Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone famiiar with Hay-on-Wye?
On 06/01/2013 22:05, Lester Caine wrote: SomeoneElse wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/199683324/history If you look at it in P1 it's an obvious untagged doodle. Not having P1 running, cross checking other peoples changes can be a little difficult :( View of history is an area I'd still like to see some facilities for. When you edit a way in P2 look in the URL bar. After 'edit?' add 'editor=potlatch&'. This will load it in P1 & you can undelete by tapping the 'U' key. (wait a while - slow to load) Why P1 was removed from the drop down without adding an easy viable alternative is beyond me. I came to the conclusion some people like to cut their noses to spite their faces, Or should I say other people's faces & put a spanner in the works. Cheers Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone famiiar with Hay-on-Wye?
SomeoneElse wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/199683324/history If you look at it in P1 it's an obvious untagged doodle. Not having P1 running, cross checking other peoples changes can be a little difficult :( View of history is an area I'd still like to see some facilities for. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Problematical edits near Leyland
I also spotted a similar earlier problematic edit by the same user, http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14534753 which I have also reverted. Although got the number wrong in my comment, sorry. I think the first suggestion will be not to change so much in one go. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Problematical edits near Leyland
Philip Barnes wrote: I have successfully reverted the changeset. Thanks Now dreaming up a suitable diplomatic explanation for the new mapper. I usually use something along the lines of "hello-and-welcome-and-by-the-way-something-appears-to-have-gone-wrong", but in this case it's more of a challenge! I am using JOSM, on Fedora 17. I was using the latest JOSM stable on Windows 7 - presumably Bill Gates is to blame (!) Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Problematical edits near Leyland
I have successfully reverted the changeset. Now dreaming up a suitable diplomatic explanation for the new mapper. I am using JOSM, on Fedora 17. Phil (trigpoint) On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 19:03 +, SomeoneElse wrote: > The following changeset by a new mapper near Leyland appears problematical: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14536266 > > It doesn't appear to be malicious - it looks like it's a case of "delete > everything and redraw it badly". > > An example is: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/199632688 > > It doesn't join at the north end, has an incorrect name, and misses the > speed limits that had been manually surveyed for the ways that it replaced. > > Three of the four pages of ways in the changeset contain similar deletions. > > I had intended to revert it* and then explain to the new mapper what the > problem was. Unfortunately JOSM with the reverter plugin falls over > with a null pointer exception. Plan B is probably "revert.pl" but I've > unfortunately run out of time tonight. > > Could some kind soul who's got revert.pl or some alternative installed, > tested and working revert changeset 14536266? > > Cheers, > > Andy > > * Yes, I know that this is a very drastic action - but in this case > (given the damage done) I think that it would be justified. I'm also > happy to discuss alternative approaches if anyone feels that there's a > better way of dealing with this particular issue. > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
On 06/01/2013 10:13, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: On 6 January 2013 01:54, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: In the first proposal, I find it very difficult to see the difference between the farmland and the non-tagged areas. It's a bit easier in the second proposal. It could maybe be made a bit lighter, but not by that much. Agreed -- a little lighter would be nice, but not as much as the first proposal. In this final image, I have adjusted the Hue and Saturation to provide more of a 'green': https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bZXhzdVJMVU44X2M I think it would be a pity to lose the hue relationship between fields & farmyards (which are currently different lightnesses of an otherwise similar brown). -- Cheers, John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Problematical edits near Leyland
The following changeset by a new mapper near Leyland appears problematical: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14536266 It doesn't appear to be malicious - it looks like it's a case of "delete everything and redraw it badly". An example is: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/199632688 It doesn't join at the north end, has an incorrect name, and misses the speed limits that had been manually surveyed for the ways that it replaced. Three of the four pages of ways in the changeset contain similar deletions. I had intended to revert it* and then explain to the new mapper what the problem was. Unfortunately JOSM with the reverter plugin falls over with a null pointer exception. Plan B is probably "revert.pl" but I've unfortunately run out of time tonight. Could some kind soul who's got revert.pl or some alternative installed, tested and working revert changeset 14536266? Cheers, Andy * Yes, I know that this is a very drastic action - but in this case (given the damage done) I think that it would be justified. I'm also happy to discuss alternative approaches if anyone feels that there's a better way of dealing with this particular issue. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone famiiar with Hay-on-Wye?
Lester Caine wrote: So probably just a case that your deletion needs rolling back. Just to clarify - I've not deleted the "duplicate footway and cycleway". What I deleted was this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/199683324/history If you look at it in P1 it's an obvious untagged doodle. For info there was also a doodle and another edit in Wuhan city, China by the same user - I messaged someone that I hope is a local mapper about those. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone famiiar with Hay-on-Wye?
SomeoneElse wrote: I recently deleted a doodle in Hay-on-Wye, but after doing so noticed that to there northwest there seem to be a cycle path and a footpath _very_ close together: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.073537&lon=-3.130221&zoom=18&layers=M I guess that this could be correct, but presumably it's also possible that they're really the same thing. If it is incorrect, is anyone able to patch it up with local knowledge? I can't remember the exact details around there (been many years since I last walked it), but the main cycleway is the old railway track, and there there several footpaths which used to run originally alongside the railway. So probably just a case that your deletion needs rolling back. One of the problems which makes understanding some of the close proximities is the random nature of 'layers' added just to some elements. The steps between the old track bed and the footway passing under it start and end on the same layer? There is nothing to distinguish the vertical relation between the two tracks going north although guesswork would suggest that the footpath may be further down the slope towards the river? There is quite a steep drop from the town to the river. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone famiiar with Hay-on-Wye?
On 06/01/2013 14:02, SomeoneElse wrote: I recently deleted a doodle in Hay-on-Wye, but after doing so noticed that to there northwest there seem to be a cycle path and a footpath _very_ close together: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.073537&lon=-3.130221&zoom=18&layers=M I guess that this could be correct, but presumably it's also possible that they're really the same thing. I did the original ground survey for Hay in 2007. I still have the files, but unfortunately they are so old JOSM won't open them any more, so I can't see exactly what I did originally. My original work has long since been superseded here. But I don't remember there being two parallel paths east of the steps, and I only have one GPS trace. So I think you're right, they are the same thing. It's part of the NCN, so it should be a cycleway, not a footpath. And yes, it is an old railway. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone famiiar with Hay-on-Wye?
On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 14:02 +, SomeoneElse wrote: > I recently deleted a doodle in Hay-on-Wye, but after doing so noticed > that to there northwest there seem to be a cycle path and a footpath > _very_ close together: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.073537&lon=-3.130221&zoom=18&layers=M > > I guess that this could be correct, but presumably it's also possible > that they're really the same thing. > > If it is incorrect, is anyone able to patch it up with local knowledge? > On bing it looks like an old railway, so I suspect it is the same thing. If nobody local comes forward, I will stop off for a look next time we pass that way. Will be when the weather get a bit better. Phil (trigpoint, was trig222) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Anyone famiiar with Hay-on-Wye?
I recently deleted a doodle in Hay-on-Wye, but after doing so noticed that to there northwest there seem to be a cycle path and a footpath _very_ close together: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.073537&lon=-3.130221&zoom=18&layers=M I guess that this could be correct, but presumably it's also possible that they're really the same thing. If it is incorrect, is anyone able to patch it up with local knowledge? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
On 6 January 2013 01:54, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > I prefer landuse areas to be darker than the default light gray background > color in the Standard rendering. This makes it obvious (especially on LCD > screens where lightness/luminance of colors vary depending on the viewing > angle) that there is a tagged area there. > > You could make the case that the farmuse area could be lighter than it is > now and/or use a different hue than brown, but don't make it as light as the > default background color. +1 In the first proposal, I find it very difficult to see the difference between the farmland and the non-tagged areas. It's a bit easier in the second proposal. It could maybe be made a bit lighter, but not by that much. What's the lightness of the current landuse=residential grey? What does it look like if you match the farmland colour to that? Robert. >> (full text and images at >> https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bYm9IWXdlVHM1N1U ) >> >> Recently landuse=farmland (or simply landuse=farm) has been added to >> fields near me. This has led to a discussion about how the rendering 'looks' >> with some arguing that it doesn't look that good. I believe that this may be >> due to the shade of colour used – specifically the farmland 'brown' is not >> as luminous as the default 'grey' (actually I think it 'lightness' rather >> than 'luminosity' that matters to the human eye but I got very confused when >> searching the two). >> >> Consider the image below, showing current rendering: >> >> https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bZDBTN2dZZkpDenc >> >> On the left we have farmland tagged. The 'brown' has a Lightness value of >> 83 percent (luminance of 85%). Compare this to the default canvas 'grey', >> which has 93 percent Lightness (and 93 percent luminance). >> >> Now consider the following (and please check your screen calibration at >> http://www.photofriday.com/calibrate.php ). I have taken the farmland >> 'brown' and raised it's Lightness to the same 93 percent as the default >> 'grey' (that is, I have left the Hue and Saturation the same): >> >> https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bSzk5NDZVMm5GZkE >> >> In this final image, I have adjusted the Hue and Saturation to provide >> more of a 'green': >> >> https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bZXhzdVJMVU44X2M >> >> What are your thoughts? Which do you prefer? Have I gone too 'light' with >> the change and should some value in-between be used instead? Am I barking up >> the wrong tree? -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
