[Talk-GB] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing
Any reason why these seem to have disappeared or is it just an incorrect edit? If it's just a mistake I'll add Rydal Water back later, whether I have the time to do Windermere is another matter though unfortunately... Thanks, Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing
What do you think is wrong with them? They're visible in mapnik, most ways haven't been edited since January. There does appear to be a bit of pointless overuse of multipolygons to represent riverbanks, but nothing that makes them 'missing'. Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing
1. Didn't appear on Freemap when I updated the data earlier today (first update since the 64-bit ID issue in Feb) 2. Went onto Potlatch and the natural=water polygon seemed to be missing in both cases. Other lakes in the Lake District all ok. -Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: - From: Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com Date: 24/03/2013 11:11AM Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing What do you think is wrong with them? They're visible in mapnik, most ways haven't been edited since January. There does appear to be a bit of pointless overuse of multipolygons to represent riverbanks, but nothing that makes them 'missing'. Dave F. ___ 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] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing
On 24/03/2013 11:38, Nick Whitelegg wrote: 1. Didn't appear on Freemap when I updated the data earlier today (first update since the 64-bit ID issue in Feb) Well, to be honest, there's your problem. Freemap, to me, is a bit of a joke. 2. Went onto Potlatch and the natural=water polygon seemed to be missing in both cases. No, they're in the multipolygon. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon Dave F. Other lakes in the Lake District all ok. -Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: - From: Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com Date: 24/03/2013 11:11AM Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing What do you think is wrong with them? They're visible in mapnik, most ways haven't been edited since January. There does appear to be a bit of pointless overuse of multipolygons to represent riverbanks, but nothing that makes them 'missing'. Dave F. ___ 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] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing
To reply to your points: 1. Firstly I don't think I have ever responded in a rant style fashion on the OSM mailing lists before, but could you please qualify your insulting first comment? Are you simply a troll, are are you simply so pathetic and small-minded not to realise that a) Freemap is a hobbyist project and is thus inevitably subject to limitations in server power and b) any time I spend on it is my own spare time, I am unable to work on it 24/7? If you think it could be improved I suggest you check out the source code at https://github.com/nickw1/Freemap and contribute, rather than pathetically insulting and denigrating a lot of hard work? I do You are the first person I have ever launched a rant at in eight years of contributing to OSM - well done ;-) Come back when you have some positive suggestions as to how I can improve Freemap without needing to invest more money in it, or when you have some source code to contribute, otherwise 2. I always thought lakes were simply represented as natural=water. Anything special about these two which suggests they shouldn't? True, they have islands in them but so does Derwentwater. Nick From: Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com To: Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 11:49 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing On 24/03/2013 11:38, Nick Whitelegg wrote: 1. Didn't appear on Freemap when I updated the data earlier today (first update since the 64-bit ID issue in Feb) Well, to be honest, there's your problem. Freemap, to me, is a bit of a joke. 2. Went onto Potlatch and the natural=water polygon seemed to be missing in both cases. No, they're in the multipolygon. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon Dave F. Other lakes in the Lake District all ok. -Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: - From: Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com Date: 24/03/2013 11:11AM Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing What do you think is wrong with them? They're visible in mapnik, most ways haven't been edited since January. There does appear to be a bit of pointless overuse of multipolygons to represent riverbanks, but nothing that makes them 'missing'. Dave F. ___ 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___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing
The problem seemed to be that the boundary of Rydal Water had been split into 3 parts which, although they were assigned to the Rydal Water relation, had no tags of their own. Potlatch was not identifying the area as water. I have joined them up, and given them the natural=water tag. Potlatch now recognises Rydal Water as a lake. I chose this approach after reviewing how Grasmere was tagged. I assume something similar happened to Windermere, but have not time to investigate now. If anyone is not happy with what I have done, let me know - there are always subtleties of these things to be learnt. Roger On 24/03/2013 10:47, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Any reason why these seem to have disappeared or is it just an incorrect edit? If it's just a mistake I'll add Rydal Water back later, whether I have the time to do Windermere is another matter though unfortunately... Thanks, Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Roger Calvert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing
Thanks for that. Windermere is still problematic but I haven't done a lot of work with multipolygons so I'll let someone with more experience sort it out. Nick -Roger Calvert ro...@rogercalvert.me.uk wrote: - To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org From: Roger Calvert ro...@rogercalvert.me.uk Date: 24/03/2013 01:14PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing The problem seemed to be that the boundary of Rydal Water had been split into 3 parts which, although they were assigned to the Rydal Water relation, had no tags of their own. Potlatch was not identifying the area as water. I have joined them up, and given them the natural=water tag. Potlatch now recognises Rydal Water as a lake. I chose this approach after reviewing how Grasmere was tagged. I assume something similar happened to Windermere, but have not time to investigate now. If anyone is not happy with what I have done, let me know - there are always subtleties of these things to be learnt. Roger On 24/03/2013 10:47, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Any reason why these seem to have disappeared or is it just an incorrect edit? If it's just a mistake I'll add Rydal Water back later, whether I have the time to do Windermere is another matter though unfortunately... Thanks, Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Roger Calvert ___ 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] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing
On 24/03/2013 13:13, Roger Calvert wrote: The problem seemed to be that the boundary of Rydal Water had been split into 3 parts which, although they were assigned to the Rydal Water relation, had no tags of their own. Potlatch was not identifying the area as water. I have joined them up, and given them the natural=water tag. Potlatch now recognises Rydal Water as a lake. I chose this approach after reviewing how Grasmere was tagged. I assume something similar happened to Windermere, but have not time to investigate now. If anyone is not happy with what I have done, let me know - there are always subtleties of these things to be learnt. Please read the link on multipolygons: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon By making your edits you now incorrectly made Rydal Water a part of the River Rothay multi-polygon. The natural=water tag is included in the multi-polygon. Adding it to the way is an unnecessary confusing duplication. To avoid this confusion I often put a note tag explaining where the data is stored. Remember that just because you think the potlach editor is displaying data incorrectly it doesn't actually mean the the data is wrong. In this example the lake doesn't have to be shaded blue to be correct. It's how the renderers handle it that matters. ASAIK, there's nothing specifically wrong to to have ways split like this. In fact it was encouraged for long, many noded ways which were causing certain problems (I forget the details). Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possible Boundary Vandalism Warning
The NP areas do have some kind of individual raison d'etre because the parish/town council areas are only used as a starting point. They can exclude parts of their area if they wish, and by agreement with adjoining authorities, include additional areas from neighbouring parishes where that makes sense for planning purposes. For example (all in Mid Sussex district, West Sussex), Lindfield and Lindfield Rural have a shared NP, an amalgamation of two parish councils; and Ansty Staplefield has donated an urbanised part of its territory to Horsham. Colin On 2013-03-24 14:28, SomeoneElse wrote: Colin Smale wrote: What do others think? Thanks for the heads-up. This sort of import is exactly the sort of thing that should have been discussed on this list first. As I read it (from https://www.gov.uk/neighbourhood-planning [1] ) boundaries are only really going to be relevant in unparished areas where a neighbourhood plan is established - elsewhere it looks like existing parish and town coucils will do (actually in fact are already doing) this. Links: -- [1] https://www.gov.uk/neighbourhood-planning ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing
Dave F, Please read the link on multipolygons: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon Thanks for this link - there is always something to learn! By making your edits you now incorrectly made Rydal Water a part of the River Rothay multi-polygon. Oops - I should have picked that up. I will correct it. The natural=water tag is included in the multi-polygon. Adding it to the way is an unnecessary confusing duplication. To avoid this confusion I often put a note tag explaining where the data is stored. Good idea. Remember that just because you think the potlach editor is displaying data incorrectly it doesn't actually mean the the data is wrong. In this example the lake doesn't have to be shaded blue to be correct. It's how the renderers handle it that matters. It's a pity if the default on-line editor renders 'incorrect' tagging in a more intuitive way than 'correct' tagging. This is not very helpful to the less experienced mapper (such as me). Thanks again for your advice. Roger -- Roger Calvert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing
On 24/03/2013 12:46, Nick Whitelegg wrote: To reply to your points: 1. Firstly I don't think I have ever responded in a rant style fashion on the OSM mailing lists before, but could you please qualify your insulting first comment? Are you simply a troll, are are you simply so pathetic and small-minded not to realise that a) Freemap is a hobbyist project and is thus inevitably subject to limitations in server power and b) any time I spend on it is my own spare time, I am unable to work on it 24/7? If you think it could be improved I suggest you check out the source code at https://github.com/nickw1/Freemap and contribute, rather than pathetically insulting and denigrating a lot of hard work? I do You are the first person I have ever launched a rant at in eight years of contributing to OSM - well done ;-) Come back when you have some positive suggestions as to how I can improve Freemap without needing to invest more money in it, or when you have some source code to contribute, otherwise 2. I always thought lakes were simply represented as natural=water. Anything special about these two which suggests they shouldn't? True, they have islands in them but so does Derwentwater. Nick Nick I didn't realise you were the creator of FM, but that wouldn't change my opinion of your work. Was it you who informed me that, for some reason it intentionally doesn't display Bristol surrounds? How is a map that leaves out chunks of data meant to be taken seriously? How long has FM been going? 3/4 years? in my experience of (trying) to use it I would say it's actually got more unusable over that time. I've always thought the why don't you help then counter argument as weak. You put it out there, you have to take the criticisms. It has however, revised my opinion of you: It's disappointing you don't understand the internet meaning of a troll. In point two I was clearly giving you help, which, from your reply, you appear not to have taken. I replied to you thinking you were a user of FM wanted to point out that it was not a stable platform to test the integrity of OSM. However as the creator of FM you must be aware of it's limitations, so to use it as a basis to see if something is missing in OSM is foolish, to then assume it's the OSM data that's incorrect, is IMO, arrogant. I haven't done a lot of work with multipolygons so I'll let someone with more experience sort it out. Brilliant. As that's the case, doesn't it stand to reason you should: a) Learn about the subject? B) Check your own software first? Dave F, ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
