[talk-au] Mapnik rendering
highway=ford is not rendering on Mapnik, eg: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-35.50894lon=149.67154zoom=17layers=M I believe it should. I have no idea who to raise this issue with, or how. Before I spend more time looking, does somebody happen to know? John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney
On 30 August 2011 16:41, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: 1) Roads without names are almost as valuable as roads with names for certain uses. (Eg, choosing a route to save to a GPS works just as well without names) One way streets? Roads with barriers at the end of them? Roads with no entry signs? Cross country roads that are private and gated? Through roads mapped as service roads, and v.v? 2) There are strong arguments that there is no copyright in street names. If that argument is ever developed, we could easily fill in all the street names from other sources without doing the ground surveying. The amount of incorrect names, roads, etc in other maps sources verges on the absurd. In my local area I could point to tens of examples of streets on other maps sources with the wrong names. I'd like to think the survey and consequent accuracy is an integral part of OSM. And seriously, if we OSM ended up being traces with imported street names? I shudder to think.. Surveying suburban streets by GPS these days makes about as much sense as using a horse and cart on a freeway... This tracing vs survey argument is as old as OSM is. My vision of OSM is to get take a different route on the bike, or see more of a town when you are passing through, or even go for a walk around streets in your local area, rather than being a mechanical turk in front of a computer screen, but each to their own. Sometimes there is no alternative to tracing, but I think tracing without actually ever having placed a foot on the ground in the area, leads to a significantly poorer quality map, and you don't need to delve to far into the database for evidence of that.. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapnik rendering
On 02/09/11 10:16, Ian Sergeant wrote: Hi, I'm pretty sure mapnik doesn't render highway=ford on a way. It is probably for the best that it doesn't, IMO. See http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=7510#p7510 and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stylesheet for information on what is included in the stylesheets. And http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2944 for a trac item about rendering fords. And the wiki for the discussion on tagging fords at the expense of the type of the underlying highway. Thanks for that info. I'm still puzzled as to what you mean by tagging fords at the expense of the type of the underlying highway. I actually hope I'm not missing something obvious. I did have that way tagged as highway=unclassified and ford=yes, but the OSM wiki wording suggests that's for places which just might get wet. The ford I'm concerned with is long, is the river bed of the Shoalhaven River, and is always submerged. So the wiki is adamant it's highway=ford. Have I missed some alternative way of having OSM show that the road at the river is a through road, and doesn't just stop at either side? John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapnik rendering
Hi, I'm pretty sure mapnik doesn't render highway=ford on a way. It is probably for the best that it doesn't, IMO. See http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=7510#p7510 and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stylesheet for information on what is included in the stylesheets. And http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2944 for a trac item about rendering fords. And the wiki for the discussion on tagging fords at the expense of the type of the underlying highway. Ian. On 2 September 2011 08:10, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote: highway=ford is not rendering on Mapnik, eg: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?**lat=-35.50894lon=149.67154** zoom=17layers=Mhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-35.50894lon=149.67154zoom=17layers=M I believe it should. I have no idea who to raise this issue with, or how. Before I spend more time looking, does somebody happen to know? John H __**_ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-auhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 August 2011 16:41, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Surveying suburban streets by GPS these days makes about as much sense as using a horse and cart on a freeway... This tracing vs survey argument is as old as OSM is. My vision of OSM is to get take a different route on the bike, or see more of a town when you are passing through, or even go for a walk around streets in your local area, rather than being a mechanical turk in front of a computer screen, but each to their own. Personally I very much agree with this. I'd never spend my time tracing the roads of some boring suburb that I have no personal ties to. But I'm very glad that not everyone feels this way. Sometimes there is no alternative to tracing, but I think tracing without actually ever having placed a foot on the ground in the area, leads to a significantly poorer quality map, and you don't need to delve to far into the database for evidence of that.. Obviously a map is potentially better if one adds foot-on-the-ground surveying to whatever other methods you are using. But that's about all one can say. Tracing is quite often more accurate and/or precise than using a GPS. If high res imagery is available, and it appears to be well aligned, I'm pretty much always going to use that rather than GPS tracks, even if I have done a foot-on-the-ground survey. Put another way, unless your survey equipment is something equivalent to a google car (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stewb2008/5840727837/) or google bike (http://searchengineland.com/google-woos-brits-with-bike-based-street-view-project-19519), foot/tire-on-the-ground surveying without using high res imagery also invariably leads to a significantly poorer quality map. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapnik rendering
Quoting John Henderson snow...@gmx.com: highway=ford is not rendering on Mapnik, eg: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-35.50894lon=149.67154zoom=17layers=M I believe it should. I have no idea who to raise this issue with, or how. Before I spend more time looking, does somebody happen to know? John H I've been using highway=* ford=yes. On my trip to SA a few months ago, I added a few fords to major roads in rural areas (usually dry). Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapnik rendering
On 2 September 2011 11:26, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote: On 02/09/11 10:16, Ian Sergeant wrote: Hi, I'm pretty sure mapnik doesn't render highway=ford on a way. It is probably for the best that it doesn't, IMO. See http://forum.openstreetmap.**org/viewtopic.php?pid=7510#**p7510http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=7510#p7510and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Stylesheethttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stylesheetfor information on what is included in the stylesheets. And http://trac.openstreetmap.org/**ticket/2944http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2944 for a trac item about rendering fords. And the wiki for the discussion on tagging fords at the expense of the type of the underlying highway. Thanks for that info. I'm still puzzled as to what you mean by tagging fords at the expense of the type of the underlying highway. I actually hope I'm not missing something obvious. I did have that way tagged as highway=unclassified and ford=yes, but the OSM wiki wording suggests that's for places which just might get wet. The ford I'm concerned with is long, is the river bed of the Shoalhaven River, and is always submerged. So the wiki is adamant it's highway=ford. Have I missed some alternative way of having OSM show that the road at the river is a through road, and doesn't just stop at either side? See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ford for the discussion I'm referring to. Of course you can follow having highway=ford, and highway=unclassified ford=yes to mean different things, but in my opinion that is counter-intuitive. So, if I were you, I would either use highway=ford on a node, rather than a way, or use highway=unclassified, ford=yes. Any any event, the mapnik layer isn't (by intention) currently going to render highway=ford on a way. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapnik rendering
On 02/09/11 12:44, Ian Sergeant wrote: So, if I were you, I would either use highway=ford on a node, rather than a way, or use highway=unclassified, ford=yes. Thanks. I'll put it back to that again. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
