Hi,
I have indic fonts installed in my machine, but when I try to type them in
josm, I just get little boxen - how does one install indic (or any font) font
support in josm?
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Senior Project Officer
NRC-FOSS
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
Hello,
based on an old (abandoned) proposal and on a discussion in the German board
I have created a new proposal for tagging mineshafts:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft
In addition to this proposal I would like to discuss the tag resource. In my
proposal resourc
2009/10/20 Lesi
> Hello,
>
> based on an old (abandoned) proposal and on a discussion in the German
> board
> I have created a new proposal for tagging mineshafts:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft
>
> In addition to this proposal I would like to discuss the tag r
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Peter Childs wrote:
> I agree standardizing on resource might be a good idea but we might need
> resource_output and resource_input or somthing
Are you an economist?
from my worldview which deals with people and biological systems
i don't see an importance in designating wher
> there are mineshafts and BIG mineshafts and open cut mines
> and mining in english has its own language to describe the parts of the
> mine
For open cut mines there is another draft. IMO they are something completly
different.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining
> how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme?
If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore
-> disused=yes
lesi
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining
It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as
currently - looking in the UK I can see one "man-made=mineshaft" and no
references to "surf
Hi,
Tom Hughes wrote:
> The main issue of debate surrounds exactly what forms of attribution
> are/are not valid.
And this is not made easier by the fact that what is valid and what not
is not the community's decision but (within the confines of the license
text) that of the individual contrib
> It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as
> currently - looking in the UK I can see one "man-made=mineshaft" and no
> references to "surface_mining". Do you know what people are using
> currently?
In the area I map the mineshafts are currently not mapped at all. A
> and no references to "surface_mining"
There is also landuse=quarry which can be used for surface mines.
But actually they are not part of my proposal - it refers only to
underground mining.
lesi
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://
2009/10/20 Someoneelse :
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining
>
> It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as
> currently - looking in the UK I can see one "man-made=minesha
2009/10/20 Lesi :
>> It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as
>> currently - looking in the UK I can see one "man-made=mineshaft" and no
>> references to "surface_mining". Do you know what people are using
>> currently?
>
> In the area I map the mineshafts are currentl
- Original Message
> From: Frederik Ramm
> To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 October, 2009 13:13:31
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proper attribution
>
> Hi,
>
> Tom Hughes wrote:
> > The main issue of debate surrounds exactly what forms of attribution
2009/10/20 John Smith :
> There is probably a good reason only tourist attractions are mapped
> because you wouldn't be allowed to go near one unless you worked
> there, there is a mine shaft on the other side of town but I wouldn't
> get anywhere near it.
You're missing the point: this is not abo
2009/10/20 Martin Koppenhoefer :
> 2009/10/20 John Smith :
>> There is probably a good reason only tourist attractions are mapped
>> because you wouldn't be allowed to go near one unless you worked
>> there, there is a mine shaft on the other side of town but I wouldn't
>> get anywhere near it.
>
>
On 20 Oct 2009, at 12:05, Lesi wrote:
how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme?
If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore
-> disused=yes
Do NOT use something like disused=yes as a modifier, you instead need
to add an extra level of indirection, so that
> There is probably a good reason only tourist attractions are mapped
> because you wouldn't be allowed to go near one unless you worked
> there, there is a mine shaft on the other side of town but I wouldn't
> get anywhere near it.
I know mineshaft you can get very close to (2-3m). With your argu
> On 20 Oct 2009, at 12:05, Lesi wrote:
>
>>> how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme?
>>
>> If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore
>> -> disused=yes
>>
>
> Do NOT use something like disused=yes as a modifier, you instead need to
> add an extra level of indi
2009/10/20 Lesi :
> I know mineshaft you can get very close to (2-3m). With your argument half
> of the features of OSM should not be mapped e.g. historic=wreck or streets
> within the ground of a factory. And once again: mineshafts which have a
> headframe are very good points of reference. Often
On 20 Oct 2009, at 14:44, Lesi wrote:
On 20 Oct 2009, at 12:05, Lesi wrote:
how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme?
If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore
-> disused=yes
Do NOT use something like disused=yes as a modifier, you instead
need to ad
Any advice on loading georectfied imagery (very large geotiff) to
josm/merkaartor/potlatch?
If WMS is the only option, anybody willing to host? This is for
tracing features on a donated high-res images (0.6 meters) for
post-disaster efforts (Typhoon Kestana and Parma) in some areas in the
Philipp
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM, maning sambale
wrote:
> Any advice on loading georectfied imagery (very large geotiff) to
> josm/merkaartor/potlatch?
* Create a mapnik style that has one layer (the geotiff) and one
rastersymbolizer
* Run generate_tiles.py to make google-projection tiles
* Put th
On 10/16/09, Erik Johansson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Richard Fairhurst
> wrote:
>>
>> Erik Johansson wrote:
>>> Open Database License (ODbL)
>>> “Attribution and Share-Alike for Data/Databases”
>>
>> Yep. Exactly.
>>
>> CC-BY-SA, famously, allows you to combine different types o
I worried that the use of language might prove to be confusing and the the
buildings associated with a mine should have a separate tag.
1. Mineshaft may exist but we are going to be mapping the location mine
entrances, not the tunnel leading away from the mine entrance. In the future
someone may wa
On Oct 20, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Andy Allan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM, maning sambale
> wrote:
>> Any advice on loading georectfied imagery (very large geotiff) to
>> josm/merkaartor/potlatch?
>
> * Create a mapnik style that has one layer (the geotiff) and one
> rastersymbolizer
> * R
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Dane Springmeyer wrote:
> Nice Andy.
>
> If I can help let me know as well. In Mapnik trunk I've been working on
> adding support for GDAL overviews, so using gdaladdo on that large Geotiff
> and then reading it with the 'gdal' datasource could be really useful if
> 1. Mineshaft may exist but we are going to be mapping
> the location mine entrances, not the tunnel leading away from
> the mineentrance. In the future someone may want to map the 'way'
> that the mineshaft follows especially if its a horizontal tunnel going
> into a hillside
> 2. What we want t
> I think you are mixing up audits and mineshafts. Mineshafts always go
> verticaly or almost-verticaly into the ground. You are talking about
> adits,
> that is something completly different and should be dealed with in another
> proposal. See Wikipedia for definitions of these terms.
Of course I
> If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the
> OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe. Instead you
> should use something like old_amenity=cafe, or
> amenity=closed;closed=cafe, that way there won't be any confusion.
I agree with you, but at the moment disu
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Lesi wrote:
> The
> area of the mine can be tagged with landuse=industrial.
Too broad a definition
industrial covers too much
mining is quite different a landuse
heavy industry doesn't build up piles of waste (mullock heaps) and then have
to rehabilitate the area in the sa
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Lesi wrote:
> Having winding gears is the main purpose of a headframe IMO.
but when the mine shaft is disused the winding gear is removed
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tal
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Someoneelse wrote:
> no
> references to "surface_mining". Do you know what people are using
> currently?
I've used quarry for an open cut mine, but it isn't appropriate for the size
of feature involved.
___
talk mailing list
talk@
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Shaun McDonald
wrote:
> If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the OSM
> data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe.
But a disused mineshaft is still a mineshaft, it's just an abandoned one.
> As another example for when a road i
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Lesi wrote:
> Of course I meant adit and not audit. Some people would call it a gallery.
In Australia I've heard
level
gallery
stopes
and probably some other words i've forgotten
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://l
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Jason Cunningham wrote:
> 4. The term Headframe is used to describe a Pit Head, which is confusing.
> More problems with language use. Pit Head appears to be the correct term
> for the building or structure.
I don't claim to be an expert on mining language but pit head is the
> industrial covers too much
> mining is quite different a landuse
> heavy industry doesn't build up piles of waste (mullock heaps) and then
> have
> to rehabilitate the area in the same way as mining
I was already planning to start a proposal for heaps. At the moment I use
natural=peak.
lesi
>
> but when the mine shaft is disused the winding gear is removed
I can not confirm this. All disused mineshafts I know still have their
winding gear, only the cables are removed.
But even if the winding gear is removed you can tag with headframe=yes. Of
courde, if the whole headframe is r
>> > how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme?
>>
>> If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore ->
>> disused=yes.
>>
>> lesi
> I wasn't thinking of disused, i was thinking of still there, with or
> without a
> mineshaft
Perhaps, my English is too bad, but I do n
>> Underground resources can not be mapped.
> why not?
> isn't that what a geology map does?
>
> I was commenting on the resource proposal really
>
Now I get your point.
The resource-tag describes for which resource the mineshaft was built.
If the mineshaft is disused, it is irrelevant if the dep
maning sambale gmail.com> writes:
>
> Any advice on loading georectfied imagery (very large geotiff) to
> josm/merkaartor/potlatch?
>
> If WMS is the only option, anybody willing to host? This is for
> tracing features on a donated high-res images (0.6 meters) for
> post-disaster efforts (Typh
2009/10/20 Liz :
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Lesi wrote:
>> The
>> area of the mine can be tagged with landuse=industrial.
> Too broad a definition
>
> industrial covers too much
> mining is quite different a landuse
> heavy industry doesn't build up piles of waste (mullock heaps) and then have
> to r
Ah that easy?! Look so simple versus a WMS configuration.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Andy Allan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM, maning sambale
> wrote:
>> Any advice on loading georectfied imagery (very large geotiff) to
>> josm/merkaartor/potlatch?
>
> * Create a mapnik style t
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Jukka Rahkonen
wrote:
> maning sambale gmail.com> writes:
>
>>
>> Any advice on loading georectfied imagery (very large geotiff) to
>> josm/merkaartor/potlatch?
>>
>> If WMS is the only option, anybody willing to host? This is for
>> tracing features on a donated
Someoneelse wrote:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining
>>
>
> It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as
> currently - looking in the UK I can see one "man-made=mine
Shaun McDonald wrote:
> If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the
> OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe.
Don't map for the renderer, router etc. etc.
You should be writing a post asking why they don't recognise such a
widely used tag.
Cheers
Dave F.
Lesi wrote:
> I was already planning to start a proposal for heaps. At the moment I use
> natural=peak.
Not sure what to use at the moment, but they're definitely not natural.
Cheers
Dave F.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.ope
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Dave F. wrote:
> Shaun McDonald wrote:
>> If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the
>> OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe.
> Don't map for the renderer, router etc. etc.
>
> You should be writing a post asking why they
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Dave F. wrote:
>> Shaun McDonald wrote:
>>> If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the
>>> OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe.
>> Don't map for the renderer, router etc.
Dave F.:
> Shaun McDonald wrote:
>> If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the
>> OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe.
> Don't map for the renderer, router etc. etc.
>
> You should be writing a post asking why they don't recognise such a
> widely used
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Because tags like disused=yes conflict with a general principle in OSM:
> We don't have a fixed set of tags and mappers can invent and use their
> own tags, so it should be possible for software to ignore tags it
> doesn't know without causing
Anthony schrieb:
> Disused canal, fine. Disused railway, sure. Disused building, no
> problem. Disused quarry, yes.
>
> But disused cafe? A cafe is a building, or part of a building, which
> is *used* as a cafe. The use is part of the definition.
Well, yes and no.
People might remember that
Neither list has any real traffic, and what they do tend to just be
reposts of talk-us.
Splitting the community at this stage is retarded, we should wait for
talk-us to grow to a sizable level and then begin spinning off as
required, like we did with the other lists.
Yours &c.
Steve
_
Hi all,
I received some GPS traces from someone in Vanuatu. He had had them for
some time, but didn't have the opportunity to slice them up and upload
them. I took the data and used gpsbabel to split the entire GPS log into
daily chunks which coincided with manageable trip segments.
I checked t
2009/10/21 Ulf Lamping
> Anthony schrieb:
> > Disused canal, fine. Disused railway, sure. Disused building, no
> > problem. Disused quarry, yes.
> >
> > But disused cafe? A cafe is a building, or part of a building, which
> > is *used* as a cafe. The use is part of the definition.
>
> Well,
me too
also bay area
On 20 Oct 2009, at 21:00 , Dan Homerick wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:23 PM, SteveC wrote:
>> Neither list has any real traffic, and what they do tend to just be
>> reposts of talk-us.
>>
>> Splitting the community at this stage is retarded, we should wait for
>> talk-u
Thanks Yves,
yup, i DEFINATLY support the idea of Barcelona for the 2010 SOTM, (i
saw on the talk-au list that maybe 2011 would be great for Austrailia,
and maybe 2012 for Canada. (we should be all imported by then) :)
and yes, if you can help on the sotm planning side, i think is Henk
who is a
56 matches
Mail list logo
