[OSM-dev] Mapnik rendering of mountain_pass = 'yes'

Hi, I'm trying to render mountain passes with mapnik. In the attachment you can find an example of the current status. As everyone can see the result needs improvement, as the pass symbol does not follow the direction of the corresponding way (look at the "Scharnitzsattel"). What I did is that

Re: [OSM-dev] Mapnik rendering of mountain_pass = 'yes'

Stefan Wenk wrote: > The problem is that according to the defintion the "mountain_pass" tag > applies > to nodes, not to ways. Therefore the rendering uses an icon. The icon would > need to be rotated according to the direction of the way at the specific > node, which is tagged with mountain_p

Re: [OSM-dev] [OSM-talk] map display www.openstreetmap.org

Thomas Wood wrote: > The OSM homepage keeps up to date with OpenLayers, putting the coord > display will be fairly trivial. The most difficult part will probably > deciding where to put them so they don't annoy those who do not wish > to use them. Adding them is trivial, but it hasn't been done b

Re: [OSM-dev] no hebrew letters in mapnik layer

You're a magician, the attached tile looks perfect! It would be great to have the mapnik layer generated that way. Tal On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Jon Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 14:17 +0200, Tal wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I'm not sure if this is the right list

Re: [OSM-dev] no hebrew letters in mapnik layer

I updated the server before the planet update today so those tile are all being rendered now. Jon 2008/10/8 Tal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > You're a magician, > the attached tile looks perfect! > It would be great to have the mapnik layer generated that way. > > Tal > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:13 P

Re: [OSM-dev] [OSM-talk] map display www.openstreetmap.org

On Wed, 2008-10-08 15:43:19 +0100, Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas Wood wrote: > > The OSM homepage keeps up to date with OpenLayers, putting the coord > > display will be fairly trivial. The most difficult part will probably > > deciding where to put them so they don't annoy those w

Re: [OSM-dev] [OSM-talk] map display www.openstreetmap.org

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > > Adding them is trivial, but it hasn't been done because the benefit is > > minimal compared to the downside of having yet more stuff obscuring the > map. > > Nonetheless I'd like to get it added, too. > > Is there

Re: [OSM-dev] [OSM-talk] map display www.openstreetmap.org

On Wed, 2008-10-08 10:46:28 -0500, Ian Dees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Adding them is trivial, but it hasn't been done because the > > > benefit is minimal compared to the downside of having yet more > > > stuff ob

[OSM-dev] Conflict with 0.6 wiki page and JOSM implementation

Hi, It seems that according to:http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OSM_Protocol_Version_0.6#Modifications_related_to_the_abovewhen you upload a node, way or relation, the version that was downloaded, should be in the xml of the upload too. However JOSM is sending old_version. Here is an

[OSM-dev] SVN account request for `avar' to work on [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I'd like a SVN account to fix up oceantiles for [EMAIL PROTECTED], forwarded below is the relevant e-mail from the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. The username should be "avar" and I can provide a htpasswd line, ssh key or whatever is needed for authentication. -- Forwarded message -- Fr

Re: [OSM-dev] Conflict with 0.6 wiki page and JOSM implementation

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Shaun McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > It seems that according > to:http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OSM_Protocol_Version_0.6#Modifications_related_to_the_abovewhen > you > upload a node, way or relation, the version that was downloaded, should be

Re: [OSM-dev] Conflict with 0.6 wiki page and JOSM implementation

On 8 Oct 2008, at 22:24, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Shaun McDonald > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi, >> It seems that according >> to:http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OSM_Protocol_Version_0.6#Modifications_related_to_the_abovewhen >> >> you >> uplo

[OSM-dev] way 7062297, is this new?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Could anyone *please* elaborate since when this is possible? (Look at the duplicate keys.) If this is /just allowed/ it fubars my entire database update model. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) C

Re: [OSM-dev] way 7062297, is this new?

Stefan de Konink wrote: > .. > > > > .. > > ... > > Could anyone *please* elaborate since when this is possible? (Look at > the duplicate keys.) > > If this is /just allowed/ it fubars my entire database update model. > Allowed via the 0.5 API currently: Yes. Supported by any of the editors

Re: [OSM-dev] way 7062297, is this new?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Grant Slater schreef: > Stefan de Konink wrote: >> .. >> >> >> >> .. >> >> ... >> >> Could anyone *please* elaborate since when this is possible? (Look at >> the duplicate keys.) >> >> If this is /just allowed/ it fubars my entire database update

Re: [OSM-dev] way 7062297, is this new?

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Then disable *ANY* edits with this borked editor: "Potlatch 0.10c" and > revert back to a version that did not produce duplicates. > > I'm currently writing a Foundation member over this corruption, it > breaks far too

Re: [OSM-dev] way 7062297, is this new?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Ian Dees schreef: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > Then disable *ANY* edits with this borked editor: "Potlatch 0.10c" and > revert back to a version that did no

Re: [OSM-dev] way 7062297, is this new?

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is even my primary key {wayid, k}. If you can explain me how a > k='name' can ever have a duplicate that is meaningful, please enlighten me. > Why do you include the tag's key with the primary key? The only primary

Re: [OSM-dev] way 7062297, is this new?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Ian Dees schreef: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > It is even my primary key {wayid, k}. If you can explain me how a > k='name' can ever have a duplicate that i

Re: [OSM-dev] way 7062297, is this new?

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a way table, that has a primary key {wayid}. The table way_tags > point to that wayid. Do you ever do a lookup by tag key name? If not, then you don't need to normalize the tags into their own table like that, j

Re: [OSM-dev] way 7062297, is this new?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Ian Dees schreef: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > I have a way table, that has a primary key {wayid}. The table way_tags > point to that wayid. > > > Do you eve

Re: [OSM-dev] way 7062297, is this new?

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No way! The database[1] uses indexing under the hood automatically. So > every created_by k or JOSM v is automatically indexed. This gives a > significant space reduction plus fast lookup. > > Next to that it is very

[OSM-dev] Database Schema

Hi All I am trying to replicate the database schema of openstreet map on MySQL server running on Fedora Ver 9. I am almost through to all stages but seems I am not getting the resolution for the last stage where it says rake db: migrate This was the first error I got: *Missing the Rails 2.0.2 g

Re: [OSM-dev] way 7062297, is this new?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Ian Dees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> >> No way! The database[1] uses indexing under the hood automatically. So >> every created_by k or JOSM v is automatically indexed. This gives a

Re: [OSM-dev] Database Schema

Hi Sagar, I hope to get time to test this at home tonight but hopefully others have better answers in the meantime. These links might also help in the meantime: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/The_Rails_Port http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Rails_on_Fedora Cheers, Brett On Thu, O

Re: [OSM-dev] way 7062297, is this new?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Allowed via the 0.5 API currently: Yes. >> Supported by any of the editors: No (AFAIK) >> >> On a hunch, don't expect the 0.6 API to support duplicates. > > Then disable *ANY* edits with this borked editor: "Potlatch 0.

Re: [OSM-dev] way 7062297, is this new?

On Thursday 09 October 2008 16:06:39 Andy Allan wrote: (I think Grant said this bit, it's lost its context) > >> Allowed via the 0.5 API currently: Yes. > >> Supported by any of the editors: No (AFAIK) > >> I could swear I explicitly read endorsement of duplicate keys on the documentation somewh

Re: [OSM-dev] way 7062297, is this new?

Hi, Andy Allan wrote: > I'd suggest that you calm down a bit. This behaviour is fully > supported by the API, so your assumption that {wayid,key} can be made > a primary key is the problem. +1 That being said, at least JOSM makes the same assumption, so as soon as you so much as touch the way i