date:20090810

Re: [Talk-transit] Deleting relations

2009-08-10 Thread Richard Mann

Thanks. I figured it might be the Is it time to confuse myself by trying to
use two different editors scenario.

Richard

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:

  I couldn’t find a way in Potlatch. What I did was:

 a)  In Potlatch add a dummy node to the relation

 b)  Download the area containing the dummy node in JOSM

 c)   Delete the relation in the relations list in JOSM

 d)  Upload changes

 e)  Delete the dummy node (I used Potlatch but could also have used
 JOSM as both were open – I had to refresh Potlatch to be aware of the JOSM
 changes first though).



 I hope you don’t mind me deleting it.



 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/193015



 Ed



 *From:* talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:
 talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] *On Behalf Of *Richard Mann
 *Sent:* 10 August 2009 01:54
 *To:* osm
 *Subject:* [Talk-transit] Deleting relations



 I created a relation 193015 for Pad-Reading infrastructure, not realising
 that someone had already done so. 193015 has no members, but I can't see any
 obvious way of deleting it (in Potlatch). Is it possible?



 Richard

 ___
 Talk-transit mailing list
 Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Deleting relations

2009-08-10 Thread Ed Loach

Yes, it does get confusing using two editors. I pressed U in
Potlatch this morning to try and unselect things like I do in JOSM
and suddenly all the deleted ways where I was mapping appeared. I
switched to View and back to Edit to sort out that mistake. But each
has different strengths and I use whichever one I feel most suited
for the task (this morning I used JOSM to follow my trip from
Clacton to Haverhill and back via Catterwade to check the roads were
all aligned to the average of all the public traces (or in the NPE
lanes, that they aligned at all – I also found two lanes that should
have connected to the main road but weren’t). I also used JOSM to
add a sportsground I visited at the weekend as I find it easier to
use to add all the POIs, use Q to orthogonalise rectangles and so
on.

 

But this is off topic. Perhaps I should mention I added two bus
stops (one with shelter) which I’ll probably have to merge when the
import occurs. 

 

Ed

 

From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Richard
Mann
Sent: 10 August 2009 10:08
To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics
Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Deleting relations

 

Thanks. I figured it might be the Is it time to confuse myself by
trying to use two different editors scenario.

 

Richard

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations

2009-08-10 Thread Cartinus

On Monday 10 August 2009 09:10:15 Jochen Topf wrote:
 The infrastructure route is something different from the moving vehicles
 forming a route. They are two different concepts, so they deserve their
 own keys. A bicycle route or walking route is more like an infrastructure
 route, there are signs on the way. Its a physically existing thing. The
 moving vehicle route (which we called a line) is more ephemeral.

To me signs have nothing to do with infrastructure. For me the infrastructure 
are the roads themselves. So to me a cycleroute is a moving vehicle route.

From this follows that introducing line relations is not consistent at all, 
because then we have a different type of relation for public transport moving 
vehicle routes and private transport moving vehicle routes.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [talk-ph] Fwd: Using OSM data for Flickr Map in Metro Manila, Philippines

2009-08-10 Thread maning sambale

Thanks Ian.  I will ask the flcikr guys to do this.

On 8/10/09, ian lopez ian_lopez_1...@yahoo.com wrote:
 --- On Sat, 8/8/09, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote:
Up to what boundingbox of Metro Manila region should we request?


Some areas I personally want added are:
Boracay
Naga
San Pablo, Los Banos area
Tagaytay
Rizal
Angeles, Pampanga
Subic
[insert more here]

 For the bounding box for Metro Manila, here is my plan: The northern limit
 should be at San Miguel (Bulacan), while the southern limits could start
 from the beaches of Ternate, then to Tagaytay, and finally to Santa Rosa.
 The eastern limits could be in the Tanay area or in the Pililia area.

 We don't have to limit OSM's coverage in flickr to some parts of Metro
 Manila and Davao City. It would be better for us to have an OSM map on
 flickr for Mega Manila[1], Metro Cebu, Metro Davao, Naga, Angeles, Boracay,
 Olongapo, Baguio, Lucena, Bacolod, Tacloban, Palawan, Cagayan de Oro, and
 other key areas in the Philippines.

 [1] Mega Manila is term used for an area composed of Metro Manila and nearby
 regions. There are two definitions for Mega Manila: one is from the
 Philippine Information Agency (Metro Manila, CALABARZON, MIMAROPA, Central
 Luzon), while the other is from AGB Nielsen Philippines (Metro Manila,
 Bulacan, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna) . (Information based on
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_Manila )






-- 
cheers,
maning
--
Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden
wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
--

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] osm-ph garmin gps pre-release 20090809

2009-08-10 Thread maning sambale

Hi,

The pre-release OSM-PH Garmin Map is now available.
Before you download, please remove and create a backup of previous OSM-PH map.

Several improvements are:
1. Added more POI types.
2. More landuse polygons.
3. Including highway=road with default name=fixme.
4. Administrative level boundaries for municipalities and provinces.
5. Custom map style using the typ file. These includes custom icons,
thinner road width, and custom landuse colors.

The data (as of 20090809) was compiled using mkgmap ver. 1129.
These includes 40,000 ++ kilometers of roads from 260 ++ contributors.

To get the files, go to:
https://free2.projectlocker.com/maning/osm_ph_garmin_map/trac/

You need to login first, use this generic account.
username: osmphgps AT gmail DOT com
password: osmphgps

Download the maps at:
https://free2.projectlocker.com/maning/osm_ph_garmin_map/trac/browser/pre-release/20090815

The draft test guidelines are here:
https://free2.projectlocker.com/maning/osm_ph_garmin_map/trac/wiki/TestGuidelines

Please report any problems in the trac/svn site.  Regular release
(September 2009) improvements will be based on your review and
comments.

Enjoy!

maning



-- 
cheers,
maning
--
Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden
wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
--

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [OSM-talk-be] OSM Forêt de Soignes / Zoniënwou d

2009-08-10 Thread Ben Laenen

Pierre Parmentier wrote:
 I would like to join my efforts to complete the map of the Forêt de Soignes
 / Zoniënwoud.

 Is there a Belgian standard for the various highway tags applicable for
 wooden areas, forests, etc.?

 I see track, pedestrian, footway, cycleway and the rendering shows
 different symbols for the same type of highway!

The problem is that there are many definitions to be found on different places 
and each allow a mapper to make his own interpretations. So this obviously 
results in a plethora of different tags for essentially the same path. And 
that in its turns makes it impossible to know what exactly is allowed on some 
paths.

I'm trying to think of rules so that deciding how to tag everything is just a 
matter of simple rules and no interpretation, so everyone would tag the same. 
Current results here: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths -- but I'm 
pretty sure it's not entirely free of controversy. Using highway=cycleway only 
for paths signed with traffic signs D7/D9/D10 would exclude a lot of paths 
which are currently signed as cycleway for example.

Also, I've currently done a bit of work only for those public roads that have 
traffic signs. For domains like parks or nature reserves restrictions are 
usually signed differently. It could be with signs like these 
http://www.natuurenbos.be/nl-
BE/Thema/Toegankelijkheid/Overzicht_toegankelijkheidsborden.aspx in nature 
reserves in Flanders. In some parks there's just a information sign at the 
entrances where it says in words that e.g. only cyclists and pedestrians are 
allowed inside). And I'm personally not entirely sure yet what would be the 
best way to tag all that, in order to not conflict with the tags as used for 
the paths with real traffic signs, as to not have a situation where the same 
tags could mean two different things with different access rules.

I have no idea how everything is signed in the Zoniënwoud, but I guess it's 
part of the last group with special signs...


(note that some of the things I'll say here below  may just reflect my opinion 
and others may disagree)

 May I suggest for this particular case:

1. stick to the following keys:
1. **unclassified + surface values (asphalt or concrete or
   cobblestone

Unclassified only to be used for roads that are accessible for normal 
people, meaning that it's a public road and you could just take a car to 
drive there (some restrictions may apply like access=destination). So if a 
road is only accessible for service vehicles, it becomes a path (because just 
like emergency vehicles, service vehicles can just go everywhere, even if it's 
a path signed as cycleway with D7). A road inside a domain where visitors can 
drive their car (e.g. to get to a parking or a caravan site on the domain) get 
the highway=service tag.

   2. tracktype + grade 1 or grade 2 values (3 or 4 values in
   some cases, most tracks have a high grade for forestry engines!)

tracktype only to be used with highway=track. Use grade 1 with care, tracks 
are only for unpaved roads (some Germans disagree on that). Same notes from 
unclassified above: service vehicles don't count as normal traffic, so if 
those are the only traffic allowed there (other than cyclists or horse 
drivers), it's a path.

   3. path + restrictions values (*bicycle=no* or *horse=no*)**

path by default allows: foot, bicycle, horse, moped (= moped_A + moped_B)

   4. bridleway (a few specific cases)

Use with care, and only if the path is *only* accessible by horses and no 
other vehicles. If cyclists can go there, no more bridleway. I'd prefer to 
only see bridleway being used together with traffic sign D13 (just like 
cycleway would only be used for certain traffic signs), and given that those 
domains usually don't have those signs, it'd be path + access rules.

   5. cycleway (a few specific cases)

see above. I doubt there are many paths there signed with D7/D9/D10 (it's 
possible though) so they become path if they're anything else.

   2. remove pedestrian tags as it is more appropriate in urban areas

indeed

3. suppress cycleway when highway key is activated

I guess you mean removing the cycleway=track tags? The indeed don't mean 
anything together with higwhay=cycleway. It was just Potlatch that used to add 
that tag when choosing the cycleway preset.

4. suppress footway and replace it by path

That would probably be closer to reality as well.

Greetings
Ben


___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [Talk-si] Državna kolesarksa mreža

2009-08-10 Thread Blaž Lorger

On Wednesday 29 July 2009 21:29:24 Miha wrote:
 Zivjo!

 Na OSM Wiki sem dodal navodila za označevanje državne kolesarske mreže
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slovenian_NCN_routes Komentarji
 dobrodošli (discussion page).

 Kot primer sem označil tudi del L 043, dela pa je še ogromno. Roka nisem
 postavil, ker je to malo bolj ambiciozen projekt kot pa PST ;-)

Ali kdo ve kako pravilno interpretirati listo kolesarsakih poti?
Problem je da je interaktivna karta premalo natančna da bi lahko identificiral 
podroben potek poti.
Po drugi strani nimam pojma kako identificirati lokalne ceste. Kaj pomenijo 
posamezne oznake: NC, JP 639440, LC 111450, R3 647/1173?
OK, za R3 je precej očitno da je regionalna cesta 3 reda. LC je verjetno 
lokalna cesta, JP mogoče javna pot? Je NC neoznačena/neklasificirana cesta?
Kaj pomenijo te cifre za JP in LC oziroma, ali je mogoče kje ugotoviti katero 
pot oziroma cesto referencira posamezna številka?

Oznake na terenu pa občasno izginejo. Naprimer za pot od Ruš do Maribora so na 
začetku prisotne oznake, zadnja je pri železniški postaji v Laznici, potem pa 
do Maribora brez oznak.

___
Talk-si mailing list
Talk-si@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-si

Re: [Talk-si] Državna kolesarksa mreža

2009-08-10 Thread Miha

Se strinjam glede natančnosti opisa, precej pesa, pa tudi v naravi ni vse
oznaceno tako kot bi bilo treba.

Kategorizacijo doloca Zakon o javnih cestah (
http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=200633stevilka=1349),
podrobneje pa pravilnik o načinu označevanja javnih cest in o evidencah o
javnih cestah in objektih na njih (
http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=199749stevilka=2594), zadnje
spremembe (http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=20042stevilka=79),
preciscenega besedila ne najdem.

Zasledil sem tudi GC, verjetno gozdna cesta.

Za vodenje evidence drzavnih cest je zadolzen DRS (http://www.dc.gov.si/).
Na Wiki je naveden seznam odsekov iz leta 2006, preciscena verzija besedila
iz 19.3.2009 pa je tule:
http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=200923stevilka=938

Za občinske ceste in njihovo evidenco pa je zadolžena vsaka občina
(kataster?). Verjetno je cilj vse zadeve spraviti v Zbirni kataster
gospodarske javne infrastrukture (
http://prostor.gov.si/vstop/sistem_zbirk_prostorskih_podatkov/zbirni_kataster_gospodarske_javne_infrastrukture/),
se pa podatki posiljajo tudi DRS enkrat letno.

Pametnega vpogleda tudi sam nisem nasel, razen obcasnih objav o
prekategorizaciji, ki so objavljene v UL in v zapisnikih obcinskih
sestankov.

LP,

Miha.

2009/8/10 Blaž Lorger blaz.lor...@triera.net

On Wednesday 29 July 2009 21:29:24 Miha wrote:
Zivjo!

Na OSM Wiki sem dodal navodila za označevanje državne kolesarske mreže
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slovenian_NCN_routes Komentarji
dobrodošli (discussion page).

Kot primer sem označil tudi del L 043, dela pa je še ogromno. Roka nisem
postavil, ker je to malo bolj ambiciozen projekt kot pa PST ;-)

Ali kdo ve kako pravilno interpretirati listo kolesarsakih poti?
Problem je da je interaktivna karta premalo natančna da bi lahko
identificiral
podroben potek poti.
Po drugi strani nimam pojma kako identificirati lokalne ceste. Kaj pomenijo
posamezne oznake: NC, JP 639440, LC 111450, R3 647/1173?
OK, za R3 je precej očitno da je regionalna cesta 3 reda. LC je verjetno
lokalna cesta, JP mogoče javna pot? Je NC neoznačena/neklasificirana cesta?
Kaj pomenijo te cifre za JP in LC oziroma, ali je mogoče kje ugotoviti
katero
pot oziroma cesto referencira posamezna številka?

Oznake na terenu pa občasno izginejo. Naprimer za pot od Ruš do Maribora so
na
začetku prisotne oznake, zadnja je pri železniški postaji v Laznici, potem
pa
do Maribora brez oznak.

1 2 3 4 >

1 - 100 of 345 matches

Mail list logo