Re: [OSM-talk] Actually using OpenStreetMap and the usability of the current maps

spaetz schrieb: > There is always population=20, etc which can help you to find the > biggest ones. And what prevents us from adding capital=yes to those > cities? I don't think that the tagging is insufficient today. OK > there might be a more subjective "important" city tag, and there are > p

Re: [OSM-talk] osmarenderer issues

Robert Vollmert schrieb: > I believe angles >90 degrees are being rounded, which seems wrong for > most areas at least. Maybe start rounding at 150 degrees, if at all? > Probably even for roads, you'd put enough nodes in a bend to have each > angle above, say, 120 degrees. > > Unfortunately,

Re: [OSM-talk] WTF ! (about gps traces)

Karl Newman schrieb: > Or maybe the tracks need a moderation/voting system. If the tracks are voted > down below a certain threshold, they won't be downloaded? Would need some > careful thought to prevent malicious voting down of good tracks, though. > Even if the editors had a way to hide certain

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging climbing routes and scrambles

Andy Robinson (blackadder) schrieb: > For a climbing route it's normally the distance of assent that is of > interest is it not and I guess for most traditional climbing routes this is > known? Much easier to state the length of the route than the top and bottom > elevations? Accepted that you migh

Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant

Sebastian Spaeth schrieb: > You do know that sometimes people need to download all entities of a > relation when they download an area with a single node in it? I wouldn't > want to download all elements of "earth" when I download my > neighbourhood block. :-) How do you handle this problem? Well,

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

Frederik Ramm schrieb: > I've been critcised for not suggesting an alternative. So here's my > suggestion: > > * [...] Okay, slowly I realize that I took all this for granted while you didn't. While I'm not yet certain wether you seriously propose such a task force it's no good idea I believe.

Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant

Lester Caine schrieb: > Until there is some UNIQUE way of tagging high level relationships > consistently, then there seems little point trying to fix fine detail at the > lower level. It brings back up the simple problem of producing a unique list > of objects in the data. How DO we currently i

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

Frederik Ramm schrieb: > But honestly, how can you > ever believe that a process run by less than 0.1% of participants in > the project can have any authority? I can't remember that ULFL ever claimed that. I also can't remember that anyone in this discussion has given any reason or example w

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM poll

SteveC schrieb: > See the poll at the bottom right hand corner, and vote OSM: > > http://www.directionsmag.com/ I think those last three words were redundant ;-) (at least when adressing this list) WTH would anyone want to contribute to NavTeq & Co. Maybe I should give that some consideration a

Re: [OSM-talk] Name finder and home page search working again

Colin Marquardt schrieb: > Since we have people's attention: please everybody extend > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Name_finder:Abbreviations That brought up another question to my mind, which isn't related to the name finder in particular: Is there any agreement on how to tag abreviate

Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle lanes

Bjørn Bürger schrieb: > Yes, but this is also the reality for cyclists. Everything involving > cycleways is actually a mess, unfortunately. That is, because a > bicycle is (mostly) not seen as an equal means of transportation. Being considered a fanatical biker by my friends as well I share that b

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey: Bad Map Rendering

Frederik Ramm schrieb: > I'd be happy to hear from you about such "areas of bad rendering", > whether they are bugs in there renderer(s) or just things that are > ugly for some reason. I'm sure you are alluding to the redundant captions of ways that are split up for bridges or of dual carriageways

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMXapi

hi, I also experienced this problem and was well surprised that the weekly dump [1] of my town has increased by factor four. After checking the file in JOSM I feel that XAPI just does not do as descriped for the main API. The ways and nodes I got are spread all over Europe. I even failed to figure

Re: [OSM-talk] Tag proposal/approval system is too heavyweight

Frederik Ramm schrieb: > There may be a misunderstanding on my part. I always thought that those > who vote, by using un-qualified terms like "approved" and "not > approved", somehow feel that their decisions have an authority that in > the end applies to everone's mapping work, including mine. If

Re: [OSM-talk] Tag proposal/approval system is too heavyweight

Frederik Ramm schrieb: > Decisions have to be made every day. But they can be re-decided > tomorrow if the need arises. As long as nobody thinks that something > that has been voted upon by 20 out of 20,000 project members is > somehow above being re-decided tomorrow, that's ok I guess. That

Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering power lines: black is beauty

Tom Chance schrieb: > I don't think they should even be visible in urban areas like this on our > main street map, what use are they? I can see how they would be useful for > a walking map in sparse rural areas, but otherwise they're: > > a) Not obvious (what other street map has power lines on it

Re: [OSM-talk] area_with_holes as alternative to multipolygon relation

Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It's feature X that's too weakly defined. The question you're really >> asking here is what is meant by forest? I think most people are >> interpreting it as an area of land covered by tr

Re: [OSM-talk] area_with_holes as alternative to multipolygon relation

Robert Vollmert schrieb: > On Mar 3, 2008, at 22:29, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: >> Hmm, I thought you could use the inner natural=water as the boundary >> of the forest? Does this not work? > > I think not. I'm pretty sure for osmarender, but may not have had > enough patience to test out the

Re: [OSM-talk] Parking symbols: YUCK!

Gervase Markham schrieb: > Why wait so long to define best practice? We're just storing up work for > ourselves later. When you map an area, it's just as much effort to use > system A as system B; but if 50% of mappers are using system A and 50% > are using system B, then you've just created a l

[OSM-talk] Good practice [was: Parking symbols: YUCK!]

Lester Caine wrote: > And a simple definition of good practice will remove the need for any > discussion when we start getting similar conflicts with church icons, or any > other POI. Voilà: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Good_practice I quickly wrote those up. Anybody is invited to co

Re: [OSM-talk] Parking symbols: YUCK!

J.D. Schmidt schrieb: >> True. >> I don't understand why it's so fashionable on this list to play down the >> importance of "Map features". Without that page all those "80GB of >> cryptic XML would be pretty useless. > > Thats again because you look at the DB and the usage of the data > contained

Re: [OSM-talk] Parking symbols: YUCK!

J.D. Schmidt schrieb: >> TAGGING as laid out in the wiki are all rules for content but as yet they do >> not provide a consistent USABLE base once one moves away from the basic road >> stuff. And even the base road stuff people are trying to change the rules! > > Correction: Tagging as laid out

Re: [OSM-talk] Parking symbols: YUCK!

graham schrieb: > In my case I have mapped many private parking areas (inside schools, > industrial estates, or explicitly marked 'private') as 'parking'. I > really don't want a parking sign to show on them as it makes them look > available to the public, rather than just a use of land. I reali

Re: [OSM-talk] Parking symbols: YUCK!

David Earl schrieb: > On 23/02/2008 21:29, Andy Robinson wrote: >> If I create a parking area I really don't want to have to place a node >> as well so it would be better if the renderer's were clever and >> ignored any node thats within the area where it has the same tags (eg >> parking / name).

Re: [OSM-talk] Parking symbols: YUCK!

David Earl schrieb: > Unfortunately removing the related node isn't going to work, because > Mapnik won't then render parking symbols. And it is a lot of work to do > that. At least in my part of the world Mapnik does that for quite some time now. Osmarender only measured up. But somehow Mapnik

Re: [OSM-talk] Slippy map - clickable POI

Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb: >> Thing is if you look at the code(line 70+) you'll see I'm manually entering >> in the lat/lon box where each symbol appears. Not ideal, especially when the >> POI are in the map data. > > You need something on the server to get the POI data on the fly as in: > h

Re: [OSM-talk] unpaved residential

Robin Paulson schrieb: > On 11/02/2008, Alex S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Lukasz Stelmach wrote: >>> 1. why there is (i'll answer it in a moment) unsurfaced highway while in >>> practice every highway can have surface=unpaved? >> >> Highway=unsurfaced is old. Surface=unpaved is much more recen

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-talk-nl] Recent Edits

Sven Grüner schrieb: > Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb: >> I think we have a pretty good analogy here: we could ask people to >> submit bugs by committing comments to the relevent parts of SVN. We >> don't for pretty much the same reasons we don't want notes in t

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-talk-nl] Recent Edits

Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb: > I think we have a pretty good analogy here: we could ask people to > submit bugs by committing comments to the relevent parts of SVN. We > don't for pretty much the same reasons we don't want notes in the DB > as nodes... A seperate system like Trac is far more app

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping canals

Gervase Markham schrieb: > 2) Making renderers which need to understand all possible units anyone > might use, and how to convert them into the units they want to render on > the map (which may or may not be the units encoded). > 50kph -> 31.07mph -> "30mph" > 45mph -> 45mph -> "45mph" > 73000fur

Re: [OSM-talk] Render icons for parking areas

Knut Arne Bjørndal schrieb: > Why not go for the automated approach? If a shape proves to be hard to > handle for the renderer we can tune the algorithm and make it better > for all areas at once, instead of individual contributors having to > manually insert nodes which are nothing more than rende

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping canals

Sven Grüner schrieb: > Tag them seperately! Depending on their condition and usage it could be > footway, bridleway, track or even residential. The tracktype-tag might > not be the best way to tag quality ...but is still widely used. (I mea

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping canals

Hi Gervase, first of all: OSM evolves (as steve is saying). Take on step after the other and apply everything you've learned from the previous one to the next. So it's not smart to do everything in the first step because then there's nothing left to make better for the next, if you catch my drift.

Re: [OSM-talk] CLC2000

Lukasz Stelmach schrieb: > Are these > http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/dataservice/termsofuse.asp > terms of use acceptable for OSM so we could import those data? I don't get the grips to that license. But the data for Germany has it's own license, containing the following sentences: "A transfer

[OSM-talk] voting open for url= and

Already trying to avoid unneccesary mails I herewith inform you about open voting for two tags: Links to websites (url=) Official phonenumbers (phone=)

Re: [OSM-talk] voting ended? - population

Martin Trautmann schrieb: > Thus I feel it is not possible to add a pouplation tag directly to a > place. Apart from node, way and area this would require yet another data > primitive, such as data Why not KISS (keep it stupid simple)? Like David I've been using this on dozens of places just by