Re: [talk-au] Adelaide out of copyright street directory
--- On Sun, 18/1/09, i...@4x4falcon.com i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: source=* is different, since just because you tweak a few road bends from a GPS track doesn't mean it wasn't derived from Yahoo tracing. I'd suggest source=yahoo;gps in that case. Of course I'm not a copyright lawyer, but that seems to make sense to me. I can't imagine a scenario where is would be ok to change the source on a road from a government import, just because someone drove down the road wih their GPS. It still is derived from the Government data. Not if you delete the way and replace it completly with the gps derived data. Have look at the Mackay Qld where there is some gps sourced ways in place and compare it with the yahoo images in potlatch. If someone had traced the images before I put the gps data in then I would have just deleted the way and used the gps data as any traced way would have been significantly out. Cheers Ross Yeah, I was just thinking of this situation after I had sent to the list :P I concur. Early on in my OSM career, I changed a freeway that was from a GPS but the track wasn't accurate compared to nearby tracks/traces. So I deleted it and traced from Yahoo, with lots of nodes along bends to make them smooth. I found it easier to delete the old way than moving a stack of nodes in Potlatch, especially since it was a dual carriageway. BTW, you can align Yahoo imagery in Potlatch, as long as you have a few good points to align with (like an accurate GPS track of a curvy road). BlueMM Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] What gives with roundabouts?
--- On Fri, 12/12/08, Ian Sergeant iserg...@hih.com.au wrote: From: Ian Sergeant iserg...@hih.com.au Subject: Re: [talk-au] What gives with roundabouts? To: bluemm1975-...@yahoo.com Cc: Talk-au@openstreetmap.org Received: Friday, 12 December, 2008, 9:10 AM bluemm1975-...@yahoo.com wrote: I completely agree with all of Darrin's points. Fair 'nuff. I'm a big fan of mapping what's on the ground and don't tag for the renderers/routers. As is everyone - but we can't forget that a linear road is always going to be a representation of a 2 dimension road surface, and currently that is what we have to work with in OSM. If you were drawing the full road width in OSM, the road wouldn't actually deviate at all for a mini-roundabout, it would just be drawn within the width of the road. Mapping a 4-node deviation in the road for a mini-roundabout isn't actually what is on the ground, either. The question remains, how to best represent what is on the ground. True about abstract linear vs 2D. I think of it as we draw the centre line of a lane (or lanes), and that lane will deviate around a roundabout, as opposed to a mini. Maybe the fact that there is a centre island is the best test. Has anyone ever seen a proper mini in Australia? I plan on submitting a proposal for the roundabout tag, where you can add it to a node like a mini_roundabout, for use in simple suburban type roundabouts. Something like junction: inner_width=3mcould specify the island size, making it possible for pretty rendering. Weird intersecting ways or large roundabouts would have to continue as is. Oddly enough, these seems almost completely contrary to what Darrin is arguing, and aligns well with that I would like to see happen. I really don't care whether the tag is called mini_roundabout or something else, I think the junction is best represented by a single node. Darrin believes that it is better represented by have a loop. Ian. Not wanting to put words in Darrin's mouth, but I think we are on the same page. I'm arguing that it is a conceptual mismatch, we are redefining what a mini is just for Australia. That makes it hard on all users of worldwide data. If one of the current features don't match our reality, then it's our job to propose a new tag, and assist with coding renderers/routers if it's important to us for it to show up on maps etc. In some ways, the state/federal governmental definition of types of roundabout junctions is irrelevant, I think it's more important to match whatever has been decided by the OSM community. Of course if it doesn't match our needs, then propose a new tag. BlueMM (opinions are my own) Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/?p1=otherp2=aup3=tagline ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] What gives with roundabouts?
+1 I completely agree with all of Darrin's points. I was unaware of the decision on the mailing list when I started mapping a about 1.5 years ago. I read the descriptions on the wiki and went with a proper roundabout for suburban roundabouts, since they don't fit the definition of the mini-roundabout. I don't even recall seeing one in Melbourne, you always have to deviate around even small ones. As a Potlatch user, it sucks a bit to add them, but Merkaartor I think JOSM have a tool to make it easy. I'm a big fan of mapping what's on the ground and don't tag for the renderers/routers. But I like the idea of global consistency, it makes it easier on all users of the raw data. That's what I hope Map Features will provide (consistency), but the voting has it's issues as well. There's talk on the Talk mailing list of having a Core Features page. So for eg. I'd be in favour of using the wiki definitions of place=* tags. I plan on submitting a proposal for the roundabout tag, where you can add it to a node like a mini_roundabout, for use in simple suburban type roundabouts. Something like junction:inner_width=3mcould specify the island size, making it possible for pretty rendering. Weird intersecting ways or large roundabouts would have to continue as is. Anyone have any suggestions before I create the proposal? PS. Was it me adding turning_circle to courts? The wiki page description seems to match my use of it (I waited many months for it to be proposed/accepted/added to renderers). Cheers, BlueMM --- On Thu, 11/12/08, Darrin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Darrin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [talk-au] What gives with roundabouts? To: Talk-au@openstreetmap.org Received: Thursday, 11 December, 2008, 3:10 PM On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:55:13 +1100 Ian Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've looked back through the logs, found the one discussion, noted that it was basically a 4-3 split of contributors and since every discussion on it has been we discussed it and decided this. Hardly a consensus in my mind. Since you made the effort to go back through the logs, and re-read the discussion that took place then, I'm surprised you would reach the conclusion that peoples position was solely related to effort. I suspect that's because you were in the discussion and supported the views of the first poster, hence you didn't look at how he expressed it. (see below) I disagree that there hasn't been consensus on its use. There always have been differences of opioion, but as you say, most people have been happy to accept that it is the way it is. That is consensus. Ok I'll pay that in the technical definition of the word you are correct. However given that all new people approach a project like this with some trepidation (For example it's taken me 10 months and someone altering work I've done to make me raise this issue which I've thought was wrong almost as soon as I found out about it) it's not surprising the 'consensus' has been maintained. OSM is littered with cases of things done badly to start with (which is not a problem in one sense because something needs to be started somewhere) and then carried on forever after (this is where it's a problem) in what appears to be consensus because no-ones been motivated to change it (The hideous is_in tag comes to mind). I feel the approach you are taking is wrong. There are reasonable arguments to use a mini-roundabout tag in Australia where it is currently being used. If you want to convince people to not use it, and to map using junction, take the time to understand and address those arguments, and convince people that the best way is the way you are suggesting. Don't dismiss its proponents as lazy, or worse still as disruptive. Many of its these people have been valuable contributors to getting the map done. Ok, I could have approached it a better way I'll admit that. But this issue boils down to the fact there are no actual reasons given for why mini_roundabout should be used! The discussion just seems to assume that every roundabout is a mini until it has reason to be bigger, it's not even discussed whether this is valid. The discussion resolves around what benefits the roundabout tag offers OVER the mini_roundabout tag, ignoring the fact they actually imply 2 quite different things in the first place. Historically the roundabout tag predates the mini-roundabout tag by at least 10 months in the wiki pages. So in effect the original mini_roundabout tag was devise to handle a very special case of roundabout that doesn't fit well with the normal definition in size, shape, signage and the fact you can drive straight over it in extenuating circumstances (I can't help but wonder if mini is referring more to it's HEIGHT that it's radius). But here in Australia we apparently want to turn that very specific case tag into the general tag and make
Re: [talk-au] How to merge existing ways with Potlatch?
[Sorry, first post went to Thomas directly, seems the list doesn't set reply-to field to the talk-au list :( ] Hi Thomas, It works for me like this (it's hard to put in words, but here goes)... * Have two separate ways, that you want to join into one way (not for a T-intersection or a crossing) * Select an end node of way1 (selecting end nodes puts you in a mode to extend the way by further clicking) * Hover the mouse over the end node of way2 where you want them to join (way2's nodes will show as bigger blue squares) * Hold the Shift key while clicking on way2's end node * Way2 now becomes part of Way1 I've gotten the The ways do not share a common point message before, when I had way1 selected (but not an end node), and shift clicked in between 2 nodes on way2. I was doing this to add more nodes to way2 to smooth curves of a freeway, but you can only do this if way2 is selected, but I had the other side of the freeway selected. Hope that helps, BlueMM - Original Message From: Thomas Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, 9 October, 2008 11:42:44 PM Subject: [talk-au] How to merge existing ways with Potlatch? Hi, I try to merge two existing ways with Potlatch, but it does not work. I followed the documentation: cite-start--- To merge two ways into one: * Draw your way as normal. * When you move your mouse over another way, the points light up blue. * Shift-click the blue point at the start or end of the other way. * Or: if the ways are already drawn, select one, then hold Shift and click the other. cite-end Selecting one and Shift click the other always results in the error/message The ways do not share a common point. How do I create a common point or merge points? tschuess Thomas -- Thomas Schroeder eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au Make the switch to the world#39;s best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
