On Sun, 27 Sep 2009, Ross Scanlon wrote:
> Using gpsdrive it's possible to add the SRTM (contour data)
yes, I'll try it one day
currently still on the navit experiment :)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/
On 27/09/2009, at 8:06 AM, Jim Croft wrote:
> Given that OSM is a land-based project, the mean high water mark is
> probably might be the best to use.
The water cover page[0] suggests that you use water=tidal;surface=sand
for the area between the high and low water marks (assuming it's a
sand
2009/9/27 Jim Croft :
> I had never really thought of this before, but land traveller and
> mariner have quite different concepts of what it means to reach 'the
> coast'. For the former it is when you get your feet wet, for the
> latter it is when you run into something. And there are places wher
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Mark Pulley wrote:
>
> As everyone has rushed to the wiki to clean it up... not! - I've had a go at
> this page.
Good on ya Mark. I wonder if a look at tagwatch should be used to
further refine the core values, deleting deprecated values from the
page completely
2009/9/28 Mark Pulley :
> As well as gps/GPS being missing, it's interesting that Yahoo is missing
> from the Map Features page.
Yahoo could be listed both as a source and an attributation, but
everyone else lists it as a source so it's a go with the flow sort of
thing.
When we get a local entity
On 25/09/2009, at 6:43 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Mark Pulley
wrote:
The obvious place to look at the wiki
is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source - however on this
page even
"source=survey" is missing.
I'm with Mark - this should be cleaned up, pre
Also I think some bot has removed some of the ABS tags, there seems to
be a lot of ways exactly 500 nodes in length, that are missing abs
tags...
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
2009/9/27 Jim Croft :
> I had never really thought of this before, but land traveller and
> mariner have quite different concepts of what it means to reach 'the
> coast'. For the former it is when you get your feet wet, for the
> latter it is when you run into something. And there are places wher
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 07:36:03 +0930
Jim Croft wrote:
> I had never really thought of this before, but land traveller and
> mariner have quite different concepts of what it means to reach 'the
> coast'. For the former it is when you get your feet wet, for the
> latter it is when you run into somet
I had never really thought of this before, but land traveller and
mariner have quite different concepts of what it means to reach 'the
coast'. For the former it is when you get your feet wet, for the
latter it is when you run into something. And there are places where
there is quite a gap between
Ross Scanlon wrote:
> We should not just automatically change the coastline to the ABS data without
> at least looking at the sat imagery as well.
What exactly will that tell you?
I would expect that you need to find out what data the ABS coastline is
based on. From memory, the offical coastlin
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:35:05 +1000
terryc wrote:
> Ross Scanlon wrote:
>
> > We should not just automatically change the coastline to the ABS data
> > without at least looking at the sat imagery as well.
>
> What exactly will that tell you?
> I would expect that you need to find out what data
2009/9/26 Ross Scanlon :
> We should not just automatically change the coastline to the ABS data without
> at least looking at the sat imagery as well.
Unfortunately hi-res sat imagery is limited...
So we either need to buy imagery or buy/build a UAV blimp although
that would have a lot of logis
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:08:33 +1000
John Smith wrote:
> 2009/9/26 Ross Scanlon :
>
> > My thoughts at the time were that rivers would be good but I was dubious
> > about the coastline as I had seen several where the ABS data just cut
> > straight across the mouth of a bay. Whereas the PGS and/
2009/9/26 Ross Scanlon :
> My thoughts at the time were that rivers would be good but I was dubious
> about the coastline as I had seen several where the ABS data just cut
> straight across the mouth of a bay. Whereas the PGS and/or landsat was more
> accurate.
It's 50/50 sometimes PGS is mor
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:02:50 +1000
John Smith wrote:
> 2009/9/26 Ross Scanlon :
> > I don't think that the ABS boundaries change if the roads change.
>
> It'd be worth investigating, especially if other govt bodies can
> benefit from it and as a result we end up with more data.
>
> > It's probab
2009/9/26 John Smith
>
> Was it Franc?
>
>
Yes I believe so.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
2009/9/26 Ross Scanlon :
> I don't think that the ABS boundaries change if the roads change.
It'd be worth investigating, especially if other govt bodies can
benefit from it and as a result we end up with more data.
> It's probably worth while whoever originally contacted the ABS and check with
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:39:38 +1000
John Smith wrote:
> 2009/9/25 Ross Scanlon :
>
> > There is no guarantee that the ABS boundary still runs along any road.
>
> I wonder if there would be benefit in moving the ABS boundary to
> match, ideally we'd love for the ABS to use us for data in and out,
2009/9/25 Ross Scanlon :
> There is no guarantee that the ABS boundary still runs along any road.
I wonder if there would be benefit in moving the ABS boundary to
match, ideally we'd love for the ABS to use us for data in and out,
not just in
___
T
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:58:14 +1000
John Smith wrote:
> 2009/9/25 Ross Scanlon :
> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:24:49 +1000
> > John Smith wrote:
> >
> >> Something else worth noting, as I've been doing postcode boundaries
> >> I've noticed some people have wiped some of the ABS tags so they could
>
2009/9/25 Ross Scanlon :
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:24:49 +1000
> John Smith wrote:
>
>> Something else worth noting, as I've been doing postcode boundaries
>> I've noticed some people have wiped some of the ABS tags so they could
>> do their roads or what not. I've added them back in as it's only f
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:24:49 +1000
John Smith wrote:
> Something else worth noting, as I've been doing postcode boundaries
> I've noticed some people have wiped some of the ABS tags so they could
> do their roads or what not. I've added them back in as it's only fair
> to attribute the ABS for th
Something else worth noting, as I've been doing postcode boundaries
I've noticed some people have wiped some of the ABS tags so they could
do their roads or what not. I've added them back in as it's only fair
to attribute the ABS for their data but has anyone else noticed this
at all, or even remov
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:02 PM, John Smith wrote:
>>
>>> just for fun I've printed out a walking-papers page and am going to see if
>>> it
>>> is any use for tagging shops in a suburban strip shopping strip
>>> and then how will I define the
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 6:53 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> > Roy i'm not really suggesting tag forms
> > but a logical set of the tags
> > so if we made up a wiki page on how to be obsessional with tagging the
> > source of data we would need to set the tags
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:02 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
>> just for fun I've printed out a walking-papers page and am going to see if it
>> is any use for tagging shops in a suburban strip shopping strip
>> and then how will I define the survey=
>
> source=survey
> survey=observation
I don't think s
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> > ideas for subsets
> > gps_chip=antaris/sirfstar3/mediatek/trimble/
> > gps_model=
> > hdop=
> > pdop=
> > (precision would be some rough figure for the track, i wouldn't want to
> > see them on eac
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
>
> ideas for subsets
> gps_chip=antaris/sirfstar3/mediatek/trimble/
> gps_model=
> hdop=
> pdop=
> (precision would be some rough figure for the track, i wouldn't want to see
> them on each single node)
May I suggest adding source:*=* to the
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Mark Pulley wrote:
>
> The obvious place to look at the wiki
> is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source - however on this page even
> "source=survey" is missing.
I'm with Mark - this should be cleaned up, preferably by someone who
has a clearer understand
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:11:30 +1000
Mark Pulley wrote:
> On 24/09/2009, at 2:07 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
> >> I'd prefer to stick to the guidelines, rather than making up tags -
> >> as
> >> long as I know what the guidelines actually are!
> > Then RTFW
>
> There's no need to be rude.
Read the
2009/9/24 Mark Pulley :
> on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features but it's not exactly the
> most obvious place to look.
That should be the first place to look, not the last.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.op
On 24/09/2009, at 2:07 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
I'd prefer to stick to the guidelines, rather than making up tags -
as
long as I know what the guidelines actually are!
Then RTFW
There's no need to be rude.
The obvious place to look at the wiki is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source
2009/9/24 Elizabeth Dodd :
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, John Smith wrote:
>> > If you think in the Venn diagram
>> > source=survey is a big box
>> > source=gps is a subset of that box
>> > and then some other subsets of gps would be needed
>>
>> GPS on it's own isn't more meaningful either, not without k
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, John Smith wrote:
> > If you think in the Venn diagram
> > source=survey is a big box
> > source=gps is a subset of that box
> > and then some other subsets of gps would be needed
>
> GPS on it's own isn't more meaningful either, not without knowing the
> hardware used, since m
2009/9/24 Liz :
> If you think in the Venn diagram
> source=survey is a big box
> source=gps is a subset of that box
> and then some other subsets of gps would be needed
GPS on it's own isn't more meaningful either, not without knowing the
hardware used, since most surveys will be using consumer g
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, John Smith wrote:
> You're blowing smoke, it's obvious source=gps is the same thing as
> source=survey, however source=survey is a core set of features and
> already in wide spread and common usage.
If you think in the Venn diagram
source=survey is a big box
source=gps is a s
2009/9/24 Dan O'Hara :
> From what I've read I now will go back to source=survey and add the tag
> survey=gps. I will consider further the advantages of further definition to
> GPS type (I think that could well end up in a Commodore/Falcon and
> Landcruiser/Patrol debate).
Not really, cars have h
> I'm still a relative newcomer to OSM (and am still in wonder at the
> complexity and enormity of the task!) and have found this discussion quite
> interesting. I only use Potlatch as I was advised it was simple, and for
> beginners, and it loaded by default in the edit screen. I use an Orego
2009/9/24 Dan O'Hara :
> GPS. I started only using the tag source=survey until Potltach added the
> GPS tag. I thought that the Wiki had simply not been updated but that some
I've mailed the main talk list over this, no doubt it'll end up in a
pointless debate, either the wiki will be updated t
Scanlon
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, 24 September, 2009 2:07:49 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
> If source=GPS (or source=gps) is unallowable, then why is it a preset
> in Potlatch?
No idea, whoever wrote the presets for potlatch probably thinks it's a good
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:35:20 +1000
John Smith wrote:
> 2009/9/24 Ross Scanlon :
> > These were some of my original entries (2007) along with gpsdrivetrack,
> > hopefully I've changed them all to source=survey now.
>
> I was just curious if they were still being tagged that way or not.
>
Shoud
2009/9/24 Ross Scanlon :
> These were some of my original entries (2007) along with gpsdrivetrack,
> hopefully I've changed them all to source=survey now.
I was just curious if they were still being tagged that way or not.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk
2009/9/24 Roy Wallace :
> In fact, if M is clearly defined, B is more likely to have been aware
> of its meaning - the fact that B then still chose to say N means Y is
> even *less* likely to mean X.
Another strawman argument, you are assuming you are dealing with
english in the exact same way as
> No, it makes no difference. Changing N to M, regardless of what N and
> M are, does not make Y mean X.
>
> In fact, if M is clearly defined, B is more likely to have been aware
> of its meaning - the fact that B then still chose to say N means Y is
> even *less* likely to mean X.
>
And your ta
> Likewise source=gpsdrive should be source=survey as well, I see this a
> lot and I'm not sure if it's a person or gpsdrive authors that have
> caused this but some other tag should be used for the device
> collecting the data and/or the software to be consistent with everyone
> else.
These were
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
>> In general, the two are inseparable. If author A says M and means X,
>> and author B says N and means Y, then changing N to M *does not lead
>> to consistency*. (note: in this example, M="source=survey",
>> N="source=gps", B=Mark).
>
> Except
2009/9/24 Roy Wallace :
> Yes - so in this case, I agree, it's no big deal. Y and X are pretty
> similar. But this may not be the case in general. You have to draw the
> line somewhere. And I prefer to be conservative, i.e. if in doubt,
> don't change it until the situation becomes clearer (e.g. af
> In general, the two are inseparable. If author A says M and means X,
> and author B says N and means Y, then changing N to M *does not lead
> to consistency*. (note: in this example, M="source=survey",
> N="source=gps", B=Mark).
Except where M is already clearly defined as a constant, as in:
so
2009/9/24 Roy Wallace :
> Good method: Discussion, voting, observing tagwatch, making
So it's good that discussions end up going round in circles with no
clear outcome?
> Bad method: Doing (semi)-automated changes of other people's
> contributions, which can often be *damaging* (in the eyes of th
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
>
> Consistency is more important than if he feels like it conveys a different
> meaning.
In general, the two are inseparable. If author A says M and means X,
and author B says N and means Y, then changing N to M *does not lead
to consistency*
> If source=GPS (or source=gps) is unallowable, then why is it a preset
> in Potlatch?
No idea, whoever wrote the presets for potlatch probably thinks it's a good
idea but did not read the wiki.
> I'd prefer to stick to the guidelines, rather than making up tags - as
> long as I know what t
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:20 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/9/24 Roy Wallace :
>> If Mark wants to use source=gps rather than source=survey, because he
>> feels it conveys a different meaning, then in the spirit of using "any
>> tags you like", I think he should be free to do so.
>
> Are you intenti
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:23:01 +1000
Roy Wallace wrote:
> If Mark wants to use source=gps rather than source=survey, because he
> feels it conveys a different meaning, then in the spirit of using "any
> tags you like", I think he should be free to do so.
Yes, use any tags you like except where t
I wonder if this same silly debate will come up when Galileo receivers
come out, then you have people using GLONASS receivers, and IRNSS
receivers and the chinese system.
Also it says I can use any tag I like on this page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway
I think I might start doin
Quoting Roy Wallace :
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
>> source=survey is in the wiki here:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Annotation
>> source=gps/GPS/GPS trace is not there at all and should not be used.
> If source=gps is indeed unallowable,
> http:
2009/9/24 Roy Wallace :
> If Mark wants to use source=gps rather than source=survey, because he
> feels it conveys a different meaning, then in the spirit of using "any
> tags you like", I think he should be free to do so.
Are you intentionally trying to be a troll?
Yes you can use any tag you li
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
>> > Tags that are not VERY clearly defined in the wiki (as a guide) should
>> > be left alone. Given that source=survey and source=GPS are *both not
>> > defined* on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source, these
>> > should have been le
> > Tags that are not VERY clearly defined in the wiki (as a guide) should
> > be left alone. Given that source=survey and source=GPS are *both not
> > defined* on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source, these
> > should have been left alone.
source=survey is in the wiki here:
http://wiki.
2009/9/24 Roy Wallace :
> Tags that are not VERY clearly defined in the wiki (as a guide) should
> be left alone. Given that source=survey and source=GPS are *both not
> defined* on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source, these
> should have been left alone.
source=survey is documented on
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Mark Pulley wrote:
>
> In light of the recent discussion on this list, maybe we should decide
> on which tag to use prior to making extensive changes like these,
I agree. IMHO extensive, (semi-)automated changes should be limited
*at least* to tags that have been
> In light of the recent discussion on this list, maybe we should decide
> on which tag to use prior to making extensive changes like these,
> especially as there is so far no agreement on what "source=survey"
> actually means, whereas "source=GPS" is pretty obvious.
Actually source=survey i
2009/9/24 Mark Pulley :
> In light of the recent discussion on this list, maybe we should decide
> on which tag to use prior to making extensive changes like these,
> especially as there is so far no agreement on what "source=survey"
> actually means, whereas "source=GPS" is pretty obvious.
sourc
I noticed by chance that a user has been going through the tags
recently, making lost of changes to the source tags. Several ways have
been changed from source=GPS to source=survey, with no other obvious
changes made. According to the changeset comment, the changes have
been made as "correc
64 matches
Mail list logo
