Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:28:54 +0200
> Von: Martin Koppenhoefer
> An: "Marc Schütz"
> CC: MP , talk@openstreetmap.org
> Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
> 2009/10/5 "Marc Schütz" :
&
> > For a road, we can either choose to map it as a linear object (this is
> the common case), or we can map its geometry more exactly by using an area.
> In both cases, however, the object in our database represents the entire
> road (i.e. not only the middle line). Because in reality, there is n
> I'm seeking advice as to best practice in the following type of situation:
>
> As an increasingly common example, now that people are getting around to
> mapping areas such as leisure=, natural= and landuse= ...
>
> Consider the case of landuse=farm on one side of a highway (say a
> secondary
> I am sending a quick message to mention that the French import of Corine
> has started. We created an user for the occasion:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/CLCF06
>
> ...
Shouldn't the attribution (source) go into the changeset? I don't know what the
current consensus about this is. AF
> > Since they're buildings wouldn't using a building=* tag be more
> > accurate in describing them?
>
> Sure, they're buildings - but that just means a building tag should be
> used *in addition to* tags giving more details.
Not necessarily. If you only want to express the building type,
buildi
> highway=cycleway
> foot=yes
> cycleway=separated (not a Map Features value)
>
> I acknowledge a personal bias towards mapping for cyclists, others will
> disagree. My rationale is: As a cyclist, I am looking for cycleways on the
> map. As a pedestrian, I'd like to know if I can got for a nice qu
> > This looks also very nice:
> >
> http://www.informationfreeway.org/index.php?lat=37.5760761&lon=126.97864158&zoom=13&layers=BF000F
>
> Looks like a font size issue in the renderer.
No, the problem is the hundreds of place=town. Most of these should probably
suburbs.
Besides that, there
> > This brings up an interesting question, when you're "finding the
> > nearest junction" to use for stop key on a node, what counts as a
> > junction? It's going to be a node which belongs to the current way and
> > at least one other way satisfying certain conditions, but what are
> > those cond
> Dieter and any other supporter of the concept is free to start a proposal
> to change the most important tag of all. But please stay in the common
> conventions for such an important change and give *all* users the chance to
> vote, and do not make changes on the wiki because of an agreement of f
> > Still I think a case could be made for country names to be different:
> most of them are so prominent that I would say they exist in most languages,
> even if they are identical to the native names.
> >
> > For example, the German names for most European countries are different
> from their na
> But this implicates that if there is no different name, no name:xx-tag
> should be set (even if it's not *bad* to have one, its also not
> *necessary*). Do you agree with that, Marc?
I was replying in a hurry, and I see now that it is not as easy as I thought it
to be. I agree that most objec
> > The core issue here (that I believe we agree on) is that if tags have
> > inconsistent implications, they must be made explicit.
>
> Absolutely true: explicit in the wiki ;-)
I don't think the wiki is a good place for that. Keep in mind that these
defaults would be nice to have in a machine-
> You seem to be implying that increasing the amount of data in OSM is a
> bad thing???
Increasing the amount of _implicit_ data surely is. There are good reasons, why
putting implicit data into databases is usually avoided.
>
> Of course, llama access restrictions probably aren't a top priorit
> > What is the opinion for translations that are the same in other
> languages? For
> > instance: Andorra is Andorra in a lot of languages. Do you add a
> translation
> > even though the translation is the same as the original name?
> >
> > Maarten
>
> No, just mark it as ok. If there's an exi
> It's not about allowing cycling(like official fooways that _also_
> allow bicycles as "guests"), it's about official designation. This
> makes, at least in Germany, a big (legal) difference...
> So you could tag a footway which also allows bicycles as
> highway=footway,bicycle=yes(assuming "footw
Am Samstag 08 August 2009 14:42:43 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> An example from the result of the current tidy-points-function here:
> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/attachment/ticket/2148/090808_potlatch_tidy-p
>oints_.png
>
In this case it looks more like an error of the tidy-function, or at le
> > no, it's not, it's about relative order in the db.
>
> Fair enough. In other words, at any node which is a junction of way
> segments with different layers (whether the segments are part of the
> same way or different ways), the physical implication is that the
> slope of the way changes in the
> > But that's the point! We need a way of modelling more
> > complex cases anyway, so why do you want to special case
> > school zones?
>
> School zones are a special case because they don't operate all year round,
> and you need to store school terms in addition so you can calculate if the
> sch
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 02:55:05 + (GMT)
> Von: John Smith
> An: m...@koppenhoefer.com, Roy Wallace
> CC: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] restriction=school_zone (second email)
>
> --- On Thu, 6/8/09, Roy Wallace wrote:
>
> > m
> > problem if you insist on not putting values in the key? How
> > would you
> > say maxspeed is 40 between 7am-9am, 60 between 4pm-7pm, and
> > 80
> > otherwise?
>
> It's going to get very messy very quickly if you are trying to shoe horn
> general time limits in with school zones
But that's th
> On Friday 31 July 2009 17:25:19 Richard Mann wrote:
> > I saw some strange rendering effects when a side road was straight onto
> a
> > bridge. The bridge was layer=1, so the side road was rendered on top of
> the
> > main road. That's why all the ways approaching a junction should be on
> the
>
Am Sonntag 02 August 2009 11:49:11 schrieb Blaž Lorger:
> On Sunday 02 August 2009 10:59:08 John Smith wrote:
> > --- On Sun, 2/8/09, Blaž Lorger wrote:
> > > I also propose extending instructions for road
> > > classification to use width tag
> >
> > I agree with everything else you wrote except
> > The building called "Angewandte Informatik" is a multipolygon, which has
> been moved one and a half weeks ago. Both the old and the new shape are
> rendered now, and the hole is filled too.
> >
> > I know that there have been problems with multipolygons and diffs. Are
> they supposed to be fix
> Wrong, osm2pgsql does process relations properly. If they aren't then
> Jon Burgess is happy to take a look to see if he can fix the problem
> with osm2pgsql. Second there has been no planet reload for a few weeks
> now.
There's definitely something wrong here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org
> to make my question more precise, please have a look at this tunnel that
> crosses a railway track (the railway is a subway that runs at ground
> level):
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=48.1325961&lon=16.3109488&zoom=19&way=29205957
>
> The tunnel tag implies layer=-1
No, it doesn't
> >> this might be a logical topic: we are mapping the center of the road.
> >> The tunnel can not end at the center of the crossing road, because
> >> this road itself is not a tunnel. (you will have at least half the
> >> width of the crossing road untunneled).
> >
> > No, IMO we're mapping the e
> > I want to talk about this page on the wiki describing how to map tunnels
> > correctly:
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tunnel#How_to_Map
> >
> > Especially the last paragraph causes headaches to me:
> > "If the tunnel ends in a junction you'll need a small un-tunneled way
> > between th
> Regarding the duplicates - it must be because the bulk upload using
> Balrogg's upload.py sometimes fails part way through because the server
> closes the connection. But if it doesn't appear in the list of edits
> under my name then I assumed that no data was stored. The changeset
> shouldn'
No real opinion on the question whether to use the scientific names or not, but
if you do, please do _not_ use name:la for that purpose, because this would be
how the ancient romans (or the speakers of Modern Latin) call the animals.
Regards, Marc
--
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome
Am Freitag 12 Juni 2009 17:28:55 schrieb Rolf Bode-Meyer:
> is there any known way to give a attach cutting or embankment to a way
> only on one side?
> Besides from highways having a batter on only one side, my main need for
> it would be wide features like a canal running on a dam including ways
> I think the definitions really don't belong in the the data -- perhaps
> if you want to see them, your browser should look them up in some
> table rather than load from the data.
+1
It should be sufficient to keep the canvec:UUID, source and attribution tags,
and maybe a few of the other canve
Am Samstag 13 Juni 2009 06:09:32 schrieb Mikel Maron:
> Anyone working on accessibility projects with OpenStreetMap?
> Please get in touch, would like to talk more.
Maybe you could contact the users in this category:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:WheelchairRoutingContributor
AFAIK,
> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway.
These streets are completely analogous to highway=pedestrian, just for
bicycles. If pedestrian streets deserve their own highway type, these do too.
Regards, Marc
--
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Je
> > And I guess it should be rather highway=service than
> > highway=residental. That changes rendering a bit too (it is narrower
> > in Mapnik IIRC).
>
> What was that again with the "don't tag for the renderer" meme? :-)
>
> It's clearly a public road so you shouldn't use highway=service here.
> I agree that's nothing political, and there is some information missing.
> You
> propose to add this information in the following way:
>name=Bergstrasse
>name:en=Mountain Road
>local_language_used_in_name_tags=de
>
> I think it complicates things without a goog reason. I solve it as
Right now, ways highway=footway or highway=path,foot=designated where riding a
bicycle is allowed with bicycle={yes,designated} are rendered as normal
footways, so there is no way to see that they are open for bikes.
Is there a chance this could be shown on Mapnik, or at least on the cyclemap?
> The answer to your first question is "Yes", but it is better to add
> them to the queue.
Why is that? Given your stylesheets etc. are up to date, there is no difference
between queuing them and wait for someone else to render them, and doing it
yourself.
--
Aufgepasst: Sind Ihre Daten beim O
> Every time I change something in my local neighborhood, I have to wait
> an unknown period of time before it appears in the Osmarender layer.
> This is quite annoying.
>
> I would gladly render the changes I've just made, on my computer for
> the osmarender layer, before I finish with collected
(Forwarding to list)
-- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --
Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk] How to integrate a roundabout into a relation
Datum: Samstag 31 Januar 2009
Von: Lester Caine
An: Marc Schütz
Marc Schütz wrote:
> Am Samstag 31 Januar 2009 10:32:04 schrieb Peter Vitt:
>&
Am Samstag 31 Januar 2009 10:32:04 schrieb Peter Vitt:
> Hello List,
>
> On talk-de we had a discussion about relations, especially routes, and
> roundabouts the other day.
>
> The topic was: How to integrate a roundabout into a relation.
>
> For now we have three different approaches:
> 1) Leave t
(Forwarding to list)
Am Friday 23 January 2009 17:28:17 schrieben Sie:
> As I understood the text of the wiki when I first started, layer 0 is
> the general level of the terrain, so levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are above
> the ground on successively higher bridges, and -1, -2, -3, -4, and -5
> in successi
> > if the way is "layer=0" and the bridge is "layer=1" there is a ramp.
>
> A bridge crossing any other way should be always tagged with layer=1 (or
> higher). In fact, the renderers could easily take "layer=1" as a default
> for bridges, as they are usually on top of something.
>
> > if the way
> After a recent spate of OSM activity, especially with regards to
> rendering and so on, I've put together a bookmarklet designed to help
> visualize changes to OSM data in Mapnik more rapidly.
>
> http://labs.metacarta.com/osm/up-to-date/
>
> "Using osmosis, osm2pgsql, and Mapnik, a bookmarkl
> >> The solution is either to move splitting ways entirely to the server
> (so,
> >> although the user hits 'split', the way isn't actually split until the
> >> server returns a message), or to fix the server. I'd be interested to
> know
> >> _why_ the server runs so slowly at certain times.
> >
>
> The solution is either to move splitting ways entirely to the server (so,
> although the user hits 'split', the way isn't actually split until the
> server returns a message), or to fix the server. I'd be interested to know
> _why_ the server runs so slowly at certain times.
... or by fixing Pot
> I notice that abandoned railways are now being rendered on Mapnik. I'm
> not sure that this is a good idea. Fairly near to me there are a few
> abandoned railway that have been made into footpaths or cycle paths and
> they are tagged as such and render as such.
These should not be tagged
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 1:11 PM, "Marc Schütz" wrote:
> >> Doesn't layer=-1 mean that something should be 'below' the landuse
> >> polygons when rendering? So if you have a river at level=-1 on a
> >> landuse=farm, then you will never see
> Doesn't layer=-1 mean that something should be 'below' the landuse
> polygons when rendering? So if you have a river at level=-1 on a
> landuse=farm, then you will never see the river because it's under the
> (default layer=0) ground.
>
No, landuse isn't a physical feature, but a logical one.
> I also tag many waterways around here as layer=-1, because that's what
> they
> are... thank god they aren't layer=0 or the place would be under water!
I know that many people assume that layer=0 means ground level, but this
assumption is unnecessary. Indeed, the wiki (AFAICS) doesn't state it
Am Mittwoch 26 November 2008 17:56:15 schrieb Steffen Vogel:
> As a user and mapper of OpenStreetMap, I often use OpenStreetBugs.
> Unfortunatly this project is quity poor in features like:
> - email notification
> - duplicate handling
> - user handling
> - attachements (pictures, links, etc...)
>
But two of that way's nodes have been edited recently:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/109534/history
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/109536/history
The edit was done by FilipeOliveira with Merkaartor on Nov 24 14:51:32.
Regards, Marc
Original-Nachricht
> Dat
I noticed two problems in today's Mapnik rendering:
1. highway areas are drawn above captions:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.8961&lon=10.8878&zoom=14&layers=B000FTF
2. The oceans around Europe have dried out:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.8&lon=4.5&zoom=3&layers=B000FTF
Regards, Ma
Am Montag 10 November 2008 17:44:00 schrieb Shaun McDonald:
> On 10 Nov 2008, at 16:31, sylvain letuffe wrote:
> >> There are lots of attempts of making wikipedia offline, non of them
> >> are simple solution, and they almost never have images.
> >
> > And what about just doing a basic and simple
> Gerald A wrote:
> > Renderers should be following the project. If the community decides one
> > tag over the other, or both, or even neither, the renders will catch up
> > eventually.
>
> But the community has decided with a vote of 1:10 to use highway=barrier
> rather than barrier=gate.
It has
> On 07/11/2008 06:48, Joshua Scotton wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I added some streets recently on an industrial estate and tagged them
> > highway=road as I'm not sure what other tag to use.
> >
> > They are roads on a uk industrial estate with the normal white lines in
> > the middle of the road.
>
> > However, houses are not part of the road network, so the house number
> node
> > should not be part of the highway, that would be tagging for the Garmin
> or
> > whatever. The house numbers need to go on the houses (or the object
> > representing them).
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Andy
>
>
> No, t
> [...] By all means keep the proposal and RFC parts, and
> maybe back them up with TagWatch links.
+1
Regards, Marc
--
GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen!
Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Am Mittwoch 08 Oktober 2008 17:59:07 schrieb Doru Julian Bugariu:
> Claudius Henrichs schrieb:
> > With all that discussion about implied onewayness could anyone please
> > elaborate the advantage of tagging just
> >
> > highway=motorway
> >
> > opposed to
> >
> > highway=motorway
> > oneway=yes
>
Am Sonntag 05 Oktober 2008 11:08:39 schrieb David Earl:
> highway will remain what it was - that just says what kind of road it is.
>
> Whoever inveted the traffic_calming tag intends it to marke the actual
> places where the traffic calming measures are, not that the road is is
> some way "traffic
Am Sonntag 05 Oktober 2008 10:36:49 schrieb Tristan Scott:
> I'm been poking round the area of Enfield Road, Norwich, UK and some of the
> roads have speedbumps - I have changed the unclassified tags for
> traffic_calming tags on the highway. Now they're not rendered at all!
>
> So my question is t
> >> Isn't a motorway by definition divided and therefore oneway ?
> >
> > A motorway yes, but not a motorway_link.
> >
> >> My opinion is that motorway and motorway_link must both default to
> >> oneway=true, as the bi-directional varieties are non-existent / very
> rare.
> >
> > Quite the oppo
> Isn't a motorway by definition divided and therefore oneway ?
>
A motorway yes, but not a motorway_link.
> My opinion is that motorway and motorway_link must both default to
> oneway=true, as the bi-directional varieties are non-existent / very rare.
>
Quite the opposite: most motorway_links
> Steve Chilton wrote:
> > Dermot
> >
> > There are two reasons why your "tag combination ought to be able to
> > render correctly as is" statement is not valid.
> > Firstly - as Thomas pointed out - mapnik likes one feature per way.
> > Secondly - landuse=grass is not rendered at the moment (beca
> - another example: the famous "living streets" do not exist in most
> countries, because the definition is strictly related to driving codes. So
> other
> countries will have to adapt the tag, or to decide not to use it (which is
> mostly the case in France), or to create another one.
There are
> The "no segmentation" rule is important because there are renderers
> already which use different colours for an area boundary than for the
> area itself, and such segments will then show up on the maps.
>
> Unsolved problem: How can we create really large areas without having to
> have a 10,000
> How do you call this type of street furniture which prevents pedestrians
> crossing streets at full speed?
>
> http://www.achim-bartoschek.de/fotos/bahn/rp/amiche02.jpg
>
> lot's of them here:
> http://www.achim-bartoschek.de/bahn__draengelgitter.htm
As just answered on talk-de:
http://wiki.op
> Hi,
>
> I will try to contribute to the SVN. Who gives me an account?
>
> I already asked dev and talk-de list... no answer!
>
Sorry I didn't answer earlier; in the wiki you can find information about where
to ask for accounts:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Accounts#SVN_access_.28
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:16 PM, "Marc Schütz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> New styles for place_of_worship have just been added by Steve Chilton:
> >>
> >> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/changeset/9670
> >>
> >> I'm going
> New styles for place_of_worship have just been added by Steve Chilton:
>
> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/changeset/9670
>
> I'm going to check that they look OK and then deploy them.
>
> Jon
Shouldn't the changes have gone into osm-template.xml too?
Regards, Marc
--
GMX startet Short
Am Montag, 28. Juli 2008 20:37 schrieb Karl Newman:
> It's not "a bit more difficult", it's a huge burden. It means you presume
> the data consumer has to be working from a database that contains the
> entire area you're interested in (maybe the planet?).
You can safely assume that a house is almo
horization
Date: Dienstag, 8. Juli 2008 17:01
From: "Javier Sánchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Marc Schütz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There is a proposed extension to the access tag that comes even closer:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/L
> In Protected Areas (like National Parks), there are frequently
> footways where you have to ask for an authorization by the park
> authorities if you want to walk throught. I'm searching the way to tag
> this in the 'access' and 'foot' wiki pages, but I'm not sure of how to
> use them. The neares
> In some places the streets are very short. This makes it difficult to
> show
> the name of the street in full. However, for most street names there
> exist a
> short form. In swedish most names are of the form Foogatan (Foo street) or
> Barvägen (Bar road). These are often shortened to Foog.
> At 09:50 AM 6/13/2008, Sven Geggus wrote:
> >spaetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I use highway=track for paved roads sometime. In Switzerland these
> > > agricultural roads are sometimes of very high quality.
> >
> >Same in Germany
>
> An alternative is to use highway=service, surface=pa
Am Samstag, 24. Mai 2008 23:44 schrieb Shaun McDonald:
> > The proposal is to add the new value 'license' to the 'access' key.
> > Parking lots of this kind would then be tagged with:
> > - amenity=parking
> > - access=license
>
> Personally I'd prefer access=permit, though maybe that's just me
> t
I have now created two proposals:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/wayside_shrine
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/wayside_cross
Regards, Marc
pgpsOSfzzrypD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mail
Thanks for all the comments!
To clarify: the objects in question are usually made of stone, between 1 and 2
meters high, and show scenes from the bible or from the life of saints and
martyrs. They are frequently found in southern Germany and the alps. Some of
them have been built as votive offe
Am Donnerstag, 10. Januar 2008 22:40 schrieb Ulf Lamping:
> Hi!
>
> After - I think - three questions over the last months about
> historic=icon on this list - with no real response - I just removed it
>
> >from the map features page.
>
> If some one comes up with a good explanation what this is we
78 matches
Mail list logo
