Re: [OSM-talk] 68 GPS units donated to OSM
Etienne Cherdlu wrote: They are physically in London. Gekos don't weigh much, it should be feasible to ship them wherever they would be most useful. Why not give a set for loaning out to the first ten of the new chapters you are setting up? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE maps broken?
Thomas Wood wrote: I believe the old WMSplugin used to send coordinates in OSGB36 rather than WGS84? This seems to be what the server side code expects, at least. Who is responsible for the WMSplugin? Is this a permanent change, i.e. do all WMS servers need updating? Who runs the NPE maps server? Nick Black? Another Nick? I can't understand the WMS spec. Who is right? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM and Linked Data, and W3C, etc ...
Tim Berners-Lee wrote: From outside it looks as though the OSM XML format and API are developing in the OSM community in a reasonable way. What sort of help do you think OSM will need? Money to run servers if the load increases? I think that's a current, rather than a future need :-) An existing standards org with facilities and process for the API and the XML format? What was it you had in mind? I would like to see some gentle persuasion applied and arguments deployed in favour of a slightly more normative tagging schema than we currently have. As you and the W3C have a great deal of expertise in the area of the semantic web, you probably know how to best express the truth I feel in my gut :-) My deep concern is that OSM's data set will always be missing its full potential because it's not consistent enough, when it could have been more consistent with no more work if those doing the data entry had had better guidance. The Presets feature in JOSM is a good step forward, of course. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] NPE maps broken?
http://nick.dev.openstreetmap.org/openpaths/freemap.php?layers=npebbox=-2.5703500,54.4446860,-2.5119329,54.5031031width=500height=500 (This URL was copied and pasted out of an error message spat out by the latest JOSM.) Warning: Division by zero in /var/www/nick/freemap/Map.php on line 15 It then produces a couple of other errors and spits out the PNG data, but Firefox says it's been sent as text/html - and, of course, the extra text will confuse the image decoder. Even if JOSM is requesting the wrong thing, a division by zero is bad. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] fosdem
John Levin wrote: Is anyone on this list going to Fosdem? Will there be any OSM workshops or talks there? I'm going, but I don't know of any OSM things. I'll be too busy doing Mozilla things :-) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM on Garmin - raster tiles?
Dermot McNally wrote: 2009/1/6 Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net: But it's still fairly ugly :-) As ugly as upside-down labels? To avoid those (if you will allow track up mode) I'm quite happy to have north up, just like I get in my web browser :-) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM on Garmin - raster tiles?
When I heard about the possibility of OSM on Garmin, I imagined something like the Mapnik Slippy Map on my GPS screen. Now I have a Legend HCx, it turns out that I get the Garmin vector rendering with OSM data behind it. This is clearly much better than nothing, but does the gmapsupp.img format support stuffing in a load of raster tiles, or is it vector data only? (Obviously, you'd lose the ability to route with raster.) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM on Garmin - raster tiles?
Igor Brejc wrote: IMHO converting OSM vector data into raster images and then showing them on a Garmin unit would mean losing a lot of quality and speed, not to mention how much more memory card space such maps would consume. Could be. But they'd look a heck of a lot nicer, and have useful POIs on them. (Perhaps I could get better POIs by working out how to tweak the current compilation process...) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM on Garmin - raster tiles?
Igor Brejc wrote: What kind of a problem are you having with POIs? What do you mean by useful? I'm wondering because I'm working right now on POIs for GroundTruth. Actually, it's not as bad as I thought. They didn't show on the zoom level I was using, and some I expected to be there aren't actually in the data yet. But it's still fairly ugly :-) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Postcode tag
What's the tag for the postcode of something? I'd assume postcode= but tagwatch seems to say there's only one instance of that in the whole UK. Map Features is no help. addr:postcode? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Garmin Legend HCx and Linux
I asked for a Garmin Legend HCx for Christmas, on the recommendation of various people in this group, and am now trying to connect it to my Linux computer to do some real-time mapping. Has anyone got this device working with gpsd? A bit of Googling and other work doesn't turn up anything - some say to use the garmin_gps kernel module, others say it's unreliable (and, in fact, it is blacklisted in my Ubuntu 8.10). Has anyone managed this? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Garmin Legend HCx and Linux
Simon Ward wrote: AFAIK you need to use the garmin_gps module for gpsd. It provides the requisite USB‐serial devices, /dev/ttyUSBN. Yeah, I've tried that, but using it just locks up the port and a reboot is required to free it up again. I've now found other reports of this sort of thing; see comment #9 here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=914706 Has anyone got garmin_gps working specifically with Ubuntu 8.10 and/or the Legend HCx? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Garmin Legend HCx and Linux
DavidD wrote: What kernel version are you using? garmin_usb stopped working for me somewhere between 2.6.25 and 2.6.27. 2.6.27-9. :-( Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Sure it does. if access==no or access==false then allowed=no else allowed=yes So basically, you have to decide that all unknown values default to either one or the other. If I'm a renderer, and I come across bicycle=difficult, and I only know about no and yes, which one do I assume? IMO, at the very least, people who wish to extend existing tags in this way need to update the tag description page to say what the default is in the case of an unknown value. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Without commenting on the rest of the discussion: Surely you (the
renderer) must draw such an object as if there were no bicycle tag at
all, whatever that means for you.
But that doesn't work, does it?
Say I'm a general purpose renderer who shows access. I understand
bicycle=no and bicycle=yes, and show them accordingly. Now, instead
of someone coming along with a new tag for their info, they extend
bicycle and do bicycle=difficult. My code hits it. If I've defensively
programmed my code, it'll do one of:
if (bicycle=yes) {
Do A
}
else {
Do B
}
or, alternatively,
if (bicycle=no) {
Do B
}
else {
Do A
}
Which should I have done? That's the question I'm saying that anyone who
wants to extend a formerly binary tag with new values needs to provide
an answer to before they start using the new values.
Say I assume bicycle=no for unknown values, as you suggest. That means
that bicycle-accessible bits, formerly rendered on my map, would
suddenly drop off entirely because someone decided to get more specific.
So in this case, an assumption of yes might make more sense. But it
might not in every case.
My point is that (leaving aside the specific bicycle example) extending
already-used tags in this way is going to result in confused renderers
and undefined and renderer-specific behaviour.
Gerv
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Richard Fairhurst wrote: bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable The trouble with that sort of thing, as compared to (ignore the actual tag names, they are just to give an idea): bicycle=yes bicycle:surface=poor (i.e. splitting out access from quality) is that the former scheme doesn't have fallback - i.e. renderers have to know about all possible values anyone could invent, whereas the latter scheme has a simple version for most maps and then cycling-specific maps can bother with the extra complexity. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unification of OpenStreetBugs an Trac
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Even when we do use something that wasn't invented here, the best fits are those which were at least partially developed with OSM in mind - from Mapnik to the ODbL. TBH I wouldn't have even considered this application as a bug-tracker had the comparison not been made on the mailing list. Inventing your own stuff makes perfect sense in the area of your core competency. So OSM rolling its own mapping software is entirely reasonable. However, OSM doesn't have a core competency in wikis (so we use MediaWiki), source code management (so we use SVN) or bug trackers (so we use Trac). I agree that where the bug tracker starts being used for mapping-related things, then the boundaries start to blur. But I'd still suggest that the only difference between an OSB ticket and a software bug ticket is the method of submission. After that, it's triaged and managed in the same sort of way. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Maps - OSM comparison
David Earl wrote: There's have to be some indication that's what was wanted IMO. I'm pretty sure Google Maps does this by default. Also, though I'm sure it is possible, and I could use optimizations of various kinds, ordering by great circle distance (which you'd need to do for this) is quite a lot more compute intensive in the ordering than the local linear distances I'm using to order by when you qualify by place (Bahnhofstrasse in Munich). I'm sure an approximation would be permissible :-) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Frederik Ramm wrote: Gervase Markham wrote: Most of all since we're growing exponentially and even if we had 90% of mappers agree on something today, in two or three months those 90% would perhaps only form 30% of the community... This is actually an argument _for_ Map_Features and some sort of meritocracy, not against. It was intended as an argument *against* binding votes. Anything that is carried by a (even vast!) majority today might be a minority opinion a few months later. But all of those new people generally have far less mapping, OSM and tagging experience than the older people. Which means that if you don't have some sort of binding (or at least, highly recommended) set of tags created by those with more experience, different people will make the same newbie mistakes over and over again when it comes to thinking up tags. Lots of other projects (e.g. Wikipedia) have a regular flux of newcomers. They don't seem to think that this stops them making policy, or having experienced people making decisions about style or the way of doing things and then having them enforced. The pseudo-egalitarianism of the opinion of everyone who is involved has equal weight is a recipe for either deadlock or anarchy. No project - commercial or volunteer, large or small - runs itself that way. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Frederik Ramm wrote: Most of all since we're growing exponentially and even if we had 90% of mappers agree on something today, in two or three months those 90% would perhaps only form 30% of the community... This is actually an argument _for_ Map_Features and some sort of meritocracy, not against. In order to know which sort of tagging schemes work well and which don't, the biggest thing you need is experience. If you don't have that, and if you aren't given guidance, you are likely to tag in dumb ways. And, as we are expanding so fast, the experienced will always be outnumbered by the inexperienced. Which means that, without guidance, most tagging will be not as good as it could be. Having experienced people in leadership, and actually doing some leading and making decisions, is something that most groups consider an asset, not something to be avoided. I continue to be amazed that OpenStreetMap is so allergic to it - at least in the area of tagging. No-one is suggesting forbidding people from tagging however they like. But you can tag any way you like is not the same as all tagging schemes are equally sensible or we should make data consumers and renderers support six different ways of doing everything if they want to render the whole world. (Exactly how one would get to the stage of having appropriately-chosen decision-makers is a different question, of course. But route is not the same thing as destination.) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unification of OpenStreetBugs an Trac
Marc Schütz wrote: Bugzilla as a backend would certainly be nice, but as a frontend it is obviously inappropriate. I don't know whether Bugzilla supports alternate frontends; if so, it could be worthwhile building one that fits our needs. Modern Bugzillas have an XML-RPC interface, and also entirely customisable templates. Having OSB automatically create Bugzilla tickets is a simple matter of programming :-) Gerv (Bugzilla hacker, willing to help) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Maps - OSM comparison
David Earl wrote: However, if we start applying similar techniques to state captials or other hierarchies, a search inferred from a loose syntax will not be enough and I need to provide a more formal way for mechanical clients to constrain their searches. As it stands city is ambiguous - it is both a category and part of some names (to wit, Mexico City). One hint it doesn't seem to use is the current viewport. If I'm viewing London, I probably want places in London sorted to the top, as opposed to placed in Scotland or places in the USA. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Hierarchy of places search results
Tom Chance wrote: Search 3 - Show pinpoints for the results on the map, so at least you can quickly discard all those results from the wrong side of the globe. Search 4 - use the current viewport as a hint. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unification of OpenStreetBugs an Trac
Richard Fairhurst wrote: I'm not sure why the need to reuse existing software at all. Bugtracking is the sort of thing you expect to find in 'Rails For Dummies' as My First Rails App - if you’ve got a decent framework it’s pretty elementary. As someone who's spent the last nine years working on one, and seen several putative competitors arrive and fade (Scarab, anyone?), I'd dispute that. You can do simple things simply, yes, but you always find you have more requirements than you think. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Markers on the slippy map
According to: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker this URL: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=51.64685mlon=-0.14641zoom=15layers=B000FFF should have a marker in the middle, but it doesn't. Am I doing something wrong, or is something broken? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Markers on the slippy map
Ulf Lamping wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=51.64685mlon=-0.14641zoom=15 Could you update the wiki? Ah, I see, you have to remove the layers attribute. Wiki updated. But then how would you get a marker on the Osmarender layer? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Markers on the slippy map
Shaun McDonald wrote: Just go to the osmarender layer (or whichever layer you want), hit permalink, then with the url that you get change the lat to mlat and lon to mlon. I'm confused. The layers parameter doesn't define which layer is shown? How would I send the URL of a marked Osmarender map to someone, if the URL is the same as that for a marked Mapnik map? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious... Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] lanes
Ed Loach wrote: At a risk of re-opening a discussion, what is the unresolved issue of handedness? Surely if you can have oneway=yes in the direction of the arrows and oneway=-1 for oneway in the opposite direction of the arrows, then left and right can also be defined relative to the direction of the way. Yes, they are. That's the point. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Left and Right - a proposal
Stephen Gower wrote: I see from later posts that you also suggest using this scheme for cycle/bus lanes to indicate which side of the road they should be rendered. Did I? This highlighted to me a general problem with the scheme. For rendering the scheme is perfect - drawing a bus stop or a cycle lane on one side of a road is exactly what is needed. However, for routing you need to know which direction a bike may travel along a cycle lane, or which direction buses from a stop will be heading. To derive a travelling direction from the Left/Right terms a routing engine is usually going to need to know the local rule of the road - do we just leave this to the routing engine to factor in (needing to work out where in the world it is), or is there another simple solution I've missed. Surely the routing engine needs to know this already, for example to take you up or down the correct ramp at a motorway interchange? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] lanes
LeedsTracker wrote: As Shaun says, the unresolved issue of lane handed-ness seems to be blocking this lane issue. This is anothe occasion where a generic :left/:right proposal would be useful... /plug Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] lanes
graham wrote: - Say I have a bus lane (or cycle lane) running along one side of a two-way road (the most common situation where I am). Just attaching a 'left' tag to it makes it dependent on nobody ever reversing the arbitrary direction attached to the way. No, it doesn't, because editors would make flipping the left/right part of the reverse way command, just as they now flip oneways and so on. There are various consistency checks editors need to do when making changes - this is just another one. - More serious, I think: it just feels quite arbitrary as a solution: I would have to tag a lane as being 'left' in relation to the random direction the arrows on the way happen to be pointing, rather than in relation to anything in the real world. How else do you unambiguously intrinsically define the side of a way? Unless it's a closed way, where you have inside and outside, the only way is to give it a direction (which it has) and say right or left. You can define it extrinsically using things like north or west but that runs into problems with roads which curve, or even run in a circle. 2. have an 'origin' tag to be used on the first node of a way independent of direction; if the way direction flipped, the origin would stay in place. 'Left' or 'right' would be in relation to the origin node. Still completely arbitrary where the origin goes, and how do you find it on a long way? If my proposal has disadvantages, then this has them all but adds some new ones too :-) 3. Make more of a separation between internal representation of ways and user views in josm/potlatch. All ways have a direction which is independent of the 'arrowed' direction which can be displayed to users, and is fixed - a totally arbitrary value used only as a fixed reference. Why? Why not just use the arrowed direction? After all, it's not exactly complicated to flip tags when you change the direction of the way. That's why the scheme is generic :left and :right - so it can be used on any tags. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] US local government data: negotiating license?
Mike Collinson wrote: A good general method is to flip things around, explain what you are going to do with the data and ask them to contact you by, say, the end of the month if the use does NOT meet their terms of use. I think that is both politically and legally extremely unwise. You can't write to Sony and say unless you contact me in the next month, I'm going to make your entire back catalogue available via BitTorrent. While a more extreme example, the same principle applies. Their lack of refusal cannot be taken as consent. After , the trail data will be merged into a global public database called OpenStreetMap. OpenStreetMap is a non-commercial project No, it's not - or, at least, to claim this is to suggest that the data is only used non-commercially, which is definitely wrong. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed feature for noname
Christoph Böhme wrote: The other solutions made so far essentially suggest to add a negative image of the world to the database: Not only saying what is there but also what is not. Consequently this would mean to tag streets not only with the features they have but also with oneway:absent=yes, cyclelane:absent=yes and so on to indicate that someone has checked that a feature is definitely not there. That just doesn't follow at all. You are claiming that having a tag for no name is a slippery slope which leads to a tag for no special lane for tractors or whatever. Why should that be? I don't think the slope is slippery at all. Names are unusual in this regard because there are certain classes of things which one expects to have them (such as roads) and, because of our mapping techniques using satellite tracing, there are often cases where roads are in but the names are not. Therefore, distinguishing between definitely no name and name not discovered yet is particularly important as a step towards completing the map without different people repeatedly visiting roads which turn out to definitely have no name. So having a noname=yes (or whatever - the syntax is unimportant for this discussion) absolutely does not mean you need a nopostbox=yes or a notractorlane=yes tag. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NoName
Shaun McDonald wrote: It should be also noted that the nonames map is to be used as a tool to know where there is some mapping effort to run mapping parties should be placed, rather than a definitive no road should be red. Why not? That sounds like an excellent use for it, if we can just agree a tag. name:absent=yes, which was just proposed above, also seems good to me. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Open Database Licence
Michael Collinson wrote: Jordan has done great work but as he is connected with the drafting itself for a more general audience, we also need that second pair of eyes as a completely independent review done from the perspective of OSM/OSMF only. That has fallen through ... things move slowly in the legal world when you don't have much money :-(. I'll post an update as soon as I hear anything. What happened to the idea suggested at SOTM to offer the Isle of Man data to Google under the new licence? That would mean their lawyers would need to look over it. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Left and Right?
Gervase Markham wrote: A nearly-approved proposal for a canal-side object has been objected to by someone who thinks that the tag should be on a node which is part of the canal rather than next to it, with left/right indicated as part of the tag key name. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Mooring So what's the conclusion here? Am I in a position where half of the project will vote against if I propose the left:mooring=24h method, and the other half will vote against if I propose the add-a-separate-way method? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC Attribution Share Alike License with OSMF exception
Frederik Ramm wrote: People will ask how do you ensure that OSMF doesn't fall into evil hands, and you will start to invent boards of directors and boards of overseers and whatnot, and all these will have to be chosen by some kind of vote; then you'll have to define who may vote. But then what happens if the evil guys just register all their users as members and simply jump over whatever the minimum criterion is we put up? So you'll have to put in some clauses that enable you to kick out people or reject their applications or remove their voting rights. Of course, then, there needs to be a provision for people to appeal against such a decision. Etc. etc. etc. Quite so. Frederik is entirely right. And this is why having the copyright ownership of the data distributed among all of the contributors is the best insurance against something evil happening. It means that pretty much everyone has to agree on any changes of terms. The OSMF may or may not get a critical mass of people behind the proposed new licence, but it's fairly certain that an overtaken OSMF wouldn't get a critical mass of people behind the idea that e.g. OSM should go proprietary. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path rendering in the cycleway
Erik Johansson wrote: Sprinkle your data with note=bla bla tags so it's possible to see what the meaning was. So your solution is to have a database which is human-understandable (with a lot of reading and effort) but not computer-understandable? That seems to break rather a large number of usage scenarios for OSM data... Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path rendering in the cycleway
Christoph Eckert wrote: What I was meaning was the other way around: IMO there's nothing wrong with having more than one tagging scheme for one and the same thing. If there was highway=footway, highway=foot_way and highway=way.foot in the database, what's the (really huge) disadvantage? The disadvantage here is in renderer complexity, and keeping up with all the rules. But my point is that if you don't have an authoritative central list of what tags to use, you get problems of _both_ kinds. The kind you list may be easier to fix, but the kind I listed is not. I agree some additional code needs to be written to support multiple tagging schemes. Have you seen the examples in this thread? Extra tags seem to increase complexity quite quickly. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path rendering in the cycleway
Frederik Ramm wrote: which can be fixed at a later time, if desired. How? Say 100 different mappers are using a particular tag - 50 one way, 50 another way. How do you fix this at a later time without going back to the places on the map and working out which of the two possible situations is the one tagged, or asking all 100 mappers what they were doing? This is the point. Tags have insufficient semantic value in and of themselves. You need something which explains what each tag is for and when it should be used. Trying to create rules upfront runs a high risk of being impractical. Which is why we create rules as we go along. Creating rules up front vs. Having no rules is a false choice. And frankly, if our mappers' creativity leads to two or three different ways of tagging the same thing (but at least it gets mapped well), what's the big deal? The big problem is the reverse, when you have one way of tagging two or three different things. (See above.) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Left and Right - a proposal
Andy Allan wrote: That's the main problem. You are now making a proposal that distinguishes nodes at the end of a way from non-terminating nodes - since only those in the middle can inherit a sense of direction from the way. True, but not a problem. There's no rule about how many nodes in a way, so if you want to do this, you can add another one near the end. This is no different to adding it 5m to the left of the end, it's just that it's now associated with the way in a relations lite sort of way (as Hugh described it). I'm also with frederick on the left/right thing (most bus stops are 'on the left', as far as I'm concerned - even when they are on opposite sides of the road) and the other objection with compass directions is valid for U-shaped roads. We need to decide whether these things are ways or roads. If they are roads, they need to have a thickness and be represented as such. (Then we can tag the two sides differently.) If they are ways, we need to stop thinking of road-related terminology when we talk about their properties. Pick one :-) The latitude and longitude of point objects should be as accurate as we can make them, and if they need some form of logical linking with something then we can logically link them without creating bogus latlongs :-) What is the lat and long of a parking restriction on one side of a road? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Left and Right - a proposal
Aurelien Jacobs wrote: One other problem with this is that it defines a set distance from the feature to the way. I don't see this as a problem. It's in fact an additional useful information that your left/right scheme just loose. Except that there's no meaningful distance that moorings should be from a canal, or that parking restrictions should be from a road. This means that, as you zoom out, the feature icon migrates onto the way itself as the way rendering thickens. As you zoom out, the POI aren't displayed anymore, so I doubt this can be a problem. It depends what the POI is, what distance you've set the node from the road, and so on. Except that relations are heavyweight things Heavyweight things ?? I don't get what you mean here. A relation requires you to define a minimum of three things - two ways/nodes to be in relationship, and a name for the relationship they have. Therefore, however good you make the editors, there is a minimum complexity you can't get around. Given this, and given the fact that this problem is common, we should try and look for a more lightweight solution. The easier it is, the more people will use it. Typing left: or right: when adding a tag is always going to be easier than setting up a relation. And a way which forms part of a canal might have (for example): right:mooring=24h left:embankment How do you specify the distance from the middle of the way ? As Richard said, you don't. In almost all cases, it's not a meaningful number. How do you render a node which has a right:highway=bus_stop tag and which belongs to several ways ? (at an intersection for example) | | | +--- There are not many bus stops in the middle of junctions. :-) This is the edgiest of edge cases, but if we ever were to find this situation coming up, where the tagging could be ambiguous, then you could just add another node to take the tag, a very short distance down the correct way. | | | ++-- You can make the distance between the two nodes arbitrarily small if you like. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Left and Right - a proposal
Hugh Barnes wrote: So, just to clarify, if I want apply more properties to the bus stop, is it like this: left:highway=bus_stop left:name=Park Road … etc? Have I missed something? I hadn't thought of that; I was focussing on simple features in the common case. Does the above seem sensible, or do you have an objection if I say a tentative Yes? :-) This is where I really noticed a problem, but it certainly doesn't kill the idea. The problem is that you're using a syntactic convention that I (at least) associate with XML namespaces. I've seen other tags like piste:foo fashioned after XML namespace prefixes, and they make sense, i.e. the piste vocabulary. I've picked that convention because it's already used in the project. But I'm not wedded to it; if people would prefer an underscore, that's fine. But it seems that underscores are part of some tag names, not separators. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Left and Right - a proposal
Robin Rattay wrote: JOSM already does this. For oneway only? Or for the words left and right? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Left and Right - a proposal
Frederik Ramm wrote: I find that this only makes sense when what is left and what is right is discernible *without* reference to the actual direction of the way. Why so? The direction of ways is (or can be) indicated with arrows in editors. Why is it a problem to have tagging which is way-direction-dependent? We already have it with e.g. oneway. E.g. rivers: We have agreed to always tag them in the direction of the flow. So when I'm there tagging something which is on one side of the river, I *know* whether it is left or right, or vice versa, if I look up the way in the database and it is tagged to have a towpath on the left then I *know* where the towpath will be without even looking at the lat/lon of the nodes. Even the general public will be able to use the information that there is something on the left hand side of a river. On the other hand, when tagging stuff that is to the left and right of a road or footpath, there is no way to know which direction it will have in the database. There is no widely agreed general rule on what constitutes the left side of a road and what the right side. I strongly dislike using left and right in such a situation where direction is arbitrary. I am not suggesting that maps would ever use the terms left and right with relation to such tagging. You are right, that would be very confusing. But for people editing the data, when the way has a clear direction, I can't think of two better terms to use. What terms would you use? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Left and Right - a proposal
Aurelien Jacobs wrote: This makes me think to something else. What about the route relation. A way with a bus stop on each side and a bus route which would include only one of the stop (or the two stops but with different stop_number). Having separate nodes for each bus stop makes this much easier. I don't quite understand your objection. Are you saying there would be a problem if you had a way with a particular node which was tagged as: left:highway=bus_stop right:highway=bus_stop ? If so, the solution is easy - put another node in the way. Anyway, bus stops are rarely directly opposite each other, at least in the UK, because you don't want two buses blocking the road in the same place. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] 'Offset path' distances
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Could anyone suggest what distance, and for what use, these presets should be? (e.g. narrow canal towpath, 5 metres - i.e. the offset from the canal centreline to the towpath centreline) For canal to towpath centreline, it would be 5-10m. Would it be possible for it also automatically to create a relation between the two ways? As I understand it, people want towpaths and canals to be linked with a relation, although I haven't yet had a chance to write a proposal. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Left-Right and opposite - Issue
Florian Lohoff wrote: I'd like to see a proposal for tag agnostic tagging of left and right e.h. prepend all directional tags with left:cycleway=lane and right:cycleway=line. I think that's a really great idea, and the correct solution to the problem. However, it would be a reasonably large change and so requires some consensus. So in the future everybody inventing new directional tags does not need to care on the editors. Absolutely. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSMFieldwork - choosing a fieldworker
To whom it may concern, We are now in a position to determine who will go on the OSM Fieldwork trip. The procedure is detailed here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OSMFieldwork/ChoiceProcedure That page includes the list of eligible names and the criteria. If you have signed the pledge and made the donation, please check the list to make sure your name has been included. If you believe that there's been a mistake of some sort, contact me ASAP. It is pleasing to note that, currently, our map of Grenada is significantly more complete in terms of roads (although not names) than that made via Google Map Maker: http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=10ll=12.052583,-61.745567spn=0.057078,0.080338z=14 vs. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=12.149lon=-61.677zoom=11layers=B00FTF On the names front, a Grenadian has already been adding POIs and other notes to the map using OpenStreetBugs: http://openstreetbugs.appspot.com/?lon=-61.73449007914551lat=12.037366459035228zoom=13 I've transferred many of them to the map; if anyone still has time to spend and would like to do some more, that would be great. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Left and Right?
What's current tagging best practice with things which are to the left or the right of a way (e.g. bus stops)? A nearly-approved proposal for a canal-side object has been objected to by someone who thinks that the tag should be on a node which is part of the canal rather than next to it, with left/right indicated as part of the tag key name. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Mooring Do we do that for any other tags? Do we have highway:left=bus_stop? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] What Can Be Done With It?
At SOTM, we were discussing how to show people that OSM isn't just Google Maps with patchy coverage. ( :-P ) One idea was a page about all of the cool things you can do with OSM data that you can't do with other mapping sites' data. Here is a very small skeleton: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/What_Can_Be_Done_With_It If people could add other ideas, that would be great. When we have a good gallery (note: not everything will be able to make it in) then I'll flesh out each idea with a writeup and screenshots. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Bridge reference tagging and relations
My proposal for bridge reference tagging: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Bridge_Number which I need for canals has been disapproved on the basis that I should be using a bridge/tunnel relation: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Talk:Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels Reading that page, it seems that not only is the proposal not complete or approved but, even when it is, it will make bridge tagging for canals about five times as complicated as it would be otherwise. Given that many of the arguments about complexity on that discussion end with in that simple case, just use the current tagging scheme, it seems that this complexity has been noted. Why, then, should such a relation be necessary for a simple task such as adding a reference to a bridge? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge reference tagging and relations
David Earl wrote: If you want to apply a bridge number to the bridge, there's no reason you shouldn't, vote or no vote. And if something were to render it, not doubt it would look right. However, the thing you are putting the number on has no easy linkage to the canal. If you were boating along the canal and wanted your satnav to pop up the next bridge number, it would have a hard time doing that because there's nothing actually linked to the canal to tell it. Ways intersecting the canal way, with a foo_ref attribute? Of course it could do some tests to find out what bridges pass over the canal by analysing more data in the area, but these are complicated tests. By relating the bridge to the canal you are attaching the bridge number with the thing it is relevant to - the canal - rather than the thing the bridge is attached to - the road crossing it. Well OK, I see that point. But reading that page, at least, it really looks like setting up such a relation is a complicated business. Is it in fact complicated, or is the page just explaining it badly? If it is complicated, does it really need to be? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [Tagging] Tags for canals
I've revised the Lock proposal yet again, and invite comments: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Lock The Maximum_Stay proposal just needs two more votes: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Maximum_Stay I intend to re-propose Towpath as a relation when I can figure out how to understand them. This may also be true of bridge numbers; I'm still thinking. Gerv (Away from Tuesday for a week) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why OpenStreetMap is not Wikipedia
Frederik Ramm wrote: 2. Commercially Valuable Product OSM is creating something of considerable commercial value. The estimated market volume of geodata in Europe is way over one billion Euros per year (I found varying figures, some even say it's 1.5 billion for Germany alone, others are more conservative). - I'm sure there was a market for encyclopedias before Wikipedia arrived but it cannot have been this big, ever. Or can it? Let me hear figures if you have some. I suspect that if Wikipedia took Google ads, their revenue would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year. They are the top hit in Google for most factual queries, and people read it looking for facts and info (rather than entertainment) and it's a short step from their to purchasing. So their data also has considerable commercial value, although the value is associated with the eyeballs viewing the most-commonly-used expression of the data (which they control) rather than the data itself. 3. Not an End Product Not to contradict what you've said, but maybe there is an interesting parallel here between OSM and mozilla.org. Originally, mozilla.org was a technology provider, the idea being that lots of different companies and organizations would build Foo Browser and Bar Browser and be the distributors. Netscape was the biggest, but they did a fairly poor job of it and still there weren't really many others. After mozilla.org split from AOL/TW/Netscape, we went into the browser business ourselves. The result is Firefox. So it may be that it sounds like a good idea to be a data provider and that other people will provide the primary user-facing interface to your data, but that in fact if you want it done well what you have to do is go out there and do it yourself. :-) We're currently caught between the two positions. If we are only a data provider, why is the Cycle Map not hosted elsewhere and linked to from www.openstreetmap.org, along with any other interesting maps and views that people provide? Why doesn't the default map show everything including errors and maplint, so we can more easily see what's there and what's not? But if we are, in fact, the primary front end, then we should decide to go for it, get some super-fast hardware, host as many layers of interest as we can find, and tell everyone to come to www.openstreetmap.org to get their maps rather than maps.google.com. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Names, split streets and relations
I have a situation (which I suspect is very common) where a street is split into e.g. 3 ways, because the middle one is part of a bus route or other relation. If you label all three ways with name=Foo Street, you get Foo Street rendered 3 times along a fairly short length, at least in Osmarender. If you leave the name off the outer ends, then those ways are incorrectly assumed to be unnamed streets when they have a name. In other words, you've made the data bogus for rendering reasons. What is the correct response to this? The obvious thing to do is attach the street name to a relation which incorporates all three ways. Do the main renderers yet correctly render street names expressed as relations? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Names, split streets and relations
Shaun McDonald wrote: The renderers need fixed, if they can't cope with this kind of data. Indeed. My question is: can they? :-) Mapnik will only write the name where there is space for it. Right, but that's precisely the problem. It writes it three times when I really only want it written once. (The opposite problem is the very long road which is a single way. The name should regularly repeat, but I don't think it does on either Mapnik or Osmarender.) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Names, split streets and relations
Karl Newman wrote: I think the obvious thing is to quit splitting ways just because there's a bridge or the speed limit changed... IMHO, the only reason to split ways is if the name changes or if the major type changes. Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not possible to apply a tag to only part of a way. So if the speed limit or anything else changes, you can't have a continuous way if you want to tag correctly. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GPS receiver orientation
Joerg Ostertag (OSM Tettnang/Germany) wrote: The Antenna of the naviGPS can be seen here: http://www.ostertag.name/osm/NaviGPS/thumbs/TN_960x1280_img_1220.jpg which means laying your NaviGPS should result in the best reception. That's very helpful. So if you have a flat antenna like that, it's best if it is in the horizontal plane? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] GPS receiver orientation
Random question: does the orientation of a GPS receiver make any difference? If I hold my BGT-11 vertically, will it find it harder to get and keep a lock than if I hold it horizontally? Also, does it make it slower to get a lock if I walk along while it's trying? I don't know the chipset, if that makes a difference - I think it may be SirfStar II. The wiki would know (I'm offline as I type). Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Slippy map not working in Firefox
Frederik Ramm wrote: No problems with firefox 1.04 under Debian ;-) Anyone still using Firefox 1 or 1.5, please upgrade. These versions are old enough to have known serious security issues. This has been a public service announcement :-) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] View in OSM Greasemonkey script
OSMers may be interested in a script for Greasemonkey[0] which adds a View in OpenStreetMap link to a popular alternative online mapping site. http://www.gerv.net/software/userscripts/gmap_in_osm.user.js Let me know if it doesn't work for you. Gerv [0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New: 'OSM Mapper' for OpenStreetMap Contributors, by Ito World
Peter Miller wrote: Ito World Ltd is pleased to offer its new product ‘OSM Mapper’ to the OSM community. We demonstrated this product at ‘State of the Map’ and a number of OSM contributors have been trying it out since then. We are now ready to release it more widely. Peter, As no-one else has said it on the list yet, I just wanted to say that this tool is ridiculously, amazingly, mind-blowingly cool. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering name of route relations
Andrew MacKinnon wrote: Recently, it appears that Mapnik has started rendering the name of relations on the map, as if they were street names. For example, it renders the name of the Cosburn bus route along Haldon Avenue in this map:http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.6978lon=-79.31117zoom=17. This is clearly undesirable. Could someone please fix this? Some relations need to have their names rendered, and some don't. (If I have a street, one part of which is One Way, I have to break it into three sections to add the oneway=yes. But I still want only a single instance of the street name rather than two or three. I believe the correct solution to this is a relation, but it would require the name to be rendered in this case. Perhaps we need a tag for an identifying string for a relation, which is not supposed to be rendered? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fieldwork in Grenada
Gervase Markham wrote: At State of the Map, an initiative was started to improve our coverage of the Caribbean, as a little friendly competition with Google MapMaker. There is now a wiki page about this effort here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OSMFieldwork Please fill it in with useful information. Some of the islands concerned don't even have coastline yet. Grenada is doing amazingly well - it's gone from this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=12.149lon=-61.677zoom=12layers=B00FTF to this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=12.1141lon=-61.6849zoom=12layers=0B0FTF (Note: this comparison won't work after Mapnik re-renders :-) 44 people have signed up; 16 more are needed for us to have enough money to send someone to finish it off! Sign up if you haven't already :-) http://www.pledgebank.com/osmfieldwork Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fieldwork in Grenada
Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: I don't know if this source is of any additional help: http://unosat.web.cern.ch/unosat/asp/prod_free.asp?id=53 These are all lower-res than the Yahoo imagery, so I don't think so. :-( But thanks for looking :-) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Fieldwork in Grenada
At State of the Map, an initiative was started to improve our coverage of the Caribbean, as a little friendly competition with Google MapMaker. It works like this: people pledge using Pledgebank to spend one hour or more adding to OpenStreetMap by tracing over Yahoo! aerial imagery on a Caribbean island, and to make a donation of £10 to the OpenStreetMap Foundation. This also gives you the chance to go there to do some fieldwork. If we get enough people (60), the OSMF will(*) pick one pledger at random to go to the Caribbean (probably Grenada) for a week or two to get road names, finish the map and do some evangelism. Sign up here: http://www.pledgebank.com/osmfieldwork To make this work, we need 60 people willing to contribute an hour of their time and £10 to the OSMF. If that's you, sign up today! Gerv (*) Or may. There is no promise, because then this would become a lottery. But then, we can't make the fieldworker promise to work on the map while they are in the Caribbean either. So it's trust on all sides. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Have they really? I don't recall ever seeing this, and I do quite a lot of rural mapping. Well, there was a note on Map Features saying not to do it, but until recently it didn't say what you _should_ do. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] UK post box data
Tom Taylor wrote: I did some parsing of the PDF, and it seems that of the 114,000 post boxes in the UK, 50599 seem to have valid postcode data. I'm currently geocoding these postcodes using Yahoo's service, and wondered if the resulting longitudes and latitudes would be of interest to OSM and could be integrated. I'm not entirely clear on the licensing of it. Can anyone clarify? Why not do this all in reverse? FreeThePostcode is great, but it seems to me that there would also be value in a (more complete) postcode set which combined their stuff with data derived from OSM. Basically, you take an address with street and postcode, use the NameFinder to find the street, click on it, and the tool marks that street as having the postcode. (I've been meaning to write this tool for months but not had time.) However, for this to work, you need a big file of addresses covering the UK. Er, hang on a minute, you just obtained one :-) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagwatch for europe
Pieren wrote: Yes, I like also the 1 buildinge, the 3 buildings, the 2 buildingy, the 1 buildng, the 4 buildning, the 1 buildong, the 3 builduing, the 18 (!) buildung, the 1 builing, the 2 buillding. What we really need is a tagwatch where you can click one of those, correct it, and it fixes all instances in the database. Now _that_ would be powerful and useful. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Paying registration fee for SOTM
After I signed up for SOTM, I received an email on the 6th of May saying: You will receive a further email soon providing details of how to pay your registration fee. It is now the 29th of June and I have not yet received this email, nor have I received a reply to two further Ahem? I'd like to give you money emails I sent to the person who the original came from. I don't want to embarrass anyone in public, but I am beginning to be concerned that I'm not actually properly registered. Having booked flights and accommodation, that would be somewhat disappointing. Anyone know what's going on? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Paying registration fee for SOTM
Etienne wrote: There have been some reports of invoices not being received - probably due to spam filtering. I have filters, but I keep all the spam. (Several GB of it.) I've searched back through the relevant time area and can't find this message. invoice then please let me know and I'll resend. Gerv, I will resend yours immediately. Thank you :-) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Voting open for Bridge proposal
Alex Mauer wrote: As noted on the talk page, the vote is still open since it has not been open for the requisite 2 weeks. Voting is apparently now on the talk page. The rules for a vote being approved are 15 Yeses, or a unanimous vote of 6 or more. There are currently 27 Yeses and 0 Nos. Given that the only way the vote could be defeated would be by 28 people coming out of the woodwork and all voting no, it doesn't seem like too much of a liberty to speed this section of the process up and consider it passed. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A tag tab
Bruce Cowan wrote: It would list all the tags being used via tagwatch, which is updated every week based on the new planet. People could then vote (once only on each tag) on tags that are being used. Tags are not always self-describing. Quick test: without checking Map Features, can you tell me what natural=land means? Given this fact, what would voting actually mean? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Voting open for Bridge proposal
Shaun McDonald wrote: It is a special kind of bridge that is usually longer than the normal bridge. So it has longer sides in the rendering... There is often some historical interest related to it. It may even be a tourist attraction. Both of these things can be true of normal bridges, and there are various tags and additional icons which can be used in those cases. My question is: why does a viaduct need a different rendering *just because it's a viaduct*? I've not seen generalist maps which differentiate. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Voting open for Bridge proposal
Raphael Studer wrote: If we tag it different, why not render it different? Because applying that principle consistently leads to extremely complicated maps. Not all differences in the data require a different rendering on a generalist map such as the one on www.openstreetmap.org. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM WMS plugin, Y!, and firefox 3
Tom Hughes wrote: It's not immediately clear from the bug details that there is any replacement - my best guess at the moment is that there is but that it can only be activated programmatically, and possible only in debug builds. I emailed Robert O'Callahan, one of the Mozilla Gecko developers. I asked: Is there any other way of doing what they want to do with Firefox 3? And he replied: Yes. One way would be to write a Firefox extension or a custom XULRunner app and use canvas.drawWindow. So the good news is that you don't need a debug build :-) http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Drawing_Graphics_with_Canvas#Additional_Features A custom XULRunner app is probably a bit heavyweight for what we want. I would suggest that the YWMS team look into creating a lightweight Firefox extension which uses some form of IPC to exchange data with the running JOSM. Of course, once you have an extension, assuming the deal with Yahoo doesn't prevent it, you would probably just want to grab the tile images directly from the DOM rather than screenshot the page and try and find the edges of the map section. So perhaps canvas.drawWindow isn't actually what you want. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Voting open for Bridge proposal
Gervase Markham wrote: As requested: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Bridge This has now been approved, with 15 votes. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Voting open for Bridge proposal
Raphael Studer wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Bridge This has now been approved, with 15 votes. How, that was fast :) Now lets find a way to render viaduct and swing. Swing is usually rendered, at least on maps which focus on the thing _under_ the bridge rather than the thing over the bridge, as a filled black circle with a line extending from it, the line being the bridge over the e.g. canal. Why does viaduct need a different rendering from bridge? Surely you know it's a viaduct because there's a train track running over it? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [Tagging] Voting open for Bridge proposal
As requested: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Bridge Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Bridge proposal
Raphael Studer wrote: Does someone care about this proposal? Yes, sorry, I'll move it to a vote RSN. Although I'd kind of given up on the whole voting system, given the antipathy towards it (and, in fact, towards any form of authority) in certain quarters. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide completeness tools
Frederik Ramm wrote: Once we have a few applications in place that get viewed by *many* people, we could just have a button somewhere along the margin of the page that says: I know the area and what I see here looks correct. Would it not make more sense to have a button saying This map is incorrect in some way, and it opens a text box optionally inviting you to say what is wrong. These notes can then be stored, and if someone comes to redo that area of the map, can provide guidance. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Political Change
Jeffrey Martin wrote: Some lists want me to answer on the top and some on the bottom. Is this a bottom answer email list? Most email lists will accept the style where you answer below the thing you are commenting on, but trim it well so people don't have to page past loads of verbiage to get to it. Like this. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] TIGER mapping party
SteveC wrote: I and others have been doing a lot of fixing of TIGER data all over the US. There is still a lot to do and Richard has added some really useful features to potlatch to speed it up. Is there a TIGER fixing HOWTO somewhere? As in Here are the areas not yet done, here are the sort of problems we see, here's what to do about them? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overhaul of voting process
Christoph Eckert wrote: IMO map features should be built on top of tagwatch. This way tagging recommendations would be built on top what's actually used. Much more democratic than the current process IMO :) . Tagwatch tells you what is. It cannot by itself tell you what should be. It could be that everyone is using a particular tag for some feature, but that tag nevertheless has problems. It may also, as Robin points out, show you that 50% of people are using one tag, and 50% are using another. What then? Lastly, it cannot tell you if 50% of people are using foo=bar to mean one thing, and the other 50% are using it to mean something else. Tags do not contain all of their semantics in their names. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please enable commercial use
Sebastian Spaeth wrote: If they say but I would really like to do X, if you give me in writing that I can do X I'll give you $10.000 and print OSM adverts on every GPS I sell, then we still cannot say it because we're not the owners of the data. In Linux that problem is solved by companies bying their product from Redhat, including some kind of insurance that RedHat provides. If there are legal hassles, then Redhat would be sued and RedHat would have to deal with the 2 copyright holders and not the end-user (if you are not SCO and live in a parallel universe). If we are talking about community norms, then how about looking at those surrounding e.g. GPL enforcement? If a company violates the GPL, you don't find the FSF or anyone else wading in at the first sniff with lawyers and claims for damages. They try very hard to sort things out in private, and usually succeed. If we have a Share Alike licence, what precedent makes companies think that if they mistakenly transgress that OSM contributors will take such immediate drastic action? Without attributing particular motives to anyone, I would make the general point that if a company doesn't want to share, it should come out and say so, rather than argue for PD on the grounds that an SA licence creates more legal uncertainty. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
Frederik Ramm wrote: That's my problem as well. We are not much better than other owners of geodata. They say: 1. Geodata is very valuable and takes a lot of work to collect and those who do all the work should be the owners of the data and dictate under what rules it may be used; 2. So we charge an arm and a leg for it And we say 1. Geodata is very valuable and takes a lot of work to collect and those who do all the work should be the owners of the data and dictate under what rules it may be used; 2. So we give it away free of charge but force everyone using our data to comply with our license. But you must at least recognise that we charge an arm and a leg for it is by no means the only restriction the other owners put on. They put on a whole load of restrictions on what you can use it for. We, on the other hand, make it free-as-in-price and don't put any restrictions on what you can use it for. I know it suits your argument to make this parallel, but I really don't think that it's very close, objectively. It's unfair somehow, isn't it - we take PD stuff, put it into OSM, make it more attractive to a point where nobody wants to use the original PD stuff any more - everyone is more or less forced to use our version that comes under our license. Hang on... aren't you there admitting that Share Alike communities work better than PD communities? After all, if PD communities worked better, why is there not a thriving PD project working on the TIGER data? (I find it morally questionable of us to do this but it is undoubtedly legal. Some Copyleft advocates even manage a smile when they tell me that I'm free to collect data under PD but of course they'll gobble it up under Share-Alike and not give anything back - You're asking for it.) Er, but you are, aren't you? That's _precisely_ what you want to allow people to do with your data. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please enable commercial use
Nathan Vander Wilt wrote: I am writing a geotagging application that I hope to sell. When I first found OSM, I was very excited for what I could use it for but as I've followed the discussions I've become a lot more concerned. While there are many users who want their work to be fully in the public domain, it seems that Ordinance Surveyesque FUD concerning derivative works might trump even those users' contributions. I cannot open my tiny company and our potential customers to the viral effects of a broad application of the Share Alike intentions under a broad notion of derivative works. The notion of derivative works is a fairly well defined one under copyright law. Many, many companies deal with this concept every day. The proposed ODL/ODC licenses would clear up some of the grey areas, but not all. Can you give examples of grey areas that would remain? I really would like to see a license as simple as the following: For data users - 0. Open Street Map collects and creates public domain map data. 1. Attribution of Open Street Map is expected. We make it easy. 2. Contributing back or freely sharing modifications is very strongly encouraged. Except that neither 1 or 2 would have any force in law. So this is equivalent to PD. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik viewer for OSM data - UI suggestions?
Nick Whitelegg wrote: My idea is to try and shield the user from the XML file altogether. Rather than get a user to open an XML file, I'd like users to be able to simply open an OSM file, download data from the API, or retrieve data from a PostGIS database, and then use the UI to define styles for OSM key/value combinations. Right - but which styles? E.g. for roads, do you want to allow them to define colour, border colour, width, ...? For pubs, do you want them to be able to choose their own icon, select from a list? I'd also like the users to be able to define, and order, layers for their map. So they have to be able to decide what features go on which layer? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Static maps using the new export function
Tom Chance wrote: I can't see an obvious way to do this, maybe I just need to dig around in the code behind the export tab, but is it possible to already do something similar to the Google static maps feature, i.e. allow people to just specify a URL in an img tag and have the static image with optional marker automatically created? http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/staticmaps/ What are the advantages of this over just exporting the map and copying the image to your web page? Just that the map is automatically updated for you when people fix it? Or is there something else? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik viewer for OSM data - UI suggestions?
Nick Whitelegg wrote: One of the OSM projects I'm hoping to work on is a Mapnik GUI renderer for ..osm files (and live API data, cached locally, and PostGIS databases), based on the Mapnik viewer. However what would be good is to get some user interface suggestions from people. The aim is to try and make it as easy as possible for people to render, and print, custom Mapnik maps. Are you asking people which of Mapnik's many knobs you think need exposing in your UI? Or have you chosen a set of knobs but want to know how best to present those capabilities in a usable way? If the former, where can we find a list of knobs to choose from? If the latter, which knobs have you chosen? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GPS recommendations
Frederik Ramm wrote: I would be reluctant to publicly recommend anything where OSM gets any kind of kickback, _even if_ that device would be one I recommend in private. That would look as if our recommendation could be bought! Or perhaps the opposite; we like this so much and we want you to use it so much that we've gone to the effort of arranging a deal. Given that the people recommending don't get any money themselves, the it's all self-interest link is weak. Maybe we should define a few categories (BT mouse without logger, standalone logger without display, standard hand-held GPS with display, outdoor-ish hand-held GPS with display, in-car navigation device) and identify the 2-3 best devices in each. That's just the sort of thing I had in mind. But how would such a list be kept current? As long as it is just a Wiki page, anyone can add their GPS preferences or write about a cool new device. But if you implement a process to reach a project recommendation then obviously the final result would not be just a Wiki page, it would be a page which may only be changed after repeating the process... That sounds like a feature to me, not a bug... Perhaps we need a page GPS endorsements. Or perhaps the ability to endorse items on the current page, and then order by endorsements. A crude form of voting. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
Michael Collinson wrote: I echo Tom's sentiment that www.openstreetmap.org/Attribution http://www.openstreetmap.org/Attribution would be a cleaner public link to present if possible. The shorter, the better (sometimes space is limited). So why not, with a small DNS change: openstreetmap.org/credit ? The www isn't needed if your DNS is set up right; everyone can see it's a web address anyway. And credit is shorter than attribution. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: OSM (Open Street Map) Creative Commons Licence 2.5 (CCL) versus GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence)
Robin Paulson wrote: have i missed something? i thought osm used Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license not Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5 Licence http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OpenStreetMap_License I assume the name difference was just loose wording; all recent CC licences have included Attribution. It's no longer optional. The version difference may be a significant error; I haven't looked at diffs. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] anonymous contributions still allowed ?
Richard Fairhurst wrote: It's only Potlatch that prohibits such edits. JOSM and the main API permit them. Can we please agree to stop doing that, and then turn off the capability? It's just storing up trouble for later, when and if we want to make licence-related changes... Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] UK outdoors mapping event - week of June 23rd
Nick Whitelegg wrote: Following on from last year's successful Lake District mapping week I'd like to float the idea of a follow up this year - I now have a definite week in the early summer when I know I'll be free namely the week beginning June 23rd. I might be interested in this (the Lake District version). Keep me informed. (I would have emailed you privately but gmane didn't reveal your email address.) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Alex Mauer wrote: I think it is possible, even likely, that we might want to apply it to something other than railway, which can share a way with a railway. The simple/plain traction= would preclude this. Can you give an example of such a thing? What features shares a way with a railway at all, traction or no traction? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GPS recommendation
Richard Fairhurst wrote: IME the NaviGPS is not as reliable or as intuitive as I would like. These units are going to be used by children and primary school teachers so this is a worry. I have a NaviGPS, and I wouldn't put it in the hands of a child and expect them to understand it. It may be fairly cheap, featureful and have Linux support, but massively user-friendly it's not. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Name finder and home page search working again
David Earl wrote: Suggestions for addressing this welcome - incrementally returning results is one possibility I guess. You can qualify it ..., UK (provided the is_in is present - which is almost never is for US places), but that's non-obvious. I strongly suspect Google Maps either only searches within the currently-visible area, or prioritises results from there, or starts there and works out. This may not help with search speed (depending on how much location data you have, I don't know) but it will probably help with relevance and ordering. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag proposal/approval system is too heavyweight
Frederik Ramm wrote: Why not ditch the whole notion of approved features altogether. It doesn't cut any meat in our community anyway. What does approved mean, and who has the right to approve something? Having an approved set of tags means that there is ideally 1, but certainly a small number of ways of tagging common features, rather than 15 or 50. This makes it much easier for renderers, routing and other types of software, and much easier for people who are improving an area of map that someone else has worked on to figure out what they meant. It also means that when a particular tag is used, it only has one meaning. Without some standardisation, does maxspeed=50 mean mph or kph? Or does it vary from country to country? What is the difference between your argument and Why have the notion of an approved set of HTML tags? The web is a collaborative community. No-one has the right to approve anything. We should all just use the markup tags that seem most sensible.? Right, generate it from the planet file and that's that. Maybe have a wiki page that documents what the renderers do and at what zoom level (ideally auto-generated as well). Except that such a generated page would have no way of ordering and classifying the tags so that you could find the one you wanted. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
