On Friday 31 October 2008 20:06:17 Hakan Tandogan wrote:
> Do you have some relation IDs for me to look at? I don't have a planet
> extract or even a box with grep on it at the moment :-(
Three Dutch provinces:
47772
47667
47654
The three municipalities that meet at the three provinces point:
478
I have added a check to the OSM Inspector for ways with more than 1000
nodes.
See the blue lines at http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry .
There are currently 604 of those long ways in Europe.
Jochen
--
Jochen Topf [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298
__
On Fri, October 31, 2008 18:07, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Joachim Zobel wrote:
>
>> There is also the option to add 2 dimensional topology to the data
>> model. This means to that the model has areas that have references to
>> ways as boundaries. This way two areas can have a common boundar
> That's why it was so surprising to see the imported USA and California
> borders in OSM running along the beach - surely we want to move them
> out to sea?
It's just additional data. So a user with sound knowledge of the U.S. border
regulation might simply correct or delete the robot generated
Harald Kucharek schrieb:
>> Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> Almost neighbours. I live Südstadt, near Werderplatz.
> --
> Harald Kucharek | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Werderstrasse 24 | FON:+49(721)389566
^^
Anyone needs to run the
Hi,
Ben Supnik wrote:
> - Put validation features into the existing editors (JOSM), etc. Is
> there existing infrastructure for this? For example, I saw that one
> site culls the whole-earth export for unofficial tags...does JOSM "know"
> the approved schema and tell users when they haven't d
Hi,
Joachim Zobel wrote:
> There is also the option to add 2 dimensional topology to the data
> model. This means to that the model has areas that have references to
> ways as boundaries. This way two areas can have a common boundary.
I'm definitely in favour of creating boundaries by having rel
Ben Supnik wrote:
> - Put validation features into the existing editors (JOSM), etc. Is
> there existing infrastructure for this? For example, I saw that one
> site culls the whole-earth export for unofficial tags...does JOSM "know"
> the approved schema and tell users when they haven't done
2008/10/31 Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> Brian Quinion wrote:
>> This is my
>> big problem with the current implementation - it creates a rectangle
>> in the current projection with the result that (as you go further
>> north / south) the rectangle become more and more misaligned to
Am Donnerstag, den 30.10.2008, 23:11 +0100 schrieb Roland Olbricht:
> the boundary in OSM is maybe suboptimal structured. What is the best
> option?
There is also the option to add 2 dimensional topology to the data
model. This means to that the model has areas that have references to
ways as bou
Matt Amos wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matt Amos wrote:
>>> i don't understand what you mean by a pyramid shape. the relations
>>> would be returned in the same order, regardless of the role tag,
>>> right? and you're not merging subtrees.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Amos wrote:
>> i don't understand what you mean by a pyramid shape. the relations
>> would be returned in the same order, regardless of the role tag,
>> right? and you're not merging subtrees...?
>
> My proposal wou
Matt Amos wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matt Amos wrote:
>>> would you represent a Y-shaped road as three relations, then? one for
>>> the left fork, one for the right stem as a way-relation, then another
>>> to group them together?
>> Yes,
El Viernes, 31 de Octubre de 2008, Ben Supnik escribió:
> for the cycle, we dont' know yet, could be weeks, months, a
> year? Long enough that the author of the erroneous data may have moved
> on to other projects. :-(
You should try to keep the cycle as short as one week.
In other words, set u
Thanks everyone for the pointers - I'll have a look at these existing
facilities...for the cycle, we dont' know yet, could be weeks, months, a
year? Long enough that the author of the erroneous data may have moved
on to other projects. :-(
cheers
Ben
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> El Viernes, 3
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Amos wrote:
>> would you represent a Y-shaped road as three relations, then? one for
>> the left fork, one for the right stem as a way-relation, then another
>> to group them together?
>
> Yes, but with role='indepe
> > - Somehow add visual feedback to the final map renders to validate user
> > data. Since our data is appropriate to aeronautical maps this wouldn't
> > necessarily fit well with existing infrastructure.
>
> There are already "error-viewing" renders, such as cloudmade's NoName layer.
There is t
El Viernes, 31 de Octubre de 2008, Ben Supnik escribió:
> Now I am looking at the problem of error detection. [...] it's a long cycle.
How long?
> - Somehow add visual feedback to the final map renders to validate user
> data. Since our data is appropriate to aeronautical maps this wouldn't
> ne
Matt Amos wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matt Amos wrote:
>>> quick question: if your schema used ordered relations instead of ways,
>>> do you have an unordered relation type as well?
>> That is a client rendering issue. The order is mainta
Hi,
I have been discussing OSM + X-Plane off list; we believe we could
extend the existing tag schemes in logical ways (e.g. similar to the
current antenna proposal) to provide our users with a way to enter data
that helps OSM too.
Now I am looking at the problem of error detection. In partic
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Amos wrote:
>> quick question: if your schema used ordered relations instead of ways,
>> do you have an unordered relation type as well?
>
> That is a client rendering issue. The order is maintained as how it is
> i
Matt Amos wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Andy Allan wrote:
>>> No, hang on, that would be daft. I'd be better off making subtrees
>>> limited to about 1000 nodes or thereabouts, to improve the efficiency
>>> of partial checkouts. So then I
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Having a binary XML format is another approach. And would again
>> significantly reduce the communication delay between client and api.
>
> All your comments seem to assume that we have an arbitrary amount of
> time an manpower to change the API plus all clients. This is
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andy Allan wrote:
>> No, hang on, that would be daft. I'd be better off making subtrees
>> limited to about 1000 nodes or thereabouts, to improve the efficiency
>> of partial checkouts. So then I would have sensibly siz
Hi,
Dave Stubbs wrote:
> I'm all for an API hard limit of 1000 nodes in a way. That wouldn't
> impact any normal stuff, but would put a stop to megaways pretty
> quickly without the need for a re-education programme :-)
Fine with me.
I think this can (and should) be worked on at different levels
Stefan,
> Having a binary XML format is another approach. And would again
> significantly reduce the communication delay between client and api.
All your comments seem to assume that we have an arbitrary amount of
time an manpower to change the API plus all clients. This is a
misconception, an
On Wed, October 29, 2008 23:32, Roland Olbricht wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> you can now download a first version of the discover-boundaries tool. In
>
> ...
>
> For example, in europe the inner-country boundary consists of about
> 100.000 nodes, but the coastline has about 7 million nodes. So ju
That's why it was so surprising to see the imported USA and California
borders in OSM running along the beach - surely we want to move them
out to sea?
Currently the borders are marked with the 2 countries - do we need to
allow "region:left=international" if it's a border with the ocean
instead of
A spam bot has managed to add it's junk into the bug tracker:
http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/1676#comment:3
How to delete the spam (or should I better ask who can do it)?
GeoJ
___
josm-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetma
Andy Allan wrote:
>> In case of a partial checkout you would only
>> fetch the subtrees (relations) that are in your bbox and their parent.
>
> The one subtree has 17M nodes, and I get the parent relation with the
> coastline tags too.
No no! bbox the subtree, so you will not get 17M nodes, but o
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Imagine a way as a relation.
OK. This relation is the Eurasian coastline. 17M nodes, lets say.
> Where every difference in way is
> represented as a subtree under it.
Let's say it's all natural coastline, and was cr
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Stefan de Konink wrote:
>
>> I have already created a server that stores in nodes/relations :)
>
> Yeah, I know you have, but you might have noticed we don't actually
> have editor authors coming out of our ears.
Thats why legacy support is important :) But again, if
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having a binary XML format is another approach. And would again
> significantly reduce the communication delay between client and api.
>
The majority of the delay between client and API isn't in downloading the
XML fil
Stefan de Konink wrote:
> I have already created a server that stores in nodes/relations :)
Yeah, I know you have, but you might have noticed we don't actually
have editor authors coming out of our ears.
Richard
___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetma
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Stefan de Konink wrote:
>
>> In this case I address all your and my problems;
>> - common tags are not duplicated
>> - partial ways are smaller
>> - relations become in essence ordered linestrings, with the
>> possibility
>> to add tags
>
> But unfortunately not probl
Shaun McDonald wrote:
>> Fix the API. (and the implementation if it takes you that long ;)
>
> Actually this isn't just an implementation problem, it is also a social
> limit. If 12 people were to request large highly detailed areas (and
> they were on a slow network connection), then you sudden
Stefan de Konink wrote:
> In this case I address all your and my problems;
> - common tags are not duplicated
> - partial ways are smaller
> - relations become in essence ordered linestrings, with the
> possibility
> to add tags
But unfortunately not problem 4
- someone to actually implement it
On 31 Oct 2008, at 11:51, Stefan de Konink wrote:
Dave Stubbs wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Stefan de Konink
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Any comments?
You are now basically working around the actual problem. Allowing
partial
ways in the
Dave Stubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>
>>> Any comments?
>> You are now basically working around the actual problem. Allowing partial
>> ways in the editors for the current bbox. I think hack
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>> Any comments?
>
> You are now basically working around the actual problem. Allowing partial
> ways in the editors for the current bbox. I think hacking and breaking
> ways
Dave Stubbs wrote:
> I'm all for an API hard limit of 1000 nodes in a way. That wouldn't
> impact any normal stuff, but would put a stop to megaways pretty
> quickly without the need for a re-education programme :-)
+1.
I've been thinking of disabling access to ways of >1000 nodes in
Potlatch
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Florian Lohoff wrote:
>> Its 2^15 because it signed - and yes - somebody managed to get abovE:
>
> This definitely has to stop. We need to (a) find all ways with more than
> a few thousand nodes and break them down
On 31 Oct 2008, at 10:44, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Florian Lohoff wrote:
Its 2^15 because it signed - and yes - somebody managed to get abovE:
This definitely has to stop. We need to (a) find all ways with more
than
a few thousand nodes and break them down, and (b) educate users that
the
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Any comments?
You are now basically working around the actual problem. Allowing partial
ways in the editors for the current bbox. I think hacking and breaking
ways is bad, duplicate information, missing tags upon edit etc. I think
storing ways with thei
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> (And what's more, once someone creates a way with 50.001 nodes, no
> bounding box containing even one node of that way will be downloadable
> through the API.)
I think it will be actually - the 5 node limit only applies to the
initial selection of nodes I think and d
Hi,
Florian Lohoff wrote:
> Its 2^15 because it signed - and yes - somebody managed to get abovE:
This definitely has to stop. We need to (a) find all ways with more than
a few thousand nodes and break them down, and (b) educate users that
they shouldn't do such evil things. Imagine the poor so
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:28:52 +0100
> Von: Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Betreff: Re: [josm-dev] JOSM extension for orthogonalizing ways
> Hi,
>
> Harald Kucharek wrote:
> > Now, my question is: Is th
Hi,
2008/10/31 Harald Kucharek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Original-Nachricht
>> Datum: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:11:46 +
>> Von: "Brian Quinion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> An: "Frederik Ramm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Betreff: Re: [josm-dev] JOSM
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:17:16AM +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> Hi,
> i just discovered that osmosis was not able to apply the hourly osc file
> starting 2008-10-29T20:00:00Z - It failed with:
>
> 2008-10-31 11:09:52 CET ERROR: smallint out of range
> 2008-10-31 11:09:52 CET STATEMENT: INSERT
On Thu, October 30, 2008 23:11, Roland Olbricht wrote:
> way passes a point where three countries meet, there is no way to note the
Standard solution: split the border :-)
> A possible solution would be to have instead of b) a relation which
> contains all the tags of b) and as members all ways
Hi,
i just discovered that osmosis was not able to apply the hourly osc file
starting 2008-10-29T20:00:00Z - It failed with:
2008-10-31 11:09:52 CET ERROR: smallint out of range
2008-10-31 11:09:52 CET STATEMENT: INSERT INTO way_nodes (way_id, node_id,
sequence_id) VALUES ($1, $2, $3)
Is ther
> > In detail, there are
> > a) the "left:country" and "right:country" attributes in the boundary
> > ways. b) the nodes with tag k="place" v="country" which contain more
> > information on a country.
>
> I don't see problems with both issues above. Everything in our db is
> sensitive to typos, so
52 matches
Mail list logo
