to protect against
vandalism?
It appears that if an account is blocked, a vandal can simply create any
number of alternate accounts and continue his "work" - probably much
faster than anybody can hand out blocks.
bye
Nop
___
t
curacy is high +-5m.
When I switch the device off and on again, it positions me right where I
am supposed to be. So it seems to accumulate some sort of error in its
internal calculations and needs the occational reset when it is "going
wrong with great confidence"
at the possibility to do this
indirectly be removed from JOSM altogether and having corrected many bad
direct uploads I am rather in favour of this.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
-zag caused by bad reception to the map. (I have
seen beginners manually add such zig-zags before they learn that GPS
isn't perfect, but at least they usually learn)
How does it take care of crossing other ways without a junction point?
bye
Nop
or does
know how to create one? I'm completely lost there.
thanks
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Zur Info:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:15:14 +0100
Von: Mario Salvini
An: talk@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: [OSM-talk] Seamark/Marine-Tagging-Proposal open for Voting
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/marine-tagging.
Let's vote or continue di
going around in circles since I first
thought there had to be a simple answer to a simple question. Which is
about a year. :-)
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Hi!
Cartinus schrieb:
> On Sunday 29 November 2009 01:34:19 Nop wrote:
>> 2) AFAIK the only attempt at a neutral display of the different opinions
>> is here:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path
>
> That page is far from neutral,
intless discussions on this matter, so I'll refrain from
plucking apart the details. It has all been said before.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Hi!
Cartinus schrieb:
> On Sunday 29 November 2009 22:53:58 Nop wrote:
>> Richards view works only in the UK and fails
>> terribly in Germany and other countries.
>
> Richards view works in a lot more countries than the UK. You can see it even
> works in Germany by jus
rent ways thrown in between.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
st cast your vote as best as
you can.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
less than
full world-wide coverage is lame, too. :-[
Most people are not aware of the server power required to do this. It
ain't cheap, and getting support on a sponsored/community server takes
time and effort, too.
bye
Nop
___
t
it depends heavily on your machine.
Absolute maximum on a 32bit Windows is 1600MB, a value that works on
most machines is 1200MB.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
yet.
I can see how many people would prefer the simple way offered by Google.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
ls about whether or
> not you were right, but you probably don't even notice it.
Not at first. But you note later, when your edit has been changed into
something that you don't understand or someone sends you a notice to do
it some other way. :-(
bye
Nop
__
sed?
- everybody may participate and change things?
- all of that?
And what does "free" mean:
- generally available?
- free of restrictions on usage?
- free of cost?
- available in an open format?
- a combination of that?
In my personal opinion, PD is free, while OSM is already no
When you are travelling longer distances with animals, you need to find
water supplies during the day. This proposal defines a tag for this
purpose. amenity=watering_place is analogous to amenity=drinking_water,
but considering the needs of animals rather than humans.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.or
Mark dangerous locations on a way. Main focus is on the dangers
encountered by hikers and cyclists on smaller tracks and paths in the
countryside. Street hazards marked with a traffic sign could also be
mapped with this tag.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hazard_warning
_
mn('','', $1 , $2 , $3 ,
$4 , $5
)"
PL/pgSQL function "addgeometrycolumn" line 4 at SQL statement
Error occurred, cleaning up
Can anybody tell what the problem is?
thanks
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
that plugin or could someone with a working build environment
send the binary over?
thanks
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
requires no server side database or applications.
I guess I could use advice and help with this project.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Proposal: Define a tag for way stations that have a stable with room for
guest horses as well as some type of accomodation for riders.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Trail_riding_station
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.o
A body of water or water supply suitable for and accessible to animals.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Watering_place
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
my data processing I have so far assumed A) and never encountered a
problem.
What are the facts?
thanks
Nop
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Database_schema
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
There is a basic dissent about the meaning of access=designated (and of
the derived use of highway=footway, highway=cycleway). This is
illustrated by repeated animated discussions on talk-de that merely
outlined the opposing opinions but remained without result. The use of
the tags in the data
Richard Fairhurst schrieb:
> Yay for 0.6 going live in March.
+1
> Can we take this opportunity to finally disable anonymous editing?
+1
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
the voting system
or at least re-open discussion and vote of a badly designed tag.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
ic that has been
missing so far and are compatible to the existing world. I see no reason
why you shouldn't be able to propose and use them if there is no problem.
What the proposal process sorely lacks is the experience and attention
of some veteran mappers, so it produces less random results. Why do they
not care about it?
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
ch.
But they also don't object to other people's patches.
(Or switch off Potlatch overnight because someone thinks its BS).
So I think this comparison is a little bit off.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
e people are being mislead by the Wiki that
suggests there was more meaning to it.
The frustrating part is spending a lot of time working out a proposal,
discussing it, actually convinving the people who joined the discussion
believing that the vote meant something.
bye
re status by "valuable"
> - split the map features page in two parts "core map features" for
> well established tags (e.g. used by more thant 50% of the
> contributors) and another map features page for the rest.
This would be a considerable
whether the
voter read the page, let alone understood it.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
switched on completeWays=yes.
All hints welcome
thanks
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
to most people, so I deem it unsuitable.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
uld you have a
> oneway-tag).
So you are treating -1 as "no"?
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Hi!
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:32:38 +0100, Nop wrote:
>> marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb:
>>> Just a note:
>>> As a developer I am accepting the following values in the Traveling
>>> Salesman
>>> navigat
n legal. But the matter of informing
or rather not informing the people concerned by this fits right here.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
them out of the loop until it is too late to
comment.
In my opinion, a statement about this that is understandable to a
non-lawyer belongs not only on talk, but onto the national mailing
lists, onto the forum, onto the wiki news, the login page and any other
place where you can reach mappers.
care about violating the idea.
But it is still restricted to honest users respecting the licence. A
ridiculous situation.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
ople like you're stealing their data.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
eached after trying really hard.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
ble for free, the evil commercial
cartographer has no leverage to sell his commercial products if he
doesn't add considerable effort and due to the DB-license everything he
adds is available to the community to build upon it, too.
bye
Nop
__
sage OSM was started
for and needs to be replaced or augmented
I believe/hope it was the latter and that is the reason why I approve
the change of the licence. I want those two lines to be true and I want
OSM to live up to them.
bye
Nop
___
talk m
to be compared to the designers of your car, but rather
to the used car salesman approaching you and trying to sell you a new one.
I am arguing in favor of the new licence, but with the way this was
conducted I can understand everybody who feels overrun, forced and badly
informed.
bye
ed) information to the majority of participants.
If you want to convince people to consent to your scheme, you have to go
to them.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
provide the raw data or do I have to process it to
facilitate import to OSM?
7. Do I just provide the data or do I have to document in any way what
it is, what I changed/added and how I used it?
This has been asked in the German forum.
bye
Nop
th a notification or a prominent hint
in the wiki.
come on
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Hi!
Russ Nelson schrieb:
> On Mar 4, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Nop wrote:
>>
>> And I never heard of it until now. And wasn't in OSM when it was posted.
>
> Fair enough, but any time you join a group there will be efforts
> underway which you haven't contribut
have no idea that anything is going on,
because they do mapping and not mailing lists. You have only seen the
peak of the iceberg. But that still gives the foundation the chance to
get something right. I am in favor of the new licence. But I don't
believe it can be done by April. The only thi
Hi!
Niccolo Rigacci schrieb:
> I suggest to revise the schedule, to allow a more wide debate. We
> don't need a license for OSM data, we need a license for free
> data.
Excellent point. I fully support that.
bye
Nop
___
tal
k your for bringing it down to this simple point.
Actually, it *IS* your job.
That simple. You want a change. You want their consent. Your job.
bye
Nop.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
M apart.
>
> Your worry is well placed, however I disagree that the vitriol here on
> these lists is widely held by the majority of the people who have mapped.
Well, wait and see how many people will rather remove their data or
switch to a fork just because they feel surprised and
should be.
Can't you understand why people do not trust you and suspect you are
just out to grab their work when you argue like this?
Even though I am in favour of the licence itself, this way of thinking
is unacceptable to me.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
edits, that is a suspiciously data-oriented view. The community also
needs the people who are developing tools or who edit wiki pages or who
are still working up to become big mappers. It would be great if they
all consented rather than to split off.
Shouldn't the more important question be: "How many *people* do I
loose?" instead of "How much *data* do I loose"? If we can agree on that
then I guess I really misunderstood you there.
bye
Nop
PS: And I really don't care how many demons you keep in your basement.
That's between you and your landlord. :-)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
e shortly anyway.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Hi!
I noted that in the OSM inbox, all old messages are truncated to about
the same length. I guess this is a result of transferring them.
Are there any plans to restore them?
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
Grant Slater schrieb:
> check again and report.
Appears to be fixed.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
roducing a new tag, you don't seriously want to damage all
existing maps and databases and force every tool to be changed, do you?
I suggest we remove those tags from MapFeautres and find a better way to
represent things that are not there.
bye
Nop
common tags are not exact matches (e.g. motorway, secondary) or
even need looking up in the wiki or a template before you can use them
(tracktype=grade3).
If we can make non-scientific tags work everywhere else why deviate for
building types?
bye
Nop
Hi!
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb:
> 2009/6/4 Nop :
>> This may be true from an archeological point of view, but a tag does not
>> have to be a scientifically exact term.
>
> I don't see the point. It was proposed a tag for a sub-feature that
> occurs just in areas wh
better - alternative appears
feasible.
Actually, it is sort of pointless if we keep discussing this among
ourselves. I would like to invite a few other people to voice their
opinions.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
rg" today and I am still waiting for you to proof your point.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb:
> 2009/6/5 Nop :
>> No. The name just indicates that the term used to have this meaning in the
>> middle ages. I don't know a single example of a town referred to as "Burg"
>> today and I am still waiting for you to proof your poin
urce society like OSM you can't take
away a tool anyway, so don't even try. But it is definitely worth
refining and pointing out proper and improper uses.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
d start
> from scratch.
Why? When applying simplify way on these you get exactly what you want.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
hen you are
using it in a dangerous or most likely harmful way. E.g. more than 10
ways are selected or using it on ways that already have less than 10 nodes.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
nd cycleway rather indiscriminately
to all sorts of ways so it basically only means "not for cars" in some areas
In short: It's a mess. :-)
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
same way.
It is even worse, as different groups of mappers use exactly the same
tags with different meanings. This cannot be resolved by rendering rules
or any other technicyl means.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@
odution
> of path a bad decision.
Then you are still missing a tag for the general purpose path where you
don't know any more details except it is not a road.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
can we get a coherent tagging model for OSM?
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
arned from it. This is about future users.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
aster than going in circles. :-)
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
something is tagged as a cycleway and I am planning to walk
on foot, I need to know whether it is an unsigned way assumed to be
suitable for cycling (then I may use it as a pedestrian) or whether it
is legally dedicated to cycling (then I must not use it as a pedestr
Hi!
Jason Cunningham schrieb:
> I agree with the working groups idea, but disagree with membership of
> the OSMF or attending SOTM being a requirement for taking part.
+1
Absolutely.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetm
nvolved they need to be moderated,
> and then tend to go on for a *long* time.
Another possiblity may be to host a meeting on a Teamspeak server.
You'll need moderation, too, but spoken sentences flow much faster than
a chat.
bye
Nop
___
You cannot force anything but you can discourage putting presets for
disputed tags in editors (if it is frowned upon as some sort of indirect
vandalism and rolled back) and you can make an organised effort to bring
a newly established tagging scheme into all major editors and re
e is no consent on which way to go to express the strict use case.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
John Smith schrieb:
> --- On Wed, 12/8/09, Nop wrote:
>
>> There is no consent on which way to go to express the strict use
>> case.
>
> Does there need to be?
YES!!!
> Not that this implies that I agree or disagree but strictly from a
> technical point of vie
Hi!
James Livingston schrieb:
> On 12/08/2009, at 3:51 PM, Nop wrote:
>> There is no consent on which way to go to express the strict use case.
>
> I think the only two solutions are to either have this be country-
specific (at which point routers/renderers have to start knowi
Hi!
Gustav Foseid schrieb:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Nop <mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de>> wrote:
>
> In the strict (German) use case, you need to distinguish between
> bicycle= and bicycle=. This is not about
> marking a default, this is about descr
s with
roadsigns and legal impact.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Hi!
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb:
>>>> highway=footway (not suitable)
>>>> bicycle=dedicated (signed)
>>> A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me.
>
> why not? In Germany: sign footway + additional sign: "Fahrräder frei&quo
would work as a solution and
that they would cause little impact. But I will be happy with any
complete and workable solution. In any way we would still have to come
to an agreement and implement it the same way in renderers and editors -
which seem near impossible.
bye
Nop
___
his approach, ways that are just waymarked as a route are _not_
designated. A cycle route often runs on a tertiary highway, but that
doesn't make the highway a designated cycleway.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
I would similarly guess the shared foot/cycleways in Germany would be
> similar, i.e. foot=designated; bicycle=designated.
Yes, this would work out. And a German bridleway would be
horse=dsignated, foot=no, bicycle=no.
bye
Nop
___
talk ma
in future.
>
> Or did I miss anything in this discussion?
Yes. :-)
Designated is linked to footway/cycleway and there are about 5 different
interpretations on what it means, all of them documented somewhere in
the Wiki.
Official is new and has only one meaning.
bye
Nop
___
f "designated" has differed from this
> definition.
Which of the 5 definitions of designated do you mean? :-)
Just read this topic from the beginning and you should understand.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
prior discussion and bypassing everybody watching
the proposals are creating chaos and are responsible for some of the
confusion we are having about apparently simple tags like "footway". So
please, don't do it.
bye
Nop
___
t
90 matches
Mail list logo
