Re: [Tagging] Roadside maps
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:54 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: cautious than we need to be. Why do we consider what's written on a street sign to be a fact, but the same words written on a map to be copyrightable? And many similar examples. A map is a collection of facts, which may or may not be copyrightable depending on the jurisdiction, but a single fact most likely can't be protected by copyright, although the sign itself might be due to artistic flare of the designer etc etc etc. I said what's written. Obviously an artistic picture on a sign would be copyrightable, just as it would be copyrightable anywhere else. ffs. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Playground tag proposal - voting
I've used 'smell' on the proposal; I think more people will know that word! As an aside, there's a playground viewer app here: http://ant.homelinux.net/maps/index.html which shows (as blue icons) any playgrounds created with the new schema. It's experimental at the moment, working with a snapshot of planet from last week. It runs on my mighty 400MHz Via C3 box, so occasionally the database server runs out of steam, especially when viewing large areas - be patient! username/passwd for that page is map/mrmappy I notice that there are a few playgrounds with the new schema popping up; I think this will become a really useful resource for parents, given a little time and a bit more coding. All the best, Antony. On 16 May 2010 02:46, Bill Ricker bill.n1...@gmail.com wrote: re sensory=? to smell? Perhaps the word you want is Olfactory ? -- Bill n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Roadside maps
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:54 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: cautious than we need to be. Why do we consider what's written on a street sign to be a fact, but the same words written on a map to be copyrightable? And many similar examples. A map is a collection of facts, which may or may not be copyrightable depending on the jurisdiction, but a single fact most likely can't be protected by copyright, although the sign itself might be due to artistic flare of the designer etc etc etc. Even if the collection is copyrighted, that does not make its elements copyrighted. What is copyrighted in the case of such a collection, is the (result of) the selection process that decides which facts are and are not included. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Roadside maps
On 5/17/10 5:38 AM, Andre Engels wrote: On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:54 AM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: cautious than we need to be. Why do we consider what's written on a street sign to be a fact, but the same words written on a map to be copyrightable? And many similar examples. A map is a collection of facts, which may or may not be copyrightable depending on the jurisdiction, but a single fact most likely can't be protected by copyright, although the sign itself might be due to artistic flare of the designer etc etc etc. Even if the collection is copyrighted, that does not make its elements copyrighted. What is copyrighted in the case of such a collection, is the (result of) the selection process that decides which facts are and are not included. the other issue, of course, is when the map contains mistakes, which may be intentional on the part of the map maker. in this latter case, they are likely there to create the copyright claim. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
Personally I'm starting to use multipolygons more and more - define a boundary once and reuse is as many times as needed by the landuses either side. Steve - Original Message - From: Pieren To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 14:51:15 +0200 On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote: I'm kind of considering if this is right or not - if a road is the divider between two landuses, is it still best to unglue it from the landuse(s) and move it into one or the other? It's best to unglue but it's also not wrong to glue the landuse. Some will say it's inaccurate, but hey, drawing a road with a polyline is also inaccurate. In some cases, ungluing can be worst : imagine two parallel streets and one pedestrian square in between. If you unglue the square, you need polylines to represent the roads connection (for e.g. pedestrian routing). These lines are inacurate because they can be drawn at some intervals only where physically the connection is everywhere along the square. If you glue the pedestrian square, your problem is easily solved and closer to the reality. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote: I'm kind of considering if this is right or not - if a road is the divider between two landuses, is it still best to unglue it from the landuse(s) and move it into one or the other? It's best to unglue but it's also not wrong to glue the landuse. Some will say it's inaccurate, but hey, drawing a road with a polyline is also inaccurate. In some cases, ungluing can be worst : imagine two parallel streets and one pedestrian square in between. If you unglue the square, you need polylines to represent the roads connection (for e.g. pedestrian routing). These lines are inacurate because they can be drawn at some intervals only where physically the connection is everywhere along the square. If you glue the pedestrian square, your problem is easily solved and closer to the reality. But then we are not talking about landuse, we are actually talking about a way, albeit a very wide one - and ways should be connected to each other. (And now we are back to the topic if ways should be areas... but thats another discussion :). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Updated cross-renderer/editor support table
2010/5/17 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: it doesn't seem to work for e.g. amenity=drinking_water (you list just Osmarender, but it is also displayed in Mapnik, the cyclemap and JOSM and probably others as well). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Parking for businesses..
I was using the OSM maps for my city on my Garmin recently and when I listed the parking POIs I noticed a whole slew of parking showing up in there; mainly unnamed.. It got me thinking why those are in there but then it dawned on me that in my area I've started adding in the parking lots and service roads for businesses in my area: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.790516lon=-97.156395zoom=18layers=B000FTF This brought up a few questions: 1. What should the access for these parking lots be? access=public would seem to be appropriate, but in some regards that's not entirely accurate. Almost all of these types of parking lots will have some kind of notice that tow-away is enforced for unauthorized parking. So the general idea is you're free to park there, ONLY if you're visiting the businesses serviced by the lot. So would access=permissive (The owner gives general permission for access.) or access=destination (The public has right of access only if this is the only road to your destination.) be more appropriate? 2. Should I bother naming these parking lots? Thanks! Tyler ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
2010/5/16 Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com: On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO yes, as natural is mainly about landcover (what you physically encounter on the spot) while landuse is about usage. If you want do some extremely detailed mapping you might make a lot of different non-overlapping polygons that represent what's on the ground exactly. However, I don't think that is really necessary or even correct. If there is a large residential area with some chunks of woods inside it should those chunks of woods not be considered residential land? I'm not sure whether to consider the wood residential land, after all that depends on the concrete situation, but I think that this is exactly what I wrote about: you could simply tag in a first approximasation the whole area as landuse=residential and at the same time draw the wood-polygon as landcover=wood (or natural=wood, or whatever). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
2010/5/17 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote: I'm kind of considering if this is right or not - if a road is the divider between two landuses, is it still best to unglue it from the landuse(s) and move it into one or the other? It's best to unglue but it's also not wrong to glue the landuse. Some will say it's inaccurate, but hey, drawing a road with a polyline is also inaccurate. can't follow you here: if some errors are inherent (missing curve-functions) we should put some other additional errors because it doesn't matter any more? In some cases, ungluing can be worst : imagine two parallel streets and one pedestrian square in between. If you unglue the square, you need polylines to represent the roads connection (for e.g. pedestrian routing). pedestrian squares are an exception (they are routable polygons). These lines are inacurate because they can be drawn at some intervals only where physically the connection is everywhere along the square. use an area-relation to model this is you want. The only situation where landuse and streets might be sharing the same nodes is when the street is mapped as an area (not tagged as highway but probably additionally to the abstract centre-lines (highway) we are needing for routing). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Roadside maps
On 17 May 2010 21:00, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: the other issue, of course, is when the map contains mistakes, which may be intentional on the part of the map maker. in this latter case, they are likely there to create the copyright claim. Again, it depends on the jurisdiction, from memory mistakes, intentional or otherwise aren't copyrightable in the US. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Roadside maps
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote: the other issue, of course, is when the map contains mistakes, which may be intentional on the part of the map maker. And then what about when the map mistakes become the commonly accepted name of the road, and then wind up going on the signs? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging communication transponders
The ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) just released a data set of communication transponder locations for TV and radio station, a lot of these share the same mast/tower however this proposed feature suggests using multiple nodes to indicate multiple transponders but this doesn't seem like a good idea to me: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Communications_Transponder One tower in Sydney has 17 different transponders listed at the same location: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-33.820111,151.185026z=20 Does anyone have any suggestions to cleanly tag these other than a single node + multiple relations? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging communication transponders
On 18 May 2010 13:05, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Separate entities should be represented by separate OSM elements. Relations are groups of objects in which each object may take on a specific role, so I don't think this is appropriate here. You are grouping transmitters/transponders to a tower, and while it may not be 100% appropriate from the original intent of relations, until or unless something better comes along this is the best option that I can see to tag a single node with multiple types of the same types of information. I think the proposal to use a node for each transponder is right. They will only be placed at the same position if one is directly above the other - this is a limitation of mapping the world in 2D. This information isn't just useful for rendering, it can be useful to know to plan trips among other things, but before either can happen the information needs to be encoded in such a way to make this sort of thing easy to deal with and at present there isn't any easy way to do it other than using multiple relations linked to a single node. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Parking for businesses..
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com wrote: From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parking: The distinction between public parking lots, customer parking lots (such as at cinemas etc.), and private parking lots (such as for staff in a business park) is handled with access=* tags. To me, reading that directly that would seem to suggest using one of three values: access=public, or access=customer, or access=private. I'd agree with the 3 values you proposed though; really access=customer is the only new one. Makes sense to me too because it allows for a true distinction between general public parking (like multi-story parkades that are in the business of parking cars regardless of where the people are going), and parking lots intended to service the customers of a store, business, etc. I propose to add the following to the Parking wiki page, in the table of the Tags section, as follows: (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parking) Column Key: access Column Value: public/customer/private Column Element: [node or area] Column Comment: Specify the intended users of the parking lot. access=public if intended for the general public, access=customer if intended only for those who are visiting nearby shops/amenities, or access=private if access is more restrictive than access=customer (e.g. for staff only, or requiring specific permission). Thoughts? The main problem is that if we propose those values of access=* specifically for amenity=parking's, this is not consistent with http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access. I don't think that would be a big issue, though - just add something on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access such as The tag access=* has a different meaning when applied to an amenity=parking feature. Alternatively, for parking, use the key use (as a noun) instead of access, as in use=public/customer/private. Again...thoughts? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
