[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Happy New Year
Happy New Year folks. Lets hope 2010 is as great a year for OSM in the midlands as they have been to date. See you all on the 7th. Cheers Andy ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
[Talk-GB] A495 add tag 'bicycle=yes'?
Having confirmed that the A495 is correctly tagged as 'trunk' I propose adding another tag, 'bicycle=yes'. The reason involves openmtbmap and perhaps other bicycle oriented maps. It currently blocks all trunk roads to autorouting, while allowing primary roads. The author has indicated that he will include trunk roads if tagged bicycle=yes and motorroad=yes is not present. I will not do this for highway=motorway. (ref http://openmtbmap.org/about/autorouting/#comments) Can anyone think of any potential problems/conflicts etc that I should know about before I go ahead and add the tag? Thanks, Angus ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] A495 add tag 'bicycle=yes'?
Hi, brenda cameron wrote: The reason involves openmtbmap and perhaps other bicycle oriented maps. It currently blocks all trunk roads to autorouting, while allowing primary roads. The author has indicated that he will include trunk roads if tagged bicycle=yes and motorroad=yes is not present. I will not do this for highway=motorway. If cycling is usually allowed on trunk roads in .uk then you should make an effort to persuade the author to reflect that in his code. (It seems he's from Germany, where we normally use highway=trunk for a type of road that is closed to bicycles.) If, however, that would lead to you having to add bicycle=no to 95% of trunk roads then maybe it is better proceed as you have planned. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] A495 add tag 'bicycle=yes'?
On 01/01/2010 22:01, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, brenda cameron wrote: The reason involves openmtbmap and perhaps other bicycle oriented maps. It currently blocks all trunk roads to autorouting, while allowing primary roads. The author has indicated that he will include trunk roads if tagged bicycle=yes and motorroad=yes is not present. I will not do this for highway=motorway. If cycling is usually allowed on trunk roads in .uk then you should make an effort to persuade the author to reflect that in his code. (It seems he's from Germany, where we normally use highway=trunk for a type of road that is closed to bicycles.) If, however, that would lead to you having to add bicycle=no to 95% of trunk roads then maybe it is better proceed as you have planned. Cycling is allowed on just about all trunk roads in the UK. There are a few trunk (or primary) roads where cycling is banned, but they are exceptions (and signposted as such), so easier to just tag those as bicycle=no. There is this page which specifies the default access restrictions for different highway types in various countries: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions Though its currently lacking anything for the UK. It would be worth adding a table, then anyone making routing software can just check that page. Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Yet another trunk road query - A495
brenda cameron wrote: Having confirmed that the A495 is correctly tagged as 'trunk' I propose adding another tag, 'bicycle=yes'. The reason involves openmtbmap and perhaps other bicycle oriented maps. It currently blocks all trunk roads to autorouting, while allowing primary roads. The author has indicated that he will include trunk roads if tagged bicycle=yes and motorroad=yes is not present. I will not do this for highway=motorway. (ref http://openmtbmap.org/about/autorouting/#comments) The author of openmtbmap is at fault, not you. There is absolutely no presumption that highway=trunk implies bicycle=no. Don't change your tagging: encourage others to create a cycle map which does not have the faulty assumptions of the openmtbmap author. Sadly he refuses to open-source his code (http://openmtbmap.org/faq/#i-would-like-to-have-a-look-into-the-style-file-for-mkgmap), which is entirely his prerogative but a shame nonetheless. cyclestreets.net, which is the best-known UK OSM cycling router, does not ban trunk roads like openmtbmap appears to. (/me makes note to generate and upload new version of my Garmin cyclemap...) cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open (was: Re: Yet another trunk road query - A495)
Hi, I'm breaking this out of talk-gb and into talk. Richard Fairhurst wrote: Sadly [the openmtbmap author] refuses to open-source his code (http://openmtbmap.org/faq/#i-would-like-to-have-a-look-into-the-style-file-for-mkgmap), which is entirely his prerogative but a shame nonetheless. Maybe it is time for us at OSM to make a distinction between (a) open projects in the sense and spirit of OSM, where scripts, style files, and everything else is open and license-wise available for everyone to look at and build upon, and (b) proprietary projects, whether of commercial or private nature, which we are still happy to have using our data and which we will still linkt to and all, but which we do not consider part of the family. We cannot, and do not want to, trademark the words open, free and the like, but I think we could be a little bit more assertive about whom we consider to be a kindred spirit and who is doing his own thing, and apply the tiniest amount of pressure for people to upgrade from (b) to (a). I think many of us will be surprised how many cool OSM projects actually fall into the (b) category. To make it absolutely clear, this is not about forcing anyone to do anything, about licenses or anything - it is just about saying loud and clear what we like, and giving those who do what we like a pat on the back while telling those who don't that we would respect their great work even more if they were open like us. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, I'm breaking this out of talk-gb and into talk. Richard Fairhurst wrote: Sadly [the openmtbmap author] refuses to open-source his code (http://openmtbmap.org/faq/#i-would-like-to-have-a-look-into-the-style-file-for-mkgmap), which is entirely his prerogative but a shame nonetheless. Maybe it is time for us at OSM to make a distinction between (a) open projects in the sense and spirit of OSM, where scripts, style files, and everything else is open and license-wise available for everyone to look at and build upon, and (b) proprietary projects, whether of commercial or private nature, which we are still happy to have using our data and which we will still linkt to and all, but which we do not consider part of the family. I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're not really open, are they? Fredrick - I think this needs a separate new topic. Cheers Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
