Re: [Talk-us] Super Wal-Mart Tag

[Chris Hunter]

That's what database normalization addresses.  BTW, this is the first time
I've heard of the semicolon approach.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:

>
> Unfortunately, that doesn't work.  The tags must be unique on the name
> side.  That's why you see name, name_1, name_2.
>
> --
> --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
> Crynwr supports open source software
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Meeting Minutes for November 9th

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Nakor  wrote:

> Is there a reason to put this @ Google instead of on the wiki?

Several people wanted it on Google Docs so it could be edited by
multiple members in real time.

- Serge

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Meeting Minutes for November 9th

[Nakor]

Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> I'm very sorry for the long delay. I've moved the meeting minutes to
> Google Docs:
>
> http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AdR8Q-fn7LjLZGNzY2h3cXpfOWNqY2s0Y2M3&hl=en
>
>   
Hello,

Is there a reason to put this @ Google instead of on the wiki?

  Thanks,

N.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Draft agenda for next meeting (November 16th)

[Serge Wroclawski]

I've put up a draft of the agenda for the next meeting:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Agenda-16-11-2009

I'll need to add some information about the call-in and make the
appropriate links.

If you felt I missed something from last meeting, please add it under
old buisness.

If you have a new issue that you feel needs discussing, please put it
under new buisness.

Thanks,

- Serge

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Meeting Minutes for November 9th

[Serge Wroclawski]

I'm very sorry for the long delay. I've moved the meeting minutes to
Google Docs:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AdR8Q-fn7LjLZGNzY2h3cXpfOWNqY2s0Y2M3&hl=en

If you'd like to edit them, or edit the next meeting minutes (or
agenda, which is forthcoming), please send me your Google username so
I can add you to the document invite!

Thanks,

- Serge

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] deletion of talk-us-bayarea?

[Sarah Manley]

Hello All,

Did someone delete the talk-us-bayarea list? From the last email discussion
on talk-us there was never a full or agreed upon decision. I just tried to
announce an upcoming event and got the following error message. I understand
it's not an active mailing list, but it is used for announcements and should
not be deleted with out consensus from those who are on the list.

If you scroll to the bottom you can see the announcement I was trying to
make for an upcoming mapping party.

Best,
Sarah

-- Forwarded message --
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem 
Date: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
To: sarah.m.man...@gmail.com


Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

talk-us-baya...@openstreetmap.org

Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient
domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further
information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server
returned was: 550 550 Unrouteable address (state 14).

- Original message -

MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.9.11 with SMTP id 11mr409128wfi.101.1258073102381; Thu,
12
   Nov 2009 16:45:02 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:45:02 -0800
Message-ID: <2437b81b0911121645v5a0a968cte7ee9d3a9d69b...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: gilroy hike & mapping party
From: Sarah Manley 
To: talk-us-baya...@openstreetmap.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502b00d5e7445047835f8fd

Hello,

We are partnering again with the sierra club in the south bay to host a
mapping party & hike (thanks shawn!)

Details:http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Gilroy_Mapping_Party

Also, we have been chatting weekly about forming the US OSM chapter. It
would be great to have more bay area folks on the call.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States

If anyone is interested in a SF (or closer to SF) meetup, let me know. Its
been a while.

Cheers,
Sarah
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Super Wal-Mart Tag

[Russ Nelson]

Kate writes:
 > For the remainder, I suggest one node with multiple tags:
 > * shop = supermarket
 > * amenity = salon
 > * shop = clothes
 > * amenity = pharmacy

Unfortunately, that doesn't work.  The tags must be unique on the name
side.  That's why you see name, name_1, name_2.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] No right turn on red

[Owlman]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Dale Puch  wrote:
> > I would have to side with not tagging them.  This is a timming restriction,
> > not a navigation one.
>
> Navigation is not the only purpose of OSM data :).

I think it may have a use for navigation; an algorithm to find the
fastest route could prefer paths through intersections that allow
right-turn-on-red over ones that restrict it.

-Noah

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Addressing Question

[Stellan Lagerstrom]

Mike N. wrote:
> If the goal is to reduce visual clutter in editors, what about when all
> are converted to house numbers?   Do we have to change house numbers to 
> relations to hide them from editors and viewers?   Then it becomes an editor 
> problem to make them accessible to ordinary people who need to enter 
> corrections.   So the editors render them as 'visual clutter' to make them 
> accessible; now we're right back where we started, but with extra addressing 
> schemes for map consumers to decode. 
>   
Actually, I only mentioned that for completeness. It is a short-lived
fringe benefit.
I believe all the editors will need to be able to show/hide certain
classes of ways eventually.
With the city and county boundaries imports, it is already becoming hard
to edit roads since they often have a boundary running down them.

In places where you have, say,  a road, a city line, a
residential-landuse boundary and soon addressing interpolation ways in
almost the same place, it is not easy for the newcomer to keep from
accidentally cross-connecting things.

/Stellan

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Anthony]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> I consider interpolation ways to be an abstract thing also. To convey the
> information, they need to be on each side of the road

The thing is, they don't.

> As long as there is no doubt (for the
> person viewing the situation in an editor) which road they belong to, it's
> fine.

You mean with the addr:street tag?  Other than that tag, it's quite
common (at least here in Florida) for it to be non-obvious which
"road" an address "belongs to", if you want to put the interpolation
way over top of the houses.  The building might very well be far away
from the road it "belongs to", and closer to another road that it
doesn't "belong to".  For geolocation using actual addresses, that's a
feature, not a bug - but it doesn't work for potential address ranges
at all.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:56 PM, andrzej zaborowski  wrote:
> 2009/11/12 Anthony :
>> I can see keeping it in a separate db, and really I'm leaning toward
>> that as being the best option.
>>
>> What are the advantages of having this in the OSM db?  When the roads
>> change, you're going to have to either re-survey the data or throw out
>> the address ranges anyway.  The address ranges are pretty much only
>> useful within the context of the original road centerlines.  Geocoding
>> or reverse-geocoding software can connect between the two databases
>> using latitude/longitude pairs.  I can't really see any point in
>> integrating it.
>
> On the other hand if you receive a data donation from a densely
> built-up city's council then there will be more existing addresses
> than non-existing ones in the area and it will be easier for local
> mappers to start with all the possible interpolation ways and slowly
> remove fragments than to survey with an empty map.  And will better
> match reality.

*Nod*.  If you can at least semi-manually integrate the data so you're
pretty sure maybe 95% of it is in the general vicinity of the
buildings, that's cool.  But that's only going to be feasible in
certain locations.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Super Wal-Mart Tag

[Alan Mintz]

At 2009-11-12 15:36, Chris Hunter wrote:
>While this is pretty straightforward for a human to read, the API has no 
>real way of handling multiple values on the same tag.

? I thought semi-colons were the accepted way of handling this, e.g. 
shop=car_repair;garden_center;ferrets. I've done a lot of tagging this way.

Granted, it's expensive to query the database for a particular value this 
way, which is apparently why the other method became more favored with 
newer proposals, right?

>A slightly more machine-readable set of attributes would read like this:
>
>shop:supermarket=yes
>shop:hairdresser=yes
...

--
Alan Mintz 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>> I would also strongly encourage you to use one such line on each side of the
>> road, instead of putting tags on the road itself. This makes it very clear
>> which side an address is on, better than any tags you can put on the way, no
>> matter how many "left/right" prefixes or suffixes you add to those tags.
> 
> Would you map a "no right turn" as a node 7 meters behind and to the
> right of an intersection?  After all, that's "more or less what's on
> the ground".

I might be missing some irony here. I don't know the significance of "no 
right turn" for you, and I don't know what it has to do with addressing.

Traffic signs, at least where I live, usually are there as a physical 
reminder (or notification) of an abstract concept. The administration 
makes a certain decision - for example, that parking should not be 
allowed in a certain location, or a speed limit should be put in place, 
or whatever. Then signs are put up to inform people of this decision. 
The exact location of the signs is often an "implementation detail". The 
sign itself is irrelevant; the abstract concept is what matters.

I try to map the abstract concept wherever possible. Consequently, I'd 
map a "no right turn" as a relation involving two ways, and not in the 
form of a traffic sign.

I consider interpolation ways to be an abstract thing also. To convey 
the information, they need to be on each side of the road, but, if that 
was your question, to me it doesn't matter whether they are a few 
centimetres away from the road or 10 metres away. As long as there is no 
doubt (for the person viewing the situation in an editor) which road 
they belong to, it's fine. In practice it turns out that you often draw 
the lines approximately where the houses would be on the ground, but to 
me that is not relevant.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] No right turn on red

[Anthony]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Dale Puch  wrote:
> I would have to side with not tagging them.  This is a timming restriction,
> not a navigation one.

Navigation is not the only purpose of OSM data :).

> I see no piratical use for the information on the map.

If you could build a really comprehensive database of this type of
information it might have some uses - for example comparing the
frequency of car crashes at such intersections compared to other
intersections.

But if you're only going to tag one or two...  Make something up, that
doesn't collide or interfere with anything else, and document it - I
won't complain :).

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Super Wal-Mart Tag

[Chris Hunter]

I've been making a seperate node for each tag whenever I run into this
situation.  It's not the best solution, but it gets the job done.

The best fix I can think of would probably require an API change, but it'd
probably end up being easier on the database server in the long run.
Basically, we need to use an overloading method similar to the karlsruhe
schema for the shop=* and amenity=* tags to allow more than one attribute on
a node/polygon.

This was one of the first headaches I ran into when I first started
mapping.  It's a pretty classic example of a database
normalizationproblem
when you have an object with both many->many and one->many
relationships.

To use Thea's super wally-world example, we need to apply the following
attributes:
shop=supermarket
shop=hairdresser
shop=department_store
amenity=pharmacy
dispensing=yes
shop=car_repair
shop=optician
shop=garden_center
amenity=fuel
amenity=fast_food
cuisine=sandwich

While this is pretty straightforward for a human to read, the API has no
real way of handling multiple values on the same tag.  A slightly more
machine-readable set of attributes would read like this:

shop:supermarket=yes
shop:hairdresser=yes
shop:department_store=yes
amenity:pharmacy=dispensing (implies a yes)
shop:car_repair=yes
shop:optician=yes
shop:garden_center=yes
amenity:fuel=yes
amenity:fast_food=sandwich (implies a yes)

Of course, a change this big would require a ton of work to bring the
existing tags up to the new spec, but as a trade-off it would make querying
the database and/or compiling a vector map a lot easier.

Chris


On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:

> We kinda have this problem all over the place: anywhere you have
> multiple places of business where you enter into the building at the
> same location for all of them.  This could be a mall, or a Wal-Mart,
> or a two-story building with a store on each level.
>
> We currently have no markup for accurately mapping this situation.
> Earn yourself a LOLCat of Awesomeness and design markup that works.
> -russ
>
> Thea Clay writes:
>  > Hi,
>  > I have a random question... does anyone have suggestions for how I would
> correctly tag a Super Wal-Mart? I read through the wiki but there didn't
> appear to be a tag that fit.
>  >
>  > The store in question has a 1.) a full grocery store with
> bakery/deli/produce/dry goods, 2.) a full service hair and nail salon, 3.)
> clothes and typical random household items, 4.) a pharmacy, 5.) a full
> service car lube and tire shop, 6.) an opthamologist and RX glasses shop,
> 7.) a garden center/nursery, 8.) a gas station and 9.) a Subway sandwich
> shop. All of these sub-stores are located within the same building and are
> part of Wal-Mart, not multiple stores located in a strip mall. Scary right
> :) Is this tagged as one store (which it is in reality) or multiple
> specialty shops?
>  >
>  > To complicate matters, there is a difference between a Super Wal-Mart
> and regular Wal-Mart/Target/Big Box Store. And Super Wal-Marts all seem to
> have slightly different variations on the types of shops they have in each
> store.
>
> --
> --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
> Crynwr supports open source software
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Super Wal-Mart Tag

[Dale Puch]

Kate's suggestion echoed my thought as well.  Many of those are actually
seprate businesses/services and should be tagged separately anyhow.

Dale

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Kate  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Thea Clay  wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have a random question... does anyone have suggestions for how I would
> > correctly tag a Super Wal-Mart? I read through the wiki but there didn’t
> > appear to be a tag that fit.
> >
> > The store in question has a 1.) a full grocery store with
> > bakery/deli/produce/dry goods, 2.) a full service hair and nail salon,
> 3.)
> > clothes and typical random household items, 4.) a pharmacy, 5.) a full
> > service car lube and tire shop, 6.) an opthamologist and RX glasses shop,
> > 7.) a garden center/nursery, 8.) a gas station and 9.) a Subway sandwich
> > shop. All of these sub-stores are located within the same building and
> are
> > part of Wal-Mart, not multiple stores located in a strip mall. Scary
> right
> > :) Is this tagged as one store (which it is in reality) or multiple
> > specialty shops?
> >
> > To complicate matters, there is a difference between a Super Wal-Mart and
> > regular Wal-Mart/Target/Big Box Store. And Super Wal-Marts all seem to
> have
> > slightly different variations on the types of shops they have in each
> store.
> >
>
> I had a similar problem trying to tag a World Market store (household
> items, furniture, groceries & wine)
>
> In your case, for the subway, I would use a separate node, even if in
> the same building.  I don't think it's good to put multiple name tags:
> * amenity = fast_food
> * name = Subway
>
> The gas station can also be separate, as I imagine the gas station is
> separate (in the parking lot):
> * amenity = fuel
>
> For the remainder, I suggest one node with multiple tags:
> * shop = supermarket
> * amenity = salon
> * shop = clothes
> * amenity = pharmacy
> * shop = car_repair
> * shop = optician
> * shop = garden_centre
>
> I'm not sure what happens when converting something like this to be
> rendered by Mapnik.  If there is an issue with that, then the database
> scripts and Mapnik stylesheets can be improved.
>
> -Kate
>
> > Best, Thea
> > ___
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >
> >
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>



-- 
Dale Puch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] No right turn on red

[Dale Puch]

I would have to side with not tagging them.  This is a timming restriction,
not a navigation one.  The only time you need that information is when your
at that red light.  Your not checking the map or routing software to decide
if you should turn or not, your checking the intersection for traffic, signs
and the light.  I see no piratical use for the information on the map.

Something like no right turn from 8am to 5pm I would say to tag, but not
this.

Dale

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Alan Mintz

> wrote:

> California being one of those more permissive states, I agree with the
> annoyance at those who don't know it's legal to turn right on red (or the
> other cases) unless specifically prohibited.
>
> Because it is rare to see this prohibition, I believe it is important to
> tag and render it on the map, for the purpose of alerting the consumer to
> it.
>
>
> At 2009-11-12 13:48, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >Alan Mintz wrote: > How should one tag a no-right-turn-on-red-light
> >restriction? Like other > turn restrictions, with
> >restriction=no_right_turn_on_red? I think this is going too far into depth
> >for any real navigation purpose, I'd say skip it as the restriction lasts
> >for only seconds at a time, and in most cases, with no fixed timeline.  Or
> >if it is on a fixed cycle (such as downtown Portland's 29-second red
> >lights forming a 58-second cycle, which allows most road users to go in
> >the direction of travel at 15 MPH to hit every green, or pedestrians to
> >walk against the flow to hit every walk light), the restriction is short
> >enough to render it neglegable. There's also a slippery-slope angle to
> >this...if we start trying to tag for "on red" restrictions, this becomes
> >stupidly difficult to tag for. Québec (and I believe many other, mostly
> >francophone, regions) for example, prohibits all turns on red in any
> >direction at all intersections.  Oregon and presumably a few other states
> >allow turns after stop on red arrows by default, and permit both left and
> >right turn after stop on red when the destination way is 1) the next way
> >entering the intersection immediately left or right, and 2) if it's a
> >left, the destination street is one way.  In another words, you can turn
> >left on red or red arrow from a two-way street into a freeway onramp or
> >other one-way side-street (in practice, outside urban centers, we get too
> >many transplants who don't know how to drive in Oregon, who try to apply
> >the rules of the road from wherever backwards place they learned to drive,
> >blocking traffic through legal movement opportunities until the signal
> >literally cannot get any greener, finally pushing normally patient
> >Oregonians to lay down the horn...we really need to treat out of state
> >drivers getting licensed in Oregon as totally new drivers subject to
> >graduated licensing, since it's clear other states are far more lax than
> >we are in terms of licensing standards).
> >___ Talk-us mailing list
> >Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
> --
> Alan Mintz 
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>



-- 
Dale Puch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Anthony]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> I would also strongly encourage you to use one such line on each side of the
> road, instead of putting tags on the road itself. This makes it very clear
> which side an address is on, better than any tags you can put on the way, no
> matter how many "left/right" prefixes or suffixes you add to those tags.

Would you map a "no right turn" as a node 7 meters behind and to the
right of an intersection?  After all, that's "more or less what's on
the ground".

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Super Wal-Mart Tag

[Kate]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Thea Clay  wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a random question... does anyone have suggestions for how I would
> correctly tag a Super Wal-Mart? I read through the wiki but there didn’t
> appear to be a tag that fit.
>
> The store in question has a 1.) a full grocery store with
> bakery/deli/produce/dry goods, 2.) a full service hair and nail salon, 3.)
> clothes and typical random household items, 4.) a pharmacy, 5.) a full
> service car lube and tire shop, 6.) an opthamologist and RX glasses shop,
> 7.) a garden center/nursery, 8.) a gas station and 9.) a Subway sandwich
> shop. All of these sub-stores are located within the same building and are
> part of Wal-Mart, not multiple stores located in a strip mall. Scary right
> :) Is this tagged as one store (which it is in reality) or multiple
> specialty shops?
>
> To complicate matters, there is a difference between a Super Wal-Mart and
> regular Wal-Mart/Target/Big Box Store. And Super Wal-Marts all seem to have
> slightly different variations on the types of shops they have in each store.
>

I had a similar problem trying to tag a World Market store (household
items, furniture, groceries & wine)

In your case, for the subway, I would use a separate node, even if in
the same building.  I don't think it's good to put multiple name tags:
* amenity = fast_food
* name = Subway

The gas station can also be separate, as I imagine the gas station is
separate (in the parking lot):
* amenity = fuel

For the remainder, I suggest one node with multiple tags:
* shop = supermarket
* amenity = salon
* shop = clothes
* amenity = pharmacy
* shop = car_repair
* shop = optician
* shop = garden_centre

I'm not sure what happens when converting something like this to be
rendered by Mapnik.  If there is an issue with that, then the database
scripts and Mapnik stylesheets can be improved.

-Kate

> Best, Thea
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:43 PM, andrzej zaborowski  wrote:
>> Every single country has different addressing rules, it's not like
>> this particular scheme is special.  That's why someone came up with a
>> tagging scheme that can express all or most of these rules
> 
> They did?  What scheme is that?
> 
> My understanding of the history of the Karlsruhe Schema is that a
> bunch of people got together in Karlsruhe and came up with something
> that worked for them, explicitly stating that other people should
> develop something that works for them.

Speaking as one of that bunch of people; that ist correct. Of course 
when developing the Karlsruhe Schema we hoped that our work would be 
usable for others as well, but we were under no illusion that there are 
places where it doesn't. (Not sure if I got the double negative right in 
that sentence but you'll know what I mean.)

To be honest, at the time we thought that those places would be in the 
"less developed" world, where sometimes houses are reported to have 
addresses like "3rd house on left hand side after the tree that looks 
like an elephant". We didn't think that the US would be so different as 
to require their own schema.

If you do develop your own schema then I would ask you to consider to at 
least adhere to the following basic idea that we used:

We said that in the long run, we expect every single house to be on the 
map - either as a node or, more likely, as a building outline - and 
carry its own number. Interpolation ranges, therefore, were meant to be 
something easy for situations where you cannot be bothered to "do it 
right". Our expectation is that in the long run, interpolation lines 
will be obsolete.

An interpolation line still maps more or less what's on the ground - at 
least the house numbers at both ends of the line will have been 
surveyed. Many people in Germany even break their interpolation lines if 
houses are missing in between, i.e. if a road has the house numbers 100, 
102, 104, 108, 110, 112 they will create one interpolation line for 
100-104 and one for 108-112.

Now if I understand your situation correctly, the only difference you 
have is that your "interpolation lines" are one step more abstract; they 
don't give a range of numbers of definitely existing addresses, but 
instead give the range of valid numbers in the block concerned. So you 
know that *if* there is a house #1300 it will be there (but it might not 
exist at all).

My suggestion to this would be to use something like our interpolation 
lines but give them a different name (e.g. instead of addr:interpolation 
call it addr:range or something).

I would also strongly encourage you to use one such line on each side of 
the road, instead of putting tags on the road itself. This makes it very 
clear which side an address is on, better than any tags you can put on 
the way, no matter how many "left/right" prefixes or suffixes you add to 
those tags. This is one thing we discussed at length when setting up the 
Karlsruhe schema; even here, many people advocated putting something 
like "left:from=15, left:to=25, right:from=12, right:to=24" on the ways 
but we'd have none of that. One of many reasons for that being that this 
would interfere with ways being split or combined - this must be doubly 
true for your schema: If you have to split a road in the middle of a 
block because a speed limit starts there, how will you know which 
theoretical house number would be at the split if the house hasn't even 
been built yet?

Of course, and that's the "but", if such a schema leads to millions of 
"address range" ways in places where no houses have been built, then 
that's perhaps a bit confusing...

Thanks for listening.
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Anthony]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Mike N.  wrote:
>> There are cases with Karlruhe Scheme that need addditional tags like
>> Czech addresses but I haven't heard of such cases from US or other
>> mappers.
>
>  I recently started using a new modifier tag addr:inclusion to help in
> accurately tagging my survey data (and added it to the wiki
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr )
>
Cool.  I invented that tag, and that's pretty close to what I meant by it.  :)

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Mike N.]

> There are cases with Karlruhe Scheme that need addditional tags like
> Czech addresses but I haven't heard of such cases from US or other
> mappers.

  I recently started using a new modifier tag addr:inclusion to help in 
accurately tagging my survey data (and added it to the wiki 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr )

> Ian hasn't (yet) mentioned whether this data he deals with contains
> potential address ranges or actual ranges, so I assumed actual.  I
> agree it may be useful to have the potential assigned range in the db,
> too, using whatever tagging (or in a separate db, since this is not
> stuff "on the ground").

   In the case of TIGER data, it is potential, not actual.

 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Anthony]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:14 PM, andrzej zaborowski  wrote:
> Ian hasn't (yet) mentioned whether this data he deals with contains
> potential address ranges or actual ranges, so I assumed actual.

The fact that it's tagged on the line segments representing the road
centerline pretty much guarantees that it's potential.  I highly doubt
they're splitting the line segment every single time a number gets
skipped.

> I agree it may be useful to have the potential assigned range in the db,
> too, using whatever tagging (or in a separate db, since this is not
> stuff "on the ground").

I can see keeping it in a separate db, and really I'm leaning toward
that as being the best option.

What are the advantages of having this in the OSM db?  When the roads
change, you're going to have to either re-survey the data or throw out
the address ranges anyway.  The address ranges are pretty much only
useful within the context of the original road centerlines.  Geocoding
or reverse-geocoding software can connect between the two databases
using latitude/longitude pairs.  I can't really see any point in
integrating it.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Super Wal-Mart Tag

[Russ Nelson]

We kinda have this problem all over the place: anywhere you have
multiple places of business where you enter into the building at the
same location for all of them.  This could be a mall, or a Wal-Mart,
or a two-story building with a store on each level.

We currently have no markup for accurately mapping this situation.
Earn yourself a LOLCat of Awesomeness and design markup that works.
-russ

Thea Clay writes:
 > Hi,
 > I have a random question... does anyone have suggestions for how I would 
 > correctly tag a Super Wal-Mart? I read through the wiki but there didn't 
 > appear to be a tag that fit.
 > 
 > The store in question has a 1.) a full grocery store with 
 > bakery/deli/produce/dry goods, 2.) a full service hair and nail salon, 3.) 
 > clothes and typical random household items, 4.) a pharmacy, 5.) a full 
 > service car lube and tire shop, 6.) an opthamologist and RX glasses shop, 
 > 7.) a garden center/nursery, 8.) a gas station and 9.) a Subway sandwich 
 > shop. All of these sub-stores are located within the same building and are 
 > part of Wal-Mart, not multiple stores located in a strip mall. Scary right 
 > :) Is this tagged as one store (which it is in reality) or multiple 
 > specialty shops?
 > 
 > To complicate matters, there is a difference between a Super Wal-Mart and 
 > regular Wal-Mart/Target/Big Box Store. And Super Wal-Marts all seem to have 
 > slightly different variations on the types of shops they have in each store.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] No right turn on red

[Alan Mintz]

California being one of those more permissive states, I agree with the 
annoyance at those who don't know it's legal to turn right on red (or the 
other cases) unless specifically prohibited.

Because it is rare to see this prohibition, I believe it is important to 
tag and render it on the map, for the purpose of alerting the consumer to it.


At 2009-11-12 13:48, Paul Johnson wrote:
>Alan Mintz wrote: > How should one tag a no-right-turn-on-red-light 
>restriction? Like other > turn restrictions, with 
>restriction=no_right_turn_on_red? I think this is going too far into depth 
>for any real navigation purpose, I'd say skip it as the restriction lasts 
>for only seconds at a time, and in most cases, with no fixed timeline.  Or 
>if it is on a fixed cycle (such as downtown Portland's 29-second red 
>lights forming a 58-second cycle, which allows most road users to go in 
>the direction of travel at 15 MPH to hit every green, or pedestrians to 
>walk against the flow to hit every walk light), the restriction is short 
>enough to render it neglegable. There's also a slippery-slope angle to 
>this...if we start trying to tag for "on red" restrictions, this becomes 
>stupidly difficult to tag for. Québec (and I believe many other, mostly 
>francophone, regions) for example, prohibits all turns on red in any 
>direction at all intersections.  Oregon and presumably a few other states 
>allow turns after stop on red arrows by default, and permit both left and 
>right turn after stop on red when the destination way is 1) the next way 
>entering the intersection immediately left or right, and 2) if it's a 
>left, the destination street is one way.  In another words, you can turn 
>left on red or red arrow from a two-way street into a freeway onramp or 
>other one-way side-street (in practice, outside urban centers, we get too 
>many transplants who don't know how to drive in Oregon, who try to apply 
>the rules of the road from wherever backwards place they learned to drive, 
>blocking traffic through legal movement opportunities until the signal 
>literally cannot get any greener, finally pushing normally patient 
>Oregonians to lay down the horn...we really need to treat out of state 
>drivers getting licensed in Oregon as totally new drivers subject to 
>graduated licensing, since it's clear other states are far more lax than 
>we are in terms of licensing standards). 
>___ Talk-us mailing list 
>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

--
Alan Mintz 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] No right turn on red

[Paul Johnson]

Alan Mintz wrote:

> How should one tag a no-right-turn-on-red-light restriction? Like other 
> turn restrictions, with restriction=no_right_turn_on_red?

I think this is going too far into depth for any real navigation
purpose, I'd say skip it as the restriction lasts for only seconds at a
time, and in most cases, with no fixed timeline.  Or if it is on a fixed
cycle (such as downtown Portland's 29-second red lights forming a
58-second cycle, which allows most road users to go in the direction of
travel at 15 MPH to hit every green, or pedestrians to walk against the
flow to hit every walk light), the restriction is short enough to
render it neglegable.

There's also a slippery-slope angle to this...if we start trying to tag
for "on red" restrictions, this becomes stupidly difficult to tag for. 
Québec (and I believe many other, mostly francophone, regions) for
example, prohibits all turns on red in any direction at all
intersections.  Oregon and presumably a few other states allow turns
after stop on red arrows by default, and permit both left and right turn
after stop on red when the destination way is 1) the next way entering
the intersection immediately left or right, and 2) if it's a left, the
destination street is one way.  In another words, you can turn left on
red or red arrow from a two-way street into a freeway
onramp or other one-way side-street (in practice, outside urban
centers, we get too many transplants who don't know how to drive in
Oregon, who try to apply the rules of the road from wherever
backwards place they learned to drive, blocking traffic through legal
movement opportunities until the signal literally cannot get any
greener, finally pushing normally patient Oregonians to lay down the
horn...we really need to treat out of state drivers getting licensed in
Oregon as totally new drivers subject to graduated licensing, since
it's clear other states are far more lax than we are in terms of
licensing standards).




___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging "next exit" services

[Paul Johnson]

Randy wrote:

> Dale Puch wrote:
>
>>Personally I do not think the signs should be put in OSM, just the actual
>>POI's are tagged.
>>
>>There may be reasons to put in signs, I just do not think this is one of
>>them.
>>
>>Dale
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Dale Puch
> Don't forget the intent of the requester's original question, i.e., how to 
> tag an exit with the amenities available at the exit without knowing 
> exactly where they are located. It's really about the information, not 
> about the source of the information (the sign).

I wonder if this would be more appropriate to tag in OpenStreetBugs for
someone with local knowledge to go track down the correct locations.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Super Wal-Mart Tag

[Paul Johnson]

Thea Clay wrote:

> Hi,
> I have a random question... does anyone have suggestions for how I would 
> correctly tag a Super Wal-Mart? I read through the wiki but there didn't 
> appear to be a tag that fit.
>
> The store in question has a 1.) a full grocery store with 
> bakery/deli/produce/dry goods, 2.) a full service hair and nail salon, 3.) 
> clothes and typical random household items, 4.) a pharmacy, 5.) a full 
> service car lube and tire shop, 6.) an opthamologist and RX glasses shop, 7.) 
> a garden center/nursery, 8.) a gas station and 9.) a Subway sandwich shop. 
> All of these sub-stores are located within the same building and are part of 
> Wal-Mart, not multiple stores located in a strip mall. Scary right :) Is this 
> tagged as one store (which it is in reality) or multiple specialty shops?
>
> To complicate matters, there is a difference between a Super Wal-Mart and 
> regular Wal-Mart/Target/Big Box Store. And Super Wal-Marts all seem to have 
> slightly different variations on the types of shops they have in each store.

shop=yes



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Anthony]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:43 PM, andrzej zaborowski  wrote:
> Every single country has different addressing rules, it's not like
> this particular scheme is special.  That's why someone came up with a
> tagging scheme that can express all or most of these rules

They did?  What scheme is that?

My understanding of the history of the Karlsruhe Schema is that a
bunch of people got together in Karlsruhe and came up with something
that worked for them, explicitly stating that other people should
develop something that works for them.

> If we're going to have special tagging for US then let's have it for
> every country and let's split into many projects and just give up on
> this whole silly idea of having a single map.

Is there a reason you're ignoring the fact that potential addressing
is used in many places outside the US?

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging "next exit" services

[Alex S.]

Paul Johnson wrote:
> return-to-where-you-came-from [sign] (at
> state lines to send you back out of Oregon), etc).

"U-Turn Route" - there are quite a few signed u-turn routes in 
Washington state, too.  I have questioned (myself) whether these should 
be explicitly defined in OSM.  On one hand, routing software should be 
smart enough to figure these out on their own.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Super Wal-Mart Tag

[Steven Johnson]

Thea,

I would suggest tagging it as some kind of multiple retail sales location.
Perhaps you could list the retail types separately (e.g.
retail_type=grocery, retail_type=garden, etc.)?

SEJ

"Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hands from beans." -Empedocles



On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 15:49, Thea Clay  wrote:

>  Hi,
> I have a random question... does anyone have suggestions for how I would
> correctly tag a Super Wal-Mart? I read through the wiki but there didn’t
> appear to be a tag that fit.
>
> The store in question has a 1.) a full grocery store with
> bakery/deli/produce/dry goods, 2.) a full service hair and nail salon, 3.)
> clothes and typical random household items, 4.) a pharmacy, 5.) a full
> service car lube and tire shop, 6.) an opthamologist and RX glasses shop,
> 7.) a garden center/nursery, 8.) a gas station and 9.) a Subway sandwich
> shop. All of these sub-stores are located within the same building and are
> part of Wal-Mart, not multiple stores located in a strip mall. Scary right
> :) Is this tagged as one store (which it is in reality) or multiple
> specialty shops?
>
> To complicate matters, there is a difference between a Super Wal-Mart and
> regular Wal-Mart/Target/Big Box Store. And Super Wal-Marts all seem to have
> slightly different variations on the types of shops they have in each store.
>
>
> Best, Thea
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] No right turn on red

[Alan Mintz]

How should one tag a no-right-turn-on-red-light restriction? Like other 
turn restrictions, with restriction=no_right_turn_on_red?

--
Alan Mintz 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Super Wal-Mart Tag

[Thea Clay]

Hi,
I have a random question... does anyone have suggestions for how I would 
correctly tag a Super Wal-Mart? I read through the wiki but there didn't appear 
to be a tag that fit.

The store in question has a 1.) a full grocery store with 
bakery/deli/produce/dry goods, 2.) a full service hair and nail salon, 3.) 
clothes and typical random household items, 4.) a pharmacy, 5.) a full service 
car lube and tire shop, 6.) an opthamologist and RX glasses shop, 7.) a garden 
center/nursery, 8.) a gas station and 9.) a Subway sandwich shop. All of these 
sub-stores are located within the same building and are part of Wal-Mart, not 
multiple stores located in a strip mall. Scary right :) Is this tagged as one 
store (which it is in reality) or multiple specialty shops?

To complicate matters, there is a difference between a Super Wal-Mart and 
regular Wal-Mart/Target/Big Box Store. And Super Wal-Marts all seem to have 
slightly different variations on the types of shops they have in each store.

Best, Thea
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Mike N.]

FYI - I applied the experimental script which creates address interpolation 
ways at -

http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/utils/import/tiger2osm/shape_to_osm-Tiger.py

The results are at 

http://cid-b17e2f1a4d519b13.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Public/tl%5E_2009%5E_45045%5E_addrInterpolation.zip

 (7 MB zipped, 88 MB unzipped).

  Runtime for my county was about 45 seconds.___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Anthony]

>>> If we're going to go into detail, no type of interpolation reflects
>>> reality, it's just interpolation.
>>
>> I disagree.  An approximation of reality reflects reality.
>
>  Physical street surveys will almost never get 100% reality due to missing
> house numbers, etc.   Are you proposing to discourage physical street
> surveys that are not 100% complete just because the data is all not there?

No, just the opposite.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Apollinaris Schoell  wrote:
> follow the OSM principle.
> map what's on the ground no matter where you are

What's "on the ground" changes from place to place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_numbering

"In countries like Brazil and Argentina, but also in some villages in
France, this scheme is used also for streets in cities, where the
house number is the distance, measured in meters, from the house to
the start of the street."

"For people living near highways or roads [in Latin America] the usual
address is the kilometer of the road in which the house is established
[...] In semi-rural and rural areas [of Australia], where houses and
farms are widely spaced, a numbering system based on tens of metres or
(less commonly) metres has been devised. Thus a farm 2300m from the
start of the road, on the right-hand side would be numbered 230."

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Mike N.]

>> If we're going to go into detail, no type of interpolation reflects
>> reality, it's just interpolation.
>
> I disagree.  An approximation of reality reflects reality.

  Physical street surveys will almost never get 100% reality due to missing 
house numbers, etc.   Are you proposing to discourage physical street 
surveys that are not 100% complete just because the data is all not there?
 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging "next exit" services

[Paul Johnson]

Chris Hunter wrote:

> Tag the first node of the offramp as highway=motorway_junction.  As far as
> the sign itself goes, there's a proposed relationship for signs in the UK
> and EU at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign that
> may be of some help.

Note that "destination" signs
(http://www.trafficsign.us/650/guide/d1-2.gif) and "specific service"
signs

(http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/traffic/mutcd2003/htmVersion/htm/fig2f-01_longdesc.htm)
are two distinct types of signs and are NOT interchangeable (consult the
US MUTCD for more information). 

I would strongly reccommend against mapping specific service signs
unless you're able to find the service that the signs are directing
folks to (in which, map the service destinations appropriately).




___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging "next exit" services

[Paul Johnson]

Dale Puch wrote:

> Personally I do not think the signs should be put in OSM, just the actual
> POI's are tagged.

Agreed.  Another factor is that the US MUTCD only defines a very small
number of specific services nationwide (food, lodging, camping,
telephone, gasoline, diesel), while other states like Oregon include
more (tourist attraction, car camping (aka RV-accessable camping),
24-hour fuel, cardlock-only fuel, return-to-where-you-came-from (at
state lines to send you back out of Oregon), etc).

> There may be reasons to put in signs, I just do not think this is one of
> them.

I'd only include them if they're also a destination sign, and then as a
destination sign, not a specific service sign.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Apollinaris Schoell]

follow the OSM principle.
map what's on the ground no matter where you are


On 12 Nov 2009, at 11:56 , Dave Hansen wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 11:40 -0800, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
>> On 12 Nov 2009, at 11:29 , Anthony wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Andy Allan 
>>> wrote:
 It's a fairly well established convention that in OSM it's the
 houses/plots, not the road centrelines, that are addressed.
>>>
>>> But that doesn't always reflect reality.  The reality, at least in
>>> many parts of the world, is that the streets are given blocks of
>>> potential addresses, and the houses/plots/whatever are given actual
>>> addresses from those potential address blocks.
>>>
>> Don't know any place except in US where this has been done.
>
> So, should we ignore the US for addressing entirely since it is
> different?  Or, should US addressing use a different scheme than the
> rest of the world?  We like being different.
>
> -- Dave
>


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging "next exit" services

[Randy]

Dale Puch wrote:

>Personally I do not think the signs should be put in OSM, just the actual
>POI's are tagged.
>
>There may be reasons to put in signs, I just do not think this is one of
>them.
>
>Dale
>
>
>-- 
>Dale Puch
Don't forget the intent of the requester's original question, i.e., how to 
tag an exit with the amenities available at the exit without knowing 
exactly where they are located. It's really about the information, not 
about the source of the information (the sign).

My first thought was a relationship of amenities to the exit ramp, but the 
amenities have to be tagged to something to add to the relation.

One option might be to put the roadsign in as a poi, with the amenities 
listed, then make an "accessible" relation with "from [the ramp]" and "to 
[the road sign]". However, "to the sign" is not an intuitively obvious 
relation, so I think it would require more work.

Just a thought.

-- 
Randy


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Anthony]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Apollinaris Schoell  wrote:
> Don't know any place except in US where this has been done.
>
Even if it weren't done anywhere else (which it is, see below), there
are a lot of houses in the US.

>>> how is that easier than the Karlsruhe scheme?
>>
>> It's not really easier so much as more correct.
>
> why more correct?

Because arbitrarily locating a way 10 meters (or whatever) away from
the road centerline adds artificial precision.

> the address is an attribute of the house not an attribute of the street.

If you want to get technical an actual address is usually an attribute
of a mail delivery point, which may or may not correspond to a house.
But potential addresses (which are likely the data which we are
contemplating importing) are an attribute of the street.

If you want to just leave the data out of OSM altogether, fine.  That
might be a good idea.  Geocoders can use the data within the system it
was designed for.  But if you're going to import it into OSM, you
shouldn't add artificial precision to it.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM, andrzej zaborowski  wrote:
> If we're going to go into detail, no type of interpolation reflects
> reality, it's just interpolation.

I disagree.  An approximation of reality reflects reality.



On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Liz  wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
>> Don't know any place except in US where this has been done.
> The rural numbering scheme used in Australia is an excellent example, as the
> potential number of addresses is the length of the road in km * 100, and there
> is no expectation that any number of the addresses will be used.

I'm curious:  Does Australia use left/right numbering?

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Dave Hansen]

On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 11:40 -0800, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> On 12 Nov 2009, at 11:29 , Anthony wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Andy Allan   
> > wrote:
> >> It's a fairly well established convention that in OSM it's the
> >> houses/plots, not the road centrelines, that are addressed.
> >
> > But that doesn't always reflect reality.  The reality, at least in
> > many parts of the world, is that the streets are given blocks of
> > potential addresses, and the houses/plots/whatever are given actual
> > addresses from those potential address blocks.
> >
> Don't know any place except in US where this has been done. 

So, should we ignore the US for addressing entirely since it is
different?  Or, should US addressing use a different scheme than the
rest of the world?  We like being different.

-- Dave


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Apollinaris Schoell]

On 12 Nov 2009, at 11:29 , Anthony wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Andy Allan   
> wrote:
>> It's a fairly well established convention that in OSM it's the
>> houses/plots, not the road centrelines, that are addressed.
>
> But that doesn't always reflect reality.  The reality, at least in
> many parts of the world, is that the streets are given blocks of
> potential addresses, and the houses/plots/whatever are given actual
> addresses from those potential address blocks.
>
Don't know any place except in US where this has been done. 

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Peter Batty]

This may be stating the obvious, but it's a lot less effort to capture
address ranges for each block than to capture an accurate location for each
individual building. I think that's the primary reason why most geocoding
systems use this approach. But it's not either / or - if you're doing
geocoding, you can look for a specific location for a given address, if you
don't find that then you fall back to an approximation based on address
range.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Andy Allan 
> wrote:
> > It's a fairly well established convention that in OSM it's the
> > houses/plots, not the road centrelines, that are addressed.
>
> But that doesn't always reflect reality.  The reality, at least in
> many parts of the world, is that the streets are given blocks of
> potential addresses, and the houses/plots/whatever are given actual
> addresses from those potential address blocks.
>
> > I'd say it's better to approximate the gap between the road and the
> houses
> > (10m?) than to just put it on the centreline due to that being easier.
>
> First of all, how would you approximate the gap?  You mean by hand?
>
> Secondly, what if the houses aren't yet there?  Tiger address data
> represents *potential* address blocks, not *actual* address blocks.
> There may or may not be any actual houses along those roads.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Apollinaris Schoell]

On 12 Nov 2009, at 11:18 , Anthony wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Apollinaris Schoell
>  wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>>> It probably has to be a relation.  Include a start node, an end  
>>> node,
>>> and a list of one or more ways (which are connected to form one
>>> logical way).
>>>
>>  the ways have to be split at the start/end node.
>
> Not if you use a relation.

then I don't understand how this relation will work. and doubt most  
mappers will.
if a way is not split at start end node there will be multiple address  
relations containing the same way. software will need to do analysis  
where the address range starts and stops. this is going to create a  
mess no one can edit and use

>> the relation members have to be ordered.
>
> No they don't.

that's interesting, what if multiple ways are part of an address  
range? this will require connectivity and topology analysis of all  
members. and this will fail if all way members are part of a loop.  
defining start/ end node will not help to decide which part it applies  
to. back to splitting the ways at start end nodes.

>
>> how is that easier than the Karlsruhe scheme?
>
> It's not really easier so much as more correct.

why more correct?  is a relation more correct than a extra way? Don't  
think so. the address is an attribute of the house not an attribute of  
the street. 

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Anthony]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Andy Allan  wrote:
> It's a fairly well established convention that in OSM it's the
> houses/plots, not the road centrelines, that are addressed.

But that doesn't always reflect reality.  The reality, at least in
many parts of the world, is that the streets are given blocks of
potential addresses, and the houses/plots/whatever are given actual
addresses from those potential address blocks.

> I'd say it's better to approximate the gap between the road and the houses
> (10m?) than to just put it on the centreline due to that being easier.

First of all, how would you approximate the gap?  You mean by hand?

Secondly, what if the houses aren't yet there?  Tiger address data
represents *potential* address blocks, not *actual* address blocks.
There may or may not be any actual houses along those roads.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Anthony]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Apollinaris Schoell 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>>>
>>> On the other hand, putting the information directly on the way would
>>> be problematic for many reasons.  Ranges might span multiple ways, and
>>> right/left has to be reversed whenever the way is reversed being the
>>> most troublesome.
>>>
>> this is enough reason to stay away from such a scheme. if it's too
>> difficult no one will use it or they will break the data.
>>
> This scheme works for all of the places that I'm sourcing data from... they
> have line segments that are tagged with the left/right-begin/end addresses.
> Each road is broken up into line segments that have different address
> values.

I'm not sure what your data is like, but the Tiger data inaccurately
splits the address ranges when it needs to split a segment.  In other
words, if a road goes from 2 to 100, and it needs to be split in half,
Tiger blindly splits the segments up as 2 - 48 and 50-100 *without
even checking if this is correct*.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Anthony]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Apollinaris Schoell
 wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>> It probably has to be a relation.  Include a start node, an end node,
>> and a list of one or more ways (which are connected to form one
>> logical way).
>>
>  the ways have to be split at the start/end node.

Not if you use a relation.
> the relation members have to be ordered.

No they don't.

> how is that easier than the Karlsruhe scheme?

It's not really easier so much as more correct.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Russ Nelson]

Dave Hansen writes:
 > The standard OSM user tries to find their street first.  The typical US
 > OSM experience has gone from, "My street isn't there" to "My street is
 > crooked".

And soon it will go to "My house is in the wrong location".  In
parts of St. Lawrence County, New York, that's already the case:

http://matt.sandbox.cloudmade.com/?lat=44.662793&lng=-74.932251&zoom=11&layer=3

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Dave Hansen]

On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 10:28 -0600, Ian Dees wrote:
> 
> Give everyone a chance to work in a constructive way and don't expect
> others to clean the mess bad import left behind.
> No wonder there are only few motivated mappers in US. In Canada they
> do a much better job in integrating the community and don't import
> every shape file blindly just because it's available.
> 
> Not to start a holy war over what community is better, but there
> weren't a whole lot of mappers in the US (at least on talk or talk-us)
> when we started doing the TIGER import...

People were being actively told not to map in the US because we had
TIGER coming and it would replace any work you ended up doing.

The standard OSM user tries to find their street first.  The typical US
OSM experience has gone from, "My street isn't there" to "My street is
crooked".

-- Dave


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Apollinaris Schoell]

On 12 Nov 2009, at 8:28 , Ian Dees wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Apollinaris Schoell  > wrote:
>
> On 12 Nov 2009, at 6:14 , Andy Allan wrote:
>
> > I disagree there. It's much better to put the effort in during the
> > initial import, than to import things badly and try to fix it up
> > later. We've been working on lots of post-import fixups in the  
> last 6
> > months and it's much harder than everyone assumes. The 4 months to
> > remove TIGER node tags is a case in point - it took less time than
> > that to import them!
> >
>
> +10
> Give everyone a chance to work in a constructive way and don't expect
> others to clean the mess bad import left behind.
> No wonder there are only few motivated mappers in US. In Canada they
> do a much better job in integrating the community and don't import
> every shape file blindly just because it's available.
>
> Not to start a holy war over what community is better, but there  
> weren't a whole lot of mappers in the US (at least on talk or talk- 
> us) when we started doing the TIGER import…

It's not about better community. The point is an empty map doesn't  
attract average mappers. someone ambitious needs to start the whole  
thing. A nearly finished map doesn't attract the ambitious mappers. A  
broken map doesn't attract either one.
Imports help with the first challenge. Bad imports not at all.
Tiger import was very useful and done in the best way known at that  
time. but has many problems. technical and community wise.  We  
shouldn't make the same mistakes again just to fill the database.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Ian Dees]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:

>
> On 12 Nov 2009, at 6:14 , Andy Allan wrote:
>
> > I disagree there. It's much better to put the effort in during the
> > initial import, than to import things badly and try to fix it up
> > later. We've been working on lots of post-import fixups in the last 6
> > months and it's much harder than everyone assumes. The 4 months to
> > remove TIGER node tags is a case in point - it took less time than
> > that to import them!
> >
>
> +10
> Give everyone a chance to work in a constructive way and don't expect
> others to clean the mess bad import left behind.
> No wonder there are only few motivated mappers in US. In Canada they
> do a much better job in integrating the community and don't import
> every shape file blindly just because it's available.
>

Not to start a holy war over what community is better, but there weren't a
whole lot of mappers in the US (at least on talk or talk-us) when we started
doing the TIGER import...
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Addressing Question

[Apollinaris Schoell]

On 12 Nov 2009, at 6:14 , Andy Allan wrote:

> I disagree there. It's much better to put the effort in during the
> initial import, than to import things badly and try to fix it up
> later. We've been working on lots of post-import fixups in the last 6
> months and it's much harder than everyone assumes. The 4 months to
> remove TIGER node tags is a case in point - it took less time than
> that to import them!
>

+10
Give everyone a chance to work in a constructive way and don't expect  
others to clean the mess bad import left behind.
No wonder there are only few motivated mappers in US. In Canada they  
do a much better job in integrating the community and don't import  
every shape file blindly just because it's available.



> Cheers,
> Andy


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] hillshade

[Lars Ahlzen]

Don Lambert wrote:
> The problem seems to be with the "color relief" tiles between 106.6 long 
> and 107.3 long at the approx 1:34,285 and 1:17,142 scale levels.

Indeed. I've started rendering the missing tiles, so they should be up 
within a few days.

- Lars

-- 
Lars Ahlzen
l...@ahlzen.com

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Addressing Question

[Mike N.]

> Ian Dees wrote:
>> * Ok, not "impossible", but the import size would triple and the CPU
>> time to compute the new addressing-only ways might make it hard for
>> the "regular mapper" to do.
> But for no added code and editor complexity.

   If it's just an issue of CPU time, I would be happy to set up a box to 
assist since it would be a 1-time import.

> IMHO the only decent alternative is using a relation for each address
> interpolation-range, with the nodes at the ends of the range and the way
> itself as members.
> This is roughly half as expensive as the Karlsruhe interpolation ways,
> and reduces the visual clutter in the editors. It is also insensitive to
> way direction reversal.

   If the goal is to reduce visual clutter in editors, what about when all 
are converted to house numbers?   Do we have to change house numbers to 
relations to hide them from editors and viewers?   Then it becomes an editor 
problem to make them accessible to ordinary people who need to enter 
corrections.   So the editors render them as 'visual clutter' to make them 
accessible; now we're right back where we started, but with extra addressing 
schemes for map consumers to decode. 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Possible destructive bug in JOSM build 2417 - need someone to duplicate

[Mike N.]

>> I just tried with 2439 and can't seem to reproduce this.
>>
>> -- Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
> The issue I was having is gone with 2439svn.

   I see a lingering problem in 2439 - apparently overlapping downloads + 
edits cause a large mass of downloads to be marked as changed for upload.
 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging "next exit" services

[Dale Puch]

Personally I do not think the signs should be put in OSM, just the actual
POI's are tagged.

There may be reasons to put in signs, I just do not think this is one of
them.

Dale

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Chris Hunter  wrote:

> Tag the first node of the offramp as highway=motorway_junction.  As far as
> the sign itself goes, there's a proposed relationship for signs in the UK
> and EU at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_signthat 
> may be of some help.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Alan Mintz 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>> Along freeways, particular interstates with long distances between exits,
>> there are usually signs that indicate what types of services (food, fuel,
>> lodging, etc.) are available at the next exit. How should one tag these,
>> assuming that one cannot determine the exact position of those services
>> off
>> the freeway?
>>
>> A good example is electric vehicle recharging or fuel stations that supply
>> CNG or other unusual fuels - it is not possible to see, only from
>> satellite
>> imagery, which specific building was being referred to by the sign on the
>> freeway.
>>
>> --
>> Alan Mintz 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
Dale Puch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us