Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
There are signs for the destinations, and distances. I honestly can't recall if there were bike symbols on them - there may well have been. I clearly remember that the sign had a picture of a walker, a cyclist and a horse rider on it when I was at the Swavesey station. However when I went back to photograph the signs, they were covered up again - possibly as a result of an email conversation I had with the guy from the council concerning its status. Donald ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
Or better still, train dogs to walk only under hedges and fit them with a GPS :-) I can't help thinking that this would open up a whole new genre of geographical-based games, ranging from geocaching (where did I hide that bone?) and orienteering to canine endurance records (my dog walked 100 miles in 24 hours, and here's the proof - 30092009.gpx). Having said that, you would presumably get gaps in the trace whenever the dog goes down a rabbit-hole that would require some interpolation when they come back out of a different exit! Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] deleted copyrighted material technically still in the database?
From: maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com To: osm-talk talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, 23 September, 2009 13:44:52 Subject: [OSM-talk] deleted copyrighted material technically still in the database? Whenever we see copyrighted material in OSM, we try to remove it immediately. But technically, it still in the database including history and changeset. Am I right in my assumptions? grumblepedantic mode No-one should be removing copyrighted material from the database as a matter of course. We should only be removing copyrighted material if there is no clear evidence that the copyright holder has given permission for it to be used in this way. Some would argue that we should only remove it if there is clear evidence that the copyright holder *hasn't* given permission for it to be used in this way, although the OSM way is to be ultra-cautious where there is uncertainty. /pedantic mode/grumble Technically, it is still in the database, and a technically astute person could recover it. However it is not in the current version of the data that are provided using the default mechanisms, so it *could* be argued that OSM is not actively distributing it. It's similar to when people add code to a public repository then remove it again, it's usually still there somewhere. I am unaware of any legal cases in the UK (where OSM is based) that hinge around this residual availability, but then again I am not a lawyer and would certainly be interested to hear of any. Regards, Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] deleted copyrighted material technically still in the database?
From: Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com To: maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com Cc: osm-talk talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, 23 September, 2009 14:57:38 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] deleted copyrighted material technically still in the database? This issue has cropped up with Wikipedia too. The view there is that even though the copyrighted material is still available in the wiki page history, this should not be a big concern. Deleting the material from the current version of the page means that there is an intent to remove the infringing material. But if necessary, then sysads can really delete the offending data in the database. Looks like from Thomas Wood's reply that we have this capability too, although it's worth noting that what's valid for wikipedia may not be directly relevant for OSM as they reside within different legal jurisdictions (US vs. England Wales). Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] source=(survey, yahoo, gps...)
If there are 10 traces by GPS for a way I think it's out of alignment from the average of them, then I would move it. Irrelevant of what the source tag for the way. Please don't do this unless you have clear evidence it's wrong, you could well be messing up perfectly accurate data. What if all 10 people walked down the same side of a wide street, and made an estimate of the necessary offset of the centre line? In this case you'd be messing up data that were already accurate. Unless you take your own GPS trace, you can't be sure if that's happened or not. I have in the past done this and walked across the street at one point in order to get a reference for the width, then added a deliberate offset accordingly. Not all roads are easily walkable on both sides, so this is not an unlikely scenario. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GPS gadgets can get you jailed and fined
Wow, such a crazyness... I tried to log a flight with my GPS-enabled cellphone (a Nokia N95), but it didn't worked after a minute. http://sportstracker.nokia.com/nts/workoutdetail/index.do?id=569496 (forgive the google maps background, as this GPX is useless for mapping I didn't uploaded it to OSM) But sometimes I run into some problems using my smartphone on a plane. It happened - twice - that the cabin crew didn't allowed me to use the phone, even after explaining it was on the airplane (offline) mode. I managed to log a flight from France back to England, using a Garmin Legend HCX, purely out of interest. Even though it isn't a phone, doesn't look like a phone and is not capable of transmitting anything, I was careful to be discreet for the whole flight. Even if it didn't contravene any 'rules'* I was aware that other people can often draw very strange conclusions if you're doing something that they don't consider normal. *I think they usually say something about not using electronic devices during take off and landing, but aren't specific about what. However I've never seen anyone remove the battery from their digital watch, so I guess this is something that is enforced, at most, inconsistently. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
The area figures are obviously including the wet bits. Bristol is half water: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7019663.stm This article mentions Denny Island - which was absent from OSM. I've now added it from the NPE map, although I don't know whether its location has changed with the movement of the sands/mud. Does anyone have a more up to date source for its outline? Donald ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] is_in and similar tags
But until we do, the existing mechanism does no harm, and as I said, you don't always know the boundary while you do know where the place is. Determining the inclusion of every place in the database, even if we had complete information, is massively more complex than simply being told the information. If you have it, why not give it. Given that there is currently quite a high probability that some of the boundaries will be wrong (having moved since the NPE maps were published), there's another good reason to have what amounts to essentially duplicated information in the is_in= tag - there will be a number of cases where the two sources will contradict each other. It will then only be a matter of time before someone motivated writes a checker to compare the two and generate a list of errors, then motivated individuals will then check their local area and fix the errors in whichever source is wrong. It worked for coastlines and is working for things like nearly-junctions now - so could work quite well here. (I'm not volunteering to write the checker, but I would certainly be willing to spend time looking at any errors thus detected). Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
I'm just trying to think what makes a roundabout a roundabout instead of just a one-way system. So far I've come up with: 1. It is one way in the appropriate direction (clockwise in the UK) 2. All the roads leave/join the outside of the loop (*) 3. It generally isn't very built-up in the middle (**) 4. It has a reasonably circular shape (***) 5. It is signposted as such Of course, there are sadly lots of exceptions... * Increasingly there are roundabouts with roads running through the middle: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.936219lon=-1.24996zoom=18layers=B000FTF The road through the middle is generally one-way though, and usually just one road. ** http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.910579lon=-1.400756zoom=18layers=B000FTF (The Charlot Place roundabout in Southampton now has the reasonably tall Jury's Inn hotel in the middle of it - I'm sure people can think of many others) *** Can't think of any oddly shaped roundabouts off the top of my head, but I'm pretty certain that there are plenty. :) How about this one: http://osm.org/go/0EFYMXaIH-- which fulfills all of the above 5 criteria, but just has a 'short-cut' across one side. In this case, each 'junction' on the roundabout is controlled by traffic lights and has between 2 and 5 lanes. I have to navigate it frequently and I can't say it's one of my favourite ones! Donald ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
How about this one: http://osm.org/go/0EFYMXaIH-- which fulfills all of the above 5 criteria, but just has a 'short-cut' across one side. In this case, each 'junction' on the roundabout is controlled by traffic lights and has between 2 and 5 lanes. I have to navigate it frequently and I can't say it's one of my favourite ones! These aren't too dissimilar. Although I'm curious how your example works - it looks like the short cut is only of use for people who have come off the southbound carrigeway of the motorway and want to get back on the southbound carriageway - why wouldn't they just go along the motorway instead of taking the junction? (I presume I'm missing something important about who can use the shortcut lane :) You can use it if you come off the southbound carriageway and want to go west (or into the services), or if you approach from the west (or from the services) wanting to go South. In both cases you could also take the outer loop, although I think the signposts discourage it. I think I'm correct in saying that the shortcut was the original part of the roundabout, and the extra extension was built at a later stage to accommodate increased traffic as a result of Stansted airport just to the east. Donald ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] maxspeed field - what units should we use. etc
if a bot can do it then there's no reason the data consumers can't do it too without the bot. If you don't have a good reason to change something just leave it be. Or alternatively, why not just run the bot on the copy of the data at the input to the renderer*, rather than on the database itself? The effect for the rendered map is the same. * By renderer, I mean any consumer of the data (such as a routing algorithm) rather than just something that produces a visual representation of the data. Donald ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Languages
Imagine that you plan a business trip to Tel-Aviv and want to print yourself a map of the city. Or maybe you'll be spending a week in Cairo. Can you not see the benefit in having a map with the street names in a different language than the one on the sign? In that case I'd want something that told me how to pronounce the name of the street but written in my own alphabet, rather than what the name of the street actually means - just like at Japanese railway stations. But maybe this is nothing more than a limitation of the Mountain Road example. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia POI import?
From: Pieren pier...@gmail.com To: Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com Cc: Talk Openstreetmap talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, 6 May, 2009 16:17:51 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia POI import? On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote: So, if I understand this discussion, I cannot create a POI based on Google aerial photography directly in OSM. But if I create my POI first in Wikipedia, then import it in OSM, it is permitted. Is that correct ? I think there are two issues here, which are only partially related. Firstly, there is what the relevant laws actually say on the matter. So for example, the laws say that if Wikipedia licenses its data as CC-BY-SA we can import it without worrying about it. If they didn't have the right to license the data as such, that is primarily their problem and we only have to respond if a court decides that this was improper and we should therefore remove the data. I am fairly happy with doing a mass import of Wikipedia data on this basis. Secondly, there is the risk that a company, irrespective of what the laws say, will start throwing lawsuits around. I am not convinced that Google would do this in this case, but those from whom they license the data might do. It doesn't matter whether they have a case or not, their claims could be completely and utterly bogus. But once they've thrown their lawsuit, you are then tied up in an expensive legal process from which it can be very hard to escape unless your lawyers are bigger than theirs (or more accurately, the pockets that pay your lawyers are deeper than the pockets that pay theirs). Think of this as the Microsoft approach to the law. It is this risk that we are more concerned about here, and this is what would make me wary of doing a mass import. If our product is a threat to their profitability then they will throw morals out of the Windows and do whatever they can to halt their competitors, claiming that they have a moral duty to look after the interests of their shareholders. Much as I hate the fact that this is how it works, it's a sad fact of this world that there are many large organisations who don't care about right or wrong who also happen to have pretty deep pockets. Cheers, Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-talk-ie] open street map - what's in it for you?
This is what's in it for me - compare: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=dsource=s_dsaddr=52.190651,0.077049daddr=Grantchester+Rdhl=engeocode=%3BFdRiHAMdNSwBAAmra=dmemrcr=0mrsp=0sz=18sll=52.191479,0.07692sspn=0.002529,0.006974ie=UTF8t=hll=52.191279,0.07713spn=0.004874,0.013947z=17 with http://data.giub.uni-bonn.de/openrouteservice/index.php?start=0.0762464,52.1901535end=0.0764609,52.1922055pref=Fastest〈=en and you'll see that Google not only takes you 4 miles out of the way, it also takes you on a motorway which is a definite no-no when on a bike! Donald From: Someoneelse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk To: Ken Guest k...@linux.ie Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, 1 May, 2009 16:40:35 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-talk-ie] open street map - what's in it for you? Ken Guest wrote: My own answer was a little less vague ;-) and mine: My original reason was that there's a footpath bridge between two villages near me that I could never remember where it was, and that you can't see until you're on it, and no-one, (including the online mapping portals and the OS) has the area accurately mapped. Google has roads as they were a couple of years ago and some random tracks with no information about access. The OS has either field boundaries from the 1940s updated with some 70s-era information or white space (presumably because it was being opencasted at the time that they overflew and they knew that their data was temporary) overlaid with footpaths that must have been drawn by someone in the last century just after they'd got back from the pub, because there are some that go through blocks of flats and people's houses, and many that don't align with the (in many cases correct) 1940s footpath markings. However, I'd also like to use a map that knows that one of the motorway junctions nearest my house actually exists (junction 29a of the M1 FWIW), and I'd like to use directions that don't tell me to turn right off a flyover over a dual carriageway where there isn't actually a junction! OSM have all of these correct; Google's (Tele Atlas?) data has both of these last two wrong and another (Navteq I think) implementation has the last wrong. ___ 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] Wrong scale in slippy map
If you want it done right, then your scale bar has detatchable end points. You drag one end of the scale bar to one end of the feature, the other to the other, and then the scale bar warps itself into a great-circle curve and tells you how long it is. Which would actually be an incredibly cool feature to have, it is essentially a measuring device between two points on the map - any javascript experts out there willing to code this up? Cheers, Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] just feels like time for a poem
edible map? nom nom nom It's hard to see how an inedible map could be deliciously open. :-) On 26 Mar 2009, at 15:11, Mikel Maron wrote: ooo-dee-bee-ell sure does feel like hell! lightning rods, lengthy flames where we going to assign the blame? hey! forget the naming names finger points all out of joint again eye-aaa-enn-aaa-ell doesn't that ring your bells? a little courtesy, tip of the hat forget the fail, go lolcat we have the freely edible map deliciously open, not proprietary crap it is made by people like you only need a license true to our free hopes and dreams and OSM will reign supreme -mikel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ 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: [Talk-GB] Free National Grid Vector Layers for gas and electricity?
Also, I suspect that selling maps is a nice little earner for people such as the land registry, so licensing them all as CC-BY-SA isn't in their interest (as much as it may be in the tax payer's interest). And that, I believe, is the crux of the problem. The people who get to decide have a vested interest, which definitely isn't aligned with the interests of those who pay. Donald ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Bulk import as a data layer (like gpx currently is)
Of course the editor should show everything available, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be stored in separate databases or displayed in separate layers. It just needs smarter software. Maybe we could get round this by keeping it all in one database, but adding a separate tag to denote where the data come from? Anyone could use this tag to filter only the data they want, or to remove data from a particular source. I'd suggest something like source=? :-) Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What if ODBl 1.0 is superseeded by ODBl 2.0
May be the FAQ should point out what could be the trouble to switch from ODBL 1.0 to ODBl 2.0, just in case some oversight become evident in the future. I would be very keen to take a leaf out of the GPL world here, and license the data under ODBL 1.0 or later. That means if and when 2.0 comes out (which it surely will) the data are automatically covered by the new version. When 2.0 does come out, that changes to ODBL 2.0 or later for all new data added to the project after that date. As long as we trust the body responsible for creating the ODBL licence to create future versions in keeping with the aims of the licence that we currently understand, that should be no problem. Cheers, Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What if ODBl 1.0 is superseeded by ODBl 2.0
I would be very keen to take a leaf out of the GPL world here, and license the data under ODBL 1.0 or later. That means if and when 2.0 comes out (which it surely will) the data are automatically covered by the new version. When 2.0 does come out, that changes to ODBL 2.0 or later for all new data I agree completely. If we don't do this we will have this mess again in a few years. Or more likely, a few months with ODBL 1.1, which fixes a use case that no-one thought of. With the best will in the world, it's not going to be perfect first time round, and just as GPLv3 made late changes as a result of an agreement between Microsoft and Novell, there could be a legal case somewhere in the world which highlights the need for a change. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again
Tracks known to be private (something the Ordnance Survey do not show, and therefore something that could be a big advantage over OS maps) could be overlaid by a transparent red line to indicate do not go here. I personally would be very wary of this approach, as known to be private can be a matter of opinion. Some landowners go to great lengths to deny access to anyone on their land, regardless of whether there is a public right of way or not. I have seen big Private signs in places which aren't private at all. Just the other day I was approached by a security guard on an industrial estate and told it was private property and that I had no right to be there and would I please remove myself. I checked later on an OS map and it turns out that I certainly would have a right to be there as a pedestrian (although in fact I was in a car at the time), so we shouldn't just trust what someone with a vested interest tells us. For that matter, the road I live on is unadopted, so could technically be described as private (as indeed many unadopted roads are), but it wouldn't make any sense to mark it as private on OSM. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
From: David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com The 'significant' bit is not the point: it only needs people to have made *insignificant* changes to other people's *significant* changes (including original mapping) to be invalidated. Linking this chain of thought with the one that myself and Richard Fairhurst were discussing earlier on in another strand of this thread, I wonder if the insignificant changes could/would/should be deemed not to be copyrightable at all. It certainly doesn't add any creativity to change a 'yes' to 'true', and as long as it's insignificant in quantity wouldn't be as a result of hard labour of any sort. Depends on jurisdiction of course, but maybe the contributions of this individual who refuses to agree to the new licence (or maybe just isn't contactable) could therefore be essentially ignored and left as is in the database without worrying about them? At the end of the day, if the individual comes back and objects to this at a later date, we can still remove them at that point in time if they have a good case that their small 'contributions' are indeed copyrightable. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
If someone has put one church on the map, or removed an 'n' from 'Avennue', or even just done the uncreative monkey-work of tracing over Yahoo imagery, I take exception to this. I have spent many a long winter night (over two winters!) adding almost all the lakes and rivers of Peru to OSM (for largely personal reasons, it's what I wanted to do - and there were very few already there when I started). Except for in built up areas, these are features that are mostly so remote that no-one will ever visit more than a few of them with a GPS. The only way these will ever be added is from satellite imagery. I don't think this is uncreative monkey-work - it's probably upwards of 50 hours of effort in total. I tried things like the lake-walker plugin to speed it up, but with only limited success, so most of it is totally manual. I suspect that in most cases of smaller, more remote lakes OSM is the first map on which these lakes have appeared, ever. A lot of this I would not consider particularly 'useful', but for me it is a form of art - just like when I draw a picture, or sing a song, or write a blog entry. I'd like to be able to look back and think yeah, I did that. Are you saying that this would not be covered by copyright? I think I've added a significant amount of creativity to the original data from which it is derived - i.e. they are now on a map as opposed to just a satellite picture. I'd have no problem with someone copying a lake or two and using them under a different licence, but if they copy the whole lot and abuse the licence for my artwork (creative commons for now, the new OSM licence if I decide to agree to it) then I'd be seriously unhappy. Even for more 'conventional' uses of tracing satellite imagery for adding roads, the contribution can be significant, even if it's not as good as using a GPS to collect the data. Cheers, Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Even in the UK, which follows the sweat of the brow principle (i.e. copyright can be gained through effort even without creativity), such effort needs to be significant. Sorry I meant to add at the end of my previous email - what I was saying is that tracing of satellite imagery can be significantly non-negligible, and often needs to be quite creative too. You try telling the difference between a lake and the shadow of a cloud on a very dark satellite image for example! Also, you have to make judgements as to where a lake or river ends and the land starts - it's not a simple case of where this is water, as that depends on the season, amount of rain and other factors. Claiming copyright over negligible works is what the RIAA, and those bunch of tards who are trying to stop the Kindle's text-to-speech feature, do. They are rightly vilified for it by people like us. We should be on the side of the angels, and not try and claim rights where such rights shouldn't and don't exist. Yes I agree totally with this, I think in this example a text-to-speech feature should be considered fair use (not to mention that denying this use might fall foul of anti-discrimination laws in some jurisdictions). However, I'm aware that, in the UK at least, fair use is not a well-defined concept legally. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Locating objects in Google Maps/Earth
Please don't use Google Maps when doing OSM. It's just not worth the risk. I understand that this is a safe and wise rule, but as Wikimedia Commons' site suggests (and Nic's reply, commenting on talk-legal discussions), there may be a fair use (or fair dealing) for rectifying the location of an object this way. The concept of fair use is something which differs from one jurisdiction to another. Here in the UK for example, we have no fair use rights at all. Even ripping a CD to your PC and downloading it to a portable music player is technically not something you have a right to do, although in this case any copyright owner who tried to sue a user for doing so would be completely mad. Whilst fair use may be used as a defence for rectifying data using Google Maps in the USA, it would not be a valid defence in the UK or a number of other jurisdictions. Just go out with a GPS to take an accurate position, or use another data source that we have a right to use. After all, the fun of openstreetmap.org is creating our own map, using our own tools (such as our feet, bicycles and GPS-enabled gadgets). I do use the yahoo imagery when there is no alternative, but it's better to have a legally-clean (but not quite complete) map which still allows someone the fun of completing it, than one which people can't use with confidence because they're not sure of its legality. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tag-Proposal] Freifunk/Mesh nodes + links
From: Sven Rautenberg s...@rtbg.de To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, 29 January, 2009 10:34:03 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Tag-Proposal] Freifunk/Mesh nodes + links Linus Lüssing schrieb: In my opinion Freifunk and OpenStreetMap are both very good and valuable public services run by eager indivuals. However, I'm wondering, if these public services shouldn't be interconnected with each other a bit more. While I am not against working together, I doubt it would be useful to dump your database into OSM. I'm with Sven on this as far as the OSM database is concerned - a potentially fast-changing set of data such as a set of wireless nodes wouldn't be good fit in the OSM database itself. However, OSM is more than just a database, it's also a set of tools to do interesting things with that data and a community surrounding it. I'm very keen to see the OSM data used to create custom maps for all sorts of applications, and a Freifunk network map would be a good example of this. You could take a copy of OSM data, merge it with Freifunk data from a separate database and use Mapnik (or osmanrender, or anything else) to generate a custom map. This is absolutely what OSM is about, and I think you'd find the OSM community very supportive of such an effort. Just my tuppence worth.. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] When is a bridge not a bridge?
From: David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com To: osm talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, 22 January, 2009 13:51:16 Subject: [OSM-talk] When is a bridge not a bridge? In view of some changes that I've seen going through in my area recently, I'd be interested to know people's opinion on what constitutes a bridge. In particular to what extent are the approaches part of the bridge? I know I'm likely to hear wildly contradictory answers and there's probably no right answer. __ / \ /\ / \ /\__ Are the ramps part of the bridge? If they are on solid embankments? If they are a lattice structure supported on pillars, perhaps like intermediate supports of the bridge itself? If they have parapets or not? Or do people feel the bit marked as bridge should strictly be only the span (or spans) itself? There is a set of ramps to a flyover: http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=-16.399543lon=-71.542044zoom=18layers=B000FTT where I decided the ramps should be tagged as layer=1, bridge=yes. The reasoning was that it is possible to walk under these areas as it is a structure with pillars. OK the end point doesn't exactly coincide with where you can no longer walk underneath it, but that was at least my logic. As the layer tag signifies a vertical separation, I think it should be used where there is at least the possibility of multiple items at the same location. In other bridges, I have tried to make the bridge part stop where you can no longer pass underneath it. Often of course, this ends up being an estimate as I don't bother to take a waypoint while looking over the edge of the bridge to see where the gap stops! Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Fix My Street
Just thought I'd mention a very useful UK based website. FixMyStreet.com is a project run by the MySociety people. I mention it because we are the one riding around all the time, and we will be bound to notice mistakes like incorrect street names etc, or even the less mundane pot holes. To report a problem just type in the postcode or street name /area, locate on a (OS) map, and describe the problem. FixMyStreet then submit the report to the local council to be fixed. Ciarán There is also fillthathole.org.uk, a site run by the CTC (Cyclist's Touring Club) aimed at defects in the road that present a hazard to cyclists. Very much the same idea but with a specific focus on issues that affect cyclists. Donald ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] name tags on place=country and how they're rendered on lowzoom
Software can only gues the language of the default name from an identical name value with a specified language. eg: name=Venezia name:en=Venice name:sl=Benetke name:de=Venedig ... can additonally be tagged with name:it=Venezia This could be used to make nice maps of default languages, if only it was used more than just on major cities (smaller places rarely have foreign names) How would you deal with something like: name=Paris name:fr=Paris name:es=Paris name:en=Paris ? You can't really tell the default language from this. It would only work if we can guarantee that only where the name is different in a specific language is it tagged - I've not checked but I'd guess there are lots of examples of (strictly speaking superfluous) tags like this. There will also be cases where the only difference is an accent on a letter - this will work if correctly tagged, but there will probably be a lot of errors in the tagging where an accent missed off in the native language. (e.g. Peru vs Perú). Cheers, Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Indiscrimate layering
His argument was that there may be places where you face legal trouble for mapping and we need to allow these people to remain unidentifiable. I think this is a valid argument, but can be resolved with a series of disposable account names. The advantage of this over simple anonymous edits is that we can know that seemingly separate edits are by the same anonymous user, should that user choose to convey that information by using the same anonymous account multiple times before disposal. That may give us useful clues as to why a person is doing a particular type of edit so that when controversy strikes (as it has in this case) we have more information to go by when deciding whether to nuke a set of edits or take a different course of action. Maybe we should facilitate the creation of anonymous accounts (of the format anon_sdj4fqw5k maybe?). Of course there will be people who choose to create a new anonymous account for every session, and that's absolutely fine too. The choice of how anonymous to be is totally up to the individual. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM in top 100 websites
I like the comment for Where’s the Path: “Let down by OS's absurd OpenSpace restrictions.” and if you try clicking on that site, you'll discover it's let down by what appears to be a restriction on the number of page hits imposed by OS. Presumably that limit has been reached today as a result of the guardian effect, a lesser-known sibling of the slashdot effect. I don't see how a site with such restrictions (admittedly imposed from outside the site itself) can belong in the top 100 list. :-) Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unification of OpenStreetBugs an Trac
I agree that where the bug tracker starts being used for mapping- related things, then the boundaries start to blur. But I'd still suggest that the only difference between an OSB ticket and a software bug ticket is the method of submission. After that, it's triaged and managed in the same sort of way. I agree with this as far as it goes, but. I think we should keep a separation between OSM as in the tools used to run the project (what's currently in trac) and the geographical data that we manage. This would be possible by defining them as separate 'projects' within a single bug tracker - most bug trackers I've used support this. The two projects have very different (but overlapping) groups of people working on them - bugs in the system will only be managed by a relatively small number of people, whereas bugs in the data we manage will be of interest to any mapper in the area - who may or may not come from a software development background. I can think of a number of situations where people would want to filter out one or other type of bug, and such separation would make this trivial. There are also issues like 'closing' a bug - I suspect most people reporting bugs in OSB won't bother to go back to mark it as closed, as the target market is for the non-technical mapper or map user. This won't be the case with bugs in the software. Apart from this, the lifecycle of a bug is essentially the same in each case so the same tool could be used, but with a different front end. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Where have all the contributors gone?
In my case I've run out of stuff to map. Can someone build some more roads please? ;) I think you'll find that if you start mapping footpaths, it'll at least partly solve the problem. Footpaths, by definition, cannot (legally) be cycled on so you have to do them on foot. Which means your number of miles mapped per hour of mapping drops off to a much lower level. You'll feel you've wasted your time the first time you see the results, but that feeling soon goes. :-) Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Where have all the contributors gone?
At 9:00am on a Sunday morning, the meaning of no cycling on urban footpaths mysteriously disappears :-) Unfortunately the mud doesn't, which if Saturday is anything to go by would have been a bit too much for my non-mountain bike :-) The real challenge as has been pointed out is the white space without a nearby contributor. Especially in the sparsely populated locations of our planet Last winter I spent many dark evenings tracing the jungle rivers and mountain lakes in Peru from the yahoo satellite images. The vast majority of this will be nigh-on impossible to map using a GPS, so I considered this to be a useful contribution in an area previously mostly empty (OSM-wise). Some of these have probably never been mapped to this level of accuracy before. And I still haven't finished yet (Lakes are only about half-way up the country, and most of the coastal rivers still need doing), so I reckon that'll keep me going this winter. Bolivia and Brazil still have a lot of water unmapped, so that would be something you could consider. I'm sure there are many other parts of the world with similar needs. As urban areas lend themselves well to on-the-ground mappers with GPS devices these are better left to locals who can gather street names, but even here I reckon there's room for basic mapping of major highways from satellite, as that will form a framework around which people on the ground can organise their own mapping. For example people might decide to map completely a square enclosed by roads, rivers etc., but unless these features are already on the map it's harder to plan something like this. When I actually got to visit one such road I was able to adjust it on the basis of GPS data, thus improving the accuracy. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Where have all the contributors gone?
It's very common in Bolivia at least that river have very different water levels, is there a tag for this? Usually you have a large riverbed and then a very small river running in the middle for most part of the year, and then sometimes it will flood all the way up to the riverbanks. I have take the approach that the 'river' is the part where vegetation doesn't grow. A lot of the time much of this won't actually be underwater, but the actual channel within the riverbed will change very rapidly, possibly with every flooding, whereas the river bed itself will change less rapidly (but still rapidly enough that, say, 10 years down the line it will be significantly different). This is also relatively easy to tell from even low-res satellite imagery - unless the river bed has green mud of course! Looked at another way, the vegetation is there because that area hasn't had a flood severe enough to wash it away, at least within the timespan it takes for the vegetation to grow. Having said that, if anyone can think of a better way of doing this I'm open to suggestions. I think in reality though the concept of 'edge of the river' is fairly ill-defined in areas where it hasn't been interfered with by mankind, in much the same way as the location of a coastline changes. The fact is that the coastline oscillates nearly twice a day, and low-water and high-water are merely approximations that allow us to put something on a map. You wouldn't want to build a house between the two lines though. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over derived geographic data in the UK
From today's Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/20/ordnance-survey-google-maps (not reference to OpenStreetMap towards the end). and the letter from OS which provoked it: http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/docs/use-of-google-maps-for-display-and-promotion.pdf David This move is quite concerning, but underlines the need for OpenStreetMap to exist in the first place. I wonder if we should respond with some sort of marketing campaign, aimed at local authorities and other public institutions, to encourage them to use OpenStreetMap as the basis for their future mapping needs. In fact we should maybe even offer to complete surveys in a particular area of any types of data that are incomplete but which are important for the public good. One that particularly interests me at the moment is public rights of way. It's tempting to look at an OS map for public rights of way information before walking it and mapping it, however if we are mapping what we see on the ground then this shouldn't be necessary. Should a public institution express an interest in information on public rights of way in a particular square then I'd be more than happy to help collect it from the marked paths found on the ground. We could start by creating a section on the wiki providing details of how public institutions might approach the subject, and a means for conveying suitable requests to the community. Of course commercial companies might want to do this too, and although some people might have reservations about this, they are free to make donations to help OSM out! I'm reminded of how the Linux Kernel developers made an offer to hardware manufacturers a couple of years back to write drivers for them, all they had to do was ask and provide the necessary information/documentation. From what I've read this has been very successful campaign. If we as members of the OSM community can get a good reputation for responding to requests for particular types of information in the same way, then the OS will either become an irrelevance or will have to change its licensing policies. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over derived geographic data in the UK
I had some contact with the RoW officer at Cambridgeshire County Council recently (he was pointing out that we had a footway down as a cycleway, though it still is because I didn't think I could use his info based as it was on an OS base map!) Now that's an angle I'd not thought of before! So the question is, what sources of information about public rights of way are there that aren't derived from OS data? Or are the OS attempting to assert rights to this information itself, whereas in fact they only have rights to their own derivative of this information in the form of its representation on their maps? Actually, the current tagging doesn't seem to have enough granularity here. The highway=path, highway=footway, foot=yes, horse=designated etc. tags doesn't seem to include a way of actually saying if a path is a public right of way or a permissive path. Some paths I have added are permissive paths under a DEFRA scheme (valid until 2014), and not actually rights of way. There isn't an obvious way of distinguishing this from a RoW in OSM. I had an altercation with the tenant farmer on one of these as I was walking where the map said the permissive path went, but he claimed the path was actually somewhere else (he said there was too much risk of foot and mouth disease with the public walking this close to the farmyard, which would be totally irrelevant if I had some sort of right to walk there in any case. I'm not clear what 'rights' I have exactly if it isn't a RoW; I also thought it a slightly odd comment for what appeared to be an arable farm). I tentatively arranged a lunch date with him and one of the GIS people at the County, but never followed it up. If I do that now, do you want to come along, Donald? After pausing briefly to think about this.why not? I'd probably learn quite a lot. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over derived geographic data in the UK
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access foot = yes = legal right of way foot = permissive = permissive path Unfortunately, Potlatch has been adding lots of * = yes for a while by default, so it's hard to tell whether the contributor understands the implications of the =yes tags and removes them if they don't apply. So I'd have more confidence in the *=permissive tags more than *=yes. The wiki seems to be very confusing on this issue. I would have interpreted this page as meaning I should add foot=yes access=permissive, rather than foot=permissive. The various other pages that talk about types of path don't seem to mention anything about the access rights, only intended purpose - e.g. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated This confusion isn't helped by potlatch doing one thing and josm another, and I'm pretty sure that past versions of potlatch did something different as well (not sure about JOSM). And JOSM makes no mention of foot=permissive, only foot=designated. And I believe that the accepted norm has changed in recent history too. So in answer to your question about whether the contributor understands the implications of the =yes tag, I think it's a totally safe bet that most people (myself included until a few minutes ago) don't. I would volunteer to update the wiki to make it much clearer how the various types of path should be tagged, but I still don't feel I understand it all sufficiently to do this. Cheers, Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Recommendations for a new GPS Device?
I've been using my old N95 for a while now to get my GPS traces, but unfortunatly it's decided to finally give up. So, i'm in the market for a new GPS device. I'd preferebly like a standalone device but i'm not shunning away from any bluetooth devices, as lugging around a EeePC in a backpack is quite easy. Any recommendations? I've had a look over the reviews wiki page but i'd like some feedback from the OSM public :) I recently bought a Garmin Legend HCX, and am very happy with it. It's possibly overkill if all you want to do is collect GPX traces, but I've found other uses for it too. It has a micro-SD slot (signified by the X in the model name) and you can download OSM-derived maps onto it, which is useful for knowing what's already mapped (assuming you have an up-to-date map). With an appropriate routeable map on it it can also give you directions to a destination (it doesn't have the annoying voice feature though). What's more, the micro-SD card can be used as a general data store (it connects via USB as a USB mass storage device), so in my case it has part of my music collection on it. I just swap it with the micro-SD card in my phone (which has a different OSM-derived map on it) when I want to listen to the music. The Garmin is also relatively waterproof, so I don't worry if it rains while I'm out mapping (it sits on a handlebar mount on my bike, available separately). The only downside is that it doesn't support settings profiles - so after a session out at sea (for which it's also an excellent device) I was cycling along measuring my speed in knots with it showing my course in degrees until I reconfigured it! It runs for a couple of days of mapping on a pair of NiMH AA rechargeables. It cost about £170. Its receiver seems to be a lot more sensitive than the N95 which I used previously. Having said that, you can get a bluetooth GPS device for about £25, so if you already have an EeePC or similar with bluetooth, this would probably be the cheapest option. Donald -- Andrew Williams / Nik_Doof w: http://tensixtyone.com/ e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] POI by coordinates
One should certainly not add information to OSM that is copyrighted, protected by database rights or otherwise protected. There is a difference between being careful and paranoid, however. Sigh.there is nothing wrong with adding information that is copyrighted or otherwise protected. The problem is doing so if the copyright owner has not given permission for this to take place. Almost every piece of work has a copyright owner, including the contributions I make to OSM. I'm perfectly happy for my contributions to OSM to be used by others in any way, shape or form, as long as they comply with the OSM licence. That's why I contribute. Now ask the same question about whether Google, or wikimapia.org, or whoever are happy for results derived from their coordinate-finding service to be used by whoever in any way, shape or form, as long as it complies with the OSM licence. I could be wrong, but it's not totally clear to me that that is the case. The 'spirit' of their licences tends to suggest not. So it's safer to err on the side of caution, especially as there are suitable alternatives which *have* given permission for similar use in any way, shape or form, according to the OSM licence. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] POI by coordinates
Ryszard Mikke wrote: Ummm... Why is that so? Does that mean that I can't use WikiMapia for it as well? Cause that is what I've actually done... It sounds like all you want is a way to place a specific point of interest in OSM, after having already placed it in wikimapia.org. I would recommend you use the yahoo imagery for this, it should be possible to position it within a few tens of metres using even the lowest-resolution imagery. Without knowing where your POI is located there may or may not be other methods of placing it (using NPE maps in the UK for example). But the best option is to take a GPS device to the location and read what it says. I know not everyone has a GPS device so this isn't always possible. I've just taken a look at the legal page on wikimapia.org (if you can call it that; it's actually a floaty-type window rather than a proper page) and I would steer well clear of this for the purposes of OSM. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Example of Multipolygon Lake/Islands?
From: Ian Dees [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can anyone provide a permalink to an example of a lake that uses the multipolygon relation to handle islands? I remember having a link to such an example a while ago but I seem to have lost it. Have a look at Lake Titicaca: http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=-15.654lon=-69.262zoom=9layers=B000FTF This has a large number of islands in it of a variety of sizes. However if you look at it in osmarender you will see there are a few rendering problems. This seems to be a bug in osmarender, as many other large lakes suffer from similar problems. At least, I've been unable to find a tagging scheme that overcomes them. Mapnik is fine though. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Phone numbers in OSM
This is assuming current levels of activity - where at present, most effort of contributors is put into mapping unmapped areas. This will change. I agree it will change - but probably the change will be that a good proportion of the mappers lose interest because there's nothing to do (or at least very little). In my view a telephone number is something that goes out of date quickly, so should not be included in OSM. On the other hand most geographical features are very long-lived, the main changes being that new housing estates/roads are built where previously the map was largely blank space. These are likely to get filled in quickly (I've even mapped roads that aren't officially open yet) as they are an 'easy' target. I also have the same reservations about the company operating a bus route being included in the map - companies (including transport companies) come and go, change name, merge, split up, get taken public, get taken private again and generally re-brand themselves with remarkable frequency. For that matter, the bus routes themselves change (but perhaps not so frequently). Donald Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Isle of Man coastline issue
Frederik Ramm schrieb: Hi, 2008/8/7 Dan Karran [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Does anyone have any ideas about what might be causing this tile to render as an all-land tile? I had tried in the past few days to render this as a mixed tile (through the informationfreeway.org interface but it didn't seem to have helped... and I've just tried again now to make sure). I don't think this is just you - the same thing is happening in the west of Ireland on the coastline near Galway city: There was a bug in close-areas.pl which I have just commited a fix for, the Galway coastline looks ok now (not uplaoded new tiles but checked locally), maybe anyone else seeing a coastline problem and who has [EMAIL PROTECTED] installed could check whether it's ok now but I believe it should. Bye Frederik Yes, it does! :) I rendered the tile from post #1 : http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=54.08897692699451lon=-4.631828812318744zoom=12layers=B000F000F Also cross-posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was hoping that this might have resolved the problems I've been seeing with the rendering in Lake Titicaca, but alas it seems not. This is a huge lake with a large number of islands (mainly small but a few larger ones). Although the entirety of the perimeter seems to be OK, there are a few tiles that are rendered inverted. See the following: http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=-16.3063lon=-68.8319zoom=12layers=0B0FTF http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=-16.0828lon=-69.1986zoom=12layers=0B0FTF http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=-15.7414lon=-69.6233zoom=12layers=0B0FTF http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=-15.6237lon=-69.3916zoom=12layers=0B0FTF I've checked and double-checked that all the islands are complete polygons and go anti-clockwise and can't find an error in the dataset. However Burgh Island (off the south Devon coast, England) has reappeared, thankfully! Any ideas? Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik large rievrs
Areas tagged with the tag waterway = rivebank http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank do not seem to be rendering in Mapnik. I've noticed that you need to add natural=water, then it renders OK in mapnik. However, either the wiki should be updated to say this, or if dropping this as a requirement is better then mapnik needs updating to render as water without this tag. Donald __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enabling communities to use OSM as a planning tool
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lat night I attended a steering group meeting for my local Connect2 [1] project in north east Birmingham [2]. One of the things that the group could benefit from is rapid response on mapping so that it can discuss route options for the new cycle/walk routes to be built under the project. OSM is the logical tool to use for this process and I'm keen to show what we can do with the OSM data and the OSM platform to support the work. At the moment everything is done as overlays on Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 mapping, not an ideal way to integrate ideas into the existing infrastructure. This brings me to the point though. Currently we map physical features as they exist and in some cases the alignment of known construction, what we do not do is use OSM as a planning tool. What are people's views on this? It seems that OSM is an ideal platform for enabling communities to develop their own planning, without having to rely wholly on the GIS department of their Local Authority, it also makes publishing ideas so much easier without the encumberment of the OS licence restrictions. Anyway I'm going to give it a try here and come up with some logical tags so that the data does not get rendered by default unless a custom style sheet is deployed. But maybe the easiest was is to have the renders ignore data that carries a specific tag. planning= perhaps? I'd welcome some feedback. One thought that occurs to me is that there will be many, disparate groups wishing to use OSM to plan stuff, only a very small proportion of which would eventually become reality. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to add these features to the main OSM database. Perhaps what would be more useful would be the possibility for people to have their own 'supplementary' database which they use to store their own data - which they could then tag in whatever way they wish, without affecting the main OSM database. How easy would it be to make this possible? So for example, people's custom renderers will pull data from OSM, followed by the custom database(s) and then render accordingly. I suspect this would be fairly easy to implement as only the data extraction stage should be affected. If we make it trivially easy for people to add this capability then OSM becomes generically much more useful, without becoming cluttered with data that might turn out to go nowhere. Donald __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Islands in lakes
Hi All, Can anyone explain what's gone wrong here: http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=-15.756477951963221lon=-69.56994035747516zoom=12layers=B000F000F ? Following the discussions last week about how to tag islands in lakes so that they render properly, I've gone round and re-worked the tags for islands in Lake Titicaca (which disappeared in Mapnik this week, presumably as a result of a tagging error). To be sure I had got it right I sought out a similar feature set to examine the tags, and found this: http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=60.873lon=14.822zoom=11layers=B00FF which is displayed correctly in both osmarender and mapnik. It seems that most of the tiles are now rendering correctly, but some of them are rendering inverted. I've had to mark a number of tiles as blank land or blank sea too (via informationfreeway.org, I presume pressing 'l' or 's' at zoom 12 has the desired effect?). I can't see how it can be an error in the track that marks the island, as part of it is rendered correctly. Any clues as to what's gone wrong? (The osmarender tiles at zoom 12 are all messed up in this area, I'm just concentrating on z=12 for now). Cheers, Donald When the winds of change start blowing, some people look for shelter. Others build windmills. -- Ancient Chinese Proverb. http://donaldallwright.blogspot.com __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
