On 5/29/11, talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org <talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Send talk mailing list submissions to > talk@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of talk digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? (Maarten Deen) > 2. Re: Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? (Paul Hartmann) > 3. Re: Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? (Maarten Deen) > 4. Re: Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? (Tom Hughes) > 5. Re: Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? (Erik Lundin) > 6. Re: level_crossing, leveled (Russ Nelson) > 7. Bridge relation on way going under? (Dave F.) > 8. Re: Bridge relation on way going under? (Tobias Knerr) > 9. Re: Bridge relation on way going under? (Lennard) > 10. Re: Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? (Maarten Deen) > 11. Re: Bridge relation on way going under? (Borbus) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 14:08:47 +0200 > From: Maarten Deen <md...@xs4all.nl> > To: Talk Openstreetmap <talk@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: [OSM-talk] Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? > Message-ID: <4de0e5cf.8010...@xs4all.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Does Potlatch have access to better BING imagery? I'm looking at Walbeck in > Germany <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.495886&lon=6.243827&zoom=18> > and > in Potlatch 2 the imagery is a lot better than in JOSM. In the imagery > settings > I have bing:bing for Bing Sat. > > Regards, > Maarten > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 15:15:37 +0200 > From: Paul Hartmann <phaau...@googlemail.com> > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? > Message-ID: <4de0f579.8030...@googlemail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Maarten Deen wrote: >> Does Potlatch have access to better BING imagery? I'm looking at Walbeck >> in Germany >> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.495886&lon=6.243827&zoom=18> and >> in Potlatch 2 the imagery is a lot better than in JOSM. In the imagery >> settings I have bing:bing for Bing Sat. > > Cannot reproduce, in Potlatch2, JOSM and on the Bing website [1] I get the > same level 19 tiles. > > [1] > <http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=51.49580974821087~6.243679001927576&lvl=19&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Walbeck%2C%20NW%2C%20Deutschland&form=LMLTCC> > > Paul > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 15:29:23 +0200 > From: Maarten Deen <md...@xs4all.nl> > To: Talk Openstreetmap <talk@openstreetmap.org> > Cc: josm-dev <josm-...@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? > Message-ID: <4de0f8b3.40...@xs4all.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Paul Hartmann wrote: >> Maarten Deen wrote: >>> Does Potlatch have access to better BING imagery? I'm looking at Walbeck >>> in Germany >>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.495886&lon=6.243827&zoom=18> and >>> in Potlatch 2 the imagery is a lot better than in JOSM. In the imagery >>> settings I have bing:bing for Bing Sat. >> >> Cannot reproduce, in Potlatch2, JOSM and on the Bing website [1] I get the >> same level 19 tiles. >> >> [1] >> <http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=51.49580974821087~6.243679001927576&lvl=19&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Walbeck%2C%20NW%2C%20Deutschland&form=LMLTCC> > > I've got some screenshots: > JOSM: http://www.maasluip.nl/osm/bing-JOSM.png > Potlatch: http://www.maasluip.nl/osm/bing-Potlatch.png > > I'm sure you'll see the difference. Maybe it's a JOSM misconfiguration or > bug? > > (cc'd josm-dev too) > > Maarten > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 15:07:47 +0100 > From: Tom Hughes <t...@compton.nu> > To: Maarten Deen <md...@xs4all.nl> > Cc: Talk Openstreetmap <talk@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? > Message-ID: <4de101b3.1010...@compton.nu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 28/05/11 13:08, Maarten Deen wrote: > >> Does Potlatch have access to better BING imagery? I'm looking at Walbeck >> in Germany >> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.495886&lon=6.243827&zoom=18> and >> in Potlatch 2 the imagery is a lot better than in JOSM. In the imagery >> settings I have bing:bing for Bing Sat. > > My guess is you have the max zoom set too low in JOSM. IIRC it defaults > to 18 but bing can go higher than that, depending on the area. > > Tom > > -- > Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) > http://compton.nu/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 16:25:00 +0200 > From: Erik Lundin <e...@lists.lun.nu> > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? > Message-ID: <4de105bc.2000...@lists.lun.nu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Thanks, this was helpful. My JOSM had max zoom level set to 17. Changing > it to 18 or 19 gives a significant increase of the resolution. Just a > small difference between 18/19 in this case. > > /Erik > > 2011-05-28 16:07, Tom Hughes skrev: >> On 28/05/11 13:08, Maarten Deen wrote: >> >>> Does Potlatch have access to better BING imagery? I'm looking at Walbeck >>> in Germany >>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.495886&lon=6.243827&zoom=18> and >>> in Potlatch 2 the imagery is a lot better than in JOSM. In the imagery >>> settings I have bing:bing for Bing Sat. >> >> My guess is you have the max zoom set too low in JOSM. IIRC it defaults >> to 18 but bing can go higher than that, depending on the area. >> >> Tom >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 11:13:35 -0400 > From: Russ Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> > To: Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> > Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] level_crossing, leveled > Message-ID: <19937.4383.14559.443...@desk.crynwr.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Richard Mann writes: > > Unless you operate to peculiar safety standards, there'll probably be > > a stop sign on the track some way either side of the former > > crossing(probably set for the stopping distance of the heaviest train > > operating at linespeed, and taking the gradient into account - which > > could easily be a mile away). So there'll be quite a length of track > > that's "disused". I'd probably tag the railway as abandoned, and > > remove the level crossing, if it looks like a permanent situation. > > If the tracks are gone, I tag it railway=abandoned. If the tracks are > still there, I tag it railway=disused, even if it's disconnected from > the main line. Railroads in New York will *often* disconnect tracks > they aren't currently using because tracks connected to the national > rail network are taxed at a higher rate. Of course, land with no > tracks at all is taxed even lower, so rails quickly get ripped up > here. Have I ever said how much I hate the greedy hand of government? > I much prefer the invisible hand of markets. Invisible hands don't > levy taxes and cause tracks to be unnecessarily ripped up!!! > > -- > --my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com > Crynwr supports open source software > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 17:21:42 +0100 > From: "Dave F." <dave...@madasafish.com> > To: OSM Talk <talk@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: [OSM-talk] Bridge relation on way going under? > Message-ID: <4de12116.8020...@madasafish.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" > > Hi > > This wiki page: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels > > talks about adding a relation to the way going under the bridge. > > This statement: > > "allows both the way(s) crossing the structure /and/ those passing under > it to be identified (river and most canals bridges only pass /over/ the > waterway, and using only the Way tag bridge=yes means that intersection > tests would have to be used to determine the bridges; now we can > associate the bridges with the waterway as well." > > is unclear (to me) as to why it's necessary. Why does an intersection > test need to be performed; doesn't the 'bridge=' tag define that the two > crossing ways are separate? > > Hope you can clarify it for me. > > Cheers > Dave F. > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110528/29445b4b/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 18:46:04 +0200 > From: Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de> > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge relation on way going under? > Message-ID: <4de126cc.70...@tobias-knerr.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Dave F. wrote: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels > [...] >> This statement: >> >> "allows both the way(s) crossing the structure /and/ those passing under >> it to be identified (river and most canals bridges only pass /over/ the >> waterway, and using only the Way tag bridge=yes means that intersection >> tests would have to be used to determine the bridges; now we can >> associate the bridges with the waterway as well." >> >> is unclear (to me) as to why it's necessary. Why does an intersection >> test need to be performed; doesn't the 'bridge=' tag define that the two >> crossing ways are separate? > > Let's say my application needs to answer, for whatever reason[1], the > question "what ways are below this bridge". > > If there is no relation, then this is what the application would do: > * gather at all the ways around the bridge > * find ways that intersect the bridge way, ignoring the third dimension > * check the layer on these ways > -> all ways that intersect the bridge way (in 2D representation!) and > have a lower layer are below the bridge. > > With a relation, these calculations would not be necessary. In my > opinion, this is not a reason to use a bridge relation, though. (There > /are/ reasons for using a bridge relation, but this is not one of them.) > > -- Tobias Knerr > > [1] most programs don't even need to know that. Routers can rely on the > convention that there is no connection between ways without a common > node, and 2D renderers only need the layer. A group of applications > which actually need that information are advanced 3D renderers. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 23:31:54 +0200 > From: Lennard <l...@xs4all.nl> > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge relation on way going under? > Message-ID: <4de169ca.7060...@xs4all.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 28-5-2011 18:46, Tobias Knerr wrote: > >> With a relation, these calculations would not be necessary. > > The people that come up with these types of relations seem to forget > that spatial data is what OSM is all about. > > > For instance, using the osm2pgsql schema: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/13884500 > > "Which roads/railways/waterways does this bridge cross?" > > select osm_id,highway,railway,waterway,name > from ( > select l1.osm_id,l1.highway,l1.railway,l1.waterway,l1.name, > case when l1.layer ~ E'^-?[[:digit:]]+(\.[[:digit:]]+)?$' > then cast (l1.layer as float) else 0 end as crossing_layer, > case when l2.layer ~ E'^-?[[:digit:]]+(\.[[:digit:]]+)?$' > then cast (l2.layer as float) else 0 end as bridge_layer > from planet_osm_line l1, planet_osm_line l2 > where ST_Crosses(l2.way, l1.way) > and l2.osm_id = 13884500 > and (l1.highway is not null or l1.waterway is not null > or l1.railway is not null) > ) as foo > where crossing_layer < bridge_layer; > > > osm_id | highway | railway | waterway | name > -----------+--------------+---------+----------+-------------------------- > 41050723 | | rail | | > 98667698 | | rail | | > 25933220 | unclassified | | | Ferdinand Perdieusstraat > 71890307 | path | | | Brampad > 9923332 | | rail | | Lijn 36 > 107068083 | residential | | | Brandweg > 53085949 | cycleway | | | > 25806811 | path | | | Tunnelstraat > 22903417 | unclassified | | | Brandenstraat > (9 rows) > > Time: 7.328 ms > > > -- > Lennard > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 11:37:43 +0200 > From: Maarten Deen <md...@xs4all.nl> > To: "talk@openstreetmap.org >> Talk Openstreetmap" > <talk@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? > Message-ID: <4de213e7.2060...@xs4all.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Erik Lundin wrote: > > Thanks, this was helpful. My JOSM had max zoom level set to 17. Changing > > it to 18 or 19 gives a significant increase of the resolution. Just a > > small difference between 18/19 in this case. > > Yes, that did the trick for mee too. It was on 17. > > Regards, > Maarten > > > 2011-05-28 16:07, Tom Hughes skrev: > >> On 28/05/11 13:08, Maarten Deen wrote: > >> > >>> Does Potlatch have access to better BING imagery? I'm looking at > Walbeck > >>> in Germany > >>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.495886&lon=6.243827&zoom=18> and > >>> in Potlatch 2 the imagery is a lot better than in JOSM. In the imagery > >>> settings I have bing:bing for Bing Sat. > >> > >> My guess is you have the max zoom set too low in JOSM. IIRC it defaults > >> to 18 but bing can go higher than that, depending on the area. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 11:49:17 +0100 > From: Borbus <bor...@gmail.com> > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge relation on way going under? > Message-ID: <4de224ad.6090...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I think a much more useful application than those suggested already is > to identify all of the bridges that cross over a way. It's easy to find > all of the ways that go under a way, but what use is that? It's quite > important for waterways in general to be able to find every bridge that > will be crossing over your path, and it's also necessary if routing for > a tall vehicle on roads. > > -- > Borbus. > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > End of talk Digest, Vol 81, Issue 55 > ************************************ >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk