Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
Peter Locality Classification was added as a possible nice to have to the version 2 schema but it has not been populated, and no guidance has been created to indicate how this field should be used (save for a table of permitted values). There is no classification data in NPTG other than that which comes from the source - and that is only there because it could be ... I would not recommend its use as it is flaky, and offers nothing in respect of newly created locality entries in the Gazetteer. NPTG is NOT a POI directory - and whilst there are some incorrectly created localities for POIs we are seeking to get them removed unless they genuinely define a locality (so the only ones that are appropriate are those which relate to large area POIs that do not sit happily within general-purpose POIs. The data that is recognised as valid at present is only that which appears in v2 CSV lists ... anything which is in the XML that is not in the CSV output is almost certainly not populated and certainly should be ignored. Roger -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Peter Miller Sent: 27 July 2009 08:52 To: Christoph Böhme Cc: talk-transit@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import On 26 Jul 2009, at 22:14, Christoph Böhme wrote: Hi Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com schrieb: I am also aware that there is a 50K place gazetteer sitting there untouched - last week I was adding villages in Norfolk by hand and the data is sitting available in NPTG. I taught myself XSLT at the weekend and played a bit with the NPTG data. On http://www.mappa-mercia.org/nptg/ you can find some html- pages which show the hierarchies of and adjacencies between the localities in the NTPG data. I also created a copy of the NOVAM viewer and changed it to display NTPG data instead of bus stops: http://www.mappa-mercia.org/cgi-bin/nptg.wsgi/viewer.html Great stuff, and clearly there are many additional place-names in NPTG that are not in OSM a present in many parts of the county. I checked North Norfolk and bits of Scotland and there are a good number of additional places. I have not changed any of the texts/images yet, so the localities will be displayed as bus stops :-). I will try to import an excerpt of place names from OSM tomorrow so that we can compare both data sets. From what I have seen so far an import should not be too difficult. The only difficulties I expect are the hierarchies and the classification of the localities. Does anyone know the current way to tag hierarchies of places? I had a look at the wiki and there seem to be two approaches: is_in and relations. With the addition of actual borders there is also the possibility of defining hierarchies purely geometrical. The location classifications in the NPTG seem to be relatively coarse. Everything below a parish is either a New Entry (Add) or a Locality. We need to see how this can be mapped to POI types in OSM. SourceLocalityType is, I think, information about where the data came from in the first place into NPTG and is not relevant for our purposes, and certainly into the classification field. The LocalityClassification field should be more useful and should contain city, town, village, hamlet, suburb, urbancentre, place of interest, other, or unrecorded. I am not sure how well this field is populated - possibly it is not well populated at all. UrbanCentre can possibly be ignored. The field may be well populated in some parts of the country and not in other. I am not sure how much NPTG is used for Points of Interest. There is a POI model in NPTG but possibly we treat this separately or not at all or import the data as invisible to start with. My main interest is the locality names and the main technical job will probably be to spot duplicates with what is in OSM already. See page 69 in the NaPTAN and NPTG scheme guide for more details of the formatting. http://www.naptan.org.uk/documentation.htm Do you need help with the NaPTAN import or are you just about ready to do the work? Do we need to set up a wiki page where people can request imports for their authority or are we going to do it without that? It would be really really good to get NaPTAN in and in soon. There are people keen to get on with sorting the data out in their areas who are sitting on their hands at present, the professional transport community is watching what is happening closely, and there are also possibly other datasets from UK authorities that could come our way when we have completed this one. I am happy to continue working on the NPTG import if Thomas does not mind. My vote is to get on with it - the NPTG and NaPTAN imports are different enough that they can be handled separately. If Thomas focuses on the NaPTAN import (or hands it over to someone) and you do the NPTG then I
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
Good evening, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com schrieb: On 26 Jul 2009, at 22:14, Christoph Böhme wrote: I also created a copy of the NOVAM viewer and changed it to display NTPG data instead of bus stops: http://www.mappa-mercia.org/cgi-bin/nptg.wsgi/viewer.html Great stuff, and clearly there are many additional place-names in NPTG that are not in OSM a present in many parts of the county. I checked North Norfolk and bits of Scotland and there are a good number of additional places. I have now also added all nodes with place=* tags from OSM. The NPTG import will really add a lot of additional places! OSM has only 25397 places in the UK at the moment. However, I was a bit suprised to see some hamlets in the OSM data which are not in the NPTG data. Do you know of any gaps in the NPTG data? The LocalityClassification field should be more useful and should contain city, town, village, hamlet, suburb, urbancentre, place of interest, other, or unrecorded. I am not sure how well this field is populated - possibly it is not well populated at all. UrbanCentre can possibly be ignored. The LocalityClassification tag is used 856 times in the dataset. That is about 2% of all localities. The field may be well populated in some parts of the country and not in other. I am not sure how much NPTG is used for Points of Interest. There is a POI model in NPTG but possibly we treat this separately or not at all or import the data as invisible to start with. My main interest is the locality names and the main technical job will probably be to spot duplicates with what is in OSM already. Finding duplicates should not be too difficult. We basically just need to check for each imported location if there are any places with the same name within a reasonable distance. Except for typos and different spellings that should work very well. The positions of locations in both datasets also match nicely which should make it even easier to find duplicates. Would it be worth creating a NPTG Import wiki page and an NPTG Import user to do the actual import - ie, keep the documentation and audit trail for the two imports separate? I am in favour of keeping them separate. Both datasets are fairly independent and we will probably use different methods to import them. Having everything on one wiki page will be confusing to users, who might be interested only in one of the imports. Cheers, Christoph ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
Hi Roger Slevin ro...@slevin.plus.com schrieb: Locality Classification was added as a possible nice to have to the version 2 schema but it has not been populated, and no guidance has been created to indicate how this field should be used (save for a table of permitted values). There is no classification data in NPTG other than that which comes from the source - and that is only there because it could be ... I would not recommend its use as it is flaky, and offers nothing in respect of newly created locality entries in the Gazetteer. So, it looks like we will not have any classification information. Unless we just want to import the plain names this will complicate the import a bit as we have to somehow map the locations to OSM place-types. At the moment I am having three ideas how we could do this: Based on the parent relationship we could guess if a location might be a suburb or village. Many places have wikipedia entries (even villages). If we can manage to automatically look the entries up and extract the relevant information (population size) from the info box we could probably classify a lot of places. The landsat data might give us some hints about the size of places. We just need to find a way to retrieve this information automatically :-) Alternatively we could just invent a value for unclassified places and wait for people to classify the places. Do you have any other ideas? Cheers, Christoph ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
You ask about the omissions from NPTG. Perhaps it would be helpful if I described the history of creating NPTG and what the brief has been to local data editors in terms of what is or is not included in the database. NPTG started life as a national statistical gazetteer based on a collation of different statistical areas (parishes, journey to work areas, towns, cities, etc). A number of unwanted types of entity in that source data were marked as inactive (things like area parishes which cover several villages) - and local editors were briefed to remove other sources of duplication. We then had the difficulty of determining what is, and what is not, a locality. The guidance we have given has been that a locality is a place which locals would consider they lived in, worked in, were educated in etc ... and/or to which highway engineers would consider it appropriate to show on road direction signs. Although NPTG was originally for public transport purposes, we stressed at all times that a locality should be listed even if it has no public transport - but we know that some local editors have probably erred towards marking some unserved rural hamlets as inactive. All inactive localities should still be in the data - so hamlets which are missing may be in NPTG, but marked as inactive. However they may simply never have been in the source data - and no one to date has recognised the need to add them to NPTG. It would be interesting to see what localities OSM holds in its data which are not included in NPTG (as well as the reverse of this) if that is possible. I hope this helps your understanding of the background. Roger -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Christoph Böhme Sent: 27 July 2009 21:50 To: Peter Miller Cc: talk-transit@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import Good evening, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com schrieb: On 26 Jul 2009, at 22:14, Christoph Böhme wrote: I also created a copy of the NOVAM viewer and changed it to display NTPG data instead of bus stops: http://www.mappa-mercia.org/cgi-bin/nptg.wsgi/viewer.html Great stuff, and clearly there are many additional place-names in NPTG that are not in OSM a present in many parts of the county. I checked North Norfolk and bits of Scotland and there are a good number of additional places. I have now also added all nodes with place=* tags from OSM. The NPTG import will really add a lot of additional places! OSM has only 25397 places in the UK at the moment. However, I was a bit suprised to see some hamlets in the OSM data which are not in the NPTG data. Do you know of any gaps in the NPTG data? The LocalityClassification field should be more useful and should contain city, town, village, hamlet, suburb, urbancentre, place of interest, other, or unrecorded. I am not sure how well this field is populated - possibly it is not well populated at all. UrbanCentre can possibly be ignored. The LocalityClassification tag is used 856 times in the dataset. That is about 2% of all localities. The field may be well populated in some parts of the country and not in other. I am not sure how much NPTG is used for Points of Interest. There is a POI model in NPTG but possibly we treat this separately or not at all or import the data as invisible to start with. My main interest is the locality names and the main technical job will probably be to spot duplicates with what is in OSM already. Finding duplicates should not be too difficult. We basically just need to check for each imported location if there are any places with the same name within a reasonable distance. Except for typos and different spellings that should work very well. The positions of locations in both datasets also match nicely which should make it even easier to find duplicates. Would it be worth creating a NPTG Import wiki page and an NPTG Import user to do the actual import - ie, keep the documentation and audit trail for the two imports separate? I am in favour of keeping them separate. Both datasets are fairly independent and we will probably use different methods to import them. Having everything on one wiki page will be confusing to users, who might be interested only in one of the imports. Cheers, Christoph ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
One other possibility that might work would be to look at the number of bus stops associated with a locality - something fairly easy to measure from NaPTAN. Combine this with the parent / child locality relationship could give you a way of expressing a sort of locality type classification. Roger -Original Message- From: Christoph Böhme [mailto:christ...@b3e.net] Sent: 27 July 2009 22:14 To: ro...@slevin.plus.com Cc: 'Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics' Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import Hi Roger Slevin ro...@slevin.plus.com schrieb: Locality Classification was added as a possible nice to have to the version 2 schema but it has not been populated, and no guidance has been created to indicate how this field should be used (save for a table of permitted values). There is no classification data in NPTG other than that which comes from the source - and that is only there because it could be ... I would not recommend its use as it is flaky, and offers nothing in respect of newly created locality entries in the Gazetteer. So, it looks like we will not have any classification information. Unless we just want to import the plain names this will complicate the import a bit as we have to somehow map the locations to OSM place-types. At the moment I am having three ideas how we could do this: Based on the parent relationship we could guess if a location might be a suburb or village. Many places have wikipedia entries (even villages). If we can manage to automatically look the entries up and extract the relevant information (population size) from the info box we could probably classify a lot of places. The landsat data might give us some hints about the size of places. We just need to find a way to retrieve this information automatically :-) Alternatively we could just invent a value for unclassified places and wait for people to classify the places. Do you have any other ideas? Cheers, Christoph ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
Christoph Böhme wrote: Hi Roger Slevin ro...@slevin.plus.com schrieb: Locality Classification was added as a possible nice to have to the version 2 schema but it has not been populated, and no guidance has been created to indicate how this field should be used (save for a table of permitted values). There is no classification data in NPTG other than that which comes from the source - and that is only there because it could be ... I would not recommend its use as it is flaky, and offers nothing in respect of newly created locality entries in the Gazetteer. So, it looks like we will not have any classification information. Unless we just want to import the plain names this will complicate the import a bit as we have to somehow map the locations to OSM place-types. At the moment I am having three ideas how we could do this: Based on the parent relationship we could guess if a location might be a suburb or village. Many places have wikipedia entries (even villages). If we can manage to automatically look the entries up and extract the relevant information (population size) from the info box we could probably classify a lot of places. The landsat data might give us some hints about the size of places. We just need to find a way to retrieve this information automatically :-) Alternatively we could just invent a value for unclassified places and wait for people to classify the places. Do you have any other ideas? Ask for local experts. I have maintained a list of places in East Yorkshire in the wiki. There are about 280 villages and hamlets. I've visited almost 90% to map them and assess if they are really still a place. Many have been added from NPE and they just don't exist on the ground any more. I then judge village versus hamlet on criteria, like size, is there a school, church, shop etc. and what does the Wikipedia entry or other web sites say. I then add local knowledge. Having done this work I would prefer that a bulk upload doesn't add places in the county without prior discussion. You would probably be able to find someone to do a sanity check like this for many (most? all?) areas. My experience is that sources of UK places need human intervention to make them useful. Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [talk-ph] Draft MoA between the OSM-F and any possible localchapter
Ronny volunteered to be one of the incorporators before: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2009-May/000901.html On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Andre Marcelo-Tanner an...@enthropia.comwrote: no responses yet, need 1 more, 4 cannot make a company, need 5 ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Draft MoA between the OSM-F and any possible localchapter
ok thats 5 then, is Murlwe in Davao atm? ok i have to look into the logistics of having incorporators abroad and not all in the same place. Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Ronny volunteered to be one of the incorporators before: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2009-May/000901.html On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Andre Marcelo-Tanner an...@enthropia.com mailto:an...@enthropia.com wrote: no responses yet, need 1 more, 4 cannot make a company, need 5 ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Draft MoA between the OSM-F and any possible localchapter
Awww. No beer with all the incorporators in one amenity=pub signing the SEC documents? :) On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Andre Marcelo-Tanneran...@enthropia.com wrote: ok thats 5 then, is Murlwe in Davao atm? ok i have to look into the logistics of having incorporators abroad and not all in the same place. Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Ronny volunteered to be one of the incorporators before: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2009-May/000901.html On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Andre Marcelo-Tanner an...@enthropia.com wrote: no responses yet, need 1 more, 4 cannot make a company, need 5 ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Draft MoA between the OSM-F and any possiblelocalchapter
Andre, I had second thoughts. How much would each incorporators shell out? murlwe -Original Message- From: Andre Marcelo-Tanner [an...@enthropia.com] Sent: 7/27/2009 10:33:56 PM To: sea...@gmail.com Cc: talk-ph@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Draft MoA between the OSM-F and any possiblelocalchapter ok thats 5 then, is Murlwe in Davao atm? ok i have to look into the logistics of having incorporators abroad and not all in the same place. Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Ronny volunteered to be one of the incorporators before: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2009-May/000901.html On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Andre Marcelo-Tanner an...@enthropia.com wrote: no responses yet, need 1 more, 4 cannot make a company, need 5 span id=m2wTlpfont face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif size=2 style=font-size:13.5px___BRGet the Free email that has everyone talking at a href=http://www.mail2world.com target=newhttp://www.mail2world.com/abr font color=#99Unlimited Email Storage #150; POP3 #150; Calendar #150; SMS #150; Translator #150; Much More!/font/font/span___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Draft MoA between the OSM-F and any possiblelocalchapter
Shell out? Nothing aside from the cost of acquiring your TIN, and maybe your Community Tax Certificate (~PHP5) and Notarization fee of wherever you get notarized (here its PHP100) Marloue Pidor wrote: Andre, I had second thoughts. How much would each incorporators shell out? murlwe -Original Message- From: Andre Marcelo-Tanner [an...@enthropia.com] Sent: 7/27/2009 10:33:56 PM To: sea...@gmail.com Cc: talk-ph@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Draft MoA between the OSM-F and any possiblelocalchapter ok thats 5 then, is Murlwe in Davao atm? ok i have to look into the logistics of having incorporators abroad and not all in the same place. Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Ronny volunteered to be one of the incorporators before: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2009-May/000901.html On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Andre Marcelo-Tanner an...@enthropia.com wrote: no responses yet, need 1 more, 4 cannot make a company, need 5 ___ Get the Free email that has everyone talking at http://www.mail2world.com Unlimited Email Storage -- POP3 -- Calendar -- SMS -- Translator -- Much More! ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Draft MoA between the OSM-F and any possible localchapter
Sorry I missed this. Yes, I still volunteer, and I'm going to the Phils in 3 weeks anyway, so if it will happen between 3 and 7 weeks from now, perfect! Ronny. Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Ronny volunteered to be one of the incorporators before: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2009-May/000901.html On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Andre Marcelo-Tanner an...@enthropia.com mailto:an...@enthropia.com wrote: no responses yet, need 1 more, 4 cannot make a company, need 5 ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Where do we stand regarding collective/derivative databases
Hi, generally good progress on ODbL; many things have been cleared up and we will soon be at a point where the proposal for a license change is not some cloudy abstract thing any longer but a very concrete proposal that people can evaluate. After the LWG has made an effort to resolve the questions about what is substantial and what is a derived work, in my eyes there's one big issue that remains, and that is what is a derivative database. To recap, my understanding is that if I produce (+publish) works based on a derivative database that I have created then I have to make that database available, fully, under ODbL. If I, on the other hand, produce works based on a collective database that is half ODbL and half proprietary, then I only have to make the ODbL part available. Is that everyone else's reading as well? Let us look at someone who mixes OpenStreetMap and Navteq data. Say I produce map tiles (clearly a produced work, no?) where all the streets come from Navteq, but all the footways come from OpenStreetMap. There are a number of ways to do this, all leading to the exact same result, and nobody from the outside can see which of 1,2,3 I am using: 1. Configure my Mapnik tile generator so that it accesses two different postgis databases - one containing Navteq and one containing OSM - to produce merged map tiles. 2. Pour OSM and Navteq data into the same postgis instance but have different tables (e.g. planet_osm_roads and navteq_roads) which are joined by Mapnik's SELECT statement. 3. Extract all footway geometries from OSM and insert them into my postgis database containing Navteq street data, then run Mapnik on the resulting database. The way I read the license, option 1 would be definitely ok, option 3 would definitely lead to my having to release the Navteq data, and option 2 would be somewhere in between (probably ok until unknown to me, Matt comes along and makes Mapnik internally create temporary tables on the fly for better performance in which case I'd be creating temporary derivative databases without even noticing...) Evil business genius that I am, I would of course claim to be doing 1 even when doing 3 and nobody would have the right to challenge me, right? Which would ultimately mean that: If there is any conceivable way that a produced work could have been created by using a collective rather than a derivative database, then only the ODbL licensed part of the data source has to be released. This is becoming interesting, we're very much into real-world business scenarios now. There are lots of people who'd shy away from using OSM outright but if they could use a Navteq basemap and sprinkle that with any additional detail that OSM might have that would be just great for them. Let us look at someone who has a Navteq and an OSM data base, and runs a comparing analysis which results in *removing* all features from the OSM database which were also in Navteq. He clearly creates a derivative database but one which has no data added, just data deleted. He now employs technique #1 from above to merge the Navteq data set and the reduced OSM data set into one that contains the best of both worlds. Since he is clearly operating on a collective database, he only has to release the derived OSM database under ODbL - the value of which is almost zero to the community since it has no data added (the only thing you can do with it is find out which of OSM's features are present in Navteq as well). Is everything I write here correct and compatible with what others are thinking? Is there some lawyer opinion on cases like this documented somewhere in the vast depths of our Wiki and LWG minutes? (I'm just trying to determine what exactly ODbL mandates - not trying to find out what would be desirable in an ideal world.) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
On 27 Jul 2009, at 04:43, John Smith wrote: --- On Sun, 26/7/09, Vikas Yadav vi...@thevikas.com wrote: btw, JOSM does not recognize turnstile while it had an icon for stile. Then file a trac ticket at http://josm.openstreetmap.de to get one added. there is no official turnstile tag with OSM, stile is the same thing. Remember that in OSM you can tag as you like. It is perfectly easy to add extra tags, and perfectly valid. A tag that is not on Map Features is perfectly valid, as that page should only contain the n most common and important tags. Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote: Then file a trac ticket at http://josm.openstreetmap.de to get one added. Do we really need to file bugs on all types of stiles? or would it be better to list it as barrier=stile and subtype? Remember that in OSM you can tag as you like. It is perfectly easy to add extra tags, and perfectly valid. A tag that is not on Map Features is perfectly valid, as that page should only contain the n most common and important tags. Exactly, consistency is the point of having things render, but do we really want/need 50 types of stiles being rendered? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] maxheight/height
I've noticed some people have tagged bridges with height=*, rather than tagging the road way under the bridge as maxheight=* and I'm kind of unsure which is better. By using height you don't have to break the way under the bridge up, on the other hand maxheight is specific to the road under the bridge. That all said I think height was a predecessor tag to ele and then again I've seen trees tagged with a height too. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] maxheight/height
maxheight=* refers to legal maxheight, in some countries, such as brazil, there is a difference on legal height (restriction) and physical height/clearance (information sign). See my note on the discussion on the wiki key:height - if height is not to be used for this, than another tag is needed - On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:57:23 + (GMT), John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: I've noticed some people have tagged bridges with height=*, rather than tagging the road way under the bridge as maxheight=* and I'm kind of unsure which is better. By using height you don't have to break the way under the bridge up, on the other hand maxheight is specific to the road under the bridge. That all said I think height was a predecessor tag to ele and then again I've seen trees tagged with a height too. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Brgds Aun Johnsen via Webmail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Coastline
- Original Message - From: Chris Hill chillly...@yahoo.co.uk To: OSM Talk talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 3:22 PM Subject: [OSM-talk] Coastline I have altered the coastline in the Humber estuary, UK to reflect the official position of where the coast ends and the river starts. The coastal area hasn't rendered in Mapnik yet [1]. I seem to remember that a coastline update process needs to run to change the coastline. Am I right? Yes. For mapnik, at high zoom levels the coast polygons used are generated from shapefiles created by the coastline error checker. The coastline error checker has been offline since sometime before mid June, so no updated shapefiles have been created. If so, what do I need to do to run it or have it run? Various request have been made on this mailing list, but I've now added a ticket to trac to hopefully speed up the process of getting it fixed. David Cheers, Chris [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.7087lon=-0.3726zoom=12layers=B000FTF ___ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] maxheight/height
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote: maxheight=* refers to legal maxheight, in some countries, such as brazil, there is a difference on legal height (restriction) and physical height/clearance (information sign). See my note on the discussion on the wiki key:height - if height is not to be used for this, than another tag is needed - in Germany you will often find height above sea level written on signs for Motorway-Bridges so height=* is not very clear. I think it would be better to attach this information to the street, not to the bridge because it is the street that is influenced by this. and you could argue that in those cases the legal height is identical with the physical height. Greetings, Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] maxheight/height
I am tagging both as maxheight. It is a restriction that you are not capable or allowed to pass a given node or a given way in any direction with a vehicle of greater height. That is also how I am evaluating maxheight and maxwidth in Traveling Salesman. Marcus On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:31:49 +0200, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote: maxheight=* refers to legal maxheight, in some countries, such as brazil, there is a difference on legal height (restriction) and physical height/clearance (information sign). See my note on the discussion on the wiki key:height - if height is not to be used for this, than another tag is needed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] maxheight/height
On 27/07/2009 09:57, John Smith wrote: I've noticed some people have tagged bridges with height=*, rather than tagging the road way under the bridge as maxheight=* and I'm kind of unsure which is better. By using height you don't have to break the way under the bridge up, on the other hand maxheight is specific to the road under the bridge. That all said I think height was a predecessor tag to ele and then again I've seen trees tagged with a height too. (sorry, didn't send this to the list at first) Seehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:height Physical attribute of other keys. Height is the measurement of vertical distance. It indicates how tall something is. So for bridges, it would be the distance from the ground to the_top_ of bridge. And with some designs of bridges (eg a suspension bridge), this may be significantly more than how high a vehicle you can fit under it (maxheight). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
2009/7/27 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Mon, 27/7/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote: Then file a trac ticket at http://josm.openstreetmap.de to get one added. Do we really need to file bugs on all types of stiles? or would it be better to list it as barrier=stile and subtype? well, maybe it's more efficient to attach a proposed icon ;-). I think we could/should have icons for all kind of barriers that are described on the wiki. Btw: what about swing gate (like a lift gate but swinging, blocks just cars, whilst pedestrians can cross), block, rope and chain. They are also common barriers, at least in my area. Would you just add them to the barrier page in the wiki or is there a lengthy proposal process needed? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] maxheight/height
2009/7/27 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: I've noticed some people have tagged bridges with height=*, rather than tagging the road way under the bridge as maxheight=* and I'm kind of unsure which is better. height on the bridge instead of the way under it would IMHO indicate the height of the bridge-construction (e.g. pilons, arcs), e.g. on bridges like this: http://www.paddelsport.de/images/elbe-km108-riesa-eisenbahnbruecke-2007-05-19.jpg maxheight on the bridge will restrict the height for who passes the bridge on it, not under it. If you want to restrict the height for the way that passes below, use maxheight for this way, not the bridge. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] maxheight/height
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, John Smith wrote: I've noticed some people have tagged bridges with height=*, rather than tagging the road way under the bridge as maxheight=* and I'm kind of unsure which is better. the Key:maxheight says it clearly http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxheight maxheight expresses a height limit for using the way to which the tag is added. If no unit is included, the value is assumed to be in metres. You get to break up the way and mark it as maxheight ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] maxheight/height
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: maxheight expresses a height limit for using the way to which the tag is added. If no unit is included, the value is assumed to be in metres. You get to break up the way and mark it as maxheight I'm just trying to make other people's entries things more consistent. If routing software is already using this information for routing even more reason to get this consistent. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] maxheight/height
2009/7/27 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Mon, 27/7/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: maxheight expresses a height limit for using the way to which the tag is added. If no unit is included, the value is assumed to be in metres. You get to break up the way and mark it as maxheight I'm just trying to make other people's entries things more consistent. but be careful not to break things up. Maxheight could be valid for the way on the bridge itself as well. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] maxheight/height
And the bridge in question is a rail bridge with over head wires, the height bit is clearance under the bridge. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] maxheight/height
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: but be careful not to break things up. Maxheight could be valid for the way on the bridge itself as well. Yup, the height is someone's attempt to do maxheight, not mapping the clearance or height of the bridge... In this case height=2.9m :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] park barrier
I made this icon for JOSM. My not an artist. This is the top with walls on both sides. 2009/7/27 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 2009/7/27 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Mon, 27/7/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote: Then file a trac ticket at http://josm.openstreetmap.de to get one added. Do we really need to file bugs on all types of stiles? or would it be better to list it as barrier=stile and subtype? well, maybe it's more efficient to attach a proposed icon ;-). I think we could/should have icons for all kind of barriers that are described on the wiki. Btw: what about swing gate (like a lift gate but swinging, blocks just cars, whilst pedestrians can cross), block, rope and chain. They are also common barriers, at least in my area. Would you just add them to the barrier page in the wiki or is there a lengthy proposal process needed? cheers, Martin attachment: stile.png___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A possible way to promote OSM
On 27/07/09 14:09, Simone Cortesi wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:54, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)ajrli...@googlemail.com wrote: Did you mean impo...@osmfoundation.org perhaps? Which I've just realised is not yet set up. Have now done so. Actually it is. I just can't read the control panel properly ;-) You lost me... 1. there is a list, a mailman list devodet to imports, the info URL is: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports 2. i see no evidence of an impo...@osmfoundation.org email alias You've been defeated by time... When the original email was sent the mailing list did not exist and the impo...@osmfoundation.org alias was the address for the working group. That is still the address for the WG but following a request at SOTM there is now a mailing lists for general public discussion of imports as well. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A possible way to promote OSM
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 15:16, Tom Hughest...@compton.nu wrote: That is still the address for the WG but following a request at SOTM there is now a mailing lists for general public discussion of imports as well. Who is in the working group? And what are they doing? I could not find any information about this -- -S ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A possible way to promote OSM
Hi, Simone Cortesi wrote: Who is in the working group? And what are they doing? I could not find any information about this It is a new style of working group. OSM never had physical working groups (PWG); ours were always remote working groups (RWG) where people would ususally work by e-mail or telephone. We're now experimenting with the totally virtual working group (VWG, some people say the V stands for vapour but don't listen to them). These working groups are highly flexible and can be convened and dissolved quickly. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Business listings
The other day my family was on a road trip and we passed by an unfamilliar city. We wanted to find a chinese restaurant, so I used the database of business locations in City Navigator NT to find one. OSM could replace, perhaps even surpass, the street maps in a product like City Navigator, but I'm thinking about the business listings. It seems to me that a free product could be provided on a basis similar to the Yellow Pages: it seems to me that it's worth it for businesses to be listed, so a project like that could pay it's bills by offering premium listings. Is anybody working on anything like that? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
My wild guess is that this might be on the core-business-todo list for cloudmade ;-) Paul Houle schreef: The other day my family was on a road trip and we passed by an unfamilliar city. We wanted to find a chinese restaurant, so I used the database of business locations in City Navigator NT to find one. OSM could replace, perhaps even surpass, the street maps in a product like City Navigator, but I'm thinking about the business listings. It seems to me that a free product could be provided on a basis similar to the Yellow Pages: it seems to me that it's worth it for businesses to be listed, so a project like that could pay it's bills by offering premium listings. Is anybody working on anything like that? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
Brilliant! I second that.. Erm.. +1 that idea! -with a custom CM slippy map that will show the listings. (that companies can use) BUT -The basemap (mapnik, osmarender, cyclemap) shouldnt play favorites, it lists it all at lowest zoom :-) (a middleman who can play nice with yellow pages) Cheers, Sam ps. Paying for a listing in yellowpages, you should get a choice of what map it gets listed on. :) On 7/27/09, Milo van der Linden m...@opengeo.nl wrote: My wild guess is that this might be on the core-business-todo list for cloudmade ;-) Paul Houle schreef: The other day my family was on a road trip and we passed by an unfamilliar city. We wanted to find a chinese restaurant, so I used the database of business locations in City Navigator NT to find one. OSM could replace, perhaps even surpass, the street maps in a product like City Navigator, but I'm thinking about the business listings. It seems to me that a free product could be provided on a basis similar to the Yellow Pages: it seems to me that it's worth it for businesses to be listed, so a project like that could pay it's bills by offering premium listings. Is anybody working on anything like that? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] maxheight/height
Martin Koppenhoefer escribió: 2009/7/27 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Mon, 27/7/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: maxheight expresses a height limit for using the way to which the tag is added. If no unit is included, the value is assumed to be in metres. You get to break up the way and mark it as maxheight I'm just trying to make other people's entries things more consistent. but be careful not to break things up. Maxheight could be valid for the way on the bridge itself as well. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk there is no need to break anything height and maxheight can also be just nodes. i think the wiki definition is quite clear for all. so for me: - maxheight on the bridge stands for height limit of vehicles crossing the bridge. [tag the bridge or a node] - height on the bridge stands for distance from the ground to top of the bridge (construction). [tag the bridge] - maxheight on the way under the bridge stands for height limit of vehicles crossing under the bridge. [tag a way node] you can have all three at the same time. - height on the way under the bridge makes no sense, unless you want to tag the asphalt or pavement height.(!) s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
But CloudMade and OSM are 2 different things. Yellow pages can use cloudmades slippymap instead of others. They could partner-up, but give us 2 more years to get OSM-basemap upto snuff :-) On 7/27/09, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Mon, 27/7/09, Paul Houle p...@ontology2.com wrote: OSM could replace, perhaps even surpass, the street maps in a product like City Navigator, but I'm thinking about the business listings. It seems to me that a free product could be provided on a basis similar to the Yellow Pages: it seems to me that it's worth it for businesses to be listed, so a project like that could pay it's bills by offering premium listings. Don't ya just love a good chicken and egg problem. Yellow pages works because it has both critical mass and usually a physical product is sent out. At this point in time OSM needs businesses to embrace it more than it can offer back to businesses, so charging them would be like a slap in the face. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
El Lunes, 27 de Julio de 2009, John Smith escribió: At this point in time OSM needs businesses to embrace it more than it can offer back to businesses, so charging them would be like a slap in the face. You're doing it wrong. I do think that OSM should tap into government sources. Every country must have some kind of business registry that could be cross-referenced with house numbers. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, France is accusing the US of arrogance, and Germany doesn't want to go to war. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Coastline
Forward to ML. On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Martijn van Oosterhoutklep...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, David Groomrevi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: Yes. For mapnik, at high zoom levels the coast polygons used are generated from shapefiles created by the coastline error checker. The coastline error checker has been offline since sometime before mid June, so no updated shapefiles have been created. FWIW, I'm trying to get it working again (it was pointed out to me a few days ago that hypercube was back online) however I keep running into problems with corrupted planet dumps and daily diffs. I hope to have it working again soon. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@gmail.com http://svana.org/kleptog/ -- Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@gmail.com http://svana.org/kleptog/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
Maybe an offshoot of osm should be a open directory business directory. That people locate their business on a osm then it should be search able via the main page. As I keep saying it also would add extra navagation points such as postal codes. On Jul 27, 2009 4:46 PM, Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es wrote: El Lunes, 27 de Julio de 2009, John Smith escribió: At this point in time OSM needs businesses to embrace it more than it can offer back to business... You're doing it wrong. I do think that OSM should tap into government sources. Every country must have some kind of business registry that could be cross-referenced with house numbers. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, France is accusing the US of arrogance, and Germany doesn't want to go to war. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
John Smith wrote: Don't ya just love a good chicken and egg problem. Yellow pages works because it has both critical mass and usually a physical product is sent out. Before telecom deregulation (1980 or so), every person (or household, anyway) was in the phone book because there was just one phone company, and you were listed in their catalog. I dropped my landline around 1996 and have since only used a non-incumbent cellular provider. Today, the only reliable place to find my number is on my website. I doubt that any yellow pages catalog covers a critical mass of all business any longer. We're back to the 19th century, when, before telephones, various private publishers printed address calendars. Theoretically, you can still use governmental census registers and business incorporation listings. But the number of illegal aliens (temporary guest workers on a tourist visa, or without any visa) is constantly increasing. Maybe, in this era of Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap, it is our task to compile the new (and free) business directory and put these names on maps. With a web crawler, we could try to dig out street and city names (and opening hours) from web pages. Or we could instruct businesses who want to appear in OpenStreetMap to embed exact coordinates in their websites and then ping our crawler. I'm not going to run that project, but it's not completely unrealistic anymore. You only have to figure out how to make it sustainable with people and money for servers. Maybe some kind of Craigslist for shops and restaurants? -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
Right, my business is listed with the BC business registry, which is government funded. You can look up in the Canadian corporate registry all businesses the addresses. I dont think that that information is copyrighted, as long as its properly sourced? Right? Being manually listed with an estimation of where the company is, is the same thing that yellow pages does. YP just charges for 'special treatment'. Fact: YP lists all businesses free under 1 category. (my last company was listed free) (google does the same) AFAIK, YP has todo this for 'fair competition' -because its just like a phone directory. (you need to pay to be NOT listed). Anyway, thats another todo list item. On 7/27/09, Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es wrote: El Lunes, 27 de Julio de 2009, John Smith escribió: At this point in time OSM needs businesses to embrace it more than it can offer back to businesses, so charging them would be like a slap in the face. You're doing it wrong. I do think that OSM should tap into government sources. Every country must have some kind of business registry that could be cross-referenced with house numbers. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, France is accusing the US of arrogance, and Germany doesn't want to go to war. -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
Hi! You might want to try this: http://www.openstreetbrowser.org Unfortunately I'm not able to provide this for the whole planet right now, only Europe is there. greetings, Stephan -- Seid unbequem, seid Sand, nicht Öl im Getriebe der Welt! - Günther Eich ,-. | Stephan Plepelits, | | Technische Universität Wien -Studien Informatik Raumplanung | | openstreetbrowser.org couchsurfing.org tubasis.at bl.mud.at | | sk...@xover.htu.tuwien.ac.at - My Blog: http://plepe.at | `-' ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
Some very good observations, Lars. Even simpler than webcrawling would to imitate these guys and just provide a simple web form : http://www.google.com/local/add/analyticsSplashPage?gl=ushl=en-US On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se wrote: John Smith wrote: Don't ya just love a good chicken and egg problem. Yellow pages works because it has both critical mass and usually a physical product is sent out. Before telecom deregulation (1980 or so), every person (or household, anyway) was in the phone book because there was just one phone company, and you were listed in their catalog. I dropped my landline around 1996 and have since only used a non-incumbent cellular provider. Today, the only reliable place to find my number is on my website. I doubt that any yellow pages catalog covers a critical mass of all business any longer. We're back to the 19th century, when, before telephones, various private publishers printed address calendars. Theoretically, you can still use governmental census registers and business incorporation listings. But the number of illegal aliens (temporary guest workers on a tourist visa, or without any visa) is constantly increasing. Maybe, in this era of Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap, it is our task to compile the new (and free) business directory and put these names on maps. With a web crawler, we could try to dig out street and city names (and opening hours) from web pages. Or we could instruct businesses who want to appear in OpenStreetMap to embed exact coordinates in their websites and then ping our crawler. I'm not going to run that project, but it's not completely unrealistic anymore. You only have to figure out how to make it sustainable with people and money for servers. Maybe some kind of Craigslist for shops and restaurants? -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
Anyway, I created a wiki page for it. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Business_Directory And we can throw in more facts and ideas there on how to improve on OpenStreetBrowser etc. Cheers, Sam Twitter: @Acrosscanada Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Stephan Plepelits sk...@xover.htu.tuwien.ac.at wrote: Hi! You might want to try this: http://www.openstreetbrowser.org Unfortunately I'm not able to provide this for the whole planet right now, only Europe is there. greetings, Stephan -- Seid unbequem, seid Sand, nicht Öl im Getriebe der Welt! - Günther Eich ,-. | Stephan Plepelits, | | Technische Universität Wien -Studien Informatik Raumplanung | | openstreetbrowser.org couchsurfing.org tubasis.at bl.mud.at | | sk...@xover.htu.tuwien.ac.at - My Blog: http://plepe.at | `-' ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
Lars Aronsson wrote: I doubt that any yellow pages catalog covers a critical mass of all business any longer. We're back to the 19th century, when, before telephones, various private publishers printed address calendars. Just jumping in with a random factoid here. I read a piece in the finance section of a newspaper today about Yell. It was saying that they are seen as somewhat recession proof, i.e. they are affected less than average during a downturn, because, quote: when things get bad, cancelling the advert in the Yellow Pages is almost the last thing that any business does. I'm not sure how far you can extrapolate from that, but I think it's still fair to say that Yellow Pages covers most businesses. Certainly the copies that arrive on my doorstep each year (and go straight into the recycling bin) are not getting any thinner. Phil. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Explaining to NASA why the ASTER data should be freely licensed
(Sending this to wikipedia-l OSM's legal-talk too) On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com wrote: So, what we should do is to author a document (on the wiki?) which clearly explains why such terms which restrict redistribution and fields of endeavor mean that free content projects like OSM can't use the data and will have to keep using SRTM. Since nobody (especially someone with legal know-how) has offered to do this I've continued to my correspondence with NASA/USGS/METI using my own know-how and miscellaneous bits I've scraped from the recent ASTER threads on this list for support. Below is an E-Mail I just sent to the NASA/USGS/METI people I'm corresponding with. I won't include the snippets I'm replying to since I haven't had permission to publish them, instead I'm going to replace them with little summaries of the original content. My summaries are one-liners while the originals are a few paragraphs so obviously information is lost in the process: [What's this public OpenStreetMap forum you're referring to?] It's being discussed on the main OpenStreetMap talk mailing list (and some other foreign language lists, e.g. the German one). Here's a list to the thread I started there: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-July/thread.html#38235 It's a public mailing list so you could sign up if you'd like, or continue corresponding with me and I could ferry information back-and-forth. In any case I'll be submitting what I send to you to the aforementioned mailing list, but I won't quote any remarks from you (@nasa.gov/@usgs.gov people) unless I have explicit permission to do so. So I'll modify this E-Mail so that e.g. the paragraph I'm replying to now will be replaced by something like [Where is this being discussed?] before I post it. But that's bound to cause confusion so having permission to quote you when appropriate would be better. I was hoping that someone with more legal knowledge would be willing to chime in but that hasn't happened already. I'm just a mapping hobbyist but I'll try to explain what would be about acceptable terms for open source/free software projects the best I can. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-July/038327.html [Perhaps your intended use of the ASTER data is supported, e.g. if you derived tiles intended for some mapping software that would not be considered redistribution of the original product an could be pushed downstream] [However if you were intending to distribute the canonical ASTER data as-is that would be in violation of the terms] I think I've correctly read between the lines of the download agreement in assuming that the purpose of that clause is to avoid Balkanization of the ASTER data, i.e. to make sure that NASA/METI will always be the canonical source for the source dataset. If the terms were changed to something like: You are not allowed to publicly distribute the original ASTER data files but any derived work can be redistributed freely with (only) the following restriction: If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the original author (NASA/METI) credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author. Or something like that then the ASTER dataset could be used to its full potential by free data projects like OpenStreetMap, Wikipedia others. But since there would be no restriction on the fields of endeavor that generated data could always be used to generate a DEM again, see a further explanation in this E-Mail: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-July/038327.html For instance here's a map where the OpenStreetMap data which is under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA) license has been combined with SRTM contours: http://osm.org/go/0CZyDpI--?layers=00B0FTF The CC-BY-SA license specifies (as do most free software licenses) that when you distribute derived works you can impose no further restrictions on the data. That's a pretty much a universal feature of popular free content licenses to avoid data Balkanization and ensure compatibility so that e.g. someone doesn't specify the additional terms that you can't use the derived work for some specific use (e.g. military), or that you can't use it on a Sunday. Such accumulated restrictions would quickly make the data unusable for everybody. Someone could take that map and generate a global DEM by analyzing the contour lines and distribute a global DEM derived from ASTER free of the original restrictions, thus circumventing the original limited use clause. But in reality nobody is going to go to
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
El Lunes, 27 de Julio de 2009, Sam Vekemans escribió: Right, my business is listed with the BC business registry, which is government funded. You can look up in the Canadian corporate registry all businesses the addresses. I dont think that that information is copyrighted, as long as its properly sourced? Right? Well, I expect that information to be covered by different licensing terms in different countries. After all, OSM has a lot of experience bashing government agencies to get copyright-free map data. If Canada has something similar to a freedom of information act request, you could ask for that data, and see what happens. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. -- Mark Twain signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: I do think that OSM should tap into government sources. Every country must have some kind of business registry that could be cross-referenced with house numbers. Did you try to get hold of such a list? Was it useful? I'm an independent computer consultant. In the tax registry, I'm an educational venture. Maybe your map would show my home address as a school building? I guess most restaurants are just restaurants in the business registry, so you wouldn't know which serve pizza or Chinese, or which are open for lunch or closed on Mondays. Most businesses would register the postal address where they receive mail from tax authorities, not the shop front door. -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
El Lunes, 27 de Julio de 2009, Lars Aronsson escribió: Did you try to get hold of such a list? Was it useful? I'm an independent computer consultant. In the tax registry, I'm an educational venture. Maybe your map would show my home address as a school building? I guess most restaurants are just restaurants in the business registry, so you wouldn't know which serve pizza or Chinese, or which are open for lunch or closed on Mondays. Most businesses would register the postal address where they receive mail from tax authorities, not the shop front door. Any data is better than no data at all. I don't think that incompleteness is a reason to deny entering some data into OSM. And, for the record, I imported 3000 educational ventures in Madrid, Spain, a while ago. I don't mind if they're a kindergarten or a university. I just want more data. Cheers, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es Dichosos los pueblos cuyos anales son aburridos.- Barón de Montesquieu. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Explaining to NASA why the ASTER data should be freely licensed
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com wrote: NASA/METI have updated their distribution terms with a FAQ in response to my questions: https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/lpdaac/about/news_archive/friday_july_24_2009 Unfortunately the new terms aren't new at all, and they still look too restrictive to be incorporated into freely licensed datasets. Ævar, thanks for taking point on this... These sort of licensing issues are an annoying, but necessary part of our work and not everyone has the stomach for it. I myself have run into the issue locally... There's nearby county that has very high resolution aerial images but the standard licensing terms that they offer them under would make it impossible for me to use with OSM. That plus the fact that they would charge me a lot of money for copies of the images has made me decide not to even bother. Up next I'm going to see what I can get for the county that I'm an actual resident of. Perhaps I'll have better luck there. -- Jeff Ollie ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] maxheight/height
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:19 PM, sergio sevillanosergiosevillano.m...@gmail.com wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer escribió: there is no need to break anything height and maxheight can also be just nodes. i think the wiki definition is quite clear for all. so for me: - maxheight on the bridge stands for height limit of vehicles crossing the bridge. [tag the bridge or a node] If you tag a node then it applies as a restrictions for ALL pathes that contain that node. Not only one way but not another that both share that node. - height on the bridge stands for distance from the ground to top of the bridge (construction). [tag the bridge] - maxheight on the way under the bridge stands for height limit of vehicles crossing under the bridge. [tag a way node] you can have all three at the same time. - height on the way under the bridge makes no sense, unless you want to tag the asphalt or pavement height.(!) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
2009/7/27 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es: El Lunes, 27 de Julio de 2009, John Smith escribió: At this point in time OSM needs businesses to embrace it more than it can offer back to businesses, so charging them would be like a slap in the face. You're doing it wrong. I do think that OSM should tap into government sources. Every country must have some kind of business registry that could be cross-referenced with house numbers. a) Store-Address(es) != Office-Address. b) The european database directive grants copy-rights to such collections of addresses preventing us to copy it in full or in major parts. c) Ther MUST be only one registry the one for taxes and that`s not public. Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
one way that a business-listings website could work with OSM would be
to let each advertiser 'own' (not exclusively) an OSM node that they
can keep updated from some business-advertising website.
(1) you create an account and say I want to advertise a
{business_type} at {location} (doesn't matter if you're the owner or
publisher or just a regular customer). The website then creates an
OSM node to represent that business (or suggests a nearby node that
already exists)
(2) for each business node that you're maintaining in this website,
you can change the tags using some interface that doesn't care about
lat/lon and nearby objects like every other OSM editor, but just has
key/value or predefined text fields.
(3) they describe the business using the standard OSM tags. name=,
telephone=, website=, opening_hours=, description=, amenity=
addr:housenumber= and all the rest of it. So a business listing would
look just like a well-mapped object that an OSM mapper might have
added. Perhaps it even tell them when other people change the data on
'their' node.
and then various websites can display all the business just like
OpenStreetBrowser does, combining the standard nodes that mappers have
just walked past once, with the professional nodes that the owners are
mainaining (or some company which springs-up to sell OSM-promotion to
companies)
the only obvious complication (besides filtering malicious edits on
this external website that's uploading to OSM) might be when a pub or
shop or farm or restaurant node is expanded into a building or
relation by anotehr mapper.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] i18n-rich areas on the map
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Ed Avise...@waniasset.com wrote: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab at gmail.com writes: http://cassini.toolserver.org/browse-fr.html http://cassini.toolserver.org/browse-nl.html The rest are now up at http://cassini.toolserver.org/tile-browse/ And here's a test wiki to play with: http://u.nix.is/wiki/index.php/Maptest See this maps-l posting: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/maps-l/2009-July/000158.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
Phil Endecott wrote: I'm not sure how far you can extrapolate from that, but I think it's still fair to say that Yellow Pages covers most businesses. Certainly the copies that arrive on my doorstep each year (and go straight into the recycling bin) are not getting any thinner. Personally, I'm not concerned with a database that contains ~all~ businesses, rather just the kind of businesses that a person would be interested in if they're travelling. I won't use my Garmin to find a plumber, a dentist or a web designer. I would use it to find a restaurant, gas station or hotel. Producing and maintaining a list of businesses (identity management) is a different problem from determining how good a business is, and what experiences people have had with it. I know that geonames contains a database of hotels. Personally I'm most interested in the restaurants. Travelling in the rural US, I tire pretty quick of pizza, subs and chinese food. The ideal system finds me something that isn't one of those, but if it can't do that, at least helps me get a good sub instead of a bad sub. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Explaining to NASA why the ASTER data should be freely licensed
Jeffrey Ollie wrote: Ævar, thanks for taking point on this... These sort of licensing issues are an annoying, but necessary part of our work and not everyone has the stomach for it. I myself have run into the issue locally... There's nearby county that has very high resolution aerial images but the standard licensing terms that they offer them under would make it impossible for me to use with OSM. That plus the fact that they would charge me a lot of money for copies of the images has made me decide not to even bother. Perhaps I'm assuming something that's not true, but there may be a national security kind of issue here too. I've seen very similar licenses on, for instance, neutronic simulation codes for nuclear reactors. The design of the license is to (i) sound very open, (ii) make it so that the right people can get the product easily, but (iii) the product can be denied to anyone that that the owners want to deny it to without having to give a honest reason. Of course, for all I know, North Korean tanks already have Tom Toms loaded with pirate versions of the latest commercial maps of S. Korea. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] maxheight/height
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:44:44 +0200, Peter Dörrie peter.doer...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote: maxheight=* refers to legal maxheight, in some countries, such as brazil, there is a difference on legal height (restriction) and physical height/clearance (information sign). See my note on the discussion on the wiki key:height - if height is not to be used for this, than another tag is needed - in Germany you will often find height above sea level written on signs for Motorway-Bridges so height=* is not very clear. I think it would be better to attach this information to the street, not to the bridge because it is the street that is influenced by this. and you could argue that in those cases the legal height is identical with the physical height. Greetings, Peter height above sealevel should be tagged ele=* and not height=* -- Brgds Aun Johnsen via Webmail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Mon, 27/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I think the bridge should be tagged. There was an overwhelming response on the main talk list that this be tagged as maxheight on the way that has the restriction, ie you can't go under the bridge unless you are under x metres. There are two issues here: 1) what should be tagged and 2) what should it be tagged with. For 1), what should be tagged? Definitely the bridge. For two reasons: firstly, clearance under a bridge is an attribute of the bridge. Secondly, it is not possible to refer to the section of the way that is under the bridge, because the bridge is a way with zero width. The only alternative is to tag the entire length of any way that goes under the bridge or some arbitrary length of any way that goes under the bridge. I think these alternatives are undesirable at best - misleading and messy at worst. For example, it's kind of like tagging any house that's next to a park as next_to_a_park=yes, rather than tagging the big grassy area as leisure=park (yes, this is an exaggeration, but the analogy is tagging the thing that is affected by something rather than tagging the something itself). For 2), what should it be tagged with? I concede that a bridge tagged with height could be misinterpreted (as the actual height of the bridge or bridge construction), as could maxheight (as referring to a restriction involved with traveling on top of the bridge). Therefore, I suggest a new tag, clearance. A new tag should be created when the current tags do not describe things adequately, which I think is what has happened in this case. Thoughts? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] maxheight/height
I do not agree that they bouth should be treated as maxheight=* If my car with load that is 3m high, and maxheight=3m, but physical clearance is much higher,than you would pass at the speed limit, but if both maxheight and physical clearance is 3m, than I would need to slow down to almost crawl when passing the lowest point. maxheight can be 3m even if physical clearnance is 3.2m They can even be tagged on the same node. On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:14:31 +0200, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote: I am tagging both as maxheight. It is a restriction that you are not capable or allowed to pass a given node or a given way in any direction with a vehicle of greater height. That is also how I am evaluating maxheight and maxwidth in Traveling Salesman. Marcus On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:31:49 +0200, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote: maxheight=* refers to legal maxheight, in some countries, such as brazil, there is a difference on legal height (restriction) and physical height/clearance (information sign). See my note on the discussion on the wiki key:height - if height is not to be used for this, than another tag is needed -- Brgds Aun Johnsen via Webmail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Lars Aronsson wrote: Most businesses would register the postal address where they receive mail from tax authorities, not the shop front door. So you would find me, and another hundred businesses, at the one address. It will be an accountants when you arrived at the address. (Actually its the accountant's PO Box on the register) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote: No, you're wrong here. Maxheight is an element of the way that goes under the bridge. It is caused by the bridge, but it is not part of the bridge. You're saying that the clearance under a bridge is not an attribute of the bridge? I'm not at all convinced of that. But it is subjective, so we may have to agree to disagree. It is the road under the bridge that has the limitation, not the bridge. Divided roads often have different max heights on each side, but it is one level bridge over the top. Good point, though I would suspect this is relatively rare (i.e. I've never seen this). Max-height can be caused by overhanging trees, low wires, odd road signs that stick out over the road, even buildings or roadside rocks that bulge out over the road. Whatever the cause, it is the road itself that is affected, and should be tagged. I disagree. We should be tagging things, not tagging the effect of things. On a motorway, the max height section can be several km long - the distance between exits, and it is all covered by the same limitation, legally. On other roads it may be only a few meters, and could be covered by a node tag. Sounds like a maintenance nightmare. I'm also not sure that a clearance under a bridge is equivalent to a legal limitation for the section of motorway between the exits before and after the bridge, as you say. And what if a motorway and bridge are tagged, but exits are missing, etc. Just sounds a lot harder to maintain than tagging the bridge itself. Can you explain what you mean by may be only a few meters, and could be covered by a node tag? If you can specify an exact preferred way of tagging this (and document it on the wiki), I may well be convinced. Cheers, Roy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Cameronosm-mailing-li...@justcameron.com wrote: I think tag the part of the way that is signed. Generally before bridges there is a sign informing road users of the bridge's restrictions. Sometimes they will offer an alternate route for larger vehicles. So tag from the nearest junction if available or the sign. Funnily enough, where I have been mapping the sign is always on the bridge itself. Anyway, I think we should be tagging what the sign is referring to, independent of the sign itself. A clearance tag could just as easily be misinterpreted as the maxheight tag. I don't see how. bridge=yes; clearance=2.8... Roy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote: No, you're wrong here. Maxheight is an element of the way that goes under the bridge. It is caused by the bridge, but it is not part of the bridge. You're saying that the clearance under a bridge is not an attribute of the bridge? I'm not at all convinced of that. But it is subjective, so we may have to agree to disagree. It is the road under the bridge that has the limitation, not the bridge. Divided roads often have different max heights on each side, but it is one level bridge over the top. snip we're arguing about matters regarding the logic of choices (as usual) then the logic of the name applied to the choice, which gets into philosophical arguments which remind me of Plato. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato The problem is that at a time in the past a decision was made (Principle A) whose logic is now questioned. A lot has been uploaded onto the server using Principle A, which will have to be reworked if Principle B succeeds Principle A. So regardless of the logic, people will support Principle A because of the work involved in change. Just look at the work involved by the API change from 0.5 to 0.6 To return to the bridge the following attributes of the bridge and the road underneath it all need to be considered Height of bridge Height above sea level of the bridge Max height of the arch of the bridge above the roadway Max height of a vehicle which can drive under the bridge, which if the bridge is an arch must be less than the max height of the arch Max height of a vehicle which the engineer said was permitted to drive under the bridge so now I have 5 height measures some of which belong to the road and some to the bridge, and some to both. then we need unambiguous tags to refer to these 5 concepts and translations of them all. :-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
Liz schrieb: To return to the bridge the following attributes of the bridge and the road underneath it all need to be considered Height of bridge Height above sea level of the bridge Max height of the arch of the bridge above the roadway Max height of a vehicle which can drive under the bridge, which if the bridge is an arch must be less than the max height of the arch Max height of a vehicle which the engineer said was permitted to drive under the bridge so now I have 5 height measures some of which belong to the road and some to the bridge, and some to both. then we need unambiguous tags to refer to these 5 concepts and translations of them all. :-) What about a max height of vehicles passing *over* the bridge? there are quite a lot of bridges which have support structures limiting he height of vehicles passing over it. how do you distinguish this, and how do you make it clear to every mapper what is what? -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:34:00 +1000, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Cameronosm-mailing-li...@justcameron.com wrote: I think tag the part of the way that is signed. Generally before bridges there is a sign informing road users of the bridge's restrictions. Sometimes they will offer an alternate route for larger vehicles. So tag from the nearest junction if available or the sign. Funnily enough, where I have been mapping the sign is always on the bridge itself. Anyway, I think we should be tagging what the sign is referring to, independent of the sign itself. A clearance tag could just as easily be misinterpreted as the maxheight tag. I don't see how. bridge=yes; clearance=2.8... Roy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk I am writing a proposal for a clearance-tag, I will send it out tomorrow. Link is posted from the tag-height discussion if you want to have a look at the draft -- Brgds Aun Johnsen via Webmail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote: Liz schrieb: To return to the bridge the following attributes of the bridge and the road underneath it all need to be considered Height of bridge Height above sea level of the bridge Max height of the arch of the bridge above the roadway Max height of a vehicle which can drive under the bridge, which if the bridge is an arch must be less than the max height of the arch Max height of a vehicle which the engineer said was permitted to drive under the bridge so now I have 5 height measures some of which belong to the road and some to the bridge, and some to both. then we need unambiguous tags to refer to these 5 concepts and translations of them all. :-) What about a max height of vehicles passing over the bridge? there are quite a lot of bridges which have support structures limiting he height of vehicles passing over it. how do you distinguish this, and how do you make it clear to every mapper what is what? I'm happy to admit I've missed a 6th height measure - missing possible scenarios is one of our problems in tagging. This just came up on the talk_au where this discussion is running in parallel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
Funnily enough, where I have been mapping the sign is always on the bridge itself. Anyway, I think we should be tagging what the sign is referring to, independent of the sign itself. even if the sign is on the bridge structure it is a limitation valid for the road passing under the bridge. the maxheight must be on the road where it is valid one bridge can cross multiple roads with different maxheight limtations. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Ross Scanloni...@4x4falcon.com wrote: Does this mean the bridge has a clearance of 2.8 or the road under the bridge has a clearance of 2.8. To me this would suggest the bridge has a limit of 2.8 ie vehicles travelling over the bridge can not be above 2.8 high. I'd suggest that if the bridge has a height limit, ie clearance, then the bridge is tagged with max_height. If the road under the bridge has a height limit, ie clearance, then the road is tagged. Sorry, maybe this is a language issue. In my mind, height limit of a way refers to maximum height *above* the way, whereas clearance of a way infers maximum height *under* the way. Maybe clearance isn't the best word for this - please suggest others. My main point is that when there is a maximum height under a way, this should be tagged as an attribute of that way, not of the ways that pass under it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Apollinaris Schoellascho...@gmail.com wrote: one bridge can cross multiple roads with different maxheight limtations. This is a good argument in favour of tagging the ways that pass under a bridge instead of the bridge. But I think it should be weighed against the arguments for the other method. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: My main point is that when there is a maximum height under a way, this should be tagged as an attribute of that way, not of the ways that pass under it. Here I cannot agree When I travel over the bridge I am not interested in the maximum height of the way which travels under the bridge. When I travel under the bridge I am interested in the height limitation. Going back to my multipart specification, trying to really comprehend the logic the height of the arch is a property of the bridge. the max height which can go under the bridge is a property of the way / node beneath it note that counter-intuitively, height max height clearance ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] maxheight/height
I think everyone is thinking of this in one of 2 ways, it's either an attribute of the bridge, or a restriction of the way under the bridge. The maxheight tag looks like it was aimed as a restriction tag, the way below the bridge is restricted if you are above or close to X metres you will need to travel another path. I think adding a clearance tag will only serve to confuse things even further and I don't think we need to be redundant here. Also I've seen different sides of a bridge signed as different clearances when bridges slope and one side is lower than the other side. As for using a node to indicate maxheight, this seems to me to be a very clean way of dealing with it, since any routing software would only need one obstacle to reject that section of way and find another path. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
2009/7/28 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: In Australia in Telstra won a lawsuit against people OCR'ing the street directory and selling white/yellow pages on CD. For all intents and purposes Telstra owns the copyright on all Australian White/Yellow page directories and now Telstra is a publicly listed company. A similar lawsuit (on TV program listings) was appealed earlier this year, and got the opposite result. It's a lot more complicated now, but in some situations you can get away with it. Basically the judge said that sweat of the brow did not a copyright make - so a collection of facts can't be copyrighted, thought the presentation of those facts can. There was some commentary at the time that this affected the Telstra rulings earlier, though as far as I know nobody has tried to do anything about it. I'd want to talk to a lawyer about it before I tried. And I don't know if the TV company counter appealed at a higher level. Also in Australia it's not free to list in the yellow pages for anyone, it's free to be listed in the white pages though I think. Um, that's not quite accurate. Everybody who has a business phone line, as opposed to a residential one, gets one free simple listing in the yellow pages, under the main category for your company. If you don't have a business line, or want more listings under other categories, or a bigger add, or even just bold or coloured print, then it costs. It's actually to YP's benefit to list as many as possible, because then people are more likely to pay more for a bigger add to stand out. The company I work for has never paid for a listing, and would like to get rid of the one free one, as we don't get customers that way and the only people who call us from it aren't actually looking for what we do. YP won't remove it, though. Stephen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Stephen Hope wrote: And I don't know if the TV company counter appealed at a higher level. They couldn't. The last one ruling was from the High Court. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] i18n-rich areas on the map
Very nice! What i miss is getting a bigger map. If there is a thumbnail map embedded into an article people would normally click it in order to see the map in better detail (normally on a bigger map), not to navigate in a thumbnail sized slippy map. There needs to be some intuitive way to switch from the embedded (slippy or static) map to a full screen (or so) slippy map (can be lightbox javascript, so that user doesn't leave the page). If user doesn't have javascript (or has it disabled) clicking on a map should result in a bigger map (with higher zoom to show roughly the same area). Stefan On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Ed Avise...@waniasset.com wrote: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab at gmail.com writes: http://cassini.toolserver.org/browse-fr.html http://cassini.toolserver.org/browse-nl.html The rest are now up at http://cassini.toolserver.org/tile-browse/ And here's a test wiki to play with: http://u.nix.is/wiki/index.php/Maptest See this maps-l posting: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/maps-l/2009-July/000158.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote: When I travel over the bridge I am not interested in the maximum height of the way which travels under the bridge. When I travel under the bridge I am interested in the height limitation. Ah, perhaps our difference in opinion stems from our different perspectives - your emphasis on when I travel vs my emphasis on, perhaps, when I look at a map, or when I conceptualise the world. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: I think everyone is thinking of this in one of 2 ways, it's either an attribute of the bridge, or a restriction of the way under the bridge. Agreed. And it's clear that both ways of thinking are probably valid. As for using a node to indicate maxheight, this seems to me to be a very clean way of dealing with it, since any routing software would only need one obstacle to reject that section of way and find another path. Can you please explain exactly what you mean by using a node to indicate maxheight? This seems to be different from the posts which seemed to suggest tagging, e.g. sections of motorway between exits, etc. Like I said, my main argument for tagging the bridge is that it's unambiguous and easy to implement and maintain. If you have a consistent scheme for tagging the ways which pass under bridges, which is unambiguous and easy to implement and maintain, please share and document on the wiki :) Cheers, Roy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed. And it's clear that both ways of thinking are probably valid. As of time of writing maxheight is the only valid one and I don't think we need or should have 2 tags to indicate the same thing in 2 different ways. Can you please explain exactly what you mean by using a node to indicate maxheight? This seems to be different from the Someone posted about this earlier, have a node on the way effected, near or under the bridge, rather than splitting the way and then tagging that node as maxheight or clearence might be the better option that making a new section of way. However maxheight is currently only applicable to ways not nodes. posts which seemed to suggest tagging, e.g. sections of motorway between exits, etc. Like I said, my main argument for tagging the bridge is that it's unambiguous and easy to implement and maintain. It's not hard or ambiguous, it just means splitting a way under the bridge similar to splitting a bridge. If you have a consistent scheme for tagging the ways which pass under bridges, which is unambiguous and easy to implement and maintain, please share and document on the wiki :) It's a little more complicated then that, at present there was agreement on maxheight as a restriction tag and that is perfectly valid as far as I'm concerned. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: I think everyone is thinking of this in one of 2 ways, it's either an attribute of the bridge, or a restriction of the way under the bridge. Agreed. And it's clear that both ways of thinking are probably valid. As for using a node to indicate maxheight, this seems to me to be a very clean way of dealing with it, since any routing software would only need one obstacle to reject that section of way and find another path. Can you please explain exactly what you mean by using a node to indicate maxheight? This seems to be different from the posts which seemed to suggest tagging, e.g. sections of motorway between exits, etc. Like I said, my main argument for tagging the bridge is that it's unambiguous and easy to implement and maintain. If you have a consistent scheme for tagging the ways which pass under bridges, which is unambiguous and easy to implement and maintain, please share and document on the wiki :) Cheers, Roy I don't think that we have a consistent clear unambiguous easily_maintained and implemented system yet. It certainly isn't up to document on the wiki standard. But a few more posts from all comers and we could be close to 'clear' and 'unambiguous'. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Ah, perhaps our difference in opinion stems from our different perspectives - your emphasis on when I travel vs my emphasis on, perhaps, when I look at a map, or when I conceptualise the world. That was the basis of the 2 sets of logic, one is a restriction, the other is a physical attribute. maxheight is a restriction so belongs attached to the way that would be restricted. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Old GPS data
Hello! I am currently looking at GPS collected by OSM colleges here at Riga. I see there is data about temporary bridge built during road works and after de-mounted. Does OSM invalidates GPS data after some time? Otherwise, roads continuously changes and after we will have a big cloud of points that don't make any sense. Aleksejs ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: As of time of writing maxheight is the only valid one and I don't think we need or should have 2 tags to indicate the same thing in 2 different ways. I meant there's two ways of conceptualising the distance below a bridge (as an attribute or a restriction). I'm not suggesting we need 2 different tags. I'm quite happy to tag it as a restriction, if we can agree on how it should be implemented. have a node on the way effected, near or under the bridge, rather than splitting the way and then tagging that node as maxheight or clearence might be the better option that making a new section of way. However maxheight is currently only applicable to ways not nodes. ... It's not hard or ambiguous, it just means splitting a way under the bridge similar to splitting a bridge. I would at least suggest that - if maxheight is applied to a node, as you suggest - the node should be *shared* by the bridge (way) and the way passing under. This makes it clearer that maxheight is specifically referring to the bridge clearance. Also, if someone is checking, for example, whether maxheight is specified for a particular bridge/way, they don't have to go searching for some random node near the bridge. By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I would at least suggest that - if maxheight is applied to a node, as you suggest - the node should be *shared* by the bridge (way) and the way passing under. This makes it clearer that maxheight is The problem with this is that 2 ways sharing a node are physically connected and this wouldn't be the case as one passes over the other. specifically referring to the bridge clearance. Also, if someone is checking, for example, whether maxheight is specified for a particular bridge/way, they don't have to go searching for some random node near the bridge. Searching for a node near the bridge would be easier than searching for a way since the node would be in close proximity to the bridge and you search by lat/lon rather than random nodes. By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?). You can use the maxwidth tag to indicate the maximum width and object must be to pass a restriction on the way, like an underpass of a bridge :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?). Logically you can as they are on different layers. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:30 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I would at least suggest that - if maxheight is applied to a node, as you suggest - the node should be *shared* by the bridge (way) and the way passing under. This makes it clearer that maxheight is The problem with this is that 2 ways sharing a node are physically connected and this wouldn't be the case as one passes over the other. Ah, of course. Problem. Searching for a node near the bridge would be easier than searching for a way since the node would be in close proximity to the bridge and you search by lat/lon rather than random nodes. Um...the way would also be close proximity to the bridge, because it passes under it... I don't see how finding a node near a bridge is a particularly elegant solution. And by random I mean the particular node you choose would be arbitrary and in an arbitrary position. And by arbitrary I mean without specific meaning. By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?). You can use the maxwidth tag to indicate the maximum width and object must be to pass a restriction on the way, like an underpass of a bridge :) I was referring to the width of the bridge. And sure, maxwidth exists but I would say that OSM ways are stored as lines. Mathematically, I'm saying a point cannot be under a line, unless it is on it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
Roy Wallace wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: As of time of writing maxheight is the only valid one and I don't think we need or should have 2 tags to indicate the same thing in 2 different ways. I meant there's two ways of conceptualising the distance below a bridge (as an attribute or a restriction). I'm not suggesting we need 2 different tags. I'm quite happy to tag it as a restriction, if we can agree on how it should be implemented. have a node on the way effected, near or under the bridge, rather than splitting the way and then tagging that node as maxheight or clearence might be the better option that making a new section of way. However maxheight is currently only applicable to ways not nodes. ... It's not hard or ambiguous, it just means splitting a way under the bridge similar to splitting a bridge. I would at least suggest that - if maxheight is applied to a node, as you suggest - the node should be *shared* by the bridge (way) and the way passing under. This makes it clearer that maxheight is That seems a very bad idea. Nodes are generally used to indicate a physical path between two ways. Having a node shared between a bridge and the way underneath may solve one problem but introduces another (having to make a relation to indicate this physical route is not present). specifically referring to the bridge clearance. Also, if someone is checking, for example, whether maxheight is specified for a particular bridge/way, they don't have to go searching for some random node near the bridge. But why am I interested in a bridge clearance? I am interested in the maximum height my vehicle can have while traveling down a road. I can argue exactly like you that I don't want to go searching for some random node near the road I'm travelling on to see if it is possible to do so. If you are on the bridge, you are not really interested if the bridge poses a limit to the way underneath it. IMHO there are people here trying too hard to model things. maxheight does not necessarily need to be applied to bridges only. It could also be powercables or tramlines or low streetlighting or branches or whatever. maxheight needs to be applied to the road it applies to. Not the structure that is going over it. If you want to do that (which is not that uncommon, water maps do it all the time), introduce another key. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote: On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?). Logically you can as they are on different layers. Yes, that is under as in closer to the centre of the earth, but not under as in if you look up you see the bottom of the bridge. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
Liz edodd at billiau.net wrote: On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?). Logically you can as they are on different layers. That is not going to work. There is always a way with no layer connected to a way with a layer tag. How would you distinguish between the two? Making an agreement crossing ways with different layer tag is not good enough. When is it crossing? When the ways continue on all four sides of the node? In right angles only? What when two ways are in an acute angle? Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Garmin maps corrupt?
Je hebt gelijk, de generatie van de verschillende NL Topo kaarten is op dit moment kapot. Oorzaak is een invalide XML export van de OSM.org site waardoor de NL extract op dit moment nog steeds kapot is. We zitten allemaal te wachten op bepaalde mede OSM-mers die bij machte zijn om de NL extract te fixen. Alternatief zou je een oudere versie kunnen blijven gebruiken of een routeerbare kaart laten maken: http://garmin.na1400.info/routable.php Die doet het nog wel. Frank Fesevur wrote: Hallo, Ik heb zojuist de OSM maps voor mijn nieuwe Garmin gedownload van http://garmin.na1400.info/ maar als ik in MapSource de OSM kaart selecteer crasht MapSource. Als ik in de directory bekijk is het 1100.img bestand slechts 104.960 bytes groot. Dus ik neem aan dat het genereren van deze bestanden niet goed meer werkt, want ook de fietskaart is zeer klein. Gegroet, Frank ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Saaie, disfunctionele website
De essentie van mijn verhaal komt niet over: zonder ingrijpen is het blog dood. OSM is een groot project, met veel kanten. Het is van belang dat een aantal van die kanten op de website direct aanwezig zijn. Goede informatie voor beginners hoort daar zeker bij. Een andere kant is dat je als OSM ook je belangen wilt behartigen. Komt het NWB eindelijk eens beschikbaar? Waarom zijn de postcodes afgeschermd? Waarom krijgt de fietserbond veel geld maar is de kaart niet open, terwijl open data een overheidssteven is? Had dit niet beter gekund? Nieuws hierover moet op de voorpagina te vinden zijn. Als mensen er naar op zoek moeten ben je ze kwijt. Daarom is de verhuizing van het blog een slecht idee, tenzij er maatregelen genomen worden. Zoals op de Duitse site waar de koppen en beginregels overgenomen worden op de beginpagina. Je moet dus of het blog op de voorpagina hebben, of de koppen overnemen op de voorpagina. Het blog zat in een moeilijke tijd. Een aantal mensen uit het begin zijn met andere dingen bezig. Heel actieve mensen waren met SOTM bezig. In zo'n tijd het blog verhuizen, het systeem aanpassen zodat alle accounts vervallen, de auteurs van eerdere postings niet meer getoond worden, de oude tags vervallen, een blog kan er makkelijk aan overlijden. Ik vrees dat het met het blog gedaan is. Dat is doodzonde. Er zijn halve maatregelen genomen die schade opleveren. Er zijn verschillende oplossingen. Om het blog te redden kan het makkelijkste teruggekeerd worden naar de oude blogtechniek. Het alternatief is dat er voor gezorgd moet worden dat de oude accounts, tags, etc werken met de nieuwe techniek. Ook moet het nieuws op de voorpagina te vinden zijn. Door het blog daar weer neer te zetten of door de koppen, etc over te nemen. Als de tweede oplossing te lastig is om snel te implementeren, zal er voor de eerste oplossing gekozen moeten worden. Zonder ingrijpen is het blog dood. vriendelijke groet, cordialmente, Ante On Friday 24 July 2009 23:36:08 you wrote: On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Ante wrote: Er waren ambitieuze plannen voor openstreetmap.nl, op het moment valt de website tussen wal en schip, en zou een designer de verlossing moeten brengen. Maar als je uitgaat, ga je toch ook niet naar een mooi cafe, je gaat naar een plek waar leuke mensen komen, waar altijd wat te beleven is. Alle plannen die er waren zijn uitgevoerd: - blog gescheiden van www - andere projecten zijn nu te vinden op het openstreetmap project - we verwijzen direct naar de wiki (bestaande geo data etc., hoe te beginnen) Een designer moet je juist niet hebben. Je vindt de vormgeving slecht, althans dat schijnt de algemene mening te zijn. Dan moeten we daar wat aan doen. Ik meen dat er veel wijsheid zat in de nonchalance waarmee Zoran het blog op het net gooide, er bij zeggend: doe je ding. Meer dan een simpele ontmoetingsplek waar de laatste nieuwtjes te halen zijn moet je helemaal niet willen. (Met een verwijzing naar de praktische info pagina.) En dat is precies wat het probleem is, OpenStreetMap groeit het is niet alleen meer een blog. Althans dat vinden mensen hier. En ik ben het met hen eens dat je als beginner op een blog te weinig kan. Stefan -- An Awesome Lobbying Machine, that brought us TRIPS, may bring us ACTA U.S. Trade Representative Developing states ^ trade sanctions | | | | | | public resources Advisory board V ^ | | Money | private rights Companies Companies, consumers ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Saaie, disfunctionele website
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Ante wrote: Zonder ingrijpen is het blog dood. Ga eerst eens bloggen, of gewoon tags herstellen, heb ik bij de laatste twintig artikelen ook gedaan. Stefan ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Saaie, disfunctionele website
kan ik ergens m'n account herterugaanvragen? gr, floris Stefan de Konink wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Ante wrote: Zonder ingrijpen is het blog dood. Ga eerst eens bloggen, of gewoon tags herstellen, heb ik bij de laatste twintig artikelen ook gedaan. Stefan ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Saaie, disfunctionele website
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Floris Looijesteijn wrote: kan ik ergens m'n account herterugaanvragen? Je account zit er nog gewoon in ;) Stefan ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Saaie, disfunctionele website
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Ante wrote: OSM is een groot project, met veel kanten. Het is van belang dat een aantal van die kanten op de website direct aanwezig zijn. Goede informatie voor beginners hoort daar zeker bij. Een andere kant is dat je als OSM ook je belangen wilt behartigen. Komt het NWB eindelijk eens beschikbaar? Waarom zijn de postcodes afgeschermd? Waarom krijgt de fietserbond veel geld maar is de kaart niet open, terwijl open data een overheidssteven is? Had dit niet beter gekund? Nieuws hierover moet op de voorpagina te vinden zijn. Als mensen er naar op zoek moeten ben je ze kwijt. Er zijn verschillende oplossingen. Om het blog te redden kan het makkelijkste teruggekeerd worden naar de oude blogtechniek. Het alternatief is dat er voor gezorgd moet worden dat de oude accounts, tags, etc werken met de nieuwe techniek. Ook moet het nieuws op de voorpagina te vinden zijn. Door het blog daar weer neer te zetten of door de koppen, etc over te nemen. Als de tweede oplossing te lastig is om snel te implementeren, zal er voor de eerste oplossing gekozen moeten worden. Het klinkt een beetje alsof je iets als Joomla! en drupal wil, behalve dat dit soort systemen ingewikkeld zijn in vergelijking met een simpele website, een wiki of een weblog. Zo een 'CMS' is volgens mij gebaseerd op nieuwsberichten, maar je moet er ook statische informatie in kwijt kunnen. Voordelen van een dergelijk systeem zijn dan: - meerdere mensen kunnen relatief eenvoudig aan de site werken (?) - (nieuws)berichtjes kunnen erop, dit werkt mogelijk beter dan een weblog - het is geen wiki, dus geen concurrent voor wiki.openstreetmap.org nadelen: - niet simpel op te zetten? - importeren berichten oude weblog(s)... Christiaan ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] pier tagging
Hi there, Ik had een week of anderhalf geleden een paar kleine vragen gesteld naar aanleiding van problemen die ik tegenkwam bij het verhelpen van Keep Right issues. Slechts een van die vragen is beantwoord. Kan iemand mij nog helpen met: - Bij onder meer jacht- en woonboothavens heb je geregeld dat er een stijger en/of pier ergens op het land begint en een aardig stuk het meer of plas inloopt. Deze tag je met highway: footway, man_made: pier of iets dergelijks. Wat me niet duidelijk is, is wat er gebeurt op grensgebied van land en water. Met andere woorden, daar waar de area met natural:water begint, hoort daar nog een connecting node? - http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7373424 geeft in Keep Right een issue (points die meerdere keren gebruikt zouden worden). Ik zie dat probleem niet met de Validator in JOSM. Is hier nou nog een probleem? Bij voorbaat dank, -- Rejo Zenger . r...@zenger.nl . 0x21DBEFD4 . https://rejo.zenger.nl GPG encrypted e-mail prefered. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] pier tagging
In your letter dated Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:32:52 +0200 you wrote: - Bij onder meer jacht- en woonboothavens heb je geregeld dat er een stijger en/of pier ergens op het land begint en een aardig stuk het meer of plas inloopt. Deze tag je met highway: footway, man_made: pier of iets dergelijks. Wat me niet duidelijk is, is wat er gebeurt op grensgebied van land en water. Met andere woorden, daar waar de area met natural:water begint, hoort daar nog een connecting node? Ik weet niet of het ergens staat, maar ik denk dat binnen iedere layer je een planaire graaf moeten hebben. Dus de steiger is of boven het water (daar valt misschien wel wat voor te zeggen) of hij doorsnijdt de grens tussen land en water (en dan heb je daar dus een node). - http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7373424 geeft in Keep Right een issue (points die meerdere keren gebruikt zouden worden). Ik zie dat probleem niet met de Validator in JOSM. Is hier nou nog een probleem? Nu niet meer? ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] pier tagging
++ 27/07/09 21:05 +0200 - Philip Homburg: Ok. Dus, de regel is: als een way een andere way kruist in hetzelfde vlak, dan *moet* er op de op de kruising van die twee ways een node aanwezig zijn. Als een way een andere way in een andere laag kruist, dan hoort daar geen node (in ieder geval niet geshared). [1] En deze vraag liet je onbeantwoord. :) [1] En ook dat ook iets nieuws in Keep Right IIANM: layer conflicts, zie http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=3D4696831. Ik zat even te kijken naar http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=4703324 maar het lijkt me dat keepright daar overdreven kritisch is. Het is in ieder geval logisch waarom KR dat denkt. Dat probleem zou niet bestaan wanneer de brug gemaakt zou zijn zoals aangegeven is op de wiki. Op http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge staat If the bridge ends in a junction, you'll need a small non-bridge way between bridge and junction. -- Rejo Zenger . r...@zenger.nl . 0x21DBEFD4 . https://rejo.zenger.nl GPG encrypted e-mail prefered. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] pier tagging
In your letter dated Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:18:16 +0200 you wrote: Ok. Dus, de regel is: als een way een andere way kruist in hetzelfde vlak, dan *moet* er op de op de kruising van die twee ways een node aanwezig zijn. Als een way een andere way in een andere laag kruist, dan hoort daar geen node (in ieder geval niet geshared). [1] En deze vraag liet je onbeantwoord. :) Was dat een vraag? :-) Maar ik denk dat dat klopt. Ik zat even te kijken naar http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?error=3D4703324 maar het lijkt me dat keepright daar overdreven kritisch is.=20 Het is in ieder geval logisch waarom KR dat denkt. Dat probleem zou niet bestaan wanneer de brug gemaakt zou zijn zoals aangegeven is op de wiki. Op http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge staat If the bridge ends in a junction, you'll need a small non-bridge way between bridge and junction. Ja, ik vroeg me dus al af of dat juist zou moeten of dat keepright te kritisch is. Maar dit staat al heel lang (februari 2007) op de wiki, dus het zal wel kloppen :-) ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] pier tagging
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Lambert Carsten wrote: On Monday 27 July 2009 22:05:51 Lennard wrote: Hans van Wijk wrote: Maar weet iemand de reden daarvoor ook? Een brug loopt in het algemeen niet door tot op een kruising. Ik ken anders in Amsterdam genoeg voorbeelden. Die regel (3 of meer wegen bij een kruispunt moeten alle dezelfde layer hebben) vindt ik niet goed. Overal stukjes weg toevoegen bij ongeveer alle bruggen in Amsterdam is onzinnig. Misschien dat keepright blij wordt als alle bruggen layer=0 krijgen en alle waterways en natural=water layer=-1 ! Dat moeten wij volgens mij ook niet doen. Toch is dat de situatie: het straatnivo ligt al gauw een meter boven de gemiddelde waterstand, en bruggen waar geen schepen onderdoor hoeven liggen vaak op straatnivo dus zijn (eigenlijk) niet level=1 maar level=0. Het probleem is misschien dat die levels vooral gebruikt worden om dingen netjes te kunnen stapelen bij het renderen. Het is de vraag of waterways e.d. met level=-1 goed gerenderd worden. Christiaan ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] pier tagging
Christiaan Welvaart wrote: Het probleem is misschien dat die levels vooral gebruikt worden om dingen netjes te kunnen stapelen bij het renderen. Het is de vraag of waterways e.d. met level=-1 goed gerenderd worden. Speaking for mapnik: Het maakt op dit moment geen bal uit. De levels van waterways en van highways staan volledig los van elkaar. Al zet je een kanaal op layer=5, zal die nog onder bv. een weg zonder layer komen. Dat wil niet zeggen dat het ooit niet anders, beter zal zijn. Dus maak geen zooitje van de layers. :) -- Lennard ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
