On 27/02/2009 22:42, Andy Robinson wrote:
David Earl wrote:
Clearly you have run out of mapping to find time to spot this :-D
Just monitoring the RSS feed for my area to spot breakages, which do
happen from time to time.
I recall the very early discussions and the first draft of Map Features
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:24 PM, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
BTW, I added values-sections to the english, german and polish wiki-pages
and stated that the semantics of other values are undefined and what cases
may most likely happen.
Thanks, translated.
--
Łukasz
I think that the important issue here is respect for others' edits.
Personally I only use true/false 0/1 when coding computer programs. In real
life I think that
yes/no is much better.
However all schemes are correct and therefore no one should modify someone
elses edits just on the basis of
a
Nick wrote:
However all schemes are correct and therefore no one should
modify someone elses edits just on the basis of a personal
preference.
It depends how you define correct. Anyone can tag anything any way
they like, but it helps to follow the commonly accepted tags (such
as those
I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors are
putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true would be better
spent doing something more useful.
JOSM's preset puts it in as 'yes' (and that's what nearly everyone was
doing when I started). Who's to say what
David Earl wrote:
I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors
are putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true
would be better spent doing something more useful.
Eek - people are really doing this?
'yes' is English (and, as you say, in the editor
True/false and Yes/No both give the same meaning to oneway, so there's
only debate if the value should be leaning towards human- or machine
readability. Personally I would lean towards human, shame on any
programmer who's software cannot parse yes/no values.
What would really add additional
David Earl wrote:
I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors
are putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true
would be better spent doing something more useful.
Well, JOSM-search-type:way oneway:true
A nice way to rest my brain.
Who's to say what
True/false and Yes/No both give the same meaning to oneway, so there's
only debate if the value should be leaning towards human- or machine
readability. Personally I would lean towards human, shame on any
programmer who's software cannot parse yes/no values.
What would really add
sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote:
David Earl wrote:
I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors
are putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true
would be better spent doing something more useful.
Well, JOSM-search-type:way oneway:true
A nice way to rest my
Someone replied, asking:
Eek - people are really doing this?
You replied:
I am
I thought you were arguing for changing oneway=true to oneway=yes,
which is the opposite of what David describes.
Ed
Ooops, mis-read that, but still my point stands, I don't care about yes or
true,
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:20 AM, sly (sylvain letuffe)
li...@letuffe.org wrote:
What would really add additional information to oneway is: 0, 1 and -1.
These values additionally give a direction relative to the direction of
the way. Imho only 0, 1 and -1 are the true options for the oneway
If I'm then in an editwar with Sylvain
We won't need that because I use yes/no too (mis-read the david email),
, I hope we can do it face to face
with some wine and cheese ;)
but let me know when you'll come to France, I'll keep a bottle and some
terrible stinking cheese so we can still do
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:36:18 +0100 (CET), Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl
wrote:
Whatever it is going to be: it would be nice if the validator plugin in
JOSM
will accept this. Currently it's programmed to accept yes/no as a proper
tag
and true/false is flagged as incorrect.
That's why I change
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:37:30AM +0100, Elena of Valhalla wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:20 AM, sly (sylvain letuffe)
li...@letuffe.org wrote:
What would really add additional information to oneway is: 0, 1 and -1.
These values additionally give a direction relative to the direction of
Am Freitag 27 Februar 2009 schrieb sly (sylvain letuffe):
Who's to say what the right answer is when there
is no right answer.
I pretend to know and say (again) that the right answer is not to have
duplicate tags for the same meaning.
right!
as a software developer, I would prefer 0/1/-1,
no
false
0
-1
all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a
oneway-tag).
Ouch ! While using your software, I'll be extreamly carefull on the road ;-)
Don't want to be droven on an undefined or other or maybe oneway
Europe counts :
oneway
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:55:26 +0100, sly (sylvain letuffe)
li...@letuffe.org wrote:
no
false
0
-1
all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have
a
oneway-tag).
Ouch ! While using your software, I'll be extreamly carefull on the road
;-)
Don't want to be
On Friday 27 February 2009 12:06, you wrote:
A good way would obviously be to change the map features and then the
mapnik and osmarender stylesheets. As much as we like it or not, the
rendered map is a big incensitive to tag one way (no pun intended) or
another.
Renaud.
Looks like Ed was
sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote:
no
false
0
-1
all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a
oneway-tag).
Ouch ! While using your software, I'll be extreamly carefull on the road ;-)
Don't want to be droven on an undefined or other or maybe oneway
Europe
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:15:11 +0100, sly (sylvain letuffe)
li...@letuffe.org wrote:
On Friday 27 February 2009 12:06, you wrote:
A good way would obviously be to change the map features and then the
mapnik and osmarender stylesheets. As much as we like it or not, the
rendered map is a big
The opposite is true. undefined it is either a oneway=true or not.
True, we know nothing with undefined.
In both cases I am allowed to drive it like a oneway=true and it
is the safest thing to do
Safety is not engaged in considering a default to yes, but that's what you
could do on any roads
Hi!
Lambertus schrieb:
What would really add additional information to oneway is: 0, 1 and -1.
These values additionally give a direction relative to the direction of
the way. Imho only 0, 1 and -1 are the true options for the oneway tag.
Actually, it would convey less information.
Hi!
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb:
Just a note:
As a developer I am accepting the following values in the Traveling
Salesman
navigation system (case ignored):
no
false
0
-1
all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a
oneway-tag).
So you are
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:32:38 +0100, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb:
Just a note:
As a developer I am accepting the following values in the Traveling
Salesman
navigation system (case ignored):
no
false
0
-1
all other values are ignored and treated as
Sly:
Looks like Ed was faster than me doing it on the wiki. Also I
would have
prefered a bit of talking since some people seams to prefere
1/0 rather than
yes/no
I meant to change it when we discussed it last in the doctors/doctor
thread. At some point in the past before I started mapping
thread. At some point in the past before I started mapping it had
been updated to yes/no/-1
The wiki's history might prove my guilt. But I wasn't aware of
polls(voting?)/discussion needed to make such changes.
When someone came to undo my changes, I realized I failed to follow
the process so
Hi!
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:32:38 +0100, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb:
Just a note:
As a developer I am accepting the following values in the Traveling
Salesman
navigation system (case ignored):
no
false
0
El Viernes, 27 de Febrero de 2009, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com escribió:
all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a
oneway-tag).
Reversible lanes on a separated carriageway...
--
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:36:23 +0100, Iván Sánchez Ortega
i...@sanchezortega.es wrote:
El Viernes, 27 de Febrero de 2009, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com
escribió:
all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have
a
oneway-tag).
Reversible lanes on a separated
El Viernes, 27 de Febrero de 2009, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com escribió:
That is not something a routing enging can work with anyway
as there is no rule as to when this is oneway=true and when this it
oneway=-1.
Agreed. It should be avoided unless you are starting (or re-calculating) the
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:55 AM, sly (sylvain letuffe)
li...@letuffe.org wrote:
Europe counts :
oneway | count
+
no;yes | 2
We have elves contributing?
Nop wrote:
On the other hand, the way I understood it OSM was a global
initative and is happy for every additional mapper. If this is the
goal, we need structures that you can understand and properly use
without a degree in computer science.
A good general principle: we should always
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:40:44 -0800 (PST), Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
If we produce a wonderful world map but developers have to jump through a
few hoops to use it, a) we have a wonderful world map, therefore b)
people
will - and are doing - produce the tools that jump through
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
A good general principle: we should always optimise for ease of mapping.
Yes Richard, but some things are best done in the editors. It's much
easier for editors to highlight obvious mistakes, than it is for every
marcus.wolschon wrote:
Actually it's the other way around.
We have tens of thousands of mappers
but are lacking developers on every corner.
Nah. We don't have enough developers on the OSM core site, but that's
immaterial in this context. The ecosystem, however, is thriving. There isn't
a day
Nic Roets wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
A good general principle: we should always optimise for ease of mapping.
Yes Richard, but some things are best done in the editors. It's
much easier for editors to highlight obvious mistakes, than
Celso González ce...@mitago.net writes:
I dont understand the -1 or reserved value, what that means?
one way yes/true/1 but in the opposite direction of the way?
Exactly.
Matthias
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
Celso González ce...@mitago.net writes:
I dont understand the -1 or reserved value, what that means?
one way yes/true/1 but in the opposite direction of the way?
Matthias confirmed:
Exactly.
-yes anyone?
Perhaps this should be oneway=forward/no/backward (where forward and backward
are
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
-yes anyone?
please no, it's even less intuitive than -1
--
Elena ``of Valhalla''
homepage: http://www.trueelena.org
email: elena.valha...@gmail.com
___
talk mailing list
OSM2Go now automagically flips oneway tags, tags on ways like foo:left
and foo:right, and forward and backward members in relations when the
user reverses a way. Better explain what we do for oneway somewhere,
this might as well be it.
We inherit JOSM's presets system, so we use whatever
UI-wise
David Earl wrote:
I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors are
putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true would be better
spent doing something more useful.
JOSM's preset puts it in as 'yes' (and that's what nearly everyone was
doing when I
42 matches
Mail list logo
