On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:31:03 -0800, Sam Vekemans
wrote:
> Hi all,
> i'm working from the 11 wiki charts, and have most of it done, but i
> feel i need at least 1 person to varify that they approve each of the
> sugested tag(s).
>
> I will make an extra column in each chart for this. (i think it
Hi all,
i'm working from the 11 wiki charts, and have most of it done, but i
feel i need at least 1 person to varify that they approve each of the
sugested tag(s).
I will make an extra column in each chart for this. (i think it will help)
Cheers,
Sam
... fair comment ... the English/Welsh system is indeed pretty much unique -
so the two level key is not a bad idea - apart from the large number of
paths already tagged! (:>)
Mike Harris
_
From: Gustav Foseid [mailto:gust...@gmail.com]
Sent: 24 February 2009 17:41
To: osm
Subject:
Not quite the case ... Are the grid references derived by the Highway
Authority from the OS maps or from their own GPS surveys that they (the
Highway Authority) carry out themselves on every right of way? Pre-GPS you
might have a point - but with the use of GPS technology, not only by us but
also b
Am Dienstag 24 Februar 2009 schrieb Richard Fairhurst:
> Guenther Meyer wrote:
> > it may be trivial, but when you have to do this for every possible
> > tag with some variations, it's a waste of time, that should not
> > be necessary. parsing the osm xml files is already a ressource
> > consuming
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:51 PM, David Earl wrote:
> But you are overlooking Database Copyright. It's not the individual
> facts, but the way in which they are collated as a collection that is
> copyrightable. So if you are taking the information off their map, you
> are, in effect, ripping off th
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 04:00:22PM +, LeedsTracker wrote:
> > The concept of fair use is something which differs from one jurisdiction to
> > another. [snip]
>
> I know, though the principle is in UK law:
> http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use
That page is a little mislead
Guenther Meyer wrote:
> it may be trivial, but when you have to do this for every possible
> tag with some variations, it's a waste of time, that should not
> be necessary. parsing the osm xml files is already a ressource
> consuming task; every unnecessary work should be omitted.
Maybe, but y
Gustav Foseid wrote:
> They do, however, make pretty much sense in many other parts of
> the world. I see no good reason why the (very UK specific) right of
> way tags should not be something like uk_row:foot=,
> uk_row:briddleway= and so on.
A UK Right of Way legal status, unsurprisingly, is
I have to say i'm siding with those in favour of validation as well.
Not for everything, but at the very least some kind of "spell
checking" utility when uploading from the editors. I've seen a number
of spelling mistakes when "residential" was clearly the intended tag
value. I have nearly uploade
On 24/02/2009 17:02, Mike Harris wrote:
> Fwiw - I hold the view that the OS cannot own the status in any way as it is
> the Highway Authority that decides / maintains the status. The only way the
> OS even know about the status is by the Highway Authority telling them - as
> they do (and a few yea
Am Dienstag 24 Februar 2009 schrieb Dave Stubbs:
> > 1. ... every application trying to use the data has to deal with several
> > taggings for the same thing. that's an unnecessary waste of resources.
> > a script running on the database can minimize this waste, and
> > furthermore, can fix typos i
LeedsTracker wrote:
> I do. To be clear, I'm not advocating using Gmaps/G-earth for OSM, I
> was just puzzled by the (apparently unproblematic) use of it in
> Wikimedia and wondered if a parallel use was justifiable.
Put yourself in the shoes of Google's lawyers - and, more significantly,
those o
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Mike Harris wrote:
> Nick
>
> Again I find myself in almost complete agreement with you. I found
> highway=cycleway a particularly difficult concept given that bicycle rights
> are somewhat ill-defined in rights-of-way lore (notwithstanding the 1968
> Countryside
Nick
Again I find myself in almost complete agreement with you. I found
highway=cycleway a particularly difficult concept given that bicycle rights
are somewhat ill-defined in rights-of-way lore (notwithstanding the 1968
Countryside Act). I would have wanted to use it only for cycle lanes beside
v
Nick
Yes - I think we are basically in agreement. You were there already - I am
fast getting there, in part with the assistance of this dialogue via the
list. (Btw - you are of course right about bridleway tagging if =designated
is to be used then it should be used both for foot= and horse= - my b
Hi
Fwiw - I hold the view that the OS cannot own the status in any way as it is
the Highway Authority that decides / maintains the status. The only way the
OS even know about the status is by the Highway Authority telling them - as
they do (and a few years later the OS *might* amend their mapping!
> http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use
I'm guessing that the spelling mistake on the front page ("Devirative
works") is an Easter Egg to stop anyone copying it...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreet
2009/2/23 Russ Nelson :
> I'm thinking that it would be helpful if people who are working on
> bulk imports could tell people that such things might happen. A
> mapper in the Boston area asked me if water features in the Boston
> area are going to be imported. If not, he'll work on them. If they
2009/2/24 Donald Allwright :
>>> Please don't use Google Maps when doing OSM. It's just not worth the
>>> risk.
>>
>>I understand that this is a safe and wise rule, but as Wikimedia
>>Commons' site suggests (and Nic's reply, commenting on talk-legal
>>discussions), there may be a fair use (or fair
2009/2/24 Mike Harris :
> Dave says:
>
> "I wrote it to do some more complex duplicate removal for the cycle map (as a
> pre-processor before osm2pgsql). The key one being highway=path, bicycle=yes
> which as far as I can tell is a duplicate of highway=cycleway. It's not
> actually rolled out ye
I asked:
> How can I find the way to get it back?
A wiki search found the answer in the Potlatch Primer: "U". All
sorted (and the postbox re-added), I think.
Ed
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>This then would seem to make foot=yes unavailable as a description of the
>physical nature of the way and to duplicate foot=designated. What would
we
>then use to describe the physical nature? Similarly if bicycle=yes (even
if
>we already have an option of bicycle=designated) means that bicycles
Sorry, belated reply to this, didn't realise the thread was about this
topic. I guess I'm the "oldest" of the OSM countryside mappers, having
been involved in open countryside mapping since Mar 2004 (via my own
Freemap project, now using OSM data) and OSM since a year later, so...
>As what migh
I just deleted a way when I was trying to delete a node (using Potlatch). I
tried the undo button but undid the addition of a postbox node rather than the
deletion of the way. How can I find the way to get it back?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.505937&lon=-0.026913&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF
Dave says:
"I wrote it to do some more complex duplicate removal for the cycle map (as a
pre-processor before osm2pgsql). The key one being highway=path, bicycle=yes
which as far as I can tell is a duplicate of highway=cycleway. It's not
actually rolled out yet though I keep meaning to do the n
>Actually that raises another issue (notwithstanding the point below) -
>in cases where the legal status is only available on either a copyright
>map (either bought or on the wall at the local council) - it's sometimes
>not possible to know what the legal status of all traffic on e.g. a
>former
> I now see that
> yes/true/1/no/false/0/-1 are all listed.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Map_Features#Restrictions
> I feel that this is a mistake and that yes/no/-1 should be put back
> in the value column so that maplint *will* highlight the ways using
> the old accepted values so t
Dave quoted sly:
> > I'm in favor of disussion, describing only one, removing the
> > others from any
> > documentation, removing slowly support in renderers and
> > slowly, replace old
> > values by new values.
And replied:
> That sounds like a more sensible way of handling it. I'd
> document
>>> document both IS recommend both!
>>>
>>
>> amenity=doctors -> A doctor's surgery. Note: people have also
>> used amenity=doctor for this.
>>
>> Wow. Hard.
>>
>
> Hmmm. And that is more helpful for anyone going to use this tag (mapping or
> rendering or ...) than simply saying:
>
> amenity=docto
2009/2/24 sly (sylvain letuffe) :
>
>> We could also create a preprocessor that "unifies" OSM data.
>
> I've been thinkink a lot about an osm pré-processor, but not to solve the
> problem you mentionned.
>
> The main problem, to my point of vue, in the duplicates tag case, is not at
> developper/re
> a) that's not a quote, it's a paraphrase.
> b) you're taking it out of context.
Sorry for that, but that wasn't a paraphrase either, that was the way I
understood it.
> weren't there. That doesn't mean we run a bot.
Totally agreed, I didn't mentionned we should (or at worst not before a
looo
>> I'd document both
>> for a while,
>
> ha ? then why ? If we don't start by a little effort of at least stopping to
> mentionned them, we will never go forward, don't you think ?
Document rather than recommend. The point being that if someone is
asking the question, "what is amenity=doctor?" the
> We could also create a preprocessor that "unifies" OSM data.
I've been thinkink a lot about an osm pré-processor, but not to solve the
problem you mentionned.
The main problem, to my point of vue, in the duplicates tag case, is not at
developper/renderer side, but at begginers learning to c
2009/2/24 sly (sylvain letuffe) :
>> mess for someone who wants to use our data. Can't hear that argument
>> 'let the application developers decide what they want' any longer!
>
> Looks like an holy war is gone start. Let's try however to keep it low. But
> I'm a part of that war against duplicates
Dave Stubbs schrieb:
> 2009/2/24 Ulf Lamping :
>> Dave Stubbs schrieb:
2. ... it is easier for new mappers to have one documented tag for one
feature, instead of having to choose...
>>>
>>> Fine, no problem. I said document both, not recommend both.
>> document both IS recommend both!
>>
Hi,
sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote:
> I can't rembember how many (oneway='yes' or oneway='true' or oneway='1')
> there
> are in the mapnik style's sheets I use.
>
> not talking about tunnel='yes', bridge='yes', and of course the later
> amenity='doctor(s)'
We could also create a preprocessor tha
> mess for someone who wants to use our data. Can't hear that argument
> 'let the application developers decide what they want' any longer!
Looks like an holy war is gone start. Let's try however to keep it low. But
I'm a part of that war against duplicates tags.
Quoting "Dave" : Handeling dupl
Hi
> The Key:access wiki uses the word "preferred" when describing designated.
I can see the point with regard to e.g. truck > routes, but less so for
English and Welsh footpaths. The case for =designated as opposed to =yes is
probably best made > by one of the proponents of that tag (I think tha
2009/2/24 Ulf Lamping :
> Dave Stubbs schrieb:
>>
>>> 2. ... it is easier for new mappers to have one documented tag for one
>>> feature, instead of having to choose...
>>
>>
>> Fine, no problem. I said document both, not recommend both.
>
> document both IS recommend both!
>
amenity=doctors -> A
> This then would seem to make foot=yes unavailable as a description of the
> physical nature of the way and to duplicate foot=designated.
The Key:access wiki uses the word "preferred" when describing
designated. I can see the point with regard to e.g. truck routes, but
less so for English and
Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
> I know everyone really wants to see the latest draft and have
> an opportunity to discuss it. If you can just give me a bit of
> time, I'll have something for you next week.
Any news? Not meant as a nag, we're just all in an eager state of
anticipation. :)
cheers
Ric
Dave Stubbs schrieb:
>
>> 2. ... it is easier for new mappers to have one documented tag for one
>> feature, instead of having to choose...
>
>
> Fine, no problem. I said document both, not recommend both.
document both IS recommend both!
ULFL - who thinks that having already hundreds (litera
Hi all,The CanVec2osm Beta version 0.01 is now available for review.
(if you are interested in helping edit the script, i can place it in the
SVN, so for now it's read-only as to avoid confusion)
http://www.acrosscanadatrails.com/Home/canvec2osm0_01.zip
Please do NOT upload any data, as its still
On 24/02/2009 09:58, LeedsTracker wrote:
>> Please don't use Google Maps when doing OSM. It's just not worth the risk.
>
> I understand that this is a safe and wise rule, but as Wikimedia
> Commons' site suggests (and Nic's reply, commenting on talk-legal
> discussions), there may be a fair use (o
>> Please don't use Google Maps when doing OSM. It's just not worth the risk.
>
>I understand that this is a safe and wise rule, but as Wikimedia
>Commons' site suggests (and Nic's reply, commenting on talk-legal
>discussions), there may be a fair use (or fair dealing) for rectifying
>the location
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:14:53 +
LeedsTracker wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>
> When adding roads, I default to highway=road and source=OSM
> WikiProject Gaza
> - I think source is useful for future reference when adding from
> satellite imagery (inc Yahoo's).
>
> I could do with a keyboard shortcu
Hi,
Dave Stubbs wrote:
> What you want is this: a validation tool so that users with a brain
> can figure it out for themselves.
I think that the "tagging" view in the OSM Inspector
(http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/) is already quite a good start for such
a validation tool. The OSMI is based on
2009/2/24 Dave Stubbs :
> 2009/2/24 Kenneth Gonsalves :
>> On Monday 23 February 2009 19:52:37 LeedsTracker wrote:
>>> E.g. I take a photo of a level crossing, locate in in Google Maps,
>>> upload and tag it in WikiMedia Commons - no problem it seems.
>>>
>>> Is this different from using the same m
... I can relate to that really well! But when it comes to "bull=yes" you
should (a) make sure that you can run faster than the bull, and then (b)
report it to the Highway Authority - unless the bull in question is either
under ten months old or "of a recognised dairy breed and at large with cows
o
2009/2/23 Tom Chance :
>
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:46:09 +0100, Guenther Meyer
> wrote:
>> because...
>>
>> 1. ... every application trying to use the data has to deal with several
>> taggings for the same thing. that's an unnecessary waste of resources.
>> a script running on the database can mini
Hi
Just replied to Someoneelse's posting and copied it to you as well as to the
list ... The 'Essex Way' waymarks are a good example of Type 2 (see my
earlier posting); the yellow and blue ones are consistent with the Type 1
waymarking colour scheme. A 'byway' may be a BOAT or a RB and thus red or
> The tag page:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:foot
>
> refers to the
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
> page that you mentioned.
This then would seem to make foot=yes unavailable as a description of the
physical nature of the way and to duplicate foot=designated. What wou
2009/2/23 Yann Coupin :
>
> Le 23 févr. 09 à 11:26, Dave Stubbs a écrit :
>
>> So my question is this: given that there /are/ two tags in use, why go
>> to all the effort to change it? Document both and be done with it.
>
> And this is helping the data not to turn into a pile of grey goo, how ? Thi
2009/2/23 Guenther Meyer :
> Am Montag 23 Februar 2009 schrieb Dave Stubbs:
>> 2009/2/22 Guenther Meyer :
>> > Am Sonntag 22 Februar 2009 schrieb Dave Stubbs:
>> >> You could just /not/ run a bot on it. Seriously, these tag correcting
>> >> bots can be really annoying. As long as it's documented bo
2009/2/24 Kenneth Gonsalves :
> On Monday 23 February 2009 19:52:37 LeedsTracker wrote:
>> E.g. I take a photo of a level crossing, locate in in Google Maps,
>> upload and tag it in WikiMedia Commons - no problem it seems.
>>
>> Is this different from using the same method to adjust the level
>> cr
2009/2/24 Kenneth Gonsalves :
> On Monday 23 February 2009 19:52:37 LeedsTracker wrote:
>> E.g. I take a photo of a level crossing, locate in in Google Maps,
>> upload and tag it in WikiMedia Commons - no problem it seems.
>>
>> Is this different from using the same method to adjust the level
>> cr
Don't know about JOSM, but in Merkaartor, we have such things as templates.
You could tweak the default templates (xml files) to add a constant tag
"source=OSM
WikiProject Gaza" for each (or some) features you add.
- Chris -
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:14 PM, LeedsTracker wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>
58 matches
Mail list logo
