Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Motorbike riders are exempt from a number of things cars aren't, ... So doesn't entirely surprise me. Interesting. So this potentially means all access=destination tags should be changed to motor_vehicle=destination + motorcycle=yes. Would be better to first get confirmation from government on the sign's meaning though... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 7:41 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/16 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: Interesting. So this potentially means all access=destination tags should be changed to motor_vehicle=destination + motorcycle=yes. Would be better to first get confirmation from government on the sign's meaning though... Does this mean we should tag bus lanes in NSW as motorcycle=yes? Personally I don't think we should do either, we're tagging what's on the ground, not what's on the legal books. That doesn't mean we can't make a note about this on the wiki. The main issue that access=destination (i.e. applying to all traffic modes) is wrong - it isn't on the ground, and (quite probably...) isn't even in the legal books. How should Local Traffic Only signs be encoded in the database, given that we want to tag the meaning of the sign, rather than the sign itself? access=local_traffic_only? I'd prefer [something]=destination. Or are you saying we should ignore these signs altogether? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Haitian Earthquake Emphasizes Danger of a Split Geo Community
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:16 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: It's all a matter of tradeoffs and what is most important to you - being able to use it for whatever you want, or getting the most data in OSM. Well said. Funny thing is, they're not independent - i.e. making OSM data more usable for whatever anyone wants leads to more users, which (arguably) leads to more mappers... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Haitian Earthquake Emphasizes Danger of a Split Geo Community
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:43 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: If we can get people making editors to add tags to changesets based on your license preference then any PD data, even if it's changed later to become ODBL, can be collected. ... the changeset might be good enough, as long as the code collecting only PD data figures out what is new, or only what is edited from existing PD data. Interesting. But the catch is, as you say, only what is edited from existing PD data. And if you have different mappers using different licenses, wouldn't that make it harder for companies like nearmap to say we give OSM license to trace from our stuff? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: For the time being, it might be best to tag them with a specific local_traffic_only=yes or something, so we know exactly what is being encoded. +1. I've emailed QLD gov and Brisbane CC about what the signs mean, though I'm not holding my breath for a response... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Logically, access=destination would apply to all forms of traffic. So you should tag it motor_vehicle=destination, right? I don't know. What are you basing that on? Can you legally ride a bike through a Local Traffic Only area? No idea, but I suspect not... The bigger issue is that (I assume) these roads are almost universally tagged with access=destination, which is (it appears) clearly wrong. Equally logically, a program doing foot routing should probably ignore access=destination anyway. That's pretty arbitrary. Should foot routing also ignore access=private? It gets messy. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I would have thought so, because afaik these rules are to reduce traffic noise. Bicycles not being noisy, I would have thought they weren't included. Maybe, but it's unclear... Anyone good at chasing down legal definitions of road signs? ... I'd say access=destination is just less specific No, access=* applies to ALL transport modes (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access). If this isn't the case in reality, it shouldn't be used, or it should be used in conjunction with foot=*, bicycle=* as appropriate. It does get messy...partially because the real world is messy. Say there was a business park with a boom gate preventing access to unauthorised cars. You might still walk through it. Or you might not. There's two issues: 1) understanding an ambiguous situation on the ground. In this case, we need to find out who the signs apply to. 2) tagging the situation according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access. In this case, I suspect access=destination is wrong, because I suspect the signs don't apply to pedestrians (and maybe bicycles). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Incorrect entry to BP service station
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote: Trying to drive or route to disconnected nodes is nonsensical. A question, then: what proportion of OSM POI's are disconnected? Should we be taking steps (in terms of mapping guidelines) to ensure POI nodes and buildings (and anything else likely to be a routing target) are connected to the road grid? Presumably this has come up before - but this question seems to be the key issue here. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Incorrect entry to BP service station
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:59 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On a related issue re: 2), in the case of multiple businesses sharing a building (e.g. a typical AU shopping centre with entrances on the outside of the building), is it advisable to place a POI node This is micro mapping But it's relevant to anyone who is placing POI's. Where should they be placed - floating inside the building or on the building outline (at the entrance)? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Public notary (Map feature POI proposal)
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: At that point we're really straying beyond making a map, aren't we? I'm already a little dubious about the value of recording the locations of professional services like lawyers. Why not just have a separate project for directories of all kinds, make sure our addressing works, and use geocoding to map between them? I think it makes sense to store amenities like petrol stations and cafes, but the further you stray away from stuff someone might need in a hurry, the less sense it makes. It would also seem to be easier to mantain a directory than a map - when an office moves, it *should* just be a matter of updating an entry in a directory, rather than moving the GPS coordinates of a node... No? Is there an open directory project? Could we be better integrated with one? Very interesting points - I don't have an answer to your questions, but I'd like to know too. However... the way I see it, if it has latitude and longitude, and is a verifiable fact, it is suitable for inclusion in the OSM database. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Mapping interchanges levels or turn restrictions
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:57 PM, cam_...@fastmail.fm wrote: Would anyone else like to comment? Yes, but as John asked can you point us to the example? Would make it easier to follow... As for 2 The ways cross without a common node but are on different layers. (Although physically using the same pavement where they cross).. This doesn't sound like a good idea. IMHO they should only be on different layers if one way physically crosses over/under the other (i.e. at different altitudes). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] no rendering of amenity=veterinary
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: If this is the standard process, could it be documented? It's extremely unclear at the moment what the process is for getting new tags supported. You currently have this chicken-and-egg situation where you don't know if it's worth using a tag because you don't know if it will ever be implemented. There's a difference between establishing that a tag is 1) a useful way to model some aspect of physical reality, and 2) that it should show up in a particular renderer. Use a tag if it is 1). If you want 2), that's a separate issue. As you can see the wiki doesn't play a role in this decision. And if *that* is the case, that should definitely be documented, and the whole voting process abandoned as a distracting waste of time. The wiki/voting process is to establish whether or not the tag is 1). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag voting/rendering process (was Re: no rendering of amenity=veterinary)
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: To establish whether it's a useful way? Nah, the process must have a stronger outcome or it's pointless. Or, if you like, to establish whether it's the *best* way to model it in the OSM database. I entirely disagree that that's pointless. I would have said it's something like to establish that the tag is part of the official OSM tag set or something. And once established, it should be rendered (or explicitly not rendered, if inappropriate) by the official OSM renderers/stylesheets... So... it should be rendered... or not rendered... OK then. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Default access restrictions
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:25 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/7 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: No. bicycle=yes means it's legal for bicycles (The public has an official, legally-enshrined right of access). bicycle=designated means it's designated for bicycles (The way is a preferred/designated route, has been specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport) - I usually interpret designated as signed, which is an attractive interpretation because it's verifiable. To avoid confusion perhaps it should have been bicycle=signed? :) Maybe. But using designated allows for: bicycle=designated + source:bicycle=survey, or alternatively bicycle=designated + source:bicycle=local_council_documentation (if you know what I mean). I think this is ok. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycleways wiki doc enhanced
2010/1/6 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: Just a thought - I haven't thought this through - could relation be used to form a close relationship between a road and a track? Sorry if this has been mentioned before. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations#Proposed_uses_of_Relations for related concepts. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Public notary (Map feature POI proposal)
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 06.01.2010 15:41, schrieb Valent Turkovic: ... I didn't understand that people just use keys that they want no matter it there aren't listed in OSM features list on Wiki... ... If there's no such thing in the Map Features and a search in the wiki proposals also provides no good matching alternative, it's a lot better to tag something in your own tag words than not map it at all. If you do this, just make sure the tags that you use are self-explanatory, explicit, and verifiable. Add a note=* with more information if there's any chance you may be misunderstood. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Default access restrictions
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: ===Cycleway=== I would say shared use paths vastly outnumber bike-only paths, so I propose bicycle=designated foot=designated. Horse...no? Paths that allow horses, like rail trails, aren't too rare, but can be catered for easily enough. Shared use paths do outnumber bike-only paths, so your suggestion probably makes sense. HOWEVER, I would strongly prefer that these are tagged as highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated, as it is much more explicit (and this kind of approach avoids the need altogether for http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions). I'm not sure if this suggestion is within the scope of this thread, though. ===Footway== Now, bicycles aren't allowed on *footpaths* - ie, the path that runs along the side of the road. But they're generally allowed on most other paths, like into or through parks, around sports grounds etc. So I propose foot=designated bicycle=yes. I would prefer foot=designated + bicycle=no. If an Australian tags highway=footway, I think it would be reasonably expected that bikes aren't allowed by default. Again, as in the case of cycleway, I would prefer, though, that these are tagged as highway=path + foot=* + bicycle=*, as a NSWelshman might use highway=footway differently to, say, a QLDer. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Default access restrictions
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/7 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au: On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 10:49 +1000, Stephen Hope wrote: From a quick skim of the wiki, it seems that 'bicycle=yes' means that bicycles are allowed on the way, where 'bicycle=designated' means the bike has right of way. Bikes have right of way on designated cycle paths, but while theyre allowed on (most) roads, they dont have right of way. This was my basic understanding as well, which is why I get confused when I see people talking about marking paths with stuff like bicycle=designated and foot=designated. They can't both have right of way. No. bicycle=yes means it's legal for bicycles (The public has an official, legally-enshrined right of access). bicycle=designated means it's designated for bicycles (The way is a preferred/designated route, has been specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport) - I usually interpret designated as signed, which is an attractive interpretation because it's verifiable. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:51 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I'm sorry, but accuracy is important to some of us, and using commercial data is inaccurate, visiting is one way to get correct information, as is contacting the council responsible for the roads. Absolutely, but consider these scenarios: 1) map by survey only, slow progress and for several years: excellent accuracy in dense urban areas and near to blank in other areas 2) map by survey alternate legal methods, extremely fast progress right now, with fairly good accuracy widespread, and for several years: correct the errors It isn't *entirely* clear that 1) is better than 2). E.g. hypothetically, the immediate wider (albeit arguably less accurate) coverage resulting from 2) may lead to increased popularity and an influx of new mappers, making it faster overall to correct the errors. Therefore it's worth at least briefly considering alternate legal methods, which is all that Steve is suggesting. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Mapping progress in Victoria
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Craig Feuerherdt craigfeuerhe...@gmail.com wrote: They include all ways, not just vehicular roads. Essentially the State Government layer also contains some non-vehicular ways as well, so it is difficult to compare apples with apples. Is the State Government criteria any more specific than [vehicular ways and] some non-vehicular ways? It would be useful to put any details you have on that page (providing it's permitted), so that the numbers are actually meaningful. This would also make it easier to compare apples with apples, by selecting only the matching kinds of ways from OSM. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: You have to be able to copy facts from time to time. And that means you have to use your own judgment as to what constitutes a copyright infringement and what constitutes legitimate research. Use your own judgment? On this issue, I don't feel comfortable with that, as I'm not a lawyer. I'm going with the consensus, which is to err on the safe side, and Don't copy from other maps. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycleways wiki doc enhanced
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Perhaps we do need to fork the project and create openmap.org so we can get away from a fundamental belief that 'the road rules'? But all I am 'shouting for' is that there are hooks to maintain a hierarchy of detail as one moves from a macro to micro view. If people only want a 'road map' or 'cycleway map', then that is not a problem, but it should not then prevent the fine detail from being maintained below it? If the micro view is on a separate data layer then I've absolutely no problem with it (I just don't think it's the core project). Uh-oh, I don't think it's worth arguing about what the core of OSM is. Lester's right - for micro-mapping, it's not about 'catching on' but rather about 'making provision for'. Richard, I think it's possible to make provision for micro-mapping on the same data layer. There's just a few issues to work through. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I find it incredibly strange that you're more comfortable relying on the consensus than your own judgment, but hey, whatever works for you. To put it in other words for you, as to what constitutes a copyright infringement, I'm more confident in the consensus legal opinion than in my own legal opinion. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: To put it in other words for you, as to what constitutes a copyright infringement, I'm more confident in the consensus legal opinion than in my own legal opinion. I wasn't aware that there was a consensus legal opinion as to what constitutes a copyright infringement with regard to casual non-systematic repetition of street names found in an online map. The only consensus that I'm aware of is the position of a large majority of (mostly non-lawyer) OSM mappers to err on the safe side, by which they mean to never use copyrighted sources without explicit permission. And I am more confident in siding with the large majority of OSM mappers, than to do otherwise based on my own legal opinion. I find it incredibly strange that you find it incredibly strange. Anyway, let's move on. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't really decided, and I don't know where the line from non-systematic to systematic is. I don't think anyone does. Hence it's near impossible to ensure you don't step over it - which is why the large majority of OSM mappers continue to err on the safe side :P Does anyone really believe copyright law works this way? I'm not sure it works at all :P You probably want to follow up on http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk if you want to get into the nitty-gritty. Search and read the archives first though - this isn't the first time this has come up. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Victorian routes
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Any idea if/how/where to get this info for other states? For QLD, a quick search suggests perhaps these sites, as a start: http://www.mainroads.qld.gov.au/en/Driving-in-Queensland.aspx (includes Guide to Queensland Roads and Points of interest files) http://www.qldmotorways.com.au/ontheroad/ournetwork/maps.aspx (links to maps of Brisbane motorways with labelled on/offramps, and a map of the Australian Toll Road Network) Note: A quick search didn't turn up nice csv files (but they may be in there somewhere), and I'm not sure about licensing. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Relations, road names and numbers
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: ... I think it would probably be a good thing if renderers distinguished as little as possible between properties on ways and properties on relations. +1. Tagging the way should override the tag on the relation, where applicable (which should address James' concern). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Victorian routes
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 6:22 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The reason I ask is someone mentioned the info was from an internal document... No, the Vic stuff is from the web. Maybe it's wrong of me to assume that most of the major ways in Brisbane would have been done to death I personally wouldn't assume that. Anyway, the Main Roads map covers all of QLD. Not sure that CSV would be the best format for this kind of thing, considering how complex the information could be. Really? Creating a table of routes is easiest from CSV... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping progress in Victoria
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Craig Feuerherdt craigfeuerhe...@gmail.com wrote: I have created a table summarising the length of roads by postcode. The table compares the State Government data with OSM data (from cloudmade). This is great. May I ask where it is? (I thought you may have added it to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Victoria,_Australia) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Defective GPS trace
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: Steve Bennett wrote: I'm even tempted to draw a massive straight line between several towns to indicate roads that I know exist but that I haven't surveyed. Would this offend a lot of people here? That would be using a map as an item in a to-do list. IMHO that's ok provided you comprehensively use source:*=* and FIXME=* ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: There is no point endangering the genuinely collected data for the sake of some lazy copying. This is not fairly worded. In Australia (and other sparsely populated areas), it is not just for the sake of some lazy copying - this issue is critical to whether there is any hope of eventually getting reasonable coverage of street names throughout the country. It's a big, sparse country. That said, I am following the wiki, as Dan referred to, which says You should not use copyrighted maps in any way while editing OpenStreetMap (unless it is compatible with our license). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: ... I get the impression that the group of Australians currently so active on the mailing list isn't lazy but they are certainly impatient. Perhaps :) But my point is, if there may be legal ways to do this more efficiently we should investigate them, not dismiss them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Invisible POI's
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:13 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Speed cameras are a bit of a mess tagging wise, some add a node others add a relation, but I don't think any method renders on OSM... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Speed_trap http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:enforcement http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Traffic_enforcement http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_Signs etc... For the record, being a bit of a mess tagging wise is not true. This relation (approved) should be used: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement The other very useful thing is to tag maxspeed=* limits, although I noticed a couple of speed_camera tags tagged with the speed limit also... This is incorporated in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Victorian routes
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Craig Feuerherdt craigfeuerhe...@gmail.com wrote: Happy New Year OSMers! Have created a page listing all the Victorian routes (M, A, B C roads) - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Victoria%2C_Australia/Routes. Woah this is a great idea. Have you checked it's legally ok that the list was derived from VicRoads Drivers Guide and Main Roads Victoria? If so, and if the necessary further sources exist, it would be great to extend this to the other states. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cul-de-sac
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO they justify an extra way, as there is clearly a physical separation and two separate areas of bitumen. (Go ahead and add a whole extra node + way - HDD storage is cheap! :P) HDD storage is the least of my considerations in questions like this. I think it's a valid question where to draw the line between a road and a driveway etc. Well, if there's a physical road sitting there, add a way. As for what value of highway=* to use, that's a little fuzzier sometimes. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Maxheight changes
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: So, numbers on signs about restrictions (maximum speed, maximum height, maximum length, maximum weight...): trailing zeros have no value, as those numbers are exact. Not necessarily. Perhaps the number on the sign came from a measurement? E.g. Maximum Clearance: 2.0 Perhaps this is a case of ambiguity between whether the number refers to a restriction or to physical clearance. I suspect this ambiguity is quite common. Numbers about measurements (elevation, height of a bridge, road width): trailing zeros do have value. As I said, the number on the sign may have come from a measurement. I think the trailing zeros should be retained unless there is a specific reason to remove them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Mapping road closures...
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 5:47 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The only problem with this scheme is you can't do, first sunday of the month for example. Surely someone in some field has already come across this problem before - i.e. surely someone's already developed a formal language for specification of time/date info? Don't have time to search right now, but if it has been done it would be good to not reinvent the wheel... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping road closures...
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Jim Croft jim.cr...@gmail.com wrote: think it might have to be derived, e.g. http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/vb-date2.htm#Month http://code.google.com/p/datejs/ That's a shame. But iso 8601 is probably still a good starting point. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com wrote: And that's just fine, GMM getting more users doesn't make OSM worse. But there is a limited supply of people willing to become mappers. I see it as a case of market share (between GMM and OSM). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Aun Johnsen li...@gimnechiske.org wrote: Instead of bashing on about Google do this and Google do that, ... It's still interesting (for some) to keep an eye on what other projects are doing... why not try to see how we can improve OSM standing, so that more people will be drawn to OSM? Get more apps to use OSM, improve global coverage, get more usage of the wikipedia extension, whatever that make people aware of our qualities. +1 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] MapOSMatic will now do any where...
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Can't help but wonder if Australian cities will ever have that level of detail... Hell yeah they will. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] How to manage GPX files?
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: What software do people use to manage their GPX files? Mainly I want to be able to upload sections of GPX – rather than the whole thing – to Potlatch. And it might be nice to be able to combine a couple of traces into one long trace. I use Prune (http://activityworkshop.net/software/prune/) to edit GPX files, then upload the final GPX files via the OSM website. It's not fantastic, but it's the best I could find, is under active development and getting better. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] NearMap PhotoMap imagery for OSM
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: Ok, I tried this myself and it doesn't work, seemingly because the slippymap plugin attempts to fetch tiles from url/*/*/*.jpg, rather than urlz=zx=xy=ynml=Vert. What is the URL format? If it's possible to change the hostname so that it points at our servers, and to set at least the first part of the path, I could see whether we can implement a custom URL parser for it (like we have for Potlatch). This is (it seems) detailed here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slippy_map_tilenames In short, as described on that page: Filename(url) format is /zoom/x/y.png, where each zoom level is a directory, each column is a subdirectory, and each tile in that column is a file. Thanks! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap PhotoMap imagery for OSM
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: Ok, I tried this myself and it doesn't work, seemingly because the slippymap plugin attempts to fetch tiles from url/*/*/*.jpg, rather than urlz=zx=xy=ynml=Vert. What is the URL format? If it's possible to change the hostname so that it points at our servers, and to set at least the first part of the path, I could see whether we can implement a custom URL parser for it (like we have for Potlatch). This is (it seems) detailed here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slippy_map_tilenames In short, as described on that page: Filename(url) format is /zoom/x/y.png, where each zoom level is a directory, each column is a subdirectory, and each tile in that column is a file. Actually, in addition to this, it would be great if you could allow the date to be specified in the path, i.e. allow us to make requests in the form of http://www.nearmap.com/maps/nmd/z/x/y.jpg (where nmd is the date) The following related example of an apache mod_rewrite instance is from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nearmap#SlippyMap_Plugin_.28Method_2.2C_Using_hosted_URL_rewriting.29: # Allows JOSM slippymap to browse the NearMap Aerial coverage 20091015 RewriteRule nearmap.aerial.slippymap.20091015/(.+)/(.+)/(.+).jpg http://www.nearmap.com/maps/nmd=20091015nml=Vertx=$2y=$3z=$1 [L,R=permanent] ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap PhotoMap imagery for OSM
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 9:44 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/29 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: Actually, in addition to this, it would be great if you could allow the date to be specified in the path, i.e. allow us to make requests in the form of http://www.nearmap.com/maps/nmd/z/x/y.jpg (where nmd is the date) Doesn't need to be part of the path, just part of the URL, eg: http://www.nearmap.com/maps/z/x/y.jpg?nmd=mmdd But John, it has to precede the last / to work as a slippymap.custom_tile_source_1, right? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wrong way round the roundabout
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: My 2 cents: anything that is less important than tertiary is: 1) if it is a named/public road: * residential if lined primarily with people's homes and used primarily by people accessing those homes * unclassified otherwise 2) service otherwise (unnamed or restricted access) What about service roads? They're lined with houses, and used primarily by people accessing those homes. Surely highway=service. That depends what you mean by service road. Following the scheme given by 1) and 2) above: If it's named/public, highway=residential. Otherwise, highway=service. Also, what about weird dinky little strets you sometimes get in suburbia that are paved with red bricks or something equally creative, but are also the primary means of access to houses? Residential or service? Again, if named/public, highway=residential, otherwise highway=service. That's what I do, anyway. If not fantastic, at least it's simple. But this is now off-topic. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] What's the policy on unsurveyed roads from imagery?
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: As long as you know the state default speed limit, this is easy to tag. It is exactly the same as a sign with that limit. If so, just remember to indicate the source as discussed at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed In some areas (e.g. Italy) mappers are mapping implicit maxspeeds like explicit maxspeeds but add source:maxspeed=Countrycode:urban/rural But this is off-topic. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What's the policy on unsurveyed roads from imagery?
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I'm perfectly fine with letting the people in council waste their time with subjective categorization and then either 1) copying the results, if they have some sort of legal distinction; or 2) ignoring them altogether, if they don't. If you're not comfortable with choosing a highway value, then just using highway=road is a great idea - i.e. let those who are comfortable sort it out later. Recently, I've taken this approach also when tracing pathways - I just use highway=path now (plus surface=*). I'm OVER the cycleway/footway thing for now... :) I have this insane theory that if the renderers just outright refused to color roads without speed limit tags, these tags would get added a lot quicker. Once you have roads and speed limits, the question of which roads are the quickest way to go usually can be determined by an algorithm. Yeah - but hey, if you want maxspeeds to be entered, just go and do it. I think it is useful to point out the problems every once in a while, though. Yup! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[talk-au] amenity=parking in the middle of a field?
Anyone know what the deal is with this?: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/316607432 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Google blog post: The meaning of open
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 7:42 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/23 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: Interestingly, there is NO mention of mapping data. Amazing. How can they continue to omit this from the discussion? Actually thereg did a good run down on this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/23/google_on_open/ It's not just data they aren't open about... Interesting article. From it: [H]is description of what should be open avoids all those areas where Google is preternaturally closed. In some cases, he rationalizes the omissions. In others, he seems completely oblivious to what's been left out. ... Like any other money-driven outfit, Google is open when open suits its needs. And it's closed when closed suits. Still no mention of mapping data, though. Does being closed in that sense really suit Google's needs? I'm not so sure. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Barrier to entry: to trace from imagery on Ubuntu
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 7:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Any reason you want to use Yahoo imagery instead of NearMap? NearMap doesn't seem to cover China just yet :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Google launches Indigenous Mapping workshop
Via http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2009/12/indigenous-mapping-new-google.html Google and the Indigenous Mapping Network are teaming up to put on a two day workshop on the Google campus to teach people from native communities how to use Google's mapping technologies. I wonder if the Indigenous Mapping Network have heard of OSM? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google launches Indigenous Mapping workshop
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder if the Indigenous Mapping Network have heard of OSM? No. Next question? Why? Google has brand power and solid PR department, which they aren't ashamed to put into use. Why? Because it seems like a very nice (warm and fuzzy) community mapping project, and it would be nice if it were possible for groups like this, doing projects like these, to come to OSM rather than (or as well as!) Google. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google launches Indigenous Mapping workshop
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: ... I view all this Google activity not with the same skepticism that others seem to have. I think someone who is mapping for Google is still better than someone who is not mapping at all! That's not skepticism, but it's a good point :) It takes enormous resources to (where reqired) - explain to people what maps are ;-) - make them understand that maps are not god-given or a government thing but you can (help) make them yourself - train people to look out for the things that are important for map making A population that has these skills and this knowledge is a much more fertile environment for OSM to flourish in - even if that initial awareness has come from Google. But what if that population then consists entirely of Map Maker users? Is that really beneficial for OSM? I know what you're saying, but it is reasonable to expect Map Maker users to jump ship to OSM? Is that even what we should be hoping for? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Barrier to entry: to trace from imagery on Ubuntu
Currently, it's my understanding that, if you're running Ubuntu and want to contribute by tracing imagery, you have to follow the instructions here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/WMSPlugin#On_Ubuntu_9.10_.27Karmic_Koala.27 Is this right? If so, it seems to me that this might be able to be improved upon - it's currently somewhat buried in the wiki and requires a fairly involved set of steps to get it working. I wonder if improving this situation might be an opportunity to lower the barrier of entry to potential mappers. Anyone started looking in this direction? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Google blog post: The meaning of open
Check it out, originally an email to Googlers about the meaning of 'open' as it relates to the Internet, Google, and our users, via: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html We can photograph the world's streets so that you can explore the neighborhood around an apartment you are considering renting from a thousand miles away. ... we make numerous platforms - video, maps, mobile, PCs, voice, enterprise - better, more competitive, and more innovative. We are often attacked for being too big, but sometimes being bigger allows us to take on the impossible. All of this is useless, however, if we fail when it comes to being open. So we need to constantly push ourselves. Open will win. Interestingly, there is NO mention of mapping data. Amazing. How can they continue to omit this from the discussion? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Suburb boundaries
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: After that it might be wise to figure out some strategy to monitor changes to admin boundaries to limit the effect of mistakes in future. Easy fix. Don't join other ways to them. I don't get it. If I join another way to a boundary, you're saying the boundary disappears? What's going on? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Suburb boundaries
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 7:04 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/23 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: After that it might be wise to figure out some strategy to monitor changes to admin boundaries to limit the effect of mistakes in future. Easy fix. Don't join other ways to them. I don't get it. If I join another way to a boundary, you're saying the boundary disappears? What's going on? No, people are merging boundaries together breaking relations that have grouped them. Could you give a detailed example? It's still not entirely clear to me. I'm only asking so that I don't accidentally do it myself. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap PhotoMap imagery for OSM
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The problem I'm really trying to solve is with the slippymap plugin, because it is compiled and the URL isn't easily setable/changeable by a user, there is no options to tweak the URL in the plugin interface/settings This isn't easy, but you could try...going to the Advanced Settings tab, and add a slippymap.custom_tile_source_1 as described at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/JOSM/Plugins/SlippyMap (note I haven't tested this myself) Ok, I tried this myself and it doesn't work, seemingly because the slippymap plugin attempts to fetch tiles from url/*/*/*.jpg, rather than urlz=zx=xy=ynml=Vert. Something like that. This problem seems to be the motivation for Morb_au's hosted Apache mod_rewrite instance (details: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nearmap#JOSM) This is still a bit yuck. Anyone made any progress? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging fuel locations
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:42 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I've just update a matilda location with information from their website (types of fuel sold etc). Any way, they list services on their station locations like hot food, groceries, dry cleaning etc: http://www.matildafuel.com.au/stationfeatures.asp This is on top of the amenity:*=* tags I used for BP locations, amenity:atm=yes etc. I think it would be wise to add some documentation about these tags to the wiki and I'm planning to do so, but I'm posting this to get some thoughts from others before I spend a bunch of time only to re-do it because someone had a better idea on how to tag service stations. As long as it's documented and the tags are explicit in their meaning (i.e. the meaning is directly inferable from the tags), it's easy to change later - i.e. I'd go ahead and do it :) This is assuming of course that the wiki hasn't already got other instructions on how to do it. Specifically, though, I'm wondering why use amenity:atm=yes rather than atm=yes? Is there ever some atm that isn't an amenity? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Victorian police locations...
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:46 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Feel free, but these locations are all tagged with fixme=not_reviewed and show up in things like keepright etc, and as I said before I even made a custom page for the bp locations to make it simpler again. IMHO it would still be useful to create a wiki page to make a record of these imports, and importantly, direct people to instructions for using keepright etc, direct people to the e.g. BP custom page, and direct people to instructions to get the Edit in JOSM etc links working. (unless it's just me who doesn't know how to do this - but I doubt it...) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging fuel locations
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Specifically, though, I'm wondering why use amenity:atm=yes rather than atm=yes? Is there ever some atm that isn't an amenity? It's for when there are several amenities sharing one node. Not that any renderers/editors actually support this notion, but there's not much choice. I don't understand. Why use amenity:atm=yes rather than atm=yes? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging fuel locations
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:43 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:atm=yes this was Roy's point amenity:atm=yes is not consistent with the page I just mentioned I didn't bother to check the wiki before doing this, but at the same time there was a number of other amenity things and I was trying to group them together essentially. If people think this should be changed I can do it fairly trivially. I would still suggest atm=yes. The amenity: is redundant. And on a slightly different issue, what source=* values are you planning on? For example, will source:atm=* be set also? It would be bad for someone to remove the fixme=not_reviewed without reviewing ALL details imported, including, for example, atm=yes... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Roundabouts and routing
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: I have not changed the current intersection in osm but here are two screen shots of the intersection in josm. http://www.4x4falcon.com/osm/junctions/intersection_messy.jpg http://www.4x4falcon.com/osm/junctions/intersection_simple.jpg The second shows exactly the same from a map point of view as the first and also routes correctly. It's not necessary to map all the turning lanes and is much easier to read on the screen and if printed out in paper form. If you call this intersection up in garmin, navit, gpsdrive etc when in routing mode it's a real mess and becomes unusable. This is an interesting example. The _messy and _simple techniques, of course, could just as well be described as _complete and _approximate, etc. The real issue here is what are we mapping - and with the intersection example, the issue seems to be whether the ways should accurately correspond to geographic reality (_messy), or not (_simple). Personally, I think they should (geographic reality is important in a map! :P), and hence I can see the appeal of _messy. However, Ross, if the _messy example really is unusable, this is a problem. Ross, what exactly do you mean by unusable? Note also that any problem with _messy does not then infer that _simple is a good approach either - it's clearly an approximation, which is fine in the interim, but sooner or later mappers are going to want to add more detail, and they surely should have a way to do so without making intersections unusable. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Vic hospital locations
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:03 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: ... seems to include a lot of disclaimers about the information being best effort/use at own risk... Probably just covering their back - because people looking for a hospital do tend to be at risk if the data's off... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Roundabouts and routing
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: In that case, the voting means nothing at all? Weird. From my perspective, voting's similar to asking for opinions on an email list, just with the added benefit of yes/no responses and documentation of results. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Roundabouts and routing
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 9:46 AM, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote: I thought long and hard about this issue before I make the first correction to a local roundabout. I came to the conclusion that roundabout entry and exit points should be separate. Sure, and I see the logic - but the fact you needed to think long and hard means it's probably better if the routing can be fixed to cope with either kind of mapping. It also occurs to me that we might be able to get both these problems fixed in one fell swoop, at least for Garmin routable maps. And that's to get the OSM mkgmap program reviewed and modified. Yeah, when I say ROUTER fix, I don't necessarily mean Garmin themselves, I just mean *somewhere* in the chain of processing the raw data, a fix is necessary to be able to cope with shared roundabout entry/exit nodes (I don't know where though - not my area). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Centrelink locations
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 10:28 AM, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote: Steve Bennett wrote: Yeah, good work. Should the name be Bairnsdale Centrelink or just Centrelink? I'm all for putting town/suburb names in as well. One place where it matters is looking up POIs on GPS units. These are sorted by proximity to current location. And when using the feature to find fuel outlets for example, it's a tremendous help to have suburb names in the lists you get instead of just: BP Woolworths Caltex/Woolworths Slell Coles Mobil BP BP Caltex/Woolworths, and so on. But isn't this a problem with the user i.e. the GPS unit software? I.e. shouldn't the suburb be retrieved from an admin boundary if required? IMHO the name=* value should be the name. If it's actually called Bairnsdale Centrelink then fine, but I wouldn't add it just to change the behaviour of some other software. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Centrelink locations
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I feel weird tagging name=Bowls Club - that's clearly not the name I would feel weird too! If you don't know the name, PLEASE don't enter a name=*. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Roundabouts and routing
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: This is an interesting example. The _messy and _simple techniques, of course, could just as well be described as _complete and _approximate, etc. No _messy is over mapped and _simple is accurate. This is subjective and, as I said, depends on what we are mapping. E.g. IF we are mapping the centrelines of paths of travel in terms of geographic location, clearly _messy is more accurate/complete. But that's a big IF. I'm not saying _messy is better, I'm just saying it's not *necessarily* worse - it all depends on the goal and the definition of a way. Additional information like turning lanes etc needs to be included in relations etc or other tags. Yes, fair enough. But what if someone wants to mark the geographic locations of these turning lanes etc? Then we go to something line highway=lane, I guess. But that's off-topic here. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Centrelink locations
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I feel weird tagging name=Bowls Club - that's clearly not the name I would feel weird too! If you don't know the name, PLEASE don't enter a name=*. This must be important to you. Why so? People tag A=B when they know A does not equal B. Do you really want me to explain why this isn't a good idea? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion: fallback tag
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I'll keep investigating the idea of a centralised rules table though. Cool - if so, it might be interesting to see how this could relate to the wiki also, not just renderers. Good luck :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Roundabouts and routing
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 6:59 AM, morb@beagle.com.au wrote: In the first case I have edited the entry, exit and roundabout as meeting at exactly one node. IMHO this represents reality and if the router can't handle it then the router should be upgraded to suit (or its OSM-to-router-format script suitably upgraded). +1. A problem with the router requires a simple ROUTER fix. The router just needs to be told that when entering a junction with a roundabout, that also happens to have an exit, that exit counts as the first exit. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[OSM-talk] New Google Map Maker promotion
Apparently, OSM is lacking a bus: http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2009/12/mapping-india-on-googles-internet-bus.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM, swanilli swani...@gmail.com wrote: Two points: 1. The terminology foot=designated and bicycle=designated is confusing, since the opposite of designated is not no but undesignated or non-designated. Just leave it as it is on thousands of ways as bicycle=yes or no and foot=yes or no. There is no need for a change. No need for a change? You are proposing a change from what is documented in the wiki... If a path is designated for bicycles, it should be bicycle=designated. I don't understand your complaint here. Oh, and it's not confusing, because *=designated *implies* *=yes, so it doesn't matter what the opposite of designated is. 2. The idea that every way on which bicycles are permitted should be designated cycleway implying it is primarily for bicycles, is, in my opinion either hopeful, naïve or arrogant. If you read, for example, the extract from the Australian Road Rules for Australian separated footpath it is clear that the correct designation is footpath and not cycleway. Leave well alone or you will bring the wrath of the gods down on OSM. As for what should be a cycleway, I would say every way that is designated for bicycles should be a highway=cycleway. This includes paths that are designated for bicycles AND designated for pedestrians, e.g. Australian shared path. There's no implication of primarily for __. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Intro video to OSM in Australia
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:03 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: An idea came to me the other day about some kind of intro to OSM video, with a noticibly Australian slant to it. I've seen a couple of intro videos for different editors, but I had something else in mind, where we could cover things like getting and using a GPS and encouraging people to upload their traces especially if they go into parts of Australia away from the coast. Part 2 could show/highlight examples of people turning their or other peoples traces into mapping information. Part 3 might cover common Australian specific topics like fords, how to make roundabouts Nice idea, why not? Who would this be aimed towards, though? Decide that before deciding on content... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:10 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: So... sports_centre for the actual sporting facilities, something_club for the commercial bit? Maybe social_club? club_rooms, while it sounded good for the buildings members genuinely use for their meetings and stuff, doesn't sound right for a building the public comes to for a feed. As covered before, you should be a member to use the club and it's facilities (the restaurant etc), which is why they are member(ship) club(s), so amenity=member_club. Thought I might chip in to me this seems to be a matter of trying to cram a complex and ambiguous meaning into a single tag. I couldn't help but be reminded of the footway/cycleway situation. Is it not possible to *tag* what we are trying to indicate (using more than one tag if necessary), rather than to create a *definition in the wiki* that says what we're trying to indicate (and using a single tag)? For example, take a close look at the proposed definition of member_club - is it in the form of if A and B and C, it's a member_club? If so, isn't it a better solution to *tag* A and B and C? There's no need to create complex definitions. So why do it? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:08 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/15 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: Thought I might chip in to me this seems to be a matter of trying to cram a complex and ambiguous meaning into a single tag. I couldn't help but be reminded of the footway/cycleway situation. Is it not possible to *tag* what we are trying to indicate (using more than one tag if necessary), rather than to create a *definition in the wiki* that says what we're trying to indicate (and using a single tag)? What is so complex exactly about this situation? Well, complexity is subjective here, so sorry if it seems I'm exaggerating in this situation. But the point I'm making is that, rather than inventing a new tag to encapsulate, e.g. buildings that are...a restaurant, bar, and gambling location [and] are members only, i.e. buildings that are A, B, C and D, I personally think tagging A, B, C and D is a more powerful solution, for reasons I've already described. Just an idea - I'm happy to be proven wrong. Or more to the point, how do any sport or other similar clubs differ significantly enough to warrant multiple tags? I don't know. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: One question, though, for Australian shared path, shouldn't this be: highway=cycleway, bicycle=designated, foot=designated rather than highway=footway, foot=yes, bicycle=yes I've updated the wiki page to this. I've made further updates - please correct me if you disagree - here is a summary: Australian footpath: highway=footway Australian bicycle path (Bicycle Only sign): highway=cycleway; foot=no Australian shared path (Bicycle and Pedestrian sign) highway=cycleway, foot=designated Australian separated footpath (Bicycle and Pedestrian separated by a line) highway=cycleway, foot=designated; segregated=yes Australian bicycle lane (Bicycle Lane sign) highway=type of highway, cycleway=lane ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Cycleways
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Liz wrote: we're having another discussion about this same point concurrently on t...@openstreetmap.org and making a number of suggestions there care to join in? bum steer tagg...@openstreetmap.org And can I again please direct you to: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path If you want to find a resolution to the footway/cycleway/path thing, please contribute your thoughts there. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap PhotoMap imagery for OSM
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The problem I'm really trying to solve is with the slippymap plugin, because it is compiled and the URL isn't easily setable/changeable by a user, there is no options to tweak the URL in the plugin interface/settings This isn't easy, but you could try...going to the Advanced Settings tab, and add a slippymap.custom_tile_source_1 as described at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/JOSM/Plugins/SlippyMap (note I haven't tested this myself) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: so i filled the Australian guidelines page with definitions from the road rules hope no one gets offended! Nice work. I'm adding talk-au to this discussion. Liz has updated: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_Footpaths_and_Cycleways One question, though, for Australian shared path, shouldn't this be: highway=cycleway, bicycle=designated, foot=designated rather than highway=footway, foot=yes, bicycle=yes ? Footway means mainly/exclusively for pedestrians and cycleway means mainly/exclusively for bicycles - but I've noticed a tendency to use cycleway rather than footway wherever bicycle=designated. Also, IMHO designated is a better choice than yes (the Aus road rules even use the word designated in this case). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Implications of license change on use of Australian data sources (e.g. nearmap)
If The License Change goes ahead, will that have any influence on, say, the legality of tracing from nearmap imagery? Does it appear as though some contributions will have to be removed if The License Change happens? If so, what kind of contributions? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Implications of license change on use of Australian data sources (e.g. nearmap)
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:26 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/9 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: If The License Change goes ahead, will that have any influence on, say, the legality of tracing from nearmap imagery? Does it appear as though some contributions will have to be removed if The License Change happens? If so, what kind of contributions? Nearmap allows in their TC's to derive data, the data is under the license of the person deriving it chooses to release it under. Hmm...the following is from http://www.nearmap.com/legal/community-licence.aspx: If you derive information from observing our PhotoMaps, and include that information in a work, you will own that work, and may distribute it to others under a Creative Commons licence. Does that not imply that the derived information may only be distributed to others under a Creative Commons licence? Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] cloudmade maps copyright terms and conditions
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: If I have data derived from OSM data, do I have to distribute it? The licence does not force you to distribute or make any data available. But if you do choose to distribute it, or anything derived from it, it must be under the same licence terms as the OSM data. I read this like cloudmade could use their maps for their own purposes without redistributing it, or they have to put their maps under cc-by-sa 2.0 as well. Or did I misunderstand something? Well...does showing a map on a website mean you are distributing it? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Good routing vs legal routing (was: Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...)
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/1 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org And then both axes are not really boolean. Between the physically possible and the physically impossible may lie an area that requires more skill, better vehicles or simply means a higher risk of accidents. amenity=footway, surface=wire, risk=very_high? http://staalplaat.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/philippe-petit-wtc-tightrope2.jpg risk=very_high isn't verifiable. Just in case you were serious :P ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: It would also be possible to solve the problem generically for the whole planet. The real problem is that many people claim that there is no problem or that they have already solved it and everybody should just do as they do. +1 Several of the approaches would work on their own if they were completed to cover all use cases - but not with other interpretations using the same tags in different ways thrown in between. +1. I wonder how to proceed... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country is a bad solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all. +1 Yes, but I would like us to define what the different national defaults are, so that everyone can work off the same playbook. I'm not a fan of this solution, because usually I don't think it's necessary - not in this case, anyway (read on...). For example, in Noppia, bikes can do the wrong one down one way streets. One way streets are just tagged oneway, nothing special. In Stevia, they can't. We define use cases: UC1) Oneway street with bikes allowed in wrong direction UC2) Oneway street with bikes not allowed in wrong direction We have a 2x2 matrix: UC1 UC2 Noppia: oneway=true | oneway=true;bicycle=oneway Stevia: oneway=true;bicycle=twoway | oneway=true That's the table that needs to go in the wiki so that everyone understands how to code the same thing in different countries. Meanwhile the area for Noppia could be tagged bicycle_rule:wrong_way_in_oneway_permitted or whatever. I see your point, but WOW, that seems like a lot of extra STUFF to maintain - and we don't have a good track record with maintenance (see the wiki... :P). You don't need it. Use this, which is exactly as *already documented in the wiki*: UC1: oneway=yes; cycleway=opposite UC2: oneway=yes (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:oneway and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country is a bad solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all. +1 I see your point, but WOW, that seems like a lot of extra STUFF to maintain - and we don't have a good track record with maintenance (see the wiki... :P). You don't need it. Use this, which is exactly as *already documented in the wiki*: UC1: oneway=yes; cycleway=opposite UC2: oneway=yes You just pissed off Noppia. You just told them that every single oneway street has to be explicitly marked cycleway=opposite. The citizens of Noppia resent this, and most of them refuse to put it in. After all, they reason, everyone knows that you can ride the wrong way up any oneway street. And you reply...? Hmm good question... Several thoughts: 1) I told them that *the wiki recommends* that they do need to use cycleway=opposite where appropriate. 1a) This is different to *me* telling them what to do - the wiki carries more weight as it is the outcome of discussion (see the discussion page, for example). It's also where newbies go to learn how to map, and where others (me, at least) go for reference. Using a common set of guidelines like this is key to maintaining consistency. Also, importantly, if the Noppians think something is suboptimal in the wiki, and want to re-open the discussion, propose something else, etc., there are mechanisms available for that. 1b) Is it really so hard to add cycleway=opposite where applicable? Really? Maybe I'm missing something (but then again, I'm one of those strange people who have no problem adding source=* tags to everything I change). I am always a little perplexed at some people's aversion to extra tags - we have autocomplete, presets, DB compression, ... I don't think it is ever worth compromising consistency to save keystrokes. 2) They may think everyone knows the rules in Noppia, but this is unlikely to be true. e.g. what if I visit Noppia on holiday or business? What if my routing software uses the defaults for oneway=* as described in the wiki? 3) You say the citizens refuse to follow the wiki's recommendations. If they do realise that this is a problem, I cannot imagine that they would refuse to change their practices - after all, usually OSM contributors do want to contribute to a consistent i.e. useful OSM database. If they can't see that ignoring the wiki can be dangerous, then I would probably leave the room in frustration. But Steve, the point is that surely the Noppians also want to come up with a solution that gives us the best possible OSM database. Right? I would ask them: what do they think is the best way to achieve that? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I wish we could codify these general assumptions. Because they won't be universal, which means there is bad map data being generated. I think it's critical that this stuff be summarised on the wiki. Besides being highly relevant to those who want to know *how to tag things*, it might help us find a way forward out of this mess. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I didn't resolve it because either the UK view or the German view (or some other view) has to be the default. What we can't agree is which should be the default. Does it matter?? How hard is it to tag cycleways and bridleways with foot=yes/no?? I would have no problem with that, if it helped give us consistency. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Am I out of line here? Of course I want to see a globally consistent, useful database. But ultimately, I want to see the most number of users happy with their local data. And if that means tags mean something slightly different in Cambodia than they do in Ireland, then...what was the problem again? Ok, let me summarise my position, before this thread derails. I think we should aim for a globally consistent database, because 1) I travel a fair bit (I've never been to Bulgaria, but maybe someday soon) 2) I do NOT want to be limited to Noppia-compatible routing software if I visit Noppia (etc.) 3) I think it's not that hard to be globally consistent - it just comes at the cost of verbosity (which is cheap) Adding tags that help clarify what I mean does not piss me off. I am quite happy to add direction=clockwise to roundabouts if necessary. Ultimately, why not aim to have direction=* applied to ALL roundabouts? I know you have a different position, which is fine. I'm surprised that you feel one extra tag is a lot of extra effort - have you tried various editor presets, auto-complete, selecting multiple entities before applying a tag, etc.? For me, your example of a road tagged with: bicycle=yes;car=yes;bus=yes;surface=paved;smoothness=5;colour=black;lines=white;parking=parallel;lanes=2 just looks like a very well-mapped road. Good job, I would say to the mapper, as they were obviously very thorough. Seriously. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Does it matter?? How hard is it to tag cycleways and bridleways with foot=yes/no?? I would have no problem with that, if it helped give us consistency. From a purely pragmatic perspective, the more repetitive tasks you assign to people, the less likely it is that those tasks will be performed consistently. I'm not convinced that telling people how to perform a task, and getting them to do it 10,000 times will lead to 10,000 correctly performed tasks. Good point, but I think it's ok to first work out how we *should* be tagging, before we assume that people will stuff it up. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e. usually you can *see* that it resembles a path). -1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to) or it creates itself by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but you don't find them in other maps. A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g. http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that there is a path. If you can see some grass, sure, map that. But just being able to walk on the grass does not turn the grass into a path. Otherwise, in any area of grass there would actually be *infinite* overlapping, criss-crossing invisible-paths. :P ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I think we should aim for a globally consistent database, because 1) I travel a fair bit (I've never been to Bulgaria, but maybe someday soon) 2) I do NOT want to be limited to Noppia-compatible routing software if I visit Noppia (etc.) Consider it internationally aware software. Routing software that is aware of the local laws of each country seems obvious. Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all countries? In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to mapping what's on the ground. 3) I think it's not that hard to be globally consistent - it just comes at the cost of verbosity (which is cheap) I think verbosity is expensive. My experience is with Wikipedia, where everyone always thinks the labour is free. It may be free, but it's finite. And the more you get people to waste their time doing tedious busywork, the less time they spend doing useful things. I agree that tedious busywork is not good. But we have computers - surely we're able to use presets etc. so that more verbosity/explicitness requires negligible amounts of additional labour. Let's get the tagging schemes right first. Seriously, it's not going to be a big deal to e.g. add foot=yes/no to cycleways. Look at the big picture - we're making a map of the entire world. We're trying to find the best and easiest way to do it. Remember that additional labour adding foot=yes/no can *avoid* future labour spent sorting out messes like this one. And it can give us a better quality result. Adding tags that help clarify what I mean does not piss me off. I am quite happy to add direction=clockwise to roundabouts if necessary. Ultimately, why not aim to have direction=* applied to ALL roundabouts? Sure, by all means, have that tag applied. But forcing someone to manually add it when the roundabout in question is in a left-drive country is insulting. Maybe the client could add it automatically. I don't know. Well, I don't find it insulting. And yes, the client (editor) could certainly add it automatically. Remember that we are also not limited to current versions of current editors - editors can be improved. Let's get the tagging right first - editor improvements will follow. I think we shouldn't tag for the editor (if you know what I mean) :P ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes? That's how we represent infinite overlapping criss-crossing invisible-paths, like a pedestrian mall. Not bad. But what makes that area of grass a path as opposed to just an area of grass you can walk on (e.g. landuse=meadow or something + foot=yes)? Is there a difference? I tend to think paths should be limited to elongated areas, designed for or used typically for travel (other than for large vehicles like cars), with usually a constant or slowly varying width. There's probably a better definition though. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all countries? What do you think? Work with me, here. I think that would be a nightmare, and would not work. If anything, it would introduce MORE inconsistency due to 1) difficulty maintaining the lawbook and 2) a more complicated set of guidelines and more complicated wiki, making it even LESS likely that people will follow it consistently. As I've said, I'd prefer to stick to *mapping what's on the ground*, *according to the guidelines in the wiki*. This is the only way to get global consistency, which I think is important for the reasons I've already described. Let's get the tagging schemes right first. Seriously, it's not going to be a big deal to e.g. add foot=yes/no to cycleways. You: It's easy to add foot=yes. Me: It's hard to get everyone to consistently add foot=yes. Just so we're clear on that. Can we move on? Me: It *will be* easy to get everyone to consistently add foot=yes when: 1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get global consistency, and that that's important; 2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes; 3) this mess is sorted out, and the guidelines for path/footway/cycleway are consolidated and improved (made clear) Re: 3), I often hear people say it's such a mess, I gave up asking on the email list and now I just use cycleway when [ insert custom definition ]. Let's get the tagging right first - editor improvements will follow. If by get the tagging right you mean analyse the problem, work out what people are doing, and come up with the most efficient set of tags for people to use, then yes. But I don't think you mean that. I do mean that! Assuming that, by most efficient, you mean most likely to result in a complete and consistent map of the Earth. And before you say but that's not necessarily efficient, part of being likely to result in a good outcome is that mappers remain motivated to contribute - so this does take into account that the tags have to be satisfying to use. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote: 1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get global consistency, and that that's important; 2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes; I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that every motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no. There is a reason they stopped doing that. The reason is that that's *globally* redundant. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Roy Wallace wrote: Routing software that is aware of the local laws of each country seems obvious. Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all countries? In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to mapping what's on the ground. If we map what's on the ground, then we create a map database containing here is an oneway sign, over there is a cycleway sign. That's nice, but if I want to do routing with this, I need information such as can I use way w in direction d with vehicle v? - and in order to know this, I need another database that tells me what a sign means in that part of the world (for example: are pedestrians allowed to walk on ways with a cycleway sign?). If we don't want a traffic law database, then we need to tag the required information directly. But then mappers don't just map physical reality. They interpret the signs (and other information) using their - hopefully correct - knowledge of the laws. Both can work, but /someone/ has to do the transfer from reality to road network attributes - either software (using a traffic laws DB) or humans (mapping more than just what's on the ground). Good points. You did find a flaw in my argument - that I was sort of advocating exhaustive tagging as well as only mapping what's on the ground. Funnily enough, I actually find both of these extremes acceptable. But that's not the point... The point I was making was that it should *not* be necessary to *require* a database of all laws of all countries to know what highway=cycleway means. There should be one definition that is consistent for the whole world. For example, this path is marked with a sign with a bicycle symbol on it. If people also want to put in exhaustive information inferred from a law book, I'd prefer they go ahead and use foot=no + source:foot=lawbook. If people prefer to leave out the inferred information, and instead write routers with country-specific defaults, that's cool, too. But highway=cycleway tags in the OSM database should all mean the same thing. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote: 1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get global consistency, and that that's important; 2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes; I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that every motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no. There is a reason they stopped doing that. The reason is that that's *globally* redundant. not exactly correct. We do have highway marked motorway in Au where bicycles are allowed. Ok, rephrased: the reason they stopped is because it wasn't necessary. Obviously, we have a problem here. I'm suggesting some solutions. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
