[OSM-talk] State of the Map 2010 - Where?

State of the Map 2009 is now several months behind us. Thanks to all the people who where there (either in person or virtual) we can look back on three awesome days. It showed what a wonderfull bunch of people we are! It's time to think about the next State of the Map, SotM10. During the last

[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

Hello everybody, I propose to add a tag "boundary=military" : the problem is that, with the existing tags, it's almost impossible to mark correctly lots of data, like (non limitative list) forest, scholl, parking lot, … Rather than multiplying the "military=*" tag, I suggest to only mark the exte

Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting

2009/10/12 James Livingston : > If there is a wiki page which describes a tag in a limited way, and I > want to document how I've used it, what should I be doing? IMHO you should either try to find out that your definition of the tag is the one the majority of mappers supports (and uses), or you

Re: [OSM-talk] Visual map for the blind

2009/10/12 : >> >> What tag would you use for bus/tram stops with a "i" button that reads >> >> out the information about trams soonest to arrive, aloud? >> > >> > I have never seen those before. >> > >> > Not proposed yet, but I guess many things need explanation, >> > so I would tag it like that

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Google has dual carriage way where it's not built yet

2009/10/12 Ben Laenen : >> I made a proposal: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:planned > > > So what's the difference with highway=proposed + proposed=...? > > I can't seem to find the wiki page, but highway=proposed is already in use and > it's rendered in the Mapnik layer. maybe this on

Re: [OSM-talk] mapnik shelter rendering

Am 12.10.2009 01:00, Dave G: > Hi > > It may be a localisation problem or semantics but it appears that > alpine hut / regular hut / shelter / etc. definitions > or perceptions vary between countryies as previously stated: > > This is my interpretation of an Alpine Hut - > http://en.wikipedia.org

Re: [OSM-talk] mapnik shelter rendering

On 13 Oct 2009, at 12:04, Claudius wrote: True. In german we say "Schutzhütte" (losely translates as "protection hut") and the german wikipedia article shows good examples in pictures: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzhütte (ignore the one in the lower right corner). These "shelters" are

Re: [OSM-talk] mapnik shelter rendering

Hi, > True. In german we say "Schutzhütte" (losely translates as "protection > hut") and the german wikipedia article shows good examples in pictures: > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzhütte (ignore the one in the lower > right corner). These "shelters" are only used as a protection from bad

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Google has dual carriage way where it's not built yet

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/10/12 Ben Laenen : > >> I made a proposal: > >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:planned > > > > So what's the difference with highway=proposed + proposed=...? > > > > I can't seem to find the wiki page, but highway=proposed is already in > > use and it's ren

Re: [OSM-talk] mapnik shelter rendering

2009/10/13 Frederik Ramm : > Hi, > >> True. In german we say "Schutzhütte" (losely translates as "protection >> hut") and the german wikipedia article shows good examples in pictures: >> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzhütte (ignore the one in the lower >> right corner). These "shelters" are onl

Re: [OSM-talk] mapnik shelter rendering

UK English - "shelter" if it's open to the wind, "bothy" or "hut" if it's reasonably windproof, but gets zero cleaning (mainly Scotland), "refuge" for the Alpine buildings On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > > True. In german we say "Schutzhütte" (losely translates a

Re: [OSM-talk] Visual map for the blind

Original-Nachricht > Datum: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:57:18 +0200 > Von: Martin Koppenhoefer > An: lulu-...@gmx.de > CC: accessibil...@openstreetmap.org, talk@openstreetmap.org, > tagg...@openstreetmap.org > Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk] Visual map for the blind > 2009/10/12 : > >> >> Wh

Re: [OSM-talk] Visual map for the blind

2009/10/13 : > I would love to agree, but the needs of disabled persons are widely spread > over our tagging scheme anyway, and awareness of objects that refer to > accessibility is nearly zero. > There are categories for visual, hearing and walking impariment, colletcted > in the category "ac

[OSM-talk] Taggin for the blind [was: Re: Visual map for the blind]

Lulu-Ann wrote: > > I would love to agree, but the needs of disabled persons are widely > spread over our tagging scheme anyway, and awareness of objects that refer to > accessibility is nearly zero. > > There are categories for visual, hearing and walking impariment, > colletcted in the category "

Re: [OSM-talk] mapnik shelter rendering

Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > >> True. In german we say "Schutzhütte" (losely translates as "protection >> hut") and the german wikipedia article shows good examples in pictures: >> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzhütte (ignore the one in the lower >> right corner). These "shelters" are o

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

Gilles Corlobé writes: > I propose to add a tag "boundary=military" Where is this tag currently being used? Please point to several examples so we can see what you mean. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1

[OSM-talk] OpenStreetBugs: shared database and translations

I am happy to announce that error reports are now stored in one single database, no matter whether you are using the interface at or at the Google hosted . As before, you can download all bugs in a daily dump at

[OSM-talk] FOSSGIS 2010 conference: Call for Papers

Hi, the Call for Papers for the FOSSGIS 2010 conference (2-5 March, Osnabrueck, Germany) is out: http://www.fossgis.de/konferenz/wiki/2010/Call_for_Papers This conference is going to be the first major German OSM conference (with a little bit of traditional Open Source GIS stuff at the begin

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

> -Message d'origine- > De : Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com] > Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2009 16:38 > À : Gilles Corlobé > Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org > Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal > - RFC - (boundary=military) > > Gilles Corlobé writes: > > I propose to add a

Re: [OSM-talk] mapnik shelter rendering

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 7:04 AM, Claudius wrote: > True. In german we say "Schutzhütte" (losely translates as "protection > hut") and the german wikipedia article shows good examples in pictures: > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzhütte (ignore the one in the lower > right corner). These "shelte

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

On 13 Oct 2009, at 16:35, Gilles Corlobé wrote: -Message d'origine- De : Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com] Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2009 16:38 À : Gilles Corlobé Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military) Gilles Corlo

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

> -Message d'origine- > De : Shaun McDonald [mailto:sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk] > Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2009 17:46 > À : Gilles Corlobé > Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org > Objet : **SPAM ENGLISH BODY** Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal > - RFC - (boundary=military) > > > On 13 Oct

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

Gilles Corlobé writes: > This tag is not currently used. But it could be very usefull here : > http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz-- Why wait? Tag boldly and document what you did in the wiki. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd.

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

> -Message d'origine- > De : talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk- > boun...@openstreetmap.org] De la part de Russ Nelson > Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2009 17:54 > À : talk@openstreetmap.org > Objet : **SPAM ENGLISH BODY** Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal > - RFC - (boundary=

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > Why wait?  Tag boldly and document what you did in the wiki. > No, no and no. If you are unsure or unhappy with existing tags, then document, suggest and discuss before putting crap in OSM ! Pieren ___

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009/10/13 Gilles Corlobé : > I didn't know I didn't have to wait the approval. > It's now done : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz-- Gilles, your approach was the correct one. Don't follow those stupid advices from guys how want the chaos in OSM. Making proposals and having discussions will show you if

Re: [OSM-talk] TIGER Addressing Import

Dave - super awesome. As I said on IRC the other week, but I'll repeat here for all - I think dumping the addressing for all 3,000 counties and then letting people import them one by one will be the best way to do it. Another random thought - should the addressing ways be one long way with

Re: [OSM-talk] TIGER Addressing Import

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 18:20, SteveC wrote: > As I said on IRC the other week, but I'll repeat here for all - I > think dumping the addressing for all 3,000 counties and then letting > people import them one by one will be the best way to do it. dont you think we need a simple way to check-in &

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009/10/14 Pieren : > 2009/10/13 Gilles Corlobé : >> I didn't know I didn't have to wait the approval. >> It's now done : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz-- > > Gilles, your approach was the correct one. Don't follow those stupid > advices from guys how want the chaos in OSM. Making proposals and > havin

Re: [OSM-talk] TIGER Addressing Import

On 13 Oct 2009, at 09:26, Simone Cortesi wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 18:20, SteveC wrote: >> As I said on IRC the other week, but I'll repeat here for all - I >> think dumping the addressing for all 3,000 counties and then letting >> people import them one by one will be the best way to do

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] TIGER Addressing Import

On 13 Oct 2009, at 9:20 , SteveC wrote: > Dave - super awesome. > > As I said on IRC the other week, but I'll repeat here for all - I > think dumping the addressing for all 3,000 counties and then letting > people import them one by one will be the best way to do it. > yes this is the best way t

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference 72267)

Andy, Crown copyright maps, and books, are reprinted all the time. Copyright dates stay the same, generally. The crux point is what triggers a new copyright date. Guidance notes from the OPSI - "A new edition of a published work which contains substantial revisions would normally qualify as a

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

On 13/10/2009, at 10.14, Gilles Corlobé wrote: > Hello everybody, > I propose to add a tag "boundary=military" : the problem is that, > with the existing tags, it's almost impossible to mark correctly > lots of data, like (non limitative list) forest, scholl, parking > lot, … > Rather than

[OSM-talk] TIGER Addressing Import

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 18:20, SteveC wrote: > >Dave - super awesome. > >As I said on IRC the other week, but I'll repeat here for all - I >think dumping the addressing for all 3,000 counties and then letting >people import them one by one will be the best way to do it. > >Another random thou

Re: [OSM-talk] TIGER Addressing Import

On 13 Oct 2009, at 10:37, Hillsman, Edward wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 18:20, SteveC wrote: >> >> Dave - super awesome. >> >> As I said on IRC the other week, but I'll repeat here for all - I >> think dumping the addressing for all 3,000 counties and then letting >> people import them one

Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] TIGER Addressing Import

2009/10/13 SteveC : > Also - the ways will be deplaced 90 degress to the road centerline to > push them to the edge of the road I assume - but you also need to > 'pull in' the end nodes too so they are not laying on top of the cross > streets at each end, if you see what I mean? There's some (ugly

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote: > Before you propose a tag, you should be using it. > Why? Doesn't it make sense to ask around before using something - someone may come up with a good example they are already using, or a simple reason why your tag is not good.

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009/10/13 Pieren : > 2009/10/13 Gilles Corlobé : >> I didn't know I didn't have to wait the approval. >> It's now done : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz-- > > Gilles, your approach was the correct one. Don't follow those stupid > advices from guys how want the chaos in OSM. Making proposals and > havin

Re: [OSM-talk] mapnik shelter rendering

2009/10/13 Claudius : > True. In german we say "Schutzhütte" (losely translates as "protection > hut") and the german wikipedia article shows good examples in pictures: > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzhütte (ignore the one in the lower > right corner). These "shelters" are only used as a prote

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

Shaun McDonald wrote: > > On 13 Oct 2009, at 16:35, Gilles Corlobé wrote: > >>> -Message d'origine- >>> De : Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com] >>> Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2009 16:38 >>> À : Gilles Corlobé >>> Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org >>> Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Pr

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

> To be honest I don't see the point. You should use the already > existing landuse=military. School, parking lot, etc. that you > mentioned should be rendered on top of that, like landuse=residential. > Using "landuse" also avoids certain ambiguities like: which side of > the boundary is the milit

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

Pieren wrote: > 2009/10/13 Gilles Corlobé : > >> I didn't know I didn't have to wait the approval. >> It's now done : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz-- >> > > Gilles, your approach was the correct one. Don't follow those stupid > advices from guys how want the chaos in OSM. Making proposals and

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetBugs: shared database and translations

Mitja Kleider wrote: > I am happy to announce that error reports are now stored in one single > database, no matter whether you are using the interface at > or at the Google hosted > . > > Please forgive me if I'm not understand

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetBugs: shared database and translations

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Dave F. wrote: > Mitja Kleider wrote: > > I am happy to announce that error reports are now stored in one single > > database, no matter whether you are using the interface at > > or at the Google hosted > >

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetBugs: shared database and translations

On 13 Oct 2009, at 23:52, Dave F. wrote: > Mitja Kleider wrote: >> I am happy to announce that error reports are now stored in one >> single >> database, no matter whether you are using the interface at >> or at the Google hosted >>

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetBugs: shared database and translations

El Miércoles, 14 de Octubre de 2009, Shaun McDonald escribió: > It's for people who don't know how to edit osm data, or reminders to > go and resurvey something by mappers. ... or a reminder to edit that tomorrow, as it's 4 AM and you only think about "fixing just one more roundabout". -- -

[OSM-talk] walking-papers hanging?

Greetings. Is it only my impression or have the walking-pares stopped working over a week ago? -- Było mi bardzo miło. Czwarta pospolita klęska, [...] >Łukasz< Już nie katolicka lecz złodziejska. (c)PP -

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009/10/14 Dave F. : > Pieren wrote: >> 2009/10/13 Gilles Corlobé : >> >>> I didn't know I didn't have to wait the approval. >>> It's now done : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz-- >>> >> >> Gilles, your approach was the correct one. Don't follow those stupid >> advices from guys how want the chaos in OSM

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

> -Message d'origine- > De : Joseph Reeves [mailto:iknowjos...@gmail.com] > Envoyé : mercredi 14 octobre 2009 00:07 > À : Morten Kjeldgaard > Cc : Gilles Corlobé; talk@openstreetmap.org > Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal > - RFC - (boundary=military) > > > To be honest I d

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009/10/14 Gilles Corlobé : > In my opinion, the tag "landuse=military" should only be used for specificly > military activities, like those discribed in the wiki. > Some of you have suggested to create 2 areas, covering the same place. I > don't think this is correct. One of you said that's done e

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

> -Message d'origine- > De : John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] > Envoyé : mercredi 14 octobre 2009 06:55 > À : Gilles Corlobé > Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org > Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal > - RFC - (boundary=military) > > 2009/10/14 Gilles Corlobé : > > In m

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009/10/14 Gilles Corlobé : > You're right : If the area is covered by a forest (or a lake, or whatever), > it should appear like this on the map. What would a user think if he finds a > forest (even if it's in a military area) that is not on the map? > And we should remerber that all users are not