Chris Hill wrote:
I've been taking a look at the boundary data released as part of the
OS bundle. I've put together a little script that will extract a
named boundary as an OSM file ready for loading into JOSM. OS data
uses the OS projection and we use the WGS84 projection. I used
ogr2ogr to
(Argh, let's try that again from a subscribed email address)
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
The other thing I have in mind to do is a POI collector for Android
devices. I seem to remember there being an interest in this before
Christmas when the Mapzen collector for the iPhone was launched - and
Miscellaneous extra unnamed hospitals, fire stations, scribbles, bonus
monuments with silly names, and an airport in the middle of a village
residential area. Not at all necessarily the V word at this stage: I
suspect it's merely a test account for a new user. I've sent a suitable
clue-in
Richard Mann wrote:
*** I would like feedback/discussion on this particular point - whether
urban made-up and rural unmade footpaths should be tagged distinctively ***
They should receive different _sets_ of tags. But they are both
instances of highway=footway if they happen to be signposted.
PAA wrote:
What is the preferred way to design tags:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like#Syntactic_conventions_for_new_tags
or in short,
http://tinyurl.com/crphdw#Syntactic_conventions_for_new_tags
Although there's no preferred here, those are merely some observed
conventions.
Oh, good grief.
While *that*'s all happening downthread, perhaps the people who've
actually been out mapping the area that's sparked off this storm of
nonsense can come to some form of rough consensus and useful maps (to
paraphrase).
I'll start.
Richard Mann wrote:
Why do I think
David Earl wrote:
On 23/03/2009 15:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Andrew Chadwick wrote:
But it [...] has blue low-flying-bicycles signs
If/when it is signed as NCN57, then it will have a cycleway sign as
evidence on the ground. In the meantime it quacks like a bridleway, so
surely it ought
Richard Mann wrote:
I'd conceived highway=cycleway meaning that the way was wide enough that
pedestrians didn't need to use it (or there was an adjacent route for
pedestrians). I think this is how it is in widespread use in the Netherlands
/ Germany.
Not sure quite what you mean here - a
Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
yeah, the tags landuse=industrial and industrial=brewing works for me
Works for me too. Also extends nicely to constructions like
building=industrial
industrial=brewing
operator=Duff Corp
name=Hop storage shed #6
for standalone bits. Of
Grant Slater wrote:
Annoying... Stop stripping highway = xxx_link
The examples you gave were all of the completely undocumented
highway=secondary_link. It would be incorrect to say that the edits
apply to highway=*_link; I can see several trunk_link and primary_link
ways in my area completely
Tom Hughes wrote:
Indeed, just because a tag is not mentioned on the wiki does not mean
people should go round removing it!
Though the tag should probably be documented too, for the avoidance of
future errors amongst those who attach undue meaning to lack of
documentation, and too little
Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
Would adding also highway=tertiary_link be too much? :-)
I'm not sure I can think of any examples in the areas I'm familiar with.
Perhaps that's just due to local road design though: link-like
structures seem to be reserved for faster, more multi-lane road designs.
Ed Avis wrote:
[Add Keep Right! to Template:places]
Done (anyone can do this, it's a wiki). I think it's a potentially
useful tool, even if it does use the deprecated phrase deprecated for
perfectly reasonable tags like abutters=retail (how else do you tag
shopfronts in an otherwise
Ed Avis wrote:
However I don't see a link to 'Keep right!' in
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom... did adding it take
effect?
It seems to take rather variable effect, which is odd. From where I'm
sitting:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bradford - works
OSM2Go now automagically flips oneway tags, tags on ways like foo:left
and foo:right, and forward and backward members in relations when the
user reverses a way. Better explain what we do for oneway somewhere,
this might as well be it.
We inherit JOSM's presets system, so we use whatever
UI-wise
Dave Stubbs wrote:
I don't give a monkey's about the tag, I just don't want to see a
proliferation of bots of this kind. There's already of couple of
unilateral bots running, arbitrarily determining which tags you're
allowed to use and it's irritating. Too many more and we'll just be
facing
amenity=doctors was proposed, but died due to lack of love.
Nevertheless, JOSM has chosen to implement it, as has t...@h (I think).
* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/GP_Surgery
* amenity=doctors
* tag usage: 1528 nodes or ways as of 2009-02-20
amenity=doctor has since
Gregory Williams wrote:
I think:
- Document it in the singular form (the other amenities are singular
(except toilets, where there are facilities per gender), so it matches
reality).
As I see it, amenity=toilets are plural because there are typically
multiple stalls or urinals: quite often
Robert Vollmert wrote:
Finally got around to giving it a try: it compiled fine on OS X, though
installation required the following patch, as install -D is a GNUism.
Ta for the patch; just committed to trunk.
I didn't do more than change a couple of tags so far, but the first
impression was
Regarding http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/left_name
, Andy Allan wrote:
And nobody pays attention.
Probably as a result of there being no software support (because nobody
paid attention...), and because it's historically been a comparatively
rare use case. Though I'm
Dave Stubbs wrote:
The only way of avoiding this issue in some non-confusing way is to
not use tagging as the answer. Some complex relation with a this
side member which still needs editor support. Or just adding another
way to the database for each left/right feature, which becomes hard
Mike Harris wrote:
While sympathetic to the underlying need being discussed in this thread, I
suspect there is a further problem. Although a way has an intrinsic sense in
OSM, this is fairly volatile! All it needs is someone to reverse a way - and
this can happen rather easily, say, when
Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
Andrew Chadwick (mailing lists andrewc-email-lists at piffle.org writes:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/right_left
The proposal suggests an interpretation of suffixes like
property:left=value
property:right=value
I see one big trouble.
Regarding http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/right_left ,
Ed Loach wrote:
As I understand it (from last time this discussion cropped up here)
JOSM and Potlatch already handle the reversals of :left and :right
tags, which covers most users.
This is not the case with either
Mike Harris wrote:
Much encouraged that there is a coder (?)
Well, coder of a sort. It certainly would help if the suffixes were
generally well known, documented and consistent so that if something has
a :left on the end of it, software doing reversals knows that it should
flip it to a :right
Stephen Gower wrote:
What's the most efficient route for visiting all Oxford's
colleges?
Method of transport: bicycle. No other restrictions except that
you must pass the lodge of each college. Doubling back on
yourself is allowed (despite the title of the post!).
So, since the data for
Matthias Julius wrote:
Suitability sounds a bit more fitting than smoothness.
And one could put the type of vehicle into the value like
'suitability=horse:good;mountainbike:bad;racebike:impossible' or
something like that.
That déjà vu feeling all over again.
Quite like the idea of
(Drat; sent it from the wrong address. You might get two copies.)
Joe Gerlach wrote:
If there are any projects or schemes which would not be bothered by having a
student tagging along and getting involved, please let me know. Ideally it
would be get to know a project from its inception to its
Brandon Aguirre wrote:
Also, has anyone tagged a bike box?
(http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?c=46717
)
They're in the UK Highway Code (the gov't driver's manual) as Advanced
Stop Lines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_stop_line . The term
bike box seems to be
I'm giving a talk for Cyclox members telling them about OpenStreetMap on
the coming Thursday, handing out pencil-and-paper mapping packs with
SAEs. Given that we already have all of the streets, pretty much, we can
hopefully get the Cyclox people to tell us about all the cheats,
shortcuts and
I'm giving a talk for Cyclox members telling them about OpenStreetMap on
the coming Thursday, handing out pencil-and-paper mapping packs with
SAEs. Given that we already have all of the streets, pretty much, we can
hopefully get the Cyclox people to tell us about all the cheats,
shortcuts and
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll just point out that I got the trunk version working fine on
Ubuntu without modifications, so people shouldn't be afraid to try it
out. There were two dependencies (dang, I should have
As a result I thought I would open the debate up to the list to see if we
can indeed get enough interest for Plymouth or whether others have better
suggestions, and more importantly think we can get a decent show of
participants.
Cheadle, maybe. Still quite a bit of dodgy-looking data in
Till Harbaum / Lists wrote:
thanks. I am not sure about the performance impact of the patch as it
increases
the overall canvas size significantly. I'll have an eye on this as especially
the small
maemo devices seem to fight with their low memory.
Well, a vector canvas shouldn't be
What do people think of the latest iteration of
http://www.cyclenation.org.uk/resources/mapping.php
(formerly http://www.cyclecheltenham.org.uk/map_standard.html )?
We should probably get our oar in here and try to make the standard
base-map-neutral and colour-scheme-neutral. I shall have a
Till Harbaum / Lists wrote:
i have been working on osm2go, my little mapping application for the
nokia internet tablets. The latest version has all basic
functionality required for mapping and i have even been able to map a
small village with it.
Nokia N800/N810 users can get a
Joseph Gentle wrote:
The english term for clothing requirements is a Dress Code. I'm not
sure how this can best fit in - dress_code_min=formal,
dress_code_max=naked ?
I second use of the term dress code, and conversion of this proposal
into dress_code. clothing is too open to interpretation;
So far, it looks like Saturday the 25th of October is winning, but you
can still get your vote in:
http://www.meetomatic.com/respond.php?id=J1MIA7
Right now, I'm thinking the Tesco cafe
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=51.66764mlon=-1.30814zoom=15
# approximate
for the morning meetup
Out of the blue, I've been asked to advise Cyclox, a local cyclists'
advocacy group about improving [upon] the Oxfordshire County Council's
cycle map for the city of Oxford[1], and I've said I'll help out. It
sounds like a great opportunity: the bike group is enthusiastic and
community- focused,
Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote:
Out of the blue, I've been asked
Specifically this:
Dear Andrew,
I'm hoping that you are the same Andrew Chadwick as the OpenStreetMap
contributor.
The local cycle campaign group Cyclox and I are keen to improve the County
Council's current cycle
Abingdon in Oxfordshire is heavily infested with dragons. Would any
heroic .uk/.ie/.elsewhere OSMers out there be willing to help drive them
off, in principle?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Abingdon
http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html?lat=51.6775lon=-1.28zoom=12
The town seems to
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
Oxford is supposedly one of the better mapped cities in OSM, and looking
at the map seems to agree, but a lot of problems show up when you try to
route through it using Gosmore. See:
Shaun McDonald wrote:
Angela .E. wrote:
I noticed when trying to upload data on the OSM i had the option to
make my data public or private - why do we have this option? I
thought the whole point of the map is to make it available to all.
See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Upload
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
Did this happen / is it likely to happen next week? I haven't heard
anything about it since this e-mail from about 6 weeks ago.
I'd assumed lack of interest given lack of responses, which is a little
silly of me. Sorry for that.
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I can't
Vincent Zweije wrote:
Hmm... everyone should be wearing their OSM shirt or other mark while
mapping... you'd have have a nice conversation as a result.
Slight downside to the OSM high-vis vests that Graham Smith sorted out
recently: I've noticed that more people ask me for directions when I'm
What are peoples' thoughts on medical facilities that can't really be
represented as either hospitals or pharmacies? For example small clinics
for minor surgery, doctors (UK: General Practitioners' surgeries) and
dentists? There are a few proposals out there already (still):
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Andrew Chadwick (list subscriptions) wrote:
That would have been the Isis Boathouse, I think (Socks, you there?).
Sounds good.
There's a bit of an OSM tradition of going to the Jericho Tavern, too.
I like the sound of that place (now).
As for time, does
cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
In the Netherlands there's a number of parking lots where you can only park
if you have a valid parking license from the local government.
Parking lots of this kind are common enough (in inner cities) that they have
their own official traffic sign
Tom Chance wrote:
On Thursday 29 May 2008 17:43:11 David Earl wrote:
Quite often streets change their names along their length. But the
caption placement seems to put the names in the middle of a way.
I wonder if it would be useful instead to put the name at either end of
the way (unless it
Stephen Gower wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:31:32PM +0100, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote:
A road is represented by a single way. Although the way has zero
width in the database, it represents the whole width of the
carriageway (pavement) and well as the pavement (sidewalk
Brian Quinion wrote:
island=yes|no
I like the idea of marking this, but may I suggest traffic_island or
pedestrian_refuge instead? Does this mean any pedestrian refuge in the
road, or just those with some other crossing stuff like traffic signals
or zebra striping?
I'd love to be able to re-use
Steve Hill wrote:
bicycle=yes|no
foot=yes|no
horse=yes|no
Doing this for crossings is not right, IMO. It's a bad usage of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:access , or more
specifically its 'helper' tags like foot=yes|no or bicycle=*. Consider:
* If two ways cross at a crossing
Steve Hill wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote:
* If two ways cross at a crossing Node, access keys would logically
apply to both. Declaring that crossings are somehow special and that
access tags on them apply only to the crossing traffic is worse.
Ok
Ulf Mehlig wrote:
I think that using a street as a border of a plaza (or a block of
buildings) is not wanted. Does one digitize double ways, leading along
the same nodes, or does one make a separate area in a small distance to
the existing line (street/stream), which might be topologically
Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio wrote:
I totally agree. A map is basically a drawing, so the most important
thing is the shape of the ways themselves. I would sooner say that
the trivial part is adding the place-names.
It's also easy enough to actively seek out and tag unnamed ways, though
harder
55 matches
Mail list logo
