Re: [Talk-GB] [Talk-transit] NaPTAN - Time for the rest?
Gregory wrote: Ah, I hadn't seen http://openbusmap.org/ / http://www.öpnvkarte.de/ http://www.xn--pnvkarte-m4a.de/ before. It looks cool and I sometimes want to know the route the buses take (in a non-schematic way). Just a quick look of my parents place and I've spotted two routes that are slightly off. It does look a nice render - I was impressed that the IOW Steam Railway shows as well as the 'main line' train. All the ferries too! This beats several of the commercial maps, my car still refuses to believe in the Southampton-Cowes fairy! It only appears to go to Zoom 13 though - not quite big enough to read the print, without getting out of my chair... I shall show it to some folk see what enthusiasm it can engender :) Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 courtland.yoc...@mindspring.com wrote: I've been thinking a bit about this from a very different perspective - that of parks and other open public areas where you might not have a chance to walk the perimeter ... for instance, you've a dog who really doesn't want that boring walk around the edge, but bobs and weaves all about the space and this might be one of only a couple of potential visits you might be able to make to the site. I think that an accumulation of unordered points over time either by one person or multiple people who capture GPS information _incidentally_ would be useful in defining the core of the public (or private, in the case of tractors on farmland) space. There's no need to gather tracks, merely points. Let the accumulation of points define the space. This is something of a corollary to the notion of wisdom of the crowd and it can be seen in action in the United States on major thoroughfares, such as the interstate highways, where the accumulation of multiple tracks over time can be u sed to define a way. user id on openstreemap = ceyockey If I'm out walking with the dogs, I tend to not go near the edge UNLESS I'm mapping, because they won't crawl under hedges if I'm already a fair way off, but will do so happily if it doesn't take them far. I suspect I'm not the only one, so you'd end up with a ludicrously fat hedge. I also tend not to go into corners will often stop a little before the end of a field. Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkrAxoYACgkQJfMmcSPNh94G9gCfU2St1qNUvLoqDOhKot61wL3m d0YAn2k87A7UtutPIyKqmIzrP66ul7jw =7hsP -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Basildon - Reminder
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mark Williams wrote: So, 24 hours until the Basildon Mapping party. Anyone know the ratio of miles of residential street:head of population? Basildon has about 100,000 population at present 3 of us are going to map the whole town tomorrow ;) [] Just a quick note to thank those who did turn out at the weekend - although numbers were very low (4.5 man-days, I think a quick look at the map at http://osm.org/go/0EEzQRK (it's not all on there yet, either) will show a surprisingly good result, with relatively few outstanding areas left for another session. Right now Osmarender shows 'before' Mapnik 'after' views. Thanks guys Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkrAuCcACgkQJfMmcSPNh95LTwCfUYQec+eL5OuuJ93yTqAR0xdU 3r4Anj/hnhXZfdLf5haArL3uRNb57Wbq =RUUt -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Map of Trace data, was: Re: Stitching Aerial Photographs (John Robert Peterson)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Phil James wrote: Thanks for that, but bearing in mind I am not a programmer, how does it help me? :-\ I don't know the ID for any tracks there may or may not be in the area i (may) want to map, and I can't find a way in OSM to reveal any GPS trace ID other than a GPS Trace filename, (not even with my own traces). if there is a way to reveal the ID, please let me know. Thanks, Phil James OJ W wrote: On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Phil James peerja...@googlemail.com wrote: John Robert Peterson wrote: Do we have anything that will draw map tiles of the trace data? (I'd like this for another project anyway: checking whether traces exist for an area when out with a mobile device) if it's a public gpx, then look for it at http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/gpx There was a Mapping party last November, and we all uploaded GPS public traces tagged with Stratford-upon-avon, iirc, to OSM - so going to the traces library searching on that tag should net a good haul of GPS data, and it covers the whole area. You can then download them as gpx files play with them. Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkq8cpAACgkQJfMmcSPNh94pvgCeM9JyUtvEoA4aBfRnxsTwEKfF sewAn0lq/fgPGHCkYCHYBLOQ5sBQvRqf =XjkG -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] new proposals for k:shop
Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Roy Wallace wrote: Regarding search - ideally, I think the user should be able to say that they want to eat a t-bone steak in mood lighting for under $20 less than 30min drive away Whoa, that would be the killer app! Go out for cheap drinks with some friends, meet a nice person of the matching sex in your age bracket who happens to have a soft spot for geeks with GPSes and is looking for the same kind of relationship that you are after... Just needs a foolproof user interface ;-) Bye Frederik Can we have it with opposite sex instead / as well please ;) Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] liam123 facts
Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, [] Also, I think I have found one place where liam123 actually did something good (but I reverted it nonetheless). There is a footway that goes right across Cumberland drive here in Landon: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28277588 Which liam123 had fixed by inserting a junction node into Cumberland drive. I hope my changes (changesets 2526266 and 2530162) have made things better rather than worse on the whole. Bye Frederik I'm sure they have, Frederik, well done thanks. This particular way was one of mine - I never drew it across the road like that though, it was a short path to Cumberland Drive doesn't cross it - I think Mr123's contribution was to continue it across to another road, which is not correct at all. I'm fairly pedantic about layer bridge tags even left a note to say it was an extrapolation from one end of the path... How happy would you be if someone came made 3000+ malicious minor feasible-looking edits within 30 miles of your house? I think he does merit the nasty things said about him, and we can't just let this kind of activity go unchecked. Thanks, again. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded - Bristol and Cheshire East
Peter Miller wrote: On 7 Sep 2009, at 00:00, Frankie Roberto wrote: Thomas wrote: I'm following the Be Bold motto, and am now uploading the remaining NaPTAN counties that have been requested. I'll probably do two or three at a time, following the list alphabetically, possibly trying to avoid importing counties next to each other together. This is all looking good. But.. When I voted for Essex I had hoped that all of Essex might turn up, but as far as I can see it's excluded Thurrock, a little unitary authority in the S.W. corner - which is, naturally, the bit I wanted... Hi Ho. We did get Basildon for the mapping party there though, which is great. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded - Bristol and Cheshire East
Peter Miller wrote: On 10 Sep 2009, at 21:00, Mark Williams wrote: [] When I voted for Essex I had hoped that all of Essex might turn up, but as far as I can see it's excluded Thurrock, a little unitary authority in the S.W. corner - which is, naturally, the bit I wanted... To be clear, the import request log is by administrative county. Thurrock unfortunately for you is only in the ceremonial county of Essex, for administrative purposes it is a separately place. If you add your signature to Thurrock in the list then I am sure it will be imported! Hmm. Done.. I wish I'd known earlier that it wasn't included though, because I'm going to have moved before it gets much attention. Oh well. I was a bit confused by relations poking into Thurrock which made it look part-done, so there has been some misplaced patience happening! Thanks. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] NAPTAN update?
Thomas Wood wrote: [] Regarding remaining counties, Essex is definitely a priority, we may as well just upload the remaining counties as and when we can. (Which'll probably be when the new dev server is up with a sane python environment) Good, thanks for that - I am hoping to go round my bit of the world check them out as I didn't do them on my Grand GPS Survey 2 years ago, so having them as targets may provoke some activity :) Also, yes they will be nice for the Basildon Mapping Party, it will be a strange experience to have residential areas, parks bus stops but no roads on the Garmin ;) Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Proposed Basildon Mapping Party
One month to go to the Basildon Mapping Party! I've meant to do this for some time, and have now made plans to move away from the area, so it's now or never. The 26-27th September looks clear in the OSM diary. Basildon is one major cause of Essex looking a bit short in the Completeness Map, with much residential road hardly any of it done. I creep over do a corner when I can, which isn't often at present. Road rail access is good, and NCN13 passes through some of the town's many parks to the west. The Holiday Inn is near the meeting venue as is Premier Inn, should anyone need accommodation. I've picked a pub north of centre because it is near free parking I think it has WiFi - I haven't checked recently though. There is a slight risk of Morris Dancing. In general this is a pleasant new town, though a bit bland some of the housing is, well, rough. I have always liked Google's attempt at one of the local parks. Details are up at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Basildon_Mapping_Party#Mapping_party Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] A13 and NCN13 getting muddled?
Peter Miller wrote: On 7 Aug 2009, at 08:02, Shaun McDonald wrote: On 7 Aug 2009, at 00:06, Mark Williams wrote: Peter Miller wrote: This is the A13 and it in the ncn13 relation which I think is wrong http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/23406798 Any thoughts? Anyone fancy following it up? Actually no, the NCN13 route _IS_ down the A13! Bizarre but true.. It skips off for the flyover at Gallows Corner in Romford maybe one or two other side jaunts, but basically you're on the A13 from quite well into London (East Ham or so) until Basildon, there are occasional red stickers to prove it a marked cycle lane on the A13, complete with 3-lane dual carriageways national speed limits. You get crossing places marked at the slip roads, not usually with NCN stickers just white paint. I have seen the occasional cyclist mad enough to use it too! I'm not absolutely certain of the routing onto the A13 at the Basildon end, as it just might go down Southend Road Corringham into Stanford, at least one way, but I think it doesn't. It does cross over the A13 to Southend road on a bridge, One Tree Hill, but then could back-track to 8-Bells roundabout, or do the Southend Road route, the signs peter out just where they might be useful. I wondered about this before I tagged it but I double-checked it, because it seemed so daft, and the signs, as they say, were there. I have cycled sections of the NCN13 from about Dagenham Dock into London. There is a cycle path on the side of the road (often segregated by a small bump kerb and the path is on both sides of the 2-4 lanes in each direction) and so in that way it is quite safe. Not cycled further west though. Where I have the data I have been trying to get the parallel cycle path added to OSM as whoever added the ncn 13 to begin with just added it to the trunk road's main carriage way and even I really wouldn't want to cycle along the A13 for any great distance! Also the way that you join from side roads can be a little different in many places. The information on Sustrans mapping and OSM mapping is wildly different for NCN13. I am of course not proposing that we use Sustrans mapping information as a source, but as a 3rd party check it seems to through up some significant questions about trunk road sections. It's worth a check, I only found a few signs miles of cycle lane. In particular I think it was Gallows Corner with a sign where the flyover has a no-cycling sign there was a notice - they've just done a lot of work on that though. It is however the case that most* of the A13 in Essex has a cycle lane clearly marked yes, you'd be nuts, and yes, the council did it they don't cycle. More recently the Thurrock council have added a cycle path along the old A13 in Grays which would make a lot more sense to use, I did wonder about tagging it that way but there is no NCN signage it felt very unilateral so I didn't. Mark * All the bit's I've looked at.. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] landuse for hotels
Stephan Plepelits wrote: On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 12:54:01PM -0700, Joseph Scanlan wrote: What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be commercial or retail. For the area of the hotel: amenity=hotel And for the hotel itself: amenity=hotel, building=yes (For reference see amnenity=university) greetings, Stephan +1 Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] A13 and NCN13 getting muddled?
Peter Miller wrote: This is the A13 and it in the ncn13 relation which I think is wrong http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/23406798 Any thoughts? Anyone fancy following it up? Actually no, the NCN13 route _IS_ down the A13! Bizarre but true.. It skips off for the flyover at Gallows Corner in Romford maybe one or two other side jaunts, but basically you're on the A13 from quite well into London (East Ham or so) until Basildon, there are occasional red stickers to prove it a marked cycle lane on the A13, complete with 3-lane dual carriageways national speed limits. You get crossing places marked at the slip roads, not usually with NCN stickers just white paint. I have seen the occasional cyclist mad enough to use it too! I'm not absolutely certain of the routing onto the A13 at the Basildon end, as it just might go down Southend Road Corringham into Stanford, at least one way, but I think it doesn't. It does cross over the A13 to Southend road on a bridge, One Tree Hill, but then could back-track to 8-Bells roundabout, or do the Southend Road route, the signs peter out just where they might be useful. I wondered about this before I tagged it but I double-checked it, because it seemed so daft, and the signs, as they say, were there. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
Liz wrote: On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: My main point is that when there is a maximum height under a way, this should be tagged as an attribute of that way, not of the ways that pass under it. Here I cannot agree When I travel over the bridge I am not interested in the maximum height of the way which travels under the bridge. When I travel under the bridge I am interested in the height limitation. Going back to my multipart specification, trying to really comprehend the logic the height of the arch is a property of the bridge. the max height which can go under the bridge is a property of the way / node beneath it note that counter-intuitively, height max height clearance May I just observe that when you go along a road, you will see 'maxheight' notices when you *enter* that road, frequently. This means an overheight vehicle cannot use that road. It can't use all except the little bit with the restriction. Therefore maxheight is a property of the way going under the bridge, possibly 1 way if the road is fragmented in OSM, and ought to be on the whole road from where the sign is until after the bridge. Also, although the sign may be physically attached to the bridge, it is placed to be visible to traffic on the way crossing beneath it, not to traffic on top so people can think oh look how interesting as they pass over it... Obviously sat-nav type applications should be able to cater for point restrictions, however the OSM idea is much more about recording what's there signed than about tagging for specific app's or renderers. I think the idea of tagging the bridge is odd, and failing to tag the way beneath irresponsible. If I see a maxheight on a bridge, I will *know* there is another layer above it. My 2p.. Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Greg Stark wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Steve Hillst...@nexusuk.org wrote: 1. It is one way in the appropriate direction (clockwise in the UK) 2. All the roads leave/join the outside of the loop (*) 3. It generally isn't very built-up in the middle (**) 4. It has a reasonably circular shape (***) 5. It is signposted as such Fwiw even (1) isn't necessarily true. The Magic Roundabout famously has a counter-clockwise loop in the centre. And there are other such roundabouts where the central loop isn't even one-way. The Basildon magic roundabout is a set of small roundabouts linked by dual-carriageway! It is legally bidirectional, except the roundabouts, but if you come watch at rush-hour 95%[1] of motorists sit queue in the conventional direction; whereas I just go the other way round it save 10 minutes of clutch-pumping! Mark [95% of all statistics are made up on the spot..] ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Reverting all Liam123's edits
Chris Fleming wrote: On 21/07/09 16:39, Mark Williams wrote: My 2p; He has been very active around my area and I have had to put in some work righting wrongs; there are more out there than I have fixed I believe the original was better than the fixed version in some cases. Although some of my time has gone into re-edits, I would prefer to see him reverted completely. If I lose an occasional addition, it will be worth it. If he's a bored teenager in London, there's a Dartford mapping party coming up next weekend; I'll even offer a lift/or mentoring! It's the summer holidays now so if he likes b*ggering about in OSM, the next 6 weeks could be problematic! If he's not interested in being constructive, +1 for a ban. I wonder if some kind of soft ban might be a good way to deal with this. The idea being that the next time the user logs in they are presented with a message to the extent that there has been some concern over their edits, with some kind of explanation of what they have done and a offer of assistance. And a warning that further unwarranted edits might lead to further action and an Agree and Continue button. If further edits are still not productive then we would have a clear audit of a warning being issues and assistance being offered. Cheers Chris _ +1, nice idea if it's technically possible - otherwise a warning to his inbox will be emailed to him, but I gather he has already been contacted anyway. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New wiki page for GB reversion requests
Peter Miller wrote: On 22 Jul 2009, at 15:18, Andy Allan wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Peter Millerpeter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Without going through every edit in the changeset it will be hard to determine. If we do have to go through every changeset then we might as well revert them by hand. Possibly we need to leave this until better tools are available or challenge some clever person to write the required tool in the next day or two. OK, I now have a tool that will revert all the components of a changeset that haven't been reverted already, and ignore everything that has been changed since. And now I have a good example of why it's not that straightforward. Take this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/242058267/history The guy moved it (v3), and then deleted it (v4). So reverting it would put it back to v2. But if it was deleted out of a way, and that way has been moved since, it wouldn't put it back in the way again since that way wouldn't be reverted. Which makes it a bit pointless. And maybe someone has fixed the way (adding in a new node there, or nearby, or similar) so this node isn't needed. So it's impossible to tell what to do with the node. So after a few hours of investigating this, I'm back to where I started* - reverting changesets is easy so long as nothing has changed since. Anything else needs a graphical editor. Better such tools can be created, and ideas/mockups/code is wanted. So for the future, if there's another changeset that needs sorting out, please consider asking someone to revert it before anyone tries to manually fix it. Manually fixing stuff is of course fine but it's an all-or-nothing approach that can't be finished off with a script. Ok, so I claimed 6 change-sets with the ones at the top of the list. I checked all the nodes on the first page and then noticed that this was page 1 of 42 of changed nodes - a total of 823 nodes to fix. Now that is 823 nodes (and 39 ways) in one of 35 change-sets. That is potentially a lot of work. Any ideas anyone? My he has been a busy bunny hasn't he. Virtual Mapping Meetup anyone? [Goes off to investigate the Wiki now..] BTW, it's all very well (and no doubt correct) saying not to change stuff like this, but if you come across an obvious grolly with a name to it you don't know, the natural thought is Oh look a newbie let's be helpful - it's only when you find the next few that you start to suspect. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Liam123 is still active unfortunately
Peter Miller wrote: On 19 Jul 2009, at 23:02, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Peter Miller wrote: We really need some better tools for reverting this sort of nonsense and a way of patrolling the edits of new contributors . This isn't a discussion for talk-gb really, but possibly it is a good place to start. See also the recent discussion on talk that started with this: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-July/038575.html where the author asked Now we have the changesets like http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/1815935 ... Is it possible to add an undo request button or spam button to this page? Thanks Frederik. I have read the thread, but there doesn't seem to be a conclusion yet? I will continue the discussion about this problem there. Surely this is a Blacklisting issue as well, in this case? I found myself looking at an un-named Public Building round the corner from my house yesterday, scratching my head, 'til I saw the author. I haven't seen any constructive effort from him - have you? Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Freemap (OSM for walkers) - increased coverage
Nick Whitelegg wrote: For example, for public footpaths are you including all highway=footway/footway=yes ways, or are you using the slowly increasingly used tag that I read about somewhere of designation=public_footpath? As stated in my original message, highway=footway/foot=yes are *not* recognised as public footpaths by the renderer, because there are too many instances of usage of this combination for things which are *not* public footpaths. To match a public footpath it has to be either foot=designated and hor not equal to designated, or designation=public_footpath. Nick Would it be sensible to also render those with a ref - If it has a ref, then it has to be a proper footpath - no? It's how I've always distinguished them, and I've done quite a lot of footpaths :) Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM based printed directory, possible?
Matías Iturburu wrote: Hello list. Newbie here. I work for a small press plublishing shop in my city, for a number of years we have been developing and selling the most complete map of the city and towns nearby, being the de-facto reference for all the citizens, bus and taxi drivers, as well as for tourist in town. Lately we have been interested in osm and, after noting that our town isn't in osm, we would like to upload all our catography to osm (it's quite a chunk of data). As a matter of taste we would like for the tiles on our (printed) maps, to be the same than those online. So the question arises, it is possible for us to have most of our cartography on osm and still being able to print (and sell) our directory? Take into account that at this point we are more worries about legal and community concerns that on technical stuff. Also, if you know any other experience like this in other countries it's more than wellcome. Kind regards. -- Matías Iturburu essentially, if it's your map you made it, not adapted it from some other map, yes you can. If you did base it on something else, it's ever so complicated. Given the above, if you put it into OSM you can still sell copies; if people work out how to make print their own, they can, however most of your customers wouldn't do so. Making it look the same may be interesting; the default OSM Mapnik interpretation may differ, but you can write your own set of rules to make it the same for your prints. The basic map would of course be the same; only details of how a given road is represented would change. The OSM.org map will have the default settings whatever you do, unless you convince the rest of the world that your way is sufficiently better to make them all change. You may feel that being able to quote the OSM map (and website) is a sufficient advantage to be worth the small number who feel able to 'roll their own' version. You may wish to keep a set of POI's for your own whilst placing the base map into the OSM domain. It is easy to include a small link to the OSM map in your own web site which displays the map nicely, so long as the link is credited that's OK. I do, not that we're in the cartography business but it's a nice touch much better than the other offerings, IMHO. I've had a map link on my work website for about a year; number of people commenting to date: 0.00 - HiHo. Not a desperately busy site. Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Isle of Wight 2
Peter Childs wrote: 2009/6/1 SteveC st...@asklater.com: I'm tempted, but half the point is that we need to stop thinking that the IoW is mapped, without addresses or turn restrictions there's a long way to go. On 1 Jun 2009, at 10:53, Steve Chilton wrote: Steve I would be very interested. Would you consider pitching at somewhere less mapped. Parts of Devon/Cornwall spring to mind. Mapping is NEVER finished, You can always fill in more gaps make some updates etc etc. I think the point is that some places need more work than others, Is it better to map everywhere a bit or a few places perfectly? Peter +1 I spend a lot of weekends on the IOW. I still occasionally find a 'new' road - 2 in the last year - as well as loads of POI's. I wanted an ATM at the weekend - the nearest to Sandown is, allegedly, the TSB in Newport (which I placed some time ago). I think a showcase or two is important, and although I have had some impressive usage back from OSM there are always a few lacks anywhere, and the IOW is our 'first' big hit. Getting it modernised filled in to what we might like to think of as a good up-to-date standard would help keep that position from looking a bit sad. I wouldn't like to find one of our flagships getting to look, well, poorly done, by comparison with any other mapping, or even our own elsewhere. BTW well done whoever caught up on the footpaths - I noticed a recent leap forward. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Isle of Wight 2
I'm in if the date suits. Mark Shaun McDonald wrote: Yay, that'd be a great idea. Shaun On 30 May 2009, at 15:53, SteveC wrote: Remember how awesome the wales mapping weekend was last year? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Welsh_Mapping_Party_Weekend Remember the Isle of Wight mapping weekend 3 years ago? It was super awesome, we had 30 odd people, local TV, press and stuff http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Isle_of_Wight_workshop_2006 How about a weekend again and rent a cottage in the Isle of Wight? This time concentrating on maintenance of the map, detecting new changes and augmenting it with more PoIs and things like addressing? I can organise it all if there is a show of hands for people who'd come. Best Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Route planner using UK OSM data
Shaun McDonald wrote: On 23 Mar 2009, at 19:14, Andrew M. Bishop wrote: a...@gedanken.demon.co.uk (Andrew M. Bishop) writes: I decided that what would be fun to implement is a routing algorithm that can find the best (shortest or quickest) route between any two OSM highway nodes. I know that there are other routing algorithms available but this started as an intellectual exercise so I developed my own. It seemed to work so I added a fancy web front end to it and put it on a server. The router itself (requires JavaScript for the map etc): http://www.gedanken.org.uk/mapping/router/router.html On a topic related to the other ongoing discussion about tagging footway and cycleway it is obviously important for a router that things are tagged consistently. The router is currently mapping highway=path to be identical to highway=footway so that foot=yes is implied. This will cause a problem with the router if the path is also bicycle=designated. When you run the router with bicycle as your mode of transport and disable using footways (which is the default state for bicycles) then it won't take the path. Obviously the tagging is too complex. My definition of a highway=path is a worn line in some grass. If it is something that is maintained for cyclists then it is a highway=cycleway, with an option foot=yes, cycleway=shared or cycleway=segregated. This is the reason why you need as few tags as possible to tag something, rather than having a lot of modifier tags. Shaun __ Firstly, I've now had a play with this - excellent work! Secondly, I have a residence on the Isle of Wight - but there's a ferry - and it doesn't have ferries. Yet. If you can get all 3 car ferries you'll be ahead of Navteq who can't find the Red Funnel from Southampton at all, and will in fact route from the ferry terminal to the far terminal via the rival company... Hopefully it's just another tickbox? Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-Talk-ZA] National Routes - when are they freeways?
As I undestand it, a freeway is a highway that has a centre island divide BUT does not have stop streets and robots at intersections, rather it has on-off ramps and bridges. This makes them qualify for a blue stripe! Regards, Mark - Original Message - From: brendan barrett shogun...@gmail.com To: talk-za talk-za@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:45 PM Subject: [OSM-Talk-ZA] National Routes - when are they freeways? Please forgive the stupid question... but what is the criteria for determining where a national route is a freeway, and when it isn't? I see a lot of green national routes (highway=trunk) on the OSM site, and i'm wondering why I am not seeing a lot of blue instead (highway=motorway)? Regards, Brendan ___ Talk-ZA mailing list Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-za ___ Talk-ZA mailing list Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-za
Re: [OSM-Talk-ZA] Naming Conventions
Is there any consensus regarding the use of the 'name=*' tag as far as highways/motorways are concerned? Example: the stretch of N3 between Buccleuch interchange and the Elands interchange is called the Eastern Bypass. Do we tag as 'name=Eastern Bypass' and 'ref=N3'? Mark ___ Talk-ZA mailing list Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-za
Re: [OSM-talk] POI layer for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Simon Ward wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:47:26AM +0100, vegard wrote: The online th and mapnik layers are the showcases for OSM for outsiders. The one thing that can impress people, is the level of detail we get. So I say it's good to have a layer with as much detail as possible. or a layer that allows you to select what POIs to display (although a long list of POIs might be a little unwieldy). Simon +1 A list of POI types, rather than individual POI's then. The extant http://www.lenz-online.de/cgi-bin/osm/osmpoinit.pl/ site is very good, and needs either borrowing or adopting! It is definitely a good addition, but I can't remember the URL if I'm out about... Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tordanik wrote: Nic Roets schrieb: According to the wiki redirects, barrier=gate is replacing highway=gate. According to tagwatch, the latter is 10 times more popular than the former. Is the community OK with this ? If yes, why aren't we running a bot to perform the changes ? Because we cannot tell whether the community is ok with this without watching how tagwatch numbers will develop in the future. So far, we can only tell that most of those who have bothered to vote in the wiki are ok with this. Personally, I'd agree if my contributions were bot-changed in cases like this, but there are people who wouldn't. Maybe it is possible to set up an opt-in bot that only updates tagging of those users who have put themselves on a list (wiki page/category or other solution). Bot runs should also be announced early, so those who disagree with a particular retagging can remove themselves from the list in time. What if I came along moved one of your gates 0.5 metres? Is it my gate? Your gate? Do we both have to opt in, or out? Enjoy planning the wiki list :) Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJFyR8JfMmcSPNh94RAj80AJ4t9J3yJyaqHwK1Clxb5XFUVRS1kQCcDHrM 8Ol8NZSjqab6OEpxFtW0W4M= =nuPo -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Browet wrote: It's fairly standard usage, you see a doctor at the doctors, a butcher runs the butchers. There should really be an apostrophe in there I think, ie: the butcher's shop, the doctor's surgery. But that's not really how people think of it. Just stick both on and point out everyone else's bad grammar :-) Please bear with non-native english speaker. I agree we all use english for easyness but those subtleties seem far-fetched. Let's keep it simple and avoid the non-grammatically-correct-possessive-case. I think the tag value should represent a concept, not be grammatically correct. We might as well use A124 or whatever. If everybody agrees it means a doctor amenity in whatever language, the goal is reached. Obviously, it's far less mnemonic, though... :-) - Chris - grammar-fascist The apostrophe is not correct anyway. It denotes a missed letter, in this word-position it would be 'doctor is', as opposed to the non-apostrophe version meaning 'belong to the the doctor' or plural doctors. Doctors' is just silly but would be technically correct(ish) for multiple doctors (plural) /grammar-fascist I hope we all enjoyed that. Given that the tags are in use, I'm going to pull rank declare a special interest ;) - use amenity=doctors. DrMark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJCrH6JfMmcSPNh94RAmDxAJ9bk9ks6o1CetfwTOxJu+Xlg4gEKgCgk8SZ 8vya/IqBq3HFbr2/iu851OE= =P3Ku -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-Talk-ZA] Tagging
Hi All, Just started looking into OSM and have issues... The tagging standards indicate that 'low' number roads should be primary and 'high' numbers should be secondary. Is there any real consensus as to what the crossover point is when metropolitan roads are primary or secondary i.e. when does an M road become secondary - M20?, M15?, M50? For example, what would the M39 (Chloorkop Road) be? It is a double road which is the main link between Tembisa/Kempton Park and Midrand. Yet the M16 through Edenvale runs through suburbs... Regards, Mark Williams Technical Manager TELEMEDIA (PTY) LTD Tel: +27 11 803 3353 Fax: +27 11 803 2534 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: www.telemedia.co.za scansig.jpg___ Talk-ZA mailing list Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-za
Re: [OSM-talk] GPS routing using OpenStreetMap data?
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: On Mon, October 20, 2008 10:52, Valent Turkovic wrote: Are there any applications (on linux preferably) that use OpenStreetMap maps and give standard GPS routing functions like commercial car GPS units? Navit, GPSdrive, gosmore. You can also put OSM data into just any commercial Garmin-branded GPS navigator. Do you actually have that working? I use mkgmap-r659 a Garmin Vista (HCx) and I see no routing - it insists on using the base map. I did see a mention of this some time back, but assumed it was 'coming' - it certainly hasn't made it to my setup! Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Map Features, maxspeed and maplint
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dermot McNally wrote: 2008/10/5 Ed Loach [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 30mph. If we had stayed with assumed country-specific units then the tagging would have been more consistent, easier for the user to tag, and not require a conversion to a random number of decimal places. I'm not a fan of the options that include suffixes or other tricks to imply units. That said, even that approach is better than using country-specific units, because it's a huge burden on applications to work out what country a restriction falls within (twofold, since the border data is often imprecise too). Consider the Irish border, which is also an imperial/metric border. Yuck! A further drawback with the approach is the assumption that units stay uniform within a particular country. But in the UK, it's getting common for height restrictions to be stated in dual units. So for transitional cases like that, the country-specific model breaks down. I'm with Shaun on the namespacing thing. Allowing fields like maxspeed to contain normalised, pure numeric data is beneficial for fast data extraction, and the namespaced approach allows for automatic updating of the real| numeric field. Dermot Maybe grin this is calling out for a 'bot approach, to take maxspeed:mph add a numeric maxspeed, to check out maxspeed=30's mark them in some way (restricted to UK, obviously), and to check for entries of both=30 fix them? Note: I haven't said I'll do it because I know I'd be shot... I think a lot of people have refrained from using these tags where the speed limit is what you'd expect, so residential defaults to 30mph, trunk to 70, etc tagging it is not required - so any bot approach should respect that. +1 on the namespace; I'm not generally keen on it, but here it makes sense. Either the way mentioned, or maxspeed:en as per name:en for consistency? Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI6/LZJfMmcSPNh94RAijGAJ9M/dxPTjuPkCsUNgkbMhs9sFLupwCePQsZ oQltkcfxNEHS9tLSEfMxtfI= =JYyp -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Code of conduct for automated (mass-) edits
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dave Stubbs wrote: On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Philip Homburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [] Step 1) Write OSM bot Step 2) Write OSM Wiki vote rigging bot Step 3) Propose bot Step 4) Rig vote Step 5) Run OSM bot all the while pointing at the wiki shouting look! 13 people approved it! I'm not so convinced :-) Dave Are you in fact a cynicism bot ? Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI4LpiJfMmcSPNh94RAp0SAJ40k9R/CC2Sw/ux5+/m6aymqeu4EACeIOWQ 4rDEahzFSt9LMUipt4Ig0rQ= =bH/x -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (historic=stocks)
Matthew Flint wrote: Deal all, I'd like to propose a new tag, historic=stocks. Stocks are devices used in medieval times for public humiliation and corporal punishment, and are still to be found (but not used, alas!) around the UK. I would welcome comments on the Proposed Features page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/stocks Matthew Perhaps if you made it amenity=stocks, they might get used? But seriously I think this is a small enough usage that you just do it; it isn't going to get rendered unless by a historical society. Any idea how many there actually are? If we had one round here the vandals would burn it down. Probably whilst in it.. Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Parking aisle as boundary of car park not showing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 80n wrote: On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, On 25.09.2008, at 12:53, sergio sevillano wrote: with JOSM i can zoom and put very close independent paths not touching each other making them practicaly coincident. This technique implies an accuracy that is normally unwarranted. How can you distinguish between someone using this zoomed in technique to indicate that a feature abuts a road and, say, Andy Allen armed with some high-tech wizardry, who is mapping it to 2cm precision? 80n indeed, who wants to? My 2p - I would separate them, the unglue tool in JOSM is good for this, and have them as distinct entities. I do it my way - My car parks look OK to me on the map, I like the data as it is, and the only reason I have seen to date in this thread to do it differently is Frederik's point about later edits needing both items to be moved. Fair, but not the end of the world... One of my reasons is that if I were to come in change it from one model to another, there is potential for data loss in reducing the node count, whereas an increase in nodes does not lose any data, but (if done accurately) improves it. I tend to regard loss of data in OSM as a bad thing, unless the world has really changed. Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI24UYJfMmcSPNh94RAguZAJ0Y4wf/ibttTXLGzXZcAzLCUpgYCACbBeXY FPzcZxgEIQW/r87NjHYvU1w= =N1LO -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] mailing list behavior
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: On 01-Sep-08, at 1:47 AM, leblatt wrote: No big deal, but when I hit « reply » on a talk@openstreetmap.org message, it replies to the message originator, not the list. I have to hit “reply all”, and remove the originator. On the French ML, I just have to hit “reply”, as in most MLs. I use outlook as a mail reader. Is this a problem ? seems to be something just added - I hope the listadmin will revert. (this being one of the longest running flames on mailing lists: 'where does reply-to go?' A quick flick through the archives would reveal that this is not a new feature but something which has been discussed before. It catches me out too, from time to time... It's been left this way after discussion. Strange but true.. Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIu5XTJfMmcSPNh94RAnb5AJ9DZl7BgbasNthjPjghUDx2TeyluQCePAWA 7RTPhn8tF9zPox1/yQ+m/v0= =w8FT -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ferry route speed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David Groom wrote: When tagging ferry routes is anyone tagging ferry speed, and if so do you simply add maxspeed = ?? to thr route? david There was a recent discussion on the routing list about this - iirc we agreed to use a (low) assumed speed of 4-5Km/h for ferries (as opposed to the current practice of not routing them at all..) Certainly maxspeed isn't the one to use. Marl -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD4DBQFIvHK+JfMmcSPNh94RAmt4AJ93CM0pB2pCe9qSoAtL60uPlvg3yACXXVwI Y7hlp6D2ifex/hXOO5cGgw== =XrVm -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Left and Right?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Karl Newman wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Mark Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 robin paulson wrote: Rory McCann wrote: Gervase Markham wrote: 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 Personally I add the node to left of the way, not as part of the way. I believe the OSM theory is that the way represents the middle of the road. So things like mini-roundabounds and traffic lights are part of the way (ie road), but a bus stop is off to the side of the road. the problem with this is that 'bus stop' (and canal mooring, etc,) implies a place where the bus stops, which is on the road. the fact the bus shelter, or sign, or bench, is some distance off to the side of the road shouldn't matter - the bus itself stops on the road, so the node imo should be part of the way if the bus stop is off to the side of the road, i.e. not connected to it, then the bus can't physically get to it, which seems very wrong or, consider from the pedestrian's point-of-view: it is assumed for all roads except motorways and where explicitly stated, that there is foot=yes access. in which case, the footpath/sidewalk/pavement is therefore part of the way which represents the road; we don't draw a separate way off to one side, running parallel. the bus stop must be on the footpath for the pedestrian to be able to walk up to it, so again it must be part of the way this problem is i think muddled by the fact we represent an area (a road) with a linear object (a way), which theoretically has zero width, so the natural step from this is to say: 'the way represents the centre of the road, and the bus stop/canal mooring is not in the centre of the road, it's at the side of the road, so I'll put it to one side of the way' as for placing the node to one side of the way in order to get the icon to be placed correctly, this sounds a lot like 'tagging for the renderer' I disagree with this view. Do you tag post boxes as way nodes? Shops? Telephones? No... So why bus stops? They aren't in the road. They are sites on the side, like all of the above. It makes no sense to tag them as way objects. I have seen the arguments about knowing which way they belong to; IMHO this is specious, no bus company works by looking at OSM to see where to route their buses, but a map user may well want to know just where the bus stop is - Anyone looking at a map of where they are who doesn't know which side they drive, is in trouble. The same goes for any navigation software. It really isn't hard to link from bus-stops as points to nearby ways - check out all the routing apps, not many need a hard node ID or way ID to commence from / get to - they find a nearby way from a lat/long. If Gosmore can do it, why not any other app? It just introduces a whole load of hassle working out which bus stop goes in which direction, sticking it in the middle of the road. It looks stupid in the renderers for a very good reason. My 2p, but I don't want this to look like everyone thinks that way nodes are good.. Mark If you happen to know exactly which nodes (which are not part of the way) are your start and end points, then routers can deal with that. If you want to know which bus stops you will pass while traveling along a way, that's a much more difficult problem if the nodes are not somehow topologically associated with the way. It's a more serious problem with house numbers because the data volume is so much higher (many more house numbers than bus stops), which makes it even more important to associate a number with a way (and not by using the street name--that's not topological, is subject to typos and is difficult to validate automatically). Karl Sorry? I don't have to specify a node for several of the routers, just a coordinate. Therefore I don't have to happen to know which node to go from. Equally, if I'm using a map to navigate I can see which POI's I pass, else (if I care) I can get a list by post-processing the route to see what's nearby - though I don't see that I'm likely to [care]. If the bus stops are tied to a bus route or a way by a relation, then it's trivial; especially compared to the difficulty of working out which bus stop to walk to when two are in the middle of the road, 200 yards apart. Is 'mapping for renderers' any worse than 'mapping for routers'? Step back from the we're going to use it for routing busses approach
Re: [OSM-talk] Left and Right?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 robin paulson wrote: Rory McCann wrote: Gervase Markham wrote: 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 Personally I add the node to left of the way, not as part of the way. I believe the OSM theory is that the way represents the middle of the road. So things like mini-roundabounds and traffic lights are part of the way (ie road), but a bus stop is off to the side of the road. the problem with this is that 'bus stop' (and canal mooring, etc,) implies a place where the bus stops, which is on the road. the fact the bus shelter, or sign, or bench, is some distance off to the side of the road shouldn't matter - the bus itself stops on the road, so the node imo should be part of the way if the bus stop is off to the side of the road, i.e. not connected to it, then the bus can't physically get to it, which seems very wrong or, consider from the pedestrian's point-of-view: it is assumed for all roads except motorways and where explicitly stated, that there is foot=yes access. in which case, the footpath/sidewalk/pavement is therefore part of the way which represents the road; we don't draw a separate way off to one side, running parallel. the bus stop must be on the footpath for the pedestrian to be able to walk up to it, so again it must be part of the way this problem is i think muddled by the fact we represent an area (a road) with a linear object (a way), which theoretically has zero width, so the natural step from this is to say: 'the way represents the centre of the road, and the bus stop/canal mooring is not in the centre of the road, it's at the side of the road, so I'll put it to one side of the way' as for placing the node to one side of the way in order to get the icon to be placed correctly, this sounds a lot like 'tagging for the renderer' I disagree with this view. Do you tag post boxes as way nodes? Shops? Telephones? No... So why bus stops? They aren't in the road. They are sites on the side, like all of the above. It makes no sense to tag them as way objects. I have seen the arguments about knowing which way they belong to; IMHO this is specious, no bus company works by looking at OSM to see where to route their buses, but a map user may well want to know just where the bus stop is - Anyone looking at a map of where they are who doesn't know which side they drive, is in trouble. The same goes for any navigation software. It really isn't hard to link from bus-stops as points to nearby ways - check out all the routing apps, not many need a hard node ID or way ID to commence from / get to - they find a nearby way from a lat/long. If Gosmore can do it, why not any other app? It just introduces a whole load of hassle working out which bus stop goes in which direction, sticking it in the middle of the road. It looks stupid in the renderers for a very good reason. My 2p, but I don't want this to look like everyone thinks that way nodes are good.. Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIszNhJfMmcSPNh94RAkPOAJ9ALC4KpvGSUlTVxbVcNbW2jRuPFwCfcfAZ DIsY6girm+HvwS6kYgf/8V8= =dM1X -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Me and Ed Parsons are drowning!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David Groom wrote: Looking at some of the relevant ways it certainly is a mess, as pointed out by Dermot Mcnally see http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-August/028661.html No one replied on list to his post. I did - I think - but late as I was away... It's a mess.. I may be wrong, but I'm not sure that Mapnik yet supports the tag waterway=riverbank, which may be why there is such a jumble of tags applied to the ways making up the Thames. In theory (leaving aside the question of tagging tidal rivers) the only required tagging is waterway=riverbank, but if Mapnik doesn't support it I assume people have being adding natural=water, and in places natural=coastline to try and force the rendering in mapnik. This has led to some ways being tagged as natural = water, natural = coastline, waterway = riverbank. When you throw in the fact that ways tagged as natural = coastline don't need to be in relations to correctly show islands, but it is suggested that relations be used on the tags waterway = riverbank you get a complete mess. Whilst the relevant ways could be tidied up, and just tagged as waterway = riverbank, there seems little point in doing so until Mapnik supports this tag, as someone I am sure will come along and retag natural = water, natural = coastline to try and force the rendering again. David I think it is - we'll soon spot it when it floods again, and if it's all consistent it'll be less likely to get altered, + if it's all consistent doesn't render, someone will get frustrated enough to fix it :) - Original Message - From: Gregory To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:26 AM Subject: [OSM-talk] Me and Ed Parsons are drowning! The Thames River has flooded... http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.4084lon=-0.3652zoom=12layers=0B0FTF Has someone done something that will be fixed when it rerenders? Or could someone please have a look at it. I don't know much about how riverbanks and the likes are supposed to be done. Flooded - is that all? Seen the http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.472lon=0.041zoom=11layers=0B0FTF Isle of Do? (I think my dogs's been there ;( ) Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIrHDRJfMmcSPNh94RAr7/AJwI0P473nzfqOm6+OfBc1Q3/wHycgCfWLXb nTASuchrSpKWaKxU9rr9YNM= =6Huj -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] mkgmap POI details
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I am experimenting with making Garmin compatible maps, mkgmap and sendmap
do just fine and I was suprised just how easy it is
I do like mkgmap...
however I have a few comments/questions.
1) Is it possible to include more information with the PIOs. Such as
contact numbers ('phone' tag), which would be for restuarants/etc?
Don't know - interesting thought!
2) The bottom left of display (on Etrex Vista) says 'mapsource' under the
map scale. Is this hard coded somewhere, or can it be made to say
'OpenStreetMap' somehow?
Not the right/full answer but it does display openstreetmap.org on boot,
with a progress bar as it reads it.
3) The '.img' map extends past my bounding box
([bbox=-115,49.25,-114,49.75]), is it possible to limit it to this and to
cut ways to terminate at boundaries?
Thanks for this great tool,
Simon
aka. Mungewell.
How are you cutting the tiles out? I use osmcut for this, now, having
tried osmosis previously, and this does indeed cut the ways at the boundary.
If you're interested I could send you the shell file I use to generate a
fresh garmin map - currently this does Europe, some contours, africa,
to a 470K gmapsupp.img file. This is now becoming slow to load my
e-trex has been observed to crash on rare occasions :( so I'll be
dropping Africa after September..)
Mark
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIqmbUJfMmcSPNh94RAj53AJ0QzzdMNfkIlrYlynKBEMshW5YLAACglEtG
Hqe95WlBnZYTeFq6mG8ZCE4=
=/P4g
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Slippy map not working in Firefox
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tom Hughes wrote: Tordanik wrote: When opening openstreetmap.org, the general page displays properly, including zoom display, ruler, permalink and layer selector. The map, however, remains plain white. No errors in javascript console, cursor indicates loading activity, but there is no visible result for minutes. Status bar announces data transfer from www.paypal.com, apparently that “Make A Donation”-button was the last thing it received. That sounds like it just PayPal being slow - the map object is only created once the page has finished loading so if PayPal is slow serving the donate button then it delays the creation of the map. Tom Certainly seems slow here - I get a similar white screen, in FF 3.0.1, but for [EMAIL PROTECTED] not Mapnik. It does eventually fill in. This is via Virgin Media. Traceroute goes 22 hops but all seem OK for speed. Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIh5plJfMmcSPNh94RAu6bAKCNKUnh/YTdYRtRqyhfAwt8D4EmEQCfbI4y kB1dMDI7a26XoupHdLOXb2g= =IwTK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Is it land or sea: how to map a swamp?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 natural=marsh? (from Map Features) I would expect to find coastline on the open-sea border of this. Mark Mike Collinson wrote: I agree with Stephen's comments and add that I follow the rule if in doubt, map it as land since we don't have the luxury of being able to map average high water marks or highest spring tide mark that a government agency might use. If it is something that I can walk out and see most of the day or year, then I think it should be mapped as land as a navigation aid. It might also be worth considering a natural=mangrove area tag. Our current system is biased towards temperate climates. I've hesitated so far as it is often very difficult, either on the ground or from imaging data, to map the inland extent. Mike At 03:27 AM 9/07/2008, Stephen Hope wrote: The northern coast of Australia has many Mangrove marshes at river mouths, some of them extending many kilometres away from the dry shore line. PGS shows these areas as sea, because they are not dry land - and that is were the coastlines would have been imported from. Note that being submerged for half the year doesn't mean the trees are covered with water, just the mud under them. The tree tops would be above water all the time, I suspect. We've (mostly) tagged them as land, with the coast being on the sea side of them. Technically they may be water covered (or partially water covered, usually about 6 inches deep), but if you can't swim or boat in them and plants and trees grow there it's land as far as I'm concerned. They certainly are not ocean. Marshes in the UK are also treated as land from the coastline point of view, even were they edge an ocean. See http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-16.9642lon=145.7843zoom=13layers=B00FTF for an example near Cairns. More examples are further up the coast. Stephen 2008/7/9 Alan Millar [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I came across an interesting area which I don't know how to map or tag. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=22.066lon=89.047zoom=9layers=B00FTF This is the Sundarbans mangrove forest on the border of India and Bangladesh. The map doesn't look like much, but look at the map with aerial photos like in Potlatch edit mode and it starts to get interesting. I read that it is submerged for up to half of the year. The Yahoo aerial photos clearly show the forest areas, so I assume they were taken at a low-water period. Google Maps shows it as land. Our oceantiles file has it as land, but our coastlines treat it as sea. Our coastlines stop at the farmlands which border it. During the high water period, I suppose our coastlines make sense. Does anyone have any recommendations of how to treat an area like this? Any similar geography already mapped somewhere? Thanks - Alan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIdSv1JfMmcSPNh94RAty+AJ9voJsnb9ym6eiFMB9dNJFaHg5WpACfUWAO we9MgNpK8v5miRbnCw+4tU4= =tGCg -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How can we measure the completeness of the map statistically
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 wer-ist-roger wrote: Am Donnerstag 26 Juni 2008 schrieb Frederik Ramm: * Another hypothesis is that more complete areas of OSM will have a higher level of edit activity. Then there are those who say that an area that's complete doesn't require any edit activity... That is right that complete areas might not gany much edits (or maybe no edits at all) but you can see that on the edit history you will get a submit-curve that has a lot of edits within a timeperiod until you get at thet point it's getting less end less till you have almost no edits at all. So a calculation should allways include the history of submitted changes. Indeed, that curve of much editing - less editing should be a factor in the completeness measure - an area with much activity in the past + some more recent would be good, an area with no edits at all for 2 years is ripe for a check-over, an area with no history is clearly not good. Landuse=field is perhaps an example of the exception that proves the rule? I still think it would be useful for an overlay to exist for mappers to mark up where they consider done, perhaps that an auto-layer should combine to make a more visible 3rd layer of completeness where they agree? We could start by filling this public layer with coastline data mark the seas as done, at least - unless we want to get full marine data in as well? Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIZmF7JfMmcSPNh94RAj8AAJwKi2OWzcWKzHoKkBDSszfF73hrMQCcCtm6 oYevRaoNA00yrTvL7Qqnk3M= =P35M -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Don't you just hate it when part 2...
Nick Whitelegg wrote: On Sunday 08 Jun 2008 22:35, you wrote: yes! I do hate it,. but not because I don't regret walking or being outside, Same with me too, though I might have gone somewhere else if I'd known! Guess the lesson is to make sure you know what the others in your area are doing... I think I may have met the guy out mapping today actually. About 17.30 I passed someone with a yellow Etrex but thought nothing of it, but it was in the common area. Good side of the coincident mapping isthat it looks like that area is pretty well covered now... Nick Possibly it's worse when they were playing at being God did it with Yahoo! Bad luck.. Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Medical centres, clinics, doctors and dentists
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Chadwick (mailing lists) wrote:
Chris Hill wrote:
Clinic can apply to other medical folks, such as chiropodists and
physiotherapists too.
And physical rehabilitation, dementia care, psychiatric counseling...
the list might be quite a long one.
I'm coming round to the opinion that the different kinds of surgeries
are all just really kinds of what's being proposed in the rather
stronger Clinic_(Medical) proposal. But it is probably wise to
distinguish a dentist from a chiropodist somehow if they might be the
only ones occupying their respective buildings.
I think we should merge everything into Clinic_(Medical), either before
it gets accepted or after. Make that mean anything from a huge
polyclinic covering many disciplines to small doctors' surgeries and
dental practices.
So how to distinguish one sort of treatment or care from another?
Perhaps a merged proposal for small to medium medical facilities
should be something like:
amenity=clinic
medical=servicelist
emergency=yes|no
where servicelist is a semicolon-separated list of values from
{dentist, doctor, chiropodist, physiotherapy, minor_surgery, ...}.
Opticians in the UK are more like high-street shops than medical
facilities. It would feel strange to call an optician a clinic too, even
if the upstairs consulting rooms are all separate and have something of
the doctor's surgery nature. Hmm.
The original amenity = doctor got 7 yes 0 no votes (apart from the
routine one). I think it was liked, but not exciting anyone. I still
think it makes sense, and doesn't exclude =dentist, =osteopath,
=optician etc, and fits consistently with all other access, opening
time, other relevant tags.
The newer clinic proposal seems relatively clumsy not user-friendly
with a proliferation of odd but vaguely similar tags, not to mention
icons; if you have 6 green-cross based icons, most people won't recall
which meant what after a week you might as well just have one.
I don't have a problem with an amenity=clinic tag to cover some of
Para.2 above with their own set of tags; but most countries have some
form of local doctor other specific amenities.
Mark
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFISji0JfMmcSPNh94RAvbwAKCGu91eeIXGXXCKdJ+AvO2KNb1IxwCfVfcE
LlAuUHl+8RVnSz3ggPno39M=
=DIb5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Medical centres, clinics, doctors and dentists
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Chadwick (mailing lists) wrote:
Chris Hill wrote:
Clinic can apply to other medical folks, such as chiropodists and
physiotherapists too.
And physical rehabilitation, dementia care, psychiatric counseling...
the list might be quite a long one.
I'm coming round to the opinion that the different kinds of surgeries
are all just really kinds of what's being proposed in the rather
stronger Clinic_(Medical) proposal. But it is probably wise to
distinguish a dentist from a chiropodist somehow if they might be the
only ones occupying their respective buildings.
I think we should merge everything into Clinic_(Medical), either before
it gets accepted or after. Make that mean anything from a huge
polyclinic covering many disciplines to small doctors' surgeries and
dental practices.
So how to distinguish one sort of treatment or care from another?
Perhaps a merged proposal for small to medium medical facilities
should be something like:
amenity=clinic
medical=servicelist
emergency=yes|no
where servicelist is a semicolon-separated list of values from
{dentist, doctor, chiropodist, physiotherapy, minor_surgery, ...}.
Opticians in the UK are more like high-street shops than medical
facilities. It would feel strange to call an optician a clinic too, even
if the upstairs consulting rooms are all separate and have something of
the doctor's surgery nature. Hmm.
Actually, having gone back re-read the actual proposal, the O.P.
wanted this tag to _distinguish_ other clinics from the specific ones...
so it's the bit about merging them, above, that I didn't like, not the
actual proposed feature, in case that last mail was unclear :)
Mark
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFISjtdJfMmcSPNh94RAnUIAJ9phId4oagr7rD/l3ejeTUIYZlaNgCfc6zo
oh4e8Wgn5A+usEKjH4jTlj4=
=CuQW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping Crossing ways
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Richard Fairhurst wrote: Mark Williams wrote: [snip] On a slightly related issue, I'll be interested to see how changesets, and the easier ability to monitor an area, affect this. 0.6b went live on 15th January, 0.8a on 30th March, so these duplicated ways have been around there for a while: I'm slightly surprised that they hadn't been noticed before. Mmm, me too, but I've been looking to the east more of late, so it took 'til I ran up Validator over an area I knew to be reasonable already to spot; but actually the whole section of M25, A13, junction river were on twice plus, as I said, a couple of triplicates (!) This part has been done since before I joined OSM, so it's not under active editing (not by me, anyway!). Where it had been quite neatly done, it was hard to spot; and the tripled layer actually used the same nodes, so GOK Perhaps when routing is in actual common use these things will be spotted sooner. It would be possible to put in quite an exotic set of these, producing some really amusing navigation directions from that perspective ;) - I've had my Navteq system suggest the 7th exit from a 4-road roundabout before, perhaps I now know why? Anyhow, I'm only speculating as to causes; I have sent a couple of (hopefully) polite helpful postings to named individuals, but no feedback has been forthcoming as yet. Please don't take it as yet another dig at Potlatch - As I said, I think it's more of a network issue and would affect any on-line editor. Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIQX3CJfMmcSPNh94RAgwnAJ9acuTHcS4uewcfxenubt0DPX8A4ACfSs73 AZkhUK6ZdYdFT5Qf+TwonQ8= =dMrh -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Overlapping Crossing ways
This is another Potlatch grumble - but it's not really Potlatch, it's the internet. I just found a whole lot (really, a lot) of overlapping ways with some really old data (Potlatch alpha before) buried under new versions from Potlatch v0.6a 0.8 - for instance, the M25 Junction 30 had 3 (three!!) layers of roundabout in places. 2 hours has seen most of it off... I wonder how much of other peoples' time I just deleted? I can't imagine this was done knowingly; I suspect that the redraw was sufficiently slow that it looked unmapped to a less experienced user, and allowed time to re-draw the ways before it showed up. Would it be possible to make it draw ways nodes BEFORE the aerial photography, so this can't happen is less likely? I had assumed that having to move from the map to the editor would prevent this, but I think folk are scrolling miles never seeing the rendered version. Maybe a slippy map under the photography? Or make it impossible to add any nodes until it's completely finished loading? I also had a good number of "High Road; Low Road" names to untangle, and a river to unplait. I do hope it stays done this time :) Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch and the evil semicolons
Dermot McNally wrote: 2008/5/27 Rory McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED]: There's a FAQ entry that says that you should use ; as a value separator (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Faq#What_shall_I_do_for_roads_that_have_multiple_values_for_a_tag.3F). Is this offical OSM policy? If so then, merging ways this way seems like The Right Thing for potlatch to do. Sounds like some renderers can't cope with this. Isn't that a renderer flaw? Well... Let's start with the simple part. A road is either primary or secondary, not both. So while a semicolon might be an interesting way to tag such a shared identity, in the real world you won't ever want to do so. Predictably, the renderer requires you to commit to one or the other, so a semicolon here can be considered breakage. I'm going to claim that the same holds true for name. When merging ways, a name conflict generally means you shouldn't have merged them. In Dublin, there's a long stretch of road that is variously George's Street, Aungier Street, Wexford Street and a bunch of others. Merge the wrong two ways and you'll end up with both, split by semicolon. Once again, there's no good use this could be put to. There is a real edge case here, though, such as where you may have Wibble Terrace sitting on Foobar Street, wholly contained within it. I've seen other discussions on that, but can't see that a semicolon will solve the problem. Road ref begins to enter the territory where you might consider a standard way of handling multi-valued keys. Not all countries support multiplexing, but those that do could make use of this. This was the possible valid case I had in mind for what Potlatch is doing, but TBH, it feels more like something a mapper should have to consciously set. Helpfully combining existing values seems a bit wrong. I too have had to go back fix several of these concatenations, mostly in names of roads, where someone has come into a 'done' area with Potlatch 'prettified' roads - mostly just doing what bezier hinting does, but sometimes bollixing things up. There are a number of roads round my way with London Road ; Tank Hill Road ; etc type errors - I'm getting through them... I hadn't realised that's a Potlatch thing though, I'd just assumed he was a prat. I'd ask the user but I think he's done round here wandered off to bugger somewhere else up now. It might help if [these people] filled in a bit on their user pages so we have some idea if it's a local newbie or a vagrant pest? Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] contours on main map
Steve Hill wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008, Robin Paulson wrote: maybe i'll do it myself; some transparent png laid over the top of the osm tiles can't be so difficult Have a look at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Contours This tells you how contour rendering has been implemented on the piste map and cycle map. - Steve Mmm - I like Srtm2osm plan to add the contours to a Garmin map later. I'm running it in Linux, and it gives me 3 odd characters at the start of the file: - 3c 3f 78 6d 6c 20 76 65 72 73 69 6f 6e 3d 27 31 ?xml version='1 ^ (from hexcat srtm.osm) Running tail srtm.osm -c +4 srtm1.osm sorts it out, but I don't know why it does that? The Isle of Wight comes to almost 8Mb for 10m contours - so it's going to be BIG for a decent size area! Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC on watermills
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Christoph Wagner wrote: Hi there I created a proposed feature called watermill. It is in category man_made like windmills are too. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Watermill I think there is not much misunderstandable and if there are windmills, then there should be watermills, too. I need it to tag some watermills in Saxony (Germany) and I couldn't find something else that match. Greetings from Dresden and sorry for some bad english... Christoph __ This seems eminently sensible - I hadn't realised there wasn't such a thing, and in fact it points out a couple of places to me that need putting on the map! Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIIVPzJfMmcSPNh94RAtcaAJ4hwyfSYM1erTZfkfwlat958yf44QCeJ51O 7ki9nn6Nd5wD2JBReS5qMWY= =aOXG -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Field/Landuse Mapping
Sfan00 wrote: Hi, You may have noticed some of my recent contributions in respect of fields nr Bourne End and Bovingdon in Hertfordshire, UK. Can I make a polite request that alongside the many other ongoing pojects, that an effort be made to mark land-use based on available sources? (i.e npe, USGS, Yahoo! and others) After landuse is comprhensively mapped, the next logical step alongside other mapping might be tracing buildings :) Very pretty. It'll render better if you fix all the typos, eg natrual, amentiy, Name, etc - I did a few for you but there's over 30 in quite a small area. Josm Validator's good at spotting these. Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] English version of OSM foldout flyer
maning sambale wrote: http://ajr.hopto.org/osm/pr/OSMFlyer-English.pdf Acrobat says Error processing page ... (109) maning I'd re-download it, mine is both technically fine very good - Thanks to both! I'm taking it to Wales today.. Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [josm-dev] Coastline checker / fixer
Dave Hansen wrote: On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 17:31 +, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: I vaguely remember months ago when the coastline checker at http://tile.openstreetmap.nl/coastlines.html was quite new, someone [] You can download a custom JOSM and validator .jar here: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~daveh/josm/ I'm also keeping my personal JOSM patch set much better split out than I did before, so I'm very willing to post it any time if people are interested in integrating some of what I have done. If you decide to run it and have any troubles, please report them back to me. I'll fix them as fast as I can! -- Dave Can anyone tell me why Validator (the normal one) chokes on this http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.49219lon=0.27476zoom=17 please? I can reverse the way all I like, it's not duplicated, it's clockwise whichever way the arrows go though! Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM and scale
Lars Aronsson wrote: [some serious stuff] Also, returning to cycle lanes, the secondary road Malmslättsvägen is now marked with cycleway=lane, but this doesn't show on the map here. And how can I indicate that this bus stop is only on the southern side of the street (buses going east)? Buses going in the other direction stop at another place. Put the bus stop off the road, on the pavement. It doesn't have to be a highway node as such. Micromapping is fun. I want zoom=18 now. Hmmm... and higher GPS accuracy. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM and scale
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andy Robinson wrote: On 26/03/2008, Mark Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lars Aronsson wrote: [some serious stuff] Also, returning to cycle lanes, the secondary road Malmslättsvägen is now marked with cycleway=lane, but this doesn't show on the map here. And how can I indicate that this bus stop is only on the southern side of the street (buses going east)? Buses going in the other direction stop at another place. Put the bus stop off the road, on the pavement. It doesn't have to be a highway node as such. Its perhaps not ideal to place the bus_stop off to the side of the highway since the stop is part of the highway. Off to the side means that it is more difficult to include the feature in routing and when marking up routes on a bespoke map. However the problem of which side of the street is real and when I started adding bus_stop's in Birmingham I wondered too how I would do it. In the end I took the lead from the bus stop signage itself. Here they not only have their location (normally the name of the road they are on plus the name of a nearby cross street or major land feature) but also towards information. So I've been tagging nodes (as part of the highway) for each stop with something like this: highway=bus_stop location=Birmingham Road, Driffold towards=Sutton Coldfield route_ref=104|104A|905|905X shelter=true ref=053201 I believe the towards should work because the place names would be expected to be in the database (once the map is complete) Cheers Andy I've avoided bus stuff round my part of the country as I don't use them nor really know how best to tackle this issue - maybe later... IMHO this ought to be covered better by relations - at present, bus routes are being written to overlie other ways (load IOW into josm run Validator to see an example), which is OK but adds yet more data, with duplication. The stops have been tagged off to one side - not by me - which looks pretty clear, and could easily be grouped into the No 63 bus relation. This ought to suit routing fine well. The current system doesn't look right to me. In your scheme you can't tell which side it is without some pretty specialist routines to calculate your 'towards' tag. How does your hypothetical routing know the bus doesn't turn right at Driffold take the scenic route to Sutton Coldfield via Clifton Road the park? (OK, the lack of bus stops, but you can't rely on that as a principle). I think bus stops are actually a pavement feature, for pedestrians, and live offset from the way. Your location tag says which road it belongs to, my offset says which way it goes which side it's on. I don't see anyone suggesting post-box is a highway feature so postmen can plan routes round them :) Neither bus companies nor the mail use a live algorithm to route themselves, so I doubt the utility of all this. Perhaps I'll work out one of my local routes try it my way see how/if it works. Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH6olJJfMmcSPNh94RAt4mAJ45Lzzho9ZcRR77XkYonrDWIToWGgCgg2tA H0i1KoYvpRMHQzgFxdK7CoQ= =u6kA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] London to Brighton Bike Ride - registration
Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote: Gregory Williams wrote: Sent: 29 February 2008 3:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] London to Brighton Bike Ride - registration Don't worry! I took a trace last year: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Gregory%20Williams/traces/27079 Gregory Thanks for the link Gregory. I turned the trace into an elevation profile, that won't change much even if the route is altered this year. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Image:2007LondonToBrighton.jpg Cheers Andy V. nice - I wish they'd invented GPS (well, affordable ones..) last time I did this. My bike speedo recorded 74.5 kmh on that last downhill bit I said a bad word there's no lasting record of it though :( Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] osmosis
Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] osmosis]$ java -mx1024m -jar osmosis.jar --read-xml file=~/Desktop/europe.osm.bz2 --bounding-polygon file=~/geo/gb-irl.poly --write-xml file=UK.osm failed as below on Mandriva 2008 That's yesterday's europe, svn's gb-irl.poly, osmosis 0.24 (evidently..) fully updated Mandriva 2008 The gb-irl.poly in svn was buggy. These files need to look like so: first line, random text then repeat the following as often as you want: polygon number co-ordinates co-ordinates ... END after the last polygon, END so any valid polygon file must have two ENDs at the end, and this one hadn't. Fixed now. Bye Frederik Hey, that works!! Thank you - I will go play with the other stuff again :) Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Parking symbols: YUCK!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lester Caine wrote: Mark Williams wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lester Caine wrote: J.D. Schmidt wrote: Lester Caine skrev: [big snip] LOGICALLY - there should never have been a problem created. A POI element should consist of a single entity which may have additional area information. Even those tags that are currently only defined as 'node' in many cases WILL be expanded to include area information at some point. So PLEASE can we have some sensible method of identifying PAIRS of tags so we can THEN decide what to do with them !!! Is this not a job for relations? If the pair were related, then we have no problem? Correct - but how do you identify elements uniquely so you can create the relation? I would assume a) manually or b) As per the prior discussion on generating the Mapnik duplicate points eliminating clashes, by algorithm. Manually would give better data, but I have a lot of parking marked up by me - and it seems I'm not alone :) - so perhaps (b) should be done as a one-off, after a consensus has been gained? A bit of manual clean-up after a mass conversion would be OK, and as it's a relation it's not adding new nodes where there's only an area, nor vice-versa, and it lets any interested renderers do it properly. It wouldn't do anything nasty with the underlying data that I can see. I see I'm not the only one to suggest it... Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHxFnRJfMmcSPNh94RAishAJ0VwGm2EDqng66Za1mRhnxgQ9XfWQCffjJC 6Bhf5s99t7wqYo0/QStvw2I= =1r0F -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Raw GPS layer
Stephen Hope wrote: This would be good. But even better, let me select a portion of a track log and upload it. My track logs tend to be a nightmarish tangle, with possibly hours of stuff before, after and during the interesting bits. I can use them because I was there, and know where I went, when and why (this is why I take notes). But somebody looking at the raw track would actually be confusing, and possibly wrong. However - bits that I'm actually mapping tend to be much better - actually tracking roads, paths etc. If I could easily select the bad bits of the track log (just points) in JOSM and remove them, then upload the rest, I'd be willing to put them up. I keep meaning to go back over my old track logs (all of which I have) and clean them up with some 3rd party tool, bit I always seem to have new stuff to work on instead. On 22/02/2008, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we should provide a track upload facility within JOSM. I started work on that once but got distracted, maybe its time to revisit that. Stephen One other point is that a track layer will highlight all our homes in a very public way; at present you have to download something eg josm + GPX trackdata to see this at a meaningful scale (ie not Potlatch, for this purpose). This effectively reduces the casual browsers chance of noticing the possibility, but posting it publicly hangs out a banner. I am aware of at least one user with a node marking his home, so we don't all care, but it's worth considering first! Also, I don't really see the utility of this, even after reading the preceding posts. You can't use the data from a visual map of traces for much, and areas where doubt exists eg changes to roads, will have a mass of new old to make a mess there... Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Raw GPS layer
80n wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Mark Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stephen Hope wrote: This would be good. But even better, let me select a portion of a track log and upload it. My track logs tend to be a nightmarish tangle, with possibly hours of stuff before, after and during the interesting bits. I can use them because I was there, and know where I went, when and why (this is why I take notes). But somebody looking at the raw track would actually be confusing, and possibly wrong. However - bits that I'm actually mapping tend to be much better - actually tracking roads, paths etc. If I could easily select the bad bits of the track log (just points) in JOSM and remove them, then upload the rest, I'd be willing to put them up. I keep meaning to go back over my old track logs (all of which I have) and clean them up with some 3rd party tool, bit I always seem to have new stuff to work on instead. On 22/02/2008, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we should provide a track upload facility within JOSM. I started work on that once but got distracted, maybe its time to revisit that. Stephen One other point is that a track layer will highlight all our homes in a very public way; at present you have to download something eg josm + GPX trackdata to see this at a meaningful scale (ie not Potlatch, for this purpose). This effectively reduces the casual browsers chance of noticing the possibility, but posting it publicly hangs out a banner. I am aware of at least one user with a node marking his home, so we don't all care, but it's worth considering first! Also, I don't really see the utility of this, even after reading the preceding posts. You can't use the data from a visual map of traces for much, and areas where doubt exists eg changes to roads, will have a mass of new old to make a mess there... 1) They prove the source of your contribution, in the same way that a good Wikipedia article cites its sources. Several of the reasons listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Why_sources_should_be_citedare equally applicable to OSM. 2) Track logs from multiple sources are aggregated. Different users, at different times, and using different equipment will result in a much better dataset than a single track log ever can. It is very common for parts of a single track to be off by a considerable amount, this type of error can be reduced and eliminated if there are multiple tracks to refer to. If you download the tracks for a part of the M25 motorway, for example, you will see that the aggregated result is much better than any one single track. You'll also notice outlier tracks which can easily be discounted. 3) There may be uses of the track logs in the future that have not yet been developed or thought of. For example, it might be that detection of edits in places that are distant from any track log could help to monitor for vandalism, or indicate a higher priority for peer review. Analysis of average speed and direction might help routing software to determine journey times and one-ways streets. etc. etc. You raise the point about some of your tracklogs being a bit of a mess. In my opinion you can and should still upload them. Any analysis of tracks will have to use statistical techniques to filter out noise, so anomalies will get removed as part of this process. In fact, many years from now, historians and archaeologists will be horrified that our enormous archive of GPS data was so badly mutilated before it was uploaded. 80n I wasn't saying not to upload them - just that I'm personally not that keen to see a raw GPS track layer on the map. I do upload them, that's why it would show up... Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Caption competition
OJ W wrote: The OSM cartoon has apparently become CC now: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Image:Openstreetmap_cartoon.jpg - would anyone like to write a caption, for use as the easter-week featured image? Oh Ye'll tak the High Road, I'll tak the Low Road, I'll have mapped Scotland afooore ye... Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] [Fwd: Re: Conflicting tagging of london undergound stations]
Original Message Subject:Re: [Talk-GB] Conflicting tagging of london undergound stations Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:13:30 +0100 From: Mark Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert (Jamie) Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alex Mauer wrote: I'm assuming that the vast majority of railway=subway in the world is below ground, You're assuming wrong. Only 45% of the London Underground is actually tunnels. The other 55% is above ground. I expect other cities are similar. and therefore that requiring an additional tunnel=yes tag on 90% or more of the subway ways, is not as good as treating the below-ground portions as a lower layer (whether it's -1 or -2 or -1 is beside the point) It might be better to abolish rail=subway and just use rail=metro. It's then obvious that you only put tunnel=yes when it is in a tunnel. Robert (Jamie) Munro For what it's worth, London underground is of course on many layers - to some extent, each line wants a different layer tag as they cross at varying depths. OTOH I'm not sure how relevant it is, as the layer tag is largely for rendering how important is it to render the levels right on a map? I personally would want it right, because it's there. Both tunnel layer have their place, I would agree with the idea of the default for rail=subway/metro being tunnel=yes, even for London at 45% correct! I think I'd default layer as -3 though as not much goes under the Tube, but covered rivers go above it I bet they're all -1 at least. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] affixing a GPS to a dashboard
Jonathan Bennett wrote: Steve Coast wrote: That burning question - if you have a GPS and a dashboard which lets it slide off when you turn a corner - what do you do? Maybe blu tak? Works perfectly for me. Use many small blobs rather than one big one, though. Jono Be aware that Garmin's with a rubber edge grip will go funny in hot sun on a dashboard. The glue melts turns into sticky yuk on a semi-permanent basis. Mr Garmin is re-gluing mine as we speak; I'm told that's what happened, though I never leave it unattended on the dash, so I think it did it driving (with air-con, too!). I'm 'going to' update the wiki 'soon' Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
