Re: [talk-au] Bridges in the ACT
On 14 August 2010 14:46, Nick Hocking wrote: > What would be the best way to get a publically accessable web map of the ACT > showing > the OSM data but with the bridges highlighted? > > Also bridges that have not had their bridge_number tagged could be > highlighted in red > and those whose number has been tagged could be highlighted in green. Are you asking about a custom mapnik style sheet? Why are you using bridge_number=* instead of ref=* or bridge:ref=* ? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Bridges in the ACT
"Are you asking about a custom mapnik style sheet?" Yes "Why are you using bridge_number=* instead of ref=* or bridge:ref=* ?" My understanding is that ref or bridge:ref would be the ref of the road over the bridge. These are numbers relating specifically to the bridge structure itself and therefore bridge_number would be of a similar nature to the proposed tag bridge_name. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bridges in the ACT
On 14 August 2010 17:50, Nick Hocking wrote: > "Are you asking about a custom mapnik style sheet?" > > Yes Do you plan to host it locally on your own computer, or just want someone else to do it all? > "Why are you using bridge_number=* instead of ref=* or bridge:ref=* ?" > > My understanding is that ref or bridge:ref would be the ref of the road over > the bridge. > These are numbers relating specifically to the bridge structure itself and > therefore > bridge_number would be of a similar nature to the proposed tag bridge_name. name=* should be the bridge name, not the road name, which is why you shouldn't use name=* on roundabouts unless the roundabout actually has a name. same with ref=* or at the very least I would do bridge:ref=* since you are referring to some kind of reference number for that bridge. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Bridges in the Act
"Do you plan to host it locally on your own computer," I don't plan to host this locally on my own computer. " or just want someone else to do it all?" Consider my question withdrawn. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bridges in the Act
On 14 August 2010 18:07, Nick Hocking wrote: > "Do you plan to host it locally on your own computer," > > I don't plan to host this locally on my own computer. > > > " or just want someone else to do it all?" > > Consider my question withdrawn. I can do it, but I was trying to figure out if you were looking for help to do it yourself. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bridges in the ACT
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:54 AM, John Smith wrote: > > name=* should be the bridge name, not the road name Not necessarily, according to the wiki. It seems that this is still ambiguous. > ... at the very least I would do bridge:ref=* since you > are referring to some kind of reference number for that bridge. This sounds right to me. But if you propose bridge:ref=* then you should probably also use bridge:name=* rather than the already proposed bridge_name=*. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of Australian data
On 12 August 2010 22:22, Grant Slater wrote: > Sorry, my abuse reply was to the hypothetical question. > > But the un-winding of edits still stands. What about abusive edits that tweak the location of nodes by 0.1mm by someone pro-CT/ODBL just so they can claim the node was their creation? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bridges in the ACT
On 14 August 2010 14:46, Nick Hocking wrote: > What would be the best way to get a publically accessable web map of the ACT > showing > the OSM data but with the bridges highlighted? I assumed you meant the bridge casing... http://maps.bigtincan.com/?z=17&ll=-35.293,149.128&layer=BFFFT or did you mean something else? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bridges in the ACT
On 14 August 2010 18:19, Roy Wallace wrote: > This sounds right to me. But if you propose bridge:ref=* then you > should probably also use bridge:name=* rather than the already > proposed bridge_name=*. I still think it should be just name=*, after all what's the point of the road name being rendered when you expect the bridge name to be? If you want to do name/ref for the way this is when you need to think about route relations, in which case you only need the bridge to be tagged with ref=* ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Edits vs edits
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 5:55 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 12 August 2010 22:22, Grant Slater wrote: >> Sorry, my abuse reply was to the hypothetical question. >> >> But the un-winding of edits still stands. > > What about abusive edits that tweak the location of nodes by 0.1mm by > someone pro-CT/ODBL just so they can claim the node was their > creation? Are you suggesting that such a bulk edit has happened? I'm not aware of edits that match that description perhaps you can link to the changesets for reference? Presuming that regular mapper, A_Mapper surveys and uploads their neighbourhood, Mapperton, then other mapper, O_Mapper shifts everything by a random 0.1mm, a superficial look at the current data would show that O_Mapper touched all the data last. A look at node/way history would show that A_Mapper created version 1 of that data. Given the example above, and presuming that A_Mapper chose to accept the license upgrade and O_Mapper did not, what would you recommend for the data? a) leave as version 2 b) revert to version 1 c) delete data d) something else. What about the reverse? What would you recommend be done with the data if A_Mapper did not accept the license upgrade, but O_Mapper did accept? There is a thread on osm-dev@ discussing how to model OSM data regarding ODbL/CT acceptance. What you describe above sounds a little different than the current discussion on osm-dev@, what would you call it? "edits vs. trivial edits", "user edits vs. automated edits" ? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bridges in the ACT
On 15/08/2010, at 1:28 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 14 August 2010 18:19, Roy Wallace wrote: >> This sounds right to me. But if you propose bridge:ref=* then you >> should probably also use bridge:name=* rather than the already >> proposed bridge_name=*. > > I still think it should be just name=*, after all what's the point of > the road name being rendered when you expect the bridge name to be? The big problem is that you can't tell what the name=* refers to, and what if the road and bridge name are both important? The unambiguous way to do it is to use a bridge relation - you put the name/ref on the relation, have the road, cycleway, footway on the bridge be a member with a 'across' roles, and the river or other road be a member with the 'under' role. Which also lets you say that the road and cycleway are part of the same bridge, not two separate ones. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Edits vs edits
On 15 August 2010 08:15, Richard Weait wrote: > Are you suggesting that such a bulk edit has happened? I'm not aware > of edits that match that description perhaps you can link to the > changesets for reference? I'm not suggesting any such thing has happened, but if people are going to abuse stuff it's possible that something like this might occur by someone in support of CT/ODBL if/when they find out just by shifting nodes by a random amount may give them the right to claim they "created" the node even if it shares the node id with a previous mapper. > Presuming that regular mapper, A_Mapper surveys and uploads their > neighbourhood, Mapperton, then other mapper, O_Mapper shifts > everything by a random 0.1mm, a superficial look at the current data > would show that O_Mapper touched all the data last. A look at > node/way history would show that A_Mapper created version 1 of that > data. > > Given the example above, and presuming that A_Mapper chose to accept > the license upgrade and O_Mapper did not, what would you recommend for > the data? You seem to have it backwards, A_Mapper refuses to accept, but O_Mapper did all the updates so the data could be accepted under the new license, even if A_Mapper refuses since the nodes would be considered to be created by O_Mapper even if the node IDs match. > a) leave as version 2 > b) revert to version 1 > c) delete data > d) something else. You have to delete something, reverting may not help if my understanding of some people's interpretation is valid in that the 2nd version may still be deemed acceptable under ODBL, option a is morally questionable in the same sense. > What about the reverse? What would you recommend be done with the > data if A_Mapper did not accept the license upgrade, but O_Mapper did > accept? That is what I was taking about, Grant was the one commenting on the reverse and as I understand it that sort of suggestion is what might lead to people doing abusive edits, regardless if they are for or against. > There is a thread on osm-dev@ discussing how to model OSM data > regarding ODbL/CT acceptance. What you describe above sounds a little > different than the current discussion on osm-dev@, what would you call > it? "edits vs. trivial edits", "user edits vs. automated edits" ? I call it potential for abuse :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
