date:20090730


--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org wrote:

 Probably a maxspeed:forward=50 + maxspeed:reverse=100
 or something - How does this combine with wet and probably
 even
 vehicle based limits ... maxspeed:forward:motorcycle=50


I've been setting maxspeed to the lowest value and then setting 
maxspeed:forward/maxspeed:backward if needed and for the direction of the way 
as applicable, this way at least you will be told the lower speed limit even if 
it isn't 100% applicable.


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Mapping Africa's soil

2009-07-30 Thread Marc Coevoet

Hello,

Just found this article in Research.eu magazine:

http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/newsroom/release_35.htm

(it is more about nature / health of soil ..)

I do not know if this is usefull, the org is there to contact, I know
about people doing mapping of African countries in Ghent university.


Marc

-- 
Shortwave transmissions in English, Francais, Deutsch, Suid-Afrikaans, 
Urdu, Cantonese, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, ...
http://users.fulladsl.be/spb13810/radio/swlist/
Stations list: http://users.fulladsl.be/spb13810/radio/txlist/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign

Florian Lohoff wrote:
 On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:44:32AM +0200, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com
 wrote:
 In that one case it's okay.
 Reason:
 * There can only be ONE maxspeed on a road. ever!

 Please add per direction on a road. Still waiting for a good way to tag
 maxspeed per direction. What we call a Geschwindkeitstrichter in German -
 the continues limiting of the maxspeed to a lower value e.g. 100/70/50 up to
 a crossing. This is typically not reflected driving from the crossing where
 only a maxspeed end sign basically is put up.

 I also see ofter a limit in the inner lane in a corner but not on
 the outer lane ... This can currently not really be modelled.

Not only in a corner. In Germany the A3, going down the Elzer Berg (near
Limburg an der Lahn in the eastward direction) has a speedlimit of 40 km/h on
the right lane and 100 km/h (or 120? haven't been there in two years) on the
left two lanes.
Speedlimit is imposed because of the steep gradient down and is meant to limit
the risk of runaway HGV's on the right lane.

So the correct wording is: there can only be one maxspeed per lane per
direction on a road.

Regards,
Maarten


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes

2009-07-30 Thread OJ W

their kit looks quite bulky.  I've got just one videocamera (and no
LIDAR) fitted, and it all mounts on handlebars with room to spare for
other stuff.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Georeference_video

Maybe the big tricycle is needed to lift the cameras up above the traffic?

other people could probably use just one smartphone to do all 3
functions (camera, storage, and GPS)?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:17:22 +1000, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com
wrote:
 On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:00 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com
 wrote:
 --- On Wed, 29/7/09, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)
skipp...@gimnechiske.org
 wrote:

 I have made a proposal for a tag
 ...
 I think this will only serve to confuse, no where on the maxheight wiki
 link you provided does it say it's a legal restriction, if anything it's
 exactly the same thing you're just giving people the option of picking
 tags so half the system will have maxheight used, and half will have
 clearance and the routing software will end up with twice the work for
no
 benefit.
 
 True, maxheight currently does not specify the reason.
 
 So the question is, is there a need to differentiate between different
 kinds of maxheight? Surely this issue has come up before in relation
 to other keys?
 
 If there is in fact a need to differentiate, what's the most common
 practice? For example, maxheight:physical=* and maxheight:legal=*?
 Just throwing ideas around, but you would first need to demonstrate
 that maxheight is not sufficient.
There area also other possible usages of a clearance tag, such as the free
sailing height under a bridge, the height of a footway tunnel and probably
much more. Since many countries have two different signs for max legal
height and max physical height, and its usages can be very different, why
not allow this in tags?

By saying that there is no difference between maxheight and clearance is
for me the same as saying there is no difference between highway and
cycleway, tourism and historic. 
-- 
Brgds
Aun Johnsen
via Webmail

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Crawley, UK, streets completed

2009-07-30 Thread David Ebling


Just a little trumpet-blowing announcement ;)

After about 18 months steady adding, I now believe I have completed Crawley, 
West Sussex, UK (population 100k+) in terms of streets and street names.

http://osm.org/go/eurnrkJ?layers=000BFTF

I'm planning to take a bit of a break from OSM for a while, though I'll 
probably make minor additions here and there.

I've updated the status page on the wiki in case any one else wants to do any 
work there meanwhile: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Crawley

Daveemtb


  


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance


--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:

 much more. Since many countries have two different signs
 for max legal
 height and max physical height, and its usages can be very
 different, why
 not allow this in tags?

So why not just use maxheight=* and maxheight:legal=* ?

 By saying that there is no difference between maxheight and
 clearance is
 for me the same as saying there is no difference between
 highway and
 cycleway, tourism and historic. 

I fail to see the difference, most maxheight matches the clearance to within 
15cm, maxheight is a restriction tag and clearence would be a restriction tag 
stating the same with a second name.

There is however a big difference with highway and cycleway, both physical and 
legally, there is usually very little difference between legal and physical 
clearance.

You also mentioned sailboats under bridges, are you planning to update the 
clearance 24 hours a day, 7 days a week as the tide goes in and out?


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Business listings - a website

2009-07-30 Thread Ken Guest

When I expound on why I'm so passionate about contributing towards
OpenStreetMap is this is one of the reasons:

1/ Consider that you've moved into a new area and need to know
* which pharmacy is open the latest
* where the nearest health care centre is
* the quickest route that isn't obstructed by current road works
* list of doctors

2/ And it would be handy to have:
* a list of bbs and other such accommodation that really are in the area
you've moved too - google maps will get this wrong (and does) for data in
ireland (at least) due to lazy parsing off address data. I've seen hotels
that are 20-30 miles away listed and shown with those 'pin point' markers as
being inside the environs of nenagh due to their postal address being too
detailed/inaccurate.

* being able to print off maps for people coming visiting instead of telling
them directions that you just know they won't remember.

3/ also...
something like this could also be used to symbiotically drive websites like
ratemyFOO.com - where FOO is dentist/mechanic/whatever. for existing
businesses pull the co-ords out of OSM and store the ratings elsewhere. for
new ones, enter the co-ords into OSM... ;-)

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Joseph Reeves iknowjos...@gmail.comwrote:

I prefer though that the data shouldn't be directly added to the
database especially for well-mapped areas.
Some POIs do not appear in the map (mapnik or osmarender).

But then you're just mapping for the renderers - omitting data because
two of current representations of the database as provided by osm.org
don't show everything the database includes. What about if someone was
to produce a new renderer from current OSM data?

Of course, renderers are only the start - if the OSM database
contained enough information about local businesses somebody could
start a project involving OSM, Asterisk and some text - speech
software that would allow you to phone a number and get a list of the
nearest bicycle shops to your current location that were open at the
time. Or the nearest car repair shop that was approved by your
insurance company, or...

We shouldn't limit ourselves by what could be drawn on a map,
especially if we limit that even further by what is currently drawn on
two examples.

Cheers, Joseph

2009/7/30 maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com:
This is really useful and would love this simple service to be
implemented.
I prefer though that the data shouldn't be directly added to the
database especially for well-mapped areas.
Some POIs do not appear in the map (mapnik or osmarender). A
volunteer mapper can subscribe to a boundingbox
and edit them before upload. I always prefer a human rather than some
yellowpages.bot.script.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:05 AM, OJ Wojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:
Sorry for breaking the thread, but I did a mockup of a website that
people could use to enter their own businesses into OSM:

http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/SmallAds/http://dev.openstreetmap.org/%7Eojw/SmallAds/

so any user of this website can* create up to 5 OSM nodes, label them
as amenity=whatever, and enter a description, a phone number, and a
website.

the idea would be: this is pitched at small business owners who've
never heard of OSM, and only buy advertising on yellow pages because
someone knocked at their door and sold it to them. It should take
less than 10 minutes to setup, for someone who only once per month
uses the computer their grandson bought them, and should be simple
enough that you can guide someone though it over the phone.

Additionally, it should be easy for self-employed salesmen to go
around their home towns selling this service to every business, taking
some fixed price to enter the shop's details into OSM, print a map for
them, and give them an img for their website. We can't reach
everybody to help in OSM, but if someone sees a business in creating
free data then maybe they can help us.

* I've done an basic webapp mockup, but could someone help with coding
the creation of OSM objects? It's neanderthal PHP at the moment, but
you can port it to rails or cake or J2EEmanagementEdition if you
prefer.

Ideas welcome

regards,

OJW

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

--
cheers,
maning
--
Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden
wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
--

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] i18n-rich areas on the map

2009-07-30 Thread Ed Avis

Emilie Laffray emilie.laffray at gmail.com writes:

For example the Imperial Palace in Tokyo would have

name:en=Imperial Palace
name:jp at Romaji=koukyo
name:jp=??

However, I do believe that translitteration
is worthy of appearing in name:en when none exists.

I agree that when no real English translation exists, then the Romaji
version of the Japanese name should be shown instead to English-speaking
users.  However that's something the map renderer should do; the program
which makes the displayed map should know to fall back on name:j...@romaji
if there is no name:en available.

There's no need to tag it as English just to make it be displayed to
English-speaking users; tag it correctly and let the renderer do the
right thing.

Yes putting it in a different alphabet is not the same, but it can be a
starting point until someone is filling the blank with a proper
translation hence the two steps: translitteration and a dedicated
translation website.

Yes.  Which is why putting Japanese text (even if it is in the Latin alphabet)
into name:en is not a good idea, because it makes it harder to see which things
really do need a name:en translation added.

I am to some extent a bit annoyed to see things like name = name in
native language (English translation) in the OSM files.

Agreed.  Once multilingual map rendering becomes common, we can expect to
see these cleaned up pretty quickly.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Crawley, UK, streets completed

2009-07-30 Thread Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)

Nice work Dave :-)

If you are looking for inspiration of what to map next, then the
mappa-mercia [1] page on the wiki gives a few mini project ideas. After we
completed the Birmingham base map last year we started looking at new ideas
and so far that's what we've come up with. Certainly keeps a flagging
interest going.

There are always bus stops and bus routes for instance ;-) 

Cheers

Andy

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Mappa_Mercia

-Original Message-
From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-
boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Ebling
Sent: 30 July 2009 9:37 AM
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-talk] Crawley, UK, streets completed


Just a little trumpet-blowing announcement ;)

After about 18 months steady adding, I now believe I have completed
Crawley, West Sussex, UK (population 100k+) in terms of streets and street
names.

http://osm.org/go/eurnrkJ?layers=000BFTF

I'm planning to take a bit of a break from OSM for a while, though I'll
probably make minor additions here and there.

I've updated the status page on the wiki in case any one else wants to do
any work there meanwhile: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Crawley

Daveemtb





___
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] Best-practice-idea traffic_sign

2009-07-30 Thread Pieren

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:36 AM, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
 It has been discussed at length before. Please consult the archive
 first.

Did you check yourself the archive before submitting this comment ? I
did and the only mention I found (searching traffic_sign) was inside
another thread called Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path) which
is not exactly the subject here. Perhaps it was discussed on the
talk-de ML...

 Exactly.

 I haven't been involved in the discussion, I don't use it myself, and I find
 it strange to talk about a best-practice idea (because best practice comes
 from practice, not from ideas). Nevertheless, if there are people who think
 this is good and works for them - let them use it.

Nice when people have ideas. The problem is that it is not publicly
discussed or, at least, not on the main mailing list and the idea
becomes a core recommended feature when it is moving to the Map
Features (which is what is said on the top of the page).

My main concerns about this tag is not the city_limit but
- the country-code set into the value and not anymore on the key like
the tag name
- and the trend to use this tag to replace the restrictions set on the
ways (see the discussions on Talk:Key:traffic sign and Talk:Proposed
features/Traffic sign.)

Also the wiki pages are not cleaned-up. We have now the main page
saying please submit your comments on Talk:Proposed features/Traffic
sign.

Either we keep this tag as a proposal and remove the official wiki
page Key:traffic sign or we adopt the tag, remove the Proposed
features/Traffic sign and discuss on Talk:Key:traffic sign but
please, stop juggle with a tag being approved and proposed at the
same time on the wiki !

Pieren

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Best-practice-idea traffic_sign

2009-07-30 Thread Pieren

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Florian Lohofff...@rfc822.org wrote:
 I started tagging the sign when i started with maxspeed as it
 sometimes help the orientation in the data when adding maxspeed.

Could you explain what you mean by help the orientation in the data
? Do you mean that maxspeed set on the way is not enough ?

Pieren

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Layer transitions

2009-07-30 Thread Marc Schütz

  I want to talk about this page on the wiki describing how to map tunnels
  correctly:
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tunnel#How_to_Map
 
  Especially the last paragraph causes headaches to me:
  If the tunnel ends in a junction you'll need a small un-tunneled way
  between the end of the tunnel and the junction
 
 
  Where does this rule come from?
 
 this might be a logical topic: we are mapping the center of the road.
 The tunnel can not end at the center of the crossing road, because
 this road itself is not a tunnel. (you will have at least half the
 width of the crossing road untunneled).

No, IMO we're mapping the entire road, but represent it by a line located at 
the middle. This is a subtile but important difference; otherwise we wouldn't 
connect the incoming ways at a crossing, because they end at the edge of the 
road, not in the middle.

But I agree that in most cases there is a short way between the T junction and 
the tunnel/bridge, although I have encountered cases where a bridge started 
directly at the other road (give or take a few millimeters).
I think we should insert a in most cases into this rule.

Regards, Marc

-- 
Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3 -
sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Layer transitions

2009/7/30 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net:
 this might be a logical topic: we are mapping the center of the road.
 The tunnel can not end at the center of the crossing road, because
 this road itself is not a tunnel. (you will have at least half the
 width of the crossing road untunneled).

 No, IMO we're mapping the entire road, but represent it by a line located at 
 the middle. This is a subtile but important difference;

yes, I agree with this, but it doesn't IMHO extend the tunnels beyond
their real extension. I personally wouldn't think: the tunnel starts
right at the crossing and therefore I map it like this, but I would
rather think: the tunnel starts at this projected point that is half
the width of the crossing road away.

 otherwise we wouldn't connect the incoming ways at a crossing, because they 
 end at the edge of the road, not in the middle.

why not? Who tells you that the road ends at the edge and not in the
middle? If both roads continue on both ends, would you say that the
center (crossing) belongs to neither road because they both end at the
edge? I would say it belongs to both roads.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

2009-07-30 Thread Gervase Markham

On 30/07/09 09:26, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) wrote:
 much more. Since many countries have two different signs for max legal
 height and max physical height, and its usages can be very different, why
 not allow this in tags?

Can you provide sample images for such signs? I confess I find it hard 
to believe.

The maxheight for a feature such as a bridge is the maximum height of an 
object of the standard type that will fit under it. So for a road 
bridge, it would be a bus or truck of the normal 1-lane width. That's 
the thing people are interested in. If there's a sign which says the 
max physical height of a truck you can get under this bridge is 11 feet, 
but legally the max height for this bridge is 12 feet, how is the 
second piece of information useful in any way? For unicyclists?

Gerv


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Layer transitions

2009-07-30 Thread Marc Schütz

  this might be a logical topic: we are mapping the center of the road.
  The tunnel can not end at the center of the crossing road, because
  this road itself is not a tunnel. (you will have at least half the
  width of the crossing road untunneled).
 
  No, IMO we're mapping the entire road, but represent it by a line
 located at the middle. This is a subtile but important difference;
 
 yes, I agree with this, but it doesn't IMHO extend the tunnels beyond
 their real extension. I personally wouldn't think: the tunnel starts
 right at the crossing and therefore I map it like this, but I would
 rather think: the tunnel starts at this projected point that is half
 the width of the crossing road away.
 
  otherwise we wouldn't connect the incoming ways at a crossing, because
 they end at the edge of the road, not in the middle.
 
 why not? Who tells you that the road ends at the edge and not in the
 middle? If both roads continue on both ends, would you say that the
 center (crossing) belongs to neither road because they both end at the
 edge? I would say it belongs to both roads.

Maybe not in all cases, but have a look at this example:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=degeocode=q=bayreuthsll=37.0625,-95.677068sspn=59.467068,107.138672ie=UTF8ll=49.935936,11.646567spn=0.000375,0.000817t=kz=21

It'd be hard to argue that the incoming track does not end at the edge of the 
road, but goes on to the middle.

Regards, Marc

-- 
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes

2009/7/30 OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com:
 their kit looks quite bulky.  I've got just one videocamera (and no
 LIDAR) fitted, and it all mounts on handlebars with room to spare for
 other stuff.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Georeference_video

 Maybe the big tricycle is needed to lift the cameras up above the traffic?

I guess they are recording in higher resolutions. The problem with
webcams is, that you can't read the signs (e.g. one of your photos:
http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/StreetPhotos/frames/001500.jpg
it's even unpossible to read the number plate of the motorbike in the
foreground).

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes




--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

  Maybe the big tricycle is needed to lift the cameras
 up above the traffic?
 
 I guess they are recording in higher resolutions. The
 problem with

I don't know what res street view in general is but you can't read most signs.

Some of the newer mobile phones are getting HD resolutions.

The reason for most of the bulk is a computer, and I bet batteries run 
everything, to correlate the images from multiple cameras at the same time and 
geotagging it properly etc.


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes

2009-07-30 Thread Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)

John Smith wrote:
Sent: 30 July 2009 10:42 AM
To: OJ W; m...@koppenhoefer.com
Cc: OSM Talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes

--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

  Maybe the big tricycle is needed to lift the cameras
 up above the traffic?

 I guess they are recording in higher resolutions. The
 problem with

I don't know what res street view in general is but you can't read most
signs.

Some of the newer mobile phones are getting HD resolutions.

The reason for most of the bulk is a computer, and I bet batteries run
everything, to correlate the images from multiple cameras at the same time
and geotagging it properly etc.

The video of the trike when it was first seen in Rome back in May suggests
it carries a small generator (red), perhaps just to charge batteries when
stopped rather than run the whole setup?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAsfEsK5t2Y

Cheers

Andy

___
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] Google StreetView From Bikes

2009-07-30 Thread Lester Caine

OJ W wrote:
 Maybe the big tricycle is needed to lift the cameras up above the traffic?

THAT I think is the big mistake that Google made. Pushing the camera head up 
so that it looks OVER security walls and hedges is what annoys people the 
most. If a person has to use a ladder to obtain a picture then it's a 
violation of privacy, but if Google do it is a 'public service' - usual sod 
the law arrogance :(

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign

2009-07-30 Thread Liz

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Florian Lohoff wrote:
  In that one case it's okay.
  Reason:
  * There can only be ONE maxspeed on a road. ever!

 Please add per direction on a road.

at a given time.
(we have reduced maxspeed in front of schools depending on time, day and 
whether it is term time)





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:17:02 +0100, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net
wrote:
 On 30/07/09 09:26, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) wrote:
 much more. Since many countries have two different signs for max legal
 height and max physical height, and its usages can be very different,
why
 not allow this in tags?
 
 Can you provide sample images for such signs? I confess I find it hard 
 to believe.
 
See on the talk page of the proposal, the two variants used in Brazil is
shown there as a response to Lulu-Ann's question on the discussion.
 The maxheight for a feature such as a bridge is the maximum height of an 
 object of the standard type that will fit under it. So for a road 
 bridge, it would be a bus or truck of the normal 1-lane width. That's 
 the thing people are interested in. If there's a sign which says the 
 max physical height of a truck you can get under this bridge is 11 feet, 
 but legally the max height for this bridge is 12 feet, how is the 
 second piece of information useful in any way? For unicyclists?
 
 Gerv
 
 
 ___
 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] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance




--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:

  You also mentioned sailboats under bridges, are you
 planning to update
 the
  clearance 24 hours a day, 7 days a week as the tide
 goes in and out?
 You are clearly not familiar with the term free sailing
 height which
 refers to the height from mean sealevel (used in marine
 charts), up to a
 portion of the bridge span which os over the safe channel.
 This value is
 stated in all marine charts as a reference to any ships
 captain for him to
 verify that his vessel can pass safely under the bridge
 with his current
 air draft. There is no need to correct this more often than
 the bridge is
 reconstructed as you will correct this value towards tidal
 information
 available for the closest port.

No, my point is, clearance is pointless, the clearance would be altered by the 
tide where as maxheight would remain the same regardless of the tide etc.


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea t raffic_sign

2009-07-30 Thread marcus.wolschon

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:41:07 +0200, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:
 Florian Lohoff wrote:
 Not only in a corner. In Germany the A3, going down the Elzer Berg (near
 Limburg an der Lahn in the eastward direction) has a speedlimit of 40
km/h
 on
 the right lane and 100 km/h (or 120? haven't been there in two years) on
 the
 left two lanes.

That's no issue as it's 2 OSM-ways for the 2 directions of the
motorway anyway.

Did anything useful and actually used come out of that
lane-discussion a few month ago?

Marcus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign




--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:

 at a given time.
 (we have reduced maxspeed in front of schools depending on
 time, day and 
 whether it is term time)

There are other roads that have variable limit speed signs and they can change 
at any time.

There is also changes in speed limits during peak hours.

There is also changes in speed limits during weather conditions like wet 
weather and fog.

The list goes on.


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign

2009/7/30 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:



 --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:

 at a given time.
 (we have reduced maxspeed in front of schools depending on
 time, day and
 whether it is term time)

 There are other roads that have variable limit speed signs and they can 
 change at any time.

 There is also changes in speed limits during peak hours.

 There is also changes in speed limits during weather conditions like wet 
 weather and fog.

there is already a proposal to tag those...
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditions_for_access_tags
(the title is misleading)
and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_conditions_for_access_tags

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Layer transitions

2009/7/30 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net:

 Maybe not in all cases, but have a look at this example:
 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=degeocode=q=bayreuthsll=37.0625,-95.677068sspn=59.467068,107.138672ie=UTF8ll=49.935936,11.646567spn=0.000375,0.000817t=kz=21

 It'd be hard to argue that the incoming track does not end at the edge of the 
 road, but goes on to the middle.

absolutely. In this case, if you were precise, you would even end the
track 4 m before the junction and model a small piece of another track
(different surface, tracktype) from this end to the crossing.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign




--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Lennard l...@xs4all.nl wrote:

 And in my own jurisdiction: to be able to set maxspeed=none
 for bicycles
 when there is no explicit maxspeed sign. :D

bikes have the same speed limits here as every other thing on wheels, and even 
horses for that matter, and you can get tickets like all the other wheeled 
vehicles and even get done for drink driving on horses and ride on lawn mowers.


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance




--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 actually even though the definition in the wiki might not
 specify it
 unambigously and explicitly the current use of maxheight

These things should be explicitly stated, otherwise people interpret it 
differently :)

 (as discussed
 intensively at least on German ML) should be

That doesn't help anyone else not on that list.

 maxheight:legal, so I
 would encourage to put it the other way round:
 maxheight
 and
 maxheight:physical

Either way, expanding the existing tag makes more sense than creating 2 
differently named tags which will cause even more confusion and duplication.


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:41:11 + (GMT), John Smith
delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
 --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 actually even though the definition in the wiki might not
 specify it
 unambigously and explicitly the current use of maxheight
 
 These things should be explicitly stated, otherwise people interpret it
 differently :)
 
 (as discussed
 intensively at least on German ML) should be
 
 That doesn't help anyone else not on that list.
 
 maxheight:legal, so I
 would encourage to put it the other way round:
 maxheight
 and
 maxheight:physical
 
 Either way, expanding the existing tag makes more sense than creating 2
 differently named tags which will cause even more confusion and
 duplication.
Either somebody make it clear how ALL usages of maxheight are to be used,
wether legal, physical, marine, or any other special interest usage, or I
will continue on my proposal. Without any clearification on the existing
tag, than it will be more confusing than adding new tags. I have atleast
stated in the definition of the tag how it is to be used.
-- 
Brgds
Aun Johnsen
via Webmail

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign

2009/7/30 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
 --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Lennard l...@xs4all.nl wrote:
 And in my own jurisdiction: to be able to set maxspeed=none
 for bicycles
 when there is no explicit maxspeed sign. :D

 bikes have the same speed limits here as every other thing on wheels, and 
 even horses for that matter, and you can get tickets like all the other 
 wheeled vehicles and even get done for drink driving on horses and ride on 
 lawn mowers.

explicit speedlimits here as well, but Lennard was writing about
implicit speedlimits (in town=50 and the like). Those are not valid
for bicycles, but this is IMHO also not a very important issue, as
most bikers don't get beyond 50km/h.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance




--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:

 will continue on my proposal. Without any clearification on
 the existing
 tag, than it will be more confusing than adding new tags. I
 have atleast
 stated in the definition of the tag how it is to be used.

No, 2 completely differently named tags will make things much worst, not any 
better. It's clear how free form strings quickly become completely inconsistent 
with one another, see my emails on the is_in tag, 5 different suburbs of Sydney 
ended up with completely different values.


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign

2009-07-30 Thread Lennard

 2009/7/30 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
 bikes have the same speed limits here as every other thing on wheels,
 and even horses for that matter, and you can get tickets like all the
 other wheeled vehicles and even get done for drink driving on horses and
 ride on lawn mowers.

That's exactly why I talked about my jurisdiction (The Netherlands), which
doesn't have an implicit maxspeed for bicycles. It apparently never was a
real problem in law enforcement, or it would've likely been amended.

 explicit speedlimits here as well, but Lennard was writing about
 implicit speedlimits (in town=50 and the like). Those are not valid
 for bicycles, but this is IMHO also not a very important issue, as
 most bikers don't get beyond 50km/h.

Exactly, it's a moot point, and I included it mostly to make the point
that there are so many subtle ways to handle maxspeed, that it would be
difficult to make an all-encompassing tagging scheme. At some point,
you'll just have to go with a generalized solution.

-- 
Lennard


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign

marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
 On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:41:07 +0200, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:
 Florian Lohoff wrote:
 Not only in a corner. In Germany the A3, going down the Elzer Berg (near
 Limburg an der Lahn in the eastward direction) has a speedlimit of 40
 km/h
 on
 the right lane and 100 km/h (or 120? haven't been there in two years) on
 the
 left two lanes.

 That's no issue as it's 2 OSM-ways for the 2 directions of the
 motorway anyway.

It is an issue becasue the speed limit is on different lanes going in the same
direction.
I just checked and see that in OSM there is a speedlimit of 100 km/h on the
eastbound lanes. The speedlimit of 40 on the right of the three eastbound
lanes is not tagged.

Local situation is:
=
Cologne - Limburg
-
Cologne - Limburg
-
Cologne - Limburg
=
Cologne - Limburg (100)

Cologne - Limburg (100)
-
Cologne - Limburg  (40)
=

Regards,
Maarten


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign

Lennard wrote:

 Exactly, it's a moot point, and I included it mostly to make the point
 that there are so many subtle ways to handle maxspeed, that it would be
 difficult to make an all-encompassing tagging scheme. At some point,
 you'll just have to go with a generalized solution.

The general solution is maxspeed is the highest of the maxspeeds of all
classes of vehicle on that road.
See also the signs we have in continental europe when you enter a country:
there is usually a large sign specifying the maximum speeds on different roads
(within town, outside town, motorway). I have never seen a different sign for
mopeds, HGV's or vehicles with a caravan, it is always the maximum for all
vehicles.

Regards,
Maarten



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

2009-07-30 Thread Peter Childs

2009/7/30 Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net:
 On 30/07/09 09:26, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) wrote:
 much more. Since many countries have two different signs for max legal
 height and max physical height, and its usages can be very different, why
 not allow this in tags?

 Can you provide sample images for such signs? I confess I find it hard
 to believe.

 The maxheight for a feature such as a bridge is the maximum height of an
 object of the standard type that will fit under it. So for a road
 bridge, it would be a bus or truck of the normal 1-lane width. That's
 the thing people are interested in. If there's a sign which says the
 max physical height of a truck you can get under this bridge is 11 feet,
 but legally the max height for this bridge is 12 feet, how is the
 second piece of information useful in any way? For unicyclists?


I guess this means that its a humped bridge where you can get a 12foot
vehicle under it in the center but its only 11ft each side. Usually
combined with On Coming Vehicles in Centre of Road Signs..

Peter.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign

2009-07-30 Thread Lennard

 Lennard wrote:
 The general solution is maxspeed is the highest of the maxspeeds of all
 classes of vehicle on that road.
 See also the signs we have in continental europe when you enter a country:
 there is usually a large sign specifying the maximum speeds on different
 roads
 (within town, outside town, motorway). I have never seen a different sign
 for
 mopeds, HGV's or vehicles with a caravan, it is always the maximum for all
 vehicles.

In that case, your 100/100/40 example is easily collapsed into maxspeed=100.

Let's see ... Hey, that's the current tagging scheme, already! Why did we
need a change? :-)

-- 
Lennard



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign


--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Lennard l...@xs4all.nl wrote:
 In that case, your 100/100/40 example is easily collapsed
 into maxspeed=100.
 
 Let's see ... Hey, that's the current tagging scheme,
 already! Why did we
 need a change? :-)

Current GPSr's are only capable of knowing within 10m, most lanes are 2-3m, so 
any solution would have to take into account an easy way for information to be 
displayed as well.


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign

2009-07-30 Thread Tobias Knerr

Florian Lohoff wrote:
 maxspeed:wet:forward:motorcycle=50
 
 Afterwards add time based maxspeeds :)
 
 I think we'd need a generic way to tag conditional ...

Have you already participated in the syntax poll for
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_conditions_for_access_tags
?

It's basically there to decide whether to use colons as in your example
or switch to something like maxspeed[wet][forward][motorcycle]. Why?
Well, because those time conditions tend to have colons in them, too
(such as 15:30-18:00), and because colons are usually used in situations
where the order of the substrings matters - which isn't the case for
conditions, maxspeed[motorcycle][wet][forward] would be exactly the same.

Once we have decided about this, that proposal can be voted on (and,
more importantly, used) and we *will* finally have a generic way to tag
conditions. Then we can discuss the lane problem again. ;)

Tobias Knerr

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag

2009-07-30 Thread Greg Troxel


Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes:

     secondary is typically used for travel at least 25km (between
     multiple towns)
     tertiary is used to get to secondary roads (to get to the 'real
     road' in the next town)

 this is working well for out-of-town situations. Inside urban

good point; that's what I am used to thinking about.

 agglomerations there should be different criteria though (and not
 necessarily they are physical, what is my point: let's put the
 definition according to everyday best-practise tagging).

I think these notions still work in cities, but less clearly.  primary
roads are those you'd get on to drive to the next big city.  Secondary
to get to outlying towns.  And tertiary to go all the way across the city.

The problem is that there is a continuous hierarchy of roads in terms of
importance, and when you get huge numbers of roads in the city the jump
From tertiary to residential/unclassified is too big and people tag
roads that aren't really tertiary as tertiary.  I'm seeing a bit of that
in Belmont (near Camridge, MA).

Maybe it's ok to have a lot of tertiary, to show the more important
local roads in cities.


pgpZfKJJT3jlN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag

2009/7/30 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com:
 this is working well for out-of-town situations. Inside urban
 good point; that's what I am used to thinking about.

 agglomerations there should be different criteria though (and not
 necessarily they are physical, what is my point: let's put the
 definition according to everyday best-practise tagging).

 I think these notions still work in cities, but less clearly.  primary
 roads are those you'd get on to drive to the next big city.  Secondary
 to get to outlying towns.  And tertiary to go all the way across the city.

no, sorry, but I completely disagree with you in this point. Inside
big cities (urban agglomerations / metropols / ...) it's not about
going to another city but about the traffic inside the city itself.
Usually we start with

- residential roads (just in residential areas, no connecting
function, you will not take this if you don't live in the area)
- unclassified roads (not clear, there are voices that they don't
exist in urban areas, I personally use them if there are either no
residents nearby or if they are slightly bigger than residential
streets and are used to access residential streets)
- tertiary (just local significance, streets inside a certain area)
- secondary (connecting streets that connect different areas, lower
importance than primaries)
- primary (main inner city connections, also used to enter and leave the city)
- trunk (streets that are separated from the urban tissue but not
classified as motorways (like elevated roads, overpasses, separated
roads, they have ramps and usually no or very few traffic lights,
necessarily dualcarriageways - in the UK they use administrative
classification)
- motorway (legal classification, in the US I guess you call them
interstates, expressways and freeways but not sure about the
distinction between those, maybe some are trunks)

As in big cities most of the traffic is local traffic (by local I
intend inside the metropolitan area), you can't classify IMHO the
streets according to whether they connect other cities. Think about
NYC. Following your definition there wouldn't be any primary roads in
manhattan.

 The problem is that there is a continuous hierarchy of roads in terms of
 importance, and when you get huge numbers of roads in the city the jump
 From tertiary to residential/unclassified is too big and people tag
 roads that aren't really tertiary as tertiary.  I'm seeing a bit of that
 in Belmont (near Camridge, MA).

well, I personally consider a tertiary road to be quite small, because
it is only on the 4th position (after trunk, primary, secondary), so
it must be of little importance, otherwise it will be at least a
secondary street.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Search field on www.openstreetmap.org

2009-07-30 Thread Lulu-Ann

Hi there,

on the SotM09 there was agreement that the search field should be visible at 
the upper left of the screen in all screen resolutions on 
http://www.openstreetmap.org .

This is not realized yet.
Who can do it, please?

Thanks
Lulu-Ann
-- 
Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3 -
sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Best-practice-idea traffic_sign

2009-07-30 Thread Florian Lohoff

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Pieren wrote:
 
 On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Florian Lohofff...@rfc822.org wrote:
  I started tagging the sign when i started with maxspeed as it
  sometimes help the orientation in the data when adding maxspeed.
 
 Could you explain what you mean by help the orientation in the data
 ? Do you mean that maxspeed set on the way is not enough ?

You add maxspeed later and know that the speed ends at the city boundarys
its easy to tell where they are - split the way at the sign
and put a city limit on the way within the city ...

The city limit might continue beyond the sign but at least until
the sign you can tell the speed limit. 

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org  
   
Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little 
  security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Search field on www.openstreetmap.org

2009-07-30 Thread Tom Hughes

On 30/07/09 15:01, lulu-...@gmx.de wrote:

 on the SotM09 there was agreement that the search field should be visible at 
 the upper left of the screen in all screen resolutions on 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org .

Funny, I obviously missed that.

 This is not realized yet.
 Who can do it, please?

Lots of people can, but there are very good reasons why it is where it 
is at the moment which is why it hasn't been moved.

The whole home page needs a redesign, and I don't really want to start 
fiddling with little things like this when we should be doing the job 
properly.

There are also issues with search at the moment which mean we don't 
actually want to make it too prominent.

Since the SOTM advert has been removed it should now be on the home page 
for most people anyway - the main problems come when there is extra 
stuff in the sidebar like the SOTM ad that pushes it below the bottom of 
people's windows.

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] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign

2009/7/30 Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl:
 Lennard wrote:

 Exactly, it's a moot point, and I included it mostly to make the point
 that there are so many subtle ways to handle maxspeed, that it would be
 difficult to make an all-encompassing tagging scheme. At some point,
 you'll just have to go with a generalized solution.

 The general solution is maxspeed is the highest of the maxspeeds of all
 classes of vehicle on that road.
 See also the signs we have in continental europe when you enter a country:
 there is usually a large sign specifying the maximum speeds on different roads
 (within town, outside town, motorway). I have never seen a different sign for
 mopeds, HGV's or vehicles with a caravan, it is always the maximum for all
 vehicles.

no, you're wrong. It's the maxspeed for normal cars. Drivers of
different vehicles must inform themselves about local legislation when
driving in another country. For bicycles in Germany I can tell you
that general maxspeeds don't apply to them.

And obviously you're also not travelling to Poland, otherwise you
would have seen this sign:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Speedlimitsinpoland.png/424px-Speedlimitsinpoland.png

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Search field on www.openstreetmap.org

2009-07-30 Thread Andy Allan

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Tom Hughest...@compton.nu wrote:

 There are also issues with search at the moment which mean we don't
 actually want to make it too prominent.

It's worth pointing out that there are developers who are working on
improving the search (primarily David Earl), so it's a known issue
that's being worked on rather than something that's being ignored.

When we have the improvements we need to make it work better, then I'm
sure it'll be appropriate to make it more prominent.

Cheers,
Andy

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Search field on www.openstreetmap.org

2009-07-30 Thread Jonas Krückel

Tom Hughes schrieb:
 On 30/07/09 15:01, lulu-...@gmx.de wrote:

   
 on the SotM09 there was agreement that the search field should be visible at 
 the upper left of the screen in all screen resolutions on 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org .
 

 Funny, I obviously missed that.
   
+1
   
 This is not realized yet.
 Who can do it, please?
 

 Lots of people can, but there are very good reasons why it is where it 
 is at the moment which is why it hasn't been moved.

 The whole home page needs a redesign, and I don't really want to start 
 fiddling with little things like this when we should be doing the job 
 properly.

 There are also issues with search at the moment which mean we don't 
 actually want to make it too prominent.

 Since the SOTM advert has been removed it should now be on the home page 
 for most people anyway - the main problems come when there is extra 
 stuff in the sidebar like the SOTM ad that pushes it below the bottom of 
 people's windows.
   
+1
Steve started a wiki-page with ideas for a frontpage redesign some time 
ago (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Front_Page), but it seems like 
the process stopped.
There were also some discussion about how prominent the map should be or 
if we should put more text on the frontpage (3 columns layout etc.)

Jonas


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Search field on www.openstreetmap.org

2009-07-30 Thread David Earl

Andy Allan wrote:
 It's worth pointing out that there are developers who are working on
 improving the search (primarily David Earl), so it's a known issue
 that's being worked on rather than something that's being ignored.

Indeed. I am currently reloading the index from the planet file. The 
index hasn't been updated since January. Once reloaded it should then be 
kept up to date as before.

The reload from scratch hasn't been done for nearly 18 months. In that 
time the planet file has grown enormously, so it is taking much longer 
than before (although that may also be down to the method, which is 
slightly different, to deal with the problems that caused us to suspend 
updates in the first place).

The first two attempts also failed - finger trouble and the duff planet 
file last week.

So it will be a while yet, but I am indeed working on it.

David

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

 And obviously you're also not travelling to Poland, otherwise you
 would have seen this sign:
 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Speedlimitsinpoland.png/424px-Speedlimitsinpoland.png

Nope, I haven't. And if I was driving past it I wouldn't know what was on it.

Regards,
Maarten

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Search field on www.openstreetmap.org

2009-07-30 Thread Yann Coupin

Just out of curiosity, is the indexing/search code available  
somewhere? I'm intrigued by geosearch...

Yann

Le 30 juil. 09 à 17:01, David Earl a écrit :

 Andy Allan wrote:
 It's worth pointing out that there are developers who are working on
 improving the search (primarily David Earl), so it's a known issue
 that's being worked on rather than something that's being ignored.

 Indeed. I am currently reloading the index from the planet file. The
 index hasn't been updated since January. Once reloaded it should  
 then be
 kept up to date as before.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Search field on www.openstreetmap.org

2009-07-30 Thread Andy Allan

See the following:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Name_finder
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/sites/namefinder

Cheers,
Andy

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Yann Coupiny...@coupin.net wrote:
 Just out of curiosity, is the indexing/search code available
 somewhere? I'm intrigued by geosearch...

 Yann

 Le 30 juil. 09 à 17:01, David Earl a écrit :

 Andy Allan wrote:
 It's worth pointing out that there are developers who are working on
 improving the search (primarily David Earl), so it's a known issue
 that's being worked on rather than something that's being ignored.

 Indeed. I am currently reloading the index from the planet file. The
 index hasn't been updated since January. Once reloaded it should
 then be
 kept up to date as before.


 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Reverting Node Move

2009-07-30 Thread Andrew Ayre

Hi,

I select a way with approx 2,000 nodes and move it in JOSM. I then 
commit the change.

This creates v2 of the nodes but the way is still v1.

How do I revert this changeset? It seems Potlatch can only revert ways?

thanks, Andy

-- 
Andy
PGP Key ID: 0xDC1B5864

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Question about gps coordinates 001W0547 convert to -1.0547

2009-07-30 Thread Iván Sánchez Ortega

El día Wednesday 29 July 2009 18:39:29, Marc Coevoet dijo:
 I want to convert to something where 001W0547  becomes -1.0547

Have a look at cs2cs, part of the proj.4 suite. It excels at conversions of 
decimal/sexagesimal/whatever geographical coordinates.

If cs2cs doesn't do the job, you'll have to resort to custom scripts.

-- 
Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es

Un ordenador no es una televisión ni un microondas: es una herramienta 
compleja.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)

2009-07-30 Thread OJ W

I put a wrapper around the rather excellent
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Server_Side_Script which can
tell you which town/county/state/country something is in:

http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=51.51lon=-0.05

 - which replies that the specified numbers are in Tower Hamlets and
London and the UK


It does mean you can get all the admin levels for a place using just
one line of PHP:

$MyArray = explode(\n,
file_get_contents(sprintf(http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=%flon=%f;,
51.51, -0.05)));

(so $MyArray[1] would then contain the country name. Apparently this
is ISO 3166-1)


Results are cached, so hopefully it doesn't hit 78.46.81.38 again if
you download the same place many times.  I assume most people will be
using this to lookup OSM place nodes, so it might manage to cache a
few results if everyone is asking what country London is in...


Tagging-wise, we seem to be missing a few minor places, like the United States:

http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=29.4lon=-98.5

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)

2009-07-30 Thread Claudius

Am 30.07.2009 20:59, OJ W:
 I put a wrapper around the rather excellent
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Server_Side_Script which can
 tell you which town/county/state/country something is in:

 http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=51.51lon=-0.05

   - which replies that the specified numbers are in Tower Hamlets and
 London and the UK


 It does mean you can get all the admin levels for a place using just
 one line of PHP:

 $MyArray = explode(\n,
 file_get_contents(sprintf(http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=%flon=%f;,
 51.51, -0.05)));

 (so $MyArray[1] would then contain the country name. Apparently this
 is ISO 3166-1)


 Results are cached, so hopefully it doesn't hit 78.46.81.38 again if
 you download the same place many times.  I assume most people will be
 using this to lookup OSM place nodes, so it might manage to cache a
 few results if everyone is asking what country London is in...


 Tagging-wise, we seem to be missing a few minor places, like the United 
 States:

 http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=29.4lon=-98.5

Cool. Any idea why it's failing for cities in Iran [1]? Missing country 
polygon?

Claudius

[1] http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=36.303lon=59.606


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes

2009-07-30 Thread OJ W

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
 OJ W wrote:
 Maybe the big tricycle is needed to lift the cameras up above the traffic?

 THAT I think is the big mistake that Google made. Pushing the camera head up
 so that it looks OVER security walls and hedges is what annoys people the
 most. If a person has to use a ladder to obtain a picture then it's a
 violation of privacy, but if Google do it is a 'public service' - usual sod
 the law arrogance :(

well the [1.3m above ground] alternative is lots of photos of the van
in front of you

it's probably fascinating to have a streetview showing all the drivers
making phone calls and eating breakfast while overtaking, but not much
use for mapping...

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes

2009-07-30 Thread Lester Caine

Yann Coupin wrote:
 The problem is that your reasoning doesn't take bus/coach/hgv into 
 account. You're probably going to be as high in each of those vehicules 
 as Google's cams are...

Not on many of the private roads that are now being photographed but from 
which large vehicles are banned - even when incorrectly directed by 
incompetence on the part of GPS systems that do not understand that a 6 foot 
wide road will not take an 8 ft wide lorry ;) The last 'accident' not far from 
here needed a crane to remove the vehicle in question :)

Simply filming and saying 'we will remove pictures if you want' is just 
arrogance that should not be condoned. Just like their copying of books 
without actually getting permission from the copyright owner!

 Le 30 juil. 09 à 12:04, Lester Caine a écrit :
 
 OJ W wrote:
 Maybe the big tricycle is needed to lift the cameras up above the 
 traffic?

 THAT I think is the big mistake that Google made. Pushing the camera 
 head up
 so that it looks OVER security walls and hedges is what annoys people the
 most. If a person has to use a ladder to obtain a picture then it's a
 violation of privacy, but if Google do it is a 'public service' - 
 usual sod
 the law arrogance :(

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Reverting Node Move

2009-07-30 Thread Apollinaris Schoell

as far as I understand the db this is correct. the way uses the same nodes.
no need to increase the version the way doesn't have any additional location
info

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Andrew Ayre a...@britishideas.com wrote:

 Hi,

 I select a way with approx 2,000 nodes and move it in JOSM. I then
 commit the change.

 This creates v2 of the nodes but the way is still v1.

 How do I revert this changeset? It seems Potlatch can only revert ways?

 thanks, Andy

 --
 Andy
 PGP Key ID: 0xDC1B5864

 ___
 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] Google StreetView From Bikes

2009-07-30 Thread andrzej zaborowski

2009/7/30 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk:
 Simply filming and saying 'we will remove pictures if you want' is just
 arrogance that should not be condoned.

What's wrong with it?  Where's the exact line dividing looking with
naked eye and filming?  Since a camera is a set of light sensors and
lenses, if I'm using an N800 internet tablet with the ambient light
sensor, does that count as filming?  Should people with prothetic eyes
be ordered to close eyes when they pass near a private property?  The
idea of google streetview infringing anybody's privacy is so misled.

Cheers

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Search field on www.openstreetmap.org

2009-07-30 Thread Ulf Lamping

Tom Hughes schrieb:
 The whole home page needs a redesign, and I don't really want to start 
 fiddling with little things like this when we should be doing the job 
 properly.
 
 There are also issues with search at the moment which mean we don't 
 actually want to make it too prominent.
 
 Since the SOTM advert has been removed it should now be on the home page 
 for most people anyway - the main problems come when there is extra 
 stuff in the sidebar like the SOTM ad that pushes it below the bottom of 
 people's windows.

Hi!

For small screen resolutions like 800*600 (e.g. on Netbooks) the search 
field is not visible for a long time and I guess this is still the case 
today. It was often requested (here, on talk-de or both?) to make it 
visible without scrolling on such machines.

The problem exists for a long time, but it's just not visible on your 
or my screen ;-)

Regards, ULFL

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes

2009-07-30 Thread Frederik Ramm

Hi,

andrzej zaborowski wrote:
 The idea of google streetview infringing anybody's privacy is so misled.

I'm sure there is lots of intelligent argument on both sides of the 
fence and I have no desire of going into the details here.

But on a more general note - I think that someone's privacy is infringed 
as soon as that person feels that their privacy has been infringed. Much 
like you are insulting someone if they feel insulted by what you say. It 
is not something that can be judged objectively.

You can only, for purposes of lawmaking, set certain limits to which 
people have to endure infringement of their privacy (e.g. you may feel 
your privacy infringed by people walking down the road and looking at 
your house but that doesn't mean you can sue them). But that doesn't 
mean that by definition looking at other people's houses does not 
infringe their privacy. It is not something you can argue away with logic.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes

2009-07-30 Thread simon

I meant to send this to the list

 As an idea for 'openstreetviewbike' you could use a single camera pointing
 straight up with a rotating mirror above it in order to capture in all
 directions at once.

 The velocity of the bike would probably be OK to still capture pictures
 with close enough proximity to be useful to OSM. You might want to use
 some for of digital shutter/sports mode to combat bluring.

 If you were taking discrete pictures (rather than full video) a simple
 switch could be used to tag each 'picture' with a GPS location, and/or to
 cause a PC/Netbook/etc to store the image to disk.

 Simon




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes

2009-07-30 Thread simon

I meant to send this to the list...


 What's wrong with it?  Where's the exact line dividing looking with
 naked eye and filming?

 I think that the difference here is that they make the images available
 for others to view. There can be a great difference between taking a
 picture of a drunk, and posting the same picture on the web (especially if
 you call it 'drunk.jpg').


 As to the elevation of the camera head, I think they also need the
 multiple cameras to be close to a point source (rather on the sides of the
 car) so that they can stitch the images together.

 I assume that the boxes below the camera were LIDAR, so the cyclist
 probably doesn't want to be hit with that all day either.

 The positioning of the GPS antenna seemed a bit odd, one would think on
 top of the pole would be better (unless they are photographing upwards as
 well).

 I think that the cars also collect GSM tower IDs/timing/signal strength
 and 802.11 MAC/signal strength, as these are used in their mobile
 applications for augmenting position.
 http://code.google.com/apis/gears/geolocation_network_protocol.html

 Cheers,
 Simon.





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes

2009-07-30 Thread simon


 As an idea for 'openstreetviewbike' you could use a single camera
 pointing
 straight up with a rotating mirror above it in order to capture in all
 directions at once.

A colleague suggested using a hi-res camera shooting upwards onto a fixed
multi-angle mirror.

How much resolution do you need for OSM?

Maybe with larger mirrors pointing to the side and smaller ones to the
front and back. If you shoot 10MPixels and loose 1/2 of those to 'blank'
areas, wouldn't that be enough?

You could de-multiplex the images using a fairly simple imagemagick script.

A Canon EOS Rebel, a few mirrors and some glue... might be an interesting
experiment.

Simon.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Question about gps coordinates 001W0547 convert to -1.0547

2009-07-30 Thread Frederik Ramm

Hi

Marc Coevoet wrote:
 004E4800,47N2000
 002W2300,57N
 001W0547,51N4823
 013E2600,47N3400
 013E2600,47N3400
 013E2600,47N3400
 013E2600,47N3400
 013E2500,47N3343
 
 to something where 001W0547  becomes -1.0547

That can actually be done with sed on the Unix command line:

% sed -e s/\\([0-9]*\\)[WS]/-\\1./g; s/[EN]/./g; s/^0*//g; s/;0*//g; 
s/-0*/-/g  input.txt  output.txt

But do check your input data to find out whether the stuff after the 
letter is really fractions of degrees (if you find that you never have 
the digits 6-9 following one of the letters but only 0-5 then that would 
indicate you're dealing with minutes and seconds, which would render 
above conversion invalid).

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
 The maxheight for a feature such as a bridge is the maximum height of an
 object of the standard type that will fit under it.

No, the maxheight for a way refers to the maximum height *above* it
(not under it).

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:41 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
 Either way, expanding the existing tag makes more sense than creating 2 
 differently named tags which will cause even more confusion and duplication.

I agree. So, how about maxheight:physical, maxheight:legal, and leave
room for others if there is a demonstrable need in future?

I am tempted to suggest maxheight:physical:bridge,
maxheight:physical:trees, etc., but that is probably unnecessary at
this stage.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:25:17 +1000, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com
wrote:
 On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:41 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com
wrote:
 Either way, expanding the existing tag makes more sense than creating 2
 differently named tags which will cause even more confusion and
 duplication.
 
 I agree. So, how about maxheight:physical, maxheight:legal, and leave
 room for others if there is a demonstrable need in future?
 
 I am tempted to suggest maxheight:physical:bridge,
 maxheight:physical:trees, etc., but that is probably unnecessary at
 this stage.
 
 
If this is your suggestion to solve this, than I suggest you do something
about it and get that information on the maxheight documentation. I am not
sure how you intend this to be done. When you have a process going, point
me there, the current documentation on maxheight does not support the needs
for me, so my solution was to make another tag. I havn't seen you do more
about it than to attack my attempt to solve this.

-- 
Brgds
Aun Johnsen
via Webmail

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes

2009-07-30 Thread Ian Dees

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:51 PM, si...@mungewell.org wrote:

 A Canon EOS Rebel, a few mirrors and some glue... might be an interesting
 experiment.


 The Canon 30D (for example) is rated for 100,000 shutter cycles. If you
take a shot every 1-10 seconds, you'll be able to go for roughly 6 straight
hours before the shutter will fail.

That's why Google uses high-res digital video cameras running on Firewire on
their rigs.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance


--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:

 If this is your suggestion to solve this, than I suggest
 you do something
 about it and get that information on the maxheight
 documentation. I am not
 sure how you intend this to be done. When you have a
 process going, point
 me there, the current documentation on maxheight does not
 support the needs
 for me, so my solution was to make another tag. I havn't
 seen you do more
 about it than to attack my attempt to solve this.

Is there really such an overwhelming need to mark the physical difference to 
the legal difference?

The reason I haven't done anything is because I think maxheight is sufficient.

As someone else pointed out, if there is a curved shaped clearance the only one 
that will care would be those on unicycles.


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes

2009-07-30 Thread Stefan de Konink

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Ian Dees wrote:

 That's why Google uses high-res digital video cameras running on Firewire on
 their rigs.

I was more expecting the Elphel board design ;) Using 20MP kodak's CCDs
like they use in their book digitizing stuff.


Stefan


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes




--- On Thu, 30/7/09, si...@mungewell.org si...@mungewell.org wrote:

  What's wrong with it?  Where's the exact line
 dividing looking with
  naked eye and filming?
 
  I think that the difference here is that they make the
 images available
  for others to view. There can be a great difference
 between taking a
  picture of a drunk, and posting the same picture on
 the web (especially if
  you call it 'drunk.jpg').

Apart from broadcasting internationally, the problem is computers generally 
don't forget. Something that may be socially ok now, might not be in future, or 
legally even.


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign




--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:

 It's basically there to decide whether to use colons as in
 your example
 or switch to something like
 maxspeed[wet][forward][motorcycle]. Why?
 Well, because those time conditions tend to have colons in

You split based on the equal sign and it doesn't matter that the time condition 
or key uses colons.


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Aun Johnsen (via
Webmail)skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
 I agree. So, how about maxheight:physical, maxheight:legal, and leave
 room for others if there is a demonstrable need in future?
...
 If this is your suggestion to solve this, than I suggest you do something
 about it and get that information on the maxheight documentation. I am not
 sure how you intend this to be done. When you have a process going, point
 me there, the current documentation on maxheight does not support the needs
 for me, so my solution was to make another tag. I havn't seen you do more
 about it than to attack my attempt to solve this.

Sorry if I've offended you, Aun - I didn't mean to attack your
attempt, and I admire your pro-activity in creating the clearance
proposal. I agree with you that the current documentation on maxheight
is insufficient.

I'm just using this list as I thought it was meant to be used - to get
some discussion going and see if we can reach some sort of a consensus
before going to the next step of wiki documentation.

So, I repeat my question: what do you and others think? Do you think
maxheight:physical and maxheight:legal is better or worse than
maxheight and clearance?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign



 You split based on the equal sign and it doesn't matter
 that the time condition or key uses colons.

Actually you don't have to, key values and key tags are stored independently of 
each other, writing it with an equal sign is simply a way of describing it and 
has nothing to do with how things are stored.


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)

2009-07-30 Thread Matthias Versen

Hello !

 Cool. Any idea why it's failing for cities in Iran [1]? Missing country
 polygon?

 Claudius

 [1] http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=36.303lon=59.606

This excellent tool seems to use the admin-boundary relations.

The output for my example ( 
http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=51.8478lon=9.0282 ) is

===
National border (admin_level=2)

State (admin_level=4)
State-district border (admin_level=5)
County (admin_level=6)

Town (admin_level=8)
===

There are empty lines from admin_levels that aren't used in my case like 
admin_level=7.

See also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boundary

Matthias





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:24 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
 Is there really such an overwhelming need to mark the physical difference to 
 the legal difference?

Whether there is an overwhelming need is not the question. The
question is whether allowing for the annotation of two kinds of
maxheight is a good idea.

Aun has pointed out that many countries have two different signs for
max legal height and max physical height, and its usages can be very
different. This, I would argue, is a reason to allow for the
possibility to differentiate between maxheight:physical and
maxheight:legal.

Another reason is that it would help clarify the *meaning* of the
maxheight tag, which may be advantageous for
readability/maintainability - even in the case where only one kind of
maxheight restriction is applicable to a certain way.

Does anyone have any arguments against the above scheme, and if so, do
they outweigh the arguments for it?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag




--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 - residential roads (just in residential areas, no
 connecting
 function, you will not take this if you don't live in the
 area)
 - unclassified roads (not clear, there are voices that they
 don't
 exist in urban areas, I personally use them if there are
 either no
 residents nearby or if they are slightly bigger than
 residential
 streets and are used to access residential streets)

Most of what I classify as unclassified roads (not streets) are usually lower 
on the chain than residential, as they only have 1 lane in most cases, so I 
wouldn't expect them to exist in urban areas.


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:45:50 +1000, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com
wrote:
 On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Aun Johnsen (via
 Webmail)skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
 I agree. So, how about maxheight:physical, maxheight:legal, and leave
 room for others if there is a demonstrable need in future?
 ..
 If this is your suggestion to solve this, than I suggest you do
something
 about it and get that information on the maxheight documentation. I am
 not
 sure how you intend this to be done. When you have a process going,
point
 me there, the current documentation on maxheight does not support the
 needs
 for me, so my solution was to make another tag. I havn't seen you do
more
 about it than to attack my attempt to solve this.
 
 Sorry if I've offended you, Aun - I didn't mean to attack your
 attempt, and I admire your pro-activity in creating the clearance
 proposal. I agree with you that the current documentation on maxheight
 is insufficient.
 
 I'm just using this list as I thought it was meant to be used - to get
 some discussion going and see if we can reach some sort of a consensus
 before going to the next step of wiki documentation.
 
 So, I repeat my question: what do you and others think? Do you think
 maxheight:physical and maxheight:legal is better or worse than
 maxheight and clearance?
You can call it apples and oranges for me, but it have to be documented.
Either by improving the documentation on existing tags, or as I am doing
proposing a new tag. I do not know if clearance is the best word, or if
other words can describe it better. English isn't my first language, so any
linguistic makeup must be applied from some of you that know the language
better than me.
-- 
Brgds
Aun Johnsen
via Webmail

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance



--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

 different. This, I would argue, is a reason to allow for
 the

How much does the physical height exceed the legal height in most cases?

 possibility to differentiate between maxheight:physical
 and
 maxheight:legal.

If maxheight already implies the legal height there is no need to make things 
convulted for the sake of it, otherwise we'd be typing 
denomination=the_church_of_jesus_christ_of_latter-day_saints 

 Does anyone have any arguments against the above scheme,
 and if so, do
 they outweigh the arguments for it?

If the bridge has a horizontal bottom and the way underneath is flat most of 
the time the legal and physical maximums will be about 15cm different, 
breathing room if you like.

However if the above criteria isn't met the physical difference will vary, say 
the way dips underneath it wouldn't be the same as the entry or exit from under 
the obstruction. Or the previous example of one side the lane being different 
to the other, this won't help trucks as they can't make themselves the same 
size as unicyclists.


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Maritime borders



Ok, I am revisiting this. Both me and Gustav F (original writes of the
proposal) was not satisfied with the outcome of the last vote (about
50/50), so I have rewritten the proposal based on many of the comments from
the rejecting votes. 

There was mainly two issues of the rejecting votes: 

1) The proposal didn't clearly state what part of the maritime borders
belong to relations, I feel this is better stated now. 

2) Many people objected to the teritory border being tagged as
boundary=maritime instead of boundary=administrative + maritime=yes. This
have now been changed too. 

I am now pushing this for a new vote as no further inpute have come for
several months. I hope we can have this approved and get maritime borders
put on the map.  
Brgds
Aun Johnsen
via Webmail
 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:04:37 + (GMT), John Smith
delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
 --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 different. This, I would argue, is a reason to allow for
 the
 
 How much does the physical height exceed the legal height in most cases?
 
 possibility to differentiate between maxheight:physical
 and
 maxheight:legal.
 
 If maxheight already implies the legal height there is no need to make
 things convulted for the sake of it, otherwise we'd be typing
 denomination=the_church_of_jesus_christ_of_latter-day_saints 
 
For countries that have different signs for legal maxheight and physical
maxheight, you can have a section of road preventing tall vehicles from
passing, but they can still legally enter the road (and get stuck?!?). In
most cases, it wouldn't be needed when the legal limit is in place, though
(at least some) tunnels might have different heights depending on lane (the
legal limit might be the central lane, and lower physical height in left
and right lane).
I am not trying to tag the difference between a catholic church, and a
catholic church with a liberal priest, I am trying to tag what I see signed
on roads.
-- 
Brgds
Aun Johnsen
via Webmail

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)




--- On Thu, 30/7/09, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:

 I put a wrapper around the rather
 excellent
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Server_Side_Script
 which can
 tell you which town/county/state/country something is in:

I haven't looked at the script but it doesn't cope well with US locations at 
all...

http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=40.75lon=-74

And it didn't like Australian state borders. I'm not sure if the script needs 
an update or the way the borders were tagged.

http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=-33.87lon=151.21


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:04 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
 How much does the physical height exceed the legal height in most cases?

This is difficult to answer. For a way passing under a bridge, I would
argue the limitation is (semantically) a physical one and not a legal
one.

 If maxheight already implies the legal height there is no need to make things 
 convulted for the sake of it, otherwise we'd be typing 
 denomination=the_church_of_jesus_christ_of_latter-day_saints

The maxheight documentation does not make such an implication.

 If the bridge has a horizontal bottom and the way underneath is flat most of 
 the time the legal and physical maximums will be about 15cm different, 
 breathing room if you like.
 However if the above criteria isn't met the physical difference will vary, 
 say the way dips underneath it wouldn't be the same as the entry or exit from 
 under the obstruction. Or the previous example of one side the lane being 
 different to the other, this won't help trucks as they can't make themselves 
 the same size as unicyclists.

What about a way that has either a physical limitation or a legal
limitation (not both). Perhaps there is some argument that the tag
should differentiate between these situations? Though I admit I can
only think of a weak one - that it makes it clearer for users and
mappers - e.g. seeing that a way has been tagged with
maxheight:physical might implies that it relates to the crossing
bridge, whereas if it was tagged with maxheight:legal, it would be
worth my while to go out and check the clearance signage on the
bridge...

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance




--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is difficult to answer. For a way passing under a
 bridge, I would
 argue the limitation is (semantically) a physical one and
 not a legal
 one.

I assume it would be legal in many countries and would use it as such to 
recover money to fix bridges if you still proceed.

 The maxheight documentation does not make such an
 implication.

It's implied because you write down what's written on the sign, the sign being 
a legal tool to recover money from stupid people.

 worth my while to go out and check the clearance signage on
 the
 bridge...

Since you are on the talk-au list I can only assume you are in Australia in 
which case there is road regulations in Australia that relate to max height 
information posted and actual clearance and it's unlikely you will ever find 
conflicting information posted about the clearance.


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance


--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:

 insurance companie how to deal with it. They both should
 give the same
 advise to the driver (find a different road if you are too
 tall).

Exactly, so you only need to place the lower value to discourage stupidity...

 And many more, such as turn restrictions, weight
 restrictions, yeld/right
 of passage, traffic signals, but that shouldn't be an
 argument not to
 implement it.

You misunderstand me, this is an issue, but one that should be dealt with so 
that it solves the problem for all lane issues like maxheight, maxspeed, and 
not just solve it for maxheight.


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag

2009/7/31 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
 --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 - residential roads (just in residential areas, no
 connecting
 function, you will not take this if you don't live in the
 area)
 - unclassified roads (not clear, there are voices that they
 don't
 exist in urban areas, I personally use them if there are
 either no
 residents nearby or if they are slightly bigger than
 residential
 streets and are used to access residential streets)

 Most of what I classify as unclassified roads (not streets) are usually lower 
 on the chain than residential, as they only have 1 lane in most cases, so I 
 wouldn't expect them to exist in urban areas.

it's a different meaning in urban areas as in rural areas. Many of
what you tag as primary and secondary in rural areas (especially low
density ones) has  2 (1+1)  lanes, while in a metropolitan area will
very often be at least 2+2.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag




--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 it's a different meaning in urban areas as in rural areas.
 Many of
 what you tag as primary and secondary in rural areas
 (especially low
 density ones) has  2 (1+1)  lanes, while in a
 metropolitan area will
 very often be at least 2+2.

Does mapnik know the difference?


  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

2009-07-30 Thread Cartinus

There are lots of mappers that don't read the wiki pages at all and lots of 
mappers that only give them a cursory glance. So when introducing new tags it 
should be important that the tag itself is as descriptive as possible.

When comparing the words maxheight and clearance, it isn't obvious at a glance 
that they will be used for related but decidedly different things. The end 
effect of that will be that people are going to use one when they should 
have used the other.


When using maxheight / maxheight:physical / maxheight:legal the words themself 
already tell most of the definition.

maxheight - for places where the difference is academic / for people who 
don't care about the difference

maxheight:physical - the name says it all: whatever fits under it

maxheight:legal - a legal restriction of some kind

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Something Might be Broken

2009-07-30 Thread Andrew Ayre

Take a look at this boundary where a forest and national park meet:

   http://osm.org/go/TwUljNo--

Notice that the boundaries don't line up. This is because the national 
park is in slightly the wrong place. The national park is this changeset 
uploaded yesterday:

   http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/1980439

Today I moved the national park into the correct position. The changeset 
was closed at 31 Jul 00:09:

   http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/1989864

I then marked the tile you are looking at as dirty. It was apparently 
rendered by Mapnik on 31 Jul 03:21:

   http://a.tile.openstreetmap.org/12/772/1608.png/status

As you can see the data from my new changeset has not been used.

On 31 Jul 01:33 I added a new changeset with some trails:

   http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/1990063

This was rendered with trails at 31 Jul 03:13:

   http://a.tile.openstreetmap.org/13/1567/3318.png/status

If data I uploaded at 01:33 was rendered at 3:13, how come data I 
uploaded at 00:09 has not been rendered at the time of writing this? 
(03:21)?

One clue might be that the trails are new data but the movement of nodes 
was not. Also JOSM gave me an error of unexpected end of file when the 
changeset was closing, but the changeset is listed in my edits as being 
closed anyway. It also has all 23573 nodes.

I have cleared my browser cache and tried two browsers.

I have two other examples of different data/changesets that I just 
cannot get Mapnik to render it. In both cases some of the data is 
rendered. One of those I've asked for help on here and the Mapnik list 
with no solution. I've tried everything I can think of.

I don't know what the Osmarender update speed is or how to mark tiles as 
dirty or find out when they were rendered, so I am unsure if Osmarender 
tiles can be directly compared.

Any help is greatly appreciated, otherwise I am losing confidence.

Andy

-- 
Andy
PGP Key ID: 0xDC1B5864

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

2009/7/31 Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl:

 When using maxheight / maxheight:physical / maxheight:legal the words themself
 already tell most of the definition.

 maxheight - for places where the difference is academic / for people who
 don't care about the difference
+1
 maxheight:physical - the name says it all: whatever fits under it
+1
 maxheight:legal - a legal restriction of some kind
-1
why would you recommend different tags (maxheight:legal and maxheight)
for the same thing in different countries? This seems strange to me.
Just define explicitly, that maxheight is the legal maxheight, and you
don't have to change any existent tags (in the areas I know) and
retain consistency.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance