Re: [OSM-talk] Live Data - all new Data in OSM
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: El Martes, 12 de Mayo de 2009, Bernhard zwischenbrugger escribió: Is there a possibility to get all new data entered to OSM in realtime? No, AFAIK. The closest you can get is the minutely diffs (all the changes done in the last minute). It would be cool to get this automagically delivered via XMPP... that would be handy since both XMPP and OSM are XML. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] TMC location codes
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote: (When germany is done there are a dozen other countries with TMC location-codes that have published them openly or may be willing to do so.) I wonder how to reverse engineer these codes for areas like the US where these codes may be otherwise impossible or difficult to obtain. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New Proposed Feature: Tagging the age and duration of existence of features
Lester Caine wrote: OJ W wrote: start_date=, end_date= http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Properties http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/start_date/ http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/end_date/ maybe someone could create the tag pages for those on wiki? 2009/5/22 Peter Dörrie peter.doer...@googlemail.com: Hi everybody, I made a proposal for tagging the 4th dimension. Hope you like it ;) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/4th_Dimension There are a couple of things here that need discussing, but hopefully that can be a quick discussion. MANY of the features on the map can be identified with a 'start_date' and it would be nice to have that information. Lots of new roads are being built, and many historic locations have a construction date. The problem comes with 'end_date', and since in some areas roads ARE being destroyed, are they removed from the map or CAN they be left with an end_date and features which have an end_date earlier than the current date are ignored? ( I'm thinking of the 2012 Olympic site which has re-routed many roads? ) I can also see this functionality quite useful in the US, where at least in Oregon, DOT has had lots of funding made available to rebuild freeways and continue building the state cycleway system (which has largely been neglected since the 1970s). I imagine it would allow a way to be marked as closed for construction during the time it's scheduled to go on, then automatically revert back to being a finished way later. Not to mention save me a lot of checking and rechecking. ( start_date and end_date were I think added for things like festivals and other transitory map information, so it may be appropriate to redefine them as constructed_date and demolished_date to distinguish historic data from transitory data ? ) That could be useful as well, since RCN-40 is so congested as to be impassable whenever the Rose Festival is going on in Portland, Oregon or Luis Palau brings his complete failure in crowd control to Waterfront Park and fails to keep the cycleway clear for through traffic (part of the condition of renting the park). As well as for the myriad of parades that makes Portland traffic and transit impossible for much of the Rose Festival season. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag small city alley ?
Ivan Garcia wrote: Hi, could you tell me by looking at this picture [1] how to tag this in OSM ? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8Y0T3EnBVPw/SJcJ13KnOII/BCg/ot4X2My6CvA/s400/vietnam%2Balley.jpg It's an alley where only people/motorbikes can go. access=no foot=yes bicycle=yes (I assume bicycles are allowed) motorcycle=yes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions
Maarten Deen wrote: I've searched the wiki and I have used the tag myself, but there seems to be no documentation for restriction= ? This is, in fact, documented. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag small city alley ?
Ben Laenen wrote: On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Jacek Konieczny wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 09:56:42AM +0200, Ivan Garcia wrote: Hi Peter, which your approach, I believe that the render by osm will be the same than a normal residential street No, I guess, it will have a red dashed transparent line drawn over it, meaning „restricted access”. No more details, though. And I guess it should be rather highway=service than highway=residental. That changes rendering a bit too (it is narrower in Mapnik IIRC). What was that again with the don't tag for the renderer meme? :-) It's clearly a public road so you shouldn't use highway=service here. Alleyways are clearly public roads, and those are highway=service service=alley... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag small city alley ?
andrzej zaborowski wrote: 2009/5/26 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com: On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Ivan Garcia capisc...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Peter, which your approach, I believe that the render by osm will be the same than a normal residential street, what highway tag can I use to differentiate this allewys in the rendered map? This looks like a: highway=service service=alley access=no foot=yes bicycle=yes motorcycle=yes Which will incidentally make it look different to residential ways in mapnik osmarender. This *is* a residential way though. It's not a service way and it's not what most people would think of when you say alley I think (?). It's residential way with specific access restrictions (and it's a little very_horrible). There's several streets in Salem that are clearly alleyways, yet have residental frontages on them. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag small city alley ?
andrzej zaborowski wrote: 2009/5/26 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com: On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Ivan Garcia capisc...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Peter, which your approach, I believe that the render by osm will be the same than a normal residential street, what highway tag can I use to differentiate this allewys in the rendered map? This looks like a: highway=service service=alley access=no foot=yes bicycle=yes motorcycle=yes Which will incidentally make it look different to residential ways in mapnik osmarender. This *is* a residential way though. It's not a service way and it's not what most people would think of when you say alley I think (?). It's residential way with specific access restrictions (and it's a little very_horrible). OK, residential way, same restrictions. My understanding is that access=no can be overridden by specific vehicle types that are allowed. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag small city alley ?
Greg Troxel wrote: I'd agree that service isn't quite right, if that's the front of the buildings. But similarly residential isn't right either (I guess we all think of that as something with pavements/sidewalks). highway=unclassified for now (and throw a fixme= tag explaining the situation on for good measure) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag small city alley ?
- Zitierten Text ausblenden - Greg Troxel wrote: I'd agree that service isn't quite right, if that's the front of th= e buildings. But similarly residential isn't right either (I guess we= all think of that as something with pavements/sidewalks). highway=3Dunclassified for now (and throw a fixme=3D tag explaining th= e situation on for good measure) =20 nah, unclassified seems less correct than residential, as this IS a residential street and just the width is less than what you would expect (but this applies equally to unclassified). My rationale for suggesting that being that there's clearly some confusion on what classification it should be. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Is 'name' tag mandatory for a 'living_street'?
USHAKOV, Sergey wrote: Hi, the wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dliving_street suggests that 'living_street' objects should be attributed with a 'name' tag. Meanwhile it is not uncommon for residential areas to have unnamed alleys inside, and the latter may form a complicated network that deserves being documented and rendered on the map. Is it appropriate/advisable to use 'living_street' objects for these unnamed alleys? Another candidate might be 'service', but to my mind 'service' is not good as does not reflect pedestrians' priority... Alleys are alleys... pedestrians are allowed according to the access charts I've seen on the wiki. Living street would be outright wrong for an alley. If you do actually encounter a street with no name, consider tagging it noname=yes so people know that the lack of name= tag is not an error. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Is 'name' tag mandatory for a 'living_street'?
Jens Müller wrote: On 06.06.2009 15:14, Christoph Böhme wrote: in Germany a living_street is a designated type of street with a special sign [1]. So, I would only use living_street for this type of streets. Living streets are actully _zones_, so any alley at a living street is itself a living street. Oh, then it should be tagged area=yes. Surely this isn't what you meant, though. Plus, wouldn't bicycle boulevards qualify as living streets for us North American types that don't have living streets as such? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - 'living_street'
USHAKOV, Sergey wrote: Hi again, looks like I have brought a lot of confusion in my previous posts by misuse of the word 'alley'. The latter seems to have too broad range of meanings, and many of them are not what I meant. Just compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alley (not good as a 'living_street') and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alley.JpG (might probably be). Please consider the following proposed definition for a 'living_street': 'living_street' is a: - pubic street or way - in a residential area - intended for mixed vehicle/pedestrian traffic - where vehicles have extra limitations and pedestrians have extra rights as compared to normal streets/ways (details depending on local legislation) - may optionally have a name as a street - may be optionally marked with Residential Area traffic sign where appropriate. Please kindly comment/criticize. I honestly don't see where the confusion is. Alleys occur in all kinds of districts throughout the world, the type of way doesn't change purely on inductive reasoning alone. If it's a back alleyway where you're not expected to do more than find hidden driveways, garbage and delivery access, and maybe off-street parking, it's not a living_street even if all the ways around it are. Wikipedia isn't the best example making a judgement call on this, either; our own wiki is much better in this regard. Our wiki has tagging examples and graphics that seem to make it pretty clear that the living_street tag applies only to ways that are actually living_streets, not all ways in an area. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Living_street signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Open*Map.* ?
Nic Roets wrote: Hi Russ, Does http://www.opengreenmap.org/ count ? The only thing that open about them is that they use FOSS and they are open to accepting pins in a Google Map. (The same can be said about Google Earth, so they are as open as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic)// After a little poking, I would say, Not yet, but soon. I contacted OpenGreenMap about this after you brought it up, mostly because I thought the name was confusingly similar given the naming convention used by various sites rendering OSM data. I received a response at 4:20PM local time from a Wendy E. Brawer. She indicated that OGM has been considering OSM since day one, and that it is in the works presently. I'm keeping the channel open if anybody has further suggestions. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
I'm curious if bicycle boulevards would qualify as living streets, given that a living street would most closely describe a bicycle boulevard in OSM terms, though a bicycle boulevard might lack pedestrian facilities. Frequently, these are not streets you would want to let the kids play in, as the volume of fast-moving, near-silent vehicles would present a very real collision hazard at peak traffic times. This kind of way has sprung up only in the last 10 years or so, and almost all of them were formerly highway=residential prior to becoming bicycle boulevards. Bicycle boulevards are more major than residential streets (intersections with residential streets have the residential streets facing stop signs, to minimize the need for bicycles to stop), intersections with larger (tertiary or better) ways typically have restrictions preventing motorists from doing anything but making a right turn from the bicycle boulevard and/or motorists from the major way from turning onto the bicycle boulevard, and as often as not have traffic signals (with more heavily traveled bicycle boulevards changing in favor of the cyclists in advance, particularly in Portland's Little Bohemia). At large roundabouts, the bicycle boulevard typically has a cutout through the central island, with YIELD TO BICYCLES signs on the central ring of the roundabout (through bicycles typically do not have to stop or yield, and have the right-of-way over vehicles already in the roundabout). The restrictions on motorists make bicycle boulevards unsuitable for rat runs. Typically, cycle maps I've seen that are aware of these ways show them at a much higher priority than they would on your average street map, with the larger way de-prioritized, in some cases quite severely, depending on traffic flow and bicycle facilities (such as US 30 Bypass in Oregon, a primary, typically being shown as a minor through street like most of the streets intersecting it on cycle maps, with the bicycle boulevard a few blocks off shown as the primary way across Northeast Portland). I am aware of bicycle boulevards existing in at least three states and one province, and I'm sure there's more out there, so I'm a little surprised this hasn't been tackled. (Please don't CC me when replying; I get the list, and I don't need two copies (plus this defeats unsubscribing if someone later wants to leave the conversation). Please use your mailer's reply-to-list feature or check your To: and CC: headers!) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - 'living_street'
USHAKOV, Sergey wrote: Wikipedia isn't the best example making a judgement call on this, either; our own wiki is much better in this regard. Our wiki has tagging examples and graphics that seem to make it pretty clear that the living_street tag applies only to ways that are actually living_streets, not all ways in an area. I'm not sure whether that would be highway=residential, noname=yes or highway=service, service=parking_aisle. Either one of those would fit more closely than a living_street. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
I'm curious if bicycle boulevards would qualify as living streets, giv= en that a living street would most closely describe a bicycle boulevard i= n OSM terms, though a bicycle boulevard might lack pedestrian facilities= =2E Frequently, these are not streets you would want to let the kids play= in, as the volume of fast-moving, near-silent vehicles would present a= very real collision hazard at peak traffic times. This kind of way ha= s sprung up only in the last 10 years or so, and almost all of them were= formerly highway=3Dresidential prior to becoming bicycle boulevards. =20 I would still like to see the cycleroad-proposal become reality, because these kind of streets IMHO merit their own class. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleroad Wow, that one is full of win! I threw my argument in support up on the discussion page. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Karl Newman wrote: *Avoid duplicate copies of messages?* When you are listed explicitly in the To: or Cc: headers of a list message, you can opt to not receive another copy from the mailing list. Select /Yes/ to avoid receiving copies from the mailing list; select /No/ to receive copies. If the list has member personalized messages enabled, and you elect to receive copies, every copy will have a X-Mailman-Copy: yes header added to it. This does not work: What about gmane users? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Mario Salvini wrote: Even in germany on these roads there are no additional rights-of-way in comparison to normal cycleways (except that bicycles get the officially allowance to drive next to each other and not just inline. buts that's piece of cake ;) ). A normal cycleway with motorcar/agricultural/...=yes/destination/... would be exactly the same. We're getting very much into national detail here but just to give an example, look at this aerial image (which is 100 metres from my office BTW): http://maps.google.de/maps?ll=49.007912,8.378746spn=0.000729,0.001026t=hz=20 The road going east-west is a former residential road with different lanes for each direction of travel, plus diagonal parking spaces in the middle. It is over 20 metres wide. This road has now been designated a Fahrradstrasse (cycle road). Motorized traffic is still allowed at adequate speeds (whatever that means). I'm not convinced this is a national detail, as it's one that I brought up given that they're a common fixture in Portland, Oregon; and Victoria and Vancouver, BC. The fact you also have them in Germany strikes me as further evidence that cycleroads are not a national detail, but rather an international development in highway design. While I am not a big fan of endless tagging discussions, tagging the road above as highway=cycleway, car=yes strikes me as grossly misleading. Maybe it should simply retain highway=residential. After all, the residentialness of the road has not changed one bit since it was designated a cycle road. On the other hand, it's no longer as minor as a residential road, nor has the same use as a residential road (as it's throughbound for cyclists). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Mario Salvini wrote: Richard Fairhurst schrieb: Shaun McDonald wrote: In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway. plus designation=cycleroad cheers Richard is there a benefit instead of just tagging these ways: highway=cycleway + motor_vehicle=yes ? cycleway just told, that's this way is bicycle=designated. So why designation=? Because it can be bicycle=designated without being a bicycle boulevard. Consider Vancouver, BC's Highway 99 through downtown. It's the designated route for north/south bicycle traffic, and bicycles typically get their own lane (usually second or third away from the curb, even, to avoid blindside conflicts with bus and taxi traffic!), but such a way would NOT be a bicycle boulevard, as motorists aren't generally discouraged by turn restrictions to leave the way every few blocks. Portland and Seattle (and likely elsewhere) mappers would be familiar with this concept as originally conceived in the 1970s, as a popular design for downtown transit malls (except there aren't any bus turnouts along the curb, and replace the busses with bicycles). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Ed Loach wrote: In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway. As per the discussion on the talk page of the proposal. Alternatively highway=(road type), access=no, bicycle=yes. There are arguments I believe that in exceptions where cars are also allowed, having a different highway type would make clear that bicycles have right of way over cars (if I read the discussion correctly). Even then, highway=cycleway, width=whatever, motorcar=permissive (or whatever the tags are) should suffice. Or is this about how it renders? This is about how it renders /and/ access. Bicycle boulevards imply that it's perfectly legal to drive a motorcar on it, but doing so is generally a bad idea because you're going to be forced to turn, get caught in a velojam (traffic jam consisting primarily of bicycles), or both. The restrictions and intersection devices simply favor the bicycle boulevard. Cyclemaps should render this on par to a tertiary or better that identifies it as such, maps geared towards motorists would show it as a minor access like an alley (since cyclists would consider a bicycle boulevard to be a more major route than an adjacent seven-lane boulevard lacking bicycle facilities, and a motorist would likely prefer the boulevard to a street where cars are forced off the way by only_right_turn every few blocks (motorists usually only being granted the rightmost lane on bicycle boulevards at intersections). In reality, it's more major than a residential, but not as major as a tertiary, in terms of who gets right of way at intersections. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, 2009/6/10 Mario Salvini salv...@t-online.de: tag both ways as: highway=cycleway motor_vehicle=yes footway=right parking:right=inline parrking:left=diagonal width=13 I won't have it. This feature is a road, not a 20 metre wide cycleway with parking facilities. Yes there are different aims that people have in mind when they think about our data, and to someone who only cares about routing for motorized vehicles, this road might actually come close to a cycleway with cars allowed, but if I'd tell any of the residents there that they live on a cycleway they'll either laugh or be offended. Depends on the neighborhood. Tell someone in Ladd's Addition who lives on one of the bicycle boulevards (such as Ladd Avenue starting at Hawthorne) that, and they'd probably be inclined to agree if they've ever tried to get in or out of their driveway during morning or evening rush hour. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.51174lon=-122.65324zoom=16layers=0B00FTF Coincidentally, the bridge just west of that recently had a bicycle-versus-pedestrian accident severe enough they're talking about eliminating pedestrian access to the Hawthorne Bridge in a tradeoff for a second bicycle lane each direction, which suggests the bridge is carrying close to as many bicycle commuters as cars. This is actually pretty believable for the location. http://www.streetfilms.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/portland-hawthorne-poster.jpg Notice the cyclists more or less ignoring the pedestrian lane (camera left, their right) leaving the bicycle (their left) lane free for faster commuters. Not hard to imagine why they want to move pedestrians to the next bridge, which has sidewalks but no bicycle facilities. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/6/10 Mario Salvini salv...@t-online.de: tag both ways as: highway=cycleway motor_vehicle=yes footway=right parking:right=inline parrking:left=diagonal width=13 the rest you don't like is just a rendering issue but not about data, I think. the rendering is a way of visualizing the inserted data. I believe that there should be a way to distinguish in the data between streets and ways, that is highway=pedestrian or cycleroad and highway=footway, path, cycleway etc. without such additional tags like width=13 (which imply to a human that it is a road ). A way with a width=13 IMHO is no more a way but a street. Not only that, but around downtown Portland (LCN-40, the Willamette Greenway Trail segment) and brief portions of SE Vera Katz Esplanade, are highway=cycleway with widths exceeding 10 (there's a few spots, such as the 000 block of SW Salmon Street between Willamette Greenway and Naito Parkway around Salmon Street Springs that really should be redone to be a closed way, highway=cycleway, area=yes to be properly mapped, as the cycleway is unbelievably wide and uses the fountain as a central island for an intersection, forcing the approach from the not-cycleway portion of Salmon Street to be unbelievably wide (especially given that cyclists entering the cycleway from Salmon Street do so in the center lane, entering the cycleway area almost dead center to the fountain and frequently having to make a hard veer to the right to avoid pedestrians or the fountain itself on a sunny day, if they're pushing a yellow light. (On wet days, there's usually no pedestrians and many cyclists take a shortcut through the fountain since they're getting just as wet either way) http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?mt0=googlesatmt1=tahlon=-122.67306lat=45.51533zoom=17 So a cycleway with width=big number is possible, and if you live in a cool-climate region dotted by hippie-infested college towns, it's fairly likely you have at least one absurdly wide cycleway. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Richard Mann wrote: I think designation is about the legal status of a way, particularly where that might not be obvious from, or in conflict with the physical characteristics of the way. On physical characteristics, you can get a fair way with highway=residential + maxspeed=(say)30. There wouldn't be too many people misled by that. Except in parts of the world where maxspeed=30 is true for all highway=residential unless otherwise posted (most of Metro Vancouver, BC). Maybe add motorcar=destination to emphasise the point for routers. We have a tag for special features for cyclists, so I'd use that to be a bit more precise: cycleway=cyclestreet. cycleway=cycleroad wouldn't be a bad option, this would give more flexibility if larger ways do become bicycle boulevards, as well as incorporate more major ways that are, in essence, bicycle boulevards (such as the Hawthorne Bridge and it's double bicycle lane on the Madison approach). http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/madisonbikelane.jpg (By the way, if you live in this area, take a look at the picture: Most of these cyclists are doing the right thing, two need to pick a freaking lane!) Is that precise enough - probably. Only a complete absolutist would want to add a designation tag to emphasise that this really is a bona fide properly-signposted official got-the-tshirt Fahrradstrasse. In which case add designation=official (or designation=cyclestreet, if that's a locally-agreed value) designation seems redundant when we have highway= for that purpose... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] my cycling speed from gps traces
si...@mungewell.org wrote: Imagine if we scale this OSM and filter gps traces collected by cars, we have an empirical data on the average traffic speed. Unfortunately the GPS traces will be 'slow biased' as we all slow/stop to take pictures of post boxes etc. Depends; some of us just collect GPS data just in case one particular trip goes someplace poorly traced. That being said, slow-biased speed data is probably better than fast-biased speed data, if only to take into account traffic. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Michael Barabanov wrote: Can we use relations same way as for more complex cycle routes for this one? Yes, though you're not limited to just a specific kind of way for relations. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Karl Newman wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Karl Newman wrote: *Avoid duplicate copies of messages?* When you are listed explicitly in the To: or Cc: headers of a list message, you can opt to not receive another copy from the mailing list. Select /Yes/ to avoid receiving copies from the mailing list; select /No/ to receive copies. If the list has member personalized messages enabled, and you elect to receive copies, every copy will have a X-Mailman-Copy: yes header added to it. This does not work: What about gmane users? I don't really know how gmane works from a posting perspective (e.g., do you have to be subscribed to the mailing list to be able to post from gmane, like you do on nabble?), but on http://gmane.org/post.php I found this: - What address is used? The news-to-mail authorization script uses the From header to determine who's sent the message. If the Reply-To header exists, that header is used instead. If you wish From to take precedence over Reply-To, insert a non-empty Gmane-From header as well. If you wish to redirect replies to your messages back to the mailing list, add a Mail-Copies-To: never header to your messages. That will result in a Mail-Followup-To header being generated by Gmane. These headers are heeded by quite a few mail readers. If you add a Reply-To header to your messages that points to a mailing list, the message will be silently dropped. Right, what gmane is describing assumes that everyone on the mailing list is using a mailer that was written or has been actively been maintained in the last 10 years, ie, provides a minimum amount of common functionality. The problem with that, as I see it, is that there's a number of people who can't, or won't, switch away from an underfeatured mail reader like gmail's web interface or Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express, which lack features that would pay attention to such headers. Followup to list or reply to list is a feature most mailers have these days; and by gmane's example you gave, it's reasonable for people to know about and use said features these days. Reply and Reply to All ignore mail-followup-to headers; reply/followup to list would pick up those headers. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Designation
Richard Mann wrote: This is a request for comments on the proposal for a new Key:designation. Hopefully it's had it's rough edges removed already, but I would appreciate your comments. Richard http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation I'm opposed; this seems like a duplication of effort for what route relations are currently for, and creates redundancy and overlap in scope with the service= and highway= tags. As such, this really sounds like a step in the wrong direction. Perhaps expanding the service= tags and getting the mapnik and osmarender we use on the slippymap to render these things instead of route tags on the underlying ways when the underlying way is a member of a route=road relation. The cyclemap is getting this right; but strangely, none of the other renderers. And it's not like it would be that hard to get that fixed; someone's already rendering road relations complete with correct highway badges already. http://weait.com/maps/?zoom=11lat=43.14469lon=-79.17383layers=0B0 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Ted Percival wrote: If it's not a through road for vehicles but is for bicycles that could be a challenge to tag access restrictions on. Perhaps a node with barrier=* if there is one. The barriers aren't usually barriers as such, but rather turn restrictions in place with exceptions for cyclists to continue. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Mario Salvini wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: 2009/6/10 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk: In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway. there are some main differences though: usually they are normal streets changed in designation. That is cars are allowed but don't have the priority and must drive very slowly, they have pavements/sidewalks, they are wide like streets, the give priority to bicycles on crossings, etc. all of which is not the case for cycleways. Martin yes, it's all about designation. normal roads are designated for motor_vehicles. But these roads are only designated for bicycles. That's why it's highway=cycleway + motor_vehicle=yes (instead of an implied motor_vehicle=designated for normal roads. A designated route would be one where there's signs specifically suggesting a way as a preferred route; no such implied designation exists (access=designated is NOT the default). It simply means the way is the designated route for a particular class (such as emergency=designated for Disaster Response Routes in Canada). bicycle=designated would simply mean the jurisdiction in question has installed bike route signs, regardless of accomodations made. Salem has quite a few designated bicycle routes, only one could be construed to be a bicycle boulevard, but no special accomodation for cyclists has been made (ie, on-street parking still exists, 4-way stops along the designated route have not been changed to 2-way stops favoring the designated route, etc.) I can even think of a couple motorways in the pacific northwest that would qualify for bicycle=designated (US-26 between downtown's Canyon Road and Beaverton's Canyon Road; the Trans Canada Highway north of Saanich, BC; the Trans Canada Highway west of North Vancouver, parts of Washington's I5...) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Cartinus wrote: But all other cyclestreets I know of in the Netherlands are signposted with signs that have no legal status at all. Using designation=cyclestreet there would not be appropriate. Using highway=residential or unclassified plus cycleway=cyclestreet sounds like a very good idea for them. If it's merely posted as a bicycle route but it's not a cyclestreet, that would just be whatever highway= plus bicycle=designated. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Vote for Google to liberate their aerial imagery - *please help*
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 14:49 +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Google has a really enlightened guy called the Data Liberation Front. His role is to make it easy for people to get their data out of Google - rather than it being locked in. Notice that signing online petitions to encourage change is roughly as effective as urinating windward to stay dry. Consider starting a paper letter campaign so it costs them time and money dealing with it instead. You know what most people think when they're the target of an online petition? LOL! *baleeted* signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
Dave Hansen wrote: On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 15:05 +, Andy Allan wrote: So please, turn away from imports and work on getting mappers in charge, especially out pounding the streets. The outcome will be much, much better in the end, and that end will come much, much quicker. I think TIGER was a success if only because of all the Europeans we tricked into fixing our roads for us. :) Now if we could do that for the pavement and bicycle signage on Washington's I5... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Which entry level budget garmin
Ulf Lamping wrote: Well, the zumo 550 (which is very certainly a somewhat roughetized nuvi) has no snap to road setting (it has not a lot of options in that regard at all). I did made experiments with the track log. Some of the tracks did *suspiciously* looked like a snap to road while others did not. So if its useable for OSM or not - I don't know and care (I'm still using my WBT201 for tracking which has no maps :-). The nüvi series does not snap to road nor has the option to. The 200 (no longer available) can be downgraded to capture GPX tracks. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
Matt Amos wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Brian Quinion openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrli...@googlemail.com wrote: This should be tagged in a different way that uses fact instead of opinion/fiction. Perhaps by referring to crime statistics for a given boundary area. How about: i_was_violently_threatened_while_trying_to_map_this=yes Speaking from my experience of this weekend :-( after the wembley mapping party last year i heard suggestions of a locals=angry tag. maybe we should expand that to include locals=violent or locals=heavily_armed? Too vague. locals=violent would apply to much of the US... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rough Tracks
Mike Harris wrote: Oh dear - and I thought this was going to be simple! We're back to the confusion and overlap between the various keys and their values. If the mode_of_transport=yes/no tags have the same implications as the access= tags then do we need both? Yes. Access= sets the default, the mode=specific tags override, if my understanding is correct. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rough Tracks
kaerast wrote: Claudius wrote: Down-grade them to grade4 or grade5. It's not your job to fix the router's routing in the data. The wiki suggests that the track grades are for surface type rather than usability. Yet there does also exist surface=* so I'm not sure. The grades sound like they should be based on how usable or how clear the track is. If setting them to grade5 is going to make people and software think they aren't very usable then that seems to be the solution, even though it seems a bit kludgy to me. The problem is this affects routing software that doesn't suffer from the same glitch, as well as the same software once the problem is fixed. Who wants to go retagging the world just because some routing software changed? Don't tag for the renderer applies to routing software as well: Tag appropriately, then solve the renderer for the data. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Complex turn restrictions
In Salem, Oregon, I have encountered a ramp that I can't quite seem to make a restriction that JOSM thinks is valid, so I'm wondering what the expected way to handle such a situation is. The area in question is visible at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.929397lon=-123.024784zoom=18layers=B000FTF Coming from the flyover ramp to Mission Street eastbound, as well as from the Mission Street bike lane ramp where that lane rejoins the road, drivers and cyclists alike are faced with a No Lane Change line that prevents a legal movement to the left turn lanes onto 17th Street. Effectively, this means that you may or may not be able to turn left at 17th depending on how you entered from the next intersections west. You can see the pavement markings as they are on the ground at http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8ll=44.92934,-123.02527spn=0.000872,0.002414t=kz=19 For those who aren't familiar with why this is a hard question: 1) JOSM doesn't seem to want to have more than one via or have a way as a via in a restriction relation; I'm not sure if this is right or wrong for JOSM to expect. What's the live use on this? 2) Solid white lane lines mean you can't change lanes in this area (exception being bicycles are allowed to enter or leave their restricted lane over the solid line adjacent to the bicycle restricted lane). 3) Only one lane change is allowed per vehicle per 1000 feet. Lane changes are unrestricted between all lanes for 60 feet between the two intersections, and traffic moves at expressway speeds (40-50MPH). So how does one handle such awkward turn restrictions (other than slaughtering the civil engineer who came up with such a bogus interchange to begin with)? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag oneway exceptions?
Tobias Knerr wrote: Ben Laenen wrote: The proposal Conditions for access tags allows to alternatively use oneway=yes + oneway:bicycle=no which is a bit more flexible because it is not limited to bicycles, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditions_for_a ccess_tags But bicycle:oneway=no is much more logical of course since you're defining the access rights of bicycles... Have you read the proposal as well as the Extended conditions for access tags add-on proposal? Your argument would be valid if the only possible condition would be the type of vehicle. However, it's also possible to use current time, weather, lighting etc. as a condition. Oooh, that could be interesting to help make more ferry crossings on Oregon's Willamette River more precise... access:flooded=no access:night=no plus standard seasonal restriction tags make more sense than hourly ones. Plus could be very useful if your routing software is aware of river levels and daylight. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag oneway exceptions?
Ben Laenen wrote: On Sunday 26 April 2009, Tobias Knerr wrote: Renaud MICHEL schrieb: I didn't find an answer in the wiki, how should I tag roads that are one way for motorized vehicles but two way for bicycle? The documented and established way to do so is oneway=yes + cycleway=opposite, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway The proposal Conditions for access tags allows to alternatively use oneway=yes + oneway:bicycle=no which is a bit more flexible because it is not limited to bicycles, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditions_for_a ccess_tags But bicycle:oneway=no is much more logical of course since you're defining the access rights of bicycles... I hope oneway:bicycle=-1 also works, if so, this is a much cleaner and more precise way of tagging the rare street that is actually two way, but prohibits cyclists in one direction and motorists in the other (and perhaps provide automated warning for those who ride with a GPS). This would be especially handy in Portland, Oregon where some minor roads connecting major streets to bicycle boulevards occasionally have this situation, as well as provide some kind of warning in a spot where cyclists may not expect such an arrangement (one example would be how OR-99/I-5 connects to Jantzen Beach by bicycle, where cyclists leaving the cycleway for Jantzen Beach find themselves placed facing the wrong way on a freeway onramp, even if the correct way to handle this is slaughtering the civil engineer who thought up that half-baked interchange). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag oneway exceptions? Oneway except residents?
Eddy Petrișor wrote: Paul Johnson a scris: Ben Laenen wrote: On Sunday 26 April 2009, Tobias Knerr wrote: Renaud MICHEL schrieb: I didn't find an answer in the wiki, how should I tag roads that are one way for motorized vehicles but two way for bicycle? The documented and established way to do so is oneway=yes + cycleway=opposite, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway The proposal Conditions for access tags allows to alternatively use oneway=yes + oneway:bicycle=no which is a bit more flexible because it is not limited to bicycles, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditions_for_a ccess_tags But bicycle:oneway=no is much more logical of course since you're defining the access rights of bicycles... I hope oneway:bicycle=-1 also works, if so, this is a much cleaner and more precise way of tagging the rare street that is actually two way, but prohibits cyclists in one direction and motorists in the other (and perhaps provide automated warning for those who ride with a GPS). Extrapolating, should I use oneway:residents=no on a one way road which has this exception for people living on that street? That *sounds* about right, but I'm curious how that works...is it honor system, or is there some kind of local permit system? Are visitors able to negotiate restrictions like residents, or do they have to go around? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Richard Mann wrote: Why not tag it as a cycleway? Then it will display as a cycleway. How is it different from anything else that might be tagged as a cycleway? At least when I'm trying to decide, I ask two questions: 1) Does it allow bicycles, and 2) Is it wide enough for two cyclists going in opposite directions at a substantial rate of speed to pass each other without hitting, swerving or slowing down, assuming each is keeping to the legally required side of the path (ie, right in most countries, left in the commonwealths)? If the answer to either question is no, then it's a footway, weather or not bicycle=yes. My assumption being that odds are someone wants to know whether a cyclist can pass knowing that taking a bicycle that direction isn't the best idea if you tend to pedal faster than jogging speed. Obviously, there's a few exceptions, such as one-way cycleways where it's obvious the intended use is not pedestrian, and pedestrian malls where the use is primarily pedestrian, but cyclists may be able to traverse the mall on select footpaths without dismounting (ie, cyclists will probably have to slow down dramatically and keep eyes peeled for Kamikaze pedestrians not expecting vehicular traffic). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Richard Mann wrote: It comes down to what you think is meant by highway=cycleway. If you think that it means a cycle superhighway, then obviously you don't want to apply that to a shared-with-pedestrians route. Depends on jurisdiction, of course. One problem OSM has with handling Oregon and Washington State properly is people are bad about tagging foot=yes and bicycle=yes to highway types that default to no for those vehicle classes (since /all/ ways, including motorways, are open to bicycles and pedestrians unless otherwise posted, in Oregon and Washington State, and the only ways that commonly disallow pedestrians and bicycles are narrow tunnels with an alternate route, and ways with no amenities traversing the desert outback (why would you bike or hike that anyway?)). Though this particular access restriction peculiarity makes me wonder if there's hitchhiking= access tags in common use yet, since Washington prohibits the practice on motorways, but Oregon lets you hitchhike and stop for hitchhikers anywhere except within about 2km of a prison. But cycle superhighways are pretty rare, and highway=cycleway is used much more widely than that. I've come to the view that cycleway should be used if someone's gone to the trouble to make it good enough to cycle on, and nobody's obviously objecting. I'll grant that... and highway=cycleway, pedestrian=no is an oddball enough combination that even where it /is/ a common situation (Interstate NCNs around Portland), there's still a good chance for bicycle/pedestrian traffic conflicts because some dork decided a pedestrians-prohibited 14-foot-wide cycleway hemmed in by two 10-foot-high fences next to a freeway is a nice, pleasant place to go dogging with a 20-foot-long leash (when it's obviously a commuter corridor where pedestrians present a real safety hazard to themselves and others). There are people who think calling it a cycleway is somehow anti-pedestrian. I would certainly suggest to renderers that cycleway may not be the best description - foot/cycleway might be better. Do we need to change the word we use for the tag - probably wouldn't be a bad idea, but maybe not a priority. I'm not sure that's quite the best description, because the designations aren't interchangeable (some cycleways prohibit pedestrians, most footways don't allow bicycles). Do we need some other way of tagging the cycle superhighways? Maybe. Personally I think it's more important to tag the cycle networks (lcn/rcn/ncn), so map-readers and routers will pick out those routes, and avoid the less-suitable (but still accessible) routes. It's also helpful to tag cycle barriers (barrier=cycle_barrier), which are widely used to discourage the use of less-suitable (but still accessible) routes. Indeed. Maximum widths and lengths would be extremely useful at these barriers as well, in any location where the cycle lane is narrower than the legally prescribed minimum cycle lane width, or where particularly long human-powered vehicle combinations (tandem, bike towing trailer, third wheel pusher kid seats, surreys) would have difficulty negotiating the obstacle. I can think of a number of spots on cycleways in Beaverton that prohibit pedestrians, but have overzealous anti-motorist measures, the most common of which being gaps in fences at school boundaries intended to get cyclists down to walking speed (as the gap is barely wider than handlebars) but do a better job at hamstringing inexperienced riders, surreys and bicycle trailers. The most extreme of which appear at some intersections built in the late 1960s, which feature an offset gap around shin high with entry and exit turns that are frequently too sharp for an unencumbered bicycle longer than 4 feet to make the turns without having to get up and just carry it over the barrier (equal call in that area whether it was NIMBYs annoyed about the prospect of having bicycle traffic on their back fencelines, or simply the work of a civil engineer who hasn't seen a bicycle since grade school at play here). At least in Beaverton, unless you plan your trip well and you know the obstacles really well, these barriers can make pulling a bike trailer or driving a surrey impossible, and getting around on a bicycle larger than you would expect a pre-teen to ride difficult. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Jacek Konieczny wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote: If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you tag them both as designated? highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted) I do that, when the paths are designated for both. I use 'cycleway+foot=designated' as those were usually built with bicycles in mind and I prefer using path for the more 'raw', usually unpaved paths, like in a forest. But there are foot paths which are not designated by bicycles, but bicycles are allowed there. Could someone clarify the difference between path and bridleway? AFAICT, the only obvious difference is path is access=no, foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes, whereas the bridleway is only access=no, foot=yes, horse=yes. The former is commonly a former railroad, and is not paved (though is usually graded and surfaced in peat), the latter tends to be in yuppie neighborhoods around major cities (like around the fringes of Los Angeles County where the rich go pretend to be cowboy riding in a manicured bridleway next to a boulevard...). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Mike Harris wrote: Be careful with dogging - it has a quite different meaning in British English (;) - on the other hand, I think you did mention it was in Oregon, so maybe ... I wasn't entirely unaware of the connotation... it does successfully screw over cycle traffic, especially if they don't see the leash coming... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia POI import?
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Adam Schreiber wrote: We don't know where the wikipedia users sourced their cooridinates from. Oh yes we do: Google Maps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Google_tools There is absolutely no way that Wikipedia-derived co-ordinates are suitable for mass import into OSM. I know a lot of the wikipedia landmarks for Salem are good because I created them... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia POI import?
Russ Nelson wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Dair Grant wrote: Russ Nelson wrote: TeleAtlas data is copyrighted, and when licensed is licensed under an incompatible copyright. The data you're proposing taking from Wikipedia is probably derived, via Google, from that same TeleAtlas (or Navteq) data. Or OpenStreetMap data. How would you know? Perhaps TA and N have easter eggs. I actually did a paper on this last term (map easter eggs): Both TA and N are known to contain easter eggs (though I don't recall which of the two denies this publicly). But y'all are STILL focussing on the WRONG PROBLEM. Okay, here's what we have for objections: o Wikipedia editors are instructed to use Google Maps thus their geodata is potentially infringing. o We should be gathering our data from the field (so that means that the data we currently have is reliable enough, modulo any currently-known copyright problems). o But some of the Wikipedia POIs are already in OSM. Can you see how this points a way forward? We look at the Wikipedia lat/lons and POI names. We look in OSM for nearby POIs. We *replace* the Wikipedia lat/lons with OSM lat/lons. In fact, we turn this into a continuous process. When somebody enters a POI, we look in Wikipedia for that entity, and we link to the Wikipedia page and replace its lat/lon with our own. I guess I missed something...how is this not the obvious answer? I took it for granted that this was happening already. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia POI import?
N are known to contain easter eggs (though I don't recall which of the two denies this publicly). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Possible import of Metro, Oregon Bike There! data
Just a heads up to everyone, Metro DRC is holding a staff meeting on Monday regarding moving to a crowdsourced model to maintain the map. I contacted the Bike There lead yesterday, who informed me this morning that my timing was impeccable, and my expressed interest in merging this data in OSM will be used by the staffer I contacted to aggressively campaign for making the Bike There data public domain and getting it merged into our map. Currently, Portland's map contains two complete NCN routes (I-84, I-205) , one RCN (Oregon 99/Interstate Bridge), and an incomplete LCN (The 40 Mile Loop Greenway). Notably missing is the entire Portland LCN (consisting of literally dozens of bicycle boulevards and thousands of miles of bicycle lane), and the RCN Willamette Valley Greenway (ref=WV) opening this summer connecting to Salem. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.521lon=-122.571zoom=10layers=00B0FTF Once the import is complete, cyclists travelling in or to Portland won't necessarily be forced to wear out any more $7 paper maps in the constant drizzle anymore, and hopefully the quality of the data will improve rapidly over previous editions. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] dispensing pharmacy considered confusing
Greg Troxel wrote: I just mapped a CVS, which is a store that sells lots of personal hygiene stuff and has a real pharmacy (with a licensed pharmacist, who can fill prescriptions signed by doctors). I used amenity=pharmacy dispensing=yes, but find the description on the tag page confusing. I put my confusion on the Talk page for the tag, and if people can explain to me I'll tweak the wording on the tag page to clarify (assuming that's ok to do). My understanding is that dispensing=yes on a pharmacy would be a pharmacy where you can get a prescription filled. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] All Oregon GIS data now available
A few weeks ago, I contacted Oregon GEO to see if I could get the official GIS data for Oregon relicensed for OpenStreetMap. After a three-week delay from my initial contact, I got a response to check the website again: They had updated it so all their data is in the public domain. So, all of Oregon is now available to OpenStreetMap. Hopefully this means JOSM will get a Lambert projection of Oregon soon, as I'm not terribly happy with the current projection options and how they distort stuff as far from the map origin as we are. I propose if this data is imported, that it be allowed to sack any way with tiger:reviewed=no on it, as the Oregon data is almost certainly going to be more up to date and spot on than any of the unreviewed TIGER data, particularly when it comes to data that TIGER is hopelessly wrong on, such as railroads, Oregon's boundaries (unlike California, Nevada and Arizona, we're not stuck in a hopeless, three-way fight over largely uninhabited desert territory), bodies of water, state-owned highways, and exit number and milepost locations. Anyrate, knock yourselves out: It's all at http://gis.oregon.gov/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] dispensing pharmacy considered confusing
Adam Schreiber wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Greg Troxel wrote: I just mapped a CVS, which is a store that sells lots of personal hygiene stuff and has a real pharmacy (with a licensed pharmacist, who can fill prescriptions signed by doctors). I used amenity=pharmacy dispensing=yes, but find the description on the tag page confusing. I put my confusion on the Talk page for the tag, and if people can explain to me I'll tweak the wording on the tag page to clarify (assuming that's ok to do). My understanding is that dispensing=yes on a pharmacy would be a pharmacy where you can get a prescription filled. Yes, but here in the US you wouldn't call anything where you couldn't get a prescription filled a pharmacy so the dispensing tag is redundant. I think that's what he's getting at. That's not true: I can think of several Rexall and Rite Aid locations that are not dispensing pharmacies in Oregon. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] dispensing pharmacy considered confusing
Stefan Bethke wrote: Am 09.05.2009 um 08:59 schrieb Paul Johnson: Yes, but here in the US you wouldn't call anything where you couldn't get a prescription filled a pharmacy so the dispensing tag is redundant. I think that's what he's getting at. That's not true: I can think of several Rexall and Rite Aid locations that are not dispensing pharmacies in Oregon. So what would you call it then? A drug store? Pharmacies and drug stores are synonymous here, dispensing or not. And I noticed another thing that I didn't before: There are some pharmacies (such as some Walgreens and all WalMart locations) which are 24-hours, but are only dispensing during banker's hours. Not sure how you would tag a pharmacy that may or may not be dispensing depending on the time of day. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging Greenways (was: Re: Good routing vs legal routing (was: Path vsfootwayvs cycleway vs...))
Sam Vekemans wrote: Where the only way i know to map it is to use a relation and call it route=greenway and dont have it render on the cyclemap. Just map the sections as appropriate. Greenway is the US/Canadianism for cycleway. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging Greenways
Greg Troxel wrote: I don't follow this. I think that in the US a cycleway would be called either a bike path or rail trail, depending on origin. You'd likely be wrong. Willamette Greenway is a very long, very popular bicycle arterial in Portland. The only thing it implies is non-motorized, vehicular traffic. I would use greenway to describe a large linear park that might contain a bike path and footpaths, as in http://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/ While greenways are often in linear parks, not all greenways are in linear parks, and not all linear parks are greenways. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:58:38 -0500, Chris Hunter wrote: Last night, user NE2 cleaned up the interstate system by merging all of the states with 2 relations per interstate back into 1 relation with direction-based roles. I've already requested a roll-back on the area I was working on, but I wanted to check if we still have a consensus on splitting each interstate into separate directions at the state line. NE2 has been making a number of questionable edits in the northwest Oregon area recently; I wonder if it's possible to smack 'em upside the head with a clue-by-four somehow... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Victoria seems to be missing.
Looked at http://www.mapdust.com/detail/1978573 and noticed there doesn't seem to be any ways, but the nodes that belonged to the missing ways are still there. History only indicates Acrosscanadatrails as being the only person who has touched those nodes. Quite confused as to what happened here. Could anybody provide some insight into what happened to the missing ways? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Victoria seems to be missing.
On Mar 6, 2012 10:11 AM, Andrew Allison andrew.alli...@teksavvy.com wrote: On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 16:43 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: Looked at http://www.mapdust.com/detail/1978573 and noticed there doesn't seem to be any ways, but the nodes that belonged to the missing ways are still there. History only indicates Acrosscanadatrails as being the only person who has touched those nodes. Quite confused as to what happened here. Could anybody provide some insight into what happened to the missing ways? Canada has started / selectively purged some non-compliant data. Probably caused what you are seeing. Oh, man, next month is gonna suck. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] iPhoto for iOS Not Using Google Maps
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Julio Costa Zambelli julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote: The map has the same easter eggs as Waze OSM import did in early 2010 (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-August/053579.html), so I agree with Richards time frame estimate. Waze is using OSM? When did this start? Are they contributing data back? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Nice problem to have
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: Thanks for summarizing Richard. Really amazing to see the amount of response this is generating. Only some of the Apple-specific blogs are catching on to this, MacRumors among them: http://www.macrumors.com/2012/03/08/apple-using-openstreetmap-data-in-iphoto-for-ios/ - interesting to see the irrational Apple fanboy commentary.. Jebus, some of the comments that made it into the top rated section there are misinformed to the point of inducing braincramps. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Group relation proposal
On Mar 22, 2012 5:14 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: Relations are not categories. They are for recording geospatial relationships between elements, not for putting things in groups. I agree, this has the real potential to overcomplicate editing routes in places where which in a large multitude of routes changes relatively regularly over time. TriMet's MAX system, the Portland bus mall, NYC Subway and other big-city systems with even minimal buildup come to mind. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Group relation proposal
On Mar 22, 2012 7:32 AM, Petr Morávek [Xificurk] xific...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Johnson wrote: On Mar 22, 2012 5:14 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: Relations are not categories. They are for recording geospatial relationships between elements, not for putting things in groups. I agree, this has the real potential to overcomplicate editing routes in places where which in a large multitude of routes changes relatively regularly over time. TriMet's MAX system, the Portland bus mall, NYC Subway and other big-city systems with even minimal buildup come to mind. So, you don't use it for these routes. Could you explain better how this proposal complicates the cases you've mentioned? Multiplexed routes don't have the same endpoints all the way through. You would have to have multiple group relations to handle it. In the end, this makes it more complex than just mapping each line individually, as is the current method. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Associated Press article: Crowds create Wikipedia-style maps of the world
On Mar 22, 2012 11:29 AM, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: On Thursday 22 March 2012, Spod OSM wrote: http://www.japantoday.com/category/lifestyle/view/crowds-create-wikipedia-style-maps-of-the-world?utm_campaign=jt_newsletterutm_medium=emailutm_source=jt_newsletter_2012-03-22_AM Wow - Waze - there's a blast from the past. No kidding. Though I question the veracity of their numbers. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] automated abbreviation changes?!
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com wrote: User chdr (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/chdr) seems to be running a script to automatically replace street name abbreviations with the full word. so 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW becomes 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest. Which is not the way anyone ever writes street names here in DC. Anyone else aware of this? Opinions? Should this be stopped? Rule one for names: Abbreviations: Just don't do it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Komuna e Malishevs, Serbia ?
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Павел Фомин pavel...@yandex.ru wrote: Arrrgh. We should have rules on mapping disputed areas and partially recognised countries. Is OSM showing the internationally accepted situation or is it taking into account every single front line? Seems to be inconsistent. For example: Scotland and Wales get boundaries, but North American locales with similar sovereignty like the Cherokee Nation and Navajo Nation don't. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapdust
On Apr 6, 2012 7:25 AM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: Anyone else try to fix bugs off there? I have tried as I want to improve OSM. I do regularly in the Oklahoma, Kansas, Oregon and Washington areas. I am increasingly finding it a waste of time, too many bugs are labelled 'other' and just don't have enough info to work out what the problem is. I close those as unreproducible with not enough information provided. I'm not sure if the Skobbler folks follow the lists, though it seems like it would be helpful if folks are logged in get a notification when someone comments or closes a bug if it doesn't do this already. Perhaps disallowing anonymous bug reports from apps would be of additional help. In these cases I usually close them, and work on the ones that are solvable, or at least someone has bothered to try to describe the problem. But now can't do that as 'word verification' is broken. I type the code, but now it just gives me another code. What a useless site. I wouldn't go that far. It is possible to find diamonds in the rough that do provide some insight. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
On May 9, 2012 11:27 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 05/09/2012 10:54 AM, Richard Mann wrote: Obviously, OCM can render what it likes, but I think this neatly illustrates that OSM tagging of cycle routes is missing a trick or two. The first map in your mail is the kind of map civil servants use in their policy documents. In other words completely useless to anybody in their daily lives. OCM shows what's really important: * The dotted blue lines are all the cycleways. * The rest of the blue stuff is where people cycle recreationally. The dotted blue lines are often designated paths. The rest of the blue stuff is often primarily transportation oriented. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us
On May 29, 2012 1:16 AM, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: This is a very one sided argument and assumes that commercial online maps are accurate. It also completely neglects the fact that you can use OSM data without a fee andf without someone telling you what you can and cannot do with it. I'd imagine they're running scared at the move away from the restrictive, closed-source model for electronic data. It also ignores the fact that TomTom wanted to totally own crowd sourced mapping, but they lost largely because Garmin doesn't lock us out on their devices. This reeks of sour grapes, big time. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:15 AM, Lambertus o...@na1400.info wrote: A few recent quotes from OSM Garmin map users who emailed to say thanks: I travelled for 40 days in 7 different countries in South America abd found the Garmin Maps very helpful. I was driving last week through the netherlands and it went very well! Thanks for your support. Speaking of, I noticed there hasn't been a new snapshot in a while onw. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines review
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Werner Poppele popp...@hm.edu wrote: Dont forget that an importer can produce thousands of errors in a very short period of time. All these must be fixed by humans. In some cases years after the import Notorious North American example: TIGER... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Custom Imagery
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Alex Rollin alex.rol...@gmail.com wrote: I am looking into how to use custom imagery for tracing. Can anyone point me at a process, and how-to? I was looking at the Digital Globe site, thinking of buying some images. What would I do with them to load them into JOSM? It appears there is no open background image and add to map dialog. Danger, Will Robinson! Would their license be compatible with OSM, since you're going to be deriving data from their imagery? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Funny usability issue
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 6:09 AM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.comwrote: Just sharing something that happened during one of my osm session with newbies. Using P2, asked one user to zoom in closer. He/she then tried clicking the big OSM logo in the upperleft corner of the website. ;) So use JOSM instead. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence redaction ready to begin
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Starting this week, we will be 'redacting' the contributions (less than 1%) from the live database that are not compatible with the new Contributor Terms and Open Database Licence (ODbL) - in other words, they will no longer be accessible. We are expecting to begin on _Wednesday_ (9th July) assuming a couple of final setup details are completed by then. 9 July is today (Monday). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] MapDust JOSM plugin
Is there someplace I can find the source for this plugin? I really want to enable the ability to select multiple bugs at once and tag all the bugs selected as fixed or invalid with the same comment. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] MapDust JOSM plugin
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 5:43 PM, colliar colliar4e...@aol.com wrote: On 16/07/12 01:58, Paul Johnson wrote: Is there someplace I can find the source for this plugin? I really want to enable the ability to select multiple bugs at once and tag all the bugs selected as fixed or invalid with the same comment. What's about: http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/editors/josm/plugins/mapdust/ OK, clearly that's it. Just didn't know where to look. Now I'm just not sure how to accomplish what I'd like to with the code. Less familiar with java than I thought. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Funny Twitter redaction comments
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Eric Marsden eric.mars...@free.fr wrote: people should not read Twitter feeds. I fixed that for you. At least for those of us not fluent with Chinese, Japanese, Cherokee, or some other language that uses ideograms or a syllabary instead of an alphabet, it's not possible to get meaningful content in 140 characters or less. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Very not happy
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Maetma 91 maetm...@gmail.com wrote: Before I say to my friends Use Openstreetmap it is cool and today they laugh me and say Openstreetmap is shit, it miss lots roads So fix it. Also, this could have been prevented in advance by using the license review tools prior to the changeover. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] FYI - Automated edit: footway - sidewalk
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:47 AM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.ukwrote: Gregory wrote: I don't have an account on the forum. Your standard OSM login should work there I think? There's also the whole forums are a PITA factor that mailing lists lack entirely. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Explanation for image of the week 31?
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 Jul 2012, at 17:26, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: What's the joke on the current image of the week? It's a reference to Harry Potter and the Olympics? Is it a rendering of a real Olympics stadium or what? And why are the locations and such scrambled? I would guess the locations are scrambled because the London Olympics have been litigous bastards to people who use more than two of the words London, Olympic, 2012, or stadium in the same sentence. Brought to you by Carl's Junior. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svJXd9xxhv8 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ipatinga, Brazil, is gone
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:25 PM, popp...@hm.edu wrote: I used the remaining nodes to create some highways. You may have to split them into smaller parts according to the real world. Its best to find a local mapper to refine the highways. I tagged the newly created highways as highway=unclassified, name=FIXME with a note. I seem to recall highway=unclassified is an actual classification (in the US, it's the same as highway=residential when outside an urban area), whereas what you're looking for would be highway=road, which is for temporary roads in long-term construction areas and roads for which you know exist but not what kind. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Problem with JOSM plugins
I'm unable to load certain JOSM plugins (namely: measurement, openvisible, DirectUpload) on amd64 Debian, using either Sun or OpenJDK. I'm pretty stumped on how to solve this...any hints? JOSM output follows. baloo@paddington:~/Downloads$ josm Using /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk/bin/java to execute josm. loading plugin 'reltoolbox' (version 28693) loading plugin 'undelete' (version 28541) loading plugin 'restart' (version 28492) loading plugin 'reverter' (version 28656) RemoteControl: adding command revert_changeset (handled by RevertChangesetHandler) loading plugin 'todo' (version 28330) Silent shortcut conflict: 'subwindow:todo' moved by 'tool:revert' to 'Alt+Shift+F1'. loading plugin 'measurement' (version 22295) org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginException: An error occurred in plugin measurement at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginInformation.load(PluginInformation.java:284) at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginHandler.loadPlugin(PluginHandler.java:501) at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginHandler.loadPlugins(PluginHandler.java:559) at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginHandler.loadLatePlugins(PluginHandler.java:598) at org.openstreetmap.josm.gui.MainApplication.main(MainApplication.java:348) Caused by: java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.java:57) at sun.reflect.DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.java:45) at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:532) at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginInformation.load(PluginInformation.java:275) ... 4 more Caused by: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: org.openstreetmap.josm.tools.I18n.tr (Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/String; at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.measurement.MeasurementPlugin.init(MeasurementPlugin.java:23) ... 9 more loading plugin 'turnrestrictions' (version 28656) loading plugin 'DirectDownload' (version 28656) loading plugin 'openvisible' (version 22295) org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginException: An error occurred in plugin openvisible at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginInformation.load(PluginInformation.java:284) at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginHandler.loadPlugin(PluginHandler.java:501) at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginHandler.loadPlugins(PluginHandler.java:559) at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginHandler.loadLatePlugins(PluginHandler.java:598) at org.openstreetmap.josm.gui.MainApplication.main(MainApplication.java:348) Caused by: java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.java:57) at sun.reflect.DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.java:45) at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:532) at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginInformation.load(PluginInformation.java:275) ... 4 more Caused by: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: org.openstreetmap.josm.tools.I18n.tr (Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/String; at at.dallermassl.josm.plugin.openvisible.OpenVisibleAction.init(OpenVisibleAction.java:48) at at.dallermassl.josm.plugin.openvisible.OpenVisiblePlugin.init(OpenVisiblePlugin.java:19) ... 9 more loading plugin 'mapdust' (version 28656) loading plugin 'mirrored_download' (version 28656) loading plugin 'DirectUpload' (version 22295) org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginException: An error occurred in plugin DirectUpload at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginInformation.load(PluginInformation.java:284) at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginHandler.loadPlugin(PluginHandler.java:501) at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginHandler.loadPlugins(PluginHandler.java:559) at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginHandler.loadLatePlugins(PluginHandler.java:598) at org.openstreetmap.josm.gui.MainApplication.main(MainApplication.java:348) Caused by: java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.java:57) at sun.reflect.DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.java:45) at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:532) at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.PluginInformation.load(PluginInformation.java:275) ... 4 more Caused by: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: org.openstreetmap.josm.tools.I18n.tr (Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/String; at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.DirectUpload.UploadDataGuiPlugin$UploadAction.init(UploadDataGuiPlugin.java:36) at org.openstreetmap.josm.plugins.DirectUpload.UploadDataGuiPlugin.init(UploadDataGuiPlugin.java:30) ... 9 more loading plugin 'buildings_tools' (version 28656) loading plugin 'multipoly-convert' (version 28656) loading plugin
[OSM-talk] JOSM tile cache
I'm wondering where I would be able to see cache stats for imagery caches in JOSM, and any settings that might influence caching. At my home here in Oklahoma, I tend to only have a GPRS connection to the internet, so being able to maximize the local cache would be quite useful. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Who Did It?
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012, Dave F. wrote: This looks like a great resource I'm using it regularly but I'm not sure edits done in Potlatch should automatically be considered suspicious, and classifying an edit 'red' because six nodes one way were removed when 134/3 were added seems a bit harsh. I'm OK with this. Potlatch isn't exactly precise, and it's difficult, even if you know what you're doing, to get what you want out of Potlatch. It's like performing surgery with a baseball bat and chainsaw. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] FYI - OpenTripPlanner instance
I'd love to reproduce that unofficially here in Tulsa. I was one of the OSM folks that worked on the data for the TriMet project. I haven't ever set up OTP before, I suggested it to Tulsa Transit sometime last year, they said it hadn't occurred to them to try an online trip planner. Then turned around and spent a lot of money on a broken system that I've yet to get to work even for trips I know fully well are possible. On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Brian DeRocher br...@derocher.org wrote: Josh, On Wednesday 2012 October 31 09:48:57 Josh Doe wrote: Very cool, thanks for sharing. I've wanted to set this up for my area (greater Washington DC area), including all the various bus services, but haven't found the time yet. I really like the Analyst tool as well. If you need a hand, just ask. This sounds like a great project. In fact i hope we can recruit dc mappers in a way portland did, to get Trimet working. Brian -- http://brian.derocher.org https://mappingdc.org ___ 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] Operation Cowboy - 23. -25.11.
I'm trying to organize one in the Tulsa area, using this Google eventhttps://plus.google.com/u/0/events/c3ohfbgso96b1ahm1li1hba5aucto organize and promote it. On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Matthias Meißer dig...@arcor.de wrote: Hi everybody, I'd like to announce the fellow of the night of the living maps party: Operation cowboy : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Operation_cowboyhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Operation_cowboy Guess what, this time it's about mapping the US :) The date is the weekend from 23.11 till Sunday, so everybody should have a chance to get a day, where he can join a local party. To make it more easy to get a room, I give you this announcement already today, even if there are still some todos (detailed mission statement, party map, logo, ...). So please still wait with an official announcement to the public, I bet we can fix this things next week. So if you like to *start a local party* , create a wiki page (or reuse the local user group page or your city page) and paste/adapt this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Template:Operation_cowboyhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Operation_cowboy Cool mappers can add this button to the user page, too ;) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Template:User_OPChttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:User_OPC But hey, I would *need still some help* , to get all the things ready: 1. *Sponsoring* I already tried to contact OSMF but without an answer. Can anybody please ask them again, if they would donate a few bugs per local party, to attract organisers? Or what about the GIS-Companies around OSM, would they cater a party in their HQs? 2. *Social media* Is there anybody who likes to start further social channels as facebook etc? It's pretty simple, just to spread the things we post at Twitter and of course answer questions and present the project (create events ...). 3. *Wiki translation* Would be great if the wiki could be translated in other languages as well. (maybe you can recycle old NOTLM translations). Oh and fixing my low level english would be really nice ;) Later: Creating a thank you all poster with all teams or actually a video clip with animated edits and country music would be a great finale. If you have any questions/ideas, just post it. I think all general critics on armchair mapping or our choice of the target area would be better in a seperated topic, as the past showed, that they generate a lot of traffic. So I wish you good luck for finding an appreachated location and I'm happy looking towards our 2nd global mapping action :) cya, Matthias (user:!i!) __**_ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.dewrote: As you mentioned StreetView: Using it to create a database is likely a violation of their TOS and OSM does not want this practice. In which way Google could have copyright or database rights on factual data derived from their imagery is still an open question. To discuss this more deeply better refer to legal-talk. Starting point for reading: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Copyright_in_deriving_** from_aerial_photographyhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright_in_deriving_from_aerial_photography Would it be acceptable to use Street View to aid your memory of local knowledge of the ground truth? Something that's on the tip of your brain and you have actually been there, but can't remember what a specific sign said? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
On Saturday, November 3, 2012, Ian Sergeant wrote: On 04/11/12 07:24, Paul Johnson wrote: Would it be acceptable to use Street View to aid your memory of local knowledge of the ground truth? Something that's on the tip of your brain and you have actually been there, but can't remember what a specific sign said? Next time, write it down or take a photo. For now, either get written permission from Google that you can use Streetview to populate their main mapping competitor's database, or go and check, or wait for someone else to check. We have decided that we want to be whiter-than-white, and not tiptoe through a legal minefield. I understand that, but I mean as a memory aid for places you have actually been to. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Aaaaaaaaaaaaargh
On Friday, December 21, 2012, Richard Mann wrote: If there's a way of stopping the API from storing/returning very small numbers in scientific notation, I'm sure it'll save someone (else) some heartache in future. Or at least reserve it for more extreme cases than that...e±10 would be a safer choice. But probably not for lat/long... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] permament access restrictions and routing
Sounds like perhaps highway=pedestrian, vehicle=destination would be closer to what we're looking for? On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/12/24 Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl: On 2012-12-23 23:53, Chris Hill wrote: On 23/12/12 15:41, Stan Berka wrote: Yesterday, I did navigation to my work place here in Warsaw using Osmand o my G2. The route I was given led through Warsaw Old Town. The problem with this is, the Old Town is closed to most vehicles, year long, except for special vehicles (shop supply, city services etc). Thus, the route was completely useless since I'm not a firetruck driver. How can this problem be resolved, so OSM routers can generate more useful? that sounds like a highway=pedestrian to me. You could add a access=destination to it. Then routing should be done only to addresses on those roads and the roads should not be used to go from A to B. You should't add access=destination to this, because the OP wrote that the road is closed for vehicles besides some exceptions like loading and emergency vehicles.,Access=destination would be allowing access for everyone who has to go to an address in the area. cheers, Martin ___ 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] Can Google use our buildings
Not necessarily. Urban blind people probably want to know where there's likely to be a wall. On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com writes: Why do you want to see outlines autogenerated from aerial imagery, you could just look at the aerial imagery? That's not true. For example, when converting to garmin format, buildings render with very few bits, and let you know developed vs undeveloped areas. Imagery is too big to carry around (and I don't think bing lets people download for offline use), and too detailed to look at while driving. This could be an urban vs rural thing. Cities are basically full of buildings, and any non-building area is notable and worthy of denoting on the map. In semi-rural or rural areas, there are large chunks of just forest (sometimes with roads), and it's there that I find knowing where buildings are to be very useful. ___ 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] Simple improvement(s) to openstreetmap.org
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think it is ok for us to post stuff to Twitter, and I think we should make room for such news on our web page (many web sites have a widget that shows the most recent twitter mentions). I would dislike a follow us on Twitter button because it will only show the Twitter signup page if someone doesn't have an account, and therefore make it look like you had to subscribe to Twitter in order to read our news - which is thankfully not true. I think this would be missing our audience. If you're illiterate (a group Twitter caters specifically to), what are the odds you're going to be able to make use of a map, much less contribute constructively to OSM? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Simple improvement(s) to openstreetmap.org
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, Joseph Reeves wrote: Ok, I'll bite... I think this would be missing our audience. If you're illiterate (a group Twitter caters specifically to), what are the odds you're going to be able to make use of a map, much less contribute constructively to OSM? How do illiterate people use Twitter? Do illiterate people have no spatial knowledge that could be of use to the wider world? Is there no way that Open spatial data could help illiterate people? It's nearly impossible, in the English-speaking world, to express an intelligent thought in 140 characters or less. It's writing system just doesn't work that way. And you lose characters to tags or links. It's like Google+ without the intelligence, or Facebook without any functionality. In my opinion OSM is going to really take off once we start making more use of social media, or other means of participation, such as SMS messaging (the sorts of things you couldn't do with closed spatial data, such as GMaps), and start thinking less of pixels on osm.org So pick social media that doesn't cater exclusively to a crowd whose education stopped midway through Grade 2. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Simple improvement(s) to openstreetmap.org
Seems rather overkill for expressing an opinion. Or is dissent no longer allowed? If that's the case, then that memo needs to be more thoroughly disseminated. On Jan 15, 2013 10:58 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: I recommend a moderator enforced time out for Mr. Johnson. -- Forwarded message -- From: Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org Date: Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Simple improvement(s) to openstreetmap.org To: talk@openstreetmap.org talk@openstreetmap.org On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, Joseph Reeves wrote: Ok, I'll bite... I think this would be missing our audience. If you're illiterate (a group Twitter caters specifically to), what are the odds you're going to be able to make use of a map, much less contribute constructively to OSM? How do illiterate people use Twitter? Do illiterate people have no spatial knowledge that could be of use to the wider world? Is there no way that Open spatial data could help illiterate people? It's nearly impossible, in the English-speaking world, to express an intelligent thought in 140 characters or less. It's writing system just doesn't work that way. And you lose characters to tags or links. It's like Google+ without the intelligence, or Facebook without any functionality. In my opinion OSM is going to really take off once we start making more use of social media, or other means of participation, such as SMS messaging (the sorts of things you couldn't do with closed spatial data, such as GMaps), and start thinking less of pixels on osm.org So pick social media that doesn't cater exclusively to a crowd whose education stopped midway through Grade 2. ___ 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] ;-)
A little disappointed the alt-text didn't bring up any of the long-term debates simmering slowly under the lid here... On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: http://xkcd.com/1167/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Speed limits on Garmin
What's the best tool to get Garmin devices to show maxspeed on screen? AFAICT, mkgmap doesn't handle including speed limit data so it appears on screen during navigation, thus also providing speed limit alerts. This would not only be useful for navigation, but also for finding incorrectly tagged or missing maxspeeds. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Display names of crossroads
I'm starting to wonder if something could be adapted from the cycleway node style network tagging. On Feb 13, 2013 8:41 AM, Joseph Reeves iknowjos...@gmail.com wrote: The thing with the UK is that you get places named after junctions - Church Cross, or whatever. That may well be a locality, but it's not the same as naming the junction. That seems to be the difference with these Japan / Korea examples. Joseph On 13 February 2013 14:37, Kevin Peat k...@k3v.eu wrote: On 13 Feb 2013 14:20, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote +1, place=locality is generally a generic placeholder, which should/could be substituted by the time we dig deeper into toponyms and develop more specific classes... Well a place is just a named geographical location and I believe this tag combination is in common usage for named junctions [it certainly is in my part of GB where almost every crossroads is named] which as usual with OSM trumps all those people trying to create their idealised tagging schemes. Be sure to let everyone know when you have developed your classes ;] Kevin ___ 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] advice for getting a newer Garmin nüvi car navigation device?
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: My other advice is that you can put osm data on a microsd, and take it to the store and try it. See the mkgmap docs/wiki, but basically, once you get the file, call it /Garmin/gmapsupp.img. Just power down the unit, put in the card, and power up. menu/tools//setup/maps/map-info should get you to a menu and you can uncheck the builtin maps. The nüvi line actually expects to be hot-swapped, it'll reboot and reload maps when it detects .img files. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] advice for getting a newer Garmin nüvi car navigation device?
On Feb 14, 2013 2:54 AM, Kevin Peat k...@k3v.eu wrote: On 14 Feb 2013 01:10, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org Annoyingly, most of the cool goodies like on-screen speed limit and overspeed alert and lane assist aren't available in the mkgmap output as far as I can tell¹... I have rolled my own OSM based maps for years using mkgmap for Etrex and an old Nuvi in the car and while that is nice the lack of pretty basic SatNav features really isn't great and doesn't look like changing anytime soon. Navigation works on the Nuvi but doesn't always give a good route. My experience has been when this occurs, it's usually indicative of an underlying issue in the data, such as incorrect highway tag, roads that touch but don't connect on the map, missing link ramps or insufficient turn restrictions. Usually after intensive proofing of the problem area, things improve substantially. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Master City - Country versions (Italy, France and Germany)
On Friday, March 8, 2013, Mario Danelli wrote: Dear all, I just released Android country versions of the Master City game Where can we find out more about this game? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Out of Service Roads
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't access=no implied with any construction=* value other than minor? At least this is the feel I got from live use as the way mkgmap interprets things. On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Clifford Snow writes: How do you tag roads that are out of service. We have a section of Widbey Island that was wiped out by a landslide. It will be out of service for some time. I agree with the construction tagging, but if the road still exists but is impassable, and there isn't any current construction going on, I mark it with access=no. If there are gates, I mark barrier=gate (or whatever is appropriate). -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
