Re: [OSM-talk] Who interprets semicolon in tag values?

On Fri, 31 May 2013 17:03:26 +0200, Jochen Topf wrote: > If you know of any software that actually does interpret this specially, > please tell me. I am trying to get an idea where and how this is used in > the real world. You can answer here on the list or write to me > privately, I'll summarize

[OSM-talk] OT (was: Re: Naming disputes in Ukraine)

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:08:25 +0200, Michael Eric Menk wrote: > So this sign: http://www.sprakrad.no/upload/11207/porsanger.jpg > > name=Porsanger kommune > name:no=Porsanger kommune > name:=Porsangin komuuni > name:si=Porsanggu gielda > > PS: do not know how to get the non-ASCII char in the pict

Re: [OSM-talk] Vector maps for Android

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:54:43 +0530, Parveen Arora wrote: > Yes i am also using this OSMand and almost all the applications mentioned > on the wiki page of osm for android. > Only osmand+ is having the facility to use vector data not the free version > of it and I have also not found any other free

Re: [OSM-talk] Vector maps for Android

(no need to CC me, thanks :)) On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 12:17:25 +0100, Yves wrote: > Actually it is worth to notice that Osmand is free and open-source. Yup, forgot that, it's important to me too :) > Osmand+ is the ' donation' version, and night ly build is also available for > free from google-cod

Re: [OSM-talk] Vector maps for Android

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:54:14 +0530, Parveen Arora wrote: > Please let me know some good application to use vector data of osm on > android phone becase tiles needs a lot of bandwidth to access the maps > easily. > > I have tried many applications but not found any satisfactory applocation > till

Re: [OSM-talk] stat pr0n

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:12:13 +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote: > I was thinking it would be nice to have a OSM user stat pr0n page / web app. There's OSMstats running over the Italy dump: http://osmstats.hanskalabs.net (not quite the kind of stats you asked for though) -- . ''`. Debian de

Re: [OSM-talk] Coastline updates

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:35:41 -, David Groom wrote: > David > > the way you refer to was last edited on 1 Feb 2011, [..] You probably haven't read my whole message :) The last changes are just added nodes, there is no change in the shape of the coastline. The last changes in shape happened in

Re: [OSM-talk] Coastline updates

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:39:46 -, David Groom wrote: > > I have edited coastlines in Cornwall last summer and they are still not > > updated on the main map. (Easy to see because the border and coastline > > share the same location in the data but show up differently on the map.) > > Can you ga

Re: [OSM-talk] Why isn't any XAPI server available ?

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:51:59 +0100, Vladimir Vyskocil wrote: > It seems there is no XAPI server available for a long time, what's going on ? > Is this service deprecated ? I think XAPI is very usefull for quick extract > using rules, it's a shame we can't do this anymore... If you don't need "liv

Re: [OSM-talk] Non-map-based OSM editor

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:12:34 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:58 AM, David Paleino wrote: > > It worked quite well, however I haven't used it since long :) (I still have > > a couple of users though). > > If there's enough interest, I mig

Re: [OSM-talk] Non-map-based OSM editor

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 09:45:53 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: > Hi all, > I wonder if anyone has ever made an OSM editor which is not > map-based, for just editing tags on objects. I have, but never released it. I also made a web version of it. However, it's not published anywhere (anymore). One of

Re: [OSM-talk] WebGL

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:18:56 +, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > [..] > The code however is open source so can be installed on any server. Where is the code hosted? :) I can't see any pointer in the page you linked. Thank you, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPalein

Re: [OSM-talk] Massive import of airports

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:37:10 -0500, Blake Crosby wrote: > On 17/12/2010 10:57 AM, David Paleino wrote: > > I'd say also "near", not only "inside", if you can :-) > > My first round of deletions have completed (changeset 6688755). > > [..] > >

Re: [OSM-talk] Massive import of airports

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:31:41 -0500, Blake Crosby wrote: > The general consensus with other users who have e-mailed me directly/on > this list is that I should revert the changes for which a node appears > INSIDE an area defined as as helipad/aerodrome. I'd say also "near", not only "inside", if

Re: [OSM-talk] Massive import of airports

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:28:26 -0500, Blake Crosby wrote: > Hello, > > I'm responsible for the massive import of airports yesterday. First of > all, I would like to apologize for its outcome. Thanks for talking here :) > [..] > > As you can see there was a flaw. Not all airports in OSM have nod

Re: [OSM-talk] Massive import of airports

Gert, On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:08:49 +0100, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: > OSM is an open system. > > Anyone can contribute as he likes. You're wrong. Anyone can contribute correct (at most of the user capabilities) non-duplicate data. Data failing to meet this criteria MU

[OSM-talk] Massive import of airports

Hello people, today I've stumbled upon changeset 6682943 [0] in my area, and, digging further, I found its companions listed in [1]. While I believe this is valuable information, I'm quite puzzled by the import. In particular, it added nodes also to already well-mapped airports, with missing infor

Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 06:10:18 + (UTC), Ed Avis wrote: > John Smith gmail.com> writes: > > >>and uphill/downhill for slopes (based on the layer of the endpoints). > > > >Layer has nothing to do with elevation, it only indicates which road > >goes over the other road there may not be any slope

Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:09:11 +0100, Richard Mann wrote: > [..] But tag-for-lower is better. And I still haven't read why you think this is better, apart from rendering issues. As Andy said, the burden of demonstrating the goodness of a change is up to who wants to make that change. -- . ''`.

Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:35:46 +1000, John Smith wrote: > On 23 June 2010 21:29, Tom Hughes wrote: > >> I'm not going to start an edit-war, I'd prefer someone with the proper > >> rights to revert that edit. Then we can start discussing the matter, and > >> file bugs where needed. > > > > What are

Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:56:29 +0100, Andy Allan wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:08 PM, David Paleino wrote: > > Hello people, > > does someone know the reasoning behind: > > > >  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highw

Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:27:27 -0400, Anthony wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:08 PM, David Paleino wrote: > > > Hello people, > > does someone know the reasoning behind: > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:hi

[OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!

Hello people, does someone know the reasoning behind: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highway&diff=490719&oldid=485601 ? It changed the meaning of almost all highway=*_link present in our database, and the comment given doesn't explain the reason. With th

[OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!

Hello people, does someone know the reasoning behind: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highway&diff=490719&oldid=485601 ? It changed the meaning of almost all highway=*_link present in our database, and the comment given doesn't explain the reason. With th

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?

On Monday 22 February 2010 23:26:52, John Smith wrote: > On 23 February 2010 08:05, David Paleino wrote: > > I remember someone complaining with me that routers not supporting > > highway=* + area=yes in the same relation with a "normal" highway=*, > > might get

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?

Roy Wallace wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Carsten Gerlach wrote: >> >> Yes, that's right, have a look at http://osm.org/go/0MBdEXMHO- for example. > > That looks great, and so simple... highway=* for the way, AND > highway=* + area=yes for the area. I already used it a while ago, in

Re: [OSM-talk] Public notary (Map feature POI proposal)

John Smith wrote: > 2010/1/6 Serge Wroclawski : >> Yet the same English word "notary". > > It gets even more fun in Australia, we have JPs (Justice of the Peace) > to stamp/witness documents being signed, but in the US a JP is > something like a judge. In Italy JPs are "something like a judge", a

Re: [OSM-talk] Using osmosis with --bounding-polygon

Simone Cortesi wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 12:47, David Paleino wrote: > >> I'm trying to create small dumps following some administrative borders. >> For example, starting from the Italy planet, I'd like to create dumps of >> regions and

[OSM-talk] Using osmosis with --bounding-polygon

Hello people, I would've sent this to osmosis-talk@, but we only have osmosis-dev@ there :) -- sorry if this might be slightly OT here. I'm trying to create small dumps following some administrative borders. For example, starting from the Italy planet, I'd like to create dumps of regions and pr

Re: [OSM-talk] Damage

Chris Hill wrote: > I have found some edits by LenoXx > which were damaging. They > look like random changes by someone who didn't realise they were > actually changing the data. I have corrected the one that I know well > enough to change - basically r

Re: [OSM-talk] How *NOT* to map

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/9/29 Morten Kjeldgaard : >> I zoomed out and noticed that the national border along the Mediterranean >> coast of Sicily and the rest of Italy and also France look really bad. Is >> there a reason why the border isn't off the coast like it is most places, >> e.g.

Re: [OSM-talk] How *NOT* to map

Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: >>David Paleino wrote: >> >>> http://osm.org/go/xZaERTJSm-- >> >>Ah, I forgot also this one: >> >>http://osm.org/go/xZYvzIcHP-- >> >>NOT THE WAY TO DO IT! > > There isn't a lot of poin

[OSM-talk] National boundary vs. territorial waters (was: Re: How *NOT* to map)

Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > I zoomed out and noticed that the national border along the Mediterranean > coast of Sicily and the rest of Italy and also France look really bad. I suppose because we imported the national borders from Italian ISTAT (a national statistics institute) -- see: "source: B

Re: [OSM-talk] How *NOT* to map

David Paleino wrote: > http://osm.org/go/xZaERTJSm-- Ah, I forgot also this one: http://osm.org/go/xZYvzIcHP-- NOT THE WAY TO DO IT! /me will need some time to fix the whole city :( -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer

[OSM-talk] How *NOT* to map

http://osm.org/go/xZaERTJSm-- Please, don't. David (getting mad at how ridiculously is Palermo (Italy) mapped.) -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page

Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag dead-ends and how to distinguish them from incomplete ways

k...@vielevisels wrote: > Hi, > many people tag ways, which are incomplete and show just the beginning, > with the note (or FIXME) = stub. In the wiki, the tag noexit=no is > intended for this. I think it would be helpful have one way to tag this > and to render both (dead-ends and incomplete ways

Re: [OSM-talk] Evolution of a map

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:19:21 +0300, Habib Habib wrote: > Hi guys, > > Is there a tool which shows the evolution of a region in time (i.e. show how > the number of ways, points changed and increased in a period of time), as an > animated slide, or as a series of map tiles each taken at a different

Re: [OSM-talk] Software Freedom Day

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 19:08:04 +1000, Liz wrote: > On Sat, 5 Sep 2009, David Paleino wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 17:59:59 +1000, Liz wrote: > > > SFD is using a well known proprietary map on their web site. > > > Is there anything in this which OSM or one of its derivat

Re: [OSM-talk] Software Freedom Day

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 17:59:59 +1000, Liz wrote: > SFD is using a well known proprietary map on their web site. > Is there anything in this which OSM or one of its derivatives can't do > already? > > http://cgi.softwarefreedomday.org/2009/map.shtml > > If we can duplicate these functions, then I'd

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

People, please *don't* CC me. I'm subscribed to the list. On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:02:30 +0200, Pieren wrote: > Tagging a whole way just because you have to stop at the end is a deep > modeling mistake. Please, explain why. > There is no similarity between the oneway which applies to the way > wi

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:16:34 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:58 AM, David Paleino wrote: > > > > Well, they must IMHO. The wiki explains the ontology of the tags we're > > using, and the wiki is the main regulamentation for tags. Otherwise we go &

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:54:00 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote: > So IMHO David's proposal is a good way to avoid the use of a relation > - if that is what people want. I personally don't mind relations as > they're more explicit and not dependent on way direction. I don't mind relations either, I use lot

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:32:46 +0200, Renaud MICHEL wrote: > Le lundi 24 août 2009 à 15:25, Lester Caine a écrit : > > Adding an extra node does make sense, but probably needs a 'relation' to > > the intersection as well? In any case the direction through this new > > node is the critical piece of i

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging continuous flow intersections

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:42:53 -0400, Richard Weait wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:06 PM, David Paleino wrote: > > There's no physical barrier, and the lanes are divided by continuous lines > > -- that would be a no-changing-lanes restriction, but I'd still be >

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging continuous flow intersections

(I suppose your reply was meant to t...@? If not, sorry for posting it) On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:32:06 +0100, Matt Williams wrote: > 2009/8/24 David Paleino : > > On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:11:59 -0500, David Lynch wrote: > > > >> I suspect that I'd end up creating a se

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:00:14 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM, David Paleino wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:53:53 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, David Paleino wrote: > >> > Hello, > &

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging continuous flow intersections

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:11:59 -0500, David Lynch wrote: > I suspect that I'd end up creating a set of ways that look something > like this, plus a whole bunch of oneway tags and turn restrictions: > > http://dl1050.dyndns.org:/images/osm/cfi.png Thanks for the suggestion -- but I'd avoid draw

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:53:53 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, David Paleino wrote: > > Hello, > > I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in > > favour of using stop=yes/both/-1. > > First impression: t

[OSM-talk] Tagging continuous flow intersections

Hello, I'm having some issues with the tagging of the so-called CFI -- continuous flow intersections. These are junctions, often (if not always!) regulated by traffic signals, where vehicles in a particular lane can freely go into one specified direction, disregarding the indication of the traffic

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:48:58 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote: > On 23/08/2009 17:15, David Paleino wrote: > > On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:58:36 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote: > > > >> Why not place the stop sign node where the stop line / stop sign is > >> physically located?

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:58:36 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote: > On 23/08/2009 15:45, David Paleino wrote: > > On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:27:42 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote: > > > >> David Paleino wrote: > >> > >>> I'd like to start discus

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:17:02 +0200, Konrad Skeri wrote: > > [...] > > This is obviously wrong. Yes, we could link those stops with the junction > > in a relation -- but adopting a proper Key:stop stop seems *much* cleaner > > to me. [...] > > Yes, the highway=stop is not a good solution. However,

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:27:42 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote: > David Paleino wrote: > > I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in > > favour of using stop=yes/both/-1. > > How about adding forward/backward information to each stop sign node

Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:46:35 +0200, Pieren wrote: > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:48 PM, David Paleino wrote: > > The first usage is putting highway=stop in the node where ways intersect: > > this is not right, since that intersection represents (more-or-less) the > > center

[OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

Hello, I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in favour of using stop=yes/both/-1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stop Unfortunately, when the page was first created, it was mistakenly put directly under the root namespace, instead of Proposed_features/.

Re: [OSM-talk] Removing gps-tracks

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:17:10 +0200, Esben Damgaard wrote: > David Paleino skrev: > > On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:43:26 +0200, Esben Damgaard wrote: > > > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but now there aren't any ways of deleting > >> gps-tracks committed to O

Re: [OSM-talk] Removing gps-tracks

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:43:26 +0200, Esben Damgaard wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but now there aren't any ways of deleting > gps-tracks committed to OSM, right? You can remove your own tracks. Contact who uploaded those tracks, and ask them to remove the faulty ones :) David -- . ''`. De

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed features: historic center

Ciao Martin, no need to CC me, thank you :) On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:40:55 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/6/14 David Paleino : > > [..] > > > > I agree that moving it from "landuse=historic_center" to something not > > involving history is a good thin

[OSM-talk] Proposed features: historic center

Hello, I'd like to retrigger discussion about a Proposed feature, namely landuse=something (you'll understand reading the two proposals) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/centre_zone http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Historic_center What's your opinion on

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC: amenity=mortuary (and amenity=emergency_room)

On Thu, 14 May 2009 12:48:48 +0100, Ken Guest wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:39 PM, David Paleino wrote: > > > However, I'd really stick to "amenity": those are meant as "facilities" > > (maybe "facility=" would be better? But then we wo

Re: [OSM-talk] R: RFC: amenity=mortuary (and amenity=emergency_room)

On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:16:59 +0200, Fabrizio Carrai wrote: > I agree for the "morgue" term. Well, ok. I'm not particularly in favour of one version over the other ;) > I would say something to key "amenity" an why I would prefer the use of the > key "landuse" Well, "landuse"?!.. it's not "land"

[OSM-talk] RFC: amenity=mortuary (and amenity=emergency_room)

Hello, I was mapping an hospital, and encountered two mortuaries/morgues. So I've tagged them amenity=mortuary, building=yes, and proposed the new tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Amenity:mortuary Any comment is highly appreciated, before I move it to vote :) Also, ins