal driver in normal traffic. Looking at the OSM data, it does look as if there is missing maxspeed data on some of the roads involved (but the maxspeed on the major length of motorway is correctly tagged), but presumably OSRM uses sensible scaled down defaults, relative to the way type, in that case? Any suggestions as to how to help to get the public OSRM server to give more realistic times? ___ OSRM-talk mailing list OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk
[OSM-talk] How to move Potlatch map to specific coordinates whilst editing (without zooming out)?
Is there any way to move the map to a specific coordinates whilst editing in Potlatch and stay at the same zoom level? I know 1 way, which is to enter the coordinates into the search box, select the coordinates item from the search list and then say Cancel when it asks if you want to move away form the current page. A bit clunky, but it does work, but unfortunately the zoom level it then chooses for the new coordinates is quite small, so it then tries to download vast amounts of data (which can cause crashes/restarts of Potlatch or use up all the allowable bandwidth). This method would be liveable with if it didn't zoom out so much. Is there any easier way to do this that I haven't noticed? Thanks, Spod ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to move Potlatch map to specific coordinates whilst editing (without zooming out)?
Ah, I hadn't seen that before - Thanks Richard! As you say, it's not quite what I was looking for, because Nominatim's nearest place to the coordinates can be a long way off the entered coordinates. If it handled coordinates directly, then that would be exactly what I need. I'll add something to trac about it. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/How-to-move-Potlatch-map-to-specific-coordinates-whilst-editing-without-zooming-out-tp5714535p5714538.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] handheld gps unit
I have the VisionTac VGPS-900 (which is the same as the Columbus V900), and am very happy with it. 1) For me, the audio recording is a vital feature, especially when mapping house numbers, shops, POIs, turn restrictions etc. Having used this a lot, I can't see myself going back to a logger without audio recording! I have _not_ had any problem with the audio recording function stopping the recording of GPS points - it seems to work perfectly OK for me. 2) Accuracy is good. 3) Seems to get a fix quite quickly, even when you've moved a long way with it turned off. 4) Battery lasts ages. 5) The onboard software does quite a lot of interpolation/extrapolation, so that you can sometimes see the track overshoot when doing a sharp turn. I've seen a review online somewhere that shows this happening with all of the 'high sensitivity GPS-receivers though, so not unique to the V900. 6) As someone else mentioned, there is no USB data connection (the USB port is for charging only), so you have to take out the microSD card to transfer the data to a PC. Mine came with a USB microSD reader, so I don't see this as a problem. As far as I know, the V900 does not have any internal accelerometer, so if the V990 has one, then that's a difference. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/handheld-gps-unit-tp5651586p5660208.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Associated Press article: Crowds create Wikipedia-style maps of the world
http://www.japantoday.com/category/lifestyle/view/crowds-create-wikipedia-style-maps-of-the-world?utm_campaign=jt_newsletterutm_medium=emailutm_source=jt_newsletter_2012-03-22_AM ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is an object created by a non-agreer always tainted, even if all info has been deleted/changed by agreers?
OK, so spelling corrections could be viewed as not removing the taint, because we can't tell if the agreer making the change used a odbl/CT-compatible source for the change or not. Thinking about it, other edits done by bots to normalise the tagging into a standard (e.g. changing something like leisure=swimming_pool into sport=swimming [that's a made-up example off the top of my head!]), could also be viewed as not removing the taint, because we also can't tell if the agreer used an odbl/CT-compatible source or not. However, we could add something to the taint checking that would ignore the taint of specific tags if changes of specific tag values from one official value to another official value had been made. It seems that it is quite difficult to imagine all of the different scenarios though, so it sounds as if such tests would need to be very specific (e.g. 'A change of the highway tag from one official value to another official value, removes the taint from that tag). There are probably other specific tags, for which we could define similar specific changes which would remove the tag. Maybe for the name tag, the taint checking could check to see if the new value is just a spelling variation or a completely different value (using some kind of fuzzy string matching?) - with a completely different value resulting in the taint being removed from that tag? It's obviously a bit more complicated than it first appears, but I think that there must be some additions that could be made to the taint checking to remove the taint in specific, well-defined situations, which would hopefully reduce the amount of supposedly-tainted data a bit (how much. I'm not sure). -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Is-an-object-created-by-a-non-agreer-always-tainted-even-if-all-info-has-been-deleted-tp5450719p5452068.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
